Statement Regarding Plans For MP Vol.3

[DainMorgot]

People do have some understandable dislike of the class system; but it's not going anywhere and it is improving. After 1.50 I have a good feeling it will start to be taking shape nicely; and the concerns about it will turn from valid criticism to stubborn refusal of acceptance. We will see of course... That does depend on it improving.

I am out of the loop, how is it improving? As far as I know it's exactly the same since 2-3 months ago. 1.50 sounds like a general class balance, not specifics as in individual classes. I really doubt there will be any major acceptance towards a system that -no matter how good it will be balanced, in the end- strips you from any form of play expression and customization.

Yes, but knowing what the enemy picks can influence tactical decisions.
While the Aserai Guard is decently armored, I still prefer to pick swords over the mace when I fight them, because I can predict that my enemy is probably going to spawn with 3 Skirmishers.
I can predict if people are going to spawn as cav and if I should rather bring a spear than a throwing weapon.

And for myself it's also important.
When Playing as Battania, I have to decide if it's better for me to spawn heavy infantry twice now or maybe three Skirmishers next round.
And also each class comes with a different playstyle.
Skirmishers focus on throwing before engaging in melee, whilr heavy infantry have to engage melee quicker.
Heavy Archers can support in melee while light archers should stay away.
Only light and heavy cav play mostly the same.

But I honestly don't want to turn this in a class discussing thread.
I think classes enrich competetiv play. They still need more work though.

Tactical decisions is a meme phrase. This game is not e-sports. It will never be. It will maintain a niche community that will play it, just like warband. Classes do not promote competitive play, they limit it. They limit it twice with faction and on top of that with faction based classes. In paper, classes would benefit the game but they strip away the fun. And this is a video game. It's not going to be your job or it's not going to attract millions of players.


So again, I dislike 3 factions and their classes. And I am pretty sure a big percentage of players dislike certain and multiple factions because of the classes they offer. What happens? Should I not have fun in a video game? Or maybe should I just drop the game because it does not respect player choice, at all?

 

[AxiosXiphos]

I am out of the loop, how is it improving? As far as I know it's exactly the same since 2-3 months ago. 1.50 sounds like a general class balance, not specifics as in individual classes. I really doubt there will be any major acceptance towards a system that -no matter how good it will be balanced, in the end- strips you from any form of play expression and customization.

Well we don't know much. But we do know they are planning to implement a 3rd perk slot (maybe in 1.5.0, maybe beyond then). Perks will be greatly shuffled around between classes. Classes will be getting rebalanced, all weapons will be getting rebalanced. Also they plan to make perks more significant to altering the way the class plays.

 

[KSHMR]

@DainMorgot
Class perks are getting changed 100%. So yeah

 

[DainMorgot]

Well we don't know much. But we do know they are planning to implement a 3rd perk slot (maybe in 1.5.0, maybe beyond then). Perks will be greatly shuffled around between classes. Classes will be getting rebalanced, all weapons will be getting rebalanced. Also they plan to make perks more significant to altering the way the class plays.

You know what grinds my ****ing gears is that after like 2-3 remakes of the class system, 5-6 retouches on perks, we still talk about the same crap 1 year after. They are literally wasting time on a system that will forever have - no matter what - mixed opinions and a general dislike. With all those times they worked their class system, we could have a totally balanced free-form choice system, because they would need to only balance: factions through unit stats and then the individual weapons that we got to use.

When you try to make a game balanced you do 1 of 2 things: Everyone starts with the same equipment and then you pickup weapons/armor from the ground like old school games (quake, unreal) or, you offer a general baseline with choice (csgo). The bannerlord system stinks so bad man.

 

[KSHMR]

Hmm I disagree. This game will be amazing

Also, @Callum is there anything you can say about the adding of badges when? Is this happening in the next patch or later?

 

[MArdA TaleWorlds]

Also, @Callum is there anything you can say about the adding of badges when? Is this happening in the next patch or later?

Yes, they are being worked on.
We wanted to get the combat and troop changes out first and the progression systems will come afterwards.

 

[Sundeki]

Well we don't know much. But we do know they are planning to implement a 3rd perk slot (maybe in 1.5.0, maybe beyond then). Perks will be greatly shuffled around between classes. Classes will be getting rebalanced, all weapons will be getting rebalanced. Also they plan to make perks more significant to altering the way the class plays.

Sycophants on the forum said the second perk slot would make things better, and it did absolutely nothing to fix the deficits of the system. I don't want to use any of the selections from the second perk slot, 90% of the time. I doubt that I will want anything from the third perk either. It's the illusion of choice. I am willing to bet money that the third perk, and a 'perk rebalance', will be equally as ineffective as the second, because simply adding yet another perk slot isn't resolving the great many fundamental problems of the system. And ironically it's bad enough now, and we haven't even been given Battle yet. Here's another problem:

Look at siege as an example; you're repeatedly relegated to peasant over and over, meaning you can't play archer or cavalry when you want to. In Warband you could always choose to play one of the 3 class types at any time, producing team strategy organically. If your team was too heavy on one thing, you could swap to another, regardless of performance, and be useful. Now take these issues and apply it to Battle, where there's no re-spawns until the end of the round and the factions are built in a way that some factions will always, 100%, have dominance over the other factions on certain maps, due to some factions having access to different classes and equipment (think Warband's Khergit problem, but it's present in every single game).

And this is just one specific example of one problem of the class system. The horrendous design of the premade class system runs deeper than not being able to pick a long hafted spiked mace for the memes, or wierd faction and equipment perk balance. It actively takes away player agency at every level, and relegates you to meaningless choices (when you have choice at all). You could add 100 perks, and this particular problem still wouldn't go away. You can poke holes in this existing class system for hours on end, because it is so fundamentally flawed.

 

[AxiosXiphos]

Sycophants on the forum said the second perk slot would make things better, and it did absolutely nothing to fix the deficits of the system. I don't want to use any of the selections from the second perk slot, 90% of the time. I doubt that I will want anything from the third perk either. It's the illusion of choice. I am willing to bet money that the third perk, and a 'perk rebalance', will be equally as ineffective as the second, because simply adding yet another perk slot isn't resolving the great many fundamental problems of the system. And ironically it's bad enough now, and we haven't even been given Battle yet. Here's another problem:

Look at siege as an example; you're repeatedly relegated to peasant over and over, meaning you can't play archer or cavalry when you want to. In Warband you could always choose to play one of the 3 class types at any time, producing team strategy organically. If your team was too heavy on one thing, you could swap to another, regardless of performance, and be useful. Now take these issues and apply it to Battle, where there's no re-spawns until the end of the round and the factions are built in a way that some factions will always, 100%, have dominance over the other factions on certain maps, due to some factions having access to different classes and equipment (think Warband's Khergit problem, but it's present in every single game).

And this is just one specific example of one problem of the class system. The horrendous design of the premade class system runs deeper than not being able to pick a long hafted spiked mace for the memes, or wierd faction and equipment perk balance. It actively takes away player agency at every level, and relegates you to meaningless choices (when you have choice at all). You could add 100 perks, and this particular problem still wouldn't go away. You can poke holes in this existing class system for hours on end, because it is so fundamentally flawed.

Illusion of choice was also a strong component of the warband system though. Lots of extremely marginal choices that made very little difference. Gloves that gave +2 armour or +3 etc...I agree with you to an extent. You could always play as an archer or cavalrymen whereas in bannerlord you cannot necessarily. However I believe that is a balance aspect and a symptom of the class system not being finished. You can see TW have had some thoughts along these lines by adding the 'slings' perks. Slings could take the role of a cheap archer class. I don't necessarily agree everyone should be able to play a horsemen all the time though; they are clearly meant to be power units in both campaign and in MP.

The fact that Warband had a Khergit problem proves that the Warband system was far from perfect. it needed to be changed and we are looking currently at a very basic iteration. The only fair comparison will be how the class system looks at launch compared to warband at launch.

Three perks slots with meaningful choices offers 27 iterations of every class. 7 classes gives us 189 potential play styles. Warband did not have this many builds of significant value. Gloves made no difference, boots made little difference (and were often ditched. Armour was broadly separated into 2-3 tiers per faction with minor differences within and helms were the same.

Weapons had the same issue but worse; we had 5 different types of swadian swords; all with barely different stats; and two which were actually worth taking (the best one and the free one). The fact was Warband was laden with pointless choices and was clunky to navigate. Switching between infantry and archer could take up to 30 seconds if you had an awkward gold value and wanted to min-max your options. It was not a system that was viable for a modern market and Warband MP struggled to establish a large playerbase (a loyal playerbase yes but not a large one). Something had/has to change. Now right now the bannerlord system is not working as intended but then it isn't finished; it's not a fair comparison.

 

[Rangah]

Illusion of choice was also a strong component of the warband system though. Lots of extremely marginal choices that made very little difference. Gloves that gave +2 armour or +3 etc...I agree with you to an extent. You could always play as an archer or cavalrymen whereas in bannerlord you cannot necessarily. However I believe that is a balance aspect and a symptom of the class system not being finished. You can see TW have had some thoughts along these lines by adding the 'slings' perks. Slings could take the role of a cheap archer class. I don't necessarily agree everyone should be able to play a horsemen all the time though; they are clearly meant to be power units in both campaign and in MP.

The fact that Warband had a Khergit problem proves that the Warband system was far from perfect. it needed to be changed and we are looking currently at a very basic iteration. The only fair comparison will be how the class system looks at launch compared to warband at launch.

Did the Warband system need to be changed and balanced? Yes.

Did it need to be completely thrown out the window and replaced with something controversial no one asked for? No.

e: It feels like right now it has boiled down to both sides making unnecessary compromises. TaleWorlds are seemingly having to alter their original vision and think up of new rapid solutions due to community pushback and players have to lower their expectations and take any little improvement they get. It should have never come to this in the first place and it hurts me a little deep inside whenever I think about it

 

[DainMorgot]

Hmm I disagree. This game will be amazing

Also, @Callum is there anything you can say about the adding of badges when? Is this happening in the next patch or later?

I would expect better from this community than throwing vague 'prophetic' lines like 'it will be amazing'. 1 year of testing proved otherwise and continues to prove otherwise. Also, what significance do badges have? Nothing. Showing off stuff better be cosmetic items on your character since they are significant and customizable. Badges are a meme that add nothing other than a photoshop icon. Very low standards, man.

 

[AxiosXiphos]

Did the Warband system need to be changed and balanced? Yes.

Did it need to be completely thrown out the window and replaced with something controversial no one asked for? No.

Perhaps - it was a risk. But a risk that we cannot say was worth it or not until it is actually finished. If we took the warband system and removed 75% of the choices per item slot; people would say that was rubbish (because it would be). That is what we are dealing with right now.

And again... you can't honestly tell me there was 189 viable builds in warband per faction that weren't just insignificant changes?

 

[DainMorgot]

27 iterations of every class. 7 classes gives us 189 potential play styles

That's not true and you know it. That's all on paper, the playstyles of the game are limited to not even a double digit number. And it's about time we face this and not act in denial. Warband's system was a good base, they should build onto it. We can all accept that classes are a mixed bag, leaning towards dislike more, it's extremely evident by now.

 

[AxiosXiphos]

That's not true and you know it. That's all on paper, the playstyles of the game are limited to not even a double digit number. And it's about time we face this and not act in denial. Warband's system was a good base, they should build onto it. We can all accept that classes are a mixed bag, leaning towards dislike more, it's extremely evident by now.

I am leaning more on v1.5.0. TW have stated they will be adding, changing perks and adding a new perk slot. I don't know how it will look; but assuming each perk does make a meaningful change to the class (which is their goal), and there is at minimum 3 perks per perk slot; that is 189 distinct builds per faction.

Warband can't offer that. Classes are a mixed bag; but it seems people attribute issues the game has to the class system unduely. Limited choice, bad balance, etc... these are symptoms of an unfinished system not a badly designed one. I think people just need to blame something; and the class system is the most notable 'change' from warband. truth is the reason MP numbers are down is because the MP servers are instable, game modes are limited and balance is wonky right now.

 

[Ling*]

Captain and Skirmish need to be balanced separately.

Absolutely
When doing universal balancing you will always have to compromise in order to not completely ruin the balance of any one given game mode. If the balancing is split up and focused between the two modes they would be able to make more ambitious and relevant changes to skirmish and captain modes without the need for compromise and without the risk of destroying the balance of captain with changes intended to effect skirmish. @AVRC

 

[Rangah]

Perhaps - it was a risk. But a risk that we cannot say was worth it or not until it is actually finished. If we took the warband system and removed 75% of the choices per item slot; people would say that was rubbish (because it would be). That is what we are dealing with right now.

And again... you can't honestly tell me there was 189 viable builds in warband per faction that weren't just insignificant changes?

From my perspective we are dealing with change just for the sake of change at the moment. There was nothing inherently flawed with Warband's way of equipment selection yet it got butchered anyway. If there were clear instant benefits and people liked the new class system from the get go - congratulations, TW hit the jackpot. Reality seems to be the opposite.

I have no idea how the game will look like a year from now and I don't want to take on this attitude of "oh, it will all be good in the future, just wait". I'll speak of it as it is now, not as it could be in some parallel universe.

 

[Sundeki]

The fact that Warband had a Khergit problem proves that the Warband system was far from perfect. it needed to be changed and we are looking currently at a very basic iteration. The only fair comparison will be how the class system looks at launch compared to warband at launch.

Nobody said that Warband's system was perfect. And this class system is exactly the same in essence now as it was over a year ago. You got a second perk addition that changed nothing. Short of minor changes to appearance and balance, the fundamentals of this class system now is what the class system is. Using the now almost memeable "it's early access, tho" argument works in some cases, like minor balance, bugs, and crashes. Which can be a legitimate excuse in some of those cases. But I'll say it again, the fundamentals of this class system is what this class system is. And as long as TaleWorlds keeps it, it will be burdened by the same problems up to and after launch. Without a total rework, what we have now is at the least 95% of what we will have "at release".

Illusion of choice was also a strong component of the warband system though. Lots of extremely marginal choices that made very little difference. Gloves that gave +2 armour or +3 etc

The choice between a couple of extra head armor, or gloves, was a secondary option, but even then those secondary options were more meaningful and relevant choices than any choice made in this terrible current premade class system. The whole "but hand armor" argument is a false equivalency, because nobody who argues against the class system is even talking about that, really. In Warband, you could play what you want, when you wanted, the small choices added to the agency, because even a slightly better helmet in some situations could be better or worse than buying gloves. You can't make these small but still significant choices in Bannerlord, you can't even play in the broader way you want to play, let alone the rest.

I don't necessarily agree everyone should be able to play a horsemen all the time though

I don't agree anyone should be able to play Heavy Horseman whenever they want. But the idea of being restricted from playing any Horseman, in a Mount & Blade game, where whole game balance can be dependent on having at least some horseman available, is absolutely ridiculous.

However I believe that is a balance aspect and a symptom of the class system not being finished.

Care to elaborate?

The fact was Warband was laden with pointless choices and was clunky to navigate. Switching between infantry and archer could take up to 30 seconds if you had an awkward gold value and wanted to min-max your options. It was not a system that was viable for a modern market and Warband MP struggled to establish a large playerbase (a loyal playerbase yes but not a large one). Something had/has to change. Now right now the bannerlord system is not working as intended but then it isn't finished; it's not a fair comparison.

Mostly solved by premade loadouts, designing the class system and items backwards around cost vs effectiveness vs starting gold, and the ability to save loadouts. Nobody argued that Warband's system was perfect, nor that it couldn't have done with some quality of life changes, but to reinvent the wheel into this monstrosity, with all it's problems, makes Warband's issue seem almost non-existent. Also I never spent more than 10 seconds at a time swapping for new items in Warband, which in Battle 10 seconds was irrelevant. I dunno where the 30 seconds is all about, but I'll take your word for it.

 

[DainMorgot]

I am leaning more on v1.5.0. TW have stated they will be adding, changing perks and adding a new perk slot. I don't know how it will look; but assuming each perk does make a meaningful change to the class (which is their goal), and there is at minimum 3 perks per perk slot; that is 189 distinct builds per faction.

Warband can't offer that. Classes are a mixed bag; but it seems people attribute issues the game has to the class system unduely. Limited choice, bad balance, etc... these are symptoms of an unfinished system not a badly designed one. I think people just need to blame something; and the class system is the most notable 'change' from warband. truth is the reason MP numbers are down is because the MP servers are instable, game modes are limited and balance is wonky right now.

I disagree on warband having fewer classes, especially on your swadian swords point. The great sword, arming sword, and short sword offered 3 different playstyles and while they were not dominant in competitive tournament scene, you could utilize them on 'tryhard' servers like IG. The third perk slot is going to suck aswell, because in some classes its going to probably cancel another perk, unless the third slot is something totally different regarding your character's stats.

I believe bannerlord's MP playerbase is down not because of the issues you mentioned, but because it's unfun. Badly balanced games with issues always have players when the gameplay's joy you get out of it surpass the 'bad' things. In Bannerlord, the truth is that it's simply unfun (for the majority anyway).

 

[Younes]

Another thread of debunking bannerlord superior class system theorists

 

[Ling*]

The unwillingness to split the classes between skirmish and captain is going to be detrimental to both game modes. This is the exact reason why Battania has a 19% winrate in competitive captain mode and why if the balance isnt fixed soon we have to consider banning an entire faction just so that games are actually fair.

 

[Rangah]

Add enough perks and eventually it will just go full circle into an inferior pseudo-Warband equipment selection anyway. That is, without being able to choose any item for its slot at any point, providing you had the gold. In Bannerlord you can't get that mace from perk pool 1 without throwing away the chance to select an axe from the same perk pool 1.

Or swapping/discarding armor if you wanted to be faster or more tanky or save up that armor gold instead for a better weapon/shield. Oh man...