Battle vs Siege

[Gnjus]

BTW - Gnjus u r useless for team - just egoistic K/D ratio whore (I saw this many times on EU1) so stfu 

Yes ofc, egoistic K:D ratio whore who never actually had a ratio better than 2:1 on any of his chars, simply because (unlike some Heroes) instead of pumping my score on shieldless peasants I try to help my team win by going for heavy horses who don't count as kills, or key enemy marksmen no matter how far they are and no matter how many bolts I need to waste to get them. Bright logic as ever, my dear friend Harpag. Do you homework better before brainfarting next time.

[Fartface]

Yes ofc, egoistic K:D ratio whore who never actually had a ratio better than 2:1 on any of his chars, simply because (unlike some Heroes) instead of pumping my score on shieldless peasants I try to help my team win by going for heavy horses who don't count as kills, or key enemy marksmen no matter how far they are and no matter how many bolts I need to waste to get them. Bright logic as ever, my dear friend Harpag. Do you homework better before brainfarting next time.

I actualy find you to quite a nice player in my team, taking out key targets and having a good focus when doing so. Harpag always rushes head first and dies in melee before you even fired your first bolt.

[Ronin]

There are way too much infantry at this game, so the mod is tried to be balanced around them. This, I can understand to some degree. Infantry, by it's nature, is the least useful class in battle. Ranged can shoot from afar, cavalry has lots of space to outmanuever infantry. The only thing that an infantry can do is, to get close to the enemies to actually do something. Even then, infantry is at it's higher risk during that time; kinda encouraging him to play more safely somehow.

This is one of the contradictions I guess. Battle gamemode is a nightmare to infantry. It always been like this, even in other mods for me. I picked archer/cav for battle mostly, and infantry/archer for sieges mostly. When I try to play as cav in siege, I don't expect to be the dominant class. Same goes if I play as infantry in battle. It is both frustrating and challenging, in a good way somehow. That is one of the reasons why I choose siege gamemode when I want to bash some skulls, and choose battle-gamemode when I want to play differently.

What I don't understand is, why you keep insisting on playing battle as infantry and suggest that the gamemode should be balanced around it? Changing the gamemode to something else (for example, with earlier MoTF spawns, is one of the brilliant ideas) can be a better solution. Or you are free to change your class whenever you want to whatever you want. Wanna play battle? You fail as infantry and see cav/ranged as easy mode? You can simply change your class. There are ways for a cavalry to be useful in siege and for an infantry to be useful in battle, especially with the current balance.

I must also confess that I mostly suck at battle-gamemode. But I didn't really see much teamplay in it from other players. People are just randomly roaming around. For me, it is a much more gamemode with an objective in mind. One of the most obvious examples is, protecting your fellow infantrymen from cavalry as a spearman. I see Infantry's objective is to be anvil, not hammer. At least in the starting phase. If you don't want to be an anvil, pick a "hammer" class.

[Molly]

Why balance the game around Infantry? Rather simple... cuz those fighting mechanics is what makes the game special.

Archery/Xbow is the same mechanic as in every shooter really, point and release.
Horses are hardly innovative, more or less the same as most racing games if you think about it.

The only thing that makes M&B different compared to other games is the melee combat. Simple really...

[Angantyr]

Battle for real play, siege for unserious, random fun whilst listening to music, making dinner, eating or for when my girl friend just can't stop bothering me while I'm playing battle.

[Varadin]

After reading this, Most of forum community prefer battle, which is ok, but , they seem to spit so hard on siege and it seems like everyone who says that they play on eu 1 are literally saying they are hardcore pros , Someone said you dont have to use brain in eu 2, well i personally know quite a good guys on eu 2 , probably better than 90% of eu 1 players , but lets not fight people , we should spread love <3

[Ronin]

Why balance the game around Infantry? Rather simple... cuz those fighting mechanics is what makes the game special.

Archery/Xbow is the same mechanic as in every shooter really, point and release.
Horses are hardly innovative, more or less the same as most racing games if you think about it.

The only thing that makes M&B different compared to other games is the melee combat. Simple really...

Not really.

I think all three are unique in their own way.

Melee Combat: you all know

Ranged Combat: There is the crossair factor. It is important how close/spread it is. There is also the missile speed factor. Every type of ranged weapon has different uses and different ways to master. What is needed for all 3 is you need to aim well. You also need good timing with bows but they can be shot more repeatedly compared to crossbows. Throwing is a very different game, even if not completely different. Every weapon has different missile speed, making it a bit different than the others. In short, there are a lot of factors to take in mind just to shoot accurately as much as possible. Ranged classes also need to be played differently than each other and other classes too, such as positioning etc.
Calling all these "point and release" only means you don't know much about it. Then I suggest playing it more thoroughly, you are missing at least 1/3 of the game.

Mounted Combat: racing games? come on! It is just another unique part of the game. It is really hard to explain this for me, so I suggest playing it thoroughly too if you haven't already. Because you sound like you didn't really give it much of a chance. What I can say is, horses are much more vulnerable to missiles and most of the teammates refuse to teamplay with cavalry for some odd reason. Because of that, it was extremely frustrating for me; so I stopped playing cavalry. I'm probably not the best person to describe this.

Bonus
Mounted Ranged Combat: A mixture of the two previous. Arguably it is one of the easiest classes to play, but might actually be one of the hardest to master (to make a reliable impact on the game). I find my aiming to be worse in horseback compared to aiming on foot. It can be also hard both managing to aim well and handling a horse at the same time. It is not very counterable but it also has comparably low damage potential and requires comparably more skills to master. I think drossbows are easier to control than bows because bows also require careful timing and it is a bit weird to shoot with bows on horseback. They are also the king of kiting by their very nature, which is of course annoying.

[Molly]

You can produce as many WoT as you like:

The fact stands that the melee combat is to most demanding part in this game and the most special one.

Range is aim - shoot - adjust - aim - shoot... like every single FPS out there. Every shooter has different weapons which handle differently. No difference to archery.

I play a lot of HA lately and yes, it is like a racing car. You accelerate, you break, you turn left, you turn right. Nothing different to other racing games. Lancer cav is probably a class you could even play with a gamepad!

So... 4 directional combat is the outstanding game mechanic of M&B. That's the reason why it should be considered a priority.

[Prpavi]

Why balance the game around Infantry? Rather simple... cuz those fighting mechanics is what makes the game special.

Archery/Xbow is the same mechanic as in every shooter really, point and release.
Horses are hardly innovative, more or less the same as most racing games if you think about it.

The only thing that makes M&B different compared to other games is the melee combat. Simple really...

How about HA? They are quite special 

[Corwin]

Or horse/xbow, my new favorite class...

[Molly]

How about HA? They are quite special 

Special in a way only a mother can love, yes.

[Leshma]

After reading this, Most of forum community prefer battle, which is ok, but , they seem to spit so hard on siege and it seems like everyone who says that they play on eu 1 are literally saying they are hardcore pros , Someone said you dont have to use brain in eu 2, well i personally know quite a good guys on eu 2 , probably better than 90% of eu 1 players , but lets not fight people , we should spread love <3

That's because k/d from battle is shown on site while k/d from siege is not. People do care about stuff like that, even though most won't admit it.

Some players are used to battle mode, because it gave bigger reward XP and gold wise. But since valour got implemented it's fairly easy to keep multi on siege, even if your team is losing. I think majority of players aren't aware of this or they just have a bad build for siege (to get a lot of points, it's best to have ton of armor and HP or be a shielder).

[Fips]

Siege -> DTV - > Battle

I play siege most of the times because i enjoy to play with mah yellow buddies and kill ze grey horde, also when i want to play cRPG i want to play it, not die within 2 or 3 minutes by ranged or cav bumpslashing me and then wait for some HA or HX to be their class, only play battle more often when i'm xbow, archer or cav myself. And nowadays i hate battle so much that i rather spend some time on dtv and chill out killing bots. Last time i played battle for more than 1 round is quite some time ago.

[bavvoz]

I dont think battle is more "pro". Im a casual player playing because its fun and im fully aware that theres ALOT of more skilled players than myself in every gamemode. What makes battle more interesting is that i have to calculate the risks more coz if i fail i have to pay more for it

[Ronin]

You can produce as many WoT as you like:

The fact stands that the melee combat is to most demanding part in this game and the most special one.

Range is aim - shoot - adjust - aim - shoot... like every single FPS out there. Every shooter has different weapons which handle differently. No difference to archery.

I play a lot of HA lately and yes, it is like a racing car. You accelerate, you break, you turn left, you turn right. Nothing different to other racing games. Lancer cav is probably a class you could even play with a gamepad!

So... 4 directional combat is the outstanding game mechanic of M&B. That's the reason why it should be considered a priority.

Well ... yes. I can see your point. Hand to hand combat obviously is the most interesting of all 4 or 3 main playstyles. Yet I beg to differ about priorities, this doesn't make the other playstyles less of value in my eyes.

Besides, the game was actually built around this idea somehow. There are other gamemodes than battle, where hand to hand combat is of a priority.

Infantry is the dominant class in siege, for example. Cavalry is obviously very limited. Archers, while can be very good in defender side they are equally bad in attacker side. Plus, they can't the killing speed of the infantry. It is generally an infantry versus infantry fight, to capture strategically important places (gatehouse, flag, etc.). Even in native sieges, who wins the round is mainly decided by the factions and their focus in infantry (like infantry factions: nords, rhodoks).

Duel, it is commonly used for melee duels. It can be used for any kind of 1v1 combat though, but it is definitely the place to go if you want to enjoy a 1v1 scenario where your class has no disadvantages over a certain class (because they are the same class if you want them to be).

I am not mentioning the other gamemodes since we don't have them anymore; such are eu4 (the gamemode is battle, but I'd call this as "skirmish" as the pop was lower), rageball, commander mode, conquest. DTV is another story where the idea of balance is completely different.

Disclaimer: I'm not claiming that the gamemodes we have can not be improved. Siege is also more rewarding to tougher classes, and actually feels more like Team Deathmatch most of the time. This doesn't mean they can't be improved in some ways. My point is, there are different gamemodes for different classes to be more dominant. Still, on the other hand, no gamemode should give omnipotence to a certain class. That is fully agreed. And it is very close to that already, at the moment; if you ask me.