-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Bannerlord should include a multiplayer, multi-faction RTS...
- Thread starter Horrux
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Lolbash said:
Once again painting my statements with your own lackings in terms of ability to understand plain language. TW will price Bannerlord and its expansions however they see fit, I certainly am *NOT*, contrary to what you are implying, trying to tell them how much to sell their game for. And again about your "predatory microtransactions" misdirection, I certainly only indicated that OPTIONAL acquisition of extra soldiers CAN POSSIBLY also (where "also" means optionally) be made obtainable through the use of actual real-world currency. CAN POSSIBLY not being the same as MUST ABSOLUTELY. I'm sorry if this is hard to understand for you, I can't do more than the English language allows.
*I* for one, *WOULD* gladly pay $80 for such a bundle, and would likely spend more as time went on just because I would play this thing every single day for years on end. I feel it justified to put a few extra dollars into a game I enjoy immensely. And I could not care less if you feel this is wrong.
I wouldn't pay $80 for cheap RTS imitations on a naive system laid on top of a good Mount & Blade game. And taking your own hostility to criticism as the norm, I could not care less if you feel this is wrong.
Wouldn't buy it if it was extra on top, might play if it was included as free dlc or something, absolutely wouldn't play if there's microtransactions. See, being able to purchase extra soldiers is the basis of pay to win. I don't want to/have the money to spend, so I get wrecked every time I go up against the guy who blew his whole life savings on getting the best soldiers... Seen it, no thanks.
Who said anything about a cheap imitation RTS? Is there, or isn't there an RTS in Bannerlord? Is it a cheap imitation? Why do you assume it's a cheap imitation. You are just disparaging an idea you have no clue about. Well done!DrTaco said:
Roccoflipside said:
Once again not understanding and commenting. This is amazing.
Having more soldiers does not make you win. Just like having a halberd does not make you win. Sigh.
I get it. You are bunching up against an idea you do not understand. It was ever thus. RIP, Copernicus.
If you had an ounce of wisdom or maturity you would ASK QUESTIONS about how this or that would work instead of imagining first that it does not and then going I DON'T LIKE IT, IT'S **** BECAUSE.
Because you understand nothing about the idea, that's why.
There are no BEST soldiers. That's called BALANCE, and it has NOTHING TO DO with including an RTS in an action game. ZERO.
My idea represents a way to include much (if not all) of Bannerlord's strategy game into the multiplayer game.
Why would this be an awesome idea?
-Because it adds more to the experience:
. Strategic significance and context to battles
. An ever-different experience
. Infinite growth for the player
. Giving the player base many additional reasons to remain with the game for a very long time (Imagine Bannerlord with a million players daily, 10 years after release!)
. Much, much more.
lolbash
Master Knight
Singleplayer
Singleplayer with mods.
Multiplayer
Sorry, but unlike you I don't intend to slave my life to a video game. Did it for GTA V for ingame money during my High School years. Never doing it again.
Extremely too far on the optimistic side. And if the microtransactions you proposed were to be in the game, 97% of the remaining playerbase will be massive OP giants who will absolutely stomp on every new player they come across using their mommys credit card.
Please list all of these "much much more". This is a forum. We are used to long posts.
Horrux said:
You can't get mad at us for not understanding your hypothetical situation.
Also what you are proposing is clearly hypothetical at best, and a fantasy at worse.
If the game doubles down on multiplayer aspects, then single player will get left out.
Single player is more time management forgiving, and doesn't require a grind, so i hope i am not alone in this opinion, but i don't want them to get side track when making the single player game.
I can pause my single player game, and focus on life stuff, and then come back to it with out any integration issues, which cannot be said the same for multiplayer.
I feel like Coop would be the optimal solution, not massive multiplayer.
Horrux said:
Ok, so first of all, having more soldiers doesn't guarantee a win, but it definitely gives you an advantage. That's kind of the entire point of getting a bigger party in the game. Allowing people to earn this much of an advantage through a completely out of game context creates an unfair, biased, and, imo, not-fun game.
I also did ask a few questions earlier, which you responded to, and I said I'd be interested in something like this. Now you brought up the idea of microtransactions (which I completely understand, btw), so I gave my opinion. Guess I'm not allowed to do that, sorry didn't realise.
And also, there may not be a single best troop, but there are definitely stronger and weaker troops. Being able to buy an army of Swadian Knights, say, is much different from an army of Recruits.
While I agree with Lolbash (yeah, that's weird for me too) about your over-optimism as far as how many people will play consistently, I still think this could be an interesting idea. However, if you want people to take it seriously, I'd recommend not assuming everyone's attacking you just because they disagree or have a different idea, that won't get you anywhere.
What would be the point? Your response will be "I have no idea what you are talking about, therefore the idea is stupid and you are wrong." Just as it is now and has been since the start.Lolbash said:
I'm not mad that you don't understand. I'm pissed that instead of going "please explain how..." you go [snipped flame].Blongo said:
My proposition facilitates co-op to an extreme degree.
OK so you have imagined a weird game mode that gives people an unfair advantage over other people. That's weird, why would you do that? And what does it have to do with my idea? [snipped flame].Roccoflipside said:
I didn't say it was necessary to enable microtransactions. I wrote it could be a possibility. You got this idea that spending money would be necessary in order to have an enjoyable experience out of your imagination. It's weird how imagining random things about something can throw you off track... If you can still read this because by now you are verrrry faaaaar awaaaaaaaaaayyyy....Roccoflipside said:
Are there? In which game? What are you talking about? Can there be Knights and recruits in a game without breaking the balance? You seem to think it isn't possible for some reason. I know a game that does it really well. It's called Mount & Blade: Warband. [snipped flame].Roccoflipside said:
They are disparaging out of not having any idea. So instead of asking the question, "what about [this aspect]?" They go "bad idea you wrong boi". And about my so-called "optimism" being wrong, you have no idea what my suggestion entails and yet you entitle yourself to judging that my "enthusiasm" is misguided. Sigh. Again this same ****.Roccoflipside said:
About what? Not understanding, therefore disparaging? [snipped flame].Noudelle said:
[snipped flame].
Horrux said:
Aww, well anyway. We are a community. I hope to continue to see you post more topics and discussions.
None of this was suppose to be a personal attack or anything.
If ideas don't stand the test of criticism, then they either aren't a good investment, or need more time in the oven (Given more thought or time).
Don't double down on an idea either. Lol i feel like a cliche machine, but don't put all your eggs in one basket! and don't spread yourself out too thin either, nobody likes a concentrated or sparsely spread-ed bagel!
And usually people who like your ideas will try and argue for it. Its called residual, when you leave the discussion, but others who like your idea carry on the discussion!
I like how he literally glossed over the three (four?) times I said I thought his idea was cool. Oh well, can't have a convo with everyone.
If there's still any interest in discussing this idea, I was thinking it might be better to do it out of game, through a forum or something (could even be a TW official thread or something), rather than in-game. To keep track of all of this in-game you'd need a constantly updating map, a way to track troop composition/strength for each individual party (and if I understood correctly, each player can have more than one party), a way to keep track of diplomacy so player x can't troll and just attack every other team (btw, who determines who leads a faction? Strongest player? Original player?), and probably many other things I've forgotten. Seems easier to me to abstract all this and keep track of the map, parties, and all that in the forum, similar to a BoP or something. But that's just my 2 cents.
You suggested mictransactions for the purpose of buying troops. I suggested that would unbalance the game, to which you said, "having more troops doesn't guarantee a win". Therefore, I didn't imagine a weird game mode, but directly replied to a suggestion you made.
The way you defended microtransactions in your last reply to me may have given the wrong impression. I would never imagine that spending extra money is necessary to have an enjoyable experience... Hence why I said if this version included microtransactions I would refuse to play it. Perhaps you think I'm so far away because you have your hands pressed over your ears screaming "I can't hear you!!!!!".
Here it seems you're deliberately missing my point. You replied to a quote of mine saying, "There is no single best troop," again, a correct statement. Here I was clarifying what I meant, and you choose to ignore the fact I used troop types from M&B to suggest I play WB... This was again in response to the idea of pay-to-win, which if you're no longer suggesting that then this doesn't matter anymore.
It's called commenting. You put your idea here on the forum to discuss with others, yes? Did you expect everyone to agree 100% with your ideas? Sure, not everything everyone has said here was the most helpful, but you still learned where they stand on the idea. Lolbash can be very blunt and seem like he's being an ****, but usually he has decent points if you read deep enough into his comments. Brutus is kinda an ass, but he's earned that right... And about you being optimistic, that's about the, what was it, 1,000,000 players online everyday for 10 years. If you don't think that's optimistic, then I applaud you, the world hasn't crushed your soul yet. Assuming I was 100% on-board with everything you've suggested, and the game released with this, I would honestly probably play 1-2 times a week, and I definitely don't see 1,000,000 people playing this game every day for ten years. Of course, I could be wrong, but I'd rather be cautious than disappointed when there's only 100,000 people online for a few months.
I was really trying not to reply, but you kind of really called me out here so here you go. Read this, take some time to think about it, and remember I'm not trying to attack you, but discuss an idea that you brought up. I'll be waiting for a day or two.
Edit 1: formatting
Edit 2: forget to say what the edit was
If there's still any interest in discussing this idea, I was thinking it might be better to do it out of game, through a forum or something (could even be a TW official thread or something), rather than in-game. To keep track of all of this in-game you'd need a constantly updating map, a way to track troop composition/strength for each individual party (and if I understood correctly, each player can have more than one party), a way to keep track of diplomacy so player x can't troll and just attack every other team (btw, who determines who leads a faction? Strongest player? Original player?), and probably many other things I've forgotten. Seems easier to me to abstract all this and keep track of the map, parties, and all that in the forum, similar to a BoP or something. But that's just my 2 cents.
Horrux said:
You suggested mictransactions for the purpose of buying troops. I suggested that would unbalance the game, to which you said, "having more troops doesn't guarantee a win". Therefore, I didn't imagine a weird game mode, but directly replied to a suggestion you made.
The way you defended microtransactions in your last reply to me may have given the wrong impression. I would never imagine that spending extra money is necessary to have an enjoyable experience... Hence why I said if this version included microtransactions I would refuse to play it. Perhaps you think I'm so far away because you have your hands pressed over your ears screaming "I can't hear you!!!!!".
Here it seems you're deliberately missing my point. You replied to a quote of mine saying, "There is no single best troop," again, a correct statement. Here I was clarifying what I meant, and you choose to ignore the fact I used troop types from M&B to suggest I play WB... This was again in response to the idea of pay-to-win, which if you're no longer suggesting that then this doesn't matter anymore.
It's called commenting. You put your idea here on the forum to discuss with others, yes? Did you expect everyone to agree 100% with your ideas? Sure, not everything everyone has said here was the most helpful, but you still learned where they stand on the idea. Lolbash can be very blunt and seem like he's being an ****, but usually he has decent points if you read deep enough into his comments. Brutus is kinda an ass, but he's earned that right... And about you being optimistic, that's about the, what was it, 1,000,000 players online everyday for 10 years. If you don't think that's optimistic, then I applaud you, the world hasn't crushed your soul yet. Assuming I was 100% on-board with everything you've suggested, and the game released with this, I would honestly probably play 1-2 times a week, and I definitely don't see 1,000,000 people playing this game every day for ten years. Of course, I could be wrong, but I'd rather be cautious than disappointed when there's only 100,000 people online for a few months.
I was really trying not to reply, but you kind of really called me out here so here you go. Read this, take some time to think about it, and remember I'm not trying to attack you, but discuss an idea that you brought up. I'll be waiting for a day or two.
Edit 1: formatting
Edit 2: forget to say what the edit was
It would be great if i could play with my friend. But if my friends are not interested, i want to enjoy game in singleplayer as well. As long as features are not limited to multiplayer or multiplayer is not more limited than singleplayer, i am all for it.
But first we need to get good singleplayer game.
But first we need to get good singleplayer game.
Do you have a particular example in mind, or are you just stirring the pot?
Perhaps the better way to have a discussion would be to explain your ideas if we didn't understand rather than just say "everyone is wrong", and then insulting people.Horrux said:
Why.BayBear said:
I am not here to argue, only to present an idea. If some of you are eager to dismiss anything out of hand without understanding or asking questions, that is your prerogative. It harms harmony, good will, and the development of a game you probably feel that you enjoy. But again, that is your prerogative.Roccoflipside said:
Also, I forgot to reply to Rocco's comment:
I apologize for missing your comments. However, you will notice how pretty much everyone else who wrote more than a few words in this thread are disparaging the idea with imaginary objections and assumptions. This is very disconcerting coming from people who in theory would be eager to get the best experience possible out of the game. But you are asking honest questions, so yes, it is my duty to answer them, so here goes:Roccoflipside said:
- A way to keep track of diplomacy: Players will try to ally or not with whomever they feel like. Alliances will arise or break down through game mechanics. If a player wants to send insults to all the factions, he could probably do that. Think in the aggregate, if you have 500 players for each faction. Some will coordinate, some won't. Eventually some alliances will develop over time and a counter-balance will also happen. Players that aren't happy with an enmity or alliance could work with others in their faction to change things around.
- Who determines who leads a faction: there is no leader. Each player sends groups of forces where he pleases. When the forces meet enemies, a battle happens, which is then played in the action game. A system like Warband's could be used, where the strongest soldiers from each faction are played first and so on. The team lead could be offered to the most experienced player of each faction who could refuse and pass it on to the next most experienced and so on.
- This allows the possibility of truly special troops (heroes, same as in the single-player game) which would of course also get played by whoever joins the match instead of being AI. Such heroes could be influenced to join a faction at the onset of a new war, and maybe they could level up according to their SP AI path? Or again maybe heroes could be randomly allocated from the beginning of a new war.
- Each player would have a certain amount of... Er... Ability? He could spend it on anything: diplomacy, troop creation, trade, etc. Think of a simplified subset of the single player, since we want balance. If a new player spends everything on creating troops, he might find himself without the ability to fund said troops. And spending just enough on alliances might be critical to winning, while spending too much would lead to others having an advantage. Hero recruitment might be a special thing... They might appear in all the battles of the faction they are included in, so that no single player can hog control such a powerful soldier. They could level up throughout the war. Normal troops could also get levelled up (remember, 50 sargents cost more than 50 light infantries, so yes they are more powerful, but can you afford them? And if you can, are you able to fund reinforcing the ones that die in battle? And on time? that is for the player to decide!)
- Troops cost funds to deploy and reinforce. They also cost funds to level up. Higher level troops are more difficult to field, their gear takes longer to be made, so you could have a player spawn 100 heavy armored mounted knights and another of similar means might be able to spawn 500 light infantry. Or, well, I have not played Warband much lately, so I forget what the numbers might look like. And maybe the player who can spawn max 500 light infantry chooses to spawn only 400 but spend the funds he would spend on the last 100 on "soldier creation economy", meaning he might be able to spawn them at an accelerated rate. The possibilities are endless.
Basically I am offering a way to integrate most of the features of SP Warband into MP Bannerlord. The features are already in the game. They are just not multiplayer. But with these measures one can see that it is possible. Even relatively easy.
Fine. Let's ask questions, then.
So, the biggest issue I see with this is scaling. With infinite progression, i.e. no hard cap on units, one player has the potential to win practically every campaign through attrition. Eventually, quantity will consistently win out over quality. By allowing an uncapped system you are enabling players with the most free time & dedication to dominate others through simple time investment, which creates an insurmountably entry barrier to anyone who comes along late to the show. This issue is magnified by allowing multiple command-role players in a single campaign, as they can each add their own units to those of the others. This creates a problem similar to that found in many PvP survival games, which is where the biggest active group can and will dominate everyone else simply because there are more of them around at any given time. More commanders = more troops = bigger numbers in the campaign = greater chance of victory. If there is no cap on commanders at all, this would get out of hand remarkably fast. I'd expect to see a dramatic power discrepancy within a couple of days.
To make matters worse, let's look at this:
You say later that there are "no best soldiers," which isn't really true in M&B. There may not be a best soldier overall, but there are certainly best options for each class/archetype. Khuzait will surely have the strongest horse archers on offer, while the Empire and Sturgia will likely have the strongest heavy infantry. This is, of course, assuming all the troops on offer are tier-equivalent so we can make simple horizontal comparisons. If we were to include tiers of each troop, then it becomes greatly stratified and one cannot possibly contend that there is no "best" unit. Surely, all else equal, one Vlandian knight will obliterate one Battanian peasant practically every time. In the first post I quoted you describe a system that is class-based and faction-restricted, so this is a legitimate line of argument. Not all units in M&B are created equal, even if they are equivalent in role & tier.
So there are strongest (i.e., best) troops, and there are upgrades instead of just sidegrades. Coupled with the option of buying them, sustaining them, reinforcing them, etc. with real money and you straight-up have a pay2win doomsday situation on your hands.
How many people are in command at a time? How does one access it? Is it just an arbitrary threshold like a leveling system with no other restrictions? Also, why must progression be infinite? I would think that this is actually counter-productive to ensuring the system remains balanced, given that one considers accessibility to be relevant to balance for a persistent multiplayer system like you describe. That's a related but more involved topic, which I'd rather not get into just yet.Horrux said:
So, the biggest issue I see with this is scaling. With infinite progression, i.e. no hard cap on units, one player has the potential to win practically every campaign through attrition. Eventually, quantity will consistently win out over quality. By allowing an uncapped system you are enabling players with the most free time & dedication to dominate others through simple time investment, which creates an insurmountably entry barrier to anyone who comes along late to the show. This issue is magnified by allowing multiple command-role players in a single campaign, as they can each add their own units to those of the others. This creates a problem similar to that found in many PvP survival games, which is where the biggest active group can and will dominate everyone else simply because there are more of them around at any given time. More commanders = more troops = bigger numbers in the campaign = greater chance of victory. If there is no cap on commanders at all, this would get out of hand remarkably fast. I'd expect to see a dramatic power discrepancy within a couple of days.
I guess this answers some of those questions. Well then, you have confirmed that my worst-case scenario is actually accurate. Thoughts?
To make matters worse, let's look at this:
I'm not against microtransactions in principle, but I am against pay2win schemes. I know this has been mentioned before in the thread, but here's the rub: if you can buy equipment and soldiers with in-game currency which you have in turn bought with real money, then you are throwing cash at the game to advance beyond other players without earning anything. If you can take an unlimited number of soldiers into a campaign, and if you can buy those soldiers with real money, then whoever drops the most money on the game on day one will also be the strongest player in the game at that time. Say I spend $100 on some soldiers on day one, but a buddy of mine spends $200 on the same thing. He has twice as many as I do, but neither of us have done anything in the game yet besides buy units. Hypothetically, if we were to fight each other then I would surely lose because he has twice as many troops as I do, and neither of us has anything else. If you don't see this as pay2win, then there's a serious misunderstanding here that you need to elaborate on.Horrux said:
You say later that there are "no best soldiers," which isn't really true in M&B. There may not be a best soldier overall, but there are certainly best options for each class/archetype. Khuzait will surely have the strongest horse archers on offer, while the Empire and Sturgia will likely have the strongest heavy infantry. This is, of course, assuming all the troops on offer are tier-equivalent so we can make simple horizontal comparisons. If we were to include tiers of each troop, then it becomes greatly stratified and one cannot possibly contend that there is no "best" unit. Surely, all else equal, one Vlandian knight will obliterate one Battanian peasant practically every time. In the first post I quoted you describe a system that is class-based and faction-restricted, so this is a legitimate line of argument. Not all units in M&B are created equal, even if they are equivalent in role & tier.
So there are strongest (i.e., best) troops, and there are upgrades instead of just sidegrades. Coupled with the option of buying them, sustaining them, reinforcing them, etc. with real money and you straight-up have a pay2win doomsday situation on your hands.Still, this all could be scaled out of control if in-game currency could be purchased with real money. Not only could I buy as many knights as you buy light infantry, but I could pay to recruit them faster, too. Lovely.
