[Poll] Co-op, why it's possible and why we should have it.

How would you want co-op to be implemented in Bannerlord?

  • Multi-party co-op (each player starts off with his own party)

    Votes: 128 60.4%
  • Single-party co-op (one party leader plus other player companions)

    Votes: 58 27.4%
  • Call players in your SP campaign any time and have them play a minor role (battles, roaming around w

    Votes: 20 9.4%
  • Other ways (please specify)

    Votes: 6 2.8%

  • Total voters
    212

Currently viewing this thread:

Orion

Still Not Worthy
Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
578 said:
The good thing is that you realise that you are wasting your time with could-bes. TW already gave an answer. Enjoy the pointless discussion of a minimal feature along with all the others. Needless to say, I'm sure the game will feature a modded co-op, for those who don't enjoy real multiplayer. There is always a line between things. TW first said that they want to make the game playable in 2015, then 2016, then 2017 and now its 2018. There's a fine line between patience and complete retardation.
While I appreciate your attempt at subtlety, implying I'm a retard and don't enjoy "real" multiplayer (or what us non-retarded people call "adversarial" or "competitive" multiplayer, being both descriptive and non-condescending terms) is both ignorant and insulting. You can insult me all you'd like and I doubt you'll be particularly innovative on that front, but allow me to direct you to the entire North American competitive Warband community as a counter-point to your insinuation that I don't enjoy "real" multiplayer. If it'll help clear things up, they all call me Marnid. I'm even in a few lists of theirs.

TaleWorlds has never been a studio to make their production schedule public and keep to it. Ever see an actual date on anything they put out about when it'll be available? Callum's weekly blogs are the only predictable things on the timetable. I've been around for their two past betas and retail releases, and the only times we knew something was coming up for certain was when the version numbers approached 1.0. Without even that for Bannerlord currently, there's no telling when it's going to be available. They've said what they would like to do, what they want to do, but we don't always get what we want, hmm? They would've liked a playable state in 2016, they wanted to get the game into public testing late this year (still time for that), but guess what? No dice. It will come when it comes, which is how it's always been with TaleWorlds.

Why get upset (or go extremely mad, as the case may be) about something beyond your control? It'll happen eventually, and getting worked up about it now won't push it along any faster. If you can't abide waiting for something that you have absolutely no influence over without becoming emotionally unstable, then yes, sorry, you are most certainly impatient.

On a side note, calling coop a "minimal feature" is remarkably ignorant. After multiplayer in general, it has probably been the most commonly suggested feature for the franchise since its inception. There's clearly significant demand for it, and considering the scale of such a feature it wouldn't be minimal in any conceivable way. But please, if you want to be asinine, don't let me stop you. I'd just recommend you not call me retarded again. Pot calling the kettle black, and all that.
 

578

Banned
WBVCNWWF&SM&B
Orion said:
578 said:
The good thing is that you realise that you are wasting your time with could-bes. TW already gave an answer. Enjoy the pointless discussion of a minimal feature along with all the others. Needless to say, I'm sure the game will feature a modded co-op, for those who don't enjoy real multiplayer. There is always a line between things. TW first said that they want to make the game playable in 2015, then 2016, then 2017 and now its 2018. There's a fine line between patience and complete retardation.
While I appreciate your attempt at subtlety, implying I'm a retard and don't enjoy "real" multiplayer (or what us non-retarded people call "adversarial" or "competitive" multiplayer, being both descriptive and non-condescending terms) is both ignorant and insulting. You can insult me all you'd like and I doubt you'll be particularly innovative on that front, but allow me to direct you to the entire North American competitive Warband community as a counter-point to your insinuation that I don't enjoy "real" multiplayer. If it'll help clear things up, they all call me Marnid. I'm even in a few lists of theirs.

TaleWorlds has never been a studio to make their production schedule public and keep to it. Ever see an actual date on anything they put out about when it'll be available? Callum's weekly blogs are the only predictable things on the timetable. I've been around for their two past betas and retail releases, and the only times we knew something was coming up for certain was when the version numbers approached 1.0. Without even that for Bannerlord currently, there's no telling when it's going to be available. They've said what they would like to do, what they want to do, but we don't always get what we want, hmm? They would've liked a playable state in 2016, they wanted to get the game into public testing late this year (still time for that), but guess what? No dice. It will come when it comes, which is how it's always been with TaleWorlds.

Why get upset (or go extremely mad, as the case may be) about something beyond your control? It'll happen eventually, and getting worked up about it now won't push it along any faster. If you can't abide waiting for something that you have absolutely no influence over without becoming emotionally unstable, then yes, sorry, you are most certainly impatient.

On a side note, calling coop a "minimal feature" is remarkably ignorant. After multiplayer in general, it has probably been the most commonly suggested feature for the franchise since its inception. There's clearly significant demand for it, and considering the scale of such a feature it wouldn't be minimal in any conceivable way. But please, if you want to be asinine, don't let me stop you. I'd just recommend you not call me retarded again. Pot calling the kettle black, and all that.


I did not imply you are a retard. I called the situation retarded. I did not go personally to you, I was speaking about the delays, again, not you. And yes co-op is a minimal feature. But those who request it are vocal about it and thats why there is the misconception that everybody wants it. Guess what, we dont.
 

Orion

Still Not Worthy
Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
578 said:
I did not imply you are a retard. I called the situation retarded. I did not go personally to you, I was speaking about the delays, again, not you. And yes co-op is a minimal feature. But those who request it are vocal about it and thats why there is the misconception that everybody wants it. Guess what, we dont.
Excellent job speaking for everybody. I wonder what the result of a poll would look like if we threw one up. Something simple, like "Hey, would you like coop in Mount & Blade?" Based on what you said, the result would be a resounding "no!"

However, based on my observations and hasty analysis of data meticulously collected over the last 2 minutes of haphazard google searching, I believe I am ready to present to you what I think about your assessment.
YMC6hSf.gif
 

kalarhan

Python Saint
Count
WBNWVCWF&S
578 said:
And yes co-op is a minimal feature. But those who request it are vocal about it and thats why there is the misconception that everybody wants it. Guess what, we dont.

I doubt anyone would think "everybody wants it". The same way some people care about MP and others will never even play a MP map, much less spend hours a day on it.

You are correct about the vocal part. It wouldn't make sense if the most requested feature was sieges, field battles, crafting swords, upgradable villages, upgradable castles, etc, as we already know those features are in the game (they were part of interviews/videos/etc). So to assume anything else (co-op included) to be hyper important to the game is a fallacy.

You are wrong about it being a "minimal feature". We don't have data to show if it is something that 1% or 50% or 80% of the playerbase would want and play with. Nor data to show if that feature would increase playerbase by 1 or 500% (sell more copies). So any assumption about it is just a guess, and you are doing the same thingy the co-op dreamers are doing: creating false perspective to sell your point  :grin:

There is that old joke: 73.6% of all statistics are made up

I personally don't care about CO-OP, so it wouldn't make a difference to me, as I will not use it. Whetever helps to sell more copies, if they can still make a fun SP game, go for it :grin:
 

578

Banned
WBVCNWWF&SM&B
kalarhan said:
578 said:
And yes co-op is a minimal feature. But those who request it are vocal about it and thats why there is the misconception that everybody wants it. Guess what, we dont.

I doubt anyone would think "everybody wants it". The same way some people care about MP and others will never even play a MP map, much less spend hours a day on it.

You are correct about the vocal part. It wouldn't make sense if the most requested feature was sieges, field battles, crafting swords, upgradable villages, upgradable castles, etc, as we already know those features are in the game (they were part of interviews/videos/etc). So to assume anything else (co-op included) to be hyper important to the game is a fallacy.

You are wrong about it being a "minimal feature". We don't have data to show if it is something that 1% or 50% or 80% of the playerbase would want and play with. Nor data to show if that feature would increase playerbase by 1 or 500% (sell more copies). So any assumption about it is just a guess, and you are doing the same thingy the co-op dreamers are doing: creating false perspective to sell your point  :grin:

There is that old joke: 73.6% of all statistics are made up

I personally don't care about CO-OP, so it wouldn't make a difference to me, as I will not use it. Whetever helps to sell more copies, if they can still make a fun SP game, go for it :grin:


I did not say minimal in the sense that nobody wants it. I meant minimal as it would make a very small difference to the game. Bannerlord and Warband are single player games and they also rely in MULTIPLAYER to gather attraction. I'd rather have TW perfecting these two than adding co-op that would require rebalancing a very big portion of the game. I said minimal in that sense, if co-op would make it in the game, even I would waste a few hours on it with a friend. I still prefer real enemies on the enemy side though (aka players)
 

kalarhan

Python Saint
Count
WBNWVCWF&S
578 said:
I meant minimal as it would make a very small difference to the game.

kalarhan said:
You are wrong about it being a "minimal feature". We don't have data to show if it is something that 1% or 50% or 80% of the playerbase would want and play with. Nor data to show if that feature would increase playerbase by 1 or 500% (sell more copies). So any assumption about it is just a guess, and you are doing the same thingy the co-op dreamers are doing: creating false perspective to sell your point  :grin:

in other words: you can't say something makes a small difference, if you don't know how many people want it, and how many more would buy the game because of it. You could be right, as much as you could be completely wrong. Without playing whatever co-op version the devs would create, we have no idea of the impact (useless x worldbreaking)

now if you are trying to say: "to me this makes only a small difference", then Okie  :mrgreen:
 
So, lets indulge the idea of sparty coop (bannerlord for now is all about indulging ideas for the past 7 years anyways). You win.

You got your buddies with you going everywhere together. One of you must allways hold the power to decide when to move in the world map and when to wait or when to join or start a battle, if im not mistakem. That pretty much means the reminder of the players are basically passengers in a "party vehicle" controlled allways by a leader or, in case the "power" is shared, one at a time. I guess this could work like crews in starships in star citizen but thats also a game that hasnt been released and its all speculative... Players will be able to get off their ships on that game.

Would all the players have access to diplomatic options like marriage and personal alliances? If so, does that mean all diplomatic and personal relationships with any noble or faction are actually established with the party and not the individual players? Or is it with the leader of the party? Im guessing only one of the players could become King or Emperor of anything following a regular campaign... Will all the diplomatic relations established nominally with this one player? Wait.. Nominally all the fiefs will also belong to one guy, right? It would be weird in an immersion sense you having to convince the entirety of the other players on your stance having to go all together check on each-others villages and towns periodically. Imagine one of the dudes wants to check out his fief and takes a little longer to decide about building either a mill or a butcher shop... It gets extremally boring for everyone else. Except if they go about exploring while that guy does that (with no consequence since no one can accept quests separately or leave the scene). Wait... That would happen regardless of fiefs belonging to the party or each player!
Or will all these owesome options be locked in a coop campaign?

Oh, how would dialog with npcs work? Is it just one of the players talking and calling the shots in the conversation at a time and everybody else just patiently waiting for the text to scroll down, no skiping?

Its really, really hard to imagine coop even with single parties n a mb game... Not without butchering most of the owesome stuff you may do in single player, and just for the sake of being with your friends while most will be playing a gloryfied companion or a party leader that can do less than what he/she could playing alone. I myself never wanned to play as lezalit while the main protagonist called all the shots and lead me. Even if I could actually express my wishes to my buddies. It sounds boring. Really boring.

See, that is why I get a bit impatient with coop discussions. I could be terribly wrong but the topic seems to be so absurdly limited in reallity that I keep thinking people want it just because so. Damm feasability or any reason. Now, you said you wanna duscuss it just for the sake of it and thats cool... But how on earth could do it and still have this impression this could actually be possible, good and faithfull to mb's basic structure at the same time is beyond me.

 

Orion

Still Not Worthy
Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
kalarhan said:
578 said:
And yes co-op is a minimal feature. But those who request it are vocal about it and thats why there is the misconception that everybody wants it. Guess what, we dont.

I doubt anyone would think "everybody wants it". The same way some people care about MP and others will never even play a MP map, much less spend hours a day on it.

You are correct about the vocal part. It wouldn't make sense if the most requested feature was sieges, field battles, crafting swords, upgradable villages, upgradable castles, etc, as we already know those features are in the game (they were part of interviews/videos/etc). So to assume anything else (co-op included) to be hyper important to the game is a fallacy.

You are wrong about it being a "minimal feature". We don't have data to show if it is something that 1% or 50% or 80% of the playerbase would want and play with. Nor data to show if that feature would increase playerbase by 1 or 500% (sell more copies). So any assumption about it is just a guess, and you are doing the same thingy the co-op dreamers are doing: creating false perspective to sell your point  :grin:

There is that old joke: 73.6% of all statistics are made up

I personally don't care about CO-OP, so it wouldn't make a difference to me, as I will not use it. Whetever helps to sell more copies, if they can still make a fun SP game, go for it :grin:
Co-op has been frequently requested for over ten years, before Bannerlord or Warband. When multiplayer for Mount & Blade was still a fantasy (which, I will add, was definitively shot down by the devs) it was widely thought that if it ever happened then it would be in the form of a co-op campaign. Not a great leap of imagination, considering the only thing M&B was at the time was a singleplayer campaign. It's not a fallacy to assume anything is "hyper important to the game," that's not what fallacy means in any sense. Plus, the implication of your argument is that no frequently-made suggestion for a feature not yet in the game could be reasonably assumed to be important. Multiplayer was considered an important feature for many people before Warband. Other features which started as suggestions include chamber-blocking, kicking, shields passively blocking projectiles, block crush-through on heavy weapons, feinting penalties for unbalanced weapons, and so on. Many of these were considered critically important to the game, either for added realism, as much-needed combat mechanics, or as balancing solutions. Examples of features which the community doesn't think are important enough to include in the game are added gore & dismemberment, dual-wielding, and fire arrows (to name a few popular ones). Oh, you want another example of a feature considered important that isn't in the game? Multiple points of entry during sieges. We know what happened there.

A seemingly necessary condition for a suggested feature being implemented into the game is community opinion & support. If the community thinks something is important, the devs tend to take notice. Why do you think they've talked about co-op in the first place?



578 said:
I did not say minimal in the sense that nobody wants it. I meant minimal as it would make a very small difference to the game. Bannerlord and Warband are single player games and they also rely in MULTIPLAYER to gather attraction. I'd rather have TW perfecting these two than adding co-op that would require rebalancing a very big portion of the game. I said minimal in that sense, if co-op would make it in the game, even I would waste a few hours on it with a friend. I still prefer real enemies on the enemy side though (aka players)
Do you not understand that co-op is multiplayer? Plus, you've repeatedly made a huge assumption that you haven't attempted to explain once. How would co-op require rebalancing? Don't just say it, explain it. Also, you're projecting. Whether or not it would make a difference to you isn't very meaningful. Obviously opinions matter, but it's quite clear from a casual google search that popular opinion is in favor of co-op, so it would be adding something meaningful to the game for many other people. What you want isn't the same as what everyone else wants.



VictorF said:
So, lets indulge the idea of sparty coop (bannerlord for now is all about indulging ideas for the past 7 years anyways). You win.

You got your buddies with you going everywhere together. One of you must allways hold the power to decide when to move in the world map and when to wait or when to join or start a battle, if im not mistakem. That pretty much means the reminder of the players are basically passengers in a "party vehicle" controlled allways by a leader or, in case the "power" is shared, one at a time. I guess this could work like crews in starships in star citizen but thats also a game that hasnt been released and its all speculative... Players will be able to get off their ships on that game.

Would all the players have access to diplomatic options like marriage and personal alliances? If so, does that mean all diplomatic and personal relationships with any noble or faction are actually established with the party and not the individual players? Or is it with the leader of the party? Im guessing only one of the players could become King or Emperor of anything following a regular campaign... Will all the diplomatic relations established nominally with this one player? Wait.. Nominally all the fiefs will also belong to one guy, right? It would be weird in an immersion sense you having to convince the entirety of the other players on your stance having to go all together check on each-others villages and towns periodically. Imagine one of the dudes wants to check out his fief and takes a little longer to decide about building either a mill or a butcher shop... It gets extremally boring for everyone else. Except if they go about exploring while that guy does that (with no consequence since no one can accept quests separately or leave the scene). Wait... That would happen regardless of fiefs belonging to the party or each player!
Or will all these owesome options be locked in a coop campaign?

Oh, how would dialog with npcs work? Is it just one of the players talking and calling the shots in the conversation at a time and everybody else just patiently waiting for the text to scroll down, no skiping?

Its really, really hard to imagine coop even with single parties n a mb game... Not without butchering most of the owesome stuff you may do in single player, and just for the sake of being with your friends while most will be playing a gloryfied companion or a party leader that can do less than what he/she could playing alone. I myself never wanned to play as lezalit while the main protagonist called all the shots and lead me. Even if I could actually express my wishes to my buddies. It sounds boring. Really boring.

See, that is why I get a bit impatient with coop discussions. I could be terribly wrong but the topic seems to be so absurdly limited in reallity that I keep thinking people want it just because so. Damm feasability or any reason. Now, you said you wanna duscuss it just for the sake of it and thats cool... But how on earth could do it and still have this impression this could actually be possible, good and faithfull to mb's basic structure at the same time is beyond me.
Excellent job pointing out many reasons why single-party co-op would be needlessly restrictive and boring for most of the players.

I'm not a fan of a single-party scheme myself, so I have no interest in arguing in its favor. All of your points are moot in a multi-party scheme, as each player would enjoy the same freedoms and possibilities.
 
CEO Armagan Yavuz : "[Co-op in Mount & Blade] is very difficult to do, not just because of the technical difficulty, but also to make things practically playable when we have two people doing wildly different things in real-time. One player might be trying to have a very exciting battle that is the climax of a very important experience, and one player just beforehand decides to go to town and look at the marketplace. These people have to be in the same gameworld and it’s very difficult to make sure that they’re both enjoying themselves and all having a great campaign experience simultaneously. It’s almost impossible without cutting down on what the game offers," TaleWorlds CEO Armagan Yavuz told RPS in 2016.

so, again i say no to Coop in the base game, Taleworlds can event. make a DLC out of it
 

Orion

Still Not Worthy
Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
Yeah, and he said multiplayer in M&B wouldn't happen. You signed up on the forum after Warband, so you know how that turned out. I'm sure they're sufficiently technically skilled to pull it off, they just realize it would take a long time to get it done and I'm sure they want to get the game out before they die just as much as we do.
 
Orion said:
I'm not a fan of a single-party scheme myself, so I have no interest in arguing in its favor. All of your points are moot in a multi-party scheme, as each player would enjoy the same freedoms and possibilities.

Wait. What?

Sorry but the game must first add some time machine feature for a Single Party coop system to even be ceiceived, maybe even some really owesome space-time warps.

One of your buddies enters a town. While he choses the blade of some custom sword he's making at the blacksmith you are marching with your troops throught the world map. During the 5 minutes it took your buddy to customise a new weapon, you cross the distance of some, let´s say, dozen kilometers, considering the distantes betwen settlements would be unrealistic small and your army is mostly made up of V8 Chevies on a country road so you could be able to go that fast. But wait. There are day and night cycles outside towns... now we also gotta implement cycles inside towns to allow for time and sunlight to actually be experienced the same way by all players... and it turns out it takes around 3 days to actually walk from the front of the palace to the brothel on Suno's town scene if we use the world map timing for the inside of settlements as well. That if we considerably enlarge the duration of days while on the campaign map.... or allow the entire continent to be crossed in less than half a day.

Finnaly your first grandson is born and so is your buddy's. And it's been only 3 in game days since you started playing.

All that without ever waiting for any period of time in-game. Cause, you know, in order to wait we gotta figure out time machines for the players to use while some of them go through the normal game time.

Sorry, you haven't thought this through.




edit:
1-(In other worlds there can be no different time speeds for players in a coop game and that is sort of a central game feature on MB. You know, with different time speeds for when you cross the miles and miles of nothingness in the world map and for when you explore the enviroment of a city. And for battles, of course)

2-grammar
 

PrinceNaga

Veteran
I agree with VictorF, there's so much to mesh together to make it all work. Considering how long battles take, I'm actually afraid that Multi-Party sessions would consistently feature doomstacks the likes of which we have seen lol. That's honestly how it would end up anyway. The Meta would be convincing AI to round up their armies, or players working together to round up as much everything they can on the map and pile-on. I would hate to be doing something in one town whilst other players converge

Single-Party honestly sounds simple to accomplish. I'm absolutely fine playing with one other person even in a long campaign. Hop in, hop out, and if he decides to play by himself for some evil reason, my character can either come out the game or be AI-controlled as a Companion.

4.99 Single-Party Co-op. I'd buy it. The biggest issue I'd have is arguing over which troop types to use.
 
Can we just agree single player coop is a bad idea in any form that ressembles M&B and Multi Party is just relativistic impossible?
 

kraggrim

Marquis
WBM&BWF&SNWVC
VictorF said:
Can we just agree single player coop is a bad idea in any form that ressembles M&B and Multi Party is just relativistic impossible?

Nope. Plenty of people have stated they would enjoy ride-along co-op.  Considering the popularity of the Freelancer mod (plus the whole let's-play phenomenon) it's not hard to believe.
 

Baron Conrad

Sergeant Knight
NW
Honestly, at this point it is kind of a waste to argue about it. There are a huge number of people who want it and it is completely possible in pretty much the same way Total War does co-op, but the case is one of three possibilities.

1. They decided it was too much work and are not including it in this game.

2. They have laid the groundwork in the engine so that it is possible to implement later with extra work.

3. They have already been working on it and that is part of the reason the game is being delayed so much.

In any case, I am sure they have already made up their mind. Discussing it won't change which of the three situations is the case.
 
i tip on nr 2. "They have laid the groundwork in the engine so that it is possible to implement later with extra work. "
and what is with
There are a huge number of people who want it
do you know the Exact number ?, do you know how many people will buy the game ?, do you know how many People dont want it ?  :neutral:  :roll:
i know there is a huge number of people who doesnt want coop so  :facepalm:  :lol:

PS: M&B is not a Round Based game like Total war
 

Orion

Still Not Worthy
Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
VictorF said:
Sorry, you haven't thought this through.
See, I would've gone through the trouble of repeating everything I've already said in this very topic to you, but then you went and said this. So, I'll just tell you to go **** yourself instead. I have thought this through, more than you know, and you can go read my thoughts in the previous pages if you actually want to know what they are.

Or, as is more likely, you'll just keep fishing for reasons about why it can't work, repeating the same arguments in ignorance.

Balexander said:
There are a huge number of people who want it
do you know the Exact number ?, do you know how many people will buy the game ?, do you know how many People dont want it ?  :neutral:  :roll:
i know there is a huge number of people who doesnt want coop so  :facepalm:  :lol:

PS: M&B is not a Round Based game like Total war
That's a ridiculous demand to make of him, so I'll give you one right back: do you know exactly how many people will buy the game, and exactly how many people don't want coop? If you can't answer questions like that yourself, then don't ask them of others. You don't "know" **** about who doesn't want coop, and I'd wager that the only people who don't want it are under some delusion that it's delaying the release of the game or are just spiteful. There's no reason not to want it unless you honestly believe it's obstructing development, which as so many people are so quick to point out is something they have said they are not doing. So really, that leaves us with the spiteful option. Are you saying you know a lot of assholes that just don't want other people to have fun?

Takes one to know one, I suppose?

M&B is definitely not turn-based, you're right on that. Doesn't matter, though, because M&B has always been pause-able. How this could work has been discussed exhaustively in the previous pages.
 
Calm down, mr Orion. I said I'm willing to indulge the idea of coop some pages ago, regardless of my initial criticism of the topic. I even said "you won", recognizing I would join the coop conversation. You actually answered my other post about s.party coop by saying you agreed with most of it. You see, that's a stablished discussion. We both took part on it. Obviously I am not stoping you from proving your points or even censoring the exchange of ideas. Later I pointed out how impossible multy party seemed and how it actually looked liked you didn't think it through... you know, it was the perfect oportunity for you to show I was the one who didn't. But you told me to go **** myself instead. It seems like you either took my words as an insult or didn't have anything to say to counter.

Please, explain to me how this is all viable without time warps or fundamentaly changing the gameplay. Don't take what I said for an insult. It just doesn't look like you gave any thought to these specifics I pointed. That statement sgouldn't be ofensive and if it did I'm sorry for saying it.

I'm a bit disapointed you actually resorted to cursing, you seemed so civilized before.

edit: ...and I did read what you said before. My post is mostly about distances and time dilatation, not exactly what you said in you previous post... but i did make reference to what you previously said.

You went to the trouble of imagining forced stops and simultaneous activites for moving parties while someone's inside a scene... well, that sounds like a terrible solution (no ofense). Each players experience would be subjected to halts by something as random as another player going to the market. That is not intuitive in any form, in my opinion. This is the "time warp" solution I made reference to in the very beggining, middle and end of my text.

Now, while I did say something vague about that in my post, I made ir clear that you had to take for granted that experiences had to be simultaneous for players and time had to flow equaly to all so the game would make any sense, then I elaborated on why simultaneous gameplay was impossible and finished my point. You see, I refused this time warp-time stoping solution cause, frankly, It will naver be intuitive that I have to stop marching through the game map cause some other player decided to buy butter in a local village halfway across the map. If that makes no sense and simultaneous cameplay is not feasable, well, multiparty is not pratical. Since you agreed single party was also impossible, there you have it, coop is not viable.
 
Top Bottom