Thoughts about "mod is dying and keeping it alive"

[woody]

I think people need to just go back to playing for fun and not worrying about balance/k/d whatever. If its a laugh who cares if anything is op/up? Started playing a little bit again and Im enjoying it, lets not take it all too seriously.

[imisshotmail]

I think people need to just go back to playing for fun and not worrying about balance/k/d whatever. If its a laugh who cares if anything is op/up? Started playing a little bit again and Im enjoying it, lets not take it all too seriously.

crpg as it is now isn't a fun game to play(for most people i know). it's mostly decently balanced but that does not equate to fun.

every patch has made crpg a generally more balanced game but removed a lot of what made warband fun in the process, limiting turning based on weapon length and size in the long run probably helped for balance between weapons but in doing so it destroyed the fun of actually fighting with those same weapons. the desire for realism and balance has hurt the entertainment value of the game for no real benefits.
the balance changes that effected gameplay mechanics also cut the skill curve on both ends, the game became both easier for worse players, and removed many of the things good players used (or abused if you're a bad and want to call it that) that set them apart from the rest of the pack.

theres no fun left to be had in crpg anymore, and its purely due to bad decisions from the development team. if they can take a game with the most fun gameplay of any i've played and turn it into this, there is no hope their new game to be even close to good.

[lombardsoup]

crpg as it is now isn't a fun game to play(for most people i know). it's mostly decently balanced but that does not equate to fun.

every patch has made crpg a generally more balanced game but removed a lot of what made warband fun in the process, limiting turning based on weapon length and size in the long run probably helped for balance between weapons but in doing so it destroyed the fun of actually fighting with those same weapons. the desire for realism and balance has hurt the entertainment value of the game for no real benefits.
the balance changes that effected gameplay mechanics also cut the skill curve on both ends, the game became both easier for worse players, and removed many of the things good players used (or abused if you're a bad and want to call it that) that set them apart from the rest of the pack.

theres no fun left to be had in crpg anymore, and its purely due to bad decisions from the development team. if they can take a game with the most fun gameplay of any i've played and turn it into this, there is no hope their new game to be even close to good.

Will M:BG end up the same way, in that it will start out fun for a few years, get "balanced", and slowly go to shit?  Hoping for the best but have to keep past decision making in mind.

[Corsair831]

Utter horseshit of an argument. Played ZHG_Siege the other day with 64 players on. It was Vaegirs versus Sarranid and the entire defending team played archer and Sarranids never even set a foot in the castle, much balance, such wow. Team Deathmatch class composition entirely depends on the map and the faction choices, but usually there is one class that gets played by 50% of the server because it functions best. Deathmatch is entirely carried by 2h Swadians. Battle usually turns into a cavalry fest. Half the available weapons never get used, and for good reason.

The only place where Native is balanced is competitive, and even there you notice that the viable classes and viable weapons are only about 25% of what is viable in cRPG. Those 500 people playing Native pub are not playing it because the balance is better than cRPG, try again.

you're just bad at native teeth, i played zhg siege the other day attacking a vaegir castle as nords and went 20/1 you just need to get better at native

you're completely wrong about the balance as well teeth. archery is certainly easier than infantry for a brand new player, but that doesn't make it overall better. a good player playing as infantry is worth a lot more than a good player as archer on native.

[Teeth]

you're just bad at native teeth, i played zhg siege the other day attacking a vaegir castle as nords and went 20/1 you just need to get better at native

Wat, I was defending and went 34/0 or something. The point is that the attackers were not able to breach the defense a single round because 32 archers were able to crossfire all approaches, irrelevant of anyone's individual skill, let alone mine as a defender.

you're completely wrong about the balance as well teeth. archery is certainly easier than infantry for a brand new player, but that doesn't make it overall better. a good player playing as infantry is worth a lot more than a good player as archer on native.

How am I completely wrong when I didn't even say that?

[Corsair831]

berry inpresife

thats the thing .. it's not .. on those big servers everyone is terrible, brand new players, no one can manual block, you do the double tap feint and people fall for it every time .. archery is the easiest class for a new player, but it's not as effective as you make out there

[Corsair831]

How am I completely wrong when I didn't even say that?

It was Vaegirs versus Sarranid and the entire defending team played archer and Sarranids never even set a foot in the castle, much balance, such wow. Team Deathmatch class composition entirely depends on the map and the faction choices, but usually there is one class that gets played by 50% of the server because it functions best.

you said it here

[Teeth]

Oh god, your edits after posting and then my edits after posting make this all confusing.

What I said was that a team comprised fully of the best archers in the game, playing on a pub server, while defending a castle, were able to completely demolish another team. Which counters the point that those 64 players there, new as they may be, were playing Native instead of cRPG because of the better balance. That makes my point not even close to your strawman.

[Corsair831]

Oh god, your edits after posting and then my edits after posting make this all confusing.

What I said was that a team comprised fully of the best archers in the game, playing on a pub server, while defending a castle, were able to completely demolish another team. Which counters the point that those 64 players there, new as they may be, were playing Native instead of cRPG because of the better balance. That makes my point not even close to your strawman.

Wat, I was defending and went 34/0 or something. The point is that the attackers were not able to breach the defense a single round because 32 archers were able to crossfire all approaches, irrelevant of anyone's individual skill, let alone mine as a defender.
How am I completely wrong when I didn't even say that?

if you have 32 archers and 1 infantry, the infantryman dies

if you have 32 archers and 32 infanfry .. not so much

the entire thing is literally a case of how good the people are ... a brand new infantry player is not as effective as a brand new archer ... an experienced archer is often not as effective as en experienced infantry .. ^^

lol well that's dumb. you had the best players playing archer on one team and they were winning? .. ...

.. best infantry would win as well lol

[Teeth]

I said 'best archers in the game' because they were Vaegir archers, as they are balance wise the best archers in the game as far as I know. The players were all random pubbies and were randomly divided across the teams. I am not talking about some hypothetical scenario, I am talking about the reality of a 64 player pub server. That is the relevant type of play in the light of statements such as 'Native servers are full and cRPG servers are dead because Native has better balance'. There were 64 pub players and the balance failed to give half of them an enjoyable experience, in a way that I have never seen in cRPG.

To make it extra clear, this point does not involve my personal skill, the status of competitive Native play or any fantastical scenarios. These are all irrelevant and bringing them up would be attacking a strawman.

[Corsair831]

I said 'best archers in the game' because they were Vaegir archers, as they are balance wise the best archers in the game as far as I know. The players were all random pubbies and were randomly divided across the teams. I am not talking about some hypothetical scenario, I am talking about the reality of a 64 player pub server. That is the relevant type of play in the light of statements such as 'Native servers are full and cRPG servers are dead because Native has better balance'. There were 64 pub players and the balance failed to give half of them an enjoyable experience, in a way that I have never seen in cRPG.

To make it extra clear, this point does not involve my personal skill, the status of competitive Native play or any fantastical scenarios. These are all irrelevant and bringing them up would be attacking a strawman.

yeah, the question is how do you balance, everything regarding balance is totally subjective.

archery is easier for a noob than melee, but not as effective as melee for high skilled players .. would you prefer it to be the other way around? i think native strikes a good balance between pub servers having decent amounts of infantry and decent numbers of archers.

[Teeth]

Well, I think Native balance is terrible for pub play as it often creates situations in which certain classes have a large mechanical advantage, aside from generally prohibiting the full awesomeness of the melee combat to shine and making an extremely limited range of playstyles viable. As I am relatively insensitive to the charm of grinding and customization, my choice to play cRPG instead of Native is solely because the pub play is by far more diverse and fun.

I hope Bannerlord finds a way to make pub play more interesting and less cringeworthy to play solo, without compromising the obviously properly functioning competitive play in Native now.

[Leshma]

Native is very solo friendly from my perspective. Yes, there are archers. But most of the time reason for domination is bad combination of factions and maps. Some maps are a bitch to conquer, and if there is strong ranged faction then it becomes impossible. Better players being on one side plays a huge role. But it is random and doesn't happen that much.

Unlike cRPG, where banner balance is always on and community works in a way where best players form huge clans (like the clan you're member of, Vanguards). Over time, cRPG has become less and less solo friendly which had effect on player numbers.

Better players tend to be better at archery too. I'll take 10 native machinegunners any time of the day, instead of 10 cRPG archers which come from a strong clan and hardly miss their shots.

Teeth, you were just unlucky. Nothing more. Native is no way less fun to play for a solo player than cRPG.

[Teeth]

All I know is that my Warband career nearly ended after 50 hours of Native pub play and that it got extended by 3000 some hours when I finally tried cRPG. I am currently trying to get into competitive Native and I need to play some pub to practice the Native leftswingspammechanics, but the experience gets awful quite often.

[Leshma]

IG_Battlegrounds is the better place to practice for competitive matches. Playing on ZHG servers will make you think that you're best Warband player and once you get to play real competitive match, that illusion will fade away. ZHG is more serious than neoGK, there are some semi decent players occasionally but you won't get what you need in there. You need a server where people are skilled at everything and know how to apply proper tactics. Not even IG_Battlegrounds is good enough for that. cRPG won't help you either, it is completely different beast.