Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoboSenshi said:
No one has still not explained exactly how it would work. All I'm reading is wishful thinking and not actual practical features. The most I've read is just having friends as a companion. They won't control anything and they are just along for the ride. Is that it? You want devs to spend precious time working on just that feature alone?

Yep, I want this. People are fooling themselves if they think separate parties are feasible, but I'd still like this form of coop included.
 
Der Kopfsammler said:
I still dont get why people hate WFaS and NW so much... its optional content for the core game...



WFAS seemed detached from the Warband sandbox experience, having an overarching story, historically accurate characters and other limitations to fit the story, while still trying to be a sandbox, leading to a confusing game.

I've never seen much hate for NW if there is any. I thought that was the most popular game, for multiplayer.
 
Gab-AG. said:
Sanscenti said:
kanzy said:
I really wish I haven't seen the live stream and regret not listening to my inner voice that told me I would regret it :sad: how am I supposed to wait for Bannerlord now, it's just unbearable.
They recorded it mate, no reason for you to beat yourself up about ut.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=3P8AYtiaaFE

He already watched it mate, he's saying that he wish he didn't watch it because now the hype is too high and it's unbearable.
Same for me...
Oh, I could've sworn... well, well.
 
Druidic said:
Der Kopfsammler said:
I still dont get why people hate WFaS and NW so much... its optional content for the core game...



WFAS seemed detached from the Warband sandbox experience, having an overarching story, historically accurate characters and other limitations to fit the story, while still trying to be a sandbox, leading to a confusing game.

And that it had pretty much the ingame features from the first mount&blade, not warband, which wasn't really inviting to get the game :razz:

I've never seen much hate for NW if there is any. I thought that was the most popular game, for multiplayer.
NW is considered the playground for lil kids around here
 
Golradir said:
I've never seen much hate for NW if there is any. I thought that was the most popular game, for multiplayer.
NW is considered the playground for lil kids around here

Are you serious? I always thought that I was losing all the fun for not enjoying Napoleonic Wars.
Does WFaS multiplayer was for lil' kids as well? Because I've enjoyed it pretty much basically because of the commander mode.
 
NW is good fun, messing with arty and sappers is good and all but I would never put it above Native.
Also, speaking of xXxMLG ZKILLZ MLGxXx Native is way better than NW with it's ridiculous bayonets.
 
kraggrim said:
Gilboard said:
This may already be asked, but does anyone know specifications of the laptop they used?

I think it was suggested tht it was this one: http://www.monsternotebook.com.tr/monster-notebook-semruk/MONSTER-SEMRUK-S7-V3-1.html#.Vt3GvpyLRhF.
Pretty sure that was just the one the guys from taleworlds brought to play the demo on. They said that they'd shoot for the lowest minium requirement the could get to make the game very accessible, atleast that's what I think I saw a few pages back. This laptop has better specs than even my new 1500$ gaming PC...
 
I'll take a stab at the co-op conundrum, and I'll try to explain the problem in detail as a foundation for further discussion. For simplicity's sake, let's assume that there are only 2 players in co-op mode.

The problems are:
Time disconnect. Some elements are played in real-time, some are at over 100x speed. I believe the real-time elements are usually played out with the rest of the game world paused. As this is a shared experience, though, each player must be in sync (or close to it) at all times.

The different gameplay elements are:
  • World map-100x+ speed; usually used for extended periods of time
  • Battles/Sieges-Real-time; usually used for extended periods of time
  • Exploring towns/cities-Real time; usually used for short periods of time
  • Troop/town management-Real time; usually used for short periods of time
  • Conversations/notifications-Real-time; usually used for short periods of time

The solutions:
  • Change world map-Since the world map is the only one out of sync, the obvious choice would have been to change its mechanic somehow. Remove it for a more open-world style, make it real-time, etc. But we've already seen that this is not the case, so no need to waste time exploring that option.
  • Change battles/sieges-Make it so that time passes normally while in battle. When you emerge from it several days have passed. Wave away this sudden leap by saying "oh, obviously real battles don't get resolved in 20 minutes, this was just a small simulation". Downside to this is even smaller 5-person brawls with bandits will take days in the world map.
  • Change exploring towns/cities and conversations/notifications-Just remove these as much as possible. This is a separate mode from single player, so the rules are different. Whatever interaction needs to happen all take place in simple menus and occur in 100x+ time, but should only last a couple seconds.
  • Change troop/town management-I feel like this one has to pause the entire world, including the other player, no matter what they are doing. The other player would be encouraged to also take care of any customization that they needed at this point. So long as the two communicate, this shouldn't be a problem. In other games I feel players tend to naturally sync when they will pause the action go to the next shop or quest cutscene together, and it would be the same concept here.
  • Tether players together-This one seems to get the most attention. Making players be companions within the same group removes many of the syncing issues, but raises a new one of players feeling bored not being in control at all times. You could alleviate that with each player fulfilling different roles, though. For example after a battle Player 1 instantly moves on to steering the group to the next objective. Meanwhile Player 2 receives the prisoner/troop management screen and can customize things as necessary, as if this is taking place while travelling. When entering towns and on the battlefield, tethering would no longer be necessary until they leave.
  • Drop-in/Drop-out-Each player is treated as a separate Lord and each go about their way. Whenever one enters into battle gameplay freezes for the other and he is pulled over to take the role of one of his friend's companions. Once the battle is over, he returns to his normal character. Unless of course both player's parties are in the same battle together, in which case they retain their normal roles throughout. Again, this requires communication between players so one isn't hopping into battles without alerting the other.
  • Outside the box-Other games have had coop modes that were completely separate from the singleplayer campaign, that's the case here. This mode is something entirely different from what we've seen before. Maybe it's turn-based, maybe it's playing isolated scenarios, maybe it's whatever.

Other considerations:
Are players forced to be on the same side? What happens if I join nation A and you join nation B and then they go to war? Do I really have to help you in your battles where its to my disadvantage?
Campaigns are really long, and would require many saves. When one player needs to leave is the other forced to as well? I certainly wouldn't want my character being played by AI while I was away!
If one player is captured what happens? Do they get ransomed right away? Become a companion in the other player's group until they are freed? Play as one of their own escaped companions?

I'm sure there's more, feel free to add as you see fit. For the record, I'd love a coop campaign but don't expect it. Thoughts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom