Dev Blog 06/09/18

[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_56_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p> <p>With Gamescom behind us and everyone back in work after taking some much needed time off to recover, we have had the chance to sit down and work our way through the major talking points to come out of this year’s expo. For some of the topics, we plan to expand upon them and explain them in greater detail at a later date in their own dedicated blogs, but for now, we want to clarify some of the things that were said in the interviews that took place during the event.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/76

 

[Martin93]

We think the only viable way to support this is to make a single party co-op where additional players can join the main player’s battles but cannot venture into the campaign map on their own.

Very weak. But what would you exspect from a company that has a forum from the last century? I know many fanboys will now defend them but in fact they handeled the whole release badly
and all they had to do is transport a existing game to a new engine and model it out. Sure they made some small changes but nothing that allows a 7 year or even longer, because we don't know, development time with such a huge team. Very weak taleworlds!

 

[Ettenrocal]

Stop the stupid bashing, especially with co-op, if you can't understand why its hard to make maybe try think of it more...

 

[DtheHun]

I don't know this feature, so I ask. What would be the gist of this co-op besides of joining the battle? If players have separate armies, one freezes on the map, while the other fights or what? Plese enlighten me.

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

I not understand why co-op is important for some

Taleworlds is a handworking company but removal of features is common during development of games(for example in beta AOM Greek buildings were accurated than in full release or units are hidden) Stop blame Taleworlds

 

[Ettenrocal]

If you make a real co-op its like a multiplayer game for two people and if the other play while you sleep maybe he can conquer your castles so that would not very balanced, or maybe you can code something to time-travel into the game ? Like the other guy played yesterday but his actions are record for the next time you connect ? It is very very complicated... The easier solution is the two players connect and play same time like a LAN... The problem is that Mount&Blade is a ten hours in a row game...

I don't understand too why its so important for some people...

 

[DtheHun]

Thanks! I thought that co-op is about being on the same side (cooperation), but my gaming knowledge is very outdated. I still can't imagine, how it could work in a game with fast forwards on maps and pauses in battles and towns. However, I understand the claim, If someone has a bro, it could be fun.

 

[Ironic Golem]

I don't know this feature, so I ask. What would be the gist of this co-op besides of joining the battle? If players have separate armies, one freezes on the map, while the other fights or what? Plese enlighten me.

No, no separate armies. You'd fight together, assuming co-op ever happens.
As they said: "We think the only viable way to support this is to make a single party co-op where additional players can join the main player’s battles but cannot venture into the campaign map on their own."

Arnulf & Ettenrocal:
Co-op wouldn't be competitive, so no, there's no conquering of each other's castles or need for time travel / "catch-up" or anything. People can do play long-form games in a MP forum - see most any 4x/grand strat game (Civilization, Crusader Kings 2, etc), and even then, playing co-op for a few hours with a friend is a thing you can do. But, yes, you would both have to be online at the same time.

I'm fairly sure the idea most people are fine with is a simple "Player one hosts the game, then invites his friends to join his game, and when they do so they create their character as a companion in player one's party, then play alongside him, controlling that companion." Then possibly whenever you want to play without your friend, the AI just controls the companion as normal.
So they're all the same party. It's not a thing people will join random games of, but if you have a friend or two that plays M&B it'd be fun to play a campaign with them sometimes.

Its appeal is "Hey, we both enjoy this game and the stories and struggles it creates, but you know what'd be cooler? If we were to suffer and struggle together, so we could laugh about it."

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

I not want to play with a friend because every has playstyle and home rules, but I not will buy co-op DLC

 

[DtheHun]

I'm fairly sure the idea most people are fine with is a simple "Player one hosts the game, then invites his friends to join his game, and when they do so they create their character as a companion in player one's party, then play alongside him, controlling that companion." Then possibly whenever you want to play without your friend, the AI just controls the companion as normal.
So they're all the same party. It's not a thing people will join random games of, but if you have a friend or two that plays M&B it'd be fun to play a campaign with them sometimes.

That's how I thought it, and it looks mostly granted if they keep the join battle option. That's why I didn't understand the outcry.

 

[Ettenrocal]

If you play as a companion what will you do except battles or following your friend in cities ? Indeed it can be good but also its not so incredible and many people don't see it like that but like a game you can play at two and even like this its a feature that is not necessary at all for a first release.

 

[FBohler]

If you play as a companion what will you do except battles or following your friend in cities ? Indeed it can be good but also its not so incredible and many people don't see it like that but like a game you can play at two and even like this its a feature that is not necessary at all for a first release.

I agree.

Why spend too much effort on a feature that is going to be utterly bland and underused?

Yes, people have expectations on co-op gameplay, but let's face the reality that it isn't going to be a game changer. They can focus on core features rather than co-op until full release.

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

Same

 

[Ironic Golem]

Naw, I accept and understand it coming afterwards, even if I'd love to have it in the base game.
I'm just explaining why people want it at all and offering ideas. I'm surprised you guys think it'd be bland or underused; we must have vastly different friends who play, because all my friends who play it would love a functional co-op mode.
The player-companion could have some player-like abilities, like being able to manage the party (upgrade units, manage other companions, etc) or talk with people themselves in scenes. Now it's, what, just map movement under the control of the hosting player?
Even saying that, considering fighting is a huge part of the game, and there's a sergeant system, just "fighting and following the player" seems like it'd be fun.
If your playstyles or goals in the game are hugely different, then perhaps you could agree, as friends, to pursue something you both could enjoy?

But, ye, that's all.

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

I must understand as playing as a companion is exactly playing as my son, but essence of co-op is as we and friends must share campaign This devblog is so cool and make me happy unlike previous, discussions are more decent and more interesting, I like as Taleworlds don't lie community because they not give a ETA and honestly reveals as we can have dynasties

 

[Lord Engineer (Castor)]

Good blog, addresses the concerns and questions of many in the community.

Personally I would like to join minor factions but if its too difficult to implement I'm not going to cry over it.

Also I can see Taleworlds are really trying to get coop into their game, in whatever form it may come. I'm not massively invested with this but if they do stick with their current course of action then players who join the 'host' should be able to do stuff when not in battle. @Dragon239's suggestions are a good start, especially with regards to management of companions (which could honestly be quite a pain, especially if you have a lot of companions).

Maybe they could set up a system kind of like Borderlands or Terraria?, just a thought.

 

[Do not look here]

and all they had to do is transport a existing game to a new engine and model it out.

I mean, yeah, that's basically what they're doing right now, except they're the ones responsible for new engine as well.

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

I not understand why people were not pleased as Taleworlds updating Warband to a new engine but many forgot as M&B is a series and all games must produced in same style and same spirit. I wait Bannerlord only for expanded modding support in rest I don't care for basegame

 

[DtheHun]

If just the join battle option is implemented, then I don't think that the co-op clients will have any access to a single character sheet. Hopefully they can chose which NPC they want to control, and they will tell the host what kind of NPC they want to have. The broadcasting of the world map events is also unsure. Live streaming could be a solution if it's not implemented. Imagine when your friends competing with each other to convince you to spend your gold on the item their character needs.

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

People don't understand as their suggestions not will be in basegame but in DLCs and mods. I will discuss about families: in Warband are nobles with wives and children, in Bannerlord was added system of clans which is same thing but more complex, also appear children of rulers. PCs can have family with many siblings(not as in CK2) but speaking of dynasties seems out of place because ones lasting decades(again CK2) not a generation or two. Campaign map looks awesome compared to 2016 and image with soldiers cattying two bows is even nice. Keep on work Taleworlds, you make me happy with old Warband and mods

A good night

 

[monoolho]

P.S: Sorry for my English, most of forumers not understand me

My friend, do not excuse yourself, there is no need for that. People can understand you fine, it's just some people like to ***** about it, just like they ***** about everything else. It is amazing that you take the time to try and communicate, even if you know little English. This is one of the most efficient ways to learn a new language, ça va? English is my second language, but it took years of school, movies, games and forum going to get it to where it is now.

Anything and everything that went silent for so long is considered a cut by me, to put it simply. So, destructible structures? Cut; Minor Factions availability for the player? Cut; Naval combat? Cut; Diplomatic features (as in Diplomacy mod)? Cut; Etc.

So you require taleworlds to keep constantly talking about stuff they've hinted at, else you think it was cut? That is a bad criterion. Why don't you just ask for a feature list page to be added somewhere, so you can reference that whenever you think something was cut or added? Waste of resources and time in my opinion, but it seems to be something a lot of people sort of want, just to compare it to warband and materialize "how little is different now, so the game's not worth it".

Very weak. But what would you exspect from a company that has a forum from the last century?

That's your argument? You want their forums to become reddit so it can look modern? You must be aware that managing a forum is a heavy burden, and updating the forum to more modern design would make stuff way more chaotic, not mentioning the hell it would be to follow any thread... This is a classic design that has worked for at least 20 years, even if you don't like its visuals. And it works especially for TW's needs. It may look rustic, because of the backgrounds and textures, but it works well for its purposes. Now, if you have useful design ideas that you believe would make the forums more efficient, please, do contribute, I'm sure TW would be glad to have suggestions on that. I do not mean the visual artifacts of the forum, I mean the overall layout and design of how threads are shown and posts are made. Colours and textures can be changed with ease.

I not understand why co-op is important for some

Coop is a cool idea, but it is something too complex to add to M&B, it is a peculiar game, with peculiar aspects that simply do not fit in with a coop feature. Also, it is my personal belief, that many people want it because they think that if the game doesn't have multiplayer, it's incomplete (coop multiplayer+competitive multiplayer+single player thus counts as a complete game).

隐藏: personal and possibly offensive rant, maybe totally unrelated to the thread

Many people request it whenever possible because it's the spirit of the new age, the public zeitgeist of streamers and what-nots. Their requests are founded solely on the feeling that coop would be fun, but not thinking about the complexity of implementing such feature, most likely leaving that complexity up to the devs, "it's their game, anyway", so if it's not the coop they think would be perfect, it is not worth it at all (something mmo-esque, I believe). It has to do with an online culture that wants online features everywhere. The need to be connected to the internet at all times, else they feel they are away from the web world. It's a multi-layered thing that plagues the gaming world, it's a shared experience with streaming. You also allegedly earn cool interwebs points for playing a new game while talking to other people... It's the modern way of just showing people you do one thing, without actually doing it (like watching a movie while you browse facebook: you're not actually watching/experiencing the movie, just telling people you are). Nothing against people who do it, I'm just stating that this is the current state of affairs, and people want the tools to do it (I personally don't like it and don't do it, but I honestly do not mind that people do it; their choice, their time, their games).

I expected some clarification on the AI from the blog, too bad we didn't get it. Maybe they didn't see that it was "too easy" and that some AI seemed too dumb? Or maybe they just think we're certain that's the easiest difficulty.

Will there be dynasties/families in the game?
Players will be able to have family members and children. Time flows faster in Bannerlord (when compared to Warband) with a year currently set to 84 days (we will probably fine-tune this further before release). Also, you can start the game with siblings, nephews and nieces and they serve as potential heirs as well.

This made me so happy. I would not mind if the feature seems a bit arcadey, the feature of having a family (and possibly limited lives) adds a whole new aspect to the game. It doesn't need to be like crusader kings, with traits and what nots, having a "personal clan" is good enough. And the usefulness of the family members is really something to consider: maybe they have a small hamlet where you start the game? It will seem half-baked if it doesn't make sense. I hadn't thought of that, but it is important. And it makes sense that you can have siblings when you start, so you're still free to marry.

Are we able to join minor factions?
You can hire some minor factions as mercenaries or enlist them to your kingdom in other ways, but there is currently no way to join minor factions as a member.

Too bad, I think, but, eh, it would be too chaotic if every single minor faction was a different faction, it would overcomplicate the political things. I'm just not so sure where are the differences between minor factions and clans, but I didn't look for it. Nevertheless, mods are our modern gods, and still creating our own faction will suffice for me.

Can we still build castles in villages we own?
We had to drop that feature. At some point in development, fief management became too complex, with towns, castles and villages each having their own specific management screens. The ability to build castles in villages also gave rise to complex rules.

A pity, truly, but if it doesn't work, if it was too complex and took away from the fun, it is good you took it out. I want the game to be fun and intuitive, not to be some micromanagement hell simulator. Space simulators may be fun and all, but they require absurd amounts of micromanaging, and I seriously don't want that for BL. A pity, truly, I wanted to have small forts in some villages, but if it didn't work the way they wanted to, the better. No one likes features that simply aren't fun and don't work.

Overall, excellent work, these answers are a good way to clarify stuff. Even if they sound like bad news, it means they are standing up for what they are doing in the game.  I'll make Kniggit's words my own:

Wow, I was expecting them to skirt some of those questions, kudos to them for actually answering them.

I'm glad they addressed the Co-op, and I'm glad the answer was "We like the idea, but it is not possible right now, probably a DLC" as opposed to a straight "No", so that's cool.

Keep it up Taleworlds! You're making a masterpiece, and everyone is eagerly awaiting to get their hands on it.

edit: fix'd the online rant about coop.