MP Why TW should get Battle servers ASAP (effortpost inbound)

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
.Brandis said:
No game has perfect MM despite everyone complaining about it in every game ever.

However, MM is always better than completely random teams. Even if you had 4 players in queue, MM would improve it. The top two would play and the bottom two would play.

A battle custom server would end up exactly how you would expect: new players bottomfeed and can't get into the game.
Click to expand...
As a warband mp player who got into the game via battle gamemode, yes yes I was on the bottom but that was ok since the server I played on huge groups of players working together and made it a fun experince, also for example in CSGO the difference between a silver one and three is huge but that is the bottom 12% of the playerbase still. But as a silver 3 I was winning matches in tournments against Legendary Eagle teams which is top 20% usally towards the top of the leaderboard in these matches. Match making systems in many games are broken but the best one was in Overwatch in my experience. Also when I got to silver 4 I won I belive 12-13 games in a row so that was fun. Battle though was fun because it was big and huge and the servers I played on were organized all the cav followed a cav leader and the inf followed a inf leader.
 
Surely everyone could have a ranking then one team would get the best player the other the 2nd best the other the 3rd best etc?
 
Excelent post, this should also go into the feedback section as top curated post and handed to the design team.
I remember my first time in Warband Multiplayer, I got into the community because there was a massive amount of players and clans playing together a cool battle mode, eventually I was making friends just by holding my shield next to 5 guys and afterwards I was joining a clan and training, I had a reason to keep joining because even if I was bad I was part of something, a little soldier in the big scheme. I really dont see that happen in skimrish, where if you're a newb you get crushed instantly by exploiters and good players, where if you die you spawn alone and have to run to where your teammates are and most probably die on your way there. Skimrish is utterly frustrating and 80% of the games end up 3-0. Bring back battle mode, for once Taleworlds listen to your community.
 
For a new or incompetent player battles are awesome. You can still be very helpful to your team even if you suck. Just turtling up with a shield will give your better teammates some cover, or just dancing around an enemy to distract them (they don't know you are useless), or having 3 or 4 enemies chasing you takes them out of the fight for a few minutes.

It seems BannerLord was built for Battle Mode (except it needs a localized voice chat). I was always against shield walls in Warband, but with upper and lower stabs and shield blocks it would make them effective but not boring. Two handers could try exploit weak spots in the shield wall or battle for the flanks. Archers could try flank for more damage but be at greater risk from Cav. And cav could fight for the flanks or try charge the ranged.

Of course such tactics would be for clan battles, where the players are a little more disciplined. But pub games would be fun too. Being a scrub sucks, but just being a part and following a group of good players is great fun, especially if you get a lucky stab in here and there.
 
Lord Bryggan said:
For a new or incompetent player battles are awesome. You can still be very helpful to your team even if you suck. Just turtling up with a shield will give your better teammates some cover, or just dancing around an enemy to distract them (they don't know you are useless), or having 3 or 4 enemies chasing you takes them out of the fight for a few minutes.

It seems BannerLord was built for Battle Mode (except it needs a localized voice chat). I was always against shield walls in Warband, but with upper and lower stabs and shield blocks it would make them effective but not boring. Two handers could try exploit weak spots in the shield wall or battle for the flanks. Archers could try flank for more damage but be at greater risk from Cav. And cav could fight for the flanks or try charge the ranged.

Of course such tactics would be for clan battles, where the players are a little more disciplined. But pub games would be fun too. Being a scrub sucks, but just being a part and following a group of good players is great fun, especially if you get a lucky stab in here and there.
Click to expand...

Shield walls are utterly ineffective in clan battles.
 
HancockT35 said:
Cause you JUST go around it lol.
Click to expand...

Even if it was head on, it makes one team very predictable in terms of movement. It does look awesome in roleplay line battles though, and those videos and things draw people to play MP in the first place.

It's just been brought up throughout warband and apparently now bannerlord as a "good clan strategy" when it's hilariously ineffective for actual combat.
 
.Brandis said:
Even if it was head on, it makes one team very predictable in terms of movement. It does look awesome in roleplay line battles though, and those videos and things draw people to play MP in the first place.

It's just been brought up throughout warband and apparently now bannerlord as a "good clan strategy" when it's hilariously ineffective for actual combat.
Click to expand...

Rumor has it that if we all walk in a predictable straight line while facing the same direction it will be harder for archers to hit us
 
I've never seen it attempted in Bannerlord so am just guessing. In Warband a shield wall was useless because once you took a swing you were wide open. Advancing behind a shield wall definitely helped against arrows though.

Of course in Bannerlord there are no field maps, and cavalry right now could probably plough through unhindered.

But most of my experience is from cRPG strat mod. I'm not sure why predictability is bad. Our movement was toward the enemy spawn point. In a well balanced game it was shielders and less skilled fighters in the center, extremely good players on forward flanks, ranged behind while cav fought each other or went for archers or lone soldiers.

And yeah, going around a flank is an objective. Killing someone from behind is easier, but you try have people to stop that, or you pull back.

But as far as Bannerlord is concerned, this is all in my head. Captain mode doesn't teach us anything since the units there only use their shields for arrows and refuse to play defensively. But I'm sure once battle mode becomes a reality, clans will experiment.

And I hope shield walls become viable, since as Brandis says, it looks awesome, plus it's a great place for new and/or incompetent players.
 
I played battle pretty much exclusively in Warband (apart from the odd siege here and there) and absolutely love the tension and excitement that comes from having a single life. However, that game mode worked hand-in-hand with the item/gear progression system of that game. With the class system, I just don't see how it could feel anywhere near as rewarding to play in all honesty.

I do think there is a place for a single life mode though, especially for larger organised events (shield wall/line battle etc.).
 
Callum said:
I played battle pretty much exclusively in Warband (apart from the odd siege here and there) and absolutely love the tension and excitement that comes from having a single life. However, that game mode worked hand-in-hand with the item/gear progression system of that game. With the class system, I just don't see how it could feel anywhere near as rewarding to play in all honesty.

I do think there is a place for a single life mode though, especially for larger organised events (shield wall/line battle etc.).
Click to expand...
Didnt Napoleonic had a class system and a battle mode included?
 
ZydrateTheSmoothCriminal said:
The entire MP aspect of the game did, although it sure could've used improvement.
Maybe it's time the developers changed their minds about the cursed class system?
Click to expand...
Wow so this flawed class system that no one wants doesnt work with the favorite multiplayer game mode, maaaaybe we should check our priorities dont we?
 
Elbromas said:
Didnt Napoleonic had a class system and a battle mode included?
Click to expand...

I didn't play too much of NW outside of line battles (the large events I mentioned above) so I couldn't really say how popular or not that game mode was on regular servers.

One thing I do know is that Siege (a game mode with respawns) was/is Warband's most liked game mode (and by some distance too according to the poll I created a couple of years ago and from monitoring server player counts every now and again).
 
Elbromas said:
Didnt Napoleonic had a class system and a battle mode included?
Click to expand...
There was little variation in choice of weapons (mostly muskets and if cavalry or if "support class" a sabre), granted there were some pretty flashy uniforms, and an average of 15 classes for each faction; Which is fine if you're going more for historical accuracy, but it doesn't translate well when applied to an early medieval setting, for obvious reasons.
 
ZydrateTheSmoothCriminal said:
There was little variation in choice of weapons (mostly muskets and if cavalry or if "support class" a sabre), granted there were some pretty flashy uniforms, and an average of 15 classes for each faction; Which is fine if you're going more for historical accuracy, but it doesn't translate well when applied to an early medieval setting, for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...
There was a very primitive class system as Zydrate points out; NW was never really about individual choice though and more about the large scale engagements.

Callum said:
I didn't play too much of NW outside of line battles (the large events I mentioned above) so I couldn't really say how popular or not that game mode was on regular servers.

One thing I do know is that Siege (a game mode with respawns) was/is Warband's most liked game mode (and by some distance too according to the poll I created a couple of years ago and from monitoring server player counts every now and again).
Click to expand...

Personally I much prefer Siege but battle was probably the 2nd most popular mode across NW and native and the one that had the most community events. Some sort of battle mode would be a massive boon to these groups (and man would it silence a chunk of the community who want it).
 
AxiosXiphos said:
Personally I much prefer Siege but battle was probably the 2nd most popular mode across NW and native and the one that had the most community events. Some sort of battle mode would be a massive boon to these groups (and man would it silence a chunk of the community who want it).
Click to expand...

Yeah, my poll and research on this also showed that battle was in second place. :smile:

And as I said in a previous reply, I do think there is a place for Battle (or some similar single-life mode), especially for larger organised events!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MP Please make Chamber Blocking Viable for Multiplayer
Replies
2
Views
85
k86
Multiplayer Suggestions
Replies
2
Views
135
k86
SP - Player, NPCs & Troops Combat pacing: Slowing down the infantry zerg rush; so that more advanced combat tactics and formations are more meaningful.
Replies
4
Views
139
k86
Back
Top Bottom