Expansion, Multiplayer info becoming available

[Krik]

We aren't messing the forums up just keeping it from getting retardified via noob.

 

[Ringwraith #5]

You like the idea?

**** YES!

Perfect for the disused Black Armor, btw.

 

[Pinkaugust]

I simply love it. Can't wait until it's done!

 

[Locke Foreer]

Looks nice but I really don't want multiplayer.

Says the guy who only bought the game nearing the end.

 

[Hippotoxotai]

seriously, I saw some of the most retarded replies ever, and none offered anything more original that my ideas.  If you have better ideas (more special than Team deathmatch and the "it" mode of multiplayer HALO I) please put them on post.  And certainly about half the gaming population is under 18, so watch the language please.

 

[Fall of Denial]

Multiplayer is ressurceting my MnB playing times. I used to rarely play, but in preparation IM playing alot

 

[Spanish_Broomaker]

So exciting!
Glad to hear we will have the option of having bots in multiplayer games!

 

[Nevil]

sick medival counter strike

 

[AvaRice]

It says 32 plus bots, not a limit of 32 total so I think it would be possible.

No, it says 32 players or bots. It makes no difference if it's a player or a bot, the data still has to go through the network. Having hundreds of characters would be totally unplayable even on a LAN, let alone online.

With the current system, apart from playing against humans, you'll be able to team up with your buddies against any number of AI opponents and play a cooperative game (albeit without the campaign aspect) so in a sense we'll have the best of two worlds.

 

[llamalad]

Will this change the ease of modding the game at all, do you think?

 

[Cymro]

"We want to work on the expansion until we feel it is ready."
Excellent news. Good to see that this attitude still remains

And certainly about half the gaming population is under 18, so watch the language please.

Because bad language is so much worse than raiding villages and brutally slaughtering all the inhabitants

 

[Rexxar]

Gret news!!!

-improved combat mechanics (the most needed, beacuse Mab concetrates mostly on fighting)

>[AY] We have got an in-game scene editor, so adding new maps is pretty straightforward. We will hopefully be adding quite a lot of maps. Environments will mostly be outdoor scenes but we’ll add variety by introducing different terrain shapes, as well as different structures such as farm houses, towers, castle ruins, etc...

Woohoo!
My suggestion will get implemented !! 

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,52875.0.html

 

[k.]

The question is: will we need to pay for it again.
If no: I should say, great I really like to have multi in MB
If yes: I should say, it's silly to pay for an option in game...

 

[Kolba]

Nothing really new here, but great news.

I'm just curious how ruins, abandoned farms, towers etc. will look. 

 

[Seff]

The question is: will we need to pay for it again.
If no: I should say, great I really like to have multi in MB
If yes: I should say, it's silly to pay for an option in game...

Multiplayer was never a part of the deal when you agreed to pay for M&B - it's an entirely new feature, separate from the original M&B - thus you need to pay for it.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

If yes: I should say, it's silly to pay for an option in game...

Like how silly it would be to pay for a sunroof with a car? Perhaps if they had boosted this version of M&B's price so they could add more stuff and include multiplayer there wouldn't be all this complaining about paying extra, but then you'd have people complaining about the Indie game costing too much.
Charging them separately is better, it would seem, since apparently, not everybody is looking forward to multiplayer. And though they won't get the updated single player features, at least they have the game at a cheaper price.
Plus, I don't think the devs could go on making patches with the sole revenue being buyers of the original version. This seems like episodic development to me, like the HalfLife franchise!

 

[k.]

The question is: will we need to pay for it again.
If no: I should say, great I really like to have multi in MB
If yes: I should say, it's silly to pay for an option in game...

Multiplayer was never a part of the deal when you agreed to pay for M&B - it's an entirely new feature, separate from the original M&B - thus you need to pay for it.

Was part of deal or wasn't we have xxi century, and you know for me it's a lil strange, it's like you are buying battlefield 1942 without multi and after a three month there is an expansion... multi.... its sick... but also I can understand them and agree with them and say "That's your choise", but further if someone didn't buy game for now maybe they will if they ll know about multi.
Normally I dont have cash for games and buying root of MB wasnt easy for me (but I did), so I should change my vote to "I dont need multi"

 

[Locke Foreer]

No, because battlefield 1942 claimed to multiplayer since the beginning, and it is an entirely multiplayer based game as well. There is no campaign mode and the single player is a minor part of the game.

Mount&Blade claimed to be single-player from the the start, and it is entirely focused on single player. It has always said that it would not be mutliplayer right from the start. Making multiplayer now is a separate deal, and a bonus. You are not owed it, and it is the fruit of a lot of extra work of which they should profit from.

 

[Taraleon]

Adding multiplayer to M&B is like adding multiplayer to Assasin's Creed or Ninja Gaiden. I dont think there can be anything bigger than an expansion like this.

"AY: We currently have only TDD..."
TDM in their plans or do they already have a beta version of multiplayer running?

 

[mrcrotch]

This is brilliant. I can't wait to kick some of your arses online.