Dev Blog 18/07/19

[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

 

[Rabies]

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.

I've got to be honest, I don't really know what Right to Rule even does in Warband, other than cause every faction to simultaneously declare war on you the moment you take over a castle as an independent because you wanted a base for your mercenary operations and didn't realise that doing so would immediately bar you from being a mercenary anyway because owning a fief automatically makes you a King and therefore a rival and enemy to every other King.

I'm sure there's more to it than that, but Warband it pretty oblique about revealing those things.

 

[Piconi]

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.

I've got to be honest, I don't really know what Right to Rule even does in Warband, other than cause every faction to simultaneously declare war on you the moment you take over a castle as an independent because you wanted a base for your mercenary operations and didn't realise that doing so would immediately bar you from being a mercenary anyway because owning a fief automatically makes you a King and therefore a rival and enemy to every other King.

I'm sure there's more to it than that, but Warband it pretty oblique about revealing those things.

Thats why i enphasised "or a substitute mechanic", because you may be influental enough in the faction you are in, but influence alone doesent give you a sort of legitimacy (right to rule) to wear a crown.

Maybe i'm in too deep for a game with mediocre reach, or maybe i didnt let Game of Thrones out of my system yet, but i would like to see a huge improvement upon "right to rule" mechanic from Warband, as it was easily obtainable (just send 10 companions to spread your claim and thats 30 safe for making kingdom right to rule within 10 weeks) and you didnt get any info on what it actually does, as you said.

 

[HUMMAN]

About gamey effect of Kentucky and others i agree. But clearly statistics show paradox-type is successful. Why TW shouldnt go that way? Is there a complex game without gamey features? If not how would you improve Warband's shallow mechanics in the best way? I value your opinions please tell me 

 

[RhodokSargant99]

clan renown is a new idea, thank you for this great blog,

we know Clan members can earn renown for their clan by performing a number of actions, such as completing quests, winning battles, or competing in tournaments. and let With each tier that the clan reaches, they are rewarded with an additional party slot, an increased companion limit, and additional caravans that can work under the clan’s tutelage. Additionally, the player will be treated differently depending on the renown of their clan, such as with the order of battle.

i have a few question

1）would renown can be difference type, as a result have difference award?
        if i completing quests of transport, would it be let me unlocked additional caravans?
        if i competing in tournaments, would it be let me unlocked the order of battle?
        if i build more farm for town, would it be let my farm unlocked additional yield?
        if i winning battles, would it be let me unlocked additional party slot?
        if i robbery a villager of difference factions, would it be unlocked the robber happy to join my team? [Edward Teach-Blackbeard]

2）would it be personal, clan, factions renown, as a result have difference award?
        if i born in business clan,
          they always completing quests of transportation,
          never battle and keep escape,
          employ mercenary for let them to be save.
        would it be unlocked all this clan member additional caravans?
         
        if i born in agriculture/animal husbandry faction,
            old king keep build farm/livestock,
            as result unlocked additional yield/breeding,
        would it be the eligible heir let their faction have additional yield/breeding? [factions skill]

Well now think about this; hope renown do such things. Not like social credit card score in Chine,,, say one man famous, gat two cows instead of once in real life (helped olds lady cross tha road, given love by the villagers, and more cow to love himself)

But bannerlad is not Chinese,, not because we or it is backwards (even if some mods hear hate Chine and think less of me) so only unlock new cows/ farms/falconry/factory for baskets/ multiple wives if linked to clean renown gifts. Man gives you cow or more basket weaves or his wife if he likes you, but maybe technology is already there for this. Just easiest if liked but not special.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

About gamey effect of Kentucky and others i agree. But clearly statistics show paradox-type is successful. Why TW shouldnt go that way? Is there a complex game without gamey features? If not how would you improve Warband's shallow mechanics in the best way? I value your opinions please tell me 

Paradox games are successful because there is nothing else like them. But EU4 and Imperator Rome received a lot of backlash for their umpteen different mana points. Everyone I know who plays EU4 absolutely hates the game and will be like "time to put 4 more hours into this piece of crap". It seems contradictory, but there is no other alternative for the specific kind of gameplay fix they're going for. If you want to paint maps, you have to put up with the mana.

The most complex but least gamey game I have played is Kenshi. The UI exposes all the stats and mechanics to you at all times like the gamiest of games but what makes it so good is that you can make every decision using in-game logic. For example:
1. Enemies chase and attack you.
2. Unconscious enemies can be looted.
3. Enemies will only recognise you if they have line of sight and are not distracted.

This creates some "implicit" mechanics which are never told to you by the game but you figure out on your own. Just from the 3 simple rules I mentioned above, you get the following:

1. Pursuing enemies can be lured into fighting nearby neutral or allied groups, letting you escape or loot the casualties.
2. Use looted equipment as a disguise to sneak into cities or avoid being chased.
3. Lure enemies into a city gate to distract them, then run through without getting spotted.
4. Steal the equipment off an unconscious enemy so that nobody recognises him when he wakes up.
5. Put equipment on an unconscious enemy so that he gets attacked by his allies.

Kenshi has far more mechanics than this, and the number of things you can do in the game skyrockets. Nothing is scripted. I don't expect bannerlord to be like this because kenshi is basically total anarchy in game form, but I think it's the best way to make use of an open world.

So in my opinion the best way to make a complex game is to have simple mechanics which can be used together in believable ways to give complex results, as above. The influence mechanic is the opposite: a complex and highly specific system which only affects the clan system. Kenshi doesn't have a tutorial and doesn't need one because most of the mechanics are implicit and can be discovered organically. But the influence system is like a minigame separated from all the other mechanics and in direct conflict with others (it does similar things to the relations system, meaning one of them will have to be downplayed). It sounds almost exactly like the gravitas system in rome total war which was a horrendous crapshow.

 

[FBohler]

We're now just looking at Clans with rotating faces which can be swayed with the application of the magic diplomatic currency.

You're mistaken. The Influence currency works alongside with some kind of relations system, which calculates the price to try and persuade lords to do your stuff. If you have bad relations or personality incompatibility, the Influence prices may get prohibitive.

Influence system doesn't replace the need to get the right relations.

Exactly, it's an upfront "price" to get a Lord to do something, which is stupid. It's a Paradox Grand Strategy feature and not one I would have liked to have seen in this game.

Warband's Lords would sometimes just straight up refuse to do something for you. Not like that game didn't have its own unique problems, but in this instance I liked how it handled relations. It wasn't like a Lord who hated your guts suddenly decided he'd do what you wanted because you spent your diplomagic on him. The idea of spending it at all is stupid - why is it even a visible currency like this?

It just makes it more of an equation rather than something interesting. It's not "I can't influence Lord X because he hates my guts", it's more "I can't influence Lord X because my mana is low". I hate the latter.

You're wrong all over again.

You'll still be unable to influence Lord X because he hates you, making his influence cost sky high.

If your influence spending is wise, you'll build up a fair amount of the currency, along with good relations (= better influence prices) you'll be able to boost your outcomes.

Cute interpretation for influence investment generating profit is that your character is likely to make good strategic decisions so more people is prone to follow your lead.

Better to be able to tell the game's systems than being fooled by them.

 

[Roccoflipside]

Jacob, why do you assume influence only effects clans? Unless you mean by influencing one member of the clan would influence all other members to do the same thing, but if that's true then it's change from '16, where they used influence to convince the allied lord to go to the battle with them. Thus influence would be used on a person-to-person basis, not clan-to-clan, and therefore I'm fairly sure it would be effected by your relation with the lord, making good relations more important so you don't have to spend all your influence convincing one or two lords.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

You're wrong all over again.

You'll still be unable to influence Lord X because he hates you, making his influence cost sky high.

If your influence spending is wise, you'll build up a fair amount of the currency, along with good relations (= better influence prices) you'll be able to boost your outcomes.

Cute interpretation for influence investment generating profit is that your character is likely to make good strategic decisions so more people is prone to follow your lead.

Better to be able to tell the game's systems than being fooled by them.

You're not really understanding my point. Jacob's summarized it nicely though.

 

[Rabies]

Jacob, why do you assume influence only effects clans? Unless you mean by influencing one member of the clan would influence all other members to do the same thing, but if that's true then it's change from '16, where they used influence to convince the allied lord to go to the battle with them. Thus influence would be used on a person-to-person basis, not clan-to-clan, and therefore I'm fairly sure it would be effected by your relation with the lord, making good relations more important so you don't have to spend all your influence convincing one or two lords.

I think influence is accumulated only by clans (like renown), and therefore can be spent only by Clan leaders. But it can be spent on individuals when it comes to gathering armies. Each party of soldiers has an influence cost based on their strength, and then influence upkeep costs based on relations, morale, distance to home, time spent in the field.

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/15

A new concept in Bannerlord is influence, which acts a bit like a currency, alongside gold and relation, but more directly affects our interactions with other characters in our faction. Influence is held for each lady and lord as a value to represent their contribution to their faction's war effort. Vassals can maintain their influence by joining military campaigns and the more troops they provide, the more influence they gain. What this does is form a system, where being part of a faction actually comes with a measurable level of responsibility. Keep your influence positive and the leader of your faction will be pleased, raising your chance of being awarded more fiefs; let your influence slip into the negative too far and you'll risk expulsion from the faction and your fiefs being seized.

隐藏

Here, I think influence of the clans is a pool in which all the influence of lords of a clan is gathered. When a clan make a decision, it is spent from that pool, I guess, but other than that it is still individually earned and can be spent.

https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/28

Influence acts as a kind of currency in the game and can be earned by serving your kingdom in various ways: destroying bandits or enemy parties, raiding, capturing enemy settlements etc.

It sounds like a game in a game like Kentucky said. Before you make someone do something, first you gotta play the game of farming influence and that is true and could be boring, indeed. But the activities above, which also serve gaining influence, are what we always do while we play or doing quests for lords to increase your relationship with them. It can make the relation system less important but it depends on how much easy or hard to farm influence points but it could be other way around. For example, you make 5 lords your best friend forever by increasing your relation and then you can make them follow you by spending amount of influence which can be earned by destroying a few bandits and with them you destroy an enemy army or captured a city which makes you earn considerable amount of influence. So in this case, the relation system can make the influence system less important. End of the day, it all depends on TW to find a balance between them so you don't feel like playing a game in a game or making one of them less important.

 

[panem]

https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/15

A new concept in Bannerlord is influence, which acts a bit like a currency, alongside gold and relation, but more directly affects our interactions with other characters in our faction. Influence is held for each lady and lord as a value to represent their contribution to their faction's war effort. Vassals can maintain their influence by joining military campaigns and the more troops they provide, the more influence they gain. What this does is form a system, where being part of a faction actually comes with a measurable level of responsibility. Keep your influence positive and the leader of your faction will be pleased, raising your chance of being awarded more fiefs; let your influence slip into the negative too far and you'll risk expulsion from the faction and your fiefs being seized.

隐藏

Here, I think influence of the clans is a pool in which all the influence of lords of a clan is gathered. When a clan make a decision, it is spent from that pool, I guess, but other than that it is still individually earned and can be spent.

https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/28

Influence acts as a kind of currency in the game and can be earned by serving your kingdom in various ways: destroying bandits or enemy parties, raiding, capturing enemy settlements etc.

It sounds like a game in a game like Kentucky said. Before you make someone do something, first you gotta play the game of farming influence and that is true and could be boring, indeed. But the activities above, which also serve gaining influence, are what we always do while we play or doing quests for lords to increase your relationship with them. It can make the relation system less important but it depends on how much easy or hard to farm influence points but it could be other way around. For example, you make 5 lords your best friend forever by increasing your relation and then you can make them follow you by spending amount of influence which can be earned by destroying a few bandits and with them you destroy an enemy army or captured a city which makes you earn considerable amount of influence. So in this case, the relation system can make the influence system less important. End of the day, it all depends on TW to find a balance between them so you don't feel like playing a game in a game or making one of them less important.

if i were solider in the battle, i willing to follow the high "influence" person,
  high "influence" General of the Army, have high win/loss Ratio,
  when i follow him, i have higher chance to survive.

would influence affect morale and size of troop?

Not like social credit card score in Chine.

Influence is a new concept in Bannerlord,
your idea is good, would you mind to told us what would it like?

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

would influence affect morale and size of troop?

Morale effects influence upkeep cost of an army which involves several or more parties of lords. The more morale your army have, the lower influence upkeep cost of an army becomes. Influence doesn't
have effect on morale of your party, I guess.

Army influence upkeep cost is based on several factors:

-If the army morale is high, then upkeep costs are lower (and vice versa)
-Distance from their hometowns, how long they have been fighting etc.
-Relations between the army commander and lords

I didn't read or see anywhere your party size is effected by influence but how large you can gather an army is effected.

each allied lord has an influence cost based on the power of their party.

 

[Roccoflipside]

https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/15

A new concept in Bannerlord is influence, which acts a bit like a currency, alongside gold and relation, but more directly affects our interactions with other characters in our faction. Influence is held for each lady and lord as a value to represent their contribution to their faction's war effort. Vassals can maintain their influence by joining military campaigns and the more troops they provide, the more influence they gain. What this does is form a system, where being part of a faction actually comes with a measurable level of responsibility. Keep your influence positive and the leader of your faction will be pleased, raising your chance of being awarded more fiefs; let your influence slip into the negative too far and you'll risk expulsion from the faction and your fiefs being seized.

隐藏

Here, I think influence of the clans is a pool in which all the influence of lords of a clan is gathered. When a clan make a decision, it is spent from that pool, I guess, but other than that it is still individually earned and can be spent.

https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/28

Influence acts as a kind of currency in the game and can be earned by serving your kingdom in various ways: destroying bandits or enemy parties, raiding, capturing enemy settlements etc.

It sounds like a game in a game like Kentucky said. Before you make someone do something, first you gotta play the game of farming influence and that is true and could be boring, indeed. But the activities above, which also serve gaining influence, are what we always do while we play or doing quests for lords to increase your relationship with them. It can make the relation system less important but it depends on how much easy or hard to farm influence points but it could be other way around. For example, you make 5 lords your best friend forever by increasing your relation and then you can make them follow you by spending amount of influence which can be earned by destroying a few bandits and with them you destroy an enemy army or captured a city which makes you earn considerable amount of influence. So in this case, the relation system can make the influence system less important. End of the day, it all depends on TW to find a balance between them so you don't feel like playing a game in a game or making one of them less important.

This part is also important (the second part I bolded). It show that, although you can spend influence to get people to do things, it's also in your interest to keep your influence high, as that's how you're awarded fiefs and maintain your holding/status in a faction. Therefore, it's more than just a currency mechanic, as if it was just a currency you could spend it all without any consequence other than being out of influence. With this, if you spend all your influence (and don't get it back), you won't get new fiefs, and you risk losing what you do have. It's a balancing act, and in some cases possibly a gamble; I'm going to spend more influence than I should to get a bunch of lords on campaign with me in the hopes that the campaign gives me more influence by succeeding. If it doesn't, I risk getting kicked out by the very people who just followed me to war, possibly regardless of our relation (the opposite of my complaint about WB above).

Also, I'm not worried about influence only being able to be spent by the clan leader, seeing as it appears we only ever play as the clan leader. I don't want my cousin or whatever running around blowing all the influence on hunting bandits with an enemy of mine, then getting us kicked out of the faction.

 

[Rabies]

https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/15

It sounds like a game in a game like Kentucky said. Before you make someone do something, first you gotta play the game of farming influence and that is true and could be boring, indeed. But the activities above, which also serve gaining influence, are what we always do while we play or doing quests for lords to increase your relationship with them. It can make the relation system less important but it depends on how much easy or hard to farm influence points but it could be other way around. For example, you make 5 lords your best friend forever by increasing your relation and then you can make them follow you by spending amount of influence which can be earned by destroying a few bandits and with them you destroy an enemy army or captured a city which makes you earn considerable amount of influence. So in this case, the relation system can make the influence system less important. End of the day, it all depends on TW to find a balance between them so you don't feel like playing a game in a game or making one of them less important.

Hopefully farming influence will not feel too contrived, and will just happen as you go about your normal business. Mostly through fighting, by the sounds of it.

 

[Roccoflipside]

Yeah, it sounds like you get influence by basically just playing the game, doing the things you would normally do. "Farming", to me at least, seems to imply going out of your way to do a task you wouldn't normally do. Depending on the balance, I suppose it could get to the point where you have to chase down bandits all the time, which would be "Farming" and annoying, but as long as winning a big battle grants a large influence reward, I think it'll be alright.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

But if you get enough influence from just playing the game, what is even the point of the mechanic other than to serve as a glorified cooldown?

 

[Roccoflipside]

But if you get enough influence from just playing the game, what is even the point of the mechanic other than to serve as a glorified cooldown?

As the devblog pointed out, it's a balancing/gambling mechanic. Do I use the influence I've built up to get another lord to join me in this battle, or do I try to go it alone, get even more influence, and possibly get enough to take control of the kingdom or get more lands?

I wonder also if influence is split among lords participating in the actions? If so, there's another decision to be made; is it worth spending the points to get another lord in this battle, or will splitting the influence from that battle mean I've just wasted those points?

I suppose it's similar to what you said about relationships, it comes down o how it's balanced, and at the end of the day I'd rather have a mechanic I can use to change my position rather than having to farm relations with a lord just to get them to do something.

 

[Rabies]

But if you get enough influence from just playing the game, what is even the point of the mechanic other than to serve as a glorified cooldown?

That's true. Although I do think the cool down aspect of it is probably necessary. You get influence from doing things that benefit the faction, so that's mostly going to be participating in wars, I guess: the more troops and food you supply to an army, the more Influence you get it of it, or something? But maybe it also comes from doing quests for the liege. Maybe other stuff. Hopefully it doesn't get to be a grind, but I'm sure they've thought of that.

In the end there has to be some way of having clans compete for power with each other within the faction. Your comment about Gravitas in Rome 2 sent a few shudders down my spine, though! That was a truly awful waste of space in that game.

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

I wonder also if influence is split among lords participating in the actions?

It is the leader of the army which gains all of the influence for the army’s victorious deeds,

It doesn't seem so for army actions. For me it gets puzzling here actually. Why my rival lord(in the game rivalry only can be defined by relation right now, I think) in my faction takes participation in my army to give me a chance to gain lots of influence even if I spend considerable amount of influence to get him in my army. In this sense, relationship system gets more valuable but still there is a chance influence system can turn out like Kentucky described. I hope TW pull off the job of balancing these systems.

at the end of the day I'd rather have a mechanic I can use to change my position rather than having to farm relations with a lord just to get them to do something.

Actually,(I am sure most of you know this) in Warband for some lords depending on their character also depending on your playstyle, you get lots of relationship point from them just while you play the game. I hope influence would be the same.

 

[FBohler]

Why my rival lord(in the game rivalry only can be defined by relation right now, I think) in my faction takes participation in my army to give me a chance to gain lots of influence even if I spend considerable amount of influence to get him in my army.

Your rival would charge you a lot of Influence to do what you ask, making it really difficult to pay back the upfront price. This way he can even exploit your desperation for help.

Doesn't it sound exciting?