Why the hell is the Tannery so overpowered?

Users who are viewing this thread

This may go without saying, but seems worth saying out loud given the thread:

A huge problem hanging over all of this is the existence of basically two games in one economic system: early game vs. mid-late game.

The devs clearly design the game primarily to limit and challenge the player in the early game - and thus motivate the early game player to achieve certain expensive, difficult objectives by which he/she can secure better income and security: get fiefs, get an army that can regularly and profitably beat real parties vs. just low-rent looters and bandits, etc. However, once you have all of those things, you can snowball pretty comfortably in the mid-late game. Most nerfs meant to limit late game snowballing, though, permeate through the whole economic system, which means they hurt the early game player, who already had challenges, a ton.

I think nerfing battle loot - by nerfing equipment costs - would actually limit late game snowballing a little without hurting the early game player too much (actually helping them a lot), so I'm generally in favor of that. But even that imbalances the early game challenge. Pros and cons.
 
Long mercenary run was 1.3. Nope, I do not exploited prisoner donations. Just battle loot.
Yes, there was possible, now with the nerf in Influence from donations in general + nerf of workshops playing a mercenary is virtually impossible, you basically have to be in battle 90% of the time you're in-game.
 
Yes, there was possible, now with the nerf in Influence from donations in general + nerf of workshops playing a mercenary is virtually impossible, you basically have to be in battle 90% of the time you're in-game.
The prisoner to influence conversion was mediocre unless you got 150+ contracts anyways, ransoming is still great and the battle loot is good.
 
The end of the day, the option to play either style (merchantile vs Lord hunting/looting) should be equally viable. If your playthrough is one of ease with your methods, I don't believe that means its inherently bad. Mine has been more of a struggle, but worthwhile when I finally achieve my milestones needed. The overall economy needs to be balanced, and I agree with some about making income less as a whole and making money more worthwhile.

I am currently working on getting the T6 gear for my PC, and we're talking 40-75k per piece for the imperial which is still not a drop in the bucket like it sounds like you guys have at your disposal. The problem I have with nerfing outright is the idea that one style of play should suffer over others, when, as many have said, nerfing the tanneries in this case does not solve the overall economic problem.

Adding the option to smith armors to reduce cost of armoring yourself and your companions, or adding a trade penalty for war spoils (which could be overcome somewhat with perks) or adding more variety and function for the passive income is ways that you can look into properly balancing the economic situation without directly nerfing the few "OP" means of money gain.

The nerfs that have happened already, as said above by xdj1nn, have made aspects much more annoying to endure, so unless you're exploiting certain methods to push through early game and get to the point where you CAN snowball things, its more a lesson in futility and an artificial means of inflating "Difficulty", which is just pointless to me.
 
But wouldn't the increased cost of making leather make the profit per unit go down? Also, isn't the price of a good based on city's prosperity + supply not the cost of the raw materials behind the goods? I mean, I guess if the availability of hides got so low that leather supplies went down, that then yeah, the price of leather would stay high, but that would have to be a huge differential of hide availability - more than I would propose. If city demand remained steady, and the COG for leather increased, that should decrease leather profitability.

In any case, though, putting all of that aside: even if the price of leather was higher, the scenario I'm describing could still make make the profitability of leather lower, which is what determines workshop profits, right?
Well if you just increased the price of hides obviously profit would go down, if you left everything else the same.

I have not noticed any surplus of hides in my games. Maybe your games are different. Seems like the world consumes all the hides it can get, except in a small number of locations with a lot of supply of hides. Most places seem to have at most one cow or sheep village and just a slow trickle of hides. Even places like Tyal with a ton of sheep and cows have a shortage of hides, they don't slaughter enough animals.

Lowering supply would lower profitability if there was already enough hides to fully saturate demand but I don't think there is. So it would just drive up the price of leather even more.
 
Well if you just increased the price of hides obviously profit would go down, if you left everything else the same.

I have not noticed any surplus of hides in my games. Maybe your games are different. Seems like the world consumes all the hides it can get, except in a small number of locations with a lot of supply of hides. Most places seem to have at most one cow or sheep village and just a slow trickle of hides. Even places like Tyal with a ton of sheep and cows have a shortage of hides, they don't slaughter enough animals.

Lowering supply would lower profitability if there was already enough hides to fully saturate demand but I don't think there is. So it would just drive up the price of leather even more.

Sure, that makes sense. I do see healthy demand for hides as is and not a lot lying around. But towns consume hides on their own regardless of leather production, right? As in, leather production is not the sole driver of hides consumption? If so, then the increased hide cost would almost necessarily increase the leather COG more than the price of leather on the market, right?
 
Yes, there was possible, now with the nerf in Influence from donations in general + nerf of workshops playing a mercenary is virtually impossible, you basically have to be in battle 90% of the time you're in-game.

I done 4 long test runs: King, Vassal, Mercenary and Trader. Mercenary with no caravans / workshops house rule was most successful, I handedly prevented snowballing untill day 600+ by joining loosing side in several conflicts (mainly Sturgia, surprize-surprize).

Last patches does not changed game significantly enough to justify starting new long test runs. Maybe next patch will bring something important to test and it definitely will be mercenary run, and caravans/workshops will be ruled out again.
 
Sure, that makes sense. I do see healthy demand for hides as is and not a lot lying around. But towns consume hides on their own regardless of leather production, right? As in, leather production is not the sole driver of hides consumption? If so, then the increased hide cost would almost necessarily increase the leather COG more than the price of leather on the market, right?
I don't think so, but you should try it and find out.
 
Stop whining and let us make some money. I'd rather devs focus on adding actual content than wasting their time nerfing a workshop (for the third time) because some weenie on the forums doesn't like that they turn too good a profit.
 
Imho many game devs like to nerf stuff way too much. They have a knee jerk reaction and that in turn piss players off. Most of the time they end up having to swing back the other direction to find a middle ground. I've seen it time and time again, and you get what you've got now players upset because TW is nerfing the economy. But it's becoming apparent to me that TW doesn't understand the complexities of their own game. So they come up with cheats and bandaid fixes instead of long term goals for actually balance.
 
why is every other shop under powered. The struggle for money is real in the early game to the point that if you don't take out a good group of looters a day you cant afford your troops
 
Most of the time they end up having to swing back the other direction to find a middle ground. I've seen it time and time again
Maybe (maybe) the reason you've seen it time and time again is that it's an easy way to zero in on the correct balance, and doesn't have much at all to do with backtracking because players are pissed off.

Also, there is some irony here:
They have a knee jerk reaction
 
Last edited:
Maybe (maybe) the reason you've seen it time and time again is that it's an easy way to zero in on the correct balance and doesn't have much at all to do with backtracking because players are pissed off.
I guess I wasn't clear that most devs tend to way way overestimate the corrections they need to make. Most times a small nudge is all that is needed not a huge push.
 
well, we don't pay for fief upgrades, we cannot upgrade villages, and there's that weird "workshop level" **** that doesn't seem to be implemented... All of those look like possible future gold sinks. Then we have the plethora of things that can cost small fortunes, like managing peace treaties, making alliances, bribing to make "trade agreements" (not implemented, not sure if it will be).
TW could also follow WFaS and add ways to level up your companions for a big buck, it could follow on Pendor Mod and add custom outfits, bring on some custom appearances for troops, even custom troops altogether, they could also add mechanics to create your own culture, building stuffs within your fiefs that are apparent (like a fancy room, storage, stables, etc.). They could add actual "royal blacksmiths" that you hire and can craft incredible items for you (including armor)...

The list is simply massive. Meanwhile, given we get a plethora of things that should cost lots of gold, none of these nerfs make much sense except for retarded exploit-level income.

That's why, to me, the whole "pLoX nUrFs iZ oP LuLZ" is just ridiculous. And most of the nerfs have already made the game painful in 1.4.1, it's annoying, ridiculously annoying. I'm not even sure if you all are talking about the beta branch, because there it's impossible to have such income.

Uhmmm what? Exactly what have changed about income in 1.4.1?

The game is exactly the same for me. As easy as before.

I did and in fact I am still playing it. In Warband workshops can snowball just because of the fact that you can have as many of them as you want. And considering that each dyework gives about 500 gold each pay cycle for an investment of 10k, it's actually more money than what workshops give now (and you don't lose them permanently if you go at war with a kingdom owning the city where you workshop is). Here are some screenshots from my current game.

a0Fid.jpg

XZqXe.jpg

I honestly like the system in Warband myself. It does not matter if you are snowballing a little end game, since by then you are supposed to be fighting kings and the like, so you will need the extra cash to pay for elite troops. Here after two weeks you get access to the main source of cash, and after that it is all the same. It feel monotonous and dull and kills the sense of progression. At least that is how it feels to me.

This post clearly shows how OP passive income is in bannerlord. After having tons of workshops in Warband, one town and running without army (he is paying pretty low wages), he is getting 10K weekly. Meanwhile, in Bannerlord you can easily get 5K daily passively as long as you have a tier 4-5 clan. Seriously, you are blind people and It does not make sense to continue arguing about this with you. But yes, lets ask for more passive income and for making the game even easier.
 
I guess I wasn't clear that most devs tend to way way overestimate the corrections they need to make. Most times a small nudge is all that is needed not a huge push.

Agreed. Best balancing practice is to make a moderate measured adjustment, evaluate results, then increase or decrease said adjustment. I feel like instead we often (not always, but often) see pendulum swings. Pendulum swings make it harder to evaluate results of balancing moves.
 
There are massive economic problems in this game as of 1.4.1.x

On that note.

There is something to buy... peace.



My last play ended after 25+ hours of recording it when I had owned a town and a castle or two. Constant war declarations amounted to extortion and peace was costing 250 to 400k each time, with multiple wars. Eventually it was obvious that I'd run out of money with no way to defend against these 1000 man armies that kept coming. Largest army I could form with my companion armies and me was about 600 and we would get slaughtered. I'm sure some of you are better players and all that, but the 1 million denars I started a kingdom with wasn't going to be enough for me to get enough fiefs where the income from those fiefs would allow me to continue growing. I should have hit Tier 5 first, one more companion party would have given me an army of 700 and a chance. I also had no vassals and no hired mercs, since they wanted 1 million denars to join me. There's something else you can buy and these are big late game denar sinks.

A workshop making 400/day isn't game breaking at this level, it might be a little much early game. You cannot amputate a patient until it survives. If anything other workshops should be on the same level as the tannery, but that makes it where it's pretty lame if all of them produce the same income no matter what the player does, which is now largely the case.

It would be a lot more interesting if you had more involvement in what income the workshop produced, but at this stage of game development I doubt that's an option.

Your comments are welcome, here or there. I did not play Warband, so keep that in mind. There's a lot I don't know.
 
Dyeworks 500 weekly - buy price 10000
Tannery 3500 weekly - buy price 13500

- 20 weeks to get money back from dyeworks.
- 4 weeks to get money back from tanneries.
- Warband workshops are under sequestration at war times.
- Bannerlord workshops are lost at war but you can sell them.
- You can get workshops everywhere in Warband.
- You can get 6 workshops at maximum in Bannerlord but they are simply much more profitable than Warband workshops, Plus you can get caravans in Bannerlord.


Swadian Knights 59 weekly
Vlandian Banner Knights 98 weekly


Now, once you realize that most of people buy Workshops in Warband and they find them profitable, It is clear that It is something wrong with Bannerlord passive income.

Paying tons of gold for equipment, making peace and recruiting lords, is just a desperate and poor way to try to deal with players getting insanely rich in this game. I personally would prefer less income for the player and less crazy costs for equipment which make the game less immersive and bring more economy issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom