Starting to merge online play with world play

正在查看此主题的用户

Hi all!

I think many of you out there would agree with me when I say that the highest goal for Mount & blade would be to have the multiplayer aspect of MB implemented into a full scale world.

For instance imagine that you (and your clan) could team up together and hire soldiers (AI and human), ride around Calriada claiming land, building structures, owning peasants that render income and fighting wars against other human players and so forth. Though these goals are far from what can be accomplished at the moment I hope that it will soon be time to start merging the different aspects of MB singleplayer and multiplayer.

I have a suggestion that I think will be possible in the near future, it implements the roleplaying aspect of rewards for the player. I like to call it "City tournament"

Players will roam around in a online city where they can:

 
  • Buy/sell equipment
  • Talk to other players(preferrably over a integrated voice system)
  • hire bots(slaves) and train them for bouts in the arena
  • And also the main activity: fight in the arena in a variety of ways

The fighting in the arena will be similar to the multiplayer fighting we have today, except players will earn permanent gold and experience to some (balanced) degree. A formula which is based on the game-characters experience and equipment cost will give him a certain difficulty value, making it easier to have even match-ups, and according betting odds.

there shall of course be many kinds of gametypes, for instance their could be a "mock up" sieges and field battles, not restricted inside the arena.


Once all this has been establishes, it serves as a great platform for the developers to expand the game world and its features. Acres of landscape could be added around the city and resources could be added to the gameworld.
  Players could hire slaves(bots) to gather resources such as stone, wood or iron ore. Or even gather it themselves. And eventually players structures could be implemented. For example:

The player duo Helmer and Godfrey are excellent fighters and have won a fair share of gold in the arena, they decide to make a joint investment that will give them a big revenue. Since demand for iron ore has skyrocketed (high manufacturing of the cities smiths) they have decided to build a simple storage structure near a iron mine about 5 minutes ride from the city.

The mine is abundant but the long way to the city makes it hard for miners to make much money. So their slaves mine the ore and then store it in the structure, and then they sell wagonloads of it, driven by a slave, to any location near the city.

Another example

The CoR clan have worked hard and have gathered 10000 units of wood, 100 units of steel and 1000 units of stone. They decide to build themselves a Clan-hall where they can store all their spoils of war, practice their skills against one another, and house farmers(bots) who will render certain income.

The city and a certain area around it can make out a "safe" zone, where player killings are only allowed under tournament and duel regulations. However the outer lands will be a lawless land where killing and stealing is unregulated. Here you will find the most valuable resources and the most dangerous adversaries.

Strong clans will fight for the claim to certain lands and war will be commonplace. Maybe even AI bandits should be implemented in the far-out regions?

These are implementations of the far future, and quite dreamy. But I still think it is about time to start the merging of the different game aspects, since the battle mechanics are reaching near perfection in the Warband beta.

If you've played the mod "Custom settlements" you will know that there is already an extensive model library with things like basic shelters, houses, carts and many other types of useful models.
 
 
Oh hey, I thought I'd lend you a hand since you know, this idea has been suggested so many times before...

searcheg.png


I think many of you out there would agree with me when I say that the highest goal for Mount & blade would be to have the multiplayer aspect of MB implemented into a full scale world.

Really? Where in the nine hells do you come to the conclusion that the highest goal for mount blade, or even ANY game for that matter, is an MMO? This has been suggested so many times, and every time it's burned to the ground because it's a retarded idea. What on this earth does M&B have that would make it better as an MMO? How in the world will M&B retain any shred of the original game if ported into some retarded guild wars-esque rip off with the name of "calradia" slapped on the front of it? Oh right, you're retarded vision of an MMO that's a completely different game than the original M&B is NOTHING similar, because M&B wasn't designed to be an MMO, nor is it the proper vessel for people to experiment with their stupid medieval MMO concepts.

No, really. An extremely useless thread.
 
Tyrant, that was the biggest pile of betise I have ever read. :roll:
Time to get off your high horse and understand that you don't speak for everyone (neither does Blackthorn, but that's a different issue entirely). Essentially, your post ground down would be nothing more than "I hate MMOs, and this idea is retarded." You, along with so many other short-tempered idiots, see "multiplayer" and "world" and immediately assume the game will go to hell, but that's only because you associate MMOs (something Blackthorn didn't even mention) with games like Guild Wars, or World of Warcraft when that's very far from the case. MMO only stands for massively multiplayer online game. It doesn't mean "spells," it doesn't mean "guilds," it just means a lot of players play it. Since this isn't what Blackthorn even wanted, your whole self-righteous rant falls down the ****ter.

Essentially, and I'll use small words as your reading comprehension doesn't seem to be up to par with most 6th graders your age, Blackthorn wants players (human beings who use the internet to communicate in the game) to take the place of, say, companions, or possibly lords. This, he says, is a far-off dream, and instead suggested something a little easier to implement (make real). He wants to make a city where you can duel other human players, make money, and build onto that city (using said money).
Does this have to be what M&B is all about? No. Does it really sound like it's going to ruin the game? No. Do you sound like a complete jackass? Yes.
 
I think a map, like in SP, hosted online, with room for about 8 players and their armies would be good. Like a Co-op campaign mode.
 
Co op campaign mode, now theres an idea. Me and my brother could help or fight each other in calradia. That would be mad.
 
Essentially, your post ground down would be nothing more than "I hate MMOs, and this idea is retarded."

Essentially, your ignorance grinds down to the inability to comprehend that this 'suggestion' has been posted dozens of times, and whether you like it or not, it's been turned down by a majority of M&B forum posters. Nonetheless, you've earned my ignore list.

Co op campaign mode, now theres an idea. Me and my brother could help or fight each other in calradia. That would be mad.

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,86194.0.html

The exact same suggestion, one page behind. The issue with a 'co-op' campaign is that...

The map and battles aren't in real time. Time flows based on the main player. They'd have to make it 100% turn based, or they'd have to remove the time restriction from the main player, which results in several issues that destroy M&B. For one, you can't wait. Would you like to wait hours to accomplish a 30 day siege, let alone a 100 day siege? You can't wait, otherwise the flow of time between all players would be skewed from one player advancing in time faster than others. There would be no advantage to utilizing a siege, it'd simply turn into assaults on towns and castles from the getgo, which makes it excruciatingly harder.

The game is also purely a sandbox. Theres no 'end.' Games will be fun until you control half the world and theres nothing else to do; Not to mention considering my first point, it'd take many more hours to accomplish such a thing in multiplayer as opposed to playing single-player.

Co-op campaigns won't work, not unless they revise the entire game to account for the slower time.
 
Why would they have to make it turn based? Not every party on the map has to participate in a battle, you know. And yes, it would take more time, but you could also get a persistent World.
 
This suggestion had several unique elements, though that shouldn't matter, as you should ignore reposts if you're sick of them. There was absolutely NO NEED to be a self-righteous tosser, but you really enjoy it don't you? I've seen a lot of your ignorant flaming around the forums, and it's quite upsetting that you often get away with it. Now, if these ad-hominem attacks are all you can rebut me with, I'm not at all surprised you'd block me.

These threads are to help find solutions to problems the suggestions have, and on that note, I'd like to ask those IN FAVOUR OF multiplayer-support on the world map a question: how many of you would mind an EVE-esque system where everything is real-time? This would mean we'd have to change up traveling and building siege equipment (how, I'm not sure), but fighting would be the same.
Another solution I thought of was to create extra-long days, where you travel at normal speed, but day and night aren't simulated realistically. This way those in battle would experience only minor changes from going in to coming out, and traveling wouldn't be irrationally-long. This is the best alternative I can come up with and I'm wondering how many of you would favour this system?
Any other options? Please mention them.
 
The only way I could possibly be seeing a co-op mode work in M&B in it's current form would be a system where one person is the party leader, and the rest are companions. Otherwise, it would be hard to make battles play out nicely when not everyone is participating in them.
 
Makh 说:
NO NEED to be a self-righteous tosser

You haven't been around very long, have you? :lol:

No. Just no. The attraction of playing M&B is the combat. Everything else is a sideshow. We've already found how how much of an arse the average player can be in a multiplayer setting. I shudder to think how they would act in a persistent world.
 
Night Ninja 说:
No. Just no. The attraction of playing M&B is the combat. Everything else is a sideshow. We've already found how how much of an arse the average player can be in a multiplayer setting. I shudder to think how they would act in a persistent world.
You're missing the point of Warband if you think it's all about the combat. That's not what's being improved - the "sideshow" you mentioned is what's being improved. And what Blackthorn is suggesting is a little farther from the persistent world we see in SP, and wouldn't really give anyone the chance to be an idiot, except in combat (something MP already deals with).
 
The concept is fine. Time is no problem. Any of M&B's difficulties with multiple players running on one server is a problem, but it can be fixed. Is there a problem? Yes. Why "fix" the multiple-players-problem? Would there be a good return? Would players really pay extra for a game with this feature in it? Would they want to put up with 12-year-olds playing on a couple servers all of the time and having characters much higher levels than other players romping around, conquering the map in a half-month due to a ridiculous amount of activity?  Diminishing returns. Gotta love em. Oh, btw, +1 to Tyrant. He does speak for us all, gotta love the forums.
 
Aticus 说:
The concept is fine. Time is no problem. Any of M&B's difficulties with multiple players running on one server is a problem, but it can be fixed. Is there a problem? Yes. Why "fix" the multiple-players-problem? Would there be a good return? Would players really pay extra for a game with this feature in it? Would they want to put up with 12-year-olds playing on a couple servers all of the time and having characters much higher levels than other players romping around, conquering the map in a half-month due to a ridiculous amount of activity?  Diminishing returns. Gotta love em. Oh, btw, +1 to Tyrant. He does speak for us all, gotta love the forums.
What? This post is rather incoherent, so I'm having trouble seeing your point, but I assume it's that the 12-year-olds who would play on the server would ruin it? I don't mean to lead this thread in place of Blackthorn, but I don't think he was talking about anything that had to do with leveling - not in his version of merging online and multiplayer play. The only thing people could gain over time is money (Blackthorn, if I'm wrong, please correct me).

I think you need to read the OP, because it doesn't seem like you people are, and you see "persistent world" and assume the worst.

Lastly, Tyrant doesn't speak for us all, as exemplified in this whole thread. This isn't an open-and-shut case, so stop pretending it is.
 
Makh 说:
You're missing the point of Warband if you think it's all about the combat. That's not what's being improved - the "sideshow" you mentioned is what's being improved. And what Blackthorn is suggesting is a little farther from the persistent world we see in SP, and wouldn't really give anyone the chance to be an idiot, except in combat (something MP already deals with).

And we all know that everyone plays Warband to experience the thrilling political system at work. :lol:

Improving the sideshow adds to the overall experience, but it doesn't do anything for the main attraction. It's more of an excuse for engaging in combat than anything else.
 
Night Ninja 说:
And we all know that everyone plays Warband to experience the thrilling political system at work. :lol:

Improving the sideshow adds to the overall experience, but it doesn't do anything for the main attraction. It's more of an excuse for engaging in combat than anything else.
Um, I actually do play for things other than combat... If you want to grind all day, that's fine, but without context, the battles get boring.
 
Like I said, it's an excuse for fighting people.

'YOU STOLE MY CATTLE!'
'YOU RAPED MY WIFE IN RETALIATION!'
'YOU STOLE SIX POTS, CHOPPED OFF MY UNCLE'S FOOT AND BURNED DOWN MY BARN FOR THAT!'
'RAWR I KEEL YOU!'
 
Night Ninja 说:
Like I said, it's an excuse for fighting people.

'YOU STOLE MY CATTLE!'
'YOU RAPED MY WIFE IN RETALIATION!'
'YOU STOLE SIX POTS, CHOPPED OFF MY UNCLE'S FOOT AND BURNED DOWN MY BARN FOR THAT!'
'RAWR I KEEL YOU!'
Night Ninja, the battles are the fun part, but what's important to some is that they advance the story. I could then say that the battles are just lazy excuses for climaxes and plot movers. Do you see the dangers of your cyclical thought-process? The two are codependent, and one without the other is boring.
This whole argument was a dumb non-sequitur, and does nothing to say Blackthorne's idea is bad or good...
 
后退
顶部 底部