Campaign Coop

[dosbrostacos]

Hi,

I have a question about the campaign coop. I am sure that the devs currently have a lot on their head with bugfixings and making the game stable but i waited soo much for this game and specially for the campaign coop part. That was actually a promised feature but it isnt currently available. I have read some where else that taleworlds will bring it later as a dlc or so. If thats true, i dont mind that, but please dont just add the multiplayer campaign type where you can just join the battle, that is a horrible idea. It would make me regret the money spent on the game. I wanted to play campaign coop with my little brother and see him grow with his own party, that would have been so cool. If campaign coop is too hard for them at least hire or find some people who know how to do this. Please, please, please make the very long dream of coop campaign become true. The game would remain unfinished if coop campaign could not be implemented.

Best regards,
dosbrostacos

 

[Revard]

Guys, "****" your coop. The game has so much potencial, it is good, taleworlds wont waste any ressources for that crap.

Its all about depth, not about casual players wanting beat bandits together.

If having a co-op aspect to this game destroys the depth of it. Then this game didn't had any. Allowing ressources to "that crap" is something that would be "heaven" for others. Simply being hate-full towards a community demonstrate the reason why people want to play with they friends and not some random strangers that would have an attitude like that online. Having a FUN experience is the main principle of a video game.
Look at Quantic Foundry's players motivations board. It is an extremely good source to use and they clearly elaborate on each aspects of what makes it fun for the kind of player you are.

 

[Revard]

Coop is something that we have investigated and decided to put to one side. We don't currently have any plans to add it to the game now or in the future.

(Sadly this is for Warband and not Bannerlord)

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/battle-time-the-co-op-mod-v1-4-updated-10-1-12.150827/

Clearly people don't want some co-op mode (sarcasm).... Well I guess that a thread of 41 pages from some dedicated people wishing for some co-op feature to have in their game is something that proves a point. These clearly had to search for it. And by their reactions, you can clearly see that they are delighted to have found this jewel. The more I look into it, the more I wonder what kind of argument made them think it would be a bad idea. Clearly they don't even try to understand their community.

 

[Al'extérieur]

So people would be mad if there's a co-op option.​

Option means you can or not play with someone. It is a choice made by the players. There is so many people that would like to see co-op in this game. A couple of years ago I read that they wanted to add it to mount & blade II, which is why I bought it.​

For reading that it is not and won't be added, it makes me mad because I was really looking forward to play this game with my friends.. Since I can't, I taught about getting a refund, but the fact that its still in development give me hope that it might change if there's enough PRO-points and demand.​

I'm currently a professional Game designer and Game programmer. I am not saying this without knowing whats going in productions. So I will say this:​

It is funny that they do not plan to add the possibility for a co-op to their game. They already have multiplayer mechanics already implemented. Which is what kept their older games alive. Yes people play their campain, but there's not so many people that replay it over and over again, the replay-ability is good since its mostly random, but it gets boring with AIs at some point. Most of the dev theses days think that by implementing some form of co-op means they have to redesign their whole game. And that is only a lazy excuse!​

I'm pretty sure that simply offering the possibility to simply have your friend with you in the skirmish in the campain would be enough to satisfy the players that want the co-op mode. After that they could implement new features depending of its impact in the sales, stability of the game, etc.​

I read people talking about developing some mods that allows the implementation of co-op in some other games. So technically theses people actually have more dedication towards their game then the devs. I'm pretty sure there are devs in the company that really fought for it and for those I am grateful that you tried. But for the ones that did block theses ideas to come out, I'll stay nice and say they are the rotten fruits of the industry. To come back at the point where people do actually mod the games that they like. Most of the games that can be moded are still alive today and have regular player base. Adding the feature of co-op would also save time to a lot of people to create, find it and then create mods related to that feature. Look at Europa Universalis 4, Crusader kings(1-2), all the Total war. Theses IP are incredible and Mount & blade could easily raise at the top has the best with that feature. If it stays like that, sadly it won't be long until this game's popularity crashes. Sure it will be a nice game, but it will become like all thoses games that we have in our steam library. Simply because of one small detail that would've made the whole difference..​

Also, why focusing on a multiplayer PVPVE if you think the campain isn't worth having a co-op?​

Clearly the multiplayer aspect has been added because it is fun! Maybe they don't want to add the co-op because it has never been done. But thats the thing with creating a new game. It is to have new things that the previous ones didn't had! I keep reading that they try to build their game following what the community asks and clearly it is been asked here. And by thoses motivated enough to find this forum, wait a 24h to validate their account, come back and post on it. I don't know about them but that does seem like loyal clients. Which usually would be the kind of people to play a lot, try to invite their friend to play it and dedicate their free time to create free content to add to the game.​

To conclude, add the co-op to your game. It is not going to kill it, neither going to lower your sales. It is only a positive addition has long has it is optional. People want it, your devs know how to code online synchronizations since you ALREADY have related features. This game has potential to become one of the best so don't screw up that chance.​

A lot of people are already talking mad in the multiplayer forums because it's not getting enough emphasis. It's been out for 2 weeks. Could we focus on 1-2 things at a time and not end up screwing the whole game up because people want 7 different game types? (It's an exaggeration, I know.) They put it to the side, they don't currently have a plan for it. You're always better off not making too many promises because you're going to end up disappointing your entire player-base. (e.g: No Man's Sky) You're a game developper yourself, so you know that already.

Yes it would be really dope if it could be a thing, but I'd rather they polish everything else including the multiplayer before they make this. Nobody wants to play a Coop game riddled with bugs. It's too early to know, so we will have to wait down to line to see if it's going to happen. They could finish it way earlier than they expected and say: "You know what guys? Coop is coming!".

 

[Revard]

A lot of people are already talking mad in the multiplayer forums because it's not getting enough emphasis. It's been out for 2 weeks. Could we focus on 1-2 things at a time and not end up screwing the whole game up because people want 7 different game types? (It's an exaggeration, I know.) They put it to the side, they don't currently have a plan for it. You're always better off not making too many promises because you're going to end up disappointing your entire player-base. (e.g: No Man's Sky) You're a game developper yourself, so you know that already.

Yes it would be really dope if it could be a thing, but I'd rather they polish everything else including the multiplayer before they make this. Nobody wants to play a Coop game riddled with bugs. It's too early to know, so we will have to wait down to line to see if it's going to happen. They could finish it way earlier than they expected and say: "You know what guys? Coop is coming!".

I'm totally agreeing with you, I support everything you said! Its the part where they affirm that they have already looked into it and do not plan to add it. I seriously don't mind to wait years to have it has long has it does.

But I've been waiting for so many years now for this game to come out hoping they would have it or were planning to. Like you said, they don't want to promise it.. But they actually did a few years ago.. Obviously things change, but having it said or not, I would've still expected it because of my precedent points.

 

[saulocoura]

How do you guys think a coop would work? I to think it would be amazing. The game is already one of my favorites of all time, a coop mode in the single player enviroment would be even a lot more fun. But with the mechanics of the game, how it would work exactly? Because of how the time passes when you are in the world map, and when you enter a city, make your trades, go in a tournament, fight a battle, take a walk through the town, and your friend would b doing his thing to, how would this play out? Any ideas?

 

[Pandajacket]

How do you guys think a coop would work? I to think it would be amazing. The game is already one of my favorites of all time, a coop mode in the single player enviroment would be even a lot more fun. But with the mechanics of the game, how it would work exactly? Because of how the time passes when you are in the world map, and when you enter a city, make your trades, go in a tournament, fight a battle, take a walk through the town, and your friend would b doing his thing to, how would this play out? Any ideas?

This is why it would need to be a mod. No matter how it is implemented it will require some compromises and not everyone will be satisfied

 

[ἀποκάλυψις]

Multiplayer is something that needs to baked into a game from the beginning. It effects the entire software design. It's also an order of magnitude more difficult than a single player offer-- in both production and support.

 

[TKnight]

Easiest way - have all players be in one party. with one Leading player. (+ supports of all modes to come)
Also other functions should be also implemented.such as addicional UI changes to party menu.
- Each player having own skill up tree (so they can choose their talants and skills whenever they want (so if leading player is moving the party on the map, other players can change their items in inventory / skill up the troops / check out their skills in the time that the Leading player is moving on the map)
- Divide troops in the ui (so each players can take troops under their control in Ui menu) (all this can be easly implemented in Clan menu.
somer rough examples that i made in photoshop. (in our case, Party will work as each player controlled units on the battle field)

 

[saulocoura]

Easiest way - have all players be in one party. with one Leading player. (+ supports of all modes to come)
Also other functions should be also implemented.such as addicional UI changes to party menu.
- Each player having own skill up tree (so they can choose their talants and skills whenever they want (so if leading player is moving the party on the map, other players can change their items in inventory / skill up the troops / check out their skills and so on.)
- Divide troops in the ui (so each players can take troops under their control in Ui menu) (all this can be easly implemented in Clan menu.
somer rough examples that i made in photoshop. (in our case, Party will work as each player controlled units on the battle field)

This would be really cool, and easy to implement I think too. It wouldnt be a free coop play, but i would be happy with that.

 

[ἀποκάλυψις]

not even remotely close to easy.

 

[Slate024]

Thing is how would it work? The game world would have to be constantly running since one player can't 3x across the map speeding the game up while the other player is travelling at normal speed unless one player controlled time which would suck. Or...the game world would constantly have to be running and things would happen whether the player was ready for them or not. Like in normal run speed all the time, which would mean you couldn't 3x across the map or wait in 3x speeds. It would def prove challenging, but honestly this would be only one of the ways you could do it right imo.

Players would really have to work together or against each other along with the ai, since the game world is constantly evolving. Would be fun though. The fact you would have to make quick decisions on the fly without being able to pause the game to think or read what's happening, the game world would just continue to roll regardless.

addition: - Would have to slow time scales/days down quite a bit to balance out since the game world would be constantly rolling.

 

[TKnight]

Thing is how would it work? The game world would have to be constantly running since one player can't 3x across the map speeding the game up while the other player is travelling at normal speed unless one player controlled time which would suck. Or...the game world would constantly have to be running and things would happen whether the player was ready for them or not. Like in normal run speed all the time, which would mean you couldn't 3x across the map or wait in 3x speeds. It would def prove challenging, but honestly this would be only one of the ways you could do it right imo.

Players would really have to work together or against each other along with the ai, since the game world is constantly evolving. Would be fun though. The fact you would have to make quick decisions on the fly without being able to pause the game to think or read what's happening, the game world would just continue to roll regardless.

addition: - Would have to slow time scales/days down quite a bit to balance out since the game world would be constantly rolling.

ehm no the world doesnt need to be in constant running since all players will be in one party.

 

[This_Banana]

i would love coop but iam k with a good campainmod at the moment =)

if we want a coop we have to talk about the problems with the game mechanic.
the easiest way would be to make the game turn-based. But in my opintion is that not they way they should go for. I dont want to wait.

but if its all real time we have to list and talk about some conflict points:

for an example:

-recruting Units
one guy could get all recruits and other player would be ****ed cause they cant get recurts

-Questing
what happend if to guys accept the same quest

-trading
trading is the same problem like recruiting. Who can buy/sell faster wins the game.

-tournements
how can several player participate in the same event

-heroes
same as trading and recruting. The first guy gets the best heroes for his party.

I think if we want a mp we should make a view on all this problem points and we should give solutions.

 

[Slate024]

ehm no the world doesnt need to be in constant running since all players will be in one party.

Pretty sure I didn't mention anything about staying in one party. I was referring to a method where one person would not be in control of the time or entire party that would be lame.

 

[Thomazette]

People, one the difficults to implement, is the sync of the time lapse for the players. For that just put te normal time fixed for then.
- one guy could get all recruits and other player would be ****ed cause they cant get recurts
that in fact, grow the experience, force the players realy do the coop. But if not, just is theys make a competition.

-what happend if to guys accept the same quest
Need one question per player.

-trading is the same problem like recruiting. Who can buy/sell faster wins the game.
The games, dont win just with trade. The campaign game, dont have a finish yet( or i never get it). Maybe conquer all cities on the word. But that is hard, with the coop this is more excitive. Remember, is coop not competitive multiplayer.

-how can several player participate in the same event
that system need be update to allow the player paricipate, that really need same updates to do that.

-same as trading and recruting. The first guy gets the best heroes for his party.
I think same as trading and recruiting. That force the players decide like a coop game. And if not want that, then turn to competitive.

 

[Alrav23]

I would give my whole stimulus check to any modder who creates coop. I'm sure people would pay more then the actual game itself.

 

[Keldar]

If campaign coop was promised and people bought the game for 50 and then they decided not to implement it now or in the future that smells like a bait and switch to me. BE HONEST about your product and stop promising stuff you aren't going to deliver. If it was more like we MIGHT do a coop campaign and decided not to that would be something else entirely. I personally never read anything about them saying they would do campaign coop.

 

[Memoefe]

If campaign coop was promised and people bought the game for 50 and then they decided not to implement it now or in the future that smells like a bait and switch to me. BE HONEST about your product and stop promising stuff you aren't going to deliver. If it was more like we MIGHT do a coop campaign and decided not to that would be something else entirely. I personally never read anything about them saying they would do campaign coop.

They never promised coop.

 

[Mikey]

They never promised coop.

True. In fact, they were quite explicit about coop campaign NOT being in the game or anywhere in their plans, what they said was that it'd be up to modders to make it happen, if it were going to happen. There's plenty of things to be unhappy/dissatisfied with for this product, but this isn't one of them.

 

[Faqra]

hard to do coop coz time freezes during battles and when player goes in a settlement