M&B Beta files suggest COOP mode?

[MIKA]

Implementation like in other party-based RPGs. Players moving in a party with a party leader on a world map. In the towns they walk freely, in the battles also.

 

[NachoDawg]

Callum explicitly told us not to buy the game in expectance of coop mode ever

While we have experimented with the idea of co-op in the past, I want to make it clear that the game currently doesn't have a co-op mode, nor will one be added during EA or at the full-release. Please don't buy the game expecting it to come at any stage now or in the future.

 

[Ikea Knight]

Implementation like in other party-based RPGs. Players moving in a party with a party leader on a world map. In the towns they walk freely, in the battles also.

Even though that is possible the way to go, that sounds terribly boring.

Have you ever played Star Citizen?
Most of the time you do nothing and just stare at your screen.
Then you have 5 minutes of action, and than everything is repeated.
I'd still play that, but your mate is going to get Bord quickly.

 

[Lucius Confucius]

I have some idea as to how this could work:

1. Players control separate parties on the map.

2. When one player is initiated in a battle, no other party on the map can interfere with that battle party. (Also create a safe distance zone around that party so no other parties can get close until the battle is finished, to keep from spawn killing someone with casualty-ridden party.)

3. If you want to join or oppose a player in a battle you either have to join their army or the opposing side.

4. Timer is the only problem, there will be no fast forward and no pause. If you want respite, go to a city or castle.

5. If one player is logged out, their party will disappear from the map entirely. If they log out within a city, and that city is conquered by the foe, they will simply be able to leave the city once logged back in.

 

[dems13]

I have some idea as to how this could work:

1. Players control separate parties on the map.

2. When one player is initiated in a battle, no other party on the map can interfere with that battle party. (Also create a safe distance zone around that party so no other parties can get close until the battle is finished, to keep from spawn killing someone with casualty-ridden party.)

3. If you want to join or oppose a player in a battle you either have to join their army or the opposing side.

4. Timer is the only problem, there will be no fast forward and no pause. If you want respite, go to a city or castle.

5. If one player is logged out, their party will disappear from the map entirely. If they log out within a city, and that city is conquered by the foe, they will simply be able to leave the city once logged back in.

No pause is a good option. If a modder can make a player moving on the map while an other one is on the battlefield without pause it could be awesome. It'll be easy to take adventage or abuse of this "non pause mode" during the campaign but I'm sure that it'll be a lot of fun.

 

[MIKA]

Even though that is possible the way to go, that sounds terribly boring.

Have you ever played Star Citizen?
Most of the time you do nothing and just stare at your screen.
Then you have 5 minutes of action, and than everything is repeated.
I'd still play that, but your mate is going to get Bord quickly.

Doesnt sound boring to me. Moving on the map is the only thing in which you have to stare at your screen. In the city if everyone has his role, then someone goes trading, another goes for quests and ect. Well its not the best thing, but i guess this what some people want.

Yes we have played Star Citizen in a group of 5. Was fun, though not much to do so far, because its still alpha. Most of the time nothing to do, just some silly talk.

 

[Varadin]

Real time co op like Crpg Strategus if you really want fair play , but its tedious and requires lot of free time .

 

[ronfino]

Turn-based like in Total War?