I'm sorry but I finally give up, what the hell are TW doing? Nothing new in 3 weeks. Whoever is managing this team needs the boot.

Users who are viewing this thread

stevehoos

Banned
Maybe I am a weird one, but being player2 in my friends party sounds good enough to me.

Not all playstyles I want to do involve me being the commander.

I have tried playing a nobody footsoldier in Bannerlord. Just one guy in a midst of hundreds battleing. However this doesn't work very well in vanilla, because you have to babysit your troops and really worry about tactics.
Being the 2nd guy in co-op could give me this experience at the cost of some agency, which I'm fine with.

What would you do during an hour of smith work?
 

Rungsted93

Sergeant at Arms
WBWF&SVC
I don't see what the actual problem with everything being real-time is for Co-op, if anything it would only make working together even more rewarding.Furthermore I believe it would add the need to be a bit more strategic, like having a large garrison, not go to a tournament or to the other side of the map while at war etc.
 

babelfisch

Squire
I don't see what the actual problem with everything being real-time is for Co-op, if anything it would only make working together even more rewarding.Furthermore I believe it would add the need to be a bit more strategic, like having a large garrison, not go to a tournament or to the other side of the map while at war etc.
I suggest you read the last page if you can't see the problem with co-op. :wink:
 

guiskj

Squire
You have companions. It can take awhile to figure out what items you want to put in a design too. You'd be twiddling your thumbs a lot.

You make a good point. I do agree that it would be a comprimise, but one that I would accept if it means co-op versus none.
 

Rungsted93

Sergeant at Arms
WBWF&SVC
I don't see what the actual problem with everything being real-time is for Co-op, if anything it would only make working together even more rewarding.Furthermore I believe it would add the need to be a bit more strategic, like having a large garrison, not go to a tournament or to the other side of the map while at war etc.

But I still don't see a good argument against it, sure smithing for 1 hour is of course not ideal. And an obvious work-around would be to have the game pause if all players are in a battle/scene. I mean this is supposed to be played with friends and not randoms, so it's not like you can't tell your friends to stop running around chasing looters if you're in the middle of an important battle.
 

babelfisch

Squire
But I still don't see a good argument against it, sure smithing for 1 hour is of course not ideal. And an obvious work-around would be to have the game pause if all players are in a battle/scene. I mean this is supposed to be played with friends and not randoms, so it's not like you can't tell your friends to stop running around chasing looters if you're in the middle of an important battle.
Co-op certainly is possible but you couldn't add it as a supported feature due to the reasons stated above. Sure, some people would play it regardless of the shortcomings but the majority would rightfully complain that it sucks. As a game developer you don't want to add features that suck by design, it's a recipe for disaster and unhappy customers.
Co-op is the kind of thing that should be added via mods because only people who really want it are going to install it.
 
Last edited:

Mallard

Recruit
Any thoughts on how two party coop could work?

My main concern is that the game pauses whenever you interact with anything. This means that if you were playing with someone else, both games would constantly be stopping and starting while the players visit towns, speak to NPCs, open menus, etc. This would create an extremely frustrating, tedious and ultimately, boring gaming experience.

Now, you could of course just keep time running right? But that means fundamentally altering how the game is played and that 10 mins you just spent in a battle has left the AI and the other player unchecked on the world map to do whatever they like...

If the game was turn based or 100% realtime then it might possibly work, but as things stand, the current design of the game wouldn't support 2+ party coop.

The only suggestion for coop I have heard that makes some sense is same party coop. However, this would relegate the second player to a lower role in the game where they don't get to do anything other than join player one in battles and other scenes. Now, I appreciate that some people might enjoy that, but it sounds incredibly boring to me.

In order to solve the coop question we have to look at it piece by piece.
1) The players must be in-sync. Their "timeframes" must be the same. So, encounters would have to incorporate time. If you were walking around a city for what would be a day in the world, would have to be a day in the city.

2) If they are in-sync, they must either be in encounters together, or be willing to sacrifice world map time with encounter time. This would look like - Faster click through menus. Faster loading times for entering a city, or remove that all together (along with associated quest...) At each party encounter (MB fastdialogue would be required) if choosing to attack - all players would have to sync to that screen. They could choose to join friendly, join enemy, spectate, autoresolve. Autoresolve would have to be trump, so if one person chose it then it would happen regardless of what the other person chose.

3) You could also slow down world time, either when other parties are loading or in an encounter. Or just keep it slower all together. This would also add another level of realism, in that you could attempt to just delay loosing a battle until friendly units reinforced.

Coop, same party or seperate, is like, the only thing stopping me from wasting my entire life on this game. It could very well be the only game i ever play again.
 

kreamy

Sergeant
I believe one of the problems for coop are the different timescales for campaign map and battle map. It would suck if the game paues every time someone fights in a battle. It would suck even more if you could only play coop when you are in the same party.
i suppose u are talking about wen other battles are being fought (AI VS AI)? I figure the way I see it, when a battle with another player goes, then both players must be a party to it (1 specs or plaays as a friendly AI).

Anyhow. Too bad
 

Skatan

Regular
Coop is intriguing. Not that I have any friends to play with though, haha.. I'm the only nutter for TW I know of, but I would love to play it.

I'd think it's hard though, but if you play coop you would probably accept it can't be perfect. Whenever one of you is in combat and the other isn't, the game has to lock any changes to time (can't use 2x, 3x times), and as someone else said above, perhaps also slow down the overall game time (how fast the day/night cycle goes). I wouldn't bother with menues or similar, that would be ok for me as is. I reckon most coop players would stick close anyways, otherwise what's the point of coop? Would be epic with scenarios where perhaps one was captured and you could rescue them, or if one got in battle and you reinforce etc. It has promise, but would need probably a hefty amount of work I reckon.

But I'm still intrigued and would love to play it. If I played and loved coop/MP in HOMM3 I can survive and love any type of MP in TW I'm sure.
 

kreamy

Sergeant
Any thoughts on how two party coop could work?

My main concern is that the game pauses whenever you interact with anything. This means that if you were playing with someone else, both games would constantly be stopping and starting while the players visit towns, speak to NPCs, open menus, etc. This would create an extremely frustrating, tedious and ultimately, boring gaming experience.

Now, you could of course just keep time running right? But that means fundamentally altering how the game is played and that 10 mins you just spent in a battle has left the AI and the other player unchecked on the world map to do whatever they like...

If the game was turn based or 100% realtime then it might possibly work, but as things stand, the current design of the game wouldn't support 2+ party coop.

The only suggestion for coop I have heard that makes some sense is same party coop. However, this would relegate the second player to a lower role in the game where they don't get to do anything other than join player one in battles and other scenes. Now, I appreciate that some people might enjoy that, but it sounds incredibly boring to me.
I think a compromise could be in order.

For instance, at the menu screen of a city/castle/village, time continues to go on as the player interacts (generally quick interactions for the most part (can be helped by implementing more QOL/UI improvements (like mods that facilitate grouping, trading etc. These micro interactions are the real big time killers, like upgrading troops one by one). Otherwise, most interactions are quick in a city with these QOL improvements (I have tried both, and know that the amount of time spent is totally a function of ease of use (IE bulk trading, etc)

If the player decides to run around the city, let it be. Players should compromise and know that if they enter a city and spend 10-20 minutes in it, the world is continuing to evolve. I think at the early game this isnt an issue, and in the late game neither (mid game when you are being seiged it could F&* u, but the player should adjust their play style for the world).

If the city/castle comes under siege, so be it, the player has a chance to escape after through dialogue menu. Plus, with how sieges work, the whole siege party is not setup from the get go. The first 1-2 days of sieging = setup (before towers/equipment can be built). Let this be the time a player has to get his/her **** together before deciding to stay or leave. And whats better, if the player is neutral to the siege, then they can continue doing whatever they are doing (can leave whenever, can trade etc, and the trading screen fluctuates in real time, big whoop).

For worldmap interactions of speaking to parties
Simply pause the game, and put a timer on (as a variable setting the host chooses or watever, maybe ppl will use it as a pause feature) (most ppl who play co-op, will play with their close friends).
Players rarely interact with parties on the world map, a little bit for questing and enganging in battles and politics, but thats reallly not where the vast majority of interactions happen. (what I am saying is, the game would not be constantly be paused as you mention, its the cities that make that happen, that is where most of the action happens, bbut being in a city while time is moving is SAFE, being on the worldmap is NOT).

Another possibility is a SLOW DOWN of time during worldmap interactions (i like this less for town, but still could be applicable, the main thing is to minimze pauses as you mentioned, and I think that could be accomplished, MOREOVER I think its something the community should have real input on, PLUS the possiblity to choose. Perhaps full pause time applies, perhaps its slow time. Allow it to be customizeable, but give us coop. You will have given the community its number 1 ask, and those who chose to play it will adjust. It can be done, i believe in it and the team can do it.

Player 1 interacts with AI lord, time is slowed to 0.1 for the whole map (how long does an interaction like this last anyways? 10-30 seconds even for intrigue), when dialogue over, return to 1.0 speed - keep in mind, players MOUSE is not slowed, or possiblity to buy/sell or whatever, its movement speed we are talking about...

Why is this good? Game continues, its slowed (can be variably set by the host, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5), the slow down allows Player 1 to interact quickly, or as he/she would. Player 2 continues to play at a reduced speed, but not 0, and not for long (as the map continues slowed, but player 1's interaction happens in realtime, thus diminishing the amount of INGAME time spent paused or slowed). Its a good mitigation strategy.

For battles (this is the obvious approach, because this is also a big part of the game, and happens often)
This is an obvious one, allow both COOP players in the battle (1 can spec, or be assigned a unit that can be respawned from, perhaps in the captain form). Speccing at least is fair, participating is better, and an option to fight as the opposing army would be interesting (if its a versus coop, could really bring a different dimension to the game, but i leave that open to critiques, could be bad if the other player squashes you constantly.
In essence, coop battles, with ability to join/spec - world map pauses of course (as usual), having players in the same arena allows for this. Who doesnt want to fight all the time anyways? Whats better? Auto-resolve still exists, so in late game, with a slowdown the players wont be constantly bogged down with fighting small battles (if they dont want to)

For tournaments
Both players can participate (optional), player 1 (the initiator) can win stuff, player 2 can only be in the first round or 2, and cannot win anything (plays as AI). Alternatively, the tournament goes on in real time while player is in city, thats it then thats all! Again, let the players adjust to the fundamental new reality - we are humans, we can deal with it. If anything, once again, make the different options open and customize-able so COOPers can chose their experience, but let us experience it!!!!

To summarize, pausing in most instances can be replaced with slow downs, and in others totally eliminated as a player has city protection while he goes about. The worldmap has less interactions, and so is the one that requires slow downs and pauses in some instances (for battles). In battles, both players cooperate & participate.

PLEASE answer this post Callum
 
Last edited:

Mallard

Recruit
dont forget to post when you get home
I think you nailed it. 99.999% of people are going to understand and bee playing with friends anyway. And we'll put up with whatever is there. And come to a solution if there's a better way. But right now, it's speculation.
 

kreamy

Sergeant
I think you nailed it. 99.999% of people are going to understand and bee playing with friends anyway. And we'll put up with whatever is there. And come to a solution if there's a better way. But right now, it's speculation.
Thank you. And I think we can get them to do it if we give them the idea and the confidence give it to us (not just coop, but how coop would work in our minds). Because as I see it (and as you and other agree / have though the same) - it can be done and we deserve it.
 
Last edited:

Revverie

Any thoughts on how two party coop could work?

My main concern is that the game pauses whenever you interact with anything. This means that if you were playing with someone else, both games would constantly be stopping and starting while the players visit towns, speak to NPCs, open menus, etc. This would create an extremely frustrating, tedious and ultimately, boring gaming experience.

Now, you could of course just keep time running right? But that means fundamentally altering how the game is played and that 10 mins you just spent in a battle has left the AI and the other player unchecked on the world map to do whatever they like...

If the game was turn based or 100% realtime then it might possibly work, but as things stand, the current design of the game wouldn't support 2+ party coop.

The only suggestion for coop I have heard that makes some sense is same party coop. However, this would relegate the second player to a lower role in the game where they don't get to do anything other than join player one in battles and other scenes. Now, I appreciate that some people might enjoy that, but it sounds incredibly boring to me.
My i idea for coop could be kind of like Dark Souls one, you play your own game and can "invoke" other players when you're about to enter battle or raid a hideout. That way the other player doesnt get bored of just watching or waiting and instead just plays in his own game while he waits
 

Cri11e

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Co-op is fully possible to make rewarding and fun.

1. Same-party coop is the most straightforward and the most commonly requested one, and easiest to implement. This is what the people want and this is what they can reasonably get.

2. One army per player (like in sp), where all other players join either the opposite side or playerside in battles as the ai troops, trying to hinder or help their friends/opponents as much as possible. Where all city actions is done by world map menu in real time. Too messy, extremely slow and frustrating but nevertheless possible, will be alot alot of battles the more players it is and is not a true co-op experience. (Think Europa Universalis 4). Much harder and time consuming to implement this, probably not worth it.


I think the problem is that Taleworlds think these both are a too big time sink for their game development which is true considering what pace Taleworlds have, it make sense why co-op have sadly not been implemented yet even though its by Yavuz (God bless him) admission the most requsted feature ever (old old pre-release interview).

But the future is bright, there is reason to hope for the future,
Even though they deny it presently.
 

Kipsta

I would love to see drop in battles where a random player takes charge of an enemy army, but I guess that will never happen. ?
 

Cri11e

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I would love to see drop in battles where a random player takes charge of an enemy army, but I guess that will never happen. ?
A dream of mine too.

The game making a temporary server connection thing so someone can connect to your battle (if you wait) and lead the enemy army or alternatively join as a single troop soldier on your side.
 
Top Bottom