[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_99_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p>
<p>Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord is a rags to riches adventure that encourages players to forge their own path through Calradia to climb to the top of the social ladder. How, or even if, they get there is completely down to their own choices and actions within the game. In previous Mount & Blade games, this rise to power revolves around a single character, but with the introduction of permanent death and clans in Bannerlord – two new features that work hand in hand to create a deeper, more immersive experience – some of the focus needed to shift slightly away from the exploits of an individual character. This is where the topic of this week’s blog steps to the fore: renown.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/119
Dev Blog 18/07/19
- 主题发起人 Callum
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Or keep character death on, but just not get married or have children ever.FBohler 说:
Anyway, your concern is the position of the Clan in the realm or your concern is the position of your one character in the realm: it's the same thing. You are the Clan leader, and the Clan leader is the Clan.
All Bannerlord does is give you more types of underlings to order about, and more options for how you order them about.
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL 说:
I very much disagree. In WB, lords would refuse to do things that were in their own interest just because an in-game year ago you married into his rival's family or whatever. People will ally with their enemies/rivals when theirs a bigger threat, or somethin for both to gain, and this represents that. Yes, it may get a little more "gamey", but it also alleviates a lot of other problems imo.
That is a balance issue, not a fundamental mechanic one. The mechanic just needs to be less likely to produce a "no" when it's in the other lord's interest. And also, an influence system would make even less sense here because why on earth would a lord's self interest ever need you to spend influence points to encourage?
In Bannerlord there's going to be a renown value for the Clan, plus a relations value between individual characters, and also an influence currency system for manipulating faction politics. And then there's the persuasion system that also sits aside from all that, and uses different perks, traits and reputation variables to decide whether you can make an NPC do what you want using a kind of bartering process?
It's not entirely clear to me which system or commination of systems you'll be using in different situations or purposes. But it seems like a lot of different ways of doing the same general thing.
It's not entirely clear to me which system or commination of systems you'll be using in different situations or purposes. But it seems like a lot of different ways of doing the same general thing.
Roccoflipside 说:
I agree.
The influence system is very "gamey", but this is a video game, isn't it?
Way better to know your possibilities directly by a number than trying to guess what's happening under the hood with hidden calculations.
People are so desperate over it that they even try to make the influence system look bad by lying it's going to totally replace direct relations with NPCs.
Interesting to see that the monetary change is daily instead of weekly like warband. Seems like this will make it more of a rush to get money.
This. It strikes me as odd that people seem to be so afraid and angery about the influence system, which is not great-looking on paper, as we all agree, that they completely misunderstand and interpret things erroneously to say that influence system will be the only single relationship feature, or just some bidding mana to spend on people.FBohler 说:
I know they haven't really explained everything, but here's my guess:
Influence is a monetized interpersonal coin, æ.
Factions are one thing, A.
Clans are another thing, B.
Personal relationships are another thing entirely, C.
Remember, Clans (B) are autonomous and can be inside Factions (A), or not, as your playerland clan may start out.
The influence(æ) system only affects Clans(B) thingies. It (æ) is supposed to be a cheap way to bypass Relationships (C). So æ is a bypass for C, whereas C affects all lords and ladies, æ affects your clan (B) and lords. And everything may or may not be inside Factions (A).
Well, i have no idea how using influence on sieges works now. It's all very confusing.
插入代码块:
I give up. I'm wrong, it's bad, let's drink to our demise, and may the swaying capes and cloaks make up for it.monoolho 说:
Nobody has said this. Fbohler completely misinterpreted vermilion_hawk and acted like he was saying the influence system would replace the other systems.
Vermillion_Hawk 说:
Nothing in this post suggests he thinks the relations system is gone. In fact he replies to fbohler (in the spoiler) saying he knows it's still part of the game.
People seem to miss an upside of the influence system which is easily overlooked but essential to the game which is:
Computers understand numbers. They can work with them. They can have an AI behave according to it. They can have two AI's use the system when dealing with each other.
A pretty large flaw in Warband is that the computer works on different rules. They don't just cheat which would be fine if not to blatant. They don't play the same game as the player. This generally ends up in a situation where for the player it's beneficial to ignore the other lords as much as possible because they tend to just be in the way.
Taleworlds seems to be focused on creating a game where the AI actually behaves like a player would, has the same goals and has the same means. So you don't feel like you are playing a different game and actually can deal with lords in a constructive manner. Bringing in clear point levels which are known by every agent allows the AI to make these choices without them having knowledge the player doesn't have. of course I still expect the AI to cheat but that's fine as long as it makes them have about the same abilities the player does.
Computers understand numbers. They can work with them. They can have an AI behave according to it. They can have two AI's use the system when dealing with each other.
A pretty large flaw in Warband is that the computer works on different rules. They don't just cheat which would be fine if not to blatant. They don't play the same game as the player. This generally ends up in a situation where for the player it's beneficial to ignore the other lords as much as possible because they tend to just be in the way.
Taleworlds seems to be focused on creating a game where the AI actually behaves like a player would, has the same goals and has the same means. So you don't feel like you are playing a different game and actually can deal with lords in a constructive manner. Bringing in clear point levels which are known by every agent allows the AI to make these choices without them having knowledge the player doesn't have. of course I still expect the AI to cheat but that's fine as long as it makes them have about the same abilities the player does.
Influence works as a kind of measure of your status within a faction, is that right? When you become a Vassal Lord in a Kingdom, your influence points represent how far the other Lords are obliged to listen to and follow your ideas. You are competing with the other Lords (Clan leaders) in your faction for status or ranking within the Faction, and ultimately for control of it.
You use the Influence points you have to propose certain courses of action for the faction to take, and if those actions are successful your status (Influence points) is thus increased. If your proposed actions fail, you lose the Influence points you invested in that action and so your status is diminished. The more Influence points you accumulate, the more you have proven that your decisions are of benefit to the Faction and therefore the more the other Lords are obliged to follow your lead in future.
I think that sounds (if I've got the right end of the stick) like a perfectly reasonable game mechanic in principle. Very meritocratic! I'm not sure why there's so much hostility towards it, except for that it is somewhat abstract. But then, all the other numerical values that represent your progress are abstractions as well: renown, right to rule (does influence perhaps replace right to rule, even?), Relations, honour, etc. Referring to it as "mana" as a derogatory term isn't really very helpful to me: I don't understand why that is bad.
To me, this brings to the foreground of the UI the system players must use in order make progress in the game. In warband, the equivalent systems all felt rather muddy: you stumble across a guy in a bar who you happen to decide to talk to, and he explains via a long-winded stream of text how all the various character stats interact with each other to decide this and that and who has power and who doesn't, and I found myself just clicking through it and not really taking it in. It took several different play throughs until I felt like I understood how the game actually worked so that I could formulate strategies for making progress, rather than just stumbling through and hoping for the best.
I think that's probably what the Influence system is really for: making it clearer to the player what they ought to be trying to do in order to achieve their longer term aims?
You use the Influence points you have to propose certain courses of action for the faction to take, and if those actions are successful your status (Influence points) is thus increased. If your proposed actions fail, you lose the Influence points you invested in that action and so your status is diminished. The more Influence points you accumulate, the more you have proven that your decisions are of benefit to the Faction and therefore the more the other Lords are obliged to follow your lead in future.
I think that sounds (if I've got the right end of the stick) like a perfectly reasonable game mechanic in principle. Very meritocratic! I'm not sure why there's so much hostility towards it, except for that it is somewhat abstract. But then, all the other numerical values that represent your progress are abstractions as well: renown, right to rule (does influence perhaps replace right to rule, even?), Relations, honour, etc. Referring to it as "mana" as a derogatory term isn't really very helpful to me: I don't understand why that is bad.
To me, this brings to the foreground of the UI the system players must use in order make progress in the game. In warband, the equivalent systems all felt rather muddy: you stumble across a guy in a bar who you happen to decide to talk to, and he explains via a long-winded stream of text how all the various character stats interact with each other to decide this and that and who has power and who doesn't, and I found myself just clicking through it and not really taking it in. It took several different play throughs until I felt like I understood how the game actually worked so that I could formulate strategies for making progress, rather than just stumbling through and hoping for the best.
I think that's probably what the Influence system is really for: making it clearer to the player what they ought to be trying to do in order to achieve their longer term aims?
It's just the case of being able to mix and match shoulder slots, but this particular one seems to look best on the original set, or at least bulkier armour
SenorZorros 说:
Warband's campaign is already just a bunch of numbers (I read the code a while bac). I fail to see what influence is or does that makes it easier for an AI to be programmed for than the other values like renown or relations, which the AI also used.
Warband's AI doesn't follow the same rules as the player because of its haphazard code. In warband's setup it's difficult to get the AI and player to access the same functions without completely rewriting the whole thing. This is partially because the player has a lot of variables attached to them and it would be a kind of pointless effort to track those same values on all the lords (e.g. their relations with other lords, their progress in quests, their honour etc) so these things are abstracted in the hopes the player won't notice that the AI has a different ruleset. Most games do this, warband just doesn't hide it too well.
Rabies 说:
The difference between influence and renown is that you can't "spend" renown. The very fact that you can "expend" influence means that the game isn't going to treat them like an actual milestone of progress, because even the king could spend all his influence in one go theoretically. They'll also have to cap influence somehow using another system, probably something renown, to prevent a literal nobody from having more bargaining power than the king himself.
The reason people call it mana is because it is a nebulous currency that you spend on actions. I have a lot of fundamental problems with any such mechanic but this isn't an EU4 rant so I'll leave it there.
The biggest problem I have isn't that it's not going to work as a mechanic, but that it forces me to think outside the logic of the game while playing, which I want to avoid in an RPG. Renown is something I can make sense of as a player because i only lose renown by losing battles, and only gain it by doing things worthy of renown. It goes up or down quite slowly. Same wuith honour or right to rule. The difference with influence is that, since you can spend it, the value will go up and down constantly and doesn't represent anything meaningful in the game's world. It's like a weird, self contained minigame completely divorced from the rest of the mechanics.
They had influence in the last few total war games and it amounts to little more than an action cooldown. I really dislike it in that. EU4 also has lots of systems which resemble this and they're just as nonsensical in the game's logic.
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL 说:
The difference between Renown and Influence is also that they perform different functions. Renown is a score based on how famous your clan is becoming across the entire gameworld and allows you to physically expand its military and trading capacities. Influence is tied specifically to your ability to affect the politics of the faction to which you belong (if you aren't aligned to a Faction, Influence doesn't come into play at all). For a start, I think it's definitely sensible to separate the two. But I also don't see a problem with Influence operating as an active currency rather than as a passive score - you may have to suspend your disbelief when using it, but in principle I don't really think you have to suspend it any less for your Renown score or your Honour or Relations scores.
If you need a real-world equivalent to rationalise it, I think the best way of looking at Influence is that it represents "Political Capital". That's an abstract concept anyway and a difficult thing to nail down in real terms, but in the game it's certainly necessary to represent it in a concrete form so that you can make use of it. From what I understand, it's the extent to which you are taken seriously by your peers in the Faction, and the extent to which you can lead or shape events - ie. to control what the Faction does in practice. (This is why I think it may well have replaced "Right to Rule", which I have not seen mention of anywhere in a devblog or screenshot). Apparently, "there will certainly be times when some powerful lords will have more influence and money than their liege", and I guess that's how regime change comes about (which wasn't even a thing in Warband).
According to the blogs, you gain Influence points from doing things that directly benefit the Faction (fulfilling your end of the 'feudal contract'), and you then spend them on furthering your own interests within the Faction, such as proposing law changes, trying to wrest Fiefs from other Lords, expelling rival clans from the faction or leading armies on campaign. In that sense, I think the 'spending mana' aspect of them is probably necessary, or else there'd be no limit to how often you could do those things once you got up to a certain level. It may well be like an "action cooldown" timer if you want to put it like that, but I don't honestly see why that's a bad thing. Anyway, if the army you're leading succeeds, you'll get the spent points back with interest so it's more like gambling on future outcomes (or staking your reputation on a course of action) than buying actual 'things' with it, as if it were a cash currency.
If you're a 'nobody', you have to just follow the orders of your King and the other Lords, while if you are very 'Influential', you can take a more leading role. So having Influence spent and earned more quickly is probably intended to allow the in-game Politics to be more dynamic and fast-moving than if it was a more gradual "milestone of progress" like Renown is. It also enables more immediate risk/reward decision-making and allows the Lords to actively jostle for position within the Faction.
At the risk of sounding even more like I'm writing a marketing spiel on behalf of Taleworlds (which I wasn't intending!), I actually think it looks like a really promising system. Warband was pretty much devoid of internal Kingdom politics, so I think Bannerlord demands new methods of representing it.
Id rather have a "gamey" mechanic I can work with and use to influence the game than a mechanic that's flat and doesn't have any grounding in how internal politics work. Plus, as has been said, having an influence counter allows a player to easily see where they stand without having to look through notes to see your relations with every lord, then check if my relation is good enough to get them to do what I want or not. Rather, I can talk to the lord, see what he wants in order to convince him to work with me (remember influence is also tied into the barter system, so it's a combination of money, land, influence, etc.).
Rabies 说:
I would like a word from developers about "right to rule" or a substitute mechanic, because i dont think influence can replace right to rule pound for pound.
类似的主题
- 置顶
- 文章
