Statement Regarding Plans For MP

Users who are viewing this thread

Since both sides have the same objectives, we will most probably keep to symmetric maps.
The aim is to balance the factions, current general skirmish balance is pretty good and as follows after the last patch.
We aim to get more detailed divisions of stats as we plug in the ranked system and adjust accordingly.

Faction banning and selection before match is an idea that is being bounced around as well to avoid the random nature for competitiveness.

FactionMatch Win Rate
aserai0.5
battania0.5
empire0.49
khuzait0.48
sturgia0.52
vlandia0.51
Can you explain, at least in general terms, how do you judge balancing? Is it not a bad idea to balance the game around random matchmaking since there's no separation by skill and even only a rudimentary one by stacks? Wouldn't it be a better idea to postpone balancing until we have ranked MM and tournaments data?
 
Can you explain, at least in general terms, how do you judge balancing? Is it not a bad idea to balance the game around random matchmaking since there's no separation by skill and even only a rudimentary one by stacks? Wouldn't it be a better idea to postpone balancing until we have ranked MM and tournaments data?
You are right but we need to start somewhere. We are not super fine-tuning at the moment, just trying to identify anything that is too good or too bad, whether it is a faction, a troop, a weapon or a perk. Random as the MM may be, certain trends are still very easy to spot.

I agree that Tournaments or any other competitive environment is the best way to observe what works and what is broken so we are working very hard to make that a possibility within our technology.
 
You are right but we need to start somewhere. We are not super fine-tuning at the moment, just trying to identify anything that is too good or too bad, whether it is a faction, a troop, a weapon or a perk. Random as the MM may be, certain trends are still very easy to spot.

I agree that Tournaments or and other competitive situation is the best way to observe what works and what is broken so we are working very hard to make that a possibility within our technology.
Sounds reasonable, thank you.
 
First, thanks for taking the time to answer questions.
Now, i wanted to ask how you envision a ranked mode, do you intend to switch spawn and faction after half the rounds ?
Because otherwise faction-imbalance plays a huge role, and also you are forced to absolutly symmetric maps.

this a great point I hope gets brought up to the team. I think slight inbalanced to the map and factions are fine as long as they are not overwhelming- if it were somehow possible to implement the players switching factions and spawns that would be great
 
You are right but we need to start somewhere. We are not super fine-tuning at the moment, just trying to identify anything that is too good or too bad, whether it is a faction, a troop, a weapon or a perk. Random as the MM may be, certain trends are still very easy to spot.

I agree that Tournaments or any other competitive environment is the best way to observe what works and what is broken so we are working very hard to make that a possibility within our technology.

The things that are broken are either a variety of situations in combination with specific things. Multiple archers totally destroy infantry because 1) Archers are extremely accurate, 2) Shields do not have decent force fields to enforce the role of a shielder. Certain factions have extremely bad classes like Aserai infantry for example. Cavalry collisions are broken and you effectively cannot hit them from very close range, neither the horse or the rider, while the rider can indeed stab you due to the height difference and the horse head that provides a hitbox infront of him. Shock infantry movement is very busted and move way too fast for the pace of the game. Also, the meme classes need to go. They can get 1 - 2 shotted most of the time (I talk about peasant classes) and nobody really wants to play a peasant seriously in a competitive environment. When I play a medieval game in a high-skill environment, there is 0 reason to pick a class that dies on 1 shot or 2 shots, no matter the movement speed.


A lot of the imbalance comes from individual mechanics such as combat and collision boxes and then the classes. After that, the problems become a combination.
 
this a great point I hope gets brought up to the team. I think slight inbalanced to the map and factions are fine as long as they are not overwhelming- if it were somehow possible to implement the players switching factions and spawns that would be great
Spawn switch is only needed if we presume that factions will be inbalanced, and/or maps will be assymetrical. If those problems are solved then there's no need for spawn switch. Plus spawn switch has a downside of an increased average match time.

nobody really wants to play a peasant seriously in a competitive environment
Well that's the problem, we don't have a competitive environment yet. I believe when that's solved all the problems will be exposed shortly after and promptly dealt with.
 
Well that's the problem, we don't have a competitive environment yet. I believe when that's solved all the problems will be exposed shortly after and promptly dealt with.

There are already rock-solid indicators on clan vs clan matches and on lobbies where high skill players fall together in. Peasant classes are useless, both in gameplay and in the 'cool' factor. Other than very fast moving units, they bring nothing to the table and can die within a small scale of damage.
 
Spawn switch is only needed if we presume that factions will be inbalanced, and/or maps will be assymetrical. If those problems are solved then there's no need for spawn switch. Plus spawn switch has a downside of an increased average match time.
No that heavily depends on things like the map aswell. If you play Xauna and you're Sturgia vs lets say Aserai or Battania, even if the factions would have an equal overall win rate, one team is heavily favored, as Sturgia is a beasty infantry force. Swapping sides is an easy way balance the matchup even further, and while it increases the length of the match, fair and balanced competition should be the priority in a competitive gamemode. The only way to have a fair match without side swaps is symmetrical maps and mirrored factions which is boring.
 
Also, the meme classes need to go. They can get 1 - 2 shotted most of the time (I talk about peasant classes) and nobody really wants to play a peasant seriously in a competitive environment. When I play a medieval game in a high-skill environment, there is 0 reason to pick a class that dies on 1 shot or 2 shots, no matter the movement speed.

Just gonna step in with my long-unused account: I have an absolute blast playing the low-cost classes, mostly Vlandian/Batt/Khuzait peasants. I don't like relying on shields unless the enemy team has too many projectiles, and you have a broad scope of options.
 
I guess I'm the only one not all that satisfied by the answers we are getting here but I'll not complain as long as we get some answers.

We are not using the skill system in Multiplayer and this is a design choice.
Perks will keep evolving, there are still some major issues we want to address.
Class system WILL stay for the available game modes.

Like this for example, "It's a design choice" but I simply don't see any upsides to having everyone with the same skills/proficiencies. Same with the class system.

I mean, I'll play the Early Access until I get my 750 wins badge and then go play something else, just in the case that the game does do a complete 180 and be what it could be that I want to come back. But this thread and the answers we're getting isn't giving me much hope.
 
I guess I'm the only one not all that satisfied by the answers we are getting here but I'll not complain as long as we get some answers.



Like this for example, "It's a design choice" but I simply don't see any upsides to having everyone with the same skills/proficiencies. Same with the class system.

I mean, I'll play the Early Access until I get my 750 wins badge and then go play something else, just in the case that the game does do a complete 180 and be what it could be that I want to come back. But this thread and the answers we're getting isn't giving me much hope.
it puts everyone at the same ground, before you just had archers at a disadvantage and they will just lose vs infantry in most cases simply because their class is worse skill proficiency wise. Which still holds true for current ones and it kinda needs probably aswell to some extent. Or infantry will just lose vs archers, but there would be other options to balance it like ammonition and armor on cheaper archer classes.
 
Like this for example, "It's a design choice" but I simply don't see any upsides to having everyone with the same skills/proficiencies. Same with the class system.
It allows for unexpected and interesting plays. Like a Peasant looting a crossbow and running around shooting people or an archer finding a stray horse and becoming a budget Mounted Archer etc.

Using skill/proficiencies forces more of a class system than the one we currently have. It is like saying 'You picked the Sniper class in CSGO therefore you can use the AWM with full accuracy but you will have worse recoil with automatic rifles.'

We still have the 3 archetypes of Infantry, Ranged and Cav, just a few more subdivisions to have more streamlined choices. We aim to have troop identities and roles with the stats and perks where you make intelligent choices to counter the opposing team. We know that it still requires much more work but as of now there is way more focus on the multiplayer and we WILL make it work.
 
The comparison isn't apt because certain weapons and class types have far more utility in MnB than in CSGO. Any gun can kill you at most ranges in CS if the player is good enough. You can be the greatest infantry in the world but that won't help you versus an entire army that can cheaply become heavy cav.

If all gear being available for all players is a must, then powerful gear - bows, javelins, horses - will need to be made a lot more expensive as part of the class pricing algorithm.
 
Any class being able to use any weapon becomes a problem in siege too. When one side is the Empire, dropped menavlions from dead players get picked up by other classes, and 10 minutes into the match everyone will have a menavlion (this is just one example!). It gets ridiculous sometimes. PLEASE take this idea back to the drawing board and reconsider.
 
Any class being able to use any weapon becomes a problem in siege too. When one side is the Empire, dropped menavlions from dead players get picked up by other classes, and 10 minutes into the match everyone will have a menavlion (this is just one example!). It gets ridiculous sometimes. PLEASE take this idea back to the drawing board and reconsider.
Only if there were ways to kill unshielded infantry:unsure:
 
Only if there were ways to kill unshielded infantry:unsure:
>>---?--->

I think the rock paper scissor thing that I saw in many games is a bit trampled here because of the class system. The moment I hop on a horse as an archer or I pick up a shield with an archer that should't have one changes the dynamic of the game alot. Though, it does need improvement. That's for sure.
 
Back
Top Bottom