TW, how to save multiplayer while you can - with minimal effort

[eyrawn]

TW, Considering the current state of Multiplayer and that it gets ZERO love whatsoever by your developers, the least thing you can do is to save it while you can before it goes into the grave and is a memory long forgotten.

Here is how to save it with very minimal effort with 2 simple steps:

- Give the community mod tools
- Give the community the ability to host dedicated servers

This way Bannerlord can flourish and have a growing community - because we can fix all that's currently kinda ****ty and make our own communities so we are not forced to be locked into playing endless of boring random battles with no sense of reward or achievement. What we have now is nothing more than an online combat simulator.

TW, save it while you can. People bought your game for mutliplayer. Yes, it's EA, but we don't see anything happening. At least give us something ffs.

 

[Caps]

mod tools arent a small or simple step.

 

[flavberg]

I think they just need to put some priority in getting those duel servers up with a password. Next would be a votekick system, then, tweaking some of the values to make the combat feel better, and tweaking some of the perks on classes from the feedback given to every class by myself and many others. This would take maximum of a week or two and it would surely keep some people playing it and please the rest.

 

[Caps]

I think they just need to put some priority in getting those duel servers up with a password. Next would be a votekick system, then, tweaking some of the values to make the combat feel better, and tweaking some of the perks on classes from the feedback given to every class by myself and many others. This would take maximum of a week or two and it would surely keep some people playing it and please the rest.

skill based matchmaking would be nice aswell

 

[flavberg]

skill based matchmaking would be nice aswell

Yeah, I'm sure something easy can be done about it, where they rank players by their Skirmish K/D (it would require separation from the Captain's mode and such, though).

Then it's a simple matter of finding players of similar stats, and if there's none, then they can enlarge the pool until they find a decent pair-up, while also adding a premade check, and match premades with premades, or pool the randoms and assign them equally.

For example, let's say there's two premade teams queueing with three members each, team A would consist of a premade team and 3 randoms, then team B would get the same set-up. The randoms would be the deciding factor to balance the skill-level by K/D. If team A premades have a general K/D of 1.0 and team B premades have a 1.2, then team A gets the better randoms while team B gets the worse randoms.

 

[Caps]

Yeah, I'm sure something easy can be done about it, where they rank players by their Skirmish K/D (it would require separation from the Captain's mode and such, though).

Then it's a simple matter of finding players of similar stats, and if there's none, then they can enlarge the pool until they find a decent pair-up, while also adding a premade check, and match premades with premades, or pool the randoms and assign them equally.

For example, let's say there's two premade teams queueing with three members each, team A would consist of a premade team and 3 randoms, then team B would get the same set-up. The randoms would be the deciding factor to balance the skill-level by K/D. If team A premades have a general K/D of 1.0 and team B premades have a 1.2, then team A gets the better randoms while team B gets the worse randoms.

Its with elo not K/D, K/D is pretty much meaningless because all the classes have different amounts of respawns .It auto regulates premades teams itself. But a priority feature that matches teams vs other teams would be nice. It auto balances itself aswell, if you got players of the same skill level teams are more likely to be even.

 

[Tork789]

Yeah, I'm sure something easy can be done about it, where they rank players by their Skirmish K/D

Much easier than giving mod tools or private servers imo.

 

[flavberg]

its with elo not K/D

Matchmaking rating is generally based on individual statistics and game wins, which is, essentially, K/D.

 

[Tork789]

Matchmaking rating is generally based on individual statistics and game wins, which is, essentially, K/D.

ELO rating system in theory would be better as it takes into account the ratings of players you defeated or lost against. But implementing it would potentially mean more effort than a simple system sorting by K/D.

 

[flavberg]

ELO rating system in theory would be better as it takes into account the ratings of players you defeated or lost against. But implementing it would potentially mean more effort than a simple system sorting by K/D.

Oh, definitely, I agree with you and @Caps , it would be a lot better, but thinking short-term and as simple as possible with minimum resource investment, this would be much easier and simpler.

 

[Tork789]

Oh, definitely, I agree with you and @Caps , it would be a lot better, but thinking short-term and as simple as possible with minimum resource investment, this would be much easier and simpler.

My thoughts exactly. It doesn't have to be perfect from the first try.

 

[Caps]

If you play rabble and defeat a knight. This kill weights way more, than the other way round. K/D is fundamentally flawed. You would need a big mix of different things to determine someones performance.

Meanwhile giving everyone 1000 elo is way better and per win it takes some points of the enemy and gives you the points. Then it matches people with similar elo. Implementing it is pretty easy, since its one of the oldest matchmaking systems and it is documented quite well.

 

[flavberg]

i don tnecessarily mean a system that takes other player ratings in consideration. If you play rabble and defeat a knight. This kill weights way more, than the other way round. K/D is fundamentally flawed. You would need a big mix of different things to determine someones performance.

Meanwhile giving everyone 1000 elo and if they win they gain points if they lose they lose points is way better. Then it matches people with similar elo

Not really. There's way too many factors to take into account. What if the knight was downed for a quadrillion seconds and had 5 HP, so the rabble guy just got lucky and one-hit him? Giving everyone the same ELO at the start results in mixing a lot of random teams, getting randoms into higher ELO's by carrying them, then they have their experience ruined when there's no teammates to carry, or worse, they sabotage the team with rightful ELO by not being good team members. Vice-versa, the same thing could happen where someone good at the game ends up in a dog**** team and suffers massive ELO loss because his teammates decide practicing the game isn't worth it. If you've ever played Warband Matchmaking, you know what I mean.

In any case, sorting players by ANYTHING, at this point, would be much better than random allocation.

 

[Caps]

its not a random allocation obv, they need to play to reach their elo. Compare it to what we have now. Either teams that rofl stomp complete beginners or 1-2 people who are warbanders that stomp the whole enemy team by themselfs. Its exactly what you just depicted.

You dont see the elo, most probably wouldnt even notice its there.

 

[flavberg]

its not a random allocation obv, they need to play to reach their elo. Compare it to what we have now. Either teams that rofl stomp complete beginners or 1-2 people who are warbanders that stomp the whole enemy team by themselfs. Its exactly what you just depicted.

I was referring that we have random allocation at the moment, not that your idea was a random allocation. My bad if it was misunderstood!

 

[Caps]

I was referring that we have random allocation at the moment, not that your idea was a random allocation. My bad if it was misunderstood!

that makes more sense, imo its more important than balance or combat fixes

 

[Alyss]

« Unfortunately, we have limited ressources. Therefore we can’t give you the mod tools as it takes a lot of time and effort. As for the servers, Taleworlds is providing enough server so stop complaining. Btw our MP is better than warband because we say so! » Callum

 

[TheBard]

Did he say that with the servers like this? Really? Or just the ghist of it?
How about this suggestion: We can license the server software for let's say 5€ per month. With this we would contribute to the development of Bannerlord and we would get the software we so crave.

 

[Alyss]

Did he say that with the servers like this? Really? Or just the ghist of it?
How about this suggestion: We can license the server software for let's say 5€ per month. With this we would contribute to the development of Bannerlord and we would get the software we so crave.

nah he didn't say it like this but he did say that private servers would come at the end of EA or full release

 

[TheBard]

nah he didn't say it like this but he did say that private servers would come at the end of EA or full release

Which will be 2021 probably.