[Poll] Did you like the modes so far?

17 49
  • 2
  • 31 Mar

After two sessions of testing, we've got to try out the gamemodes semi-thoroughly, albeit on a limited range of maps.
There is a point of contention in the community as to what others think of a given gamemode, so I've decided that a poll will make it clear. This is how presidents are elected after all.

Here are some things to remember:
Whilst evaluating the votes, CHECK WHO HAS VOTED. This is extremely important, as it will point you to what demographic prefers what gamemode. By rule, an unknown name to an evaluator who is a part of the community should mean that it is a lesser experienced player, or somebody who hasn't played the mode at all.
Camp is the most open frontline map, keep that in mind.
Horde may feel stale due to only one map being available, keep that in mind as well. Though this poll is map-centric anyway, because this is what we have been offered.

Did you like Frontline on Camp?
Did you like Battle Royale on Grad?
Did you like Horde on Taiga?
Knight 762 3296
  • 31 Mar

I like some aspects of both Frontline and Battle Royale, but there's a lot of room for improvement.

301 875
  • 31 Mar

Needs an in between option. I liked Frontline short of 3-4 issues, but I already know they'll be changed and overall I had fun. If it was to stay like it is currently, I wouldn't enjoy it for long.

1308 2875
  • 1
  • 31 Mar

Yeah, the options really should go in increments between "I loved it" and "I hated it".
Anyway, basically what Mittsies said. There's promise but it's overshadowed by a lot of different issues at the moment.

17 49
  • 1 Apr

It is not a love-hate vote. It is about liking the gamemode. If you like it more than you don't, vote yes. If you are unsure, vote neither or no (depends where your uncertainty comes from), because the poll asks you whether you specifically like it or not.

Two answers for each is for clarity, so that you have a clearer view on the situation. People are more likely to NOT vote in absolutes (in for example a 1 to 10 system) not because of folks' experience, but since absolutes have a culture of negativity around them. Only siths and all that.

If you overall had fun, you did.

529 278

Why does everything need battle royal? =D

Love horde mode though. Who needs warhammer vermintide when you have a great pve experience like this.
Massive pvp team battles with objectives, and horses is where it's at though :)

Conscript 4546 6279

I found Frontline has high potential but isn't fully fleshed out yet, feels like a feature-less Rising Storm 2 territories game mode. Too clusterfucky, lacks strategic depth. For the main gamemode, is really lacking and probably will lead to a big backlash once released, especially from people that comes from Chiv. I like the idea more than chiv's TO, but atm it just feels unfinished, there is just way too many things that needs refinement or seems like a after-thought/rushed out.

Camp is at the same time open but highly restrictive since the objectives are way too small and feels like half of the map is not used.

Haven't played BR so I can't tell. Horde is 10/10 though, amazing job with it!

Knight 2245 4031

I have to be honest, Frontline on Camp wasn't all that great of an experience for me. I'm sure it's mostly just the map I dislike though. It's openness probably also contributes to the very very choppy fps I got there.

Mordhau's BR is the first time I can say to have enjoyed this gamemode. I'm slightly ashamed to admit I found it quite fun.

Horde is fun too. Loot locations could be randomized to keep it interesting.

Knight 76 161

Besides some beta mishaps, like Matchmaking especially for BR, I think all the game modes are pretty solid atm.

Within Frontline on camp, spawning needs to be closer/longer imo.

BR there should be a timer being outside of the ring, which degrades your health over time, rather than an insta-kill.

Those are my only gripe so far.

Knight 1383 3152

Virgin Frontline vs Chad Horde mode

Knight 925 2541
  • 1 Apr

Going by the "so far" criteria, I voted no on both FL and BR. Both modes need work. FL's general idea has a glass ceiling to it that will likely always put it below Team Objective for me, but it certainly can be improved in a major way. I would give it a 7/10 potential, but 3/10 for current playability (1/10 if taking into account technical problems though...).

Horde also needs some tweaks, but I don't consider it a key game mode so it doesn't need to meet such high standards as FL should and I did have fun playing it.

Knight 685 1852

Had a good experience with the new frontline, the objectives make it much more interesting than it previously was. On the technical side I did feel the improvements, had playable fps all around even though there is still room for improvement.

Though the replayability heavily depends on the map/objective variety, I sure hope explosive kegs aren't copy pasted on other maps. And it hardly "replace" chivalry's TO, where I could play darkforest alone over and over again due to how fun it was.

I'm definitely not fond of BR, a barebone one on top of that. At the risk of getting hate for that, personal skill matters too much in this mode which means players who aren't chivalry veteran don't have the slightest chance of winning. I'm pretty sure having teams of 2 instead of playing alone would fill the barebone aspect of the mode and give a chance to win for everyone. Right now it's definitely a no from me.

That said, horde is close from perfection imo. Add more waves or perhaps an infinite mode as a way to grind gold and xp and it would be fantastic. Current implementation is already fun and well thought out. It's the most complete mode out of the bunch and the poll results shows that.

Knight 693 1593
  • 1 Apr

The key thing about what Horde did that the others didn't: it met or exceeded expectations. With AI tweaks and variety, more different enemy types, and designated "boss waves", it only goes up from here even before diving into things like potential objectives or a dungeon crawling/raiding mode as opposed to just Horde.

Hell, imagine that if you kept running away, the Horde diverted their attention to hitting your base's towers/core instead. So, actual tower defense. The Horde's objective would be to destroy four towers, and the normal mooks would only turn to kill you if you were within a certain proximity, though the archers, assassins, and other specialists would axt differently. Some would be carrying bomb objective barrels, some would have it attached to their back and try to melee you, etc.

FL improved a lot, but I think Camp itself is doomed to be a bit boring for me for the same reason Battlefield was a boring TO map for me: it's just a wide, open field. Nothing too interesting about that gameplay wise, but it exacerbates the things I dislike about the games most: boring spawn runs, no cover from archers, no clever flanking or outmaneuvering especially in 1vX, and no hiding from horses. I think a smaller, tighter map with more story-connected objectives, way more areas with interesting geometry rather than pure open fields, and consistently short spawn runs would be better both aesthetically and gameplay wise. And the "illusion/aesthetics" part is hugely important. Yeah, TECHNICALLY things like carts or escorting flag holders are just moving capture points or rehashed game modes from 1998, but it does a lot to immerse and have you feel like an actual video game character/m'Knight and they do dynamically change where the focus of the fighting is, i.e. use more of the map's space as time passes. While increasing max running speed with an additional 3 seconds of acceleration + Rush'ing straight from spawn will help reduce run times, I think adjusting spawns themselves to be no more than 50m away is still critical to preserve the video game illusion aspect that you're always only a moment from fighting. Whether that's achieved with dynamic spawn points disconnected from capture points you must fight for, or just pushing all spawns closer and making capping faster to compensate for defenders spawning closer, I am curious to see what will happen.

I think the dev's philosophy for Mordhau BR is just not what I'd prefer, so I probably won't like the mode even if it was perfected. I only ever played BR with friends for that war combat pacing where 90% of it is shooting the shit, casual scavenging, calm Walking Dead moments but with third eye ever slightly open and 10% pure anarchy where skill, positioning, communication, and strategy go a long way but are still under the mercy of some dumb luck too. Mordhau BR seems to be gearing for an incredibly fast but also heavily dueling skill-based focus, all solo. The fast pace clashes a lot with waiting for a new BR to start, spawning in, then getting Zwei'd the first second in, especially when you have a weaker computer.

What would I have preferred? Duos or trios. Games are more fun when social, and Chiv and Mordhau make better team games than duel games anyways. Would also prevent a lot more ridiculous teaming. Being downed and having to be revived means fumbling and getting insta'd isn't an auto game over if your teammate(s) clutch. I never touched the game, but Apex Legends also lets you revive actual dead teammates by capturing some beacon or something, so even dying outright 1 minute in while your friends are still alive doesn't mean you should just leave the lobby. Sharing loot means stumbling upon yet another Bardiche isn't a total waste.

I didn't get to test this FL because it was literally unplayable, some infinite loop of blacklisting the server I was trying to join lol. But concerning the loot table from the first test... Way more emphasis of shitty peasant weapons. Getting something otherwise insignificant in normal modes like an Arming Sword in your first ten seconds should feel like winning the lottery. Vast majority of loot in the cold zones should be rakes, scythes, daggers, rocks, poop, level 1 armor, etc. Level 2 armor, arming sword, falchion, warhammer would be the good stuff here. A rare Bastard Sword spawn here is something that could last you to the end of the game.

The plane dropping system in other BG games meant that going to your favorite hot drop zone immediately wasn't always a possibility. Some games, you should get scrappy with peasant weapons, dung flinging, and getting into a complete prey survivalist mindset against the lucky bastard who got a recurve a minute into the round. Other games, you may not get into a fight until you're decked with some tier 2 pieces and a billhook.

Knight 52 64
  • 1 Apr

Is there any way to give players access to weapons in the waiting lobby for horde?

Conscript 679 1498

I dunno, ask on the forums

Knight 1383 3152

That feel when the main mode of the game, the main reason people are coaxed into buying and enjoying the game, is getting absolutely obliterated by a sideline mode only added to be a cheesy fun experience.

Fucking rip frontline.

Mercenary 2187 3902

Imho I think FL atm is way too linear. Needs some side objectives that affects main objective to some degree

529 278

@EruTheTeapot said:
Imho I think FL atm is way too linear. Needs some side objectives that affects main objective to some degree

Agreed, I never liked linear, 1 at a time, push style objectives.