I'm sorry but I finally give up, what the hell are TW doing? Nothing new in 3 weeks. Whoever is managing this team needs the boot.

[Revverie]

I mean, the game is there, is playable, I really dont understand posts like these, a failing would be a literally unfinished game that is fully unplayable and lacking a ****ton mechanics. Maybe you didnt liked the game, I know I didnt liked a lot of aspects of it, but its quite like Warband, I feel its empty because of their decisions, not because of incompletion

 

[MostBlunted]

We aren't talking about pre-orders you have gone off on a tangent. We are talking about EA not being defined and not being part of the development cycle. Every companies definition and use of EA is different and called TW liars is ridiculous. EA could mean Pre-Alpha or it could mean almost finished it's not a valid complaint and it reeks of attention seeking.

Didn´t you claim it´s kind of the same:

Early access is a largely meaningless term. To some companies that means from the first point that is somewhat playable - to some it's basically a form of pre-order.

I will not discuss stuff any further with you if you can´t remember your own words. And EA isn´t a meaningless term, otherwise those shops won´t have definitions for EA.

 

[Bob Gnarly]

Early Access Game
Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops.
Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development. Learn more

Straight from the Steam page.

I knew exactly what I was getting into, it's not rocket science.

 

[Virthuss]

I personally stopped the one-player mod, and as soon as the next good RPG/RTS/total war is released, I will leave the MP as well.

Not enough server, only playing skirmished with 100 ms is boring after months. I do believe in the potential in this game so I will come back when it's ready to rock, and when modding tools are released

 

[AxiosXiphos]

Didn´t you claim it´s kind of the same:



I will not discuss stuff any further with you if you can´t remember your own words. And EA isn´t a meaningless term, otherwise those shops won´t have definitions for EA.

It was an example of how versatile the term is - nothing further to do with this discussion. I was explaining how vague the term EA is - many companies (correctly or not) do use EA as a form of pre-order. It's not a good practice but it happens (and you 100% know this). The point is; and the only point is; EA means nothing and should not be held as some sort of definition of how developed the project is.

Anyway this thread is beyond the point of being in any way useful or worth keeping; I am not going to keep bumping it.

 

[Mikey]

The point is; and the only point is; EA means nothing

Agreed. It shouldn't be used to excuse anything, an alpha or beta test can have any and all shortcomings it wants, while a released game, sold for money, should be judged as just that (it's fair to take the price point into account).

 

[kreamy]

They might as well be thinking of anti-matter engines and cold fusion at this point. It may happen, just not on your life time.

A better developer could probably (i can almost guarantee they could) pull it off

Iirc they said in the past (a few years ago?) that they would look into it, but since then TW has been pretty adamant that they wouldn't do co-op. The impression I get from them is that it's not worth the time and effort.

Ya i just have a feeling they literally cant do it with their expertise.

 

[black_bulldog]

A better developer could probably (i can almost guarantee they could) pull it off



Ya i just have a feeling they literally cant do it with their expertise.

I wouldn't say can't do it because they lack expertise, more like won't do it because the cost far outweighs the benefits. But that is pure speculation on my part. Who knows maybe the higher ups at TW just don't like the idea of coop and won't look into it, because it can be done I've seen it done in mods.

 

[kreamy]

I wouldn't say can't do it because they lack expertise, more like won't do it because the cost far outweighs the benefits. But that is pure speculation on my part. Who knows maybe the higher ups at TW just don't like the idea of coop and won't look into it, because it can be done I've seen it done in mods.

Ya I guess we don't really know. I just FEEL, like because it was such a heavily requested feature, and they didn't pull the trigger on making it happen (not saying they didnt try to see if it was feasible), that there was limitations THEY couldnt overcome as developpers (they would have to build the tech themselves, as they did their own engine etc - and they probably just didnt have the expertise to make it happen). -> my speculation.

Anyways, its too bad because *given the game in its current state* i think it would be more fun ****ing around in a hazard of a game with a couple of friends (or even just one).

ANY who. Ive seen some mods that allow u to be in battle, but never a 2 party coop.

 

[babelfisch]

Ya I guess we don't really know. I just FEEL, like because it was such a heavily requested feature, and they didn't pull the trigger on making it happen (not saying they didnt try to see if it was feasible), that there was limitations THEY couldnt overcome as developpers (they would have to build the tech themselves, as they did their own engine etc - and they probably just didnt have the expertise to make it happen). -> my speculation.

Anyways, its too bad because *given the game in its current state* i think it would be more fun ****ing around in a hazard of a game with a couple of friends (or even just one).

ANY who. Ive seen some mods that allow u to be in battle, but never a 2 party coop.

I believe one of the problems for coop are the different timescales for campaign map and battle map. It would suck if the game paues every time someone fights in a battle. It would suck even more if you could only play coop when you are in the same party.

 

[Callum]

Any thoughts on how two party coop could work?

My main concern is that the game pauses whenever you interact with anything. This means that if you were playing with someone else, both games would constantly be stopping and starting while the players visit towns, speak to NPCs, open menus, etc. This would create an extremely frustrating, tedious and ultimately, boring gaming experience.

Now, you could of course just keep time running right? But that means fundamentally altering how the game is played and that 10 mins you just spent in a battle has left the AI and the other player unchecked on the world map to do whatever they like...

If the game was turn based or 100% realtime then it might possibly work, but as things stand, the current design of the game wouldn't support 2+ party coop.

The only suggestion for coop I have heard that makes some sense is same party coop. However, this would relegate the second player to a lower role in the game where they don't get to do anything other than join player one in battles and other scenes. Now, I appreciate that some people might enjoy that, but it sounds incredibly boring to me.

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

The only suggestion for coop I have heard that makes some sense is same party coop. However, this would relegate the second player to a lower role in the game where they don't get to do anything other than join player one in battles and other scenes. Now, I appreciate that some people might enjoy that, but it sounds incredibly boring to me.

This is what the BattleTime mod did (for as many players as you had companions) and it was pretty fun, you could win 100vs1000 battles if you had a few friends lol.

If you wanted both players on the campaign map you'd probably have to streamline some things e.g. no dialogue when attacking, instead different options on the map screen (Right click for a contextual menu, attack follow get info, dialogue could be an option but not mandatory so only used when needed?) and entering a city wouldn't pause the game either. Definitely would need some tradeoffs from complexity for ease of play. Battles could pause for the other player but give the option of joining as a bot, like how Total War coop is done. I imagine most people would be playing this with friends rather than just random lobbies so people would be speaking and be conscientious of not wasting the time of their partner as long as the options were there to avoid it, not sure if the stats from other coop games (again like Total War) back that up though.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Now, you could of course just keep time running right? But that means fundamentally altering how the game is played and that 10 mins you just spent in a battle has left the AI and the other player unchecked on the world map to do whatever they like...

This is already a separate issue with the game even in singleplayer. Player battles happen instantaneously, leading to weird situations where a battle the size of Waterloo can happen without the guys 2 miles down the road being able to reinforce. Even something as simple as having to wait a few ingame hours after each battle phase would solve both these issues, as well as making the reinforcement waves less comical. I am willing to bet that most people would accept being trapped in a battle instance for 10 minutes of a battle if it meant being able to play co-op. I also object to the idea that a co-op game needs to be balanced, challenging or even fair. People still have fun in Kane and Lynch 2 for crying out loud.

Speaking of reinforcement waves, I think it's kind of ridiculous how enemies spawn within the playable area of the map when there is a border area available for them to spawn in and march on more believably.

 

[Sidhwen_Khorest]

Any thoughts on how two party coop could work?

I think you're right about these thoughts. Co-op would be tedious if it were paused, and would require some redesign to streamline interactions if it were real time. Also real time for battles would, like you say, be tricky.

I think the one where you are part of their party would be the only way it works smoothly, but like you say that would be kind of sucky for the person who is being dragged around. I would maybe do something like that if I could import characters from other save files and only play with the other person for a short while. I wouldn't want to play a whole campaign like that.

The canon could be that the other player is a "companion" and when he disconnects he is leaving to go on some quest elsewhere and promises to come back.

 

[MostBlunted]

Any thoughts on how two party coop could work?

My main concern is that the game pauses whenever you interact with anything. This means that if you were playing with someone else, both games would constantly be stopping and starting while the players visit towns, speak to NPCs, open menus, etc. This would create an extremely frustrating, tedious and ultimately, boring gaming experience.

Now, you could of course just keep time running right? But that means fundamentally altering how the game is played and that 10 mins you just spent in a battle has left the AI and the other player unchecked on the world map to do whatever they like...

If the game was turn based or 100% realtime then it might possibly work, but as things stand, the current design of the game wouldn't support 2+ party coop.

The only suggestion for coop I have heard that makes some sense is same party coop. However, this would relegate the second player to a lower role in the game where they don't get to do anything other than join player one in battles and other scenes. Now, I appreciate that some people might enjoy that, but it sounds incredibly boring to me.

I totally agree on all points.

Please don´t waste time by trying to get coop to work.

 

[LeChat]

I totally agree on all points.

Please don´t waste time by trying to get coop to work.

+1

 

[mylittletantan]

Any thoughts on how two party coop could work?

Reduce the scope to battles, campaign coop would have to change too much. Similar to total war shogun 2 you could let the player search for/invite a friend or randoms before a battle. The friend/randoms could then join as any troop in either player, ally or enemy armies. I would think playing the battles with friends is the main draw of coop anyway.

Having multiple player parties wouldn't work but what if joining player parties were simplified/slightly automated. The host player plays as normal and the joining players gets a companion/clan party with limited control. They could set a target priority such as recruit, buy equipment/goods, find enemies or follow player. At all times they can modify equipment and manage party but the ai is in control so time is never paused by joining player. On host player battles the players will have to agree on fighting or auto resolving and for the joining player battles either play or handle as normal.
Even if joining players get a somewhat limited experience it would still be enjoyable playing together.

If insisting on full control player parties.

Now, you could of course just keep time running right? But that means fundamentally altering how the game is played and that 10 mins you just spent in a battle has left the AI and the other player unchecked on the world map to do whatever they like...

Having a vote before battles for playing or auto resolving would ensure everyone is mostly on the same time. The fast dialogue mod could be implemented and quests/hideouts/interactions that require players entering scenes be simplified to auto resolves/added to menus or removed for multiplayer campaign games. Now everyone should always be on the same time with pretty minor changes compared to normal campaigns.
.
If everyone is either on the map or in the same battle, time always running wouldn't be a problem. It might have to slowed down a bit on map though to account for time in menus. Multiplayer campaigns would be fundamentally different from single player campaigns, but this doesn't mean they wouldn't be enjoyed. Even if everything but battles/sieges, joining factions and creating armies was cut for the multiplayer, people would still love it (and complain about it).

 

[Schlarkenstein]

Any thoughts on how two party coop could work?

I see real-time two-party Co-op working really well on a much smaller map with a change in objective:

For the sake of simplicity, imagine: A square map with 4 castles in each corner that each have 2 villages and a Town in the center of the map with 3 villages.

Two players are dropped in with ownership of a castle each. They then work to take control of the map, getting better gear and troops over time. The objective of the game is to get ownership of the central town and defend it for a certain amount of time.

I believe the current Bannerlord engine/base game would already be 80% set-up to support this (After adding the co-op ability) The changes would be:

• During battles, the world map would need to continue in real-time (Although, it could progress at half-speed during battles, for balance).
• There would need to be a new mechanic that allows NPCs/Players to join a battle that is already underway.
• There would need to be an in-battle warning system to alert players of other NPCs/Players that are near or about to enter battles in order to allow for a retreat command. (There could be a 30 second wait before a new party actually joins the battle as a reinforcement)
• NPC mobs like looters would still roam the land but players could be given the option to use their kingdom's wealth to hire bandits to disrupt enemy trade/villages OR hire man-hunters/ noble lords to protect their own villages/trade routes
• This might potentially lead to three-way in game battles (Player vs Player vs Looters, for example) - Or you could handle it in the same way as Bannerlord/M&B currently does and only allow joining on one side
• Many of the dialogue scenes etc. would likely have to be removed or re-worked to allow them to be done 'on the go'

Obviously this is a diversion from the original Mount and Blade concept, but it uses a huge majority of the base game and would be incredibly fun, in my opinion. On a small map the game would likely last one to two hours (Depending on what level the players start at). And the concept could slowly be expanded upon over time with bigger maps and the ability to pause/start/save a campaign. To the point where it may even work well in the fully Bannerlord map, eventually.

If the ability to turn-on/mod Co-op is ever added then I genuinely see this idea, or something similar, becoming a core Bannerlord experience, eventually. It would play out like a sort of 'real time, skill based board-game'...

 

[Mallard]

I got a bunch of thoughts on this. Ill try to remember to post even I get home

 

[guiskj]

Maybe I am a weird one, but being player2 in my friends party sounds good enough to me.

Not all playstyles I want to do involve me being the commander.

I have tried playing a nobody footsoldier in Bannerlord. Just one guy in a midst of hundreds battleing. However this doesn't work very well in vanilla, because you have to babysit your troops and really worry about tactics.
Being the 2nd guy in co-op could give me this experience at the cost of some agency, which I'm fine with.