• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

What happened?

Users who are viewing this thread

Greedalicious

Grandmaster Knight
WB
I could write an essay on why the Warband system is superior, but lets just do an example.

In competitive, you have 1000 gold to start with. A standard Sarranid archer build would look like this
clkd5wB.jpeg

The scimitar is dropped for an infantry who gives a shield to the archer in return.

BUT!
The sarranid helmet isnt optimal, because 1 headshot and you're dead. Instead of picking this helmet, you could change your build to something like this
kkihkGo.jpeg

The more expensive helmet will save you from pretty much any headshot, including from a crossbow (depending on range and a certain amount of randomness) so if you're fighting lets say Swadia or Rhodok, and you know they have a talented head hunter, you decide to pick the more expensive helmet to save your life, and use the normal free sword for yourself instead.

Some infantries prefer the axe over the scimitar, so the drops can become abit more complicated based on your players style, and who theyre fighting against.

Example 1 of 40000 as to why Warbands system was better.
 

Mythicc

Sergeant Knight
I could write an essay on why the Warband system is superior, but lets just do an example.

In competitive, you have 1000 gold to start with. A standard Sarranid archer build would look like this
clkd5wB.jpeg

The scimitar is dropped for an infantry who gives a shield to the archer in return.

BUT!
The sarranid helmet isnt optimal, because 1 headshot and you're dead. Instead of picking this helmet, you could change your build to something like this
kkihkGo.jpeg

The more expensive helmet will save you from pretty much any headshot, including from a crossbow (depending on range and a certain amount of randomness) so if you're fighting lets say Swadia or Rhodok, and you know they have a talented head hunter, you decide to pick the more expensive helmet to save your life, and use the normal free sword for yourself instead.

Some infantries prefer the axe over the scimitar, so the drops can become abit more complicated based on your players style, and who theyre fighting against.

Example 1 of 40000 as to why Warbands system was better.
Using 1000 max gold in a match, the amount of different builds you can have as nord/rhodok infantry alone says a lot
 

Younes

Master Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
Don't bother, he's not one of the bright ones and isn't worth your time. They don't even see they have conflicting arguments and they still refuse to understand. No matter how many times you point out their flawed logic, they will just prepare another text-salad for you. I found what I expected to find, I'll just let them circle jerk here in peace, lol.
"Everyone is wrong except me"

Literally childish behavior
 

Ruthven

Baron
WBM&BVC
Don't bother, he's not one of the bright ones and isn't worth your time. They don't even see they have conflicting arguments and they still refuse to understand. No matter how many times you point out their flawed logic, they will just prepare another text-salad for you. I found what I expected to find, I'll just let them circle jerk here in peace, lol.
i hope u hungry bb

I don't really care if they use a detailed inventory like WB, the perk "system" is fine, the issue is that at the moment there are so few choices, no round-to-round progression, and the tradeoffs are always being decided by the devs, and not by players (e.g. Spear and Shield perks being in the same slot for an infantry unit...) It is so much more difficult to balance this way, all these flaws and future problems were visible miles off, and now 2 years later devs are finally starting to capitulate - the concepts behind their new equipment system did not hold water like they thought they would. The other problems will also need to be addressed eventually, and now the devs need to do some 2000IQ balancing act - look, we have different perks for Skirmish and Captain gamemodes, different unit prices in Siege and TDM, they had to stop heavy cavs from being able to double spawn in Skirmish... The more they try to stick with the system they have, the more they will need to whack-a-mole these problems and the more issues they will create for themselves down the line. They could have saved themselves a big headache if they used simple inf/cav/archer classes with equipment progression.

The idea of fixing snowballing is cute and might work for competitive matches, where good team coordination can help you win 1+ engagements and maybe even up a life deficiency. At low levels, snowballing is even worse. A better player can grab heavy cav instantly, go **** on people in their spawn, and then next round the worse players have to get like 18 kills with only 12-15 lives, and worse units. It's like, yeah Swads in WB getting mail round 2 was tough, but the BL system decided to stop that by instead giving them Brigandines and an extra respawn. Like what???

IMO the best way forward would be to add a lot of equipment perks for all classes, where you choose 2-4 in the Armory to take in a match as your options, and all perks have some small cost... eg Full Helmet +15g, longer spear +10g, etc, also with the option to not equip any perks in a given round. This would give us:
- something to do in the Armory while waiting for matchmaking
- round-to-round progression, of which there is currently none at all
- more individual builds and playstyles, more depth to economy
- not needing to pad an inventory screen with "unnecessary" upgrades like boots and gloves or +1dmg swords

This isn't the main reason I don't play BL anymore but it's a big symptom of their diseased design philosophies.
 
Last edited:

KSHMR

Sergeant at Arms
This forum is turning into an EVEN more toxic fest, which is totally expected after the trash updates we keep getting. At least try to keep things a little light-hearted, that would be good. Devs already know we are heavily disappointed but at this point we might as well make a bannerlord ourselves, it'll be better :grin:
 

Orion

Still Not Worthy
Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
"Everyone is wrong except me"

Literally childish behavior
Hello, Mr. Pot. I see you've met Mr. Kettle.

The recent behavior by some in this thread is pathetic. You can just as easily make your points without calling anyone morons, clowns, children, delusional, or otherwise. Keep it between the lines.
 

KSHMR

Sergeant at Arms
Hello, Mr. Pot. I see you've met Mr. Kettle.

The recent behavior by some in this thread is pathetic. You can just as easily make your points without calling anyone morons, clowns, children, delusional, or otherwise. Keep it between the lines.
Precisely. But let it be known that disappointment and frustration is totally understandable, considering TW's performance.
 

Younes

Master Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
Hello, Mr. Pot. I see you've met Mr. Kettle.

The recent behavior by some in this thread is pathetic. You can just as easily make your points without calling anyone morons, clowns, children, delusional, or otherwise. Keep it between the lines.
We could, but it is the multiplayer section for a reason after all.
 

Zarthas

Knight
IMO the best way forward would be to add a lot of equipment perks for all classes, where you choose 2-4 in the Armory to take in a match as your options, and all perks have some small cost... eg Full Helmet +15g, longer spear +10g, etc, also with the option to not equip any perks in a given round. This would give us:
- something to do in the Armory while waiting for matchmaking
- round-to-round progression, of which there is currently none at all
- more individual builds and playstyles, more depth to economy
- not needing to pad an inventory screen with "unnecessary" upgrades like boots and gloves or +1dmg swords

This isn't the main reason I don't play BL anymore but it's a big symptom of their diseased design philosophies.

I'd love to see a "loadout" style compromise like this, it is the best of both worlds in a way, and has plenty of already existing touchpoints TW can reference in console gaming. Not going to hold my breath, but it would be a way out of this.
 

jon01

Knight at Arms
Here's some other (bad) reasoning as to why the class system was included:

1)
"Bannerlord's main Multiplayer modes were designed to be dynamic and intense, and one important goal was to have fluid roles so that players could quickly switch between roles to try a different game plan or to counter their opponent's tactics. This is best achieved with a class based system. With the current system, if you want to switch from an archer to a knight, you can do it in a split second as it takes only one or two clicks. With an equipment system, you would probably need to select a horse, lance and shield at a minimum, and then to armor up, you would be picking a higher tier helmet, pauldrons, a hauberk, gloves and boots. That is too many clicks and would ruin the kind of fast paced, intense and meaningful decision making we would like the player to engage in."


To spawn in as cavalry in Warband, you only need to select "cavalry" and "done", and then you're there as cavalry. You don't need to select a lance, it's already selected by default. (It's honestly frightening if TW doesn't understand this about their own game.) The default loadout for cavalry is closer to the optimal 1000 gold build than the other classes, so it wasn't the best example to illustrate the point. With 1000 gold, selecting a Hunter horse might be the only really significant change to make from the loadout, it's still not necessary (you get a Saddle horse by default), and it's just one change.

Imagine if you were telling your teammate during a match to spawn in quickly, and they were saying: "I can't select the gloves in time! I won't be able to make it!" Just leave the gloves. It's not important.

Something like the "quick selection" in Bannerlord's class system could be achieved through Warband's item selection anyway. You could've had a suggested loadout (i.e. using up the 1000 default gold). Or more than one suggested loadout per class. More expensive suggested loadouts could be made available only if you have enough gold. It would be like applying Bannerlord's style of selection on top of Warband's without destroying it. This would allow you to spawn in quickly with a decent build, but you'd have options to customise if you want.

In all of the streams I've watched of Skirmish so far, I've never felt excited about any "change up" of tactics when players respawn as different troop types in the middle of a round anyway. If that's what the inclusion of the class system is mainly about, it's not a good trade-off by any means. Battle mode's positional element in tactical play was so much more interesting and engaging. It's something that really distinguished the mode, whereas Skirmish's multiple spawning just makes it feel more like TDM. The fact that you can kill a player and they might return seconds later makes getting kills less satisfying too.

At the same time, Captains fails to deliver on the positional element in tactical play, because the poor functionality of the AI reduces the tactical possibilities. They can't even climb ladders properly, which I'm guessing is why ladders aren't included in the mode at all. The large blobs of AI will never be able to do as much as what real players could do. It doesn't owe towards the kind of depth and interesting gameplay that's unique to M&B with its style of combat.

2)
"there are only so many different combinations of items people use which results in the class system not being any different practically. M. Arda continues in support of this, saying that in the case of there, for instance, being five different choices for a sword with them differing from one another by a damage difference of 2 and only two of these swords being the popular choices results in rendering the remaining three useless (He's basically trying to say that there is no point in having multiple variants of an item that are nearly identical to each other). He calls balancing Warband's system a "pain in the ass" and the current one easier and faster to develop which is immediately contradicted by Gökçen who points out that balancing the class system is far more time consuming to balance and refine. Gökçen continues saying that in the long run the class system will be more beneficial in regards to balance and that even currently, it is more balanced and the only imbalance there exists is that certain factions are used more often"


No one is requesting the inclusion of five almost-identical swords again (if that even is the case, I remember some tournament duelists opting to choose the short swords for Swadia). Make the choices more meaningful or include fewer choices in the same system if it's really so problematic. It's no justification for all of what Bannerlord's class system entails.

It's a shame if they can't be bothered to put the work in (calling it a "pain"), but they have an invaluable resource (i.e. their community) to help them work on the MP and balance it out. Bannerlord was a chance to genuinely improve on Warband. Or at least deliver something different in the same vein. A new arrangement of weaponry in the traditional item selection with new factions would've been something to look forward to. Instead we have something that isn't in keeping with M&B's spirit of sandbox and customisation at all.

In Warband you would literally always pick the same single armor piece you would afford with that single weapon + shield or 2 handed wep combo with the money you were usually granted with. After that you just went for the best one. It's the same between the perk system and Warband. You can take better armor or choose your weapons. Pretty dramatic trying to say it's a massive difference.
One reason the class system is different is that it doesn't provide the "middle infantry" as consistently as you were apparently choosing it in Warband. With the default 1000 gold, you could always afford a basic-but-decent setup (e.g. free 1h sword, strong shield, short awlpike, middle helmet, middle armour, gloves). But with Bannerlord's class system, the forced minimum is a prebuilt peasant troop with either a shield or a spear, a floppy elf hat and baggy trousers. You have to wait to play near enough the equivalent of what you played by default in Warband.

It felt great upgrading to an awlpike as Vaegir infantry (which you can't afford with a decent build by default), but in Bannerlord the upgrade you get in terms of a polearm is to get one at all (unless you don't want to protect yourself from archers with a shield). That's not fun, that's just annoying. You can't always find what you want by looting either, and it'll be gone again when you die.

In Warband's Deathmatch, you could select the best of every item type, and the game would automatically upgrade for you as you get kills, if you want. The changes were more gradual, and it mostly stayed in the style you would choose. In Bannerlord, it constantly switches you between different prebuilt troops, with items you don't necessarily prefer to use.

Managing the class system across all the modes (not just Captains) is another issue altogether. Especially if it's setup to be tactical, some of what might work well for Skirmish (i.e. with precise teamplay and communication in mind) might be annoying in TDM or Siege, where there's more chaos and less cohesion going on.

Having said all this, the class system doesn't matter to me as much as the general mechanics. I'd even put up with the crashes and sound bugs if I found the "feel" of the game to be more fun.
 

Danny5

Sergeant at Arms
Here's some other (bad) reasoning as to why the class system was included:

1)
"Bannerlord's main Multiplayer modes were designed to be dynamic and intense, and one important goal was to have fluid roles so that players could quickly switch between roles to try a different game plan or to counter their opponent's tactics. This is best achieved with a class based system. With the current system, if you want to switch from an archer to a knight, you can do it in a split second as it takes only one or two clicks. With an equipment system, you would probably need to select a horse, lance and shield at a minimum, and then to armor up, you would be picking a higher tier helmet, pauldrons, a hauberk, gloves and boots. That is too many clicks and would ruin the kind of fast paced, intense and meaningful decision making we would like the player to engage in."


To spawn in as cavalry in Warband, you only need to select "cavalry" and "done", and then you're there as cavalry. You don't need to select a lance, it's already selected by default. (It's honestly frightening if TW doesn't understand this about their own game.) The default loadout for cavalry is closer to the optimal 1000 gold build than the other classes, so it wasn't the best example to illustrate the point. With 1000 gold, selecting a Hunter horse might be the only really significant change to make from the loadout, it's still not necessary (you get a Saddle horse by default), and it's just one change.

Imagine if you were telling your teammate during a match to spawn in quickly, and they were saying: "I can't select the gloves in time! I won't be able to make it!" Just leave the gloves. It's not important.

Something like the "quick selection" in Bannerlord's class system could be achieved through Warband's item selection anyway. You could've had a suggested loadout (i.e. using up the 1000 default gold). Or more than one suggested loadout per class. More expensive suggested loadouts could be made available only if you have enough gold. It would be like applying Bannerlord's style of selection on top of Warband's without destroying it. This would allow you to spawn in quickly with a decent build, but you'd have options to customise if you want.

In all of the streams I've watched of Skirmish so far, I've never felt excited about any "change up" of tactics when players respawn as different troop types in the middle of a round anyway. If that's what the inclusion of the class system is mainly about, it's not a good trade-off by any means. Battle mode's positional element in tactical play was so much more interesting and engaging. It's something that really distinguished the mode, whereas Skirmish's multiple spawning just makes it feel more like TDM. The fact that you can kill a player and they might return seconds later makes getting kills less satisfying too.

At the same time, Captains fails to deliver on the positional element in tactical play, because the poor functionality of the AI reduces the tactical possibilities. They can't even climb ladders properly, which I'm guessing is why ladders aren't included in the mode at all. The large blobs of AI will never be able to do as much as what real players could do. It doesn't owe towards the kind of depth and interesting gameplay that's unique to M&B with its style of combat.

2)
"there are only so many different combinations of items people use which results in the class system not being any different practically. M. Arda continues in support of this, saying that in the case of there, for instance, being five different choices for a sword with them differing from one another by a damage difference of 2 and only two of these swords being the popular choices results in rendering the remaining three useless (He's basically trying to say that there is no point in having multiple variants of an item that are nearly identical to each other). He calls balancing Warband's system a "pain in the ass" and the current one easier and faster to develop which is immediately contradicted by Gökçen who points out that balancing the class system is far more time consuming to balance and refine. Gökçen continues saying that in the long run the class system will be more beneficial in regards to balance and that even currently, it is more balanced and the only imbalance there exists is that certain factions are used more often"


No one is requesting the inclusion of five almost-identical swords again (if that even is the case, I remember some tournament duelists opting to choose the short swords for Swadia). Make the choices more meaningful or include fewer choices in the same system if it's really so problematic. It's no justification for all of what Bannerlord's class system entails.

It's a shame if they can't be bothered to put the work in (calling it a "pain"), but they have an invaluable resource (i.e. their community) to help them work on the MP and balance it out. Bannerlord was a chance to genuinely improve on Warband. Or at least deliver something different in the same vein. A new arrangement of weaponry in the traditional item selection with new factions would've been something to look forward to. Instead we have something that isn't in keeping with M&B's spirit of sandbox and customisation at all.


One reason the class system is different is that it doesn't provide the "middle infantry" as consistently as you were apparently choosing it in Warband. With the default 1000 gold, you could always afford a basic-but-decent setup (e.g. free 1h sword, strong shield, short awlpike, middle helmet, middle armour, gloves). But with Bannerlord's class system, the forced minimum is a prebuilt peasant troop with either a shield or a spear, a floppy elf hat and baggy trousers. You have to wait to play near enough the equivalent of what you played by default in Warband.

It felt great upgrading to an awlpike as Vaegir infantry (which you can't afford with a decent build by default), but in Bannerlord the upgrade you get in terms of a polearm is to get one at all (unless you don't want to protect yourself from archers with a shield). That's not fun, that's just annoying. You can't always find what you want by looting either, and it'll be gone again when you die.

In Warband's Deathmatch, you could select the best of every item type, and the game would automatically upgrade for you as you get kills, if you want. The changes were more gradual, and it mostly stayed in the style you would choose. In Bannerlord, it constantly switches you between different prebuilt troops, with items you don't necessarily prefer to use.

Managing the class system across all the modes (not just Captains) is another issue altogether. Especially if it's setup to be tactical, some of what might work well for Skirmish (i.e. with precise teamplay and communication in mind) might be annoying in TDM or Siege, where there's more chaos and less cohesion going on.

Having said all this, the class system doesn't matter to me as much as the general mechanics. I'd even put up with the crashes and sound bugs if I found the "feel" of the game to be more fun.
I do agree to some of these points in terms of class systems. I do prefer the warband custom equipment selection, as it gave players the freedom to choose any equipments, and also, different tactics as to which equipment to use.

What would be interesting in terms of having that middle troop, maybe implement a way to unlock these equipment as you are playing the game. So when the match starts everyone has tier 1 equipment, after they gain some kills, captured points, doing objectives etc. another piece of equipment would be unlocked. (This would be for every new match, it would restart when a new match begins). In this way, players won't just go from tier 1 all the way to the best gear, with a few kills. Also assistant kills would count.
 

szymczak1503

Sergeant
There is a great interview with CEO of robocraft, game that failed because it went a route that Bannerlord is heading for:

"A lot of players who are angry with the way the robocraft went, that we dump down the game mechanics, we dump down the building system. ..., Sadly, our attempt to simplify the building system in attempt to attract new players/keeping players from slipping through our fingers, they did not work, the stats did not improve. So we angried the existing players and did not improve the stats.
...
Perhaps my biggest regrets are maybe if we went back, we would listen more to dedicated players and less to the short-term new players. And focus on what dedicated players like and exposing more of that and building on that rather than chasing the stats for new players."

The dedicated players gave you a lot of ideas in multiple threads on how to improve the game, you did not seem to listen and decided to go your own route (which could work, but it did not). Maybe it is time to go back to the drawing board?

I have never heard any dedicated players saying, "let's strip down the Warband equipment system and replace it with something else" when the game was "in progress".

0wmET8l.png


DDPve0y.png
 
Last edited:

Hans 77

Knight
WBWF&SVC
There is a great interview with CEO of robocraft, game that failed because it went a route that Bannerlord is heading for:

"A lot of players who are angry with the way the robocraft went, that we dump down the game mechanics, we dump down the building system. ..., Sadly, our attempt to simplify the building system in attempt to attract new players/keeping players from slipping through our fingers, they did not work, the stats did not improve. So we angried the existing players and did not improve the stats.
...
Perhaps my biggest regrets are maybe if we went back, we would listen more to dedicated players and less to the short-term new players. And focus on what dedicated players like and exposing more of that and building on that rather than chasing the stats for new players."

The dedicated players gave you a lot of ideas in multiple threads on how to improve the game, you did not seem to listen and decided to go your own route (which could work, but it did not). Maybe it is time to go back to the drawing board?

That's a good video, and very relevant to the whole situation with Bannerlord.

The games which are timeless (Warband, Age of Empires II, Counter-Strike) manage to remain relevant because they've stayed true to themselves, not buckled to market trends (which are often just a passing phase -nothing more), retained their own unique flavor, and kept things as simple as possible without "dumbing down" their game.

Those in charge of Bannerlord's overall development fell for the trap of believing the "in-vogue" game design trends. They went all-out trying to make their game as palatable as possible to new players (according to analytics personnel who never tried or cared to understand Warband), while not realizing they already had a large, faithful, and passionate fanbase.

The most tragic thing is, as long as you put out a genuinely good product, people are going to buy it, whether they're long-time loyal customers or experiencing your product for the very first time.

A genuinely good product -which Bannerlord is not.
 
Perhaps my biggest regrets are maybe if we went back, we would listen more to dedicated players and less to the short-term new players. And focus on what dedicated players like and exposing more of that and building on that rather than chasing the stats for new players."

The dedicated players gave you a lot of ideas in multiple threads on how to improve the game, you did not seem to listen and decided to go your own route (which could work, but it did not). Maybe it is time to go back to the drawing board?

I have never heard any dedicated players saying, "let's strip down the Warband equipment system and replace it with something else" when the game was "in progress".
Yeah, they should be giving more focus to the dedicated players' demands although having played Robocraft myself I have to admit that game didn't have much potential anyways. Everyone I knew who played it spent around 10 hours and quit, it was a fun game up until that treshold after that it became extremely boring for most people.

The change wasn't demanded by anyone afaik -there were tons of other much more interesting stuff to focus on- but I found it useful and they were right to implement it imo. Obviously there will be some people who won't like it but that's just how it's, you can't please everyone.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant
While I do agree that BLs multiplayer is in dire straits and should listen to the community, this is just a bad graph. While the Robocraft graph shows the entire lifetime of the game, the BL one zooms into the very beginning of it, where there was a massive boost in players followed by a somewhat rapid drop. If you zoom out on the graph on SteamDB, you'll see that it has almost completely stabilized.

You won't be able to see the MP effect on the playerbase at this moment because it is completely dead, and most people are currently playing the game at this moment due to the SP. With MP being dead, you won't see the massive drop in numbers as seen in Robocraft because, primarily, BL is a singleplayer game.

I don't disagree with your points about listening to the community, which the stipulation that they shouldn't only listen to the die hard fans and do take the advice of casual ones. If this is not done, the long-term survival of BL's MP will probably not be long-term, or even exist at all.
 

Mabons

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
While I do agree that BLs multiplayer is in dire straits and should listen to the community, this is just a bad graph. While the Robocraft graph shows the entire lifetime of the game, the BL one zooms into the very beginning of it, where there was a massive boost in players followed by a somewhat rapid drop. If you zoom out on the graph on SteamDB, you'll see that it has almost completely stabilized.

You won't be able to see the MP effect on the playerbase at this moment because it is completely dead, and most people are currently playing the game at this moment due to the SP. With MP being dead, you won't see the massive drop in numbers as seen in Robocraft because, primarily, BL is a singleplayer game.

I don't disagree with your points about listening to the community, which the stipulation that they shouldn't only listen to the die hard fans and do take the advice of casual ones. If this is not done, the long-term survival of BL's MP will probably not be long-term, or even exist at all.

Your point is noted but it is entirely relevant to show the drop off, on EA release there was literally a thousand people in the matchmaking queues trying to get into games, now I'm waiting for 3v3s to start. Why did they leave? The answers are all over the forums.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant
Your point is noted but it is entirely relevant to show the drop off, on EA release there was literally a thousand people in the matchmaking queues trying to get into games, now I'm waiting for 3v3s to start. Why did they leave? The answers are all over the forums.
My point is that the drop-off isn't due to the MP dying, it is due to people getting the massively hyped game, playing the massively hyped game, having their fill with the massively hyped game.

As for MP, it is because it hasn't had much support and custom servers aren't out. I don't disagree that MP is in a really bad situation right now, but the graph is just not going to show the issue. Bannerlord isn't going to die in terms of player count any time soon, unless something really bad happens.
 

Orion

Still Not Worthy
Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
Bannerlord MP isn't faring significantly better than Warband MP, and that's their 11-years-old previous title in the franchise. MP certainly can still die for BL as it has been hanging by a thread for months. Warband MP has as well, but the nature of that thread is different. For Warband it's entirely community involvement & enthusiasm that keeps it going, and has been for years. As long as there's someone who wants to host events, there will be Warband MP.

Bannerlord MP will live or die by TW's whim at this point. They are struggling to push significant changes to MP and have been for over a year. The players who would be keeping it alive for years are treading water, but eventually they will feel their efforts are not reciprocated and will move on. To call it a disaster is being kind, and to call it tragic is an understatement.

While the quality of work by TW is fine, what they choose to work on (or in some cases, not to work on) is holding this game back.
 

Alyss

Grandmaster Knight
Bannerlord MP isn't faring significantly better than Warband MP, and that's their 11-years-old previous title in the franchise. MP certainly can still die for BL as it has been hanging by a thread for months. Warband MP has as well, but the nature of that thread is different. For Warband it's entirely community involvement & enthusiasm that keeps it going, and has been for years. As long as there's someone who wants to host events, there will be Warband MP.

Bannerlord MP will live or die by TW's whim at this point. They are struggling to push significant changes to MP and have been for over a year. The players who would be keeping it alive for years are treading water, but eventually they will feel their efforts are not reciprocated and will move on. To call it a disaster is being kind, and to call it tragic is an understatement.

While the quality of work by TW is fine, what they choose to work on (or in some cases, not to work on) is holding this game back.
Agreed besides the last paragraph. The quality simply isn't there. The biggest update was the addition of a new game mode, and it really lacks in quality. It offers less freedom than the Ludus, a modded Warband server. Their balance patches didn't work at all, they just jumped from one issue to the other because of their class system and sometimes, they even came back to the previous issues by trying to solve the new ones.
Let's not even talk about the servers, that's the pinnacle of Taleworlds mediocrity.
 
Top Bottom