Information about developments at snowballing problem

[danEN]

And it should also hit hard army leader. If You lead an army to defeat You should lose a lot of renown.

True. A dynamic forever evolving world. It's what a sandbox needs

 

[AJAJP_Juan]

So this is a rebellion against your lord because the noble family doesn't take care of common people. I don't see how this act produces a new noble family. The villigers should just join back the faction (lord or noble family) with which they have the best relations (usually the original owner).
This could slow down the ocupying forces because to keep the settlment would require develop good relationship with the common villagers.
Turning the rebbeling common people into noble clans should not be the part of this mechanic. The noble clans should appear independendently from this mechanic and if this clan would build good relation with people,, after rebelion they can get their first fief. But that should be a completely different story.

Rebbels always ended to be governed by some existing noble families. Not noble families born from rebells. Just my opinion...

It's not necessarily the peasants the ones who lead these kind of revolt, as it is new management but same ****; they woul be lead by minor or impoverished nobles, who lose their benefits in favor of extrangers akin the conquerors or to try to carve a place for themselves, just like the player usually does.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

I've been thinking more about fluid renown. Another way to reduce clans renown would be to do it when a member dies. Essentially clans could rank members and assign each of them an importance % where if they die the clans renown is reduced by that %. This % would scale with the number of adult members in a clan. The leader of a clan should be weighted the most (maybe like a bottom limit of 33%). Or track each characters renown for a clan and once they die the clan loses it.

This would actually add some longevity to the renown game and bring some importance to clan members other than the clan leader. For the player at worst this would mean they could have less parties and companions if their clan rank drops, if that is the case prompt the player with a screen to chose which companion or party to let go/disband.

 

[Akka]

I've been thinking more about fluid renown. Another way to reduce clans renown would be to do it when a member dies. Essentially clans could rank members and assign each of them an importance % where if they die the clans renown is reduced by that %.

Interesting take. I'd rather go with the "when a character dies, 50 or 75 % of his renown value is substracted to his clan". Basically, the clan gets to keep half or a quarter of the character's renown. It would make losing a lot of high-renown characters a serious blow, which is something that actually happened in real life, while keeping a bit the "famous ancestor" prestige thing.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Interesting take. I'd rather go with the "when a character dies, 50 or 75 % of his renown value is substracted to his clan". Basically, the clan gets to keep half or a quarter of the character's renown. It would make losing a lot of high-renown characters a serious blow, which is something that actually happened in real life, while keeping a bit the "famous ancestor" prestige thing.

Lmao I went with "or" but you are right, why not both.

 

[Rycon Caldestan]

@Akka @Blood Gryphon
I like the idea you guys are on regarding how agent death effects their clans renown.

 

[Undy]

Heirs in BL can be of a different culture.

Even then, the lifespan for the player's character in terms of game hours is so long that having to rebuild on change of culture with an heir is hardly a significant setback.

 

[Dabos37]

I've been thinking more about fluid renown. Another way to reduce clans renown would be to do it when a member dies. Essentially clans could rank members and assign each of them an importance % where if they die the clans renown is reduced by that %. This % would scale with the number of adult members in a clan. The leader of a clan should be weighted the most (maybe like a bottom limit of 33%). Or track each characters renown for a clan and once they die the clan loses it.

This would actually add some longevity to the renown game and bring some importance to clan members other than the clan leader. For the player at worst this would mean they could have less parties and companions if their clan rank drops, if that is the case prompt the player with a screen to chose which companion or party to let go/disband.

Also agree with this. As long as the player just win and win and has more, more and more after every day, long campaigns do not make much sense for me because at some point we are able to get much more than we need and the campaign stop being challenging and enjoyable in my view.

We need something like we have in games like Crusader kings where we actually lose part of the progression after every death and we have constantly to deal with challenging events.

Losing renown and relationship with other clans after clan leader death looks like a nice approach to me which would improve the game, and also help with the mentioned issue about parties inflation.

 

[Sparticulous]

Maybe you can set a % of decay for renown that ticks daily?

it would affect the player less due to I believe a trade skill that gives daily renown for caravans or workshops

and plus with player parties, they will probably help you get renown too

 

[Apocal]

And it should also hit hard army leader. If You lead an army to defeat You should lose a lot of renown.

Thinking more about the renown decay, what do you think about player clan members losing battles and the player losing renown? (I could perfectly deal with this but probably not some other players). Or maybe the renown decay should be applied just for clan leaders?

A player would be able to cripple certain clans simply by repeatedly beating the hell out of their parties until they fell under renown cap, losing an active party slot and shrinking their existing party size. It would also harm weak factions that naturally lose a lot of battles, sieges, etc.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

A player would be able to cripple certain clans simply by repeatedly beating the hell out of their parties until they fell under renown cap, losing an active party slot and shrinking their existing party size. It would also harm weak factions that naturally lose a lot of battles, sieges, etc.

Thinking more about this, I'd agree losing renown from battles would be exploitable. What do you think about renown loss at death?

 

[Apocal]

Thinking more about this, I'd agree losing renown from battles would be exploitable. What do you think about renown loss at death?

I don't have a general opinion on it, honestly. It is all up to the implementation and economy around renown. Losing something like 90% is too much, obviously. But while only losing 5-10% is too little currently, in a hypothetical future version where renown is perishable, consumable or destructible (or any combination of the three) it might be perfectly fine.

edit: I'm not even completely convinced renown should be made into a non-durable resource.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

I don't have a general opinion on it, honestly. It is all up to the implementation and economy around renown. Losing something like 90% is too much, obviously. But while only losing 5-10% is too little currently, in a hypothetical future version where renown is perishable, consumable or destructible (or any combination of the three) it might be perfectly fine.

edit: I'm not even completely convinced renown should be made into a non-durable resource.

Yeah honestly my worry for it is based on a long term game, which we can't even get to at this point to test (and wont be if rebellions aren't fixed). I don't think it will be a problem till like 40+ yrs in your second/third generation.

 

[Dabos37]

A player would be able to cripple certain clans simply by repeatedly beating the hell out of their parties until they fell under renown cap, losing an active party slot and shrinking their existing party size. It would also harm weak factions that naturally lose a lot of battles, sieges, etc.

Yes, this is something that I have been thinking about but I still like the renown decay thing. If it it’s a problem for the AI, devs could add something to avoid losing clan tiers due to this, so renown decay would be only useful to slower AI clans increasing tier.

Anyway, I still think that the better solution is to execute these rebel clans after failing.

 

[Pejot]

A player would be able to cripple certain clans simply by repeatedly beating the hell out of their parties until they fell under renown cap, losing an active party slot and shrinking their existing party size. It would also harm weak factions that naturally lose a lot of battles, sieges, etc.

I'm talking more about losing same amount as You can gain. Soexploiting this mechanic would require a lot of grind but in time it could naturally stop some clans from growing.There are no clans that are always losing cause they gain renown from tournaments and fighting bandits. It will just slow down the pace of all clans rising to tier 6 and create a group of clans that will never go up.

P.S.

Just in case of army commander it should be a little bigger loss than from normal battle and it should also affect influence but more than renown. There is still a point in game after which all clans are rising influence like crazy so they can create a ton of big armies and extend cohession forever. This is something that shouldn't happen at least for me.

 

[ChopSuey]

I have a concern that nerfing snowballing too much will end up with an incredibly boring late game. It's already to easy to conquer the map once you have a decent footing in my opinion, and with no powerful kingdom it'd be even easier. And then on top of that once rebellion is added it will make the late game even easier. Are there any plans to make the late game more difficult? Like the smaller kingdoms making alliances against you once you/your kingdom get powerful?

 

[Anushtegin]

snowballing is WAD. the problem right now is that it's always the same faction(s) that are snowballing. the ideal is that it's different factions every game.

 

[Medivhtratos]

I have a concern that nerfing snowballing too much will end up with an incredibly boring late game. It's already to easy to conquer the map once you have a decent footing in my opinion, and with no powerful kingdom it'd be even easier. And then on top of that once rebellion is added it will make the late game even easier. Are there any plans to make the late game more difficult? Like the smaller kingdoms making alliances against you once you/your kingdom get powerful?

Na I dont think it will be that easy
Atm it is so easy because some functions are missing and you can exploit gold everywhere.
-Rebellions can also occur in your kingdom, when they come
-What happens if they include a "denying peace proposal" option of a enemy fraction/army/party, because they know/guess that they are stronger than you, or just because you have the wrong trait or bad relations.
-For sure you cant flee out of battles without a loss of men in the future
-Maybe they will fix the money exploit and adjust prices/taxes so that you will get a hard time to build up an army

 

[Mizza]

@mexxico thanks for providing such detailed insight on the ongoing development.

You dont always get thrown from your horse if they do something crazy, but when you do its a hard hit. Grab the mane I was always told. saved me a few times. I want horses to move their ears. back when running. they eat now I noticed. love that. ok Bye..

 

[Nawari]

It's a simulation or a game ? This game reminds me of Eve Online (more ambitious and more complex of course), a so-called game that is not one but a multiplayer sandbox simulation of a savage capitalist economy. Eve Online is not a game, all the people (honest and fair) who have played Eve Online will say. I mean at some point a game has to be a game, or else it has to be called something else, example: simulation of an unreal world of management of a medieval kingdom. But a game is something else, a game does not require you to "work", to repeat the same actions hundreds of times. I understand the idea that we ourselves define the goals we want, but that doesn't make it a game, but the simulation of a small management company. For my part, I am disappointed.