[Suggestion] TW NEEDS to add a pseudo-MMORTS persistent multiplayer campaign mode!

Should TaleWorlds implement a pseudo-MMO multiplayer campaign mode?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 11.6%
  • ALSO YES, BUT IN CAPS

    Votes: 10 10.5%
  • No, they should only add party/session based P2P multiplayer campaigns a la Civilization, Stellaris

    Votes: 28 29.5%
  • No, they should keep multiplayer purely ephemeral match/round based

    Votes: 46 48.4%

  • Total voters
    95

Users who are viewing this thread

> Wtf? This guy is ADVOCATING turning
Wrong, I'm not advocating changing anything, I'm suggesting a new game mode that doesn't change the existing SP or MP modes

> Go play an MMO if that's what you want.
What MMOs have the same fluid combat, combined with tactical command, strategic planning, and deep sandbox + RPG elements that Bannerlord SP campaign has? None. This would literally be something completely new to the market without any direct competitors.

Adding a grotesque MMO would require time and money. Time and money are finite resources. That is time and money that could have been spent elsewhere for the game development.

If you don't like singleplayer then fo play a multiplayer game. There are plenty. Leave this one alone.
 
Adding a grotesque MMO would require time and money.
I already explained in a previous comment why this wouldn't be a substantial amount of new work. A small dedicated team of 5 or so software and network engineers to set up the backend architecture plus 1-2 game client devs to implement a new game mode in the client that connects to the servers should be able to implement a beta of this in 6 months. That's assuming they go with their own bespoke in-house backend for networking, there are also off-the-shelf solutions like SpatialOS they could potentially integrate into the engine to implement this feature in a fraction of the time. From that point onwards this game mode could finance itself with subs or microtransactions for players who use it, potentially even being profitable enough for TW to put extra resources on the core engine / SP / other MP mode teams which would then benefit players who never even play this mode

If you don't like singleplayer then fo play a multiplayer game. There are plenty. Leave this one alone.
What MMOs have the same realistic fluid skill-based combat, combined with tactical command, strategic planning, and deep sandbox + RPG elements that Bannerlord SP campaign has? None. This would literally be something completely new to the market without any direct competitors. The closest existing game I can think of would be BDO which by comparison lacks immersion/realism due to Korean fantasy setting, has ****ty small-scale combat, no tactical RTS command elements, shallow sandbox (it's more of a sandpark) elements, no strategic RTS (army/party/settlement management) elements, and is ruined by the P2W cash shop. Are there any multiplayer games were players can deeply customize and develop/progress their characters/factions, lead parties of soldiers among other player captains against enemy player armies in massive immersive and realistic battlefields where there are real risks at stake like losing a castle or whole war? Not that I know of.
 
Last edited:
Most important sentence in your entire text of wall.

EA didnt start out as the money hunger company they are now. Greed is human nature when given the chance too.
Look I understand the concern, I've commited tons of time into games that got killed by badly implemented cash stores myself, I just think that if TaleWorlds execs had the capacity to be that greedy they would have just tried to keep the original M&B on life support with DLCs priced as full games (see: Ark) without making any fundamental core improvements, instead of investing almost a decade of development time and probably millions of dollars to basically make Warband+ in a nicer engine which is arguably an improved product but is not very profitable. To me they seem to have a pretty high priority on making the best product possible which should intrinsically bring them good profits on the merit of it being an enjoyable and popular game, rather than trying to squeeze as much profits out of mediocre products as is the management style of companies like EA, who mostly get away with that **** because they either own or have exclusive deals for all the big IP (all the EA Sports games, StarWars etc) so players who want to play that kind of game basically have no other choice than to buy into the P2W microtransaction lootbox ****show.

Even then, like I already said the cosmetic microtransactions was just a suggestion on how they could monetize the game mode to support the servers and possibly even generate enough revenue to inject into other teams as well. It wouldn't be necessary for this mode to work. They could also go with a subscription model, or even just release the server software as a free download for the community to self-host, recouping the investment and likely making a profit from all the extra sales generated from people buying the whole base game just to play this free community-hosted mode.
 
Last edited:
"ALSO YES, BUT IN CAPS"

DqN0QL-XgAA13sB.jpg
 
As a separate M&B game? Maybe.

In Bannerlord? Hell no.

I think the M&B game concept has some potential as a coop/sandbox multiplayer game as well, just not really any MMO-like experience really. And tacking such features on top of Bannerlord would just make the game overly complicated imo. Keep it simple, SP only.

In the future though a game focused more on the MP aspect, not just fighting, but also the campaign would be interesting. But mostly as as a standalone game.
 
I appreciate the initiative.

I personally prefer to be able to play with 1-x friends, that one is the host and the others, with their own army, can join the game.

I do not care if we have to be allies obligatorily (he would join as a lord of my kingdom, for example), but the game needs a cooperative mode yes or yes.

The ideal would be to be able to share "the world" and that the speed of the game is what the host says or is "permanently stable"
 
Something like this would just split divide the multiplayer base even more; it has no place in this game. There are many games with many RP servers out there that you can go play. This is a game about combat and strategy, not people spamming toxic chat in a chat-lobby turned game.
 
Wrong, there's no real reason any part of the rest of the game would have to change, this could just be a new multiplayer game mode in addition to the existing ones. The SP and modding experience could still be exactly the same.
It would not take 5-10 years to make a pseudo-MMO when 90% of it is already there.
...
Should be able to implement a beta of this in 6 months.
Are you serious ? Every single part of the game need to be rewrite. Yes, you can keep 90% of the code, but you need to change everything. You click on ''access to inventory'' ? You need to change this part because you need to send a request to the server. You start a battle ? You need to change how work a battle because right now, a battle means you freeze the world and nobody can join the battle. You also need to plan a disconnection from players in a middle of interaction betwin players. You also rewrite all rules for protect the players from toxic behaviours. Right now, we have psycothic players in single mod and we kill everybody or stole all denars from the world. We cannot have that in multiplayers ! And we have also problem in MP mode and TW dont give enough moderation. And the world in BL is not really big (20 min for go to one side to another side of the world). If you have 100 players (it is really small for MMO), that will be a total mess. So or you expand or you need to slow down a lot the game.
You disconnect during 10 hours because you need to sleep ? 10 hours is really huge a no castle can hold this time ! So that means you cannot become a lord with fiefs and developp your domain right now.

Right now, they plan 1 year for make BL working when the game is planned for be single player and they have the skill for developp a single player game.
And you think they can develop a MMORPG in 6 months when they dont have the skills for do it ?! Just lol.

5 years and a big invest in the team is the minimum for developp a MMO. 2 years for devellop a 2-10 multiplayers game with no moderation.
 
Just no dude. Not the right time or place.

Let Bannerlord shine for what it is and intended to be for 5 to 10 years.

Then TW can go into MMORPG route. I would love a game like that, but RIGHT NOW it should laser focused on BL.
 
The second they add an MMORPG mode, it'll suck all the resources out and completely kill the single player game. All balance and bug fix work will go towards that.

It would be a great way to make the game fail completely.
 
No.
They haven't even finished SP yet and it will take them a year. Afterwards (or at the same time) M&B already has a MP community and there needs to be fixes/patches to make classic MP work (with tournaments, etc.). Even after that if they would consider something foolish like this it would mean less attention to SP and classic MP so we would lose one of the few good SP games left :/
If you want to play with friends go play some other game, let us have our SP. If you say that MMORPG would be different than simply SP + Friends then your argument that it will be easy development falls apart since it would mean a lot more extra features :/
 
No.
They haven't even finished SP yet and it will take them a year. Afterwards (or at the same time) M&B already has a MP community and there needs to be fixes/patches to make classic MP work (with tournaments, etc.). Even after that if they would consider something foolish like this it would mean less attention to SP and classic MP so we would lose one of the few good SP games left :/
If you want to play with friends go play some other game, let us have our SP. If you say that MMORPG would be different than simply SP + Friends then your argument that it will be easy development falls apart since it would mean a lot more extra features :/

That's what it looks like. First finish what is there and then worry about other things later.
 
Are you serious ? Every single part of the game need to be rewrite. Yes, you can keep 90% of the code, but you need to change everything. You click on ''access to inventory'' ? You need to change this part because you need to send a request to the server. You start a battle ? You need to change how work a battle because right now, a battle means you freeze the world and nobody can join the battle. You also need to plan a disconnection from players in a middle of interaction betwin players. You also rewrite all rules for protect the players from toxic behaviours. Right now, we have psycothic players in single mod and we kill everybody or stole all denars from the world. We cannot have that in multiplayers ! And we have also problem in MP mode and TW dont give enough moderation. And the world in BL is not really big (20 min for go to one side to another side of the world). If you have 100 players (it is really small for MMO), that will be a total mess. So or you expand or you need to slow down a lot the game.
You disconnect during 10 hours because you need to sleep ? 10 hours is really huge a no castle can hold this time ! So that means you cannot become a lord with fiefs and developp your domain right now.

Right now, they plan 1 year for make BL working when the game is planned for be single player and they have the skill for developp a single player game.
And you think they can develop a MMORPG in 6 months when they dont have the skills for do it ?! Just lol.

5 years and a big invest in the team is the minimum for developp a MMO. 2 years for devellop a 2-10 multiplayers game with no moderation.
Half of those wouldn't be issues due to the fact that all of the game logic would be running on the server side (authoritative server model) and clients would just be streaming the server state to hydrate their own state (still having their own internal state management for latency compensation though). Unless TW devs use **** programming practices it wouldn't require changing every part of the game, it would be changing a few high level state management functions to fetch and apply the server state over the local one for the most part. For example they wouldn't need to change the logic behind the inventory or settlement "buy" buttons themselves to explicitly send a request because the higher level logic that manages the inventory data loading would be changed to return data streamed from the server over it's own local data. Battles wouldn't freeze the world upon entering because the world time would be based on the server, they could probably even leave the function calls that try to pause the game upon entering this mode in the client because it would just be ignoring it's own time scaling and using whatever is synchronized from the server, so attempts to pause/FFWD would do nothing.

Since the clients state would be based on data streamed from the server all of the stuff like special game logic and balancing for this mode can happen on there. Client side modifications are more or less just configuring it's state management to stream from the server, and some UI modifications like removing the pause/play/FFWD buttons

They already solved "what happens on disconnects" in MP captains mode - if you D/C in the middle of a battle your units are just taken over by an NPC commander. It's not ideal as you'll possibly die and lose your troops if the NPC gets outplayed while you're reconnecting but it still gives them *some* fighting chance without interrupting the game for other players or just making your units randomly disappear from the world.

I do agree this wouldn't work at a big scale with the current world size, but there's already been lots of complaints about the size and design for SP alone already so hopefully they expand and improve it. This wouldn't be a huge undertaking, just a couple of 3D artists to model new terrain and then a level designer to plonk down some new settlements.

No.
They haven't even finished SP yet and it will take them a year. Afterwards (or at the same time) M&B already has a MP community and there needs to be fixes/patches to make classic MP work (with tournaments, etc.). Even after that if they would consider something foolish like this it would mean less attention to SP and classic MP so we would lose one of the few good SP games left :/
If you want to play with friends go play some other game, let us have our SP. If you say that MMORPG would be different than simply SP + Friends then your argument that it will be easy development falls apart since it would mean a lot more extra features :/
> it would mean less attention to SP and classic MP
They could monetise this game mode (subscriptions or cosmetic microtransactions) so people who want it are paying for it without it draining resources from the other teams, maybe even making enough money that they can inject more money into the core/SP/regular MP mode teams so those modes would improve even more

> If you want to play with friends go play some other game
The problem is there's no multiplayer game even remotely comparable to the SP hybrid FPS/RTS/RPG sandbox experience in Bannerlord, if there was I'd be playing it now instead of asking for it here.

> If you say that MMORPG would be different than simply SP + Friends
That's pretty much it, I'm not saying it should be a full on traditional MMO. Pretty much just how SP already is except for some balance tweaks and instead of Lords being a bunch of potato NPCs they are other players, providing some real challenge and variety plus tons of potential for emergent gameplay. By pseudo-MMO I mainly just mean global persistence, so state of non-player "world" things like market prices and fief ownership would be shared for all players in this mode from a master server like in an MMO, but since you can only see LoS there is no need for crazy 10,000 player servers (which is where most of the resouces associated with big budget MMOs is usually needed). Just simple server clusters that track whose party is where and share data between players who are in close proximity with each other, essentially similar network topology to what the game ATLAS uses, except instead of tracking first person players in a pirate-ey ARK world it's tracking lords parties through Calradia.
 
Back
Top Bottom