Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

[Meevar the Mighty]

I know it isn't but something like that would mean you have to redo half the game. the map, the economy, the interaction with cities  and  the ai would need reworking. you can't simply put this in the game or it will be another tacked-on depthless feature.

I could be wrong, but I don't think any of that stuff gets a huge amount of thought as it is. My feeling is that it works through good principals rather than detailed tweaking.

Pretty much the only change in terms of what actually happens in the game would be that some player actions wouldn't be instantaneous, being initiated part of the way through a turn.

Where it gets messy is what the other players would do when their turn ends doing nothing in particular, while yours ends camping on a roof, picking off a few thousand invading bots.

If they can join the battle, that would cause one side a significant advantage or disadvantage, depending on their attitude, though less so if they only get one life, I suppose.

 

[John of the North]

I'm pretty certain coop won't be a thing, but if it was implemented this is how I'd see it work.
First off the game simulation speed would be drastically reduced. Where as now a day would go by after a few minutes of travelling around the map. It would be changed to about 30 minutes(I wouldn't know the perfect time so this could be changed), without the ability to speed up time. This would be applied because if you're having a huge battle on one side of Calradia your friend can just travel over and save you if you prolong it. Or if you spend some time in a town buying or exploring nothing in the game world would advance too much.

A problem with this would be something for the player to do when travelling around the map, as going town to town may take a few minutes. My solution to this would make the game focus more on moment to moment actions rather than day to day. Possibly increasing bandit groups, introduce hunting, more scene exploration, more quests, troop/companion interaction, and maybe sending messages(by letters) to other players, lord or ladies.

This would also expand on larger events like sieges as well. When a faction decides to siege an enemy it will be much more thought out. They will make sure that the enemy armies are eliminated or at the least weaker than your marshal's force. The siege would begin with fortifying your armies position. Then construction of siege equipment would be much more involved and you would set up spies around the place you're sieging. The first engagement would be moving up parisades with archers and starting to barrage with catapults. After you move up ladders or towers or rams to capture the wall you would have to fight in the streets. There would be multiple goals to reach victory. Such as killing or capturing commanders, taking the keep and killing a certain amount of soldiers. All the while you would be pillaging and looting.

Edit:
I realize this is both making suggestions for siege gameplay just as much as coop. But adding onto it, you wouldn't have to take all the steps to siege. You could immediately construct a ram and take on the gate, but this may be met with much consequences. Or you could negotiate, but the choice is up to the players(or AI if they're higher rank) as it is a Mount and Blade game.

 

[SenorZorros]

I know it isn't but something like that would mean you have to redo half the game. the map, the economy, the interaction with cities  and  the ai would need reworking. you can't simply put this in the game or it will be another tacked-on depthless feature.

I could be wrong, but I don't think any of that stuff gets a huge amount of thought as it is. My feeling is that it works through good principals rather than detailed tweaking.

Pretty much the only change in terms of what actually happens in the game would be that some player actions wouldn't be instantaneous, being initiated part of the way through a turn.

Where it gets messy is what the other players would do when their turn ends doing nothing in particular, while yours ends camping on a roof, picking off a few thousand invading bots.

If they can join the battle, that would cause one side a significant advantage or disadvantage, depending on their attitude, though less so if they only get one life, I suppose.

I find it hard to really explain my worries but I believe that there are significant differences in how real time and turn based games work. first off though we should determine the kind of turn-based ssytem. are we talking about taking turns or everyone deciding their actions and then playing them out? whatever the case there are situations in which real-time mechanics simply don't work. a good example is running around cities. this would take too long in a turn-based system and you can't really have the other players walk around and do useful things like you could have in battles. also chase mechanics would be different. I have the feeling that the travel-bases economic system of the game might also not work as well.
I do have to admit though that my knowledge about game design (a bit of reading and youtube) is not very good and I am at it's limits right here.

EDIT: I do agree though that moment-to-moment could be a good improvement. fewer but longer and more complex encounters which reward more instead of attacking enemy after enemy.

 

[Ateway]

I know it isn't but something like that would mean you have to redo half the game. the map, the economy, the interaction with cities  and  the ai would need reworking. you can't simply put this in the game or it will be another tacked-on depthless feature.

I could be wrong, but I don't think any of that stuff gets a huge amount of thought as it is. My feeling is that it works through good principals rather than detailed tweaking.

Pretty much the only change in terms of what actually happens in the game would be that some player actions wouldn't be instantaneous, being initiated part of the way through a turn.

Where it gets messy is what the other players would do when their turn ends doing nothing in particular, while yours ends camping on a roof, picking off a few thousand invading bots.

If they can join the battle, that would cause one side a significant advantage or disadvantage, depending on their attitude, though less so if they only get one life, I suppose.

I find it hard to really explain my worries but I believe that there are significant differences in how real time and turn based games work. first off though we should determine the kind of turn-based ssytem. are we talking about taking turns or everyone deciding their actions and then playing them out? whatever the case there are situations in which real-time mechanics simply don't work. a good example is running around cities. this would take too long in a turn-based system and you can't really have the other players walk around and do useful things like you could have in battles. also chase mechanics would be different. I have the feeling that the travel-bases economic system of the game might also not work as well.
I do have to admit though that my knowledge about game design (a bit of reading and youtube) is not very good and I am at it's limits right here.

EDIT: I do agree though that moment-to-moment could be a good improvement. fewer but longer and more complex encounters which reward more instead of attacking enemy after enemy.

M&B shouldn't be turn based, period.

But I'd throw a lot of cash at my screen for a coop system that allow a main player to gather friends and give them lead over small parties in battles/siege.

 

[Druidic]

M&B shouldn't be turn based, period.

But I'd throw a lot of cash at my screen for a coop system that allow a main player to gather friends and give them lead over small parties in battles/siege.

Or possibly combine parties into one main group, with the other parties being able to leave at will with the troops they have if the situation turns sour.

I'd imagine my friend AFK-ing in enemy territory with my army attached to his, so my instinct is to ditch him.

 

[MOOMO]

is there any video upcoming for the game ??

 

[DanAngleland]

No.

 

[Louis The Last Breton]

is there any video upcoming for the game ??

AahahahahhahahaahaHHahHahHAahHHAhahahahahaHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAVABSBVABABSHSHSHSHGJ GR BRBKFJFJKRJ TE YOUKRJFJKJTJTKRJ FE KRJJ FE BTHINKDMDNJDJDYOUTHINK?¿ JEJDBDD HB D
What? You are not joking? You legit asked? Srry my. Friend.
Never again until gamescom.
Never again

 

[Dest45]

M&B shouldn't be turn based, period.

But I'd throw a lot of cash at my screen for a coop system that allow a main player to gather friends and give them lead over small parties in battles/siege.

Or possibly combine parties into one main group, with the other parties being able to leave at will with the troops they have if the situation turns sour.

I'd imagine my friend AFK-ing in enemy territory with my army attached to his, so my instinct is to ditch him.

why not just have them as companions? I don't see anything else actually working

 

[Hidde112]

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/04/28/mount-and-blade-2-bannerlord-interview/

The interview with Armagan

 

[Mighty Potato King]

When is the next gamescom?

 

[homicuda]

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/04/28/mount-and-blade-2-bannerlord-interview/

The interview with Armagan

It appeared even before the blog   The most exciting thing is a chance to see Early Acсess and co-op Campaign. All other given information is something kinda old and uninteresting

 

[Meevar the Mighty]

I find it hard to really explain my worries but I believe that there are significant differences in how real time and turn based games work. first off though we should determine the kind of turn-based ssytem. are we talking about taking turns or everyone deciding their actions and then playing them out? whatever the case there are situations in which real-time mechanics simply don't work. a good example is running around cities. this would take too long in a turn-based system and you can't really have the other players walk around and do useful things like you could have in battles. also chase mechanics would be different. I have the feeling that the travel-bases economic system of the game might also not work as well.
I do have to admit though that my knowledge about game design (a bit of reading and youtube) is not very good and I am at it's limits right here.

EDIT: I do agree though that moment-to-moment could be a good improvement. fewer but longer and more complex encounters which reward more instead of attacking enemy after enemy.

I meant simultaneous turns, with everyone trying to find something to do at the end of the turn, but of course, often there would be nothing to do. Maybe hunting or training the troops on the spot, but it wouldn't really make sense to be stopping for a major activity several times a day.

As for chase mechanics, they'd just be more equal between player and NPC parties. As it is, players get an unfair advantage.

 

[Bloid]

Alright, I went through and took a good look and a screenshot of all the faces made by shown by Frank and Sten, starting at 3:51 of this video, since I hadn't seen the faces all in one place yet. I also made a rough estimate of who the faces were based on, as some others have done.

Spoiler: 1: Peter Cushing

Spoiler: 2: Harrison Ford

Spoiler: 3: Albert Einstein

Spoiler: 4: Vladamir Putin

Spoiler: 5: Arnold Schwarzenegger

Spoiler: 6: Adam Driver

Spoiler: 7: Steve Harvey

Spoiler: 8: Vin Diesel

They even got the iconic stupid look on Vin Diesels face. Astounding work, perhaps the Taleworlds team may have just been watching Star Wars for 4 years 
This editor looks really flippin great. I'll probably spend at least 3 hours ingame building my first character. It would be cool if we see threads like this one pinned in the future.

Replace that ugly-ass Driver with a cool guy like Sean Connery or Christopher Lee. His character was the worst (ill-conceived, unconvincing, etc.) Star Wars villain ever too.

I mean you got Cushing in there already, Lee would be great too. I'd still like Connery.

 

[Felix_Nava]

When can we play?

 

[xdj1nn]

still waiting for an ETA...

 

[Maestrro]

Spoiler: 1: Peter Cushing

I think spoiler 1 doesnt looks like Tarkin. He looks like Tywin Lannister from Game of Thrones. http://prntscr.com/ayxu04

 

[captain lust]

All this talk of Gamescom... where are all the detectives?

This has been public domain for weeks. I've even started getting emails about it .

Spoiler

Official announcement to follow, of course. Shame they used our old logo... 

 

[Pilum]

Yay! 

 

[The Bowman]

All this talk of Gamescom... where are all the detectives?

This has been public domain for weeks. I've even started getting emails about it .

Spoiler

Official announcement to follow, of course. Shame they used our old logo... 

I guess there is a reason for the detectives to be so let down.