Taleworlds needs to hold themselves accountable and admit that many key decisions regarding multiplayer have backfired.

Users who are viewing this thread

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).

This is such a weird thing to say considering that Khergits are 99% being banned AGAIN in bannerlord despite the "improved" system.
 
Ok but should Bannerlord focus the game on Competitive people or for more Casual Players who just want to have fun.

TW should focus the game on being as eye-catching as possible and as vague as possible so as to bait as many potential consumers as possible into buying it after they go full release. They shouldn't be advertising to people that explicitly love medieval based sandboxes, to people that just want a casual game mode killing other players, or to people that want a high skill-ceiling competitive mode.

The real money lies in getting little Jimmy who's only real gaming experience is pubg and fortnite to talk his parents into buying him the game.



/sarcasm
Since there are people who'd think i was serious and start arguing over it.
 
8b7a8a72a2.jpg
I don't think it's much of a surprise that Warband is the superior game. Lightning in a bottle. I'd still have to play Bannerlord for 3000+ hours to catch up with my Warband hours.

That said, I don't think this point is very convincing to TW. BL MP is a skeleton with nothing fleshed out. Warband has countless mods, hundreds of maps, and is (mostly) balanced.



I agree, regen sounds like horrible idea unless you gain HP on-kill, which would force aggression to get value out of selecting the perk.

I'd be okay with healing outside of Skirmish/comp modes, such as on Siege, but TTK and teamfights are already so slow in Skirmish that healing would be absurd.

I mention this because of that old perk thing in the files.

I struggle to think of any competitive games that eschew the option to pick equipment and instead use perks. Some games have perks and equipment choice (Call of Duty, Mordhau), some games have very limited or no equipment choice but very different characters (R6, Overwatch), some games have no initial equipment choice and only cosmetic options, but have very in depth equipment and levelling options per match (MOBAS), some games have no perks but lots of equipment/economy options (CS, Valorant). What games do perks like Bannerlord does it? I genuinely can't think of any.

This is a great comparison summary.
 
"We didn't want to repeat warband's mistakes"
*proceeds to put everything bad from warband in bannerlord and remove everything good*
 
Competitive 6v6 pvp = skirmish is a poor name for the mode. It needs
  • FULL balance.
  • Equal attributes.
  • Equal health pool.
  • Equal equipment/mount options.
  • Equal movement speed.
  • Equal # of lives per round (just make it 1 life with many, many more rounds. Don’t want to chase every round so 3 - 4 minutes per round max time limit is good). One match can last an hour it’s okay.
That’s it. Anything else and competitive minded people will make their own mode. I don’t understand how this isn’t obvious

Captain mode = go wild with character progression and whatever perks. It can still be really competitive but that’s a different game mode and can work with ideas for perks or faction flavor affecting real capabilities.
 
  • FULL balance.
  • Equal attributes.
  • Equal health pool.
  • Equal equipment/mount options.
  • Equal movement speed.

Other than what I have quoted, a lot of what you mention was incorporated into the warband community-based competitive mode. Now before I'm preempted, there's a ton of reasons why it never became mainstream, ranging from lack of TW support, to the immense skill gap and lack of accessibility (literally thousands of hours of dying to better players), to the general toxicity/hazing of the warband veterans to new comers.

Back on track, purely identical lineups and loadouts rapidly make the game repetitive, and making all stats identical reduces skirmish strategy to the 'optimal' plan each time, with little room for ingenuity.

In warbands system, nord infantry were objectively better than vaiger infantry in MP, stats wise. They hit harder, had more HP, better shield skill, and were faster. The map type, however, was oftentimes a sufficient variable to make nord versus vaiger a toss up.

This is a roundabout way of saying that there's no issue with imbalances between factions, so long as they're not drastically geared towards 1 play style and incredibly weak in all other situations (cough kergits).
 
This is a roundabout way of saying that there's no issue with imbalances between factions, so long as they're not drastically geared towards 1 play style and incredibly weak in all other situations (cough kergits).

I see. I don’t disagree with you and I’m ignorant on the lessons learned in warband’s mp. Yeah I don’t mind minor imbalances either but thinking about what a competitive game mode should look like the starting point is obvious. It’s really frustrating to read about increasingly complicated ways of getting perks or character progression into a game mode where it doesn’t matter at all. I mean “skins” effectively are cool but it shouldn’t affect in game abilities.

I also think about tournaments... just spawning into sp and joining a tournament right away, it is so annoying dealing with an opponent’s 150 skill vs my 10. They run faster, their attack swings faster, and they hit harder. It works there cause I can grind and get my skill up a bit but it just doesn’t work for a competitive mp and that seems so obvious idk how it’s an issue.

why it never became mainstream, ranging from lack of TW support

This is really weird and too bad. The reason why counter strike condition zero and source failed to draw in the competitive scene where csgo did wasn’t because of lack of software support but rather the player vs dev headbutting revolving around issues of gameplay consistency as opposed to game engine capabilities. Seemingly minor changes, additions, or removals were actually game breaking and no one cared about ragdoll. I see similar issues here?

There should be something more focused than 3 flags between 6 people though, especially considering the size of some maps.

Yeah, currently it seems like sort of a nice balance because you can ignore all the flags and avoid fighting until two get removed and still win on morale (I think). It could currently work with morale being tuned but agree that it seems like it needs “focus”. Maybe something like winner is whoever has most morale or holds the cap point at the end of the round. I’m not sure if it’s currently like this or not.

If by Generals mode you refer to a large scale AI battle each army controlled by a single player with their own composition of troops, agreed it might work as well if not better than Captain's in current form. Games only require 2 players which means long queues will be unlikely. It also maintains a lot of individual player agency that MP provides as well as the grandness of SP battles.
@AxiosXiphos
Yeah a combination of the two ideas would be so awesome. I would play that mode so hard.
 
Last edited:
Competitive 6v6 pvp = skirmish is a poor name for the mode. It needs
  • FULL balance.
  • Equal attributes.
  • Equal health pool.
  • Equal equipment/mount options.
  • Equal movement speed.
  • Equal # of lives per round (just make it 1 life with many, many more rounds. Don’t want to chase every round so 3 - 4 minutes per round max time limit is good). One match can last an hour it’s okay.
That’s it. Anything else and competitive minded people will make their own mode. I don’t understand how this isn’t obvious

Captain mode = go wild with character progression and whatever perks. It can still be really competitive but that’s a different game mode and can work with ideas for perks or faction flavor affecting real capabilities.

Zero competitive games have that. I can't even think of what to write as a response.

Well i think the re work to cav will help a lot but they need to make accuracy on horses worse imo when it comes to bows that would probs just be the first thing i do then maybe add a new khuzait inf class that is way heavier.

Agree with that. I've found that horse archery is a coinflip, but if you get that bit of luck and hit your shots, it's absolutely disgusting.

I think it'd be interesting to see the Khan's Guard shift into the infantry role. They're basically heavy infantry already, but also very strong archers, so I think nerfing their archery (a lot) and giving them a spear perk shifts them more into a hybrid role. Gives Khuzait proper heavy infantry while keeping the Khuzait theme.
 
Zero competitive games have that. I can't even think of what to write as a response.



Agree with that. I've found that horse archery is a coinflip, but if you get that bit of luck and hit your shots, it's absolutely disgusting.

I think it'd be interesting to see the Khan's Guard shift into the infantry role. They're basically heavy infantry already, but also very strong archers, so I think nerfing their archery (a lot) and giving them a spear perk shifts them more into a hybrid role. Gives Khuzait proper heavy infantry while keeping the Khuzait theme.
I disagree creating a hybrid role between archers and inf is really weird and bad for competitive I think just making a new class and nerfing khuzaits guards armor and giving them a stronger bow perk would be better shift tbh
 
Back
Top Bottom