I backed the game.

[gallemore]

I found out about this game today, and am glad that you guys are taking it to the next level. I decided to back the game for the $33 package. I haven't played C-RPG since I've been in Korea, but I hope you guys are succesful. You deserve all the best for the free work you put into this game. Good luck!

[Umbra]

A real human bean

[gallemore]

http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/2pw4rh/melee_battlegroundsa_kickstarter_game_and_the/


Go to this link to upvote it. I am trying to get a bit of publicity for this game.

[SirCymro_Crusader]

.

[POOPHAMMER]

I backed it as well on the first day of the KS, but it sadly did not reach the goal sad days, wanted to see it happen but just seems like they did not have the publicity they needed first time around.

Maybe the second shot they can get all their ducks in a row

[Aldaron]

I also backed the game, with quite a lot of money .

I'd put in even more money, if the game engine could be opensourced / licensed to me .

[Joker86]

I backed it as well on the first day of the KS, but it sadly did not reach the goal sad days, wanted to see it happen but just seems like they did not have the publicity they needed first time around.

Maybe the second shot they can get all their ducks in a row

But they didn't get even close to their goal, they merely reached a third of what was planned. Do you think a second shot would have higher chances of success?

Since the release of M&B back then there have been a lot of melee games out there, Chivalry, War of Roses, War of the Vikings, Life is Feudal, Gloria Victis, etc., the "attack or block on click" melee system is already pretty common, and I think the devs need to come up with something more special than a game mode where you build castles. The idea itself is quite nice, but apparently it's not THAT popular. I don't know. Perhaps the presentation wasn't just that good.

[Byrdi]

But they didn't get even close to their goal, they merely reached a third of what was planned. Do you think a second shot would have higher chances of success?

Since the release of M&B back then there have been a lot of melee games out there, Chivalry, War of Roses, War of the Vikings, Life is Feudal, Gloria Victis, etc., the "attack or block on click" melee system is already pretty common, and I think the devs need to come up with something more special than a game mode where you build castles. The idea itself is quite nice, but apparently it's not THAT popular. I don't know. Perhaps the presentation wasn't just that good.

Don't forget that their original goal was 90k until the community (including myself) succeeded in making them raise the goal.
EDIT: my bad you can't know since that discussion was in the "early backer" forum

I don't know if they will actually be able to make the game with just 90k. Though if the goal was 90k then we actually got a little over half of the money.

I still don't think that making a new KS would work though
You are right about the game not looking special. The problem is that people don't know the things we do about the Donkey Crew and what they are capable of

[Joker86]

I think with things like Kingdom Come: Deliverance around, it's really difficult to look appealing. And to be honest, I didn't back the game myself either, because I don't find this heavy focus on skill so appealing. It's more a dueling simulator than a real battle simulator. There is no real need for tactics or something like that, in the end just being skilled counts, they even advertise it like that, and I think that's a pity. In Medieval 2 I have already won battles where I have been outnumbered by a way bigger AND stronger force, but by somehow managing to get one of my weak units in the back of the stronger enemies which were fighting me uphill I managed to cause panic which due to a chain effect resulted in a mass panic and I ended up as a winner, having slaughtered 12 units of dismounted knights with 9 units of my town militia. This is actually what makes battles interesting for me, not the particular dueling. So if the game had a feature where big formations of NPCs with player controlled leaders would clash together, and where that "dueling" would be embedded into a system of fighting in formation alongside your NPCs or friends, with a morale system and all, things would look different for me. But I guess I am just asking for a totally different game here. But maybe my feedback can come in useful, perhaps I represent a bigger part of the target group than you or me would think, or perhaps I can give some inspiration?

Anyway, the devs have my sympathies for that failure, and I hope they don't get demotivated. God knows I was ranting against their decisions and their game design choices (if they even made any  ), but many people loved it how it was, so in the end they must have done something right. I hope they don't give up, and I wish them all best for the future. Even the biggest success usually starts with a failure.

[Daantje]

blub

[Glyph]

I remember that back when WotR was announced, a lot of the focus was on the things which set it aside from other games alike. For example the mini-games which were embedded into the ranged weaponry(so no random shots would be fired as is the case in M&B), they also put their spotlights on the incredible accurate hit registration(which in M&B sucks). Overall polish was also a big thing, again missing from M&B. They didn't actually mention the things that were missing in the competition's games but managed to get an excited audience anyway. Melee needs to have more things setting it aside from the things we already have, stronghold is one of them, 360* combat is also a point(but might scare people off because it sounds so hard to control, which is also being emphasised by the devs in the video) and the big ass scale is alos great, but I feel that there could be more focus on more new and innovative features.
Make people drool over the immense sieges that take place: give them goosebumps from seeing fifty players form a shieldwall to protect the archers, let them see a siege tower full of fierce warriors jump over the wall and wreck havoc, see how awsome a mass cavalry charge can be(and how scary if you're targeted by one), let countless arrows fly passt a characters ears. give emotion to the clips you guys make. That is the reason I bought M&B in the first place, I got so excited to possibly be one of the guys jumping over the battlements the brutally slaughter the archers scum hiding behind them, show emotion in the clips, I think that is key. Unfortunately, is this stage of the developement it is very difficult to make someone feel that fire start to burn deep inside them, because it is so early on. After having seen al the clips you guys made, my opinion is that everything still looks very bland and not smooth, the game needs polishing.
Maybe to show the press some good stuff, try getting one aspect of the game right first, for example 2h duelling, polish it up realy nice, get those specific animations up to a high standard, realise a very small map to go with it, get one specific set of armor out(again, really good one) and let people have a go, this way some vids can alreay be made by some populair youtubers, you get a response on the 360* combat and if done correctly, you might be able to get money out if it. The thing is, imo you guys are doing so many different things at a time, no single part of the game has a really good version of it.

[Xant]

perhaps I represent a bigger part of the target group than you or me would think, or perhaps I can give some inspiration?

Or perhaps you're just clueless. Tactics matter in M&B and they would matter in M:BG. Obviously. Just like in your gay example of Medieval 2, those knights are "more skilled" than your peasants, yet by flanking you could kill them. Skill does not make you invincible to flanking in M:BG either...

[Joker86]

Or perhaps you're just clueless. Tactics matter in M&B and they would matter in M:BG. Obviously. Just like in your gay example of Medieval 2, those knights are "more skilled" than your peasants, yet by flanking you could kill them. Skill does not make you invincible to flanking in M:BG either...

Yeah and it's as much a feature as in Medieval 2 with morale and such, yeah...

Tactics and flanking do matter, but only to a tiny extent, compared to M2:TW. Skill is of like 80-90% importance in cRPG, which is way over the top for my personal taste. 51% at the max it should be for me.

Anyway, enough on this topic because all it would turn into is a discussion about whose favourite wish game was the best. I stated my personal, subjective and biased opinion, and I am done. Feel free to disagree if you want, and feel also free to post it here. Just please stop insulting, because I think as long as I got a point there is no need to call my examples gay. M2:TW has mechanics for formations, unit cohesion, flanking, higher ground, stamina and for morale, cRPG/M:BG does not, and you can't deny that.

[Xant]

M2TW has those features because the AI is in control of each unit and each man in the unit. They are not necessary for cRPG or MBG, because each character is controlled by a player. On the contrary, it would be incredibly gay to have the game tell me that I am "panicked" or that the "unit cohesion" of my group is lacking because of artificial thing X.

[Joker86]

M2TW has those features because the AI is in control of each unit and each man in the unit. They are not necessary for cRPG or MBG, because each character is controlled by a player. On the contrary, it would be incredibly gay to have the game tell me that I am "panicked" or that the "unit cohesion" of my group is lacking because of artificial thing X.

Then how do you simulate people being in fear of dying? I understand and agree that a dumb message or a bar lowering to zero would be kinda lame, but that suicidal lemming rambo behaviour has to stop in order to create a proper battle.