Drop your multiplayer campiagn ideas HERE

[Apox]

Well, AI LORDS can be added into it. Because it is impossible to gather 120 or more players on a multiplayer campaign map (Maybe 22nd Servers make it, but even it is hard.).

 

[RitoDurito]

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.

20-40 NPCs max?

 

[chawa]

well it'd be really to encourage player to organize, gather so the world map wouldn't be just a huge mess. I just guess big battles should mean lots of players, so making them hard to get could kinda encourage people to federate coherently to get them. Maybe not. I'm confused all of a sudden 

 

[xMindTrickx]

I still think no bots at all is best.
Huge 200vs200 battles isn't supposed to be a common thing you can find several places of the map.

Those battles are ment for when an actual war is going on, when some clan wants to take on a other clan.
You shouldn't have a army of 100 bots for just running around scouting the map for some lonesome newbie who might have gotten lost.

Also if a MMO would be made I am pretty sure the playerbase of M&B would skyrocket at the same time.
And I bet the income as well since they could easily charge a subscription then.

 

[Dahobo24]

well if you want this is going to take 3-4 to create a good graphic large muliplayer map. Though if you wanted a warband mmo it would take 4-5 years depending on what they decide. If they wanted to make it like the normal far view it would take less I think while if they wanted to make it like Wow or anyother third person mmo they would have to create a full fixed environment but i like the random lands. Then you have to think about playbase if they want like 200 people on a map if would be a total cluster f*** though if it was in third person you would need more. Already knowing that M&B isn't a big game with like million people it would be useless for them to make a mmo unless they advertise it well enough to get people playing. If they made a huge map and about 100 people for a map then you would only need like 6 servers from what I've seen from the amount of people. I like the idea of the huge map with like 100 people but a mmo would be useless.

 

[King Yngvar]

The best way would be to make it as close to singleplayer as possible. Let each player have his party and roam around the map as usual. You would of course have to eliminate the ability to speed walk on the map, remove the pause and generally slow down the movement speed on campaign map (due to battles).

To have multiple players controlling separate parties on the world map is just a bad idea. The world map mode has been designed so that the player can pause the world at any time to review his party's status, read reports on his character, manage his inventory, and even just stop and think a bit. The only way to implement this in multiplayer is to have EVERYONE'S game stop when one player presses the Space key or opens a menu.

Why the need for that pause?

Just make sure you are in a town when you do this and there will be no surprise attacks.

Then you have to think about playbase if they want like 200 people on a map if would be a total cluster f*** though if it was in third person you would need more. Already knowing that M&B isn't a big game with like million people it would be useless for them to make a mmo unless they advertise it well enough to get people playing. If they made a huge map and about 100 people for a map then you would only need like 6 servers from what I've seen from the amount of people. I like the idea of the huge map with like 100 people but a mmo would be useless.

An MMO could of course also be done from this. And I do not really see a problem in this game having less players. While in a regular big MMO game you have tons of single soldiers. Even only a few hundred players online in an M&B MMO would meen hundreds of generals, each commanding hundreds of bots.

 

[Dahobo24]

i was talking about the work and the cash investment if it would be worth it it is possible but would the company get lots of cash.

 

[xMindTrickx]

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

I just took ur advice and i ****in love it.
I suggest anyone else posting in this thread to try it if you haven't.

Only thing that is a shame is that it's a mod and not official.
If it was official I think it would attract a lot more players.

 

[MrMeat]

You would of course have to eliminate the ability to speed walk on the map, remove the pause and generally slow down the movement speed on campaign map (due to battles).

When a battle is started, shadows are applied to the entire terrain based on the position of the sun. This is done only once at the start of the battle, since time stops. If time doesn't stop when you are in a battle, the shadows must be constantly recalculated, causing a major graphical slowdown for those that don't have very good hardware.

How much would you have to slow down the map speed? If you slow things down too much, it becomes boring. If you don't slow them down, it's too easy to intercept someone in the middle of a battle.

Also, there's still the issue with lag. Managing multiple battles consisting of hundreds of characters in a giant world will slow any normal server down. For games like World of Warcraft to operate, Blizzard must use very powerful servers situated in key locations across the globe.

And besides, Mount&Blade isn't an MMO to begin with. Traditionally MMOs take years to develop, cost millions of dollars, require an enormous, dedicated staff, and use very expensive equipment to manage them. Mount&Blade was never meant to be an MMO. It wasn't designed as such. It can't just become one over a weekend, and even if it did, it just wouldn't be Mount&Blade anymore.

Remember, M&B is still an indie game. A successful indie game, but an indie game nonetheless.

EDIT:
However, I still stand by my original post, which details a decent way to handle multiplayer campaigning while leaving the core gameplay mechanics as untouched as possible.

 

[rawmacgyver]

To have multiple players controlling separate parties on the world map is just a bad idea. The world map mode has been designed so that the player can pause the world at any time to review his party's status, read reports on his character, manage his inventory, and even just stop and think a bit. The only way to implement this in multiplayer is to have EVERYONE'S game stop when one player presses the Space key or opens a menu. In servers with multiple people, this would just get ridiculous. It gets worse when one player gets into a fight with, say, some river pirates. What happens to the other players while this player is off fighting this battle? In singleplayer the game world just pauses and just waits for the battle to finish before anything else happens. But you can't do this in multiplayer without seriously annoying everyone else.

In short, the only way you could have multiple players controlling their own parties on the world map would be if you completely changed the way the passage of time works in Warband. That's just not gonna happen.

Now, if only one player was given control over a party, while the other players just acted as his companions, the idea of multiplayer campaigning becomes feasible. However, this too has one major problem: since only one player will have control of the party, the other players will be at the mercy of whoever is in control; which will most likely be someone who doesn't care about their well being whatsoever.

THIS CAN BE REMEDIED, HOWEVER:

If you play with people you know, you can form a team that works together on behalf of the wishes of the majority. Here's an example:

Billy Bob and Joe Shmuck want to play together. Billy is designated as the party leader, with Joe as his companion. Since Bill is in control, he ultimately decides where the party will go; but, as a good team player, he also listens to Joe's requests and advice. Thus, they work as a team. When fights start, Joe helps Bill defeat the enemy, and after the battle, Billy works to increase both his own fortune as well as Joe's. He buys Joe a fancy new sword, buys some property to increase their weekly gains, and then finds and kills some river pirates; balancing the act to keep the party members entertained with combat, but also working on the side to gain power and glory for all.

The players would all share a common money pool, and whenever Bill visits a town and walks among the streets, his companions go with him, so they can also do some shopping and manage the supplies of the party. On top of this, the other members get to manage their own characters. Bill has no control over the other player's stats, although, if they are reasonable they will listen to his advice and will work together in forming their characters so that they complement eachother well.

As you can see, this kind of multiplayer campaigning might work quite well, IF the players are allowed to keep up constant communication with eachother. VOIP would be extremely useful here, but chat would work too if all the players could type well enough.

Obviously, this kind of multiplayer gaming would NOT be suited for casual drop in players; games would have to be planned ahead of time by the individuals interested, and nearly all the servers would be password protected to prevent unwanted people from joining the game and ruining the campaign for everyone. Essentially, the game would become D&D online; a very private game to be played between friends.

Comments welcome.

Hi, newly registered. But played the game for a few years. They said we could not have multiplayer in this game, now we are fighting about multiplayer in the campgain =) It is possible, it always is! But realtime? Many parties? Nonono, to hectic and troublesome.

Just wanted to say that everyone playing in one party would be awesome to me and my friends (some of would buy the game only if we could coop), and that maybe some minor stuff could be implemented to make the "waiting" for a battle to be bearable for the non-captain.
Maybe a player could train the army giving them faster xp?
Maybe another one could be the designated trader? (checking rumors and trade routes while the leader is riding on world map),
and while in the city everyone could split up until full party was set to ready (maybe even have a timer on this).
Everyone could join tournaments etc. Maybe managing villages/towns/castles to a certain degree while riding? Sending messages for troop movement between castles etc.

Loads of small stuff to make the waiting better, but me and my friends (including soon-to-be wife) would play this game singleplayer even if they only could play a companion as we would take deciscions together anyway.

My 5 cents! as for the supporters: Keep on nagging, we got multiplayer, lets get the next step too!

-MacGyver

 

[MrMeat]

Happy to finally see another supporter of my ideas.

 

[XSevSpreeX]

The best way to do this would be to just allow every player to have their own party. Keep everything else the same as SP. Except for the time thing. As already said, players can pause at any time. I think the best way to do this would be to NOT allow players to pause, but instead set themselves to some kind of setting that prevents you from being attacked. Like how in some online games, particularly MMORPGs, you can set your status to away, busy, do not disturb, etc.

 

[MrMeat]

The best way to do this would be to just allow every player to have their own party.

Right, and the best way to perform space travel is with a warp capable space cruiser. Why don't you just go invent one and get back to us when you're finished.

You have to do more than just come up with reasons why multiple parties would be cool. Tell us how it would ever work. There's more problems associated with the idea than the passage of time, and you guys still haven't devised workable solutions for any of them.

 

[Hamel]

You have to do more than just come up with reasons why multiple parties would be cool. Tell us how it would ever work. There's more problems associated with the idea than the passage of time, and you guys still haven't devised workable solutions for any of them.

...

Slowing down the progression of time would work perfectly fine, I'm sure. Battles don't take very long as things are right now, and if you shrunk the battle map-size significantly, they would be even quicker. Heck, I bet the NPC vs NPC battles we already see in singleplayer take longer than player vs player battles would. Besides, "you guys" have yet to convince me that there is anything particularly wrong with other players being able to do things while you are in the heat of battle, we do it to NPCs all the time in singleplayer.

Bah, one could even argue that pausing during battle in singleplayer is a flaw in the game (an entirely understandable one, due to the obvious performance issues), since it gives an unfair advantage to the player.

Also, I highly doubt anyone is going to be more bored traveling across the map for a couple minutes than they would be waiting for the party leader to do something already.

 

[MrMeat]

Ok, here are some other small problems I mentioned (although you never answered) that need to be solved if multiplayer campaigning w/ multiple parties is to be realized:

-Graphical problems (realtime world shadowing in battle)
-Network problems (lag)
-Development problems (time, resources, and will)

I'm sure there's more problems than these, it would help if I knew how the Mount&Blade source code was constructed.

Now here's a particular problem with the other solutions you've suggested: say a player is trying to manage his party. Throughout the time that he is doing this, the whole world is moving around him. Therefore, while he is trying to analyze information and make important decisions regarding the allocation of his scarce resources, he could very well come under surprise attack by an enemy warband. So this normally slow, go-at-your-own-pace strategic element becomes hashed as the player is just trying to be quick without making smart decisions. On the technical side, the game is slow since it's trying to digest so much information it's receiving across his home network (which happens to NOT be broadband, so he's getting horrible game performance). Essentially the entire game code has to be redesigned since the whole game has suddenly become realtime, whereas before it was not. The game must do so much multitasking, letting you mess around with menus, chat with villagers, and attack castle all at the same time, it's crazy. The game was never meant to be played like this!

Bah, one could even argue that pausing during battle in singleplayer is a flaw in the game (an entirely understandable one, due to the obvious performance issues), since it gives an unfair advantage to the player.

A flaw? The purpose of any game is to entertain the player. The best way to do that is to give the player enough of an advantage that he can do well within a certain margin of error. The game designer is supposed to be forgiving to the player. Not so forgiving that it's boring, but forgiving enough so that the player can always try again, or bounce back from a loss. You can't do that in an online game. Online, the game designer can't appeal to the individual, he has to appeal to the whole; instead of allowing the player to take the game in at his own pace, he must make the game as legalistic as possible so that everyone has a relatively equal chance at success.

Mount&Blade was meant to pander to the individual, not the whole. Each player's story and game is supposed to play differently. Mixing it up into one great big massive world removes that very special element that is the core of the mount&blade experience. This is why I say that multiplayer campaigning w/ multiple parties is a bad idea. Because it removes Mount&Blade's ability to pander to the player.

Multiplayer campaigning w/o multiple parties fits the bill just perfectly though, because the game is still focusing on entertaining one individual party.

 

[Hamel]

Ok, here are some other small problems I mentioned (although you never answered) that need to be solved if multiplayer campaigning w/ multiple parties is to be realized:

-Graphical problems (realtime world shadowing in battle)
-Network problems (lag)
-Development problems (time, resources, and will)

-Superfluous.
-Somehow I doubt that any of us will come up with a solution to lag.
-A lack of resources and willpower is not the flaw of an ideal, but of the pursuer.

Now here's a particular problem with the other solutions you've suggested: say a player is trying to manage his party. Throughout the time that he is doing this, the whole world is moving around him. Therefore, while he is trying to analyze information and make important decisions regarding the allocation of his scarce resources, he could very well come under surprise attack by an enemy warband. So this normally slow, go-at-your-own-pace strategic element becomes hashed as the player is just trying to be quick without making smart decisions.

Hashed? Hardly. Quick thinking is a desirable trait in any strategist, why would the importance of it be a problem? And, as I have mentioned several times, there is nothing stopping someone from making such decisions inside of a castle or town. When inside such a position, anyone wishing to get to them would have to set up siege equipment.

On the technical side, the game is slow since it's trying to digest so much information it's receiving across his home network (which happens to NOT be broadband, so he's getting horrible game performance). Essentially the entire game code has to be redesigned since the whole game has suddenly become realtime, whereas before it was not. The game must do so much multitasking, letting you mess around with menus, chat with villagers, and attack castle all at the same time, it's crazy.

I do not deny that having multiple parties would probably require more coding. However, you, in saying that the game would need to be recoded in its entirety solely because of multiple parties, are assuming as much as I, in saying that it probably wouldn't (at least not because of multiple parties).

In any case, no matter the amounts of work required for either option, I believe that having multiple parties would be the superior choice. I believe it would be more entertaining for a larger group of people, and would net Taleworlds more money in the end.

The game was never meant to be played like this!

Hmph. Presumptuous.

Bah, one could even argue that pausing during battle in singleplayer is a flaw in the game (an entirely understandable one, due to the obvious performance issues), since it gives an unfair advantage to the player.

A flaw? The purpose of any game is to entertain the player. The best way to do that is to give the player enough of an advantage that he can do well within a certain margin of error. The game designer is supposed to be forgiving to the player. Not so forgiving that it's boring, but forgiving enough so that the player can always try again, or bounce back from a loss. You can't do that in an online game. Online, the game designer can't appeal to the individual, he has to appeal to the whole; instead of allowing the player to take the game in at his own pace, he must make the game as legalistic as possible so that everyone has a relatively equal chance at success.

Some say a more challenging game is a more entertaining one. In any case, I don't actually believe that it is a flaw, I'm merely using the fact that a reasonable argument could be made (and I will not) stating it as such would suggest that the ability for others to act while you are in battle is not wholly negative, as you seem to think it is.

Mount&Blade was meant to pander to the individual, not the whole. Each player's story and game is supposed to play differently. Mixing it up into one great big massive world removes that very special element that is the core of the mount&blade experience. This is why I say that multiplayer campaigning w/ multiple parties is a bad idea. Because it removes Mount&Blade's ability to pander to the player.

More presumption, how do you know exactly what the "core" of the M&B "experience" is "supposed" to be?

 

[MrMeat]

More presumption, how do you know exactly what the "core" of the M&B "experience" is "supposed" to be?

I recently read a book called Game Design: The Art & Business of Creating Games by Bob Bates, a professional game designer. In it, he briefly discusses sandbox games (like Mount&Blade) and provides some important tips and guidelines for those who develop them. I've omitted the ones that don't apply to this conversation:

1. Because you're giving the player so much to manipulate [in a sandbox game], make it easy for him to keep track of it all.
(my comments: this is made difficult when there are inevitably so many things going on in this supposed persistent world)

2. If it is a real-time game, let the player vary the speed of events, and allow him to pause the game.
(you are suggesting we remove this. this removes a huge amount of control from the player's hands, which I argue is incredibly important in a game like Mount&Blade)

He ends the discussion with this:

"Overall, think of the game as a big sandbox for the gamer to play in. Give him maximum flexibility, and never tell him that he has failed."

How can you put this in an online game where competition is, for the most part, the only way to play? Minus the combat (which is already multiplayer) Mount&Blade is not competitive. It's about empire building, strategy, and exploration. The goal is to bend the world to your will.

 

[Hamel]

It occurs to me that the two of us simply want completely different things. You apparently want to play something very much like the singleplayer game with some friends over LAN, or something to that effect. Whereas I (and many others I know of) want a unique competitive multiplayer experience with more depth, strategy, and customization than the existing multiplayer mode.

We've been arguing about which is the better course to achieve something, while our goals for that something differ greatly. Indeed, I agree that having everyone in the same party would be a better way to achieve the game that you apparently seek. Perhaps you would agree that multiple parties would be the best way to achieve the game that I desire.

In any case, although your ideal multiplayer campaign does have a certain appeal, I prefer my own.

 

[rawmacgyver]

It occurs to me that the two of us simply want completely different things. You apparently want to play something very much like the singleplayer game with some friends over LAN, or something to that effect. Whereas I (and many others I know of) want a unique competitive multiplayer experience with more depth, strategy, and customization than the existing multiplayer mode.

We've been arguing about which is the better course to achieve something, while our goals for that something differ greatly. Indeed, I agree that having everyone in the same party would be a better way to achieve the game that you apparently seek. Perhaps you would agree that multiple parties would be the best way to achieve the game that I desire.

In any case, although your ideal multiplayer campaign does have a certain appeal, I prefer my own.

Its about time someone realized this ^^
Even though I sided with the simple version I dont deny that your vision of a multiplayer is better. I just think it is too much work to even out the obvious problems that comes along. I just want to play a multiplayer version of the campain any way possible. The simplest way? One party.
If they were to fix something bigger up, I would try it =)

But as for "one party" idea, realisticly, have anyone idea of how to fix it with a simple mod or something? I cant think it would be THAT much work? Set camera out of combat to show what leader watches/does, in combat go to multiplayer like in online multiplayer now ^^

I wish I had any idea really

 

[MrMeat]

In retrospect, I think you are right. We're not arguing towards the same goals.

You know, considering that most people on this forum have their own ideas of how multiplayer campaigning should work, Taleworlds probably won't attempt to create it anyway.