durbal
Sergeant
So basically a static world? Boring. The player should have the intervene from time to time to get his desired outcomes, but he should never be the only agent for change in a dynamic world.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
SP - World Map My thoughts on the Faction Snowball effect. Campaigns should go on forever!
- Thread starter Koartz
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Sergeant
So basically a static world? Boring. The player should have the intervene from time to time to get his desired outcomes, but he should never be the only agent for change in a dynamic world.
Made no difference. Literally started a new game tonight with the new patches active and I can confirm with no word of a lie within 1-2 hours of playing Battania had taken most of the western empire. I am not even level 5 yet or clan rank 1 and the Western Empire is pretty much gone. Its soul destroying this EA.
Mawotb
Recruit
warband was great because it didnt go nuts all of the time before you were ready to think about doing your own thing on a faction scale. You clearly dont understand how prolific a players actions can be without fighting a single faction. I made a faction far richer and more financially able to function by causing huge trade fluctuations in my current playthrough with the apparent cause for snowballing having to do with lords ai ineptitude with money and funds, according to the patchnotes. I had Poros go from 4k to 6.5 k in about 2.5 years according to their four digit representation of economic ability.
Mawotb
Recruit
So playtest and see if the food starvation is bugged, what causes the army to disperse if anything. This is why i said that trying to hot fix it with completely absent content isnt likely to work if other modules are dependent on missing code. I cannot fathom the AI cant have the funds to field armies. this starts going back into the economy again and if it is or is not truly simulated. If it is its likely that without full concepts in that its not going to be balanced / functional any time soon. hard curbing how many cities can be taken, making sure attrition is definitely working properly and morale etc. should be the focus, otherwise its moot and has to be left until later when other bits are in place or some super arbitrary reason for it is discovered.
The main problem is you start out as a relative nobody that's basically broke. You also have other resources that you have to essentially farm to gain stature. Having to cater to the acquisition of these resources, combined with the fact that the rest of the factions 'play themselves and can end the game' create a very ridiculous scenario of you trying to get to a level where you can actually have an impact, but the world has left you in the dust. Sure, in some scenarios, the main factions seem to exist in a relative stalemate, but the overwhelming amount of playthroughs have a snowballing/winning contender. This forces the player to either skill up or do something else while they watch the game end before their eyes or rush renown/influence in order to participate.
As such, due to these circumstances, I don't believe in the 'player should have little agency' argument. If you started out on relative equal footing then perhaps that could hold some weight, but because you don't, you, in contrast to others, have to play an early game while you watch factions eat each other, and by the time you pick a side, you then have to grind up influence or go it on your own, putting you, again, at a severe disadvantage.
This coupled with the relative non-existence of peace time, further makes the argument of 'the world should be able to exist without you and play on without you' also ridiculous.
All in all, it just removes fun from a game that's supposed to be about having fun. Sure, there are certain games where I don't want to be the center of the universe and they market themselves around that fact, and design the game around that fact, but in this game, it should be in a relative stalemate until you either a) begin to influence the world in a noticeable way, or b) progress the story to a sufficient level to unlock a competition to recreate or make your own empire.
As such, due to these circumstances, I don't believe in the 'player should have little agency' argument. If you started out on relative equal footing then perhaps that could hold some weight, but because you don't, you, in contrast to others, have to play an early game while you watch factions eat each other, and by the time you pick a side, you then have to grind up influence or go it on your own, putting you, again, at a severe disadvantage.
This coupled with the relative non-existence of peace time, further makes the argument of 'the world should be able to exist without you and play on without you' also ridiculous.
All in all, it just removes fun from a game that's supposed to be about having fun. Sure, there are certain games where I don't want to be the center of the universe and they market themselves around that fact, and design the game around that fact, but in this game, it should be in a relative stalemate until you either a) begin to influence the world in a noticeable way, or b) progress the story to a sufficient level to unlock a competition to recreate or make your own empire.
GalactusBrasil
Recruit
samething happened to me, and even with me beeing literly the owner of all empire remains the quest just don't consider it
Mawotb
Recruit
Respectable enough, toning down the aggression or increasing the peace agreement grace periods could help there. there are many ways to do it but the absolute one thing i would say is going to be a constant pain to balance that i would bet money on (in a pandemic) until the 'full release' of bannerlord is the faction warfare. until all component functional code is in its going to have some weird ass patterns and trying to hard balance before everything is in is going to cause TW huge headspins again later in development. diplomacy will break it again, if its based on influence, leaders could be changing every day having to spend influence on keeping lords and clans and ordering people about and dealing with foreign agents. and it goes on...
I dont have the patience nor the time to playtest and monitor faction troops on the map and keep an eye on what is/isnt happening according to what should be happening, sorry. I will continue to play when I get spare time though and perhaps comment more in the future(this was my very first few comments). I totally understand this is EA but I lean more on the side of WOW 8 YEARS! and this is what we have. but hey ho the game will get better so Its a waiting game I guess.
Cheers
Mawotb
Recruit
if you cant see i was highlighting the point of playing to observe odd performance and report it here and that most people are in that same boat about the waiting... you dont seem like you have the patience or the time to read threads through and see that points have already been made. they dont need to be restated beyond 'yeh i have the same problem' for the pure sake of quantity testing.
No problem lad, no need to judge though.
Why not implement a system in which any faction that, say, is down to its last Castle and fiefs, gets a GIANT buff to defense? That would be almost impossible to overcome? Still possible, say if the player invested heavily in "finally wiping out a faction", but that would be like having an "epic last final stand" for a faction, I think that would be good, and that way while the attackers are besieging them, perhaps it would give time for them to get attacked on the home front? There are possibly many solutions to this.
Just implement a coalition system let's say for example kuzaits are steamrolling the empires then sturgia/vlandia/battania/aserai would form a coalition and do a punitive war against the kuzaits to either release empire land or take it for themselves? so its gonna be hard for 1 faction to do a world conquest.
durbal
Sergeant
In reality this didn't happen because of political issues, logistics issues, manpower issues, etc.
Those need to be modeled. Sieges need to be something that drains the attacker significantly even when successful. Castles right now are more like pinatas than proper fortifications.
Those need to be modeled. Sieges need to be something that drains the attacker significantly even when successful. Castles right now are more like pinatas than proper fortifications.
+1
phillies6f
Recruit
Seems another issue with the snowballing is castles/towns losing their garrisons too rapidly due to food loss. They don't seem to have large enough stockpiles to last more than a few days. A siege should not be such an easy task and the defenders should have a better chance of holding out.
Blader noumt
Recruit
Yes it should be top priority
