Drop your multiplayer campiagn ideas HERE

[xMindTrickx]

You guys forget that you can travel accross the map while someone is fighting someone.
If someone goes into a battle, I can just travel all the way to his castle, attack it, and he won't be back on time to help it out properly. And in the meantime someone would steal my castle...

Yep really great gameplay :/

If someone isn't taking care of their land it's only natural that it will be taken from them. There's a reason why you can garrison troops in castles and towns, and why having multiple lords in your faction is a good idea. Though, as I said before, a pause-less M&B would need lower traveling speeds, so you would have to be pretty close to his castle if you wanted to take it while he was in a battle. Not to mention the time required to set up the siege equipment...

It's so nice to see for a change someone who says exactly what I'm thinking 
But don't forget a bigger map will also help.

 

[MaHuD]

1 party is easiest and best solution.

Or maybe a Human AI director that orders lords around to oppose that party as well.

 

[apsod]

Strategeus sucks lol,these would be my ideas we all have our own partys and we  can join any faction we want or make our own,or rebel with a claimant more or less just the same as the singleplayer but with AI AND more than 1 player maybe a max of 5 or 6 I recently made a thread like this buts I lost it

One man working more than his job everyday and when the first beta is realesed you just say Strategus sucks!?
Well then you suck...

 

[munchiepoo]

If you can't take one persons oponion then don't start an argument over it,kthxbai.

 

[Strelock]

A multiplayer campaign would be amazing. I've got some ideas, but none of the experience needed to implement them. 

As stated before, players could take over existing companions. Maybe they could choose a companion, kind of like the custom commander mod.

Players could make their own character like in the regular campaign, with their own background options and stuff. I would rather have this than the first idea, although it'd be great if players could choose between the two.
Maybe the host could be like a regular SP character, but the others could be like the classes in MP. I wouldn't really want this, as it would be kind of boring for the other players.

I could see multiple parties working as long as everyone would be on the same page. For example, Player 1 gets in a battle. If Player 2 is kind of close to Player 1, he/she could join the fight. If they're far away from each other, Player 2 would be forced to spectate the battle. That way, Player 2 wouldn't be able to run around the map and wreak havoc while Player 1 was fighting, and it would only need 1 server (I think).

It would probably be tedious to switch the map whenever somebody would want to get quests, so it might be a good idea to have a lot of stuff be menu based. It wouldn't be nearly as much fun, but it'd be better than nothing. Maybe each part of a castle/town could be made into 1 map (so players wouldn't have to load a new map to go to the tavern, arena, or see the lords).



There are loads of other things to consider.

1. How would saving and loading work? Would the host load a file from his/her computer?
2. Would players join whenever they wanted, or would they have to join some kind of lobby before the host 'started' the game?
3. How would the campaign map even be accessed? Would it have a separate game type? How would it show up in the server list?
4. How would dedicated servers work? Would the game pause until somebody joined?
5. If players were in 1 party, how much control over troops, inventory, and money would each player have?

...and the list goes on. With so much stuff to go through, it's no wonder nobody has tried to make a multiplayer campaign.

 

[Mr.X]

Another problem you guys are missing is that, in sp, a human can absolutely rape bots if they know what they're doing. Even if you tone down the charachter enhancement (which would be annoying) many people can easily take a castle even if they have like 50 less troops.

 

[xMindTrickx]

I suggest not having bots at all.
An empire should be made of clan, not by a single person controlling a bunch of bots.
So the king would be the guild master while guild officers would be the lords, then the normal members would be the soldiers.

 

[Strelock]

An option to disable bots would be good, but loads of people would have to join just to get a decent sized battle.

 

[MaHuD]

I suggest not having bots at all.
An empire should be made of clan, not by a single person controlling a bunch of bots.
So the king would be the guild master while guild officers would be the lords, then the normal members would be the soldiers.

Go and play guildwars....
Also servers wont hold that.

 

[Jagen Claw]

Also if there is a lot of people wandering around there would have to be a bigger map otherwise ther would be three players with castles and 50 without or something like that

Jagen out

 

[MrMeat]

These ideas are all fine, and if they managed to implement "multiple parties/multiple players" campaigns I might be pretty happy with it. But you'd need an extremely powerful server to handle all of the ongoing events (multiple battles, the world map, etc.) and even then there would be an enormous amount of lag. As an example, take the average lag you experience online and multiply it by five. Fun.

Also, it would be EXTREMELY difficult for the developers to create it, since the game just wasn't built to handle the world AND several battles at the same time. They'd have to redesign EVERYTHING from the ground up. And then there's the issue of RAM; with all of these battles going on at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if a computer on the lower end of the scale would run out of memory once and a while.

Basically, it's an extremely volatile way to build the game. Too many events going on at one time could cause serious problems. The game just wasn't made for it (nor were the computers, probably!)

There's a certain point where the costs outweigh the benefits so much that the whole idea just becomes unreasonable.

Suffice it to say, I still hold my opinion that "one party/multiple players" is the best way for multiplayer campaigning to happen. And that idea doesn't seem to be too popular, so I don't think that our chances of getting multiplayer campaigns are too great...

 

[Strelock]

I never thought it would even be possible to get levels and stats in multiplayer, but cRPG was made and proved me wrong. I think (or hope) that somebody will start trying and have a big breakthrough. Warband hasn't even been out for a year, so who knows what advances modders could make?

 

[Leto]

strategus-play it love it, that's as close theres ever gonna be to an mp campaign (pretty close as it so happens)

 

[MrMeat]

I never thought it would even be possible to get levels and stats in multiplayer, but cRPG was made and proved me wrong. I think (or hope) that somebody will start trying and have a big breakthrough. Warband hasn't even been out for a year, so who knows what advances modders could make?

Ok, reality check: modding may seem cryptic to some people, but that does not guage how difficult it is to implement on the developers' end. Putting leveling in multiplayer isn't hard.

What IS hard for a programmer to write is a robust 3D realtime client/server virtual reality system that handles multiple instances of combat, politics, dialogue, and movement, all at the same time.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: that's just not going to happen.

 

[xMindTrickx]

Ok, reality check: modding may seem cryptic to some people, but that does not guage how difficult it is to implement on the developers' end. Putting leveling in multiplayer isn't hard.

What IS hard for a programmer to write is a robust 3D realtime client/server virtual reality system that handles multiple instances of combat, politics, dialogue, and movement, all at the same time.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: that's just not going to happen.

What would they need to make it possible though?
More money? More developers?
Maybe some bigger company might take interest and fund them?

 

[Pahosee]

I would say, Warband MMO and you can grow your army, unlike those only player MMO

you can have troops, and still ally with other players to fight some npc faction or players troops vs player troops for pvp lol

 

[Strelock]

Ok, reality check: modding may seem cryptic to some people, but that does not guage how difficult it is to implement on the developers' end. Putting leveling in multiplayer isn't hard.

What IS hard for a programmer to write is a robust 3D realtime client/server virtual reality system that handles multiple instances of combat, politics, dialogue, and movement, all at the same time.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: that's just not going to happen.

I was talking about a mod that would have other players be companions; I should have clarified. I don't think a MMO mod is possible, just regular co-op.

 

[MrMeat]

I was talking about a mod that would have other players be companions; I should have clarified. I don't think a MMO mod is possible, just regular co-op.

Ah! My mistake. Excuse me.

What would they need to make it possible though?
More money? More developers?
Maybe some bigger company might take interest and fund them?

It's not just a question of what the devs need to get it done, it's whether or not they want it to be done at all. I'm sure the word MMO was never in the original design document of M&B. Making M&B into an MMO is so far beyond the original scope of the game, it's ridiculous to ask for it.

Warband is not an MMO. And it doesn't look like the devs want it to become one.

Also, you can't add many, if any, of the features that you are requesting through modding. The closet you can get with modding is cRPG. So that's pretty much out of the question, too.

 

[RitoDurito]

I would say, Warband MMO and you can grow your army, unlike those only player MMO

you can have troops, and still ally with other players to fight some npc faction or players troops vs player troops for pvp lol

AI soldiers will have to be 6x the price due to mass battles or you can make money extremley scarce

 

[chawa]

A MMO MB would be sweet... But I really think progression shouldn't be as fast as in solo. Also, I'd make it a whole hell harder to have an army of your own. First you would go through a mercenary phase, where you hope to be recruited in a more advanced player's band, and then you'd start you're thing with a couple of guys, once you acquired enough reputation.
But even then I don't think party size sould go over 10, so that big battles occur only when you play with many allies by your side. I don't think it'd be good if there was too many NPCs for each player.