Single-life multiplayer mode in the works- what do you want to see?

Users who are viewing this thread

Warband class system, stable servers, players, tweaking of ugly combat system, and server browser without the dastardly queue system.
 
Health Regen:
Some sort of way to get health back, for example a slow regen if standing still and not performing any other action. This will take the player out of action but will allow to fight after some time. This way if you are good at survival you are rewarded for example doing strategic thing like trading offense for shield wall. This also introduces the idea of wounded troops that may force a retreat instead of fighting to the death like in siege right now as death is meaningless.

I just think in this game mode ranged units will be too oppressive and nobody likes to die to a random projectile that one shots you. With one life I feel nobody will want to run infantry and most of the fights will be archers cowering behind cover and taking potshots at each other. There is also little point to go cav as you will be shredded by arrows, now imagine if the cav goes in knowing they will deal damage and retreat to heal up, then repeat and eventually massacre archers. This puts pressure on the archers to try to take them out more and gives a bit of rock/paper/sciccors scenario. For example if archers dont make their shots count eventually they will run out of arrows so then cav has all the advantage.

Maps:
The maps need to be different to siege ones that encourage more open field battles, I think the game mode will work fine on Captain Mode maps, so u dont even need to create anything new. We just need more maps(even for sieges) that make use of all the units not just archer spam.

Classless Play:
What if in this mode you are able to customise your character and get rid of fixed classes?
 
Last edited:
Competitive battle server:
25 vs 25
Vote kick option
3 minute round timer
Flag spawns after 30 seconds
Class limit on archers (4 or 5 maximum)
Maps inspired by Verloren and Reveran Village's layout design

Casual battle server:
100+ players
Whatever settings
Large open field map layout
Or just put Siege in the Custom Servers
 
Competitive battle server:
25 vs 25
Vote kick option
3 minute round timer
Flag spawns after 30 seconds
Class limit on archers (4 or 5 maximum)
Maps inspired by Verloren and Reveran Village's layout design

Casual battle server:
100+ players
Whatever settings
Large open field map layout
Or just put Siege in the Custom Servers
+1 to this idea I like it
 
How will the current class system work? Since it is single life, I am gonna assume that there is only x amount of gold per round, prob disallowing the heavier options, making javelins and archery really strong and close to one-shotting unshielded infantry/cavalry. Not to mention that this will prob lead to a lack of variety of classes, since everyone's just gonna spam the class with the most amount of gold used. I suggest bringing back the warband gold system for this, where we can customize our own equipment and bring some free shields against archers.
 
How will the current class system work? Since it is single life, I am gonna assume that there is only x amount of gold per round, prob disallowing the heavier options, making javelins and archery really strong and close to one-shotting unshielded infantry/cavalry. Not to mention that this will prob lead to a lack of variety of classes, since everyone's just gonna spam the class with the most amount of gold used. I suggest bringing back the warband gold system for this, where we can customize our own equipment and bring some free shields against archers.
if the classes were balanced out this would never be a probleme and the system would use more classes than the skirmish sadly. Because you will upgrade to the next best one.

Batte is just plain **** idk why we dont get conquest.

competitive with 25 players per team kekw

warband had a doctor class for health regen... there would need to be a second class tab for specialists (doctor, arty, sapper, flag, general/cpt)
 
Last edited:
competitive with 25 players per team kekw
I'm not saying tournament matches should be 25v25, but 25v25 makes for a good jump-in/jump-out public server to enjoy and practice the fighting mechanics, which can serve well for the competitive scene. Even with some circle-running, there's a lot less downtime, since there's no queueing or other waiting periods, and in my experience there are far fewer matches that end up being a stressful waste of time due to unbalanced teams or uncooperative teammates. There were top players (difference-makers) who would bother to switch teams themselves on IG for the sake of balance (also, worse players could switch to the better team), and even if the other team was OP, it never felt nearly as dreadful as on MM.

Continuing to play scrims again and again can be overkill in terms of learning maps and strategy, and officials can end up different to anything you might have over-prepared for anyway. I feel like 25v25 public battle is more likely to bring about scenarios that practice your improvisational skills more, which seem very important for competitive. I never noticed a large fight playing out in the spawn area of Fort of Honour in WBMM, yet in the WNL8's Grand Final, that's exactly what happened, away from the graveyard. A lot of the most regular players of WBMM didn't even outplay others who were much less regular on WBMM in the end. The best players in the game played on IG_Battlegrounds a heck of a lot. Peter/Riruro/Morpheus was on it all the time when he was at his best. Playing 8v8 (or 6v6) is obviously useful up to a point, but I remember Napoleon saying that playing on IG (25v25) was often more useful than playing scrims, after his team Freelancers had won their second major tournament.



In the last couple of years (when the scene was dying out) WBMM was better at eliminating trolls, and it was better at getting people playing - waiting on a website to fill, rather than waiting in a server to hopefully seed it. But now the scene is different again. If combat gets fixed (and maybe even if it isn't) public battle servers have the potential to be populated easily again.

A lot of people just don't like MM. There's an inherent lack of cohesion among random teammates (even with a morale system), which can be really annoying, considering the greater importance of teamwork. Going forward with the team on IG was a lot simpler and intuitive, so everyone did it, except for a few talented players who could lone wolf - another thing that was hugely enjoyable and more permissible on IG. A lot of people also don't like being ranked in MM. Smurfing is a huge thing in all of gaming. The sweaty atmosphere (with teammates breathing down your neck) can burn you out a lot too, making you want to play less or give up on the game.

Even if there's good reason to have Skirmish MM, and if it turns out well eventually, clearly enough people still want Warband-style battle servers in Bannerlord. I think it's more important to have.
 
i would rather see a 25vs25 man skirmish mode. Probably wouldnt be too hard to test on a test server. They are working on those and they will come with custom servers?

People were on IG because there was no other server to play on, same with nw on groupfight. Are they supposed to train on a TDM server against beginners?
 
People were on IG because there was no other server to play on, same with nw on groupfight. Are they supposed to train on a TDM server against beginners?
Yet when the game was at its most popular and competitive, Freelancers said it was better to play on IG than play more and more scrims.

I don't know much about NW. I remember reading through all of the drama on that huge TWC thread, then getting my first glimpse of what NW looks like in an embedded video, and it was hilarious that people were getting so riled up and passionate about something that looked so silly. Although, if the mechanics are good, then I can understand.

i would rather see a 25vs25 man skirmish mode. Probably wouldnt be too hard to test on a test server. They are working on those and they will come with custom servers?
Won't that just end up being more like TDM? Wolfpack_Den/MadParty was a thing in Warband, and it was all right, but the appeal of Battle is very different.
 
Yet when the game was at its most popular and competitive, Freelancers said it was better to play on IG than play more and more scrims.

I don't know much about NW. I remember reading through all of the drama on that huge TWC thread, then getting my first glimpse of what NW looks like in an embedded video, and it was hilarious that people were getting so riled up and passionate about something that looked so silly. Although, if the mechanics are good, then I can understand.


Won't that just end up being more like TDM? Wolfpack_Den/MadParty was a thing in Warband, and it was all right, but the appeal of Battle is very different.
More like conquest? swbf2 had a really nice small scale battle (conquest) mode back in the days, with 64 players.
 
yeah just normal battle, i hope they didn't have 27 meetings to think about something very special which won't turn out too be fun
no offense TW :grin:
 
thats what i was saying? Or at least meant.

In the last few years it wasnt onyl about good players it was the only populated server.

Fair enough, I misinterpreted it.

Last few years wbmm has been the only way to play public for competitive players, IG used to be decent training and somewhat fun but if we had better alternatives I would've been on there for sure
 
Back
Top Bottom