Fiefs income nerfed in 1.6.1 - Why???

Users who are viewing this thread

SkullSplitter

I'm playing 1.6.0, this thread doesn't make me want download 1.6.1
 

Askey

Veteran
Said Harold Godwinson, Charles d'Albret, Béla IV of Hungary, Romanos IV and every other medieval war leader who lost half or more of their kingdom because of the fallout caused by a single decisive battle.

Yes many medieval wars were attritional slogs of siege after siege, but if a king or clan leader takes the field, there should always be room for drastic changes in the landscape based on losing decisive battles.
Love the idea, of a balance between long sieges and taking to the field to claim large swathes of the enemies territory. But realism vs gameplay.
The rest of this game isn't designed for what you're proposing and all of SP would have to be changed. Grind the other aspects of the game for a few battles. Nice idea, but would be more suitable as a hardcore realism mod.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
My current campaign in 1.6.1

Day 67:

- Vlandia: 8 poor, and 3 average clans.
- Sturgia: 1 very poor, 8 poor, and 1 average.
- Battania: 3 poor, and 5 average.

I have not checked other kingdoms for laziness, but I can provide a save game if necessary.

Keep in mind that Dey Meroc clan (ruler Vlandia clan) started as a rich clan and has two towns and one castle. Somehow this clan is now poor after just 67 days… Derther, the Vlandian king, tier 6 clan, is just able to sustain a 100 men party…
 

Pejot

Sergeant Knight
WBVC
The problem in Bannerlord is that You don't have to choose between different sources of income You just get all of them while AI has only one. Instead of nerfing fief income that was already low and unworthy they should change how You get access to different income sources. For example workshops should be locked by skill not renown. Same for caravans. And they should add a way to use rogue companions for loot so it will be low if rogue skill is low.

By nerfing one of the sources they are forcing the player to use all of them so no option to play as lord maintaining his land for profit. I really hate that I cannot have stable income without caravans and workshops.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
The problem in Bannerlord is that You don't have to choose between different sources of income You just get all of them while AI has only one. Instead of nerfing fief income that was already low and unworthy they should change how You get access to different income sources. For example workshops should be locked by skill not renown. Same for caravans. And they should add a way to use rogue companions for loot so it will be low if rogue skill is low.

By nerfing one of the sources they are forcing the player to use all of them so no option to play as lord maintaining his land for profit. I really hate that I cannot have stable income without caravans and workshops.

Yeah, this is something I have been thinking about. Something like a trade perk which unlocks workshops/caravans instead of renown. For example:

Trade skill 25: unlock first workshop or first caravan
Trade 50: +1 workshops or +1 caravan
Trade 100: +1 workshops or +1 caravan
Trade 150: +1 workshops or +1 caravan
Trade 200: +1 workshops or +1 caravan
Trade 250: +1 workshops or +1 caravan
Trade 300: +1 workshops or +1 caravan

This way the player do not get access to everything for free while the poor AI just gets money from fiefs and loot.
 

Bannerman Man

C# Sleuth
Knight
Thank you, this is a quite interesting information. Yes, I remember when tax percent was set at 20% at release, and it got increased due to a lot of people complaining about how small the fiefs income feels compared to other income sources.

I am not going to say that this 6% is a huge thing (it is actually bigger than it looks at first glance though, due to marketplaces buildings, etc), but it mostly hurts these clans with two castles or so. Getting -200 or -300 per day for the player is almost unnoticeable, but for the AI clans it could be a problem.

As an example, I have usually keep my old campaigns save games, and I checked one where I just had 4 castles (no workshops, no caravans, I was playing with same AI rules). In 1.6.0 I was getting +200 daily, but in 1.6.1 negative income -700 or so. This is unnoticeable for the player (I could get around 400 daily from only one workshop if I would want to buy it), but completely devasting for the AI which only gets money from fiefs and battle loot.

I encourage the people to check clans economy though the encyclopedy in 1.6.1 to check if there are much Poor clans. It was the case in 1.6.0 and it is probably worse now in 1.6.1.
I guess my point was that their income in this patch might not necessarily be any lower over the long run. With the 6% nerf to tax rate, it means fiefs need to have 20% higher prosperity in order to generate the same amount of income that they did in 1.6.0. It's possible they looked at the data after their changes to food production and saw that it made the average prosperity of settlements rise by ~20%, meaning the income that fiefs would provide in 1.6.1 would be identical to what they provided in 1.6.0 over time. Though, since they didn't adjust the starting prosperity of fiefs, it will obviously take some time for the income to catch up to what at was in the last patch, meaning lords will still have lower income in the early stages of the campaign.

Either way, the nerf to tax rate does not fully explain why npc lords are hemorrhaging so much gold. Using the Derthert example, faction leaders start the game with 160k gold (putting them in the "Rich" bracket), and they are not considered "Poor" until they fall below 40k gold (see the screenshot below). That means in a matter of 67 days, Derthert lost roughly 120k gold, which is a deficit of 1791 gold per day.

His three fiefs have 4500, 1900, and 770 starting prosperity for a total of 7170. In 1.6.0, that means his daily income would have been (7170*0.36) = 2581 gold per day, and with the new tax rate it'll be (7170*0.3) = 2151 gold, for a difference of 430 per day. Over 67 days that's ~29k less gold than he would have had with last patch's tax rate (ignoring the differences in growth rate of prosperity), meaning it barely explains a quarter of the total 120k gold lost in the first 3 months of your campaign. Even in 1.6.0, Derthert still would have lost that much gold in only 88 days. Something is burning a hole in lords' pockets, and either there's something wrong with their expenses or they need a huge boost to income (tax rate would need to be ~55% to make up that deficit).

To your credit though, if there's no issue with their expenses, then the nerf to the tax rate was indeed a step in the wrong direction.

GsWCZ.png
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
I guess my point was that their income in this patch might not necessarily be any lower over the long run. With the 6% nerf to tax rate, it means fiefs need to have 20% higher prosperity in order to generate the same amount of income that they did in 1.6.0. It's possible they looked at the data after their changes to food production and saw that it made the average prosperity of settlements rise by ~20%, meaning the income that fiefs would provide in 1.6.1 would be identical to what they provided in 1.6.0 over time. Though, since they didn't adjust the starting prosperity of fiefs, it will obviously take some time for the income to catch up to what at was in the last patch, meaning lords will still have lower income in the early stages of the campaign.

Either way, the nerf to tax rate does not fully explain why npc lords are hemorrhaging so much gold. Using the Derthert example, faction leaders start the game with 160k gold (putting them in the "Rich" bracket), and they are not considered "Poor" until they fall below 40k gold (see the screenshot below). That means in a matter of 67 days, Derthert lost roughly 120k gold, which is a deficit of 1791 gold per day.

His three fiefs have 4500, 1900, and 770 starting prosperity for a total of 7170. In 1.6.0, that means his daily income would have been (7170*0.36) = 2581 gold per day, and with the new tax rate it'll be (7170*0.3) = 2151 gold, for a difference of 430 per day. Over 67 days that's ~29k less gold than he would have had with last patch's tax rate (ignoring the differences in growth rate of prosperity), meaning it barely explains a quarter of the total 120k gold lost in the first 3 months of your campaign. Even in 1.6.0, Derthert still would have lost that much gold in only 88 days. Something is burning a hole in lords' pockets, and either there's something wrong with their expenses or they need a huge boost to income (tax rate would need to be ~55% to make up that deficit).

To your credit though, if there's no issue with their expenses, then the nerf to the tax rate was indeed a step in the wrong direction.

GsWCZ.png

Yes, in the long run it could be similar, but the first 100 days in my current campaign are being awful. Derther is just able to sustain 80-90 men parties.

I found this bug some days ago which probably explains the lords going to bankrupt too fast:


Let’s see how it goes after the hotfix, but I still think that reducing taxes is a bad idea, except if there is something related to avoid lords money inflation but it was not happening in my 1.6.0 campaigns (not sure if it will be the case after the hotfix, plus the food changes you have mentioned).
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
I can't say for certain why they've decided to nerf the tax percentage, and maybe the reasons that people have already listed in this thread are the correct answers, but one thing to consider is that it appears they've also made some minor changes to the passive food income of settlements.

The "Land around settlements" bonus that all settlements used to have is back and has been rebranded as "Inside Production". Consequently, they've also reduced the food given per level of Orchards, but the sum total of the bonuses from Inside Production and Orchards in 1.6.1 is still higher than Orchards was alone in 1.6.0. Since the baseline food income that settlements have access to has increased across the board, the average prosperity of settlements should also rise, thus resulting in higher tax income.

Remember, when the game first released, the tax percentage from prosperity was only 20%. It was later buffed to 25%, then to 36%, and then nerfed to the present 30%. So even with the nerf, the tax percentage is still a full 10% higher than it was at launch. Since launch though, the average prosperity of settlements has fallen quite a bit (which would reduce tax income) and loyalty and security values tend to be lower (which also reduces tax income), which is why they probably felt a bump to tax percentages was necessary to balance things out. Now that settlements' passive food income has been buffed a bit, they might feel a minor decrease to tax percentages is warranted to balance out the higher expected prosperity.

It's probably best not to evaluate any changes they make in a vacuum since the game's mechanics are so interconnected, and balance tweaks to one mechanic are bound to also affect adjacent mechanics. They have the data collection tools to keep track of the broad effects any changes they may make will have.
Thanks for this info! I searched the patch note but couldn't find what changed. So far I've only got some castles in my 1.6.1 game so I didn't notice.

Derthert lost roughly 120k gold, which is a deficit of 1791 gold per day.
Could there be a problem with thier loot to gold process? This in anecdotal but today while leader clan army around in my new game I wasn't getting the income swing I usually do once I start taking down many parties, meaning usually the passive loot to gold from my clan parties start to typically cover thier cost and then go positive as we take down many parties, but each time I check it looks about the same cost. It could be nothing though as I didn't watch very closely and I don't really know how much loot they were supposed to get.

Also do they boost projects in thier fiefs with gold?
 

Bannerman Man

C# Sleuth
Knight
I found this bug some days ago which probably explains the lords going to bankrupt too fast:
Yeah I noticed that happening too. No doubt that would have a substantial impact on expenses.

Could there be a problem with thier loot to gold process?
It looks like they made some minor adjustments to the expected loot value formula that will reduce the value of loot slighty for both players and npcs. Confirmed that it still converts their loot to gold no problem though.

The old formula is:
0.5 * (50 + (CharacterLevel * CharacterLevel)) where CharacterLevel is the level (not tier) of the troop that's being looted (e.g. T1 troops are level 6).

The new formula is:
0.4 * (60 + (CharacterLevel * CharacterLevel))
Also do they boost projects in thier fiefs with gold?
Nope, that's a player only mechanic. Good thought though.
 

Askey

Veteran
I guessing they don't test the updates before they release them. Oh what am I saying, we are the testers.
 

caledoni

Sergeant
Yeah, this is something I have been thinking about. Something like a trade perk which unlocks workshops/caravans instead of renown. For example:

Trade skill 25: unlock first workshop or first caravan
Trade 50: +1 workshops or +1 caravan
Trade 100: +1 workshops or +1 caravan
Trade 150: +1 workshops or +1 caravan
Trade 200: +1 workshops or +1 caravan
Trade 250: +1 workshops or +1 caravan
Trade 300: +1 workshops or +1 caravan

This way the player do not get access to everything for free while the poor AI just gets money from fiefs and loot.
I quite like this idea but IMO Trade already has one of the best Perk trees. Adding your suggestion would make it pretty much essential for every playthrough. Bear in mind that Trade has the Renown for workshop perk as well as 'Spring of gold' and 'Everything has a price'.

Loot is pretty lucrative income at the moment. I guess nerfing that would have more effect on the player than the AI? If so then surely a better option than nerfing fiefs.

Perhaps reducing item value in general is the answer. This would also help nerf selling crafted items. It doesn't really matter if the player can buy good items (because they are cheaper) early on when they can just marry and steal 200K armour pieces anyway.
 

Julio-Claudian

Knight at Arms
Isn't the 'constant warfare' thing supposed to be necessary because AI clans mainly get money from raiding? So now they have even less money, is there more raiding and war going on in 1.6.1?
 

Pejot

Sergeant Knight
WBVC
I quite like this idea but IMO Trade already has one of the best Perk trees. Adding your suggestion would make it pretty much essential for every playthrough. Bear in mind that Trade has the Renown for workshop perk as well as 'Spring of gold' and 'Everything has a price'.

Loot is pretty lucrative income at the moment. I guess nerfing that would have more effect on the player than the AI? If so then surely a better option than nerfing fiefs.

Perhaps reducing item value in general is the answer. This would also help nerf selling crafted items. It doesn't really matter if the player can buy good items (because they are cheaper) early on when they can just marry and steal 200K armour pieces anyway.

It won't make it mandatory if other income sources become profitable. If fief and merc contract income starts being profitable You'll have a choice to rush the trade skill for profit and focus on being merchant or focus on fighting/becoming vassal/king.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
It won't make it mandatory if other income sources become profitable. If fief and merc contract income starts being profitable You'll have a choice to rush the trade skill for profit and focus on being merchant or focus on fighting/becoming vassal/king.
To be honest, it was just an idea. Actually a lot of things would need a change before making workshops and caravans tied to trade skill.

Anyway, I am currently playing a campaign as mercenary without any workshop or caravan, and it is still pretty much doable. I can pay my expenses and still increase my treasure progressively.
 

Pejot

Sergeant Knight
WBVC
To be honest, it was just an idea. Actually a lot of things would need a change before making workshops and caravans tied to trade skill.

Anyway, I am currently playing a campaign as mercenary without any workshop or caravan, and it is still pretty much doable. I can pay my expenses and still increase my treasure progressively.

I'm not saying it's not doable right now. It's just that whatever Youwant to roleplay You're always forced to fight to maintain a decent army. Playing as merc is ok but if You want it to be profitable You need to sell tons of loot cause contract alone is not enough to be able to participate in harder fights.

In my opinion merc contract would work better if You have guaranted income based on your paty quality and quantity and number of wars at the same time + bonus for each battle instead of basing it purely on influence. Basically it is possible to restrict it with current mechanics by changing drop rate of inluence after certain point so if You won't participate in fights for longer time You'll still lose base income. On the other hand with this mechanic You won't have to fight tens of battles everyday just to cover the wages and food.

It's not that it is hard to earn money right now but for me it's to grindy. And at certain point You're always forced to relay on all available income sources without the chance to focus.

P.S.

Also no focus option for player is making it harder for AI since they have single income sources and they are nerfed just so the player won't have advantage. But instead of nerfing everything and allowing player to use all options at the same time it would be better to make each option profitable but force the player to focus on one or two instead.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
I'm not saying it's not doable right now. It's just that whatever Youwant to roleplay You're always forced to fight to maintain a decent army. Playing as merc is ok but if You want it to be profitable You need to sell tons of loot cause contract alone is not enough to be able to participate in harder fights.

In my opinion merc contract would work better if You have guaranted income based on your paty quality and quantity and number of wars at the same time + bonus for each battle instead of basing it purely on influence. Basically it is possible to restrict it with current mechanics by changing drop rate of inluence after certain point so if You won't participate in fights for longer time You'll still lose base income. On the other hand with this mechanic You won't have to fight tens of battles everyday just to cover the wages and food.

It's not that it is hard to earn money right now but for me it's to grindy. And at certain point You're always forced to relay on all available income sources without the chance to focus.

P.S.

Also no focus option for player is making it harder for AI since they have single income sources and they are nerfed just so the player won't have advantage. But instead of nerfing everything and allowing player to use all options at the same time it would be better to make each option profitable but force the player to focus on one or two instead.

Yeah, I get what you say. The problem is what has been mentioned here, and it is that the player is just able to get money from tons of sources while the AI does not. I am currently playing smithing for the first time in my current campaign and OMG... I have 3 million at day 300 or so.

Not sure about the best way to avoid the players getting rich, but I am sure about fiefs income should not get nerfed. We have got a hotfix today to fix the recruiting/disbanding units loop, but still most of lords are going to bankrupt pretty fast.

@Bannerman Man I have just started a new test campaign today and at day 50, I have used cheats to get ownership of Sargot, Galend, and Talivel Castle, and this is the result:


As you can see, the Derthert's clan is getting a negative income daily without even take into account party wages. Not sure why Galend has such an excessively expensive garrison. Maybe the starting properity for settlements should be revised, together with increasing tax income to 36% again.
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
@Dabos37 with the new increase to tiers of recruitable troops I wonder if party wages have increased enough to cause this effect of bankrupting clans. My guess is it would impact garrisons as well

With a decrease to taxes and an increase in party wages it’s no wonder this issue is going on

wish I could help test lol
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
@Dabos37 with the new increase to tiers of recruitable troops I wonder if party wages have increased enough to cause this effect of bankrupting clans. My guess is it would impact garrisons as well

With a decrease to taxes and an increase in party wages it’s no wonder this issue is going on

wish I could help test lol

Not sure, I have the feeling that we have had this issue since 1.6.0, and it just made worse after 1.6.1 due to fiefs income nerf, higher recruitable units, and who knows if anything else.

I am testing a new campaign increasing fiefs income to 40%, and while it is better, some kingdoms are still totally poor. Vlandia has tons of 40-60 men parties and all clans are poor.
 
Top Bottom