Recent content by VerlorenMind

Carabus said:

No? It was part of one process, there was mexxico post about how he changed it to 0.1 in order to see how much the lack of excessive influence would improve on people campaigns in Beta, with the plan to have a better mechanics thought out and tested several days later.
Plus changing 1.0 to 0.1 in no extra work, posting about it takes more time that the change itself.

Click to expand...

Why potentially breaking people's campaigns with this tiny patch two days before the major patch? For "testing"? Existing saves already had excessive influence problem, did mexxico expect people to start a new campaign to test a feature to be completely reworked the next day? Was the team implementing the first "fix" aware of the rework released today?

It just doesn't make sense to me. It all just seems like every branch of the dev team just doing their thing with little communication in between.

Yeah, the influence mechanic is in a bad place right now. They are trying to fix it's generation before adding more meaningful ways to spend it. Also, exactly what I was saying before happened - they "fixed" Council of Commons by dividing it's yield by 10 only for it to be reworked couple of days after. Completely unfocused development with devs stepping on each others' feet.

Agreed. I think devs have something like that themselves, but if they can compile it in a player-friendly format everyone would benefit.

Javelins are crazy. One-shooting anyone it hits, and the range is huge.

Damn it, the devs are human beings and allow themselves some rest on the weekends, while they absolutely must slave away to patch my favorite game amidst the global crisis!

I kind of agree with your sentiment, but not wholeheartedly. The caravan change was really unnecessary and it will get wiped out once some solid features are implemented, but come on - barely three weeks have passed. They fixed so much crashes and bugs, made the game playable and able to absorb tens of hours of people's time. Have some patience, and give some credit to the devs where credit is due.

Gambles said:

Uhhhh nope, not sure how much you've played but I've got quite a few hours in and the economy is heavily, almost solely, dependant on warfare mid game. The money I get from plundering, selling weapons etc from battles. Later on fiefs and what not bring that over the top to absurdity, mostly because there's nothing to spend money on. I've hardly even touched caravans or workshops, no need, nothing to spend money on and I make waaayyy to much by mid game anyway. But almost everyone has already stated this....

Click to expand...

I think by "economy" crewsk8200 meant the in-game system of trading and producing goods, not your income.

With all things considered, better leave this unchanged. Otherwise it is straight impossible to survive as an independent kingdom.

Archonsod said:

That's not how you balance a game. It's like having a room with fifty boxes, only one of them is ticking and the only way to figure out which one it is would be to start opening boxes. Much easier to fill the room five boxes at a time and sort out any ticking as it comes in. The game consists of various linked systems, it's perfectly possible to tweak an individual system even without all systems being present - how much money a caravan makes doesn't really impact on how fast a bow shoots for example.

Click to expand...

I agree with your point. It's more like tweaking a subsystem (economy) within a larger system (the whole game). But even in your box analogy you still need 5 "boxes", we barely got 1 feature-wise. There is so much to be added in the caravan, production, fief management subsystem.

Let me put it this way - they nerfed the caravans, and they became barely profitable. Okay. They will tweak the numbers again and again, but then their "feature team" will implement something like patrols or manhunters to hunt down bandits. Now, the probability of losing the caravan is lower, and they might become extremely profitable again. So... what was the point of tweaking the caravan escort number again?

It just feels... unfocused. They're trying to fix everything at once, and it just seems sloppy. They need a coherent plan for features and balance changes, not just winging it in a day based on community responses alone.

Watercrown123 said:

I'd have to agree. They seem fairly fixated on the idea of a "real-world" economy that dynamically changes according to events in the world and player actions. The problem is that that kind of economy is almost impossible to simulate. There's a reason that even real economists stress that their models only roughly match the actual world, it'd be incredibly difficult for a 50-100 man dev team to do, or at least not without bringing out the economics textbooks (which I seriously doubt they've done).

Click to expand...

EVE Online and X video games series are pretty good at simulating real-world economy and it works well (not only well, it is the major selling point for both games). Of course there would be limitations and inaccuracies in the models, but it is possible to make it highly enjoyable both in SP and MP.

The penalty is so severe because you're essentially a traitor. In the feudal society, the vassal contract was sacred, and IRL a lord couldn't just break his vassalage like that. He would require there to be a grave offense to his rights from his liege to justify him leaving.

As for the relations with the enemy lords you repeatedly defeat and ransom there is some space for tweaks for sure.

Can confirm the same graphic glitch showed on the screenshot happened to me in one battle.
Computer Specs:
Lenovo Legion Y530
OS: Windows 10
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
CPU: Intel i7-8750H
RAM: 24gb DDR4 2666 MHz
Motherboard: LENOVO LNVNB161216 SDK0R33126 WIN
Storage Device (HDD/SSD): 1Tb HDD