What do you guys think about Influence?

[Fistochat]

Given that I was best friends with the lords of 4,5 factions by day 200; I could no doubt live with that

But seriously. I dont really think it will fundamentally change anything.You already have plenty of incentives to make friends and zero incentives not to.

You are probably right. I just want it to be more complex because it feels bland at the moment. Things need to be valued.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

You are probably right. I just want it to be more complex because it feels bland at the moment. Things need to be valued.

Get back in the line I just want to go back to a time where I spend much of the game

- going from town to town
- killing bandits for loot/prisoners
- levelling companions
- shopping for gear for my companions
- watching Alayen´s kill feed!

Not really a fan of the more total war(isk) direction of bannerlord.

 

[Tryvenyal]

You essentially already have this in the game in the form of personal traits and clan tier. Clan tier is even, by and large, gained through the same process as influence.

I for one have a lot more problem with "Clan tier" with static levels that "Allows higher limits" of like everything.

Influence is blunt, abstract and easy to earn, mighty to spend and gamey as **** but all games has abstract currencies. I'm not against that. Can it be more balanced and realistic? Yes!

Bannerlord has no diplomacy, shallow relations and next to nothing but warfare, so allowing Warfare to be the main farming-area or influence is nothing strange.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Bannerlord has no diplomacy, shallow relations and next to nothing but warfare, so allowing Warfare to be the main farming-area or influence is nothing strange.

Pretty much. Quests in Bannerlord are some of the most basic of simple fetch quests. I would hate for them to become necessary for progression.

 

[Akka]

Bannerlord has no diplomacy, shallow relations and next to nothing but warfare, so allowing Warfare to be the main farming-area or influence is nothing strange.

But that's the problem, not the solution.
Making influence earnable mainly through peacetime actions would precisely make peace something interesting. As of now, war is basically the default state. It should be painful and costly and peace should be desirable after a while.

 

[JunKeteer]

Influence is treated as a currency atm, just needs more things to spend it on that 'relate' to influence to make it feel meaningful. Right now, it's just for creating armies and policies (TBH, a lot of the policies are so bare bones/basic or only the relation between vassal/ruler)

• Influence cost/upkeep tied with clan tier to 'upgrade' or maintain the next tier (not just the static renown that just grows permanently)
• Spending for 'better' education/training for clan/kids (guess gold can do that too)
• Turning/shifting a town or castle towards your aligned culture over time (with decays, etc...)

Sure there's lots of other better ideas, all we've been asking for is better diplomacy implementations.

 

[Sidhwen_Khorest]

I think the only thing I have an issue with influence on is the "lawspeakers" policy. The one where you get negative influence for not having enough charm, or positive influence if you have enough.

I feel like it really locks me out from playing as a noble until I hit that charm threshold, which is rather high. I think its something around 100 or so.

Obviously the rest of the nobles are in favor of it because they spawn in with enough charm, so voting it out is difficult too.

I think the policy is an interesting concept, but as it is right now it sort of railroads me into grinding out charm when I otherwise wouldn't care to.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

I think the only thing I have an issue with influence on is the "lawspeakers" policy. The one where you get negative influence for not having enough charm, or positive influence if you have enough.

I feel like it really locks me out from playing as a noble until I hit that charm threshold, which is rather high. I think its something around 100 or so.

Obviously the rest of the nobles are in favor of it because they spawn in with enough charm, so voting it out is difficult too.

I think the policy is an interesting concept, but as it is right now it sort of railroads me into grinding out charm when I otherwise wouldn't care to.

Honestly, dont take any policy that adds passive influence. No matter how much it is in your favor its basically always going to be more costly to vote everyone else out of influence.

You should have a huge advantage relative to everyone else in actively farming influence.

 

[Tryvenyal]

But that's the problem, not the solution.
Making influence earnable mainly through peacetime actions would precisely make peace something interesting. As of now, war is basically the default state. It should be painful and costly and peace should be desirable after a while.

Well... Bannerlord is a wargame. i for one would love relations and diplomacy as a complement to warring but not make my success depend on on how many lords who shows up on my fiests (where they basically gives me Influence and relation for just showing up which seems to be the community expectations on a fiest implementation. I ws not a fan of Warband fiests either.)

 

[bonerstorm]

I think we're too far down the development pathway now. But If I was to go back and do it again, I think there should be an overlap or merging between influence and relations. Relations should be the metric through which we are able to assemble armies. You should be able to earn relations through doing positive acts towards nobles or their lands - and that might include clearing their looters or donating them prisoners or troops or funding their city improvements or marriage or such like.

I am under the distinct impression that relationship scores affect the influence cost of summoning someone, but it's certainly not large enough to be noticeable and that factor should probably be boosted.

I haven't had as much of an immersion problem with influence in the past because:
1) Well I never actually farmed looters in the first place so that never broke my immersion.
2) I was using the Diplomacy mod which added a lot of options to use influence to - for instance - trigger an early end to a stupid war.
3) Diplomacy also added a "Take Over Faction" option which costs metric Ftons of influence and can only be successful if you've got higher influence than anyone else. So I ended up saving up a ton for that specifically.
4) I also used BL Tweaks to increase militia presence, which meant I always needed an army to take a town and usually the same for a castle too.

Quick thought: I think "influence" would be less incongruous if it was called "glory" instead.

Longer thought: It appears that - since EA launch - personalities and relations and persuasion mechanics have been a complete afterthought in development next to fixing engine issues, perfecting pointless combat grind, patching crash bugs and tweaking sheep textures.

I mean... hell... as far as I'm aware there has been zero work done on the PC's personality traits since launch other than fixing a bug which automatically reset your personality stats to zero the first time they were queried. And even that took until like November 2020, despite it being clearly an issue from the jump. It's still impossible to level Calculating, for instance, and breathtakingly difficult to level anything else.

This is really unfortunate. As I've said in the past, the lack of personality nuance in NPC's compared to even Warband means that - at a certain point - Bannerlord feels like an Excel spreadsheet with a fancy murder simulator GUI. It's just soulless, you know?

 

[archaicwarrior]

Still to be effected by such ...

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

I am under the distinct impression that relationship scores affect the influence cost of summoning someone, but it's certainly not large enough to be noticeable and that factor should probably be boosted.

At 100 relationship the cost of summoning a lord is halved. I think that should be more than enough (and noticeable)

 

[bonerstorm]

At 100 relationship the cost of summoning a lord is halved. I think that should be more than enough (and noticeable)

Huh. Well I didn't know that and... I'm not saying this to be glib, I promise... I really struggle to care.

50% discount? In past playthroughs many moons ago, I only got to 100 relationship with my closest allies. Bonds forged by blood and honor, like selling the bastards my sister in marriage.

If you have an IRL sister, would she be worth about double the responsiveness in requests for favors from the clan she's marrying into?

Perhaps it is. It's a nitpick, but it's representative of the fact that there really isn't anything else in the game that makes relationship worth the effort. It's a roughly 25%-implemented mechanic.

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

Ok guys, lets forget about killing looters for a moment. There is clan tiers in the game that is heavily can be unlocked by winning battles. So when you first join a faction when your clan tier is just 3, there are clans whose tier 5 and 6. You wonder that they must have been in countless battles. Then there is this influence thing you also mainly earn by winning battles. After you join a faction and earning 70 influence or so, you get to get summon a clan tier 6 member into your army who arguably been in countless battles since her/his clan tier so high. How i can roleplay this? How i can roleplay a guy who won 10 battle or so instantly unlocking the ability to tell what to do other lords like summoning them to where i am yet alone being in my army.

In warband to convince a lord what to do, i had to roleplay a honorable guy or dishonorable guy. But in Bannerlord, with this influence system, i can't trick my mind that after earning enough influence "yeah, i earned the right to order around these dudes".

 

[niekdegrijze]

i don't like the influence "mana" system. It seems very artificial. A lot of functions could be taken over by relationships in combination with renown.

Ok guys, lets forget about killing looters for a moment. There is clan tiers in the game that is heavily can be unlocked by winning battles. So when you first join a faction when your clan tier is just 3, there are clans whose tier 5 and 6. You wonder that they must have been in countless battles. Then there is this influence thing you also mainly earn by winning battles. After you join a faction and earning 70 influence or so, you get to get summon a clan tier 6 member into your army who arguably been in countless battles since her/his clan tier so high. How i can roleplay this? How i can roleplay a guy who won 10 battle or so instantly unlocking the ability to tell what to do other lords like summoning them to where i am yet alone being in my army.

This^, this does not feel realistic.
The amount of influence is based on how much sway you have over others. The fact that this is mostly based on battles is strange. I would think renown is its own score for battle prowess.
Renown should not be used for leveling clan tiers, Renown earned in battles should be used for morale, enemy morale, surrender chance and willingness of nobles to join your army. It seems more reasonable to make the clan tier depended on the amount of fiefs a clan owns.

Influence is based on relationships with others, holdings and wealth. Asking someone to change their vote prior to voting, should be possible by loosing some relationship or by spending gold.

Not sure how to change it in this stage, it is very intwined within the game systems.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

But that's the problem, not the solution.
Making influence earnable mainly through peacetime actions would precisely make peace something interesting. As of now, war is basically the default state. It should be painful and costly and peace should be desirable after a while.

The problem is:

you need some interesting things to do in peacetimes!

Before that happen the practical implications of this concept would, in all likelihood, be some variant of "do 10 fetch quest for villages/lords" to earn enough mana to go back to war.

The Grind is already plenty strong in this game.

 

[niekdegrijze]

The problem is:

you need some interesting things to do in peacetimes!

Before that happen the practical implications of this concept would, in all likelihood, be some variant of "do 10 fetch quest for villages/lords" to earn enough mana to go back to war.

The Grind is already plenty strong in this game.

i like the concept that in peacetime you have to prepare for war. But indeed, it has to be better than the situation you describe above.

Because while at war it is draining on your kingdom with costs/available manpower/food/loyalty or an arbitrary war wariness score.
A victory or conquest can give a little boost to the time you can be at war and a raided village, lost battle or other negative action can decrease this time.

peace time activities:
- managing spy networks (a la fourbery does with criminal enterprise, see troop strengths, garrison sizes, chance to recruit vassals, Army targets, sabotage actions)
- managing trade networks (setting trade routes and provide protection, )
- covert warfare (increase bandit activity in another territory)
- holding feasts
- Setting up your personal bodyguard units
- change your kingdoms troop tree bit by bit. It would be a nice goal to work towards
- Deal with special events like a peasant revolt, a bandit swarm (like in bandit militias). a failed harvest etc.
- Setting up supply depots for future wars.
- in general ways to improve the prosperity of your kingdom

 

[Terco_Viejo]

i don't like the influence "mana" system. It seems very artificial. A lot of functions could be taken over by relationships in combination with renown.

This^, this does not feel realistic.
The amount of influence is based on how much sway you have over others. The fact that this is mostly based on battles is strange. I would think renown is its own score for battle prowess.
Renown should not be used for leveling clan tiers, Renown earned in battles should be used for morale, enemy morale, surrender chance and willingness of nobles to join your army. It seems more reasonable to make the clan tier depended on the amount of fiefs a clan owns.

Influence is based on relationships with others, holdings and wealth. Asking someone to change their vote prior to voting, should be possible by loosing some relationship or by spending gold.

i like the concept that in peacetime you have to prepare for war. But indeed, it has to be better than the situation you describe above.

Because while at war it is draining on your kingdom with costs/available manpower/food/loyalty or an arbitrary war wariness score.
A victory or conquest can give a little boost to the time you can be at war and a raided village, lost battle or other negative action can decrease this time.

peace time activities:
- managing spy networks (a la fourbery does with criminal enterprise, see troop strengths, garrison sizes, chance to recruit vassals, Army targets, sabotage actions)
- managing trade networks (setting trade routes and provide protection, )
- covert warfare (increase bandit activity in another territory)
- holding feasts
- Setting up your personal bodyguard units
- change your kingdoms troop tree bit by bit. It would be a nice goal to work towards
- Deal with special events like a peasant revolt, a bandit swarm (like in bandit militias). a failed harvest etc.
- Setting up supply depots for future wars.
- in general ways to improve the prosperity of your kingdom

THIS!

Not sure how to change it in this stage, it is very intwined within the game systems.

You can be sure that all that won't change in Native, maybe with high doses of modding; however for the default version I would say that by today it's all over bar the shouting. ??

 

[Aurex]

If you are not satisfied with influence but you think that it is redeemable, please explain how.

I'm with this group here.

I do think the system is interesting and has potential. Raising armies with influence is definitely something I like, and I'd rather have the whole mechanic expanded and made more meaningful rather than just cut.

I would love to have more ways of gaining it, and more ways to spend it (so to speak.) For example: a trader character might use his connections to local merchant to gain influence every time he solves an issue. A rogue-ish character could use intrigue to blackmail another lord in exchange for influence. Capturing a powerful leader should also grant you large amounts of influence. Pay large amounts of it in exchange of freedom after you've been captured. Lose it if you marry into a lesser clan, gain it if you marry into a ruling clan.

As for how the mechanic (I think) would be more enjoyable and engaging. I was thinking how great it would be if influence as some kind of token (as it is now) could be used to perform background actions that grants you bonuses. Gain favors from lords or constables. Examples: spend 50 influence for a relation boost - helping out a fief through background deals that don't have to be shown or played out netting you the positive relation increase. Use it to spread your fame through stories and ballads, influence for renown (less grind that way.) Use it to butter up the "contractors" and have a fief build stuff quicker for a period of time. Also, influence should have (imho) a permanent status going hand in hand with the floating value. When you reach a "milestone" (example, 500 influence) you gain a perk that gives you more "right to rule." If you have 1000 influence and you begin a civil war to get that crown, you should totally be able to persuade more lords to join you than you would have with 50 influence.

I know it's all over the place, but I'm kinda sleepy. Sorry.

 

[RitoDurito]

Don't love it, don't hate it, I think it almost works fine but it just needs to be reworked, as someone else pointed out the lawspeakers policy is a good example of the problem, where you can just gain influence for being "charming" passively and currently you could join a kingdom, gain some influence and rather quickly you can end up leading a massive host of a kingdom in which you haven't spoken to any lords which doesnt really make sense, I think calling lords to your armies needs to also factor in relationships and motives not just mana points.