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

[EbdanianAdmiral]

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.

Make gold not carry over between rounds. Set it to best of 3 for each set. You have 500 gold total with no way to gain extra gold. Battle now works with class system. The same class balance and decision making exists, but it is now over multiple rounds instead of multiple times per round.

I probably just stumbled my way into the system for the single life mode thats currently being worked on.

Alternatively, just do the thing everyone is begging Taleworlds to do and make different class balance for different gamemodes.

 

[Kulgrinda Košmarjus]

With the class system, I just don't see how it could feel anywhere near as rewarding to play in all honesty.

Well, say a Battle would be best of 7 rounds (so in theory 4:3 would be a longest match). First round could be random to accomodate the following rough team composition randomly or on a first come first serve basis:
30% of the players peasants, 15% archers, 30% infantry, 10% medium heavy inf 5% heavy cav, 10% light cav (adjust these numbers for each culture separately, i.e. sturgia gets more inf, less cav, battania more archers, less cav, etc.).
Now the "reward" feeling would come if you perform well enough during the battle, you get to switch to a class of your choosing or keep your current class if you're happy with it. If you want to be an archer - go ahead be an archer again, or if you want to be heavy cav you had to perform really well, better than all other players on your team. If you don't do well - puff you're peasant again. And the threshold of "doing good" would be lower for peasants than for other classes. There was something similar done in other games, so it's nothing new really, but a battle mode is the most desired mode in bannerlord, the spine of warband, and not having it yet at this point in EA feels half-assed weird.

 

[Callum]

First round could be random to accomodate the following rough team composition randomly or on a first come first serve basis:
30% of the players peasants, 15% archers, 30% infantry, 10% medium heavy inf 5% heavy cav, 10% light cav (adjust these numbers for each culture separately, i.e. sturgia gets more inf, less cav, battania more archers, less cav, etc.).

I think that restrictions like this in games just serve to cause infighting and resentment between teammates which can quickly escalate into trolling and abuse. **You suck with the sniper, let me use it...**

 

[Mabons]

Make gold not carry over between rounds. Set it to best of 3 for each set. You have 500 gold total with no way to gain extra gold. Battle now works with class system. The same class balance and decision making exists, but it is now over multiple rounds instead of multiple times per round.

I probably just stumbled my way into the system for the single life mode thats currently being worked on.

Alternatively, just do the thing everyone is begging Taleworlds to do and make different class balance for different gamemodes.

This is the best way, 500 gold is enough for 2 rounds as 180 heavy cav and 1 round as 130 light cav, and that's the most expensive class(by class I mean inf/arch/cav).

 

[Lord Bryggan]

If siege was the favourite in Warband it obviously isn't the favourite here.

Siege here feels more like TDM due to the many access points and the fact the defenders permanently lose flags. Cav wasn't that viable in Warband unless you had the gate open, which led to exciting fights against for the gatehouse.

But for battle, if they are going to stick to the class system, I think a couple respawns might be viable like skirmish, but without gold being carried over (to prevent snowballing).

Oh, and add field maps. Cav is too powerful in towns (which is backwards).

 

[Sidhwen_Khorest]

I think that restrictions like this in games just serve to cause infighting and resentment between teammates which can quickly escalate into trolling and abuse. **You suck with the sniper, let me use it...**

Definitely agree, Overwatch restricted itself early on this way too, so teams cant have duplicate heros, game immediately went from silly team shooter to flaming tilt-a-whirl of angry teammates. plus having the choice is fun because you could do something stupid like all peasants or all horse archers.

 

[Brandis.]

Definitely agree, Overwatch restricted itself early on this way too, so teams cant have duplicate heros, game immediately went from silly team shooter to flaming tilt-a-whirl of angry teammates. plus having the choice is fun because you could do something stupid like all peasants or all horse archers.

That change was overwhelmingly regarded as a good move, along with enforced 2-2-2. I can't think of a worse example.

Obviously Bannerlord shouldn't have such restrictions.

 

[Sidhwen_Khorest]

That change was overwhelmingly regarded as a good move, along with enforced 2-2-2. I can't think of a worse example.

Removing the ability to run 6 Winstons is regarded as a bad move by at least one person (me), at the risk of being too off topic.

I guess that's the problem with analogies though. I'm just saying I agree with callum's statement.

 

[Kulgrinda Košmarjus]

I think that restrictions like this in games just serve to cause infighting and resentment between teammates which can quickly escalate into trolling and abuse. **You suck with the sniper, let me use it...**

I think you played with too many angry kids At the same time I wonder how old is an average Bannerlord player...
Also Warband had this class restriction (or am I confusing it with Vikingr mod, im lost now), there were set slots for archers/light cav/heavy cav everyone else was inf. But warband had item progression for performing well, and for a class system with instant access to all loadouts I am simply offering a viable solution to reward a player for doing his role well in a battle, and vice versa. At the same time, in battle, isn't winning a match the satisfaction a player is after? Must we really let a player get a better armor/sword/class every round?

 

[Elbromas]

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

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!

Callum people dont want organized events, the beauty of battle was that you could join any time and feel like you were in an actual battleground. TDM is fine but it doenst have the same feel, its just spawn and murder everyone, the actual fun of TDM is trying to stay alive while you glitch yourself through the maps with a bunch of random people.

 

[FearSpear]

That change was overwhelmingly regarded as a good move, along with enforced 2-2-2. I can't think of a worse example.

Obviously Bannerlord shouldn't have such restrictions.

Enforced 2-2-2 was a pretty lazy alternative to correctly balancing their heroes to be fair, as would an enforced class limit be instead of Taleworlds correctly balancing their classes/combat system.

 

[method man]

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 was thinking about this comment, and then realized something. You just acknowledged that the widely despised class system killed a popular gamemode. This, in a thread that analyzes how skirmish is broken by design (and inferior to battle). Many of its stated problems, upon inspection, are caused by design constraints that classes imposed. You guys have literally created a **** system and let it kill the good parts of your game. LOL

Here's your medal, TW:

 

[Elbromas]

Yeah, at this point its impossible not to realize they have screwed up. I feel sympathy for the team that pushed this class system, maybe they really wanted to bring something new that will attract new players, they really thought they could make a system out for both the old and the new fans, a system to make ranked games because that is what popular now. But... not only its bad on its own, it actually shattered the community of old players, they even went back to Warband and made a new league there because on how little attention the devs payed to them when making Bannerlord. Yeah, combat parameters are cool but nothing will bring back the beauty of battle mode. Not even siege, siege is not the same as battle, even if some poll with some members of some communities says "siege is the most fun" we all know deep down that battle had this game covered quite well. Poor fellas, they've tried very hard, people are not leaving Bannerlord because its unbalanced or bugged, even though, it is, its because this system its not fun, we would see double the numbers if they had just brung what we had, but whatever im repeating myself at this point, mods will take care of this, in fact they're already being planned. What a shame, what a waste of potential.

 

[KSHMR]

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

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!

The concept for battle mode could be as follows. You start with a certain amount of gold in the first round, an amount that allows to take light and medium classes. This way, 1 cav class will be unlocked and also archer and heavy inf should be an option! If you lose first round, you stay low on money. If you win, you get to go heavy classes like cav and heavy archer. The whole point is that heavy inf should in my opinion be the foundation in battle but since there would be no progression if people can take it instantly in first round it doesnt make much sense. The lack of medium class infantry needs to be addressed to improve this. Make each class progressable for battle. This, along with more/better perks, could work quite well.

 

[Mabons]

The concept for battle mode could be as follows. You start with a certain amount of gold in the first round, an amount that allows to take light and medium classes. This way, 1 cav class will be unlocked and also archer and heavy inf should be an option! If you lose first round, you stay low on money. If you win, you get to go heavy classes like cav and heavy archer. The whole point is that heavy inf should in my opinion be the foundation in battle but since there would be no progression if people can take it instantly in first round it doesnt make much sense. The lack of medium class infantry needs to be addressed to improve this. Make each class progressable for battle. This, along with more/better perks, could work quite well.

No can do, that leads to snowballing and that is a big no no for Taleworlds.

Eb's system is the best.

 

[Aura (Zaffa)]

@Callum

I strongly disagree that Battle can't work with Bannerlord's class system and that there can be no feeling of reward with the removal of gold bonuses.

I posted this some time ago, but reposting here as I feel it is relavent.

It is my opinion that battle can work even with the class system imposed by bannerlord (although classes would obviously have to be tweaked for parity reasons to account for single life).

For those who are unfamiliar with Battle in Warband, Battle was usually played between teams of 7 or 8 players. The round time would be set to 3 minutes 30 seconds. At 2 minutes, a flag would randomly spawn would from one of three possible options ("Round Flag"), with the winner of the round going to the team that either A) captured the Round Flag by standing on it uncontested for a period of time,B) had achieved more progress in the capture of the Round Flag by the end of the round, or C) killed all members of the opposing team.

This system had various problems.The first of these problems is that rounds would often stagnate for the first minute and a half, with neither team engaging in combat with the other until the Round Flag spawned. Another problem is that large portions of the map would go non-utilized. This is because the ideal strategy often involved putting your entire team on one of the three possible Round Flag spawn locations and hoping that the Round Flag spawned on the selected location.

My Proposal:

My proposal uses the same frame work as Warband to the extent that matches would have a round timer of 3 min and 30 seconds with a Round Flag spawning at 2 min.

However, unlike in Warband, rounds would start with three flags ("Objective Flags") already spawned. Teams would have the option to compete over these flags for the first 1 minute 30 seconds of each round. At the 2 minute mark, the Objective Flags would despawn and teams would receive bonuses towards the next round depending on which Objective Flags they controlled. (E.g. One Objective Flag would give extra movement speed, one Objective Flag would give extra armor, one Objective Flag would give extra health).

At that point, the round would continue as it does in Warband, with the Round Flag spawning, and teams fighting over its control.

In theory, this system would maintain the Battle mode that people enjoyed in Warband, while fixing several issues it had, as discussed above.

I would recommend that the team size for this mode be set at either 7 or 8 players, though this number would ultimately be subject to testing by the community. I would also recommend that that possible Round Flag spawns be different from possible Objective Flag spawns.

 

[Younes]

7-8 for battle wtf is this

 

[Piconi]

What i really want is at least a tiny bit of Singleplayer battles scope , but in Multiplayer.
120-200 player single life battles on an open battlefield (or beside a small village).
Massive multiplayer battles (that aren't sieges) should be focus of the multiplayer in the long run, which would together with aforementioned sieges keep many players engaged for a long time.

 

[Aura (Zaffa)]

7-8 for battle wtf is this

The main competitive game mode for Warband. Not everyone liked to roleplay line battles.

Check every single Warband tourney thread. Not one of them had more than 8 players.

Edit: obviously there would be custom pub servers with 30 v 30. I am merely talking about the competitive variant of the game mode.

 

[Younes]

The main competitive game mode for Warband. Not everyone liked to roleplay line battles.

Check every single Warband tourney thread. Not one of them had more than 8 players.

Edit: obviously there would be custom pub servers with 30 v 30. I am merely talking about the competitive variant of the game mode.

That's what skirmish is for.
Thanks for edit for clarifying i thought u meant 8v8 hardcoded battle all around