Recent content by Bridge_Troll

Master_ said:

Also; @Bridge, what types of classes can we expect? Will it be the same as PW/PK or will things be added/removed/changed?

Click to expand...

Tbh haven't put much thought into the class system yet, so will be mostly the same for starters I guess. There was the idea to make a hybrid between training classes and then you can level within that class in a limited way ,loosing this progress when you train another class. But this needs much more thought or we might just stay within a fixed stat<>class system.

I thought about some sort of durabillity system for unused carts: if the designated card/boat is too far away from any player for N amount of time and|or unused for N amount of time, it will slowly degrade over time until it despawns, making room for new props to be crafted(there is probably an option to make limits on these things). So making them destroyable would be a result of said mechanic. Not sure about it yet tho, might be too much work for such a small triviality, but definitely something to think about

Namakan said:

as it is currently, player IDs look like this (take straight from the History.json file you can find in your own documents):
"PlayerId": "2.0.0.76561198060843944",
2 indicates its a steam ID, 0 and 0 no clue, rest is literally just steam64 ID.
Other platforms such as Epic Games have other starting numbers and then their own ID system.

Click to expand...

mh good catch, this is something we need to be aware about on a technical level, haven't tought that far #60

On the topic of name changes/profiles etc.:
Imo a simple namechange for the currently connected client should be possible. It should be automatically boradcasted to all other players, like in global chat or something in that direction, it should be transparent for other players. It might also make sense for name changes to have a rate limit so people don't spam their name changes or there is a way for players to still uniquely identify a player based on some sort of ingame profile or something. We'll see about that.

I actually like the idea of multiple profiles, however very very looooow priority in development imo, at least at the beginning. You can put a heck ton of thought into the topic of profiles, not so much on the player/user side but which impact and interconnectivity a profile has. Like stats, inventory, tracabillity, configuration etc.
In the end, I guess the best thing is that by default, a client/player gets a newly created profile on his first ever join on a server, which will just be technically something barebone to extend later on. Thats the base. Later on we can expand on this system for a single client/player to have multiple profiles on one server. Since this is apparently already a topic to fight over, this can just be optional. Server can toggle single or multiple profiles per player. ez pz.

But as I said, not really a high prio topic in my eyes, at least at the moment, gameplay is still somewhat the top tier, these, as it was already mentioned "qualitify of life" features will be postponed till later on or until really necessary to progress with other systems/features.

Roy1012 said:

I apologize if this is already a thing as it’s been years since I’ve used admin. But, as I remember, you’d have to either ask the player or look in the logs for someone’s GUID. Is it possible to have a “lookup GUID” button with a list of players, when you click on one, it pops up as a chat message. Perhaps it could also pop up past used names. Could help skip a step of hopping on any sort of panel your server uses to find that info.

Click to expand...

not sure if a GUID from the game software itself is still going to be a thing, it's probably going to be replaced by your steam id, at least that would be what I'd like to see. Easier management and makes players be identified better. This will also make sense since the battleeye anti-cheat probably also identifies banned players by their steam id, given mods/servers are able to interact with the battle-eye service for bannerlord to verify global bans etc. Even if not, Steam integration is already there, so it would make sense to use it for player management

Master_ said:

My only suggestion is to have both teleporting behind as well as teleporting in front of players. Having one or the other on PW was always an annoyance, as both have their own situational uses.

Also, how will admin armor be done, and will the armor itself be fixed? Admin armor could be, for the longest time, worn by standard players. I recall on at least one map - Valley of swamps I think it was - admin armor was purchasable by players, which was horrible.

Click to expand...

both ways of teleporting were already possible back then, so that'll be added again
And on the Admin Armor topic, not sure if that is going to be a thing anyways, there are probably better ways to make an admin noticeable / mark a character as Administrator. Might just make a return for nostalgic reasons, but there is no necessity in my eyes.

yes, admin tools will be included as they were in PW/PK. Whatever we see fit or by suggestion from the community will be added to the basic tools

not really wanna disturb your conversation, but this thread should be about the mod, not about server administration and clan politics. There surely is a connection between all this, but not in this thread please

ah damn of course, I haven't thought about the workshop. Yes sure, might even be our best bet for the start to go for workshop only as we can automate this quite easily on our side. Yep, good that you've said that

in general about speed of development: As soon as we have a playable PW experience we'll try and release the mod so people can already start playing and especially important: give feedback to us on bugs and user experience. How complete this first PW style mod will be, I don't know, we see how fast things go. Just bear in mind that most of us work fulltime in normal professions.

What I hope for is some sort of easy and convenient way for players to update the mod, since in development we will have many release iterations. Best thing would still be if TW would actually allow mods to be set server side and then synced to a connection client. Obviously with all the security implications in mind, some sort of opt-in way would be the most convenient for mod developers, server owners and players.

About sieges: yep we wanna add as much depth to that as we see fit and obviously as much as players like it. Definitely more than just destorying gates, climbing ladders and capturing a flag is what I hope for, if possible. I'd be happy to steal some of the fun stuff from native sieges

over a year ago, damn. And ye, nothing changed for us.

Roy1012 said:

The in-game reporting, is this based on the mod itself, or your individual dev server? If it’s on the server only, it would be wise not to release the source code before people give it time to test. If you are talking about on the mod, that’s excellent, so that even later on, after the initial testing is done, people can still report bugs. I can think of a few issues though. People may use it for an admin chat, to report map bugs, etc. No matter how many disclaimers and information you put up there, people will still be confused, whether it’s a lack of understanding due to poor English comprehension or just not reading it and report junk like “I got rdmed admin help!!!”. The problem will be twofold: the devs get a ton of spam in the inbox, and the players problems will go unanswered, unless you are willing to forward all the info to the individual server owners, which seems like a huge waste of time and resources and probably impossible. Are there any planned safeguards against that?

Click to expand...

The reporting will be independent of the server, the feedback will be directly forwarded to us from the client, no matter who or where the server is hosted.
Good point for the confusion part. I would actually disable this feature by default. You'll have to actively enable the feedback option within the settings menu and only then you will see an option to give feedback within the ESC menu while in game/playing.

Roy1012 said:

Sorry if it’s already been asked or answered, and perhaps this is a bit premature, but do you guys have any intention of hosting “official” servers at the start? Obviously I’m assuming you’ll release the source code to allow anyone to put up a server if they wish, but do you intend, at least while the mod is still new and fragile and needs to be tested, plan to have servers hosted by the devs? And, if so, do you plan to expand such to a North American server, similar to how Oasis and Phoenix ran theirs?

Click to expand...

We'll surely have a public dev server which we use to test the newest mod versions. Since we wanna add an ingame bug report functionality(so no need to go onto a forum or something) that would go perfect together with the public dev server so we can quickly collect good amounts of feedback without extra overhead for the player.
However these are dev servers, so really only for testing I imagine. As mod development progresses, there might be savedata wipes and so on, so they won't be suited for actually playing the mod longterm I guess. And therefore please do not expect too much from these dev-servers. there won't really be an NA, SA etc. server.
But as you said, as soon as we are able to host our own first dev server(dependend on development progress), we'll release everything publicly so everyone can host their own servers. As said, the dev server really is only to test new features before they go onto a stable branch, not really for actualy playing the mod.

Roy1012 said:

With the announcement of the full release of Bannerlord in Q2 2022 (8-10 months from now), and their promise to release the private servers upon the release of the game, is this actually, finally some good news for Kingdoms? Could it possibly be the release date that we're all waiting for, and the ability to begin modding? Or am I just taking hopium?

Click to expand...

Well, could be our start into development.

I also liked the fast-paced combat from PW/PK so ye, absolutely going to try and make it sort of similar if possible. In any case, this will surely be something up for configuration so server owners can choose for themselves

Optimization will be a requirement on every feature we'll create and hopefully this will come out as something that can handle a lot more players than 200/250.

However, optimization within the mod can only be done on a highlevel, we are still dependend on the underlaying network implementation of the engine. The biggest performance hit will be transporting/syncing messages over network which then execute on the client or server side which we can control to some extend. C# also comes with a handy set of highlevel language features that will also help distributing workload to the underlaying system in a more let's say "efficient" way, which will ultimately help performance on the server side.

We'll surely will try to have a high as possible playercount, but optimization ist "just" optimization and not performance by design which we are bound to by the engines network capabilities.

In the end, the feeling of performance you get as a player is the combination of all of this, the server performance, the network you and the server communicate over, your client hardware and overall software running all over the place. So ye, we end up at the same place as with Warband and any other game: If the server runs on sparse hardware, if your bandwidth is bad and if your client hardware can't handle minesweeper you'll never experience one bit of our optiomization attempts

But ye, I'd really like to give any estimates on how stuff runs but oh well, there are no news from TW sadly

Gavin357 said:

based on the bannerlord online mod's successes, especially with the infrastructure of the mod, is this any inclination/clue on how many players a server would be able to support?

Click to expand...

Impossible to tell at the moment. Depends on the engine and it's networking capabilities and of course ultimately on the hardware you run the server software on. We'll aim to at least support as many players as we had in Warband, so about 200 to 250 should be possible at minimum. That being said, we don't want this to become a massive multiplayer mod, tho max players will be configurable.