[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_71_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p>
<p>No medieval drama, from Shakespeare to the Game of Thrones, is complete without a few scenes of high-stakes negotiation. Although most of our development effort goes into battles and combat, we also want to offer players alternative gameplay. Be it a plot to betray a king, a dynastic marriage, or just a way to handle a thorny conflict between your bickering subjects, skilled persuaders can find solutions to solve problems and save a bit of wear-and-tear on their sword-edges.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/91
Dev Blog 20/12/18
- 主题发起人 Callum
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
I'd also add renown and honour/reputation as one of the factors that could give influence. after all, if you are for example one of the greatest tournament fighters in Calradia thatwould grant you a certain amount of respect as well as prestige to those associated with you and thus give you the ability to ask favours. even from people who aren't necessarily part of "your faction".John C 说:
EDIT:
For amassing I think it would be more interesting to have diminishing returns as people forget your contributions and take them for granted as well as reactions from the npc's. some lords might consider you a great knight and praise your selflessness. others might consider you a weak pushover who can't be trusted. and other lords will regard you as a disposable pawn. furthermore it could be interesting to see lords react when you, or another lord tries to cash out their influence and suddenly request a great commitment which may or may not be responded to with all due consequences.
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL 说:
Actually influence is one of the most realistic mechanisms , even in real life influence is finite , depending on what you are worth , how popular you are , for example the President of the US has more influence than that of let's say Turkey , from Nato to the UN, however his influence is limited and finite , if the US lost a major war or suffered a global crisis, or was kicked out of NATO and the UN , he would lose a lot this influence , and from how how influence is generated in the game , army size , fiefs , wars won and so on, its an excellent and realistic system .
In regards to AI lords not being able to influence you as stated by some people
This is a ridiculous notion , the entire game influences you , the sandbox influences you from the moment you start the game , if you want to enter a faction, lords give you quests , you need to join their armies to get renown and influence , you need them to tell you to do stuff especially at the beginning of the game to get any sort of immersion or gameplay , A sandbox is what the name suggests , it gives you the idea of control and freedom, while subtly controlling each and every way you play the game . There are more rules and less freedoms in a sandbox game than most people realize ...
Good to see this feature because it adds a new depth of roleplaying. I am wondering if this ability can be used on not only notables but on every npc on calradia. I would personally like to make contact with lowborn peoples of calradia and make a lover or friendly townsman npcs. If this would work and in the end I could make them as a companion whom can get land and order then my dream become real.
A little bit reminds me the system what we have on Elder Scrolls Oblivion.
Also happy new year there too and thanks for the blogs!
wish you all an efficient next year.
A little bit reminds me the system what we have on Elder Scrolls Oblivion.
Also happy new year there too and thanks for the blogs!
wish you all an efficient next year.liznaviecki
Recruit
Let the 2019 be a year of best war game ever. All the best to U TW guys
AI lords can actually 'influence' you with the influence currency system. They just offer you "X" amount of influence to perform some task. You get the influence and now can 'invest' it in some 'profitable' activity to get more and more influence.
The system is good for me. Simple, smart and very usable for any kind of player.
The system is good for me. Simple, smart and very usable for any kind of player.
It's not about influence 'not making sense', it's about influence being tacked onto web of relationships that was already in place, achieved same things and just needed expanding.
Imo, turning to diplomacy mana is a result of neither you nor your partners in dialogue being individual lords any longer, but whole clans. It's easier that way than to make every single clan member an individual person. Especially that it seems each clan member is just a long hand of the current leader, not a character with own goals and ambitions.
Imo, turning to diplomacy mana is a result of neither you nor your partners in dialogue being individual lords any longer, but whole clans. It's easier that way than to make every single clan member an individual person. Especially that it seems each clan member is just a long hand of the current leader, not a character with own goals and ambitions.
There are a lot of replies saying the same stuff so I'll respond to the general gist of them.
"Influence will make your standings with NPCs easier to track"
Yeah, it will, but the warband system is honestly pretty simple as it is. You might only have to think about 4-5 different lords in an entire playthrough. The game encourages you to talk to and receive quests from only a small handful of lords, perhaps even just one. You build up a relationship with 1 or 2 people and become friends in-universe, just like real life.
If someone finds the warband relations system too complicated and micromanage-y then they probably won't buy bannerlord. It's one of the simplest systems in the game.
"It won't take over the relations system, just supplement it"
Then what's even the point? All the suggestions I see for this are simpler versions of what's already in the game. EU4 is suffering from this kind of thing, where there are a dozen different mechanics and variables which represent more or less the same thing, but you have to use all of them otherwise you lose. Some of them behave so similarly that they're basically just cloned mechanics, while others are made purely to nerf other mechanics, meaning you have systems which work against each other. Revanchism and War Exhaustion are one pair of cannibalised mechanics, while Unrest and Autonomy are another.
"There's nothing wrong with it being a consumable"
Whenever something is consumable it encourages the player to farm it, and it reduces the NPCs to input-output machines. You can kiss your roleplay immersion goodbye if the game is like this. Your influence level will fluctuate all over the place over the course of a game.
I actually like cherac's idea the best:
I would fully support a mechanic like this. First of all it would actually make goddamn sense and you could use real world logic to understand it, and secondly it would mean an influential person wouldn't suddenly have the influence level of a peasant farmer just because they asked a favour. This isn't how authority-based societies work. Your Boss for example will ask favours of you every day but he doesn't suddenly become a nobody because he gets you and the other 500 people in your office to do overtime. But on the other hand if he screwed a pig in public, or his company failed, that would have a pretty drastic impact. How much more then would this be the case in a feudal system where the hierarchy was so much more impactful than it is today?
Cherac's suggestion is the only one I think would actually benefit the game: loss of renown/status wasn't really a big thing in warband, especially not for NPCs. It would be interesting to see a king become dishonoured and disrespected because of poor leadership (and not just because he asked a bunch of favours)
"Influence will make your standings with NPCs easier to track"
Yeah, it will, but the warband system is honestly pretty simple as it is. You might only have to think about 4-5 different lords in an entire playthrough. The game encourages you to talk to and receive quests from only a small handful of lords, perhaps even just one. You build up a relationship with 1 or 2 people and become friends in-universe, just like real life.
If someone finds the warband relations system too complicated and micromanage-y then they probably won't buy bannerlord. It's one of the simplest systems in the game.
"It won't take over the relations system, just supplement it"
Then what's even the point? All the suggestions I see for this are simpler versions of what's already in the game. EU4 is suffering from this kind of thing, where there are a dozen different mechanics and variables which represent more or less the same thing, but you have to use all of them otherwise you lose. Some of them behave so similarly that they're basically just cloned mechanics, while others are made purely to nerf other mechanics, meaning you have systems which work against each other. Revanchism and War Exhaustion are one pair of cannibalised mechanics, while Unrest and Autonomy are another.
"There's nothing wrong with it being a consumable"
Whenever something is consumable it encourages the player to farm it, and it reduces the NPCs to input-output machines. You can kiss your roleplay immersion goodbye if the game is like this. Your influence level will fluctuate all over the place over the course of a game.
I actually like cherac's idea the best:
cherac 说:
I would fully support a mechanic like this. First of all it would actually make goddamn sense and you could use real world logic to understand it, and secondly it would mean an influential person wouldn't suddenly have the influence level of a peasant farmer just because they asked a favour. This isn't how authority-based societies work. Your Boss for example will ask favours of you every day but he doesn't suddenly become a nobody because he gets you and the other 500 people in your office to do overtime. But on the other hand if he screwed a pig in public, or his company failed, that would have a pretty drastic impact. How much more then would this be the case in a feudal system where the hierarchy was so much more impactful than it is today?
Cherac's suggestion is the only one I think would actually benefit the game: loss of renown/status wasn't really a big thing in warband, especially not for NPCs. It would be interesting to see a king become dishonoured and disrespected because of poor leadership (and not just because he asked a bunch of favours)
I disagree. Sure, my boss can ask me to do overtime and I'll accept. However, if he asks me to pull overtime three weeks in a row, while he does nothing, I'm sure as hell going to question why the hell I'm doing whatever this guy says. Now think about it from a medieval point of view; you're sitting in your castle all nice and cozy, making sure things run super smoothly, when the next lord over (or even your king) rides up and tells you it's time to go to war. Do you drop everything and march off, or do you weigh several different factors, including what's in it for you (i.e. a castle, getting paid, or gaining favour/influence with said character.
Additionally, I never relied on 2-3 lords in warband, I tried to have as many relationships with them as possible, as that to me was what helped make the game world fleshed out. When you run into that guy you've fought twenty times and you can 'hear' in his 'voice' just how much he hates you, or when your friend on the other side of a war catches up to you but lets you go because before the war you helped each other out, that's what fleshes out the WB world for me.
On a separate point, Kentucky's comment about the globalness of the system I don't think was about spending influence, but rather earning it. In WB, certain actions could raise your relation with one lord, while lowering it with another lord, and a third lord had no relation change at all, all from one single action. With influence on the other hand, the same action results in the same gain of influence, no matter what people think. Even though certain lords may require more influence spent to persuade them, you're technically not forced to interact with them at all. I'm slightly worried that this will actually push the player into only interacting with a small handful of lords, as you'll find the ones it will cost the least amount of influence and then stick to those, but we'll see.
Additionally, I never relied on 2-3 lords in warband, I tried to have as many relationships with them as possible, as that to me was what helped make the game world fleshed out. When you run into that guy you've fought twenty times and you can 'hear' in his 'voice' just how much he hates you, or when your friend on the other side of a war catches up to you but lets you go because before the war you helped each other out, that's what fleshes out the WB world for me.
On a separate point, Kentucky's comment about the globalness of the system I don't think was about spending influence, but rather earning it. In WB, certain actions could raise your relation with one lord, while lowering it with another lord, and a third lord had no relation change at all, all from one single action. With influence on the other hand, the same action results in the same gain of influence, no matter what people think. Even though certain lords may require more influence spent to persuade them, you're technically not forced to interact with them at all. I'm slightly worried that this will actually push the player into only interacting with a small handful of lords, as you'll find the ones it will cost the least amount of influence and then stick to those, but we'll see.
I also support cherac's point of view. +1
In short, this system seems to be a facelift from the one which had warband...
From the devblog image the npc seems to be a notable. Then we can only "persuade" nobles and notables, right? I wonder, what about persuasion when engaging in battle? try to persuade the leader of an armed group (bandits-lords) not to attack you or convince him to join your side and decant the scale in a battle where more than two armies appeared?
In short, this system seems to be a facelift from the one which had warband...
From the devblog image the npc seems to be a notable. Then we can only "persuade" nobles and notables, right? I wonder, what about persuasion when engaging in battle? try to persuade the leader of an armed group (bandits-lords) not to attack you or convince him to join your side and decant the scale in a battle where more than two armies appeared?
lolbash
Master Knight
You seem to be mistaking Influence and Reown. Sure, your boss won't become an irreleent ghost of the past, but the boss will surely have a much harder time trying to convince his employees to do another week of overtime, and this is what Influence is trying to represent, not how popular or reowned a character is. Influence looks perfectly fine, and you are the only one who seems to have a big problem with it.
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL 说:
Let's just clear things up. If there's plain hierarchy (e.g. you over your clan) there's no influence currency involved. Influence is used to convince other lords to do stuff for you AFAIK.
Also, if said boss' team keeps delivering good results, his influence will rise and he'll become ever more powerful. If the team consistently fail to deliver, the boss may lose influence and get fired eventually. It fits PERFECTLY in BL's influence currency system.
BIGGER Kentucky James XXL 说:
Victories earn influence while defeats spent influence without any compensating reward.
As long as the army is successful in their efforts and the lord commander is keeping the other lords happy, then the army can go on marching for a long time. But if things don’t go so well, the army will quickly dissolve and lords will decide to abandon the campaign and return to their own lands.
Kings start with more factional influence:
This new system allows for all lords to call on other allied lords and build their own army. Because of the large influence costs, it is of course easier for a king to do this, however there will certainly be times when some powerful lords will have more influence and money than their liege and will be able to amass their own powerful armies to take on a campaign.
Any King who lets their influence slip from too many defeats risks being deposed by a vote of the faction’s clans:
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.
I believe the influence system will take Bannerlord’s in-faction politics to level that Warband is incapable of simulating.
Edit - A king can risk his position and influence by leading the army personally or risk building the influence of a potential factional rival by letting another clan leader act as the faction’s marshall. This level of subtle calculation is totally absent from Warband.
All of this sounds great, and I love most things said about the game so far, still Soon™ for another roll of Soon™NPC99 说:
Meaning that patience is a virtue I no longer hold for TW, it's been too long and to me talk is meaningless without anything to show for. That's the main reason why I'm still skeptical towards the quality of the game when it finally gets released. There are far more things that can go wrong than things that can go well.
xdj1nn 说:All of this sounds great, and I love most things said about the game so far, still Soon™ for another roll of Soon™
Meaning that patience is a virtue I no longer hold for TW, it's been too long and to me talk is meaningless without anything to show for. That's the main reason why I'm still skeptical towards the quality of the game when it finally gets released. There are far more things that can go wrong than things that can go well.
+
Today we want to look at the path we’ve taken and sum up what has been a really exciting and intense year. To put it in a nutshell: we are incredibly grateful for your continued support all these months. Of course, we know isn’t possible to please everyone. Sometimes people said we were spoiling things and revealing too much, while at the same time others argued that we were playing smoke and mirrors and not telling enough about the game. For some people, a certain topic was boring, or repetitive, while at the same time others were super excited to read about it. Dev Blog 02/08/18
+
As for the lack of follow up on blog posts, it is a mixture of things that prevent me from engaging in a deep discussion about any particular subject, but for the most part it is because we want to give you an overview of a feature, but at the same time, we don't want to spoil too much of the game and would much rather leave parts of it for you to discover yourself. A lot of the questions are very direct and would require extremely detailed responses, which leads me back to the first point. Callum
=
Spoil us harder, Taleworlds.
Several points:
1. The whole persuasion meter reminds me of oblivion feature, and I think it was quite hated by majority of players, because it became both repetitive and annoying. could fix bt just hiding the meter so it becomes more natural, or maybe hide the meter on the NPC face/ make it smile more or change emotion instead of an actual meter, it impacts immersion so much imho
2. Maybe there should be instant persuasion progress made if you're a woman in good clothes trying to persuade a male npc. haha
3. There are quite a few grammar mistakes and nonsensical sentences in the original post, please proof read it better before posting on your main site. Thank you.
1. The whole persuasion meter reminds me of oblivion feature, and I think it was quite hated by majority of players, because it became both repetitive and annoying. could fix bt just hiding the meter so it becomes more natural, or maybe hide the meter on the NPC face/ make it smile more or change emotion instead of an actual meter, it impacts immersion so much imho
2. Maybe there should be instant persuasion progress made if you're a woman in good clothes trying to persuade a male npc. haha
3. There are quite a few grammar mistakes and nonsensical sentences in the original post, please proof read it better before posting on your main site. Thank you.
omnibro 说:
GOOOOD POINT, Concussion Conference let us get postconcussive syndrome.
Bannerlord's player may discussion a mission, be their point of view, for the warband's player.
Of course, we know isn’t possible to please everyone.
Hannibal teach us that,
1) political enemy is more fatal than war opponent.
2) continuity food/money supply is important.
Actually, that's an awesome idea. We had an entire devblog about the new facial expressions, why not use them to show either a: how the conversation is going in general; or b: the reactions to individual persuasion lines? If you want to see an actual bar, you could have it like WB where you mouse over the person's face to see how they feel about the convo.omnibro 说:
类似的主题
