f13.net

Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord | Announcement Teaser  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLB9PlqkONo&feature=youtu.be)

http://www.taleworlds.com/

Day one purchase, pending gameplay info.

The first M&B's supplied me with so many hundreds of hours of play since I purchased the beta (or was it alpha then?) back in 2005.

This and Rome 2 are going to make me squeeeeeeee

Disappointment of the day

(Because there's no concrete info yet. Want!)

No-brainer.

This is still a great game, but screaming for a complete overhaul to update all the 10 year old garage code.

I hope they get the c-rpg strategus multiplayer campaign into the vanilla multiplayer, that would really be a stand-out feature.

I'm fine with just getting Co-op Multiplayer Campaign on a Minecraft like server.

The cRPG system is like playing E-mail chess.

It's more like a browser strategy game, but less time consuming.

Wouldn't co-op multiplayer be basically like turning it into a MMO?

I guess when people say co-op multiplayer they think of 2-4 players max.

Which would be sooooo awesome.

If they could get it to work properly, why limit it to 4 people when a typical server could host 50 to 200?

Seems to me the real effort would be actually programming the ability of players to interact together realtime on campaign map, in scenes, and handling the economic & event impact of said realtime interactions, than getting the player limit above 2-4.

Well, how do deal with map-time/real-time battles with 50 people? Or if one player is in town/menus? As you said that would require a rewrite of major parts of the game.
If it's only 2 players, just slap some network code on it and do it quick and dirty: If one player is in town, gametime stops for the person. Same during battles not involving both players. (alternatively auto-resolve). That would be far from perfect, but the game is so much fun I think people (at least I) would put up with it.

Of course a 200 people mount & blade would be fantastic, yes, but how realistic is that to ever happen?

Somewhere in the 1-8 area.

I want to see my friends war band running around. I want to storm his castle, or be his Vassal. ETC...

Obviously the main issue is the main world map, but I am sure there is a solution.

Some import of a TV show showing some Alpha footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZUfzAFL5Ek

The main issue isn't the world map, per se; the main issue is you might be in a 45 minute long battle which by necessity has to pause the rest of the world.

I don't really agree with that. As it is now, yes. Does it have to be that way? no. Would it take a bit of magic in the passage of time, yep.

Move the battles to local hosts, they already are. If I join your battle, you are the host. ETC.. The game already supports other groups join pre, and mid battle. They just get rolled into the reinforcements.

The only time the world should pause is if no one is connected. I am quite positive there is a solution, even if I do not have the details.

You're talking about an entirely different game at that point. I mean, if you get a situation where your castle is under siege for days of map time and you lose it because you're stuck in a battle that goes long somewhere else, that's pretty unforgivable to me.

That happens in single M&B player tho... Where you get raided or sieged and can't get back in time cuz you are questing across map.

Maybe during your battle, you can be notified of the siege, and then given opportunity to issue a command to deal with it. Either retreat yourself with all your troops (mayeb not be possible if enemy is aggressor, and faster), or just part of your troops (your faster ones), or dispatch part of your army to go back to relieve siege while you stay in battle, or send a message your NPC lords to rally forces and relieve the castle. Options like this...

Eh, I sure I am talking about a very revised world game layer.

However!

I have been playing the Floris Mod, and it does a great many things that I find really cool. Such as joining someones army. In that, you are just another grunt in the warband. You do not pick the fights, you do not control movement. I could easily see this as one cog in the Co-OP mode. You are a companion in a friends army. That's at least something!

EDIT: You know, its also the age of chivalry. In warband, you CAN attack anyone, but if you have no reason ( At war, sworn fore type stuff ) you suffer a honor penalty. You could, if your friend decides to attack your jank while you are offline, penalize him with honor and right to rule hits, basically moving him closer to bandit.

I think things like this would fit, with out having to set up "battle times" and such. I mean, in this age, you did declare intentions and allow your foe ( as a matter of honor ) to prepare.

No, I'm not talking about situations where you're traveling on the map and time is passing for you AND the siege - that's fine and sensible. What I'm talking about is a system where time keeps passing on the overworld map during a zoomed in battle, which does *not* happen in single player.


Or, how about we don't shit up a great single player game in the name of making it multiplayer. There's no way to make this work without breaking important elements of the previous design. The only way I can see it working is the additional players just piggybacking along with the main player's army, like BW suggests in his above post.

I don't want multiplayer in my Warband.

I want achievements  :grin:

I would gather that Co-op Campaign is the most requested feature. Everyone, everywhere has been asking for it for quite a while. Not saying they have not thought about it, but, really. With the new one they are changing the programing language, the physics, the net code. Sounds like a good time to work this out.


I want the Achievement of taking that castle with my friends! In the main world.

I don't think it's that hard to make the timing work almost like a join/leave battle option on the map. Timing could run normally non-stop, camping provides bonsues to defense so you don't get caught completely unaware, seiges could have battle elements that lead up to the building of the items, or you could have minigames that lead to you building the stuff. I'm a fan of both actually.

Well I personally don't care about co-op campaign, I would just like a multiplayer clan campaign map like crpg:strategus built into native M&B2.

All I ask for is a better modding interface. Hooks to add various types of multiplayer (let the community figure out the details) and some TES-level modularity to let the end users mix and match their mods.

See, I can be reasonable. :grin:

I have a feeling that updating the garbage code would make for a better modding interface.

Definitely. They need to steal all the best stuff from the current mods, then let the mod makers have at it again.

From what I have read, the entire code base is being redone, including a new mod system.

Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 8: Engine Power (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obO5sbziqjM)

This is going to be a modders dream...

I can't wait.

That terrain is happy in the pants beautiful.

I may love Mound and Blade more than any other game.

I want this to be good so badly.

 :uhrr:  :drill:

Autocorrect strikes again!

This is the game I would be willing to buy a new PC for.

Not quite Mount & blade 2 news, but I got a notification about this DLC today - https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/VikingConquest/Media

Vikings in mount & blade land, fighting off longships?  Count me in!

Instant purchase.

Look like they're trying for The Vikings tv show vibe with the trailers I've seen.  Looks good so far.

I find Brytenwalda to be kind of a frustrating mod, but maybe this will be better. I like the ships.

I do too. But a polished version of it might allay some of that.

I've been playing the crap out of Prophecy of Pendor lately. The Noldor Elves thing is kinda :uhrr: but otherwise I'm enjoying it.

Yeah I don't get the elves at all. It's a very stupid mechanic you have to choose to gain their trust.

Quick question about M&B, I've got the original game, W&B: Warband and M&B: With Fire & Sword in my Steam library and I've never played any of them. Are they all separate games or are the second two expansions?

If they're separate games (which I seem to think is the case) then which should I play?

They are all installed separately as stand-alone games.
Warband is the "extended" version of M&B and it's required by most of the better mods. F&S is a more modern take and takes place in eastern Europe instead of a fantasy world and contains firearms which drastically change the game's balance (and not really for the better).

My suggestion is to play Warbands and once you get familiar with it install one of the "bigger mods" like PoP or Brytenwalda (that is if you enjoy the basic game)

Nice one, thank you.

 :dead_horse:

Mount & Blade 2 : Bannerlord Gameplay Trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRTufbBnWB8)
No release date and looks like there's going to be a console release also so probably still long way to go (but atleast it looks nice right?)

Sigh.

I had higher hopes when I clicked this.

Minigames, crafting and console controls. All they need now are "Kill 10 Nords" quests for the grand slam of suck.

All I really wanted was better empire support for this type of game.

Not puzzles and crafting, you knobs.

All I wanted was better control (more commands) of troops in battle and better diplomacy/ruler options to make the gameplay outside of battles more interesting....not minigames.

Everything is going the way of star citizen now. I look at the pathetic frame rate in this marketing video and wonder why they wasted so much time implementing checkers or whatever.

That was lame, the only remotely interesting thing in that trailer was the siege weapons.

At the end they showed a reply of what I assume is some PVP fighting based on how the characters were moving and it's good that doesn't look like it's changed much. By far the best melee combat system ever.

I'm not really sure how you can do it on console though without a mouse. Your character's offensive and defensive weapon movements are basically an extension of your mouse movements and it was very fluid fluid and precise. Can't imagine how clunky that would be with a traditional controller, although it could actually potential work well with some of those motion based devices, at least melee fighting, still precision would be lower.

New blog post (https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/14) after a long time. While it isn't really that enlightening it does at least give some hope that they are making the map mode better and the mechanics between different locations to actually matter more. Now if they just got the game to the point where they could announce a (tentative) release date...

Long gameplay video, showing off character customization and of course combat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P8AYtiaaFE

Still very "Mount & Blade-y", but it looks and animates a lot better, which I think is most of what people really wanted.