Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't like the idea of unique weapons having better stats than carftable weapons. weapons are consumable items and the best weapons are those that are specifically designed to be a weapon with no regard for anything else. in the same vein steel is the best steel and since titanium hadn't been invented*. there is no such thing as magic meteor metal. the only exception to this is damascan steel which would be nice to see in the game.

now you might say that it would be nice to have a super sword but I like to outfit my companions with the best gear I can find and it feels annoying to know there is an arbitrary limit on the best sword there is.

therefore I would prefer to have any and all unique weapons to have equal or worse stats than the best weapons. however, they could function as a banner which when drawn can get a morale boost to your troops or instill fear in the enemy.

another point is the way of obtaining unique weapons. I do think that there should be some you get with quests. there can also be some you have to find by traveling and exploring the map as well as locating a ruin or two, some of them could just be sold by a pawnbroker who bought it from an impoverished knight a couple of years ago without knowing it was an important weapon. these symbols already have a legacy and wielding them would benefit the user in various predetermined ways. the sword of the first emperor could give you legitimacy while the axe of a famous sturgian chieftain might convince the outlying tribes to join under your banner. however, I think the player should also be able to make their own unique weapons or even bring a weapon they had to unique status by their actions. if you are a ruthless warlord who always uses the same sword to execute the captives displaying the sword on the battlefield should instill fear in your enemy. the mace you gave to a companion when you declared him governor of a city which he then ruled over with great justice could compel his soldiers to be more staunch and hold ground where many a unit should have routed. a bow you used to fell the captains of a merchant caravan could become a legend for the bandits in the forest. this way you forge your own legends.

* somehow find it funny to state that naturally occurring things are actually inventions. I know that I should say that there were no methods of extracting and using titanium in commercially viable amounts back then.

EDIT: also, in skyrim unique weapons were the best ones available as long as the player leveled himself high enough before obtaining them (something I personally found ridiculous and detrimental). the problem is that the player is the only one who is capable of improving weapons.
 
Twezie said:
You guys seen the new Of Kings and men(Melee:Battlegrounds I think) trailer? I thought it looks pretty sick

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWtinBnWZxM

Though sadly I think there is no single player :sad:

From their website:
Is this game multiplayer only?
Though a singleplayer mode is something we would love to explore, we have to focus everything on getting that that we are working on perfect, so we can’t split our main goal.
Our emphasis is on a large online multiplayer experience. Whilst you can go through the world as a solo player, you will find the most benefit teaming up with others.
Combat game modes will be purely multiplayer but there will be bots that you can practice against.


It's one of the things that still sets Mount & Blade apart from games like Chivalry, War of the Roses, and now this. I don't understand the appeal of multiplayer ONLY games to developers. I know that there are multiplayer games that have had their servers running for ages, but those are far and few between, not something you can really count on, no matter how good you think your game is. Generally you have to assume that you're only going to get a couple years of revenue out of a multiplayer game and then it'll die out. How is that the best model for making money? Wouldn't it be worth it to ship with both singleplayer and multiplayer so it can have both a strong start and then legs for the long term?
 
Armaury said:
They just do multiplayer games cause you don't have to develop an IA for the game, the IA are the players.
I don't know enough about developing either, but I'd be curious what the challenge of programming IA is compared to the challenge of setting up networking in a multiplayer game.
 
LonelyStep said:
Armaury said:
They just do multiplayer games cause you don't have to develop an IA for the game, the IA are the players.
I don't know enough about developing either, but I'd be curious what the challenge of programming IA is compared to the challenge of setting up networking in a multiplayer game.

In the case of an RTS/RPG/SIM combo, creating a good AI can be pretty complicated and tiresome. Not to mention that in the case of an single player campaign you also have to deal with things such as dialogs, quests, lore, factions etc. While in a multiplayer, the players  themselves take care of that.
 
The only reason M&B is still around is because of its single player campaign and mods for it. Taleworlds should stick to what has made the series successful and I can tell you it is not mp, I would be surprised if mp accounts for less then half a percent of the fan base if even that. 
 
The only reason M&B is still around is because of its multiplayer and mods for it. Taleworlds should stick to what has made the series successful and I can tell you it is not sp, I would be surprised if sp accounts for less then half a percent of the fan base if even that. 

reiksmarshal said:
The only reason M&B is still around is because of its single player campaign and mods for it. Taleworlds should stick to what has made the series successful and I can tell you it is not mp, I would be surprised if mp accounts for less then half a percent of the fan base if even that.
yea, you're way off buddy, but nice try though
 
in the same vein steel is the best steel and since titanium hadn't been invented*. there is no such thing as magic meteor metal. the only exception to this is damascan steel which would be nice to see in the game.

Well actually titanium wasn't invented, its a naturally occurring metal, it was the process to smelt it that was invented.

There were plenty of cultures that used meteorites as metal for their swords since they were lacking in terrestrial iron deposits but you are right, there are no special properties for it, its just common iron and nickel mostly. Though through the smelting process carbon could be added to make it steel and hold an edge. In the East, damascus (wootz steel) was at first an unintentional byproduct of the smelting process which added layers of perlite to the steel that made the wavy grain pattern while in the West , Vikings mostly, it was called pattern welded steel and used only as a decorative element. Then in the mid ground, notably the Persians, both were used for some really outstanding looking weapons. But damascus steel is in no way superior to any other steel, just a hell of a lot prettier.
 
Golradir said:
The only reason M&B is still around is because of its multiplayer and mods for it. Taleworlds should stick to what has made the series successful and I can tell you it is not sp, I would be surprised if sp accounts for less then half a percent of the fan base if even that. 

reiksmarshal said:
The only reason M&B is still around is because of its single player campaign and mods for it. Taleworlds should stick to what has made the series successful and I can tell you it is not mp, I would be surprised if mp accounts for less then half a percent of the fan base if even that.
yea, you're way off buddy, but nice try though
What percentage of the fan base is single player oriented is difficult to say but the number of guests is always 3-4 times as high in the single player section than in the Guildhall.
 
Meevar the Mighty said:
Stands to reason that SP-only players would be considerably less likely to know how to make a forum account.

Do you mean less likely to have a reason for making one? I can't imagine anyone not knowing how to sign up to a forum  :lol:.
 
reiksmarshal said:
The only reason M&B is still around is because of its single player campaign and mods for it. Taleworlds should stick to what has made the series successful and I can tell you it is not mp, I would be surprised if mp accounts for less then half a percent of the fan base if even that.
Golradir said:
The only reason M&B is still around is because of its multiplayer and mods for it. Taleworlds should stick to what has made the series successful and I can tell you it is not sp, I would be surprised if sp accounts for less then half a percent of the fan base if even that.
Now, now. No need for either of these. TaleWorlds is successful because it has been able to make so many people on BOTH sides of the fence happy. What they should continue to do, and what we should encourage them to do, is keep both their singleplayer and multiplayer aspects as strong as possible. We're all on the same side and we each depend on the support of everyone else for TaleWorlds to still be in business.
 
kraggrim said:
Meevar the Mighty said:
Stands to reason that SP-only players would be considerably less likely to know how to make a forum account.

Do you mean less likely to have a reason for making one? I can't imagine anyone not knowing how to sign up to a forum  :lol:.

I'm guessing you pick the "Street urchin" character creation option, but how do you get past "My father was..." without ever having known your parents? :razz:

That's a good point though, it's also more likely for them to visit the forums hoping to lodge a complaint, only to find that the forums don't actually have a single-player option and the bug or whatever suddenly doesn't seem so important.
 
I think that the amount of SP players outweighs the number of MP players, though of course I have no idea how much that might be.

MP players are just a lot more vocal due to the nature of multiplayer.
 
I have ~1230 hours ingame (shame on me, didnt play it lately. I need to win **** gettysburg!), and only 200-300 of them are on Mutliplayer.
While I got the game 1 year and 2 months ago (I hope I am not wrong with that), I made this account (TW) exactly 1 year ago, which was when I havnt even touched MP.

Or to sum my, in bad english written, mess up:
I registerd myself without having played MP.


aekilju said:
I think that the amount of SP players outweighs the number of MP players, though of course I have no idea how much that might be.

MP players are just a lot more vocal due to the nature of multiplayer.

They obviously do. If you check steam, you can see that sometimes 8000 players (that being the ones online) play the game, while only about 1000 play Mutliplayer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom