[1.5.2]settlements' issues reduced prosperity seems unreasonable

Users who are viewing this thread

Notealot

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
As the title you see, team added a feature that settlements' prosperity will be reduced because of issues existing.
When I working on war between kingdoms, and I have no time to solve those issues, then my fiefs' prosperity drop to very low.
And at the same time, if I am going to face those issues, I will miss the war.

Due to this, I cannot feel any interest but tired.

So, I guess there will be three choices:
1. Reduce the value of prosperity reducing.
2. Reduce the possibility of issue creating.
3. Change this rule to others.

I am looking forward to your replies and opinions.
@mexxico @Duh_TaleWorlds
 

cyberonn

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Doesn’t it apply to the other towns as well? This feature is probably decreasing the prosperities of all towns and we cannot go and solve issues of all towns and as far as I know, other lords don’t solve these issues. So prosperities of towns will never increase. Is this intended?

The value of prosperity reducing is too high for my taste. It can decrease even when everything is OK but notables have issues.

I have a town with very low prosperity and I want to increase it to unlock high tier gears but the game doesn’t let me do it. I bought every weapon and armor in my town to give them money and sold high amount of food to them but their money went from millions to 16k in a couple of days and most of the food I sold to them went missing too. Food could be sold to merchants but where did that money go? If they have sold high amount of food, where is the money? Game does’t let us to increase prosperity at this state and it needs to change in my opinion.
 

Notealot

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Making governers can get those issues done may be the best solution.

1. Reduce the value of prosperity reducing.
2. Reduce the possibility of issue creating.
These two points seems to still make Calradia get poorer, or let issues disappeared after some time.
 

Notealot

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
A friend of mine thinks that, task has more debuff now and it limited players' gameplay. To encourage players to do those tasks, you guys should provide more buff rather than debuff.
If you provide serious debuff to player, players won't choose their own way to experience this game.
 

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
I hate that they linked prosperity to unsolved issues. I do plenty of notable quests but I don't have time to solve every villager's problem, especially once I own some fiefs and am busy fighting off enemy armies. And there are a lot of quests I just refuse to do. I don't want to do any Family Fued or Villagers Need Access to the Commons quests just to please some nobody notable with 40 power while pissing off the 350 power notable in the other village.
 
Yeah, and the gang leader break-out and need weapons and rival gang quests just shift reputation from 1 gang leader to another, and remove your positive character traits when you do them. Which then make talking to (recruiting) more upstanding lords and ladies and finding good vassals and wives tough as those glowing conversation traits then disappear when you lose the trait, and your success chances with people with similar traits seems to drop.
 

SadShogun

A Furtherer of the Calradic Cause
Developer
As the title you see, team added a feature that settlements' prosperity will be reduced because of issues existing.
When I working on war between kingdoms, and I have no time to solve those issues, then my fiefs' prosperity drop to very low.
And at the same time, if I am going to face those issues, I will miss the war.

Due to this, I cannot feel any interest but tired.

So, I guess there will be three choices:
1. Reduce the value of prosperity reducing.
2. Reduce the possibility of issue creating.
3. Change this rule to others.

I am looking forward to your replies and opinions.
@mexxico @Duh_TaleWorlds

We are aware of this issue and currently looking into it.
The first two suggestions you offer are valid, however, I did not understand the third one.
We are internally testing the option 1 by reducing the negative prosperity effects of the issues.
Your second suggestion can be tricky because changing the issue probabilities can have larger effects than just changing prosperity drains. Still it is a possibility we can look into.
As always, thanks for the feedback.
 

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
We are aware of this issue and currently looking into it.
The first two suggestions you offer are valid, however, I did not understand the third one.
We are internally testing the option 1 by reducing the negative prosperity effects of the issues.
Your second suggestion can be tricky because changing the issue probabilities can have larger effects than just changing prosperity drains. Still it is a possibility we can look into.
As always, thanks for the feedback.
You might also consider making it easier for companions to do the quests for us. A lot of these quests have really high skill requirements which are unrealistic for companions to have and the requirements seem to scale up as the game goes on, so even high skilled companions won't keep up with them. And they can take way too long, tieing up a companion and a good chunk of your army for 2 or 3 weeks to do a job that takes the player a couple days. Also all the companion quests should say how long they will take before accepting them. I might not want to lose my companion for a month just to help some notable with 30 power.
 

Adryl

Regular
I hate that they linked prosperity to unsolved issues. I do plenty of notable quests but I don't have time to solve every villager's problem, especially once I own some fiefs and am busy fighting off enemy armies. And there are a lot of quests I just refuse to do. I don't want to do any Family Fued or Villagers Need Access to the Commons quests just to please some nobody notable with 40 power while pissing off the 350 power notable in the other village.

One of my problems is that the quest design seems kind of boring. I love the game but I just end up ignoring the quests. If they all involved interesting aspects of combat (small party fights, fights with civ gear in different parts of the city, fights in the dungeon, in the keep, villages, fight with different types gear such as forcing people to use a polearm or a mace, etc.), I think they'd cater more to Bannerlord's strengths. And some of them have these waiting periods where if I want to do a rival gang quest, I need to come back in several days? It's too long. I'll be doing something else by then. The idea of enticing the player to do quests by linking it to settlement prosperity is fine in theory, just the quests need to actually be fun and "snappy" not taking forever to do.
 

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
One of my problems is that the quest design seems kind of boring. I love the game but I just end up ignoring the quests. If they all involved interesting aspects of combat (small party fights, fights with civ gear in different parts of the city, fights in the dungeon, in the keep, villages, etc.), I think they'd cater more to Bannerlord's strengths. And some of them have these waiting periods where if I want to do a rival gang quest, I need to come back in several days? It's too long. I'll be doing something else by then. The idea of enticing the player to do quests by linking it to settlement prosperity is fine in theory, just the quests need to actually be fun and "snappy" not taking forever to do.
That 3-day wait is a killer for me too, which sucks because its actually a fun fight, but who has time to hang around for 3 days? And you can't wander very far at all, because when the 3 days is up and the guy calls you back, you've only got a few hours to get back or it times out.
 

Adryl

Regular
That 3-day wait is a killer for me too, which sucks because its actually a fun fight, but who has time to hang around for 3 days? And you can't wander very far at all, because when the 3 days is up and the guy calls you back, you've only got a few hours to get back or it times out.

Exactly! I love the gang fight, why can't it just happen immediately though? It's a tiny little combat on par with finding a few looters on the main map. It wouldn't affect the game at all to let it happen immediately, and would be really fun.

The same could be done with Lords - how about I have the option to duel a lord in his castle or ambush him in the city? I'd love to have some real 1v1s with these heavily armored, highly leveled NPCs when we're not on the battlefield and I'm skewering them instantly with my spear on horseback. Satisfying as that is, I'd love to just have a good old-fashioned 1v1 melee duel with these guys. Then give them +5 relation after I win since they think I'm a badass!

They just need to make the quests more timely and more related to combat aspects of the game which are very good imo. Everything should tie into that somehow.
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
We are aware of this issue and currently looking into it.
The first two suggestions you offer are valid, however, I did not understand the third one.
We are internally testing the option 1 by reducing the negative prosperity effects of the issues.
Your second suggestion can be tricky because changing the issue probabilities can have larger effects than just changing prosperity drains. Still it is a possibility we can look into.
As always, thanks for the feedback.
Is it safe to assume you guys are testing this after having fixed the updating supporter issue with notables?
 

Notealot

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
We are aware of this issue and currently looking into it.
The first two suggestions you offer are valid, however, I did not understand the third one.
We are internally testing the option 1 by reducing the negative prosperity effects of the issues.
Your second suggestion can be tricky because changing the issue probabilities can have larger effects than just changing prosperity drains. Still it is a possibility we can look into.
As always, thanks for the feedback.
Option 3 means to cancel this mechanism and explore the use of a new mechanism but I don't know how to do that, I think this mechanism is inherently flawed to fix this issue. Because a lot of players don't like recent quests system, what they want is simply Cutting and Killing enemies and achieving their own kingdom. If they have to do these quests again and again, they will feel tired and have less good gameplay experience.

Edit: I guess you guys can let governors and families help main character to finish these quests automatically without award if possible. Reducing prosperities will influence all Calradia, not only player's fiefs.
 

AfLIcTeD

Sergeant at Arms
Could do with reducing the amount of issues that appear at once. It's not uncommon to have nearly every settlement you visit having 2+ issues. There is no way the player would be able to do them all even if they tried. So it's not like they are going to run out of quests to do.
Could have the governor deal with them with a percent chance.
 
We are aware of this issue and currently looking into it.
The first two suggestions you offer are valid, however, I did not understand the third one.
We are internally testing the option 1 by reducing the negative prosperity effects of the issues.
Your second suggestion can be tricky because changing the issue probabilities can have larger effects than just changing prosperity drains. Still it is a possibility we can look into.
As always, thanks for the feedback.

Now I'm kind of wondering how they decide if the quests are generated. I traded a further away city for Danustica thinking that even though it had lower prosperity, since it was closer to my other property, so I could defend the 3 towns and do issues and it would go up a bunch. Boy was I wrong. The salt mine and clay pits attached to this city CONSTANTLY have "need manual laborer's" quests. Polisia and Erebulos basically want me to deliver 34 bandits/looters for slave labor every 7 days each. They might as well make the quests "town wants 100 slaves a month every month." Other settlements don't seem to have anywhere near the issue rate of these two towns. Now I know why Danustica is always 1,000 prosperity lower than the other cities around despite being in a perfect trade/caravan location.
 

paladinx333

Sergeant at Arms
The AI lords don't tend to their own "issues". I have visited towns circling the drain due to unresolved issues draining their prosperity away. I'm a mercenary, so I suppose if the lord were going to pay me, I might be inclined to settle their issues. My help does not come cheap though...
 

Warlord-616x

Recruit
ya took over hybar recently and i didnt realize how much of a mess it was. 0 prosperity with a -8 to the rating. after doing a pass and taking out 6 bandit camps, doing 4 notable missions and completing a bunch of buildings in the town? still cant get over 10 prosperity before things start to go wrong again. I dont see it as a town anymore, but just a big castle lol.
 

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
Option 3 means to cancel this mechanism and explore the use of a new mechanism but I don't know how to do that, I think this mechanism is inherently flawed to fix this issue. Because a lot of players don't like recent quests system, what they want is simply Cutting and Killing enemies and achieving their own kingdom. If they have to do these quests again and again, they will feel tired and have less good gameplay experience.

Edit: I guess you guys can let governors and families help main character to finish these quests automatically without award if possible. Reducing prosperities will influence all Calradia, not only player's fiefs.

I think its not as simple as some players just not wanting to do quests. There are times when you want lots to do lots of quests because you're trying to build up relations with notables or help your villages grow and then there are times when you've got more important things to deal with. So I wouldn't want there to be fewer quests overall, and I wouldn't want AI lords or governers solving the issues on their own because then there wouldn't be enough quests available for when I need to do them. The thing is, I don't want to have to do them.

Personally, I think this whole system of unsolved issues affecting prosperity and notables' power levels seems needlessly complicated. Not everything in the world needs to be fully dynamic like that.
 

AfLIcTeD

Sergeant at Arms
I think its not as simple as some players just not wanting to do quests. There are times when you want lots to do lots of quests because you're trying to build up relations with notables or help your villages grow and then there are times when you've got more important things to deal with. So I wouldn't want there to be fewer quests overall, and I wouldn't want AI lords or governers solving the issues on their own because then there wouldn't be enough quests available for when I need to do them. The thing is, I don't want to have to do them.

Personally, I think this whole system of unsolved issues affecting prosperity and notables' power levels seems needlessly complicated. Not everything in the world needs to be fully dynamic like that.
With the amount of issues I have seen in settlements I don't think the player would ever run out quests to do, even if they tried to do them all.
I agree that it would just be easier to remove the issues causing prosperity/power drop feature.
 
Top Bottom