-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
We need to talk. Taleworlds is throwing everything away what made them great
- Thread starter Ahmed_Ten
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Yes I just dont understand all of this worry over such a simple thing. Why is it so bad for TW to throw a bone to the dedicated multiplayer community? The only way this could be an issue is if combat mechanics are actually changed based on the feedback of this small portion of players. I seriously doubt this will happen. The beta is to balance multiplayer (i.e classes, maps, settings, etc) and that is all.
Even still, multiplayer has the epic battle modes like siege and commander mode. And to be fair, the beta may also have those modes.
Lest we forget M&B also had a multiplayer only beta...
Even still, multiplayer has the epic battle modes like siege and commander mode. And to be fair, the beta may also have those modes.
Lest we forget M&B also had a multiplayer only beta...
Let's not forget that changing combat mechanics isn't necessarily a bad thing, either. There was a timed block parry system in Warband for a while, but it was basically a less-threatening chamber block. Speaking of which, chamber blocks and kicks were added because of player feedback during the beta. Lance couching was changed from requiring any polearm to specifically tagged weapons (i.e. anything with "lance" in the name), to address the silliness of couched javelins and the horribly overpowered couched pikes (which were also one/two-handed at the time).
vicwiz007 said:
A casual singleplayer like me wouldn't notice the difference and I am sure there are lots of people like me.
Not trying to open a new discussion here but one thing I am curios about is how the double kills will be seen by competitive players I mean will it be good or bad. Let us know Orion.
Going to be fun seeing how mechanics like this and others are tested.Lolbash said:
Lolbash said:
Really, really but really thank you for reminding that thread because I comletely forgot it.
What am I asking is how will it feel when you play it not just seeing from a gameplay video.
Ahmed_Ten said:
Look what day is today.
ButterDragon22
Recruit
Ahmed_Ten said:
I agree completely.
I don't think your I9-9900K can handle 5K individual agents on a screen and calculate their path, when to attack all simutanously. TW is different set of game, because their troop can not go as M&B does, you can command more than 1K troop, does not mean you can command 1K troop in other games.
No it's not always bad. But if a small percentage of players (who like to play a very specific way which most players dont like) are the ones causing changes, it's not good. It's like a tug of war between MP and SP communities. I've never seen an issue like this in a game before.Orion said:
My dream is that this "matchmaking" has a ranking system (and isnt abused by smurfs and whatnot). This way you will not spend half the time fighting some ninja you stand no chance of beating. If it works well, it shouldnt matter how crazy people will get with the mechanics. You will fight those who know as much as you.
15 000 guys and none of them uses anything close to directional combat to kill each other or is acting on their own. Haven't they replaced their simplified combat with pre-choreographed duels altogether lately?stevehoos said:
AFAIK that's what is planned.vicwiz007 said:
I think assists are also going to be tracked, though I'm not so sure on that one. You're right that there are many intangible variables the game can't possibly track, but that's what statistics are for in the first place: using limited data in an attempt to predict future outcomes. K/D ratio, assists, win/loss ratio, objectives captured, possibly kills/assists made on or from an objective zone, distribution of time played for each class, etc. are all fairly meaningless metrics on their own but together can form a more complete picture of a player's ability. A player with high K/D but low W/L and few kills/assists within objectives who always plays cav might be someone who regularly flanks around to pick off archers but doesn't otherwise contribute. They don't help their team capture objectives and they rarely support their teammates directly, so they lose more often than they win. However, a player with low K/D but lots of assists and activity on objectives while playing as an archer is doing exactly what they should be.
Rating gain or loss should be decided by winning or losing the match, and the difference should be weighted first by the skill of the opposing team, then second by an individual player's performance in that match. This is to say, if team A has a lower average rating than team B but they beat team B, then team A gets an above average rating increase as a team than if they had faced an evenly matched or weaker team. Further, each player on the team has their personal rating change modified by how well they did in the match. From the above examples, if the cav player was on the winning team but followed their typical pattern of behavior, then they would still get something for winning but not much. The archer would receive a higher rating change even if they didn't score as many kills as the cav, because they were consistently playing objectives and helping their teammates.
Rating gain or loss should be decided by winning or losing the match, and the difference should be weighted first by the skill of the opposing team, then second by an individual player's performance in that match. This is to say, if team A has a lower average rating than team B but they beat team B, then team A gets an above average rating increase as a team than if they had faced an evenly matched or weaker team. Further, each player on the team has their personal rating change modified by how well they did in the match. From the above examples, if the cav player was on the winning team but followed their typical pattern of behavior, then they would still get something for winning but not much. The archer would receive a higher rating change even if they didn't score as many kills as the cav, because they were consistently playing objectives and helping their teammates.
Orion said:
I agree with everything you said, but I will not hold my breath for a very balanced matchmaker in general. Games with huge budgets have been struggling to make it work like Overwatch for example. I think its essential that the game features voice comms for better performance, especially in mount and blade. I think its very important given how the game plays. The biggest problem with competitive games and matchmaking is the satisfaction in the end. I lost, but did I lose more SR than I should have because my team was literally useless? Most people of course will complain, but I think it's very important for the game to recognize the losing team aswell and who performed well and who not.
I dont recall mention of it but I'm sure if it exists it will be mentioned in one of the upcoming blogs.Orion said:
@578 I feel your pain with Overwatch. It is flooded by smurfs, throwers, and total bots on PS4. It feels like unless you get a 6-stack that your fate is totally out of your hands. Hopefully for M&B it's more about putting you in a fun matchup than climbing the ranks, which in the end is just a number. I don't know how they'll make it work, but I have a feeling that just due to the nature of the game, it will be better than most hardcore competitive games.
vicwiz007 said:
Tbh ranking systems never accomplish the objective of sorting players by skill-level, it always ends up reinforcing the desire from players to cheat because they see it as an achievement... So yeah, gl with that. Luckily I won't be there because I have 0 interest in BL MP, but to those who want do play it casually, well, be ready for a nightmare! hahaha
CSGO, LOL, DOTA, are some good examples of this combined with the sub-market of Elo Jobs. I mean, it's quite ridiculous... Oh, almost forgot to mention that it is also one of the main pushers of toxicity too...
Similar threads
