I think there is room in the game for skirmish and a battle-like. I actually think the game mode is fairly interesting conceptually and could be a staple going forwards if they get the balance right. I also really like captains mode - this was something that was also missing from the m&b formula - a game mode that actually plays like the SP. Course I still think my generals mode idea was better.... but that's a story for another time
Which goes against their argument of making it visible what an opposite enemy has in advantages and disadvantages.
Did you read my previous post? I said if you decide to use arguments you should at least stay true to them. I clearly said i didn't agree with it.Oh wow, imagine a game where different passives weren't visually represented. I be that game would be really unsuccessful. Wait, you're telling me that literally every game has this? That there's complex item trees explicitly dedicated to this purpose in the most popular games in the world?
Wow that's surprising to me since I don't play online games.
Yes, because it wouldn't give us the impression they put 0 thought behind the class system, and them being so stubborn about it.That makes even less sense. So now you're saying that TW should stick to their arguments despite dedicating hundreds (thousands?) of posts to tell them to improve the class system?
But competitive doesnt want them either, it limits our freedom to create better strategies too much.Classes can be kept for some competitive format. Maybe there could be BOTH class AND old school warband-like system.
If TW are struggling to balance one system I don't want to see them attempt two at the same time
Honestly I think the best path forward is just to stick with the class system and make it work best they can. Even if that means just adding so many options to it that it might as well be Warband 2.0 anyway.
I wonder if each class has say 10 or 12 perks each (and lets say they were actually balanced) would people be able to accept the class system? Especially if some or most of those perks came with additional gold costs built in.
Thats the problem, we dont know, because nothing is being communicated in a proper way. Everything is so vague that we have to assume everything. And with how the development has been going so far, we assume the worst.How do you know?
A step in the right direction is like ok you're no longer coughing blood but yes your heart, lungs and kidneys are all shutting down, lets hope the patient survives long enough while we work on that broken toe.I mean surely you can agree that sounds like a step in the right direction (ignoring the 'they should just remove it and start again' arguement for a second)?
Well that would kill competitive right there. It'd make it even more like rock paper scissors...Not really no.
They're hinting passive perks that are not visible to the naked eye (Passive generation, Improved bashing, Fighting madness, Veteran,..)
Which goes against their argument of making it visible what an opposite enemy has in advantages and disadvantages.
Not without making it clear the perks have been selected. If I do 99 damage to an enemy and I call a cav over to bump him, hes dead. I wont stick around I'll move to the next target and fight to avoid wasting time. If he has life regen he might not die, I wouldve played perfectly correct, but I'd be punished because he happened to have a perk I didnt know he had. Same with bashing, I've tanked shield bashes knowing he cant really punish me anyway, and he'd open up to attack which a teammate can take advantage of and get the kill. If thats randomly improved, it limits my potential play. Rock paper scissor in a skill based game sucks.Do we care about that argument though? Like I'd actually like to see a few perks like these added within reason - M&B SP is using them already so it seems feasible MP could use them as well. Sure it sounds like they have dropped that particular aspect - but whatever.
A small passive HP regen might actually be very interesting and a perk that allows damaging shield bashes could open up a new playstyle.
Gaining + damage or + head armour had its purpose to, it gave you something to progress towards. The class system isnt bad just because it limits freedom of picking equipment, it also limits any sense of progression. You start out with 1000 gold, and then if you survive, or you kill, you get rewarded by having more gold. You use this gold to upgrade yourself, from a common soldier to a beastly killing machine. Skill is rewarded, even in a team based game. Warband had a class system, a incredibly well crafted one. If you have a perfectly working system, why change it? If the vast majority of players dont like the new change, why keep it? Sounds like pure arrogance to me.But... you don't like the class system and you don't like this arguement?
Surely the only reason they would stray from it is to try and please you guys? Like if they just up and removed the class system - that would also break from their assigned goals. If we want to see improvements; they will have to bend or break some of their previous goals.
Like if you liked the system as it currently stands - i can see why you would want them to stay true; but surely them deviating is exactly what you want?
Also another point of contention I have here. Warband HAD a class system; just it only had three classes but with lots of 'perks' effectively. If bannerlords class system gets more and more perks; it moves closer and closer to Warband...
If bannerlord got to a stage where you had say 5 perks per slot across 3 perk slots - that's 125 ways to play each class. 875 ways to play each faction.... I challenge you to find 875 ways to play Nords which are actually viably distinct (no your sword gaining +1 damage or your helmet gaining +1 armour does not count as a new way to play the class).
Maybe but that doesnt matter if we dont get to see them. They could have a perfectly working awesome game on their private servers and it means absolutely nothing until I get to play it. I certainly hope it doesnt take them 3 months to re-make vlandia cosmetics, if so the 8 year development might be accurate.This I disagree on though _ I think they are making some fairly big changes under the hood and we just haven't see them yet. For example before the BETA ended there was a lot of discussion about revamping Vlandia's cosmetics; we know they are working on this but again we haven't seen it yet.
In my mind there is actually a lot of stuff they have ready and waiting; they are just going to push it as one release, and by the sounds of it v1.5 is going to be that release.
I'm not saying its going to be a total revolution; but we are gonna see the start of cosmetics being applied, lots of perks are gonna change and we might see that 3rd perk slot. A lot is going to happen and I think the arguements are going to be very different going forwards.
I don't mind passive perks, but they're hinting perks that have too much of a significant impact on the character like passive generation which is insanely OP.Well that would kill competitive right there. It'd make it even more like rock paper scissors...
Gaining + damage or + head armour had its purpose to, it gave you something to progress towards. The class system isnt bad just because it limits freedom of picking equipment, it also limits any sense of progression. You start out with 1000 gold, and then if you survive, or you kill, you get rewarded by having more gold. You use this gold to upgrade yourself, from a common soldier to a beastly killing machine. Skill is rewarded, even in a team based game. Warband had a class system, a incredibly well crafted one. If you have a perfectly working system, why change it? If the vast majority of players dont like the new change, why keep it? Sounds like pure arrogance to me.
Maybe but that doesnt matter if we dont get to see them. They could have a perfectly working awesome game on their private servers and it means absolutely nothing until I get to play it. I certainly hope it doesnt take them 3 months to re-make vlandia cosmetics, if so the 8 year development might be accurate.
We're in 1.4.1 right? At this rate 1.5 would be after summer? I'll be gone by then, my loyalty to the franchise has its limits. I love the genre but theres other games to play and projects to put my focus on.
Not without making it clear the perks have been selected. If I do 99 damage to an enemy and I call a cav over to bump him, hes dead. I wont stick around I'll move to the next target and fight to avoid wasting time. If he has life regen he might not die, I wouldve played perfectly correct, but I'd be punished because he happened to have a perk I didnt know he had. Same with bashing, I've tanked shield bashes knowing he cant really punish me anyway, and he'd open up to attack which a teammate can take advantage of and get the kill. If thats randomly improved, it limits my potential play. Rock paper scissor in a skill based game sucks.
I don't mind passive perks, but they're hinting perks that have too much of a significant impact on the character like passive generation which is insanely OP.
But if i could choose between both of them, i would choose to not have passive perks. It doesn't fit the game.
Warbands system was far from perfect though; it was a functional system yes but it did have a LOT of flaws. So much so that NeoGK became the new normal - because it actually fixed some of the glaring issues (such as one of the factions being literally banned from every server).
Warbands system was far from perfect though; it was a functional system yes but it did have a LOT of flaws. So much so that NeoGK became the new normal - because it actually fixed some of the glaring issues (such as one of the factions being literally banned from every server).
You make it sound like this is something new. Perk based systems are very very very common in MP these days for both highly successful competitive games and for games in a similar genre to M&B. You can't honestly say that these don't work in competitive MP games if you have played literally any other MP game in the last half a decade?!
But GK admins added them back even though they knew it was unbalanced. They dominated easily on open map and were destroyed easily on close map, mostly because people joining khergits would actually play the faction's strength(HA and cav), unlike the tdm weak factions (nids and nords) where players would just go naked with throwing weps.Also to add on to the neo gk point, banning khergs Was a huge discussion within the gk tdm community. I found them super annoying so I want them banned, and a lot of people agreed and disagreed with me. Neo gk was always more of a fun mod than a balance mod because no way it was balanced. It just added more variety and flavor at the cost of faction balance.
Warbands system was far from perfect though; it was a functional system yes but it did have a LOT of flaws. So much so that NeoGK became the new normal - because it actually fixed some of the glaring issues (such as one of the factions being literally banned from every server).
NeoGK also added a pistol that one hit kills at any distance and shoots through shields and still takes atleast 50% of your health bar, lets not pretend thats a good idea . Khergit was banned not because of the equipment, but because horse archery is broken and not fun to play against. It was lack of balance that killed Khergit, not their inventory. In fact any equipment that a faction was given is all balance issues, and has nothing to do with it being a choice.Warbands system was far from perfect though; it was a functional system yes but it did have a LOT of flaws. So much so that NeoGK became the new normal - because it actually fixed some of the glaring issues (such as one of the factions being literally banned from every server).
I can't offer anything with that. TW are slow and it will probably take time. IF your limit is by the end of summer I would recommend you cut your losses now - or just come back in a few months time and see how it's going. Nothing is going to change that quickly.
You make it sound like this is something new. Perk based systems are very very very common in MP these days for both highly successful competitive games and for games in a similar genre to M&B. You can't honestly say that these don't work in competitive MP games if you have played literally any other MP game in the last half a decade?!
Depends how much it was; if it was say 1HP ever 3-4 seconds it would be completely valueless during a fight. Assuming I'm a class with 100 HP thats a full health bar back after 5 minutes or so? It would probably only be of value in extended battles where you have survived one fight and are now repositioning. I don't think that would break the game at all.
Focus on casual and you will have competitive people.Ok but should Bannerlord focus the game on Competitive people or for more Casual Players who just want to have fun.