Are alliances still on the table or nah?

Currently viewing this thread:

...? That's not my experience in BL and I don't seem to be alone in having like 90% of my mods break every patch.
edit: including the mod with alliances.
I have misunderstood your post. It looked to me you were talking about TW devs that need to be extra careful not to break other parts of the game, not modders careful about TW patches.
Please edit your post so my reply would make sense.
:iamamoron:
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Judging by the amount of relatively sane, inexpensive and very needed small features that have been turned down by The Committee of Nay. Id say the future is.....nay..
 

Bluko88

Regular
I don't see alliances happening since balance is very fragile in this game and snowballing problem can be triggered quite easily.

Two factions would roll over the map like it's 1999.

Maybe some extra diplomatic options in between clans, some trade rights or smth smaller could come in the future.
Yep.

The biggest problem is Kingdoms simply declare war because they can (when they are strong) and then ask for peace (when they are weak). There's no cultural animosity or any sort of relationship gauge between them. So really there's no Diplomacy to speak of. Kingdoms that are in protracted wars where members die, villages are raided, and settlements are lost should really loathe each other and be more prone to waging war with their "enemy".

Maybe they should work like:
  • Neighboring Kingdoms: -0.2 Relation a day
  • Non-Neighboring Kingdom: +0.1 Relation a day
  • Kingdom receiving Tribute: +[1*(Denars Paid/1000)] Relation a day
  • Kingdom paying Tribute: -[2*(Denars Paid/1000)] Relation a day
  • Every 1000 Troops Lost: -1 Relation
  • Kingdom Village Raided: -3 Relation
  • Kingdom Member Killed: -5 Relation
  • Kingdom Castle Lost: -7 Relation
  • Kingdom Town Lost: -9 Relation
  • Kingdom Leader Killed: -10 Relation
  • Conquered Village Raided: -1 Relation
  • Conquered Castle Lost: -3 Relation
  • Conquered Town Lost: -5 Relation
  • Successful Raid: +0.5 Relation
  • Successful Castle Siege: +1 Relation
  • Successful Town Siege: +2 Relation
  • Each Kingdom Member Freed/Ransomed: +1 Relation
  • Declared War On by Kingdom: -3 Relation with that Kingdom
  • Peace offered by Kingdom: +2 Relation with that Kingdom
Basically Kingdoms should slowly begin to dislike their neighbors, but be at ease with distant Kingdoms. And most hostile actions should start to build resentment to the aggressor. The only real positive relation gains should be when the Kingdom is getting some kind of clear benefit (Tribute/Members back). Peace is possible for a time, but certain Kingdoms will inevitably hate other. I mean this is supposed to be a war game not a Medieval Kingdom simulator.

Problem here I think with actual Diplomacy/Relations is that certain Kingdoms will just stay in permanent wars with each other til one is effectively destroyed - no matter how you try to factor it into to War/Peace decisions. Though truthfully I think most players would prefer longer wars where's there an actual clear winner. Of course we could be testing such things now, but instead all we get is random wars with no rhyme or reason. It's kind of sad how much time and effort in this EA period has gone to simply get early snowballing under control.


Anyways I think the only time Alliances should be formed is when one Kingdom is getting far too powerful (say controlling 1/3rd of the map) and the remaining Kingdoms band together to take them down a peg. That's the only way it makes sense. But most of the time Alliances will probably just lead to more snowballing, since one Ally will inevitably become stronger then the others. IDK Alliances would be nice, but in the game's current inception probably won't work out too well. I mean really what are the benefits to an Alliance for Kingdoms anyways? Better trade? Suppose more recruits could be available, but I think the A.I. fudges quite a bit when it comes to recruiting anyways.
 
I have moved on to other games until a major total conversion mod comes out. Life is too short.
Honestly I did that about 2 months ago and my stress level has decreased so much. I want BL to be successful but if it isn't then I'll move on. The only reason I frequent these forums anymore is because I hold out a small hope that things will get better.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
Yep.

The biggest problem is Kingdoms simply declare war because they can (when they are strong) and then ask for peace (when they are weak). There's no cultural animosity or any sort of relationship gauge between them. So really there's no Diplomacy to speak of. Kingdoms that are in protracted wars where members die, villages are raided, and settlements are lost should really loathe each other and be more prone to waging war with their "enemy".

Maybe they should work like:
  • Neighboring Kingdoms: -0.2 Relation a day
  • Non-Neighboring Kingdom: +0.1 Relation a day
  • Kingdom receiving Tribute: +[1*(Denars Paid/1000)] Relation a day
  • Kingdom paying Tribute: -[2*(Denars Paid/1000)] Relation a day
  • Every 1000 Troops Lost: -1 Relation
  • Kingdom Village Raided: -3 Relation
  • Kingdom Member Killed: -5 Relation
  • Kingdom Castle Lost: -7 Relation
  • Kingdom Town Lost: -9 Relation
  • Kingdom Leader Killed: -10 Relation
  • Conquered Village Raided: -1 Relation
  • Conquered Castle Lost: -3 Relation
  • Conquered Town Lost: -5 Relation
  • Successful Raid: +0.5 Relation
  • Successful Castle Siege: +1 Relation
  • Successful Town Siege: +2 Relation
  • Each Kingdom Member Freed/Ransomed: +1 Relation
  • Declared War On by Kingdom: -3 Relation with that Kingdom
  • Peace offered by Kingdom: +2 Relation with that Kingdom
Basically Kingdoms should slowly begin to dislike their neighbors, but be at ease with distant Kingdoms. And most hostile actions should start to build resentment to the aggressor. The only real positive relation gains should be when the Kingdom is getting some kind of clear benefit (Tribute/Members back). Peace is possible for a time, but certain Kingdoms will inevitably hate other. I mean this is supposed to be a war game not a Medieval Kingdom simulator.

Problem here I think with actual Diplomacy/Relations is that certain Kingdoms will just stay in permanent wars with each other til one is effectively destroyed - no matter how you try to factor it into to War/Peace decisions. Though truthfully I think most players would prefer longer wars where's there an actual clear winner. Of course we could be testing such things now, but instead all we get is random wars with no rhyme or reason. It's kind of sad how much time and effort in this EA period has gone to simply get early snowballing under control.


Anyways I think the only time Alliances should be formed is when one Kingdom is getting far too powerful (say controlling 1/3rd of the map) and the remaining Kingdoms band together to take them down a peg. That's the only way it makes sense. But most of the time Alliances will probably just lead to more snowballing, since one Ally will inevitably become stronger then the others. IDK Alliances would be nice, but in the game's current inception probably won't work out too well. I mean really what are the benefits to an Alliance for Kingdoms anyways? Better trade? Suppose more recruits could be available, but I think the A.I. fudges quite a bit when it comes to recruiting anyways.
The problem with this is that players would throw a monkey wrench into those types of formulas because their decisions aren't bound to the formula and if somehow you could restrict players to following that formula, they would resent not having free will, especially in a game labeled as a sandbox.
 

five bucks

Sergeant
Anyways I think the only time Alliances should be formed is when one Kingdom is getting far too powerful (say controlling 1/3rd of the map) and the remaining Kingdoms band together to take them down a peg. That's the only way it makes sense.
To me this sounds like the least balance-damaging and easiest way of doing it, and would be good not only for anti-snowballing (which is not really a huge problem anymore) but also for game pacing, making it so that rather than killing factions piecemeal, instead they all ally together against the player once the player has gained control of a large part of the map.
 

Nalgasucia507

Sergeant at Arms
Honestly I did that about 2 months ago and my stress level has decreased so much. I want BL to be successful but if it isn't then I'll move on. The only reason I frequent these forums anymore is because I hold out a small hope that things will get better.
same.
 

FizCap

Recruit
WB
Siege battles being fixed isn't even on the table, so good luck asking for any advanced features to be implemented.
 

vonbalt

Knight at Arms
WBNWVCM&B
Siege battles being fixed isn't even on the table, so good luck asking for any advanced features to be implemented.
TW's management implemented an advanced algorithm to sort their feature requests :lol:

public can_a_5y_old_get_by_just_looking_at_it()
if (yes)
implement;
else
discard;
 
I'd suggest posting working code that implements alliances in the tech support section, as a fix for a "bug". Make it hard for them to ignore it.
Or even better, get hired by Taleworlds as a gameplay programmer and develop necessary features in secret with like-minded coworkers, avoiding their indecision committee. Become a forum hero when Mex leaves!
 
Mexxico should just sneak in all the suggestions that TW refused to implent on his last day.

What will TW do? Fire him? I mean if their QA even notices the changes.
 
Yeah this is true. I think this is why it is so hard to swallow what seems like a lack of progress by the devs. I mean when a modder can take the existing code and actually add a system like this that actually works within a month, you have to be asking yourself why can't the devs with access to the source code do it even faster.
Some tiny correction: when an unpaid and part-time modder can take the existing code and actually add a system like this that actually works within a month, you have to be asking yourself why can't the paid and full-time devs with access to the source code do it even faster.
My best guess would be they are priortizing something else, like source code reconstruction. You can not keep building upper floors when the foundation is deficient, right? However, there is no feedback regarding this, I have tried to post some threads asking about corresponding progress among the past years but still got no official reply, really fraustrating and can't stop thinking in the negative way.


...? That's not my experience in BL and I don't seem to be alone in having like 90% of my mods break every patch.
edit: including the mod with alliances.
That's why 'access to source code' is valued by us. Modders do not have neither access to source code, plan/idea about next step change on source code ,nor chance to adjust their mod with respect to source code change before patch release. So even if they were trying their best, due to lack of information they can hardly achieve this.


The problem with this is that players would throw a monkey wrench into those types of formulas because their decisions aren't bound to the formula and if somehow you could restrict players to following that formula, they would resent not having free will, especially in a game labeled as a sandbox.
Well, of course a player can play as a somehow brainless lord who only cares about personal delight without any long-term perspective and don't care about efficiency of actions taken, this kind of rulers did exist among real history. Also, AI with formula can also be added to accommodate this kind of randomness, by adding randomness into this formula, or adding multiplier refer to characteristics of a given lords, etc.


Or even better, get hired by Taleworlds as a gameplay programmer and develop necessary features in secret with like-minded coworkers, avoiding their indecision committee. Become a forum hero when Mex leaves!
Nah. Refer to what I saw in the forum, I don't think a programmer can change anything.
I did not said I am happy with game overall, I try to be happy otherwise being always upset / worried reduces your effectiveness. Game has more potential of course and I accept game has missing features and cannot use its potential fully. I also said I prefer older design which has better village management (if that selection was chosed game could be a 95+% rating game but it was a risky design and need more / better workpower to implement. Also that design was mine why I prefer a new design? But one day that design is scrapped (we did this giving up / changing idea thing lots of time during early-mid development) and we moved on with new design. What can you do in this scenario as a dev? I have no control over these main decisions. So if you cannot change these main decisions (skeleton of game) what you can do is trying to make selected design as good as possible. Actually you can clearly see sometimes I am complaining about something like you but trying to improve game in given limits.

About console thing it is not my decision too but have to do some optimization and spend 1-2 weeks at January because it is also wanted and it is reasonable too. This game will be released at also consoles one day. Again underlying I prefer spending time on improving game until PC version is nearly finished. You should understand we are only doing what is decided mostly.
 
Last edited:

FizCap

Recruit
WB
TW's management implemented an advanced algorithm to sort their feature requests :lol:

public can_a_5y_old_get_by_just_looking_at_it()
if (yes)
implement;
else
discard;
Basically, keep the game casual to maximize profits. Let modders do the work on release.
 

Lesbosisles

Squire
None of the devs who comment have said much about them lately.

@mexxico
@Dejan
Where have you heard anything about the alliances? I don't remember this feature mentioned anywhere at all.

Besides, judging by the new prison escape system, we will have the most simple game ever, the devs don't wanna add any depth or complexity at all. They removed village management, the ability to create your own crime gang in the city etc. ...
 
I don't see alliances happening since balance is very fragile in this game and snowballing problem can be triggered quite easily.

Two factions would roll over the map like it's 1999.
I don't think this is a reason not to include alliances unless they were alliances that lasted for the entire duration of the campaign, which I don't think anybody wants. It could be as simple as one faction paying another to join its war. Alliances and non-aggression pacts could do a lot to stop the same faction snowballing every time. Maybe Sturgia negotiates a non-aggression pact with the Khuzaits for 2 years and can focus on the west, maybe the Southern Empire pays the Khuzaits to join them in a war against the Aserai or Northern Empire. Stuff like that, not some sort of NATO permanent military alliance.

Also if the faction leaders' relationships with one another and traits affected their war/peace/treaty behaviour there would be outcomes other than total conquest or perpetual war and truces. There might be peace between two kingdoms until one leader dies and the new one wants to expand. But I since "reasons for wars" was an idea that was rejected I don't see that happening.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom