Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Online/Multiplayer
The only way I could think of it being proper possible is for it to be "real time" only as in you're walking around (sans campaign map). Bannerlord should support larger maps so mods such as Persistent World would allow for more castles and towns to be around. Players join a faction and each do their jobs. (proximity voice chat would be great here).
Or have all the players be lords with each their own castle and bot armies on that map with 2-4 factions.
Campaign coop (2 players best probs)
But if you would really want to play on the campaign map the same way it works in single player then I'd suggest it be coop of some kind.
Once a player engages in combat then the rest of the players would be prompted to join in as a soldier for one of the factions or spectate. Time stops.
If it's a battle with high certainty for one of the combatants to win (ex. 100 huscarls vs 20 trash bandits)and is bound to finish quick then time just slows down a bit and put a timer there if it doesn't finish within a minute then then time continues as normal. Any further entries by AI are disallowed, or if they are allowed then the games offers the player to back away if a stronger force comes in to back up the enemy.
Hopefully quick battle improves so the results are realistic and losses aren't as bad if you're not engaged in the map. If it is then that one minute talk above would be redundant.
If the players are in the same faction and if one of the players engages in combat while the other is close by then the battle would pause until the other player arrives. This would also work for NPCs as it did in Warband.
As for the rest of the interactions on the map, time also stops if players are engaged with npcs or in towns doing whatever. Being within the city on the campaign map disallows combat. If only one player is engaged then time either slows down as you say or continues as normal with day night cycles being much more spaced out than currently when on campaign map. This would be online so obviously players would need to adapt to the way time works and work more quickly on solving the things they're doing with npcs or whatever.
Honestly can't say with certainty how it would work until I see how Bannerlord works.
Same party coop
To be honest I wouldn't mind having the players be in the same party of another lord player playing the campaign(coop only) and just fighting battles he engages in. This would best work as a drop in/drop out system so rest of the players in the party join in once there's a larger battle. In the meantime they either spectate or play MP or their own campaign with party coop disabled/enabled. Games would be joinable via Steam or in-game. The only problem that could potentially arise is how the the network system would work. Maybe it would be peer to peer so players would have bad connections? No idea, not savvy on that front so can't say anything.
I'm pretty sure there's a mod that allows for party coop already in Warband but I think it was pretty clunky how the join system worked, not sure
Online/couch coop split screen, whatever's fine with me.
Just the fact they have something would be a nice bonus for the game.
***
Chances are some of the things I said have already been discussed or are still disucussed in the forums. I only read in part a long time ago, but there are probably even better ideas for this if you search the forums at Taleworlds or maybe even here somewhere.
At this point I'll be happy to get the base game as soon as possible. Who knows what mods might offer in this regard anyway.
Time moves only when one of the players move.
Movement orders can be queued with a visible hint.
Battles are handled via autoresolve or three options for the other player:
Join the fight as one of the companions or troops, if no companions are available
or
Join the fight as the enemy troop-leader
or
spectate.
"Pause" button for both players.
Where's your problem with this?
Don't even bother thinking about this because
1. The game will never come out
2. Armchair developers ("I can't be an armchair developer because I'm defending TW!") will insist it is impossible and use arguments from incredulity to ignore any possible design, or alternatively call it boring even though I've seen practically a hundred unique people bring each design up in this forum alone
3. Even if it were possible and everyone were on board, it's unlikely that TW would be able to conceive it
Go solve some math problems or something
It has to have campaign map as the one in M&B. And it cannot be coop, it is more like mmo. It is supposed to host many people from which always someone will be fighhing or doing something. So the balance has to be between the speed of campaign map, the spacing of locations and maybe some other factors, like events happening while you travel, like random events that may make your traveling less painfull. Like imagine you travel for 5 minutes, you may be doing something in the meantime, solving some quests in your own party, playing dices, managing stuff or whatever.. not just watching your character moving on the map.
I dont want coop. It is supposed to be for a large amount of people, more like MMO.
I am actually not talking about M&B. But it shares some core elements with M&B.
But the problems that arise with your MMO concept are exactly the same.
You'd go afk for 20 minutes and people would have conquered whole kingdoms in the meantime,
then some Russian clan hops onto the server and pillages every single village in 30 minutes with their zerg-clan.
What would be required would be some kind of Browsergame mechanics for cities, trooprecruitment etc. to slow things extremely down for everyone in order to get a chance of actually playing the game without having everything change within minutes on the server.
You could create a spin-off title, but what you're asking for doesnt suit an mmo-style kind of world.
You'd end up with something different.
We can talk about creating something that keeps the spirit of Mount and Blade, but the real deal, would be vastly different from the original.
If you insist on keeping the campaign as it is, you'd truely have to slow everything down to incredibly boring speeds, as you already stated.
It would be possible, but incredibly boring.
You should consider a spin-off instead as a Mount and Blade MMO could be very interesting and there is a rather large interest in such a title.
Scams Games like "Of Kings And Men" have proven that there's a large interest in the idea.
Other elements that you mention are so far vastely covered. In the game being more close to reality. First of the world is much larger thus needs campaign map, it cannot be implemented in permaworld but rather generated large world divided in multiple factions. Most players who chose to enlist to army will not come close to rule the whole faction but rather be a high ranking individual within a large society.
So what would stop someone from taking over the Kingdom while you are offline?
A: The world is largely managable without presence of players, so it does not matter if players of one faction are offline in high numbers, the faction will still be able to defend on some level with AI armies.
B: Because factions are geographically large, they can in long run protect themselves. Borderline provinces will be always under attack, but to get to the core of the faction it requires time and effort.
C: Armies need to eat and resupply. To get to the core of one faction needs an efort of multiple armies (players) working together for long time. So those things will happen, but not often. The frequency may be controled by tweaking mechanics.
D: As soon as the invasion army hits the faction the players will be noted and they will know something is happening and will be able to react. Its not like no one notices armies marching over your land.
As for the recruitment and stuff. There is some ressource based economy. Not like browser games they make it painfully obvious. But unvisible mechanics would count some estimates of availeble recruits, horses and such. With that the players will be punished for wasting ressources, they would be encouraged to learn to withdraw from battles and not always fight to the last soldier. Also soldiers would not be willing to fight to last one standing, they would flee on more realistic basis.
As for the traveling and speed. There is the problem of balancing the line between good pacing and boredome. One idea is to alocate players to certain smaller areas for some time and keep them there. Lets say you were reassigned to a boarder post and you will be operating in some reasonable area for some time, you will be given tasks in that area. And the game will not ask you to go to locations that are far from you, thus you will not have to travel far. Then after some time you may be reassigned to different area.
What is good is that even though battles are in real time, it does not actually take as much time as real battle would. So if battle that would in real world take 5 hours takes 5-15 minutes in game then it means it allows you to speed the time around you (in campaign map) to be around 30 times faster than realtime. That already gives you day that takes around 48 minutes. But that is still high, because armies march around 20-25 km per day if you count sleep and stuff. That means 48 minutes to get to something that is 25 km far away. So a barable pace for travel would be even lower.
Or we could ask the question how far do we want the armies around the map to go within a time of one battle? Is it ok if the armies move the distance of one day while the battle is happening? That sounds almoust realistic. Imagine that your battle could be joined only by armies that are within the radius of one day. That could push the timeframe of one day to somewhere around 10-15 minutes. That means you could travel 25 km in 10-15 minutes. The rest you have to figure out with other mechanics and features, such as mini-quests while traveling, managemnt of your party, property, selling stuff, buying stuff, chatting and so on...