Please add a multiplayer campaign with ~ 2-10 players
I would be ready to pay 50 € if it is a dlc
I would be ready to pay 50 € if it is a dlc
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
[Suggestion] Please add a multiplayer campaign with ~ 2-10 players
- Thread starter TheDeadWave
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coop multiplayer campaign solo
Users who are viewing this thread
zMasterofPie
Recruit
Taleworlds have stated that IF they can make a multiplayer campaign that is enjoyable and playable, they will release it as DLC. But considering how many problems it presents, such as what would happen if one person was in a battle and the other moving around on the map, I personally do not expect to see it for a good few years if at all. Which sucks, because I too would pay 50 euros (well, dollars for me) for the DLC.
Maybe one day but like Callum has said, do not buy this game expecting a proper co-op or MP campaign mode
I hope, if they ever set up a co-op mode, that it only supports about 2-4 people, which i think is enough for a game like M&B.
I guess the "many" difficulties they discovered had nothing to do with allowing more people to participate in the same campaign, but rather with how the game is designed. Which actually makes it a ton more difficult when you have to work against your entire design, resulting in something that is not fun.
As we all know time only runs if:
1. We move on the campain map,
2. we camp/wait/siege
3. taken as prisoner.
While thinks like "What happens with the other players if someone is fighting" could be 'easy' solved by just letting the others play as an enemy/allied soldier.
Thinks like "What happens if someone is walking in a city while the others are outside travelling?":
- does time stay still (starts annoying other players after some time)
- do they get thrown into "camp" automatically (where you can do some organisation stuff, but if not same as the first solution)
- or can they just keep moving (something that would make more trouble, like the city gets under siege while the player is still walking in it)
Their are many combinations of actions player can do at the same time that breaks the concept of how time is working in the game which I think is the biggest if not the only problem that needs to be taken care of to allow something like a co-op campaign.
I can think of 2 options:
A: The 'easiest' would be, the one who is hosting talkes over the lead while the others are something like companions. They can recruit and do most of the other stuff that they can do in SP, but only if the host took the group where such actions are possible.
+: base concept of time can stay, you can play with your friends together
-: you can't play against your friends if this is what you want, probably only the host can get titels and own land.
B: Designe a complet new concept of how time works in the game without breaking the main game. Maybe something like a round-based system where you can decide which location/army/trader etc. you want your army move towards when the game switches to the next round. During a round you can do actions like organizing your army, walking around a city (if you are in one). If at the beginning of a new round (after every movement of the armys was calculated) a fight is going to start, players could decide if they want to participate in it as allie or enemy, if not they can streight go into the phase 2. In the end you would have something like Phase 1 (Beginning of a round): Where fighting takes place, Phase 2 (During a round): planning your next actions and/or moving around locations, Phase 3 (End of a round): execute planned movements.
+: everyone can play their own army/faction etc., each action can be done in Phase 2 without worring to stop other players actions,
-: depending on how much the game relies on the current time system, it could be as elaborate as starting from 0..
I guess we will see, but first just let us play EA in two weeks, before thinking of something like co-op ^^
I guess the "many" difficulties they discovered had nothing to do with allowing more people to participate in the same campaign, but rather with how the game is designed. Which actually makes it a ton more difficult when you have to work against your entire design, resulting in something that is not fun.
As we all know time only runs if:
1. We move on the campain map,
2. we camp/wait/siege
3. taken as prisoner.
While thinks like "What happens with the other players if someone is fighting" could be 'easy' solved by just letting the others play as an enemy/allied soldier.
Thinks like "What happens if someone is walking in a city while the others are outside travelling?":
- does time stay still (starts annoying other players after some time)
- do they get thrown into "camp" automatically (where you can do some organisation stuff, but if not same as the first solution)
- or can they just keep moving (something that would make more trouble, like the city gets under siege while the player is still walking in it)
Their are many combinations of actions player can do at the same time that breaks the concept of how time is working in the game which I think is the biggest if not the only problem that needs to be taken care of to allow something like a co-op campaign.
I can think of 2 options:
A: The 'easiest' would be, the one who is hosting talkes over the lead while the others are something like companions. They can recruit and do most of the other stuff that they can do in SP, but only if the host took the group where such actions are possible.
+: base concept of time can stay, you can play with your friends together
-: you can't play against your friends if this is what you want, probably only the host can get titels and own land.
B: Designe a complet new concept of how time works in the game without breaking the main game. Maybe something like a round-based system where you can decide which location/army/trader etc. you want your army move towards when the game switches to the next round. During a round you can do actions like organizing your army, walking around a city (if you are in one). If at the beginning of a new round (after every movement of the armys was calculated) a fight is going to start, players could decide if they want to participate in it as allie or enemy, if not they can streight go into the phase 2. In the end you would have something like Phase 1 (Beginning of a round): Where fighting takes place, Phase 2 (During a round): planning your next actions and/or moving around locations, Phase 3 (End of a round): execute planned movements.
+: everyone can play their own army/faction etc., each action can be done in Phase 2 without worring to stop other players actions,
-: depending on how much the game relies on the current time system, it could be as elaborate as starting from 0..
I guess we will see, but first just let us play EA in two weeks, before thinking of something like co-op ^^
Even if they managed to make it work it really wouldn't be fun, I'm not sure who would enjoy sitting around waiting for other people and with 9 of them? **** me it would be every second let's go this town, lets fight these 5 bandits 50 times, let me sell my loot, let me recruit some troops, let me buy some armour, let me spend 10 minutes creating my weapon and so on.
It just doesn't work for M&B.
It just doesn't work for M&B.
Timmortal
Knight at Arms
Agreed.
This would be excellent without a pause mode. If you want respite, go into a town. This could definitely work if we removed the ability to pause the game and kept everything realtime.
When player is engaged in a battle, create a "safe zone" around that battle that no one else can enter. If you want to fight with or against someone, you have to be in their party or in the enemy party from the start.
If you are in a town that gets captured by the enemy, you should simply have the option to leave.
Removing pause and making everything realtime is the key to a successful multiplayer campaign.
When player is engaged in a battle, create a "safe zone" around that battle that no one else can enter. If you want to fight with or against someone, you have to be in their party or in the enemy party from the start.
If you are in a town that gets captured by the enemy, you should simply have the option to leave.
Removing pause and making everything realtime is the key to a successful multiplayer campaign.
I really like your option A. IMO this is the only way to keep M&B campaigns as we love them and add in a multiplayer component.
paladinx333
Sergeant at Arms
If the started on that right now it might be ready for early access in another eight years.
Timmortal
Knight at Arms
But if everything is real time, and you enter a battle and then some lord sees your Capital is undefended and takes it, while you are in battle then it would suck and pretty much be an unplayable game mode.
A system where one player controls the party/campaign game and other players control their own (perhaps custom) characters in scenes/combat would be enough for a coop mode that a lot of people would enjoy.
Even if every player couldn't control the campaign gameplay or have their own parties they could at least have the ability to purchase items for themselves while in towns/visit town locations/arena practice/whatever while the party leader chooses when to leave the town/what quests to take/troops to hire and other stuff that concerns the whole party.
It wouldn't be boring, the downtime could simply be spent discussing what to do next or just alt tabbing and doing something else lol.
CA left the coop in a half-assed state, clearly they made a decision to stop developing features for it past the baseline perhaps due to engine hurdles or just a lack of interest. The solution for their trouble is to make other players able to queue their actions at the same time with eachother so turns don't take so long.
Even if every player couldn't control the campaign gameplay or have their own parties they could at least have the ability to purchase items for themselves while in towns/visit town locations/arena practice/whatever while the party leader chooses when to leave the town/what quests to take/troops to hire and other stuff that concerns the whole party.
It wouldn't be boring, the downtime could simply be spent discussing what to do next or just alt tabbing and doing something else lol.
CA left the coop in a half-assed state, clearly they made a decision to stop developing features for it past the baseline perhaps due to engine hurdles or just a lack of interest. The solution for their trouble is to make other players able to queue their actions at the same time with eachother so turns don't take so long.
I think it would be interesting to allow for multiplayer where other payers are companions in your army who can command sections in battle. Having their own party however, would not be possible.
Similar threads
