That would be some rather boring gameplay. Would force people into acting a certain way (flanking/loning would be next to useless), standing boots on flag would be really boring in Warband as a non-ranged class and battles would feel even more same-ey among other issues.
Who says that? We have three flags, most likely either one closer to each team and the third one in the middle. While most battles will be some "push gameplay" between flag A and B or B and C, flankers can very well surround the main battle and attack flag A or C in the back. And if all three flags are in the same distance of both spawn points, you have free choice where to go. And as infantry there is no need to stand next to a flag, once it is conquered. When you conquered you flag A you will rush off to flag B, you won't defend it unless you are really a fan of tactical gameplay and don't mind waiting, the archers and the cavalry will most likely be able to catch up lone wolves trying to sneak steal the flag, and bigger groups of enemies represent full scale maneuvers and should be countered by your entire team accordingly. If anything, I imagine it as more interesting than "Go and kill everybody. At least everybody you class is capable of.", with the clusterfuck in the middle and the little unorganized skirmishes around.
Ass-pull of the year.
Example: kiting. Kiting was a game mechanic which caused problems with other game mechanics, namely the objective in battle mode. The solution was a balancing one by nerfing archers, so that the heavy arrows do not only slow them down while kiting, but also restrict their footwork in melee. Fixing the kiting mechanic by fixing the game mode mechanic would also allow archers to be more mobile again and thus better in melee. Cavalry is another example, because with the current unorganized battle where you are only thrown onto a map without any instructions it is ridiculously easy to pick certain (for different reasons) unaware opponents. That's why cav suffered so many nerfs and is only a shadow of its former self. Most players being focused on flags -> less single targets -> more difficult to make kills -> room for a buff -> more toughness for horses -> cav being finally the counter to archers again.
Hey commander!
Why should I be punished for not following the directives of some self-important douche not chosen by me?
Let the players play the game their way, pubs are pubs. They're not there for super-serious gaming imo.
2 tips: JOIN A CLAN and USE TS.
You are not being punished in any way. You just don't get additional rewards, and even this is something I only consider a temporarily necessary measurement to get the pubs working together. Once they are used to they should hopefully recognize the real reward of teamplay: won rounds. That's the point where you can remove the rewards again. The random uninterested pubs are also the reason for my "you are in the system by default" statement. You can leave it whenever you want, but it will set back whenever you enter the server. I have to deactivate those super annoying sound messages every time I join the server, so what? That way everybody can play the game he wants to, but those who want to play with tactics finally get the tool they need for doing so. That's all.
No wait, another challenger appears!
Same argumentation like for the changed battle mode. A more concrete objective than "kill everybody you see" will let the players focus on the same target, apply similar behaviour, play more together in the process and thus change the effectivity of certain class playstyles which definitely influenced the applied balancing.
Pikemen don't counter cav.
While it is annoying to fight stacks, this sounds like way too complicated a solution.
And how would you check if someone is a pikeman and not a short spear user? if you could, wouldn't people just switch their equipment around to get on the winning/annoying to fight team?
Pikemen don't really counter cav, agreed, but they block them. And if there are many pikemen around, cav is blocked more. When fighting GKs I would rather have more than less pikemen around me.
And I don't see where the solution is complicated. All I want is a) not one team getting all the cav or archers and the other team getting nothing, and b) one pub team having to fight a big clan stack.
And if people switched their equipment they would also switch their effectivity against certain classes, which would change their effectivity against a certain enemy team composition. If they get team switched in the process, the balance is reestablished again, at least in a perfect world. If the pikeman switches to short spear, he doesn't count as much any more against the enemy team full of GKs. Which means the GK team is being considered stronger than before. If anything, this will result in one member of the GK team being switched to the other team. Perhaps the short spear user will be switched in exchange, if the "effectivity difference" is less than a full player, but in theory things should remain fair. Depends on the code, of course. There are not many classes which can disturb the calculation anyway, I think polearms are the only ones.
I find your use of the word "proper"amusing.
I can see some pretty bad stuff happening if this is implemented. Asuming score is based on damage in some form or another, there would probably be a surge of "3 stacks of arrows HA" and stuff like that who could farm the system delaying rounds. Also, if this is implemented alongside your conquest idea (which I assume is your thought) then that would force people down an even more linear path assuming score is tied to completing objectives.
Indeed it is tied to the conquest idea, which would already make prolonging impossible. Damage is taken into consideration, but conquering flags is as well. And you can still win the map by killing all enemies, so you are free to roam the flanks as you did before. If you managed to kill all loners on your flank you helped your team pretty much.
The valour system rewards those who excel, and it's good enough imho.
I would like a more linear rewards which is proportional to your performance. Not something like "under this value you get nothing, above you get something", that's too plain. Valour can stay as a message for e-peens, though.
Good concept, but there are some apparent problems:
Firstly, you're not solving the problem with equipment restrictions; you're making it worse.
For the wealth skill to have any point to it you'd have to have distinct tiers of better/worse gear. And while you could wear the gear you want, if you want to wear something of a higher/lower teir, or there's an item balance path your build will suddenly be sub-optimal if not useless.
Therefore while any player can wear any gear, they will be forced to build their build (not intended) around their gear and as such cannot swittch it around.
Going with cheaper gear for a little while to gain some gold in order not to go broke from upkeep is easy, changing your entire build is super-awkward and time-consuming.
Also, some people don't like to grind (me being one of them), and amplifying that part of c-rpg is not necessarily good.
Well, yes, it shouldn't degenerate to pure grinding/farming, but players who are chasing looms are doing nothing different right now. I would see it rather as "character progression" than as grinding. Most players just play the game, anyway. But having some progression is an essential part of RPGs, but with the current state you get all the equipment you need for your build during the first generation, and then all there is is loom point farming. So I don't know what you are complaining about.
And you are right about wearing lower tier equipment, but honestly, I don't consider that as an argument against the suggestion. You either do that to give yourself a handicap, like those "swashbucklers" do, which can't be considered, or you do it because the cheaper equipment (pike instead of elegant poleaxe against GK stack, for example, or heavy maul instead of flamberge for holding a tower) makes more sense at the moment, and that's not what I would call "being sub-optimal if not useless.
Bullshit.
The effect of armor only increases as you get more of it. Fully-loomed plate monsters are incredibly tough to kill compared to medium-armored foes.
Also light armor isn't useless at all. I wear a 30-armor helmet and it's a huge difference compared to no helmet or Deli Cap (buff Deli Cap!)
The main reason people use medium armor is because it fall in line nicely with a manageable upkeep while offering decent protection and not making you slow as balls (boring!). Armor balance seems pretty fine to me atm. Most infantry use medium armor while a minority goes to either extreme.
I think head armour is a bad example, because you suffer additional damage when being hit unprotected, and the effects look much bigger. And 30 armour is already something I'd consider medium armour, because you have a lot of leather or padded armour with values like 22 or 25. And there the protection effect is almost not existant.
And you said it yourself: many players use medium armour because of upkeep. Which means it was not the internal balance which led to their decision. I prefer players chosing medium armour for the reason you said, being a good compromise between protection and mobility. But if for exampe all armour weight values except of those of light armour get improved a bit, and the protection of light armour gets buffed as well, you would suddenly have a viable option for melee to go for light armour: having increased mobility. With the current state of the game such an (viable) option doesn't exist.
No. Heavy cav is rare, well because it should be rare.
Why that? If all classes are balanced none of them should be rare.
This is not using reality arguments, but I can't imagine playing nice medieval battles without heavy cav.
Sure throwers have some "ugly" mechanics but look at cav! Bumps - skill-less bullshit. Bump-slash/lance annoys people with short weapons to no end. Rape-trains: Aaaarggh! Rage!
Most people being around the flag and often being in "defend"-stance makes life for cav more difficut.
