which game is the best?

[Mohamad-pastori]

which game is the best please answer You can vote two times

 

[Knight of will]

until they implement warband in WFS, im going to say warband. WFS seems incomplete and i never played MB

 

[Commander Millander]

until they implement warband in WFS, im going to say warband. WFS seems incomplete and i never played MB

same as him. With fire ans sword felt to much like a expansion but I can argue because I got it foe 3.75 dollars xD

 

[Osviux]

Mount&Blade and Warband because WFAS is just like a module or an expansion and it's full of bugs.

 

[Coraline]

Warband, no contest.  I started playing it again and realised quickly of how silly WF&S was compared to it, though I wish features from WF&S could be brought to Warband and features from Warband could be brought to WF&S.  They both have good parts but Warband just is so much better over all.   

WF&S I love the improvement of managing villages/castles/towns in general.  I also like caravaning from WF&S.  Something WF&S does not have is owning buisness inside castle towns, something which I loved on Warband.  No feast on WF&S, no politics in General though I heard they're working on it.  WF&S I hope would get something better than FEAST which Warband has, Feast were boring and felt almost pointless, going to them did not improve relations unless something before the feast factored in.  WF&S I have some hope that FEASTwill be replaced with something more interactive, like a BALL. hehe

 

[Golradir]

Warband ftw.

 

[Poul2]

I can write my feeling about multiplayer in both games. I never played Warband SP or WFAS SP - I only played SP in original M&B (because it has no MP ).
When Warband beta came out I was really happy, it was amazing game. The problem with Warband multiplayer is, it's a bit boring long term. At start you are regular player and you are getting better, and better, but after some time you can run on every map with closed eyes, you know gameplay so well, you can't get better and everything starting to be boring. I played Warband MP almost half a year. And I spend similar time in cRPG mod, which was great (at early stage, now it's just ridiculous if you want to play other character than infantry).
So at the time, Warband was an amazing game, one of the very best. But then I felt I can't play it more, I just know it so well, so I stopped.
And half a year later WFAS came out. I decided just to try it out, nothing more. And i loved muskets from the start. It's another great game, it has problems (especially balance), but it has it's charm. I know many people are saying musketeers are too good here, but my question is: if you make musketeers weak will good players enjoy play them ? Like with muscovite musketeer now - i don't enjoy playing it, it's too random, it's more about luck than skill. I know how to aim to make highest possible chance to hit, but too random shoting is just depressing and annoying.
WFAS is a different game than Warband, I don't care it's same engine, I don't care it looks more like mod - what's wrong with that ? Gameplay is different and that's what really matters. I love WSAF and I think I will have fun with it in next few months.
I just hope next Mount&Blade based game will be more like cRPG mod, with exping, buying stuff and so on. It's much less boring this way. It would be great to have own nations, cities etc in multiplayer. But until then, WFAS is the reason why I came back here and enjoy this game once more. Different maps, different equipement, different nations, and... muskets - it's enought to have fun once again
So I can't say which game is the best, because whole M&B series is great. I can't wait to see another M&B game, with (hopefully) even more interesting multiplayer.

 

[Coraline]

Actually personally wish multiplayer would be an online campaign like single player.  I tried multiplayer on both Warband and WF&S I found them quite boring. lol

 

[Osviux]

Actually personally wish multiplayer would be an online campaign like single player.  I tried multiplayer on both Warband and WF&S I found them quite boring. lol

Yeah, was thinking about that too. I would really love a multiplayer campaign.

 

[Kneed]

Warband, WF&S is a distant third behind the original M&B.  Far too many broken elements in WF&S to be taken seriously when compared to the others.  The only two factions I consider playable are Sweden and the Khanate because they dont have bug ridden storyline quests.  WF&S lost the sandbox nature of the previous games with the new recruiting systems and stiff penalties for declining the story arc missions.

 

[Swedish_lnvader]

Actually personally wish multiplayer would be an online campaign like single player.  I tried multiplayer on both Warband and WF&S I found them quite boring. lol

Yeah, was thinking about that too. I would really love a multiplayer campaign.

And how would you guys suggest this to be made? Any smart ideas? Osviux?

 

[Poul2]

Actually personally wish multiplayer would be an online campaign like single player.  I tried multiplayer on both Warband and WF&S I found them quite boring. lol

Yeah, was thinking about that too. I would really love a multiplayer campaign.

And how would you guys suggest this to be made? Any smart ideas? Osviux?

Have you ever played cRPG mod ?
You have exp there, you can buy equipement, increase your character statistics (like in SP), and there is strategus. A map with cities, castles and villages. Players own them, and they can attack some other. It works like this: when you attack some city, you "reserve" battle and hire mercenaries (other players). Defender do the same and at specific hour few days later MP battle begins. There, you have some points, for every dead one side loses 1 point, when some nation has 0 point, it loses. If defender lose, the castle/village/city goes to attacker, otherwise it stays with defender. In strategus there is economy as well, but I think this shouldn't be too complicated. I never played as city/village/castle owner, so I can't say much about this. I was mercenary, people payed me for defending/attacking, so I could spend this money for better equipement for myself . Beside, in strategus you also getting exp for kills, so it was leveling same time. It was fun, at least it was something different than just a battle without meaning (like right now in native multiplayer).

 

[Swedish_lnvader]

Actually personally wish multiplayer would be an online campaign like single player.  I tried multiplayer on both Warband and WF&S I found them quite boring. lol

Yeah, was thinking about that too. I would really love a multiplayer campaign.

And how would you guys suggest this to be made? Any smart ideas? Osviux?

Have you ever played cRPG mod ?
You have exp there, you can buy equipement, increase your character statistics (like in SP), and there is strategus. A map with cities, castles and villages. Players own them, and they can attack some other. It works like this: when you attack some city, you "reserve" battle and hire mercenaries (other players). Defender do the same and at specific hour few days later MP battle begins. There, you have some points, for every dead one side loses 1 point, when some nation has 0 point, it loses. If defender lose, the castle/village/city goes to attacker, otherwise it stays with defender. In strategus there is economy as well, but I think this shouldn't be too complicated. I never played as city/village/castle owner, so I can't say much about this. I was mercenary, people payed me for defending/attacking, so I could spend this money for better equipement for myself . Beside, in strategus you also getting exp for kills, so it was leveling same time. It was fun, at least it was something different than just a battle without meaning (like right now in native multiplayer).

Allright so we have it at least for Warband and I hope it will appear to Fire and Shizzle as well. But as I'm thinking, a real multiplayer campaign in any M&B would be played by 5 different teams as in the SP only those would be controlled by actual players, everything went exactly as it does in SP. You could even have the opportunity to hire vassals which would also be MP guys. 5 Kings (The highest ranked ones) and some vassals, the limit could go up to 20 players at the same time. Now we're talking about really cool stuff but almost impossible to do, there's so many obstacles. Some would be these.

- Huge servers which would handle numerous battles at the same time as the strategus map is running.
- What happens if anyone goes offline, will the enemies still be able to attack him? Will the game quit? Is he protected during that time?
- How long will it take to play through the game, will other guys be able to join ones others have left and take their sted?
- How would the time differences look between battle and the strategically overview. Would another be able to roam around the map while you're in that huge fight.

And I'm sure there's plenty more, but if the developers somehow succed in doing this it would be awesome but I doubt it will be as complicated as the SP campaign.

BTW: I'm checking in cRPG right now Poul. :d

 

[Poul2]

Everything is possible to solve. You don't need huge servers, few would be enought, just make a limit on battles played every hour.
Servers could be splitted by continent, EU would play their strategus, US another ones - there is no point playing this game on 150-200 ms pings anyway.

cRPG is the best example how this game should look like. Few TIMES more players playing cRPG mod than Warband native, it means something, isn't it ? And it's just a mod made by player, we don't have full source code of the game, we aren't developers. Just imagine what developers could do, if regular players can do whole cRPG, having only native source files (where you can only make limited by developers changes to the game) ?

 

[Caba`drin]

There are plenty of threads to discuss the (im)plausibility of co-op campaigns on the current engine. See the Privy Council for many, many of these threads and feel free to continue this conversation there.