Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord

[Mrbloodworth]

Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord | Announcement Teaser

http://www.taleworlds.com/

The silence is finally broken! We are thrilled to officially announce Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord, the sequel to Mount & Blade: Warband, is in development. War and drums and blood will surely ensue but for now, enjoy our announcement teaser...

[koro]

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.

[Paelos]

This and Rome 2 are going to make me squeeeeeeee

[cironian]

Disappointment of the day

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

[Speedy Cerviche]

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.

[Mrbloodworth]

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

The cRPG system is like playing E-mail chess.

[Speedy Cerviche]

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?

[calapine]

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

Which would be sooooo awesome.

[Speedy Cerviche]

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.

[calapine]

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?

[Mrbloodworth]

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

Which would be sooooo awesome.

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.

[Mrbloodworth]

Some import of a TV show showing some Alpha footage:

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

[Ingmar]

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

Which would be sooooo awesome.

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.

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.

[Mrbloodworth]

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.

[Ingmar]

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.

[Speedy Cerviche]

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...

[Mrbloodworth]

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.

[Ingmar]

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.

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.

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...

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.

[Paelos]

I don't want multiplayer in my Warband.

I want achievements 

[Mrbloodworth]

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 achievements  

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

[Paelos]

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.

[Speedy Cerviche]

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.

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.

[cironian]

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.

[Paelos]

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

[WayAbvPar]

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

[Mrbloodworth]

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

[calapine]

Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Developer Blog 8: Engine Power

This is going to be a modders dream...

I can't wait.

[HaemishM]

That terrain is happy in the pants beautiful.

[Paelos]

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

I want this to be good so badly.

[apocrypha]

Mound and Blade

  

[Paelos]

Autocorrect strikes again!

[Speedy Cerviche]

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

[pants]

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!

[Falconeer]

Instant purchase.

[Ginaz]

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!

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