Heroes of Might & Magic III is already realized this function , technically still have any difficulty?
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
[Poll] Co-op, why it's possible and why we should have it.
- Thread starter The Bowman
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
stop asking for more i want the game 
Impossible, or you just didn't care to consider any solutions yourself or see what others have proposed?KhergitLancer80 said:
The latter. Thanks for your worthless post that doesn't even convey your opinion, just a condemnation of others'.
Please refer to this:
KhergitLancer80 said:
Kenhyaka! That isn;t away to envisage cooperative play. Why not multi-party coop? Because each entity is an entityt to itself, what does it matter -- player as army or player or player? In my pogromming class we learned ways to handle varbles, and thes parties are just that, varbles. If the player is a playe or the player is an army, then the varbles just handle different things !!! each can be tracked in its own way.
No option in poll to not have Co-op.
Answered Other ways, to give my 2 cents about not wanting the feature.
I know you guys wants this feature, but it sounds very complicated as Armagan has explained.
Answered Other ways, to give my 2 cents about not wanting the feature.
I know you guys wants this feature, but it sounds very complicated as Armagan has explained.
Maksim_bravo
Recruit
Hello guys I have some modest ideas for coop mode. Perhaps developers will find something useful. Sorry for my english.
1-Limit the number of players by two or four or six...
2-When one of the players enters the battle, slow the course of time on the global map
3-Limit the number or the possibility of entering reinforcements in the ongoing battle, or make a delay before entering depending on the number of soldiers in the armies or leader skiils. (A large army is slow and can not enter the battle faster, unlike small squads)
4-Limit the time of the battles 10,15,20 ... minutes. Then if on the battlefield, there is for example one person who runs around the map and an army of 100 people trying to catch him. Count him a defeat. This is just an example, you can create a rule for the outcome of a battle based on losses,or the goals achieved.
5-Introduce a system of goals in battles so that they can be won not only by the complete destruction of the enemy. And the losing army is will be re-formed.
6-To accelerate the battles, enter the possibility of surrender(Before the battle and during the battle), if the commander sees that he can not win. For npc and for players.
7-Introduce a system of morality, depending on the experience of the soldiers and the skills of the commander, on the basis of which if there is a very large difference in the number of soldiers, inexperienced warriors could flee the battlefield or surrender or even go over to the enemy side.
For example If the difference in the number of troops 50 by 500 (5vs40, 100vs 1000 ...) it is clear that fighting is suicide for 50.
8-It is even possible to enter an auto count of battles for the player against nps.
9-Simplify or more automate a system of managed gangs in cities or other game qualities for a single company in a cooperative mode. That players are more focused on interacting with each other.
10-It is possible to make a coop mode where players start as the head of factions and have ready kingdoms in their hands. Or all players start as a separate faction invading the game world. Or all players start like Lords in one faction with the possibility of choosing a king by voting. Or players start as lords in a different factions, then the number of players is limited to the number of lords
11-Reduce the number of game factions for the cooperative mode. Depending on the number of players.
12-For the cooperative game, it is possible to simplify certain aspects of a singleplayer game (automate them so that the player is more concerned with strategy on the global map and planning actions). Focus on the faction's struggle for domination.
13-For the integration of players into the game process in coop they can be given the rights of ordinary npc lords, so as not to rework the engine of the game.
14-Make many co-op settings for flexible customization according to the interests of the players playing. Since if two players are playing then they can use fewer restrictions without sacrificing playability. Or there are players who are interested in managing the kingdoms and micro management is not so important, or there are players who are more important in the tactical component of the game.
If the coop will be different in gameplay from singleplayer this is not a problem. If you do this, the coop game will be very popular, it will look like heroes of might and magic 3 but in realtime mode. And this is will open great possibilities for modifications.
A beautiful picture now no one is surprised, games about the Middle Ages with network modes where you can chop on swords with other players a lot and it is not very intresting, because this is an ordinary action with swords instead of firearms. But play together with friends in coop on global map it`s something really new.
I hope developers are reading this forum and will find something useful to realise coop in game.
1-Limit the number of players by two or four or six...
2-When one of the players enters the battle, slow the course of time on the global map
3-Limit the number or the possibility of entering reinforcements in the ongoing battle, or make a delay before entering depending on the number of soldiers in the armies or leader skiils. (A large army is slow and can not enter the battle faster, unlike small squads)
4-Limit the time of the battles 10,15,20 ... minutes. Then if on the battlefield, there is for example one person who runs around the map and an army of 100 people trying to catch him. Count him a defeat. This is just an example, you can create a rule for the outcome of a battle based on losses,or the goals achieved.
5-Introduce a system of goals in battles so that they can be won not only by the complete destruction of the enemy. And the losing army is will be re-formed.
6-To accelerate the battles, enter the possibility of surrender(Before the battle and during the battle), if the commander sees that he can not win. For npc and for players.
7-Introduce a system of morality, depending on the experience of the soldiers and the skills of the commander, on the basis of which if there is a very large difference in the number of soldiers, inexperienced warriors could flee the battlefield or surrender or even go over to the enemy side.
For example If the difference in the number of troops 50 by 500 (5vs40, 100vs 1000 ...) it is clear that fighting is suicide for 50.
8-It is even possible to enter an auto count of battles for the player against nps.
9-Simplify or more automate a system of managed gangs in cities or other game qualities for a single company in a cooperative mode. That players are more focused on interacting with each other.
10-It is possible to make a coop mode where players start as the head of factions and have ready kingdoms in their hands. Or all players start as a separate faction invading the game world. Or all players start like Lords in one faction with the possibility of choosing a king by voting. Or players start as lords in a different factions, then the number of players is limited to the number of lords
11-Reduce the number of game factions for the cooperative mode. Depending on the number of players.
12-For the cooperative game, it is possible to simplify certain aspects of a singleplayer game (automate them so that the player is more concerned with strategy on the global map and planning actions). Focus on the faction's struggle for domination.
13-For the integration of players into the game process in coop they can be given the rights of ordinary npc lords, so as not to rework the engine of the game.
14-Make many co-op settings for flexible customization according to the interests of the players playing. Since if two players are playing then they can use fewer restrictions without sacrificing playability. Or there are players who are interested in managing the kingdoms and micro management is not so important, or there are players who are more important in the tactical component of the game.
If the coop will be different in gameplay from singleplayer this is not a problem. If you do this, the coop game will be very popular, it will look like heroes of might and magic 3 but in realtime mode. And this is will open great possibilities for modifications.
A beautiful picture now no one is surprised, games about the Middle Ages with network modes where you can chop on swords with other players a lot and it is not very intresting, because this is an ordinary action with swords instead of firearms. But play together with friends in coop on global map it`s something really new.
I hope developers are reading this forum and will find something useful to realise coop in game.
Daisho
Recruit
Idk if they will or not would be cool... My opinion if Co-op is game breaking could they pull a total war move and force you to always belong on the same team like in Warhammer... I think that's the biggest thing if it isn't added but tbh I don't know if it's planned or not... it be cool I thought a co-op warbands coulda been awesome... I guess a issue would be diplomacy maybe if your not forced on the same team in co-op mode. Multiplayer story mode/campaign is interesting concept nonetheless.. If it's not added cool by me I'll still enjoy it... Game looks really good plus aye we will finally get siege weapons no more slanted ladders... I also wonder if we can swim or sink like a rock lmao
I never understood why time can't be just mostly real-time ?
Say you're 2 players playing your own parties.
One is fighting and the other in a town, in that case the time will pause, if one is moving time will go on.
To somewhat counter endless battles AI parties out of a particular range will not be able to join in as reinforcements,
however players can come to aid no matter how far they were when the battle started.
I know the argument that your castle getting attacked while in another battle but:
1. You should have a garrison in your castle
2. It's called Co-op, if you're fighting your friend(s) can go defend your castle meanwhile if it's needed, that's the whole point!
Also is it really that big a problem being in a scene getting a message "Your village is getting sacked" rather than getting the same message in the world map? It takes 10 seconds max to leave a scene in most cases anyway.
Co-op should be for what max 4-6 players? I would personally be grateful for just 2. But anyway it's really not that hard to cordinate and talk about who is doing what!
At last options could also be set at the start of the game if your fiefs can be attacked while you're in another battle or in a scene.
Say you're 2 players playing your own parties.
One is fighting and the other in a town, in that case the time will pause, if one is moving time will go on.
To somewhat counter endless battles AI parties out of a particular range will not be able to join in as reinforcements,
however players can come to aid no matter how far they were when the battle started.
I know the argument that your castle getting attacked while in another battle but:
1. You should have a garrison in your castle
2. It's called Co-op, if you're fighting your friend(s) can go defend your castle meanwhile if it's needed, that's the whole point!
Also is it really that big a problem being in a scene getting a message "Your village is getting sacked" rather than getting the same message in the world map? It takes 10 seconds max to leave a scene in most cases anyway.
Co-op should be for what max 4-6 players? I would personally be grateful for just 2. But anyway it's really not that hard to cordinate and talk about who is doing what!
At last options could also be set at the start of the game if your fiefs can be attacked while you're in another battle or in a scene.
I would be overwhelmingly overjoyed even if it was just multi-party co-op even with only 1 other player.
The fact that it could be a possibility for my friend and I to roam about Calradia conquering castles and cities with an army of Vlandian Knights sounds like a dream game. Especially with everything else that has been shown to us in the Bannerlord footage.
The fact that it could be a possibility for my friend and I to roam about Calradia conquering castles and cities with an army of Vlandian Knights
sounds like a dream game. Especially with everything else that has been shown to us in the Bannerlord footage.
KhergitLancer80
Banned
Okay I have some solutions
Q1-What will other players do when one of the players is in a battle ?
A1-There shall be a diplomacy panel between players. Every player shall choose their stance against each other. These stances will be changeable at any time.
Lets say you are Player 1.
*Player 2 marked you as an enemy.*
Now, he will join your battles as an enemy of yours, taking control of one of the NPC characters.
or
*Player 2 marked you as a friend. Will you allow him to join your battles as an ally ?*
Now, it is up to you to decide.
Q2-What if they have a neutral stance towards each other ?
A2-Most of the players will probably wont stay neutral but if they do so then they will either watch the battle or play duel with other neutral players or maybe a table game.
Q3-What if one of the players enter to a village or a town or a castle ?
A3-They wont be able to. They are going to have to take care of things in the city panel.
Only thing we couldnt do in WB in city option panels was to talk with people, now we know we can in Bannerlord.
Any other problems ?
Q1-What will other players do when one of the players is in a battle ?
A1-There shall be a diplomacy panel between players. Every player shall choose their stance against each other. These stances will be changeable at any time.
Lets say you are Player 1.
*Player 2 marked you as an enemy.*
Now, he will join your battles as an enemy of yours, taking control of one of the NPC characters.
or
*Player 2 marked you as a friend. Will you allow him to join your battles as an ally ?*
Now, it is up to you to decide.
Q2-What if they have a neutral stance towards each other ?
A2-Most of the players will probably wont stay neutral but if they do so then they will either watch the battle or play duel with other neutral players or maybe a table game.
Q3-What if one of the players enter to a village or a town or a castle ?
A3-They wont be able to. They are going to have to take care of things in the city panel.
Only thing we couldnt do in WB in city option panels was to talk with people, now we know we can in Bannerlord.
Any other problems ?
Whatever makes you happy
Veteran
I don't believe slowing down the map is a reasonable solution to the issue of time. It discourages exploration by making the act of entering a scene, (whether it be for battle or something else) tedious for all not directly involved. Not to mention it signals to the entire world that someone important is having a fight or visiting a town/castle.
My suggestion instead is to establish time as a distinct entity for both of the distinct game worlds in the campaign. To clarify with an example, I would suggest that a true day-night cycle be established for in-scene gameplay and that the cycle be slower than the one used on the world map.
This establishes a foundation from which one can better dichotomize the two states of play. For governing interactions between them however, it becomes necessary to implement something I call "clock matching."
A player attempts to enter an occupied scene. The passage of time for that player is stopped and he is forced to wait until the clock of the person occupying the scene matches his own.
Now this feature brings up issues/questions of it's own.
1. What happens when a player exits a scene?
A: Unless in imenant danger, the player's clock normalizes automatically with that if the world map
2. What happens to a player waiting to enter a scene if the one occupying it leaves early?
A:He enters the scene with the the clock set at his initial time of arrival.
3. How will spawn camping be prevented or discouraged?
A: Players with enemies nearby can choose to teleport to an area that they would theoretically be capable of traveling to in the time, making up the difference between the clocks of world map and the scene they've exited.
I hope I've explained this well enough to be understood. again, I'm not sure how difficult any of this would be to implement. I have no basis to judge that. If practicle however, I believe this is the best way of dealing with the issue of time.
Feedback is welcome.
My suggestion instead is to establish time as a distinct entity for both of the distinct game worlds in the campaign. To clarify with an example, I would suggest that a true day-night cycle be established for in-scene gameplay and that the cycle be slower than the one used on the world map.
This establishes a foundation from which one can better dichotomize the two states of play. For governing interactions between them however, it becomes necessary to implement something I call "clock matching."
A player attempts to enter an occupied scene. The passage of time for that player is stopped and he is forced to wait until the clock of the person occupying the scene matches his own.
Now this feature brings up issues/questions of it's own.
1. What happens when a player exits a scene?
A: Unless in imenant danger, the player's clock normalizes automatically with that if the world map
2. What happens to a player waiting to enter a scene if the one occupying it leaves early?
A:He enters the scene with the the clock set at his initial time of arrival.
3. How will spawn camping be prevented or discouraged?
A: Players with enemies nearby can choose to teleport to an area that they would theoretically be capable of traveling to in the time, making up the difference between the clocks of world map and the scene they've exited.
I hope I've explained this well enough to be understood. again, I'm not sure how difficult any of this would be to implement. I have no basis to judge that. If practicle however, I believe this is the best way of dealing with the issue of time.
Feedback is welcome.
@Whatever makes you happy.
See my former post, I think that's the best solution even if it's so simple.
See my former post, I think that's the best solution even if it's so simple.
Rungsted93 said:
KhergitLancer80
Banned
+Rungsted93
I didnt like this idea.
This would massively discourage players to go to battles and also I didnt like the way how players and NPC's dont play with same rules.
Also players may want to be enemies not always allies so trusting on other players to protect your castles when going to battle is not exactly a good idea.
Why dont you guys be fine with typical solutions ?
1) A seperate diplomacy panel between players will exist(completely irrevelant with in-game diplomacy). In this diplomacy panel players will choose their stance towards each other.
This will be changeable at any time. If P1 sees P2 as an enemy he will participate in the battles P2 involved as one of the enemy NPC's.
If he sees P2 as a friend he will take control of one of his NPC's (ofc P2 will also be asked) or P1 can always stay neutral and just watch the battle.
2)Cities will not be visitable if all of the players are not in the same party. They will only be able to do things in city panel.
Time will only stop when they speak to some lord or guild master other than that time will never stop.
3) I dont think it will be needed but just to put it in for some very impatient players,
If some of the players dont want to participate in other player's battles or they cant even stand to a few seconds of talk between other player and an NPC
then there will be an option for them to go to an arena and duel with NPC's or other players or play table games with them.
Just write your opinion, even if you dont like it or you just see a problem with these just tell me the reason.
EDIT:Just wanted to make it clear, for the third suggestion, that duel server-like stuff will by no means effect the game it will be sth like as if you quitted the game and entered to a LAN game in MP. Just to keep you unbored, so no exp, no money, no nothing for the coop game.
I didnt like this idea.
This would massively discourage players to go to battles and also I didnt like the way how players and NPC's dont play with same rules.
Also players may want to be enemies not always allies so trusting on other players to protect your castles when going to battle is not exactly a good idea.
Why dont you guys be fine with typical solutions ?
1) A seperate diplomacy panel between players will exist(completely irrevelant with in-game diplomacy). In this diplomacy panel players will choose their stance towards each other.
This will be changeable at any time. If P1 sees P2 as an enemy he will participate in the battles P2 involved as one of the enemy NPC's.
If he sees P2 as a friend he will take control of one of his NPC's (ofc P2 will also be asked) or P1 can always stay neutral and just watch the battle.
2)Cities will not be visitable if all of the players are not in the same party. They will only be able to do things in city panel.
Time will only stop when they speak to some lord or guild master other than that time will never stop.
3) I dont think it will be needed but just to put it in for some very impatient players,
If some of the players dont want to participate in other player's battles or they cant even stand to a few seconds of talk between other player and an NPC
then there will be an option for them to go to an arena and duel with NPC's or other players or play table games with them.
Just write your opinion, even if you dont like it or you just see a problem with these just tell me the reason.
EDIT:Just wanted to make it clear, for the third suggestion, that duel server-like stuff will by no means effect the game it will be sth like as if you quitted the game and entered to a LAN game in MP. Just to keep you unbored, so no exp, no money, no nothing for the coop game.
Similar threads
- Poll
