Information about developments at snowballing problem

Users who are viewing this thread

Yes I reported this to armagan 4-5 months ago then we slowed down process by about 50%. I know it is still a problem, we only delayed it. I think we need more town projects & maybe more levels. I can open its discussion later. About other questions I will answer later.

Some potential solutions to this:

1. Siege Damage:
(Many above me also mentioned this to some extent)
Sieges could cause damage to buildings (upgrades) either temporarily or semi-permanently. An idea of how this could be implemented:
If a building receives damage it starts as a temporary downgrade, but if it is not repaired X amount of time the destruction becomes permanent. All permenant downgrades would then have the opportunity to upgrade at full cost. This could also be an area that perks could effect the chances of destructive damage, either for or against. As others have said, including @Blood Gryphon, an occupy, pillage, raze type option would also neatly tie in here.

2. Unrest/Rebellion Mechanic:
I know there are plans to implement a rebellion mechanic, including utilizing the current loyalty scores, but this could also potentially resolve the eventual T3 to all buildings problem. Damage during rebellion/revolts/unrest could use the same general mechanic as in point 1: temporary damage that can turn into semi-permanent downgrades (the option to upgrade again at full cost)
This could also provide the PC a lot of quest opportunities to incite unrest in a city, similar in war band peace time quests to pit faction A into war with faction B, but maybe utilizing the beautiful city scenes more :smile:

3. Gang Wars/Involvement:
I think the last part of #2 ties we’ll into this idea, but providing an opportunity for collateral damage from gang wars. Or finding a way to involve the “underground” when making sabotage type missions either from direct building damage or inciting civic unrest and the damage that causes.

4. Prosperity/taxation/maintenance costs.
Financial and economic ruin causing buildings to degrade would likely be more difficult to implement compared to siege damage, but absolutely immersive and potentially highly effective. Considering this would be balancing economic items, this actually sounds like you might be the best person for this one, @mexxico. I did not originally have #4 on my list when I started typing this response prior to reading the rest of the thread, credit to @Akka Post above me.

Edit: typed this on my phone and I’m sure there are still typos.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure if it would be a good idea to destroy buildings when you win in the defense of a town. Depending of the rate at which your buildings get destroyed it could be pretty hard to get to any progress with a building if you own a town that is sieged more often(if the AI gets told to prefer objectives near the border and not to walk by all settlements to get a castle at the other end of the world)^^
For the AI this could be fine but for players who want to see some progress and who are also much better at defending their keeps it could become more of a burden than a advantage to get any castle near borders with enemies.They had to invest again and again into building things only to see it getting destroyed.
In my opinion the option to get damaged buildings by revolts or civil unrest is a better way to reduce building levels. It is more interactive and doesn't requiere you to win a whole war just to stop your buildings from getting destroyed. We haven't seen the details of the new rebellions but I expect it to be a lot more interactive for all lords compared to winning wars which is possible for late game but it will be pretty hard for a player who just got his first keep.
 
I am not sure if it would be a good idea to destroy buildings when you win in the defense of a town. Depending of the rate at which your buildings get destroyed it could be pretty hard to get to any progress with a building if you own a town that is sieged more often(if the AI gets told to prefer objectives near the border and not to walk by all settlements to get a castle at the other end of the world)^^
For the AI this could be fine but for players who want to see some progress and who are also much better at defending their keeps it could become more of a burden than a advantage to get any castle near borders with enemies.They had to invest again and again into building things only to see it getting destroyed.
In my opinion the option to get damaged buildings by revolts or civil unrest is a better way to reduce building levels. It is more interactive and doesn't requiere you to win a whole war just to stop your buildings from getting destroyed. We haven't seen the details of the new rebellions but I expect it to be a lot more interactive for all lords compared to winning wars which is possible for late game but it will be pretty hard for a player who just got his first keep.
Faith points, but aren’t frontier and border towns inherently at greater risk to destruction in wartime? Even if you repel an enemy assault, it doesn’t necessarily guarantee that your city can escape unscathed.

That said, I am in 100% agreement that sieges should not be the only way to see development downgrades and that successfully defending your holding has a much lower chance of destruction/downgrades compared to having it pillaged.
 
Faith points, but aren’t frontier and border towns inherently at greater risk to destruction in wartime? Even if you repel an enemy assault, it doesn’t necessarily guarantee that your city can escape unscathed.

That said, I am in 100% agreement that sieges should not be the only way to see development downgrades and that successfully defending your holding has a much lower chance of destruction/downgrades compared to having it pillaged.
You are right in reality but my point was more about the fun or frustration for players and i think to make it relevant in a larger balancing perspective it would be too often for players. If the overall pace of the game was slower and sieges were a very rare thing it would perhaps be a option.

Especialy for players who build their own kingdom with only a few towns and strong enemies the only option to prevent your buildings from getting destroyed again and again would be field battles that prevent the enemies from reaching your town and they won't have the manpower. Also it has the negative effect of binding you closer to your city because you have to react faster to prevent destruction. So overall you could get many different problems and burdens for the player and your only gain would be that he has to build the same thing he has built already(perhaps multiple times) again. And i am pretty sure that this is nothing many players would enjoy.
 
Some potential solutions to this:

1. Siege Damage:
(Many above me also mentioned this to some extent)
Sieges could cause damage to buildings (upgrades) either temporarily or semi-permanently. An idea of how this could be implemented:
If a building receives damage it starts as a temporary downgrade, but if it is not repaired X amount of time the destruction becomes permanent. All permenant downgrades would then have the opportunity to upgrade at full cost. This could also be an area that perks could effect the chances of destructive damage, either for or against. As others have said, including @Blood Gryphon, an occupy, pillage, raze type option would also neatly tie in here.

2. Unrest/Rebellion Mechanic:
I know there are plans to implement a rebellion mechanic, including utilizing the current loyalty scores, but this could also potentially resolve the eventual T3 to all buildings problem. Damage during rebellion/revolts/unrest could use the same general mechanic as in point 1: temporary damage that can turn into semi-permanent downgrades (the option to upgrade again at full cost)
This could also provide the PC a lot of quest opportunities to incite unrest in a city, similar in war band peace time quests to pit faction A into war with faction B, but maybe utilizing the beautiful city scenes more :smile:

3. Gang Wars/Involvement:
I think the last part of #2 ties we’ll into this idea, but providing an opportunity for collateral damage from gang wars. Or finding a way to involve the “underground” when making sabotage type missions either from direct building damage or inciting civic unrest and the damage that causes.

4. Prosperity/taxation/maintenance costs.
Financial and economic ruin causing buildings to degrade would likely be more difficult to implement compared to siege damage, but absolutely immersive and potentially highly effective. Considering this would be balancing economic items, this actually sounds like you might be the best person for this one, @mexxico. I did not originally have #4 on my list when I started typing this response prior to reading the rest of the thread, credit to @Akka Post above me.

Edit: typed this on my phone and I’m sure there are still typos.
I love these ideas. I think the longer a settlement is besieged, the more damaged the settlement should be. It could force the hand of the defenders to sally out (don't want their settlement destroyed) or force the hand of the attackers (they don't want to capture a nearly razed settlement) depending on the personalities and priorities of the lords. It would also introduce some recurring costs to reduce the financial snowballing.

I think I'd also like to see something like building slots or something in settlements where you are forced to make some choices about the developments in the settlement. Right now, given enough time, you can max out all the buildings in the settlement and there's no real strategy or decision-making required. Just dump a bunch of money in to speed it up and prioritize certain ones over others in the order of development, but other than that, that's it.
 
Some potential solutions to this:

1. Siege Damage:
(Many above me also mentioned this to some extent)
Sieges could cause damage to buildings (upgrades) either temporarily or semi-permanently. An idea of how this could be implemented:
If a building receives damage it starts as a temporary downgrade, but if it is not repaired X amount of time the destruction becomes permanent. All permenant downgrades would then have the opportunity to upgrade at full cost. This could also be an area that perks could effect the chances of destructive damage, either for or against. As others have said, including @Blood Gryphon, an occupy, pillage, raze type option would also neatly tie in here.

Edit: typed this on my phone and I’m sure there are still typos.

Yes this solution already thought. Only bad side of it is currently besieger mostly win the siege and capture settlement (this is another problem and yes we should make this ratio less, especially mission side siege for player is so easy not challenging = its reason is now in Bannerlord we have multiple ledders + siege equipments for attackers and number of attacker agents getting inside castle / town per minute is more compared to Warband. Warband sieges seem really annoying with only one ladder and agents were so crowded on that ladder (or siege tower) they were moving very slow but this problem made Warband sieges more challenging for attacker, attackers were losing so much men during siege because of this problem. When any attacker make his first step on enemy fortification he was attacked by many defenders at same time and there was only one enterance. Also while attackers are at ladder they were attacked by defender archers... Anyway this is another topic lets move on real topic) and after taking fortification winner side will be unhappy with destroyed projects. If we make this optional and if we damage projects if and only if attacker builds catapult / trebuchet then nobody will build catapults / trebuchets at preperation phase (for current situation). If we make catapults / trebuchets very effective and a must for taking a settlement - which is far from current situation - then this damage can be acceptable by player. Or besieger can make siege not for taking enemy town but only for damaging it's projects & enemy's economy but for this still sieges should be better for defensive side otherwise why they will do that rather than taking town. Attackers should lose 4-6x more man compared to defenders especially if they only attacked with ladders. We can easily do this in simulation but if mission side is very different from simulation it will not work well.

I know current siege design do not needs siege equipments much (for player siege especially) and this is something we need to develop. I inform mission side about this problem for long time. We need better siege defence AI (especially archers), more challenging sieges, we need more AI mechanics / tactics / equipments for better defence at sieges. Then player can feel he should build siege equipments to take that town. After all these we can add damaging projects during siege preperation / siege mission phase. So to apply this solution we need to solve other problems first otherwise it will not be a user-friendly feature.

Addition (Warband Siege) :
 
Last edited:
Yes this solution already thought. Only bad side of it is currently besieger mostly win the siege and capture settlement (this is another problem and yes we should make this ratio less, especially mission side siege for player is so easy not challenging = its reason is now in Bannerlord we have multiple ledders + siege equipments for attackers and number of attacker agents getting inside castle / town per minute is more compared to Warband. Warband sieges seem really annoying with only one ladder and agents were so crowded on that ladder (or siege tower) they were moving very slow but this problem made Warband sieges more challenging for attacker, attackers were losing so much men during siege because of this problem. When any attacker make his first step on enemy fortification he was attacked by many defenders at same time and there was only one enterance. Also while attackers are at ladder they were attacked by defender archers... Anyway this is another topic lets move on real topic) and after taking fortification winner side will be unhappy with destroyed projects. If we make this optional and if we damage projects if and only if attacker builds catapult / trebuchet then nobody will build catapults / trebuchets at preperation phase (for current situation). If we make catapults / trebuchets very effective and a must for taking a settlement - which is far from current situation - then this damage can be acceptable by player. Or besieger can make siege not for taking enemy town but only for damaging it's projects & enemy's economy but for this still sieges should be better for defensive side otherwise why they will do that rather than taking town. Attackers should lose 4-6x more man compared to defenders especially if they only attacked with ladders. We can easily do this in simulation but if mission side is very different from simulation it will not work well.

I know current siege design do not needs siege equipments much (for player siege especially) and this is something we need to develop. I inform mission side about this problem for long time. We need better siege defence AI (especially archers), more challenging sieges, we need more AI mechanics / tactics / equipments for better defence at sieges. Then player can feel he should build siege equipments to take that town. After all these we can add damaging projects during siege preperation / siege mission phase. So to apply this solution we need to solve other problems first otherwise it will not be a user-friendly feature.

Addition (Warband Siege) :

Wow. That is a solid analysis of the issues, many of which I didn't really consider but definitely agree with. I'm really glad you are aware of these things and have ideas for how to address them. You're the best!
 
Yes this solution already thought. Only bad side of it is currently besieger mostly win the siege and capture settlement (this is another problem and yes we should make this ratio less, especially mission side siege for player is so easy not challenging = its reason is now in Bannerlord we have multiple ledders + siege equipments for attackers and number of attacker agents getting inside castle / town per minute is more compared to Warband. Warband sieges seem really annoying with only one ladder and agents were so crowded on that ladder (or siege tower) they were moving very slow but this problem made Warband sieges more challenging for attacker, attackers were losing so much men during siege because of this problem. When any attacker make his first step on enemy fortification he was attacked by many defenders at same time and there was only one enterance. Also while attackers are at ladder they were attacked by defender archers... Anyway this is another topic lets move on real topic) and after taking fortification winner side will be unhappy with destroyed projects. If we make this optional and if we damage projects if and only if attacker builds catapult / trebuchet then nobody will build catapults / trebuchets at preperation phase (for current situation). If we make catapults / trebuchets very effective and a must for taking a settlement - which is far from current situation - then this damage can be acceptable by player. Or besieger can make siege not for taking enemy town but only for damaging it's projects & enemy's economy but for this still sieges should be better for defensive side otherwise why they will do that rather than taking town. Attackers should lose 4-6x more man compared to defenders especially if they only attacked with ladders. We can easily do this in simulation but if mission side is very different from simulation it will not work well.

I know current siege design do not needs siege equipments much (for player siege especially) and this is something we need to develop. I inform mission side about this problem for long time. We need better siege defence AI (especially archers), more challenging sieges, we need more AI mechanics / tactics / equipments for better defence at sieges. Then player can feel he should build siege equipments to take that town. After all these we can add damaging projects during siege preperation / siege mission phase. So to apply this solution we need to solve other problems first otherwise it will not be a user-friendly feature.

Addition (Warband Siege) :


Great post! I have been a big supporter of better siege defense. (y)
 
I know current siege design do not needs siege equipments much (for player siege especially) and this is something we need to develop. I inform mission side about this problem for long time. We need better siege defence AI (especially archers), more challenging sieges, we need more AI mechanics / tactics / equipments for better defence at sieges. Then player can feel he should build siege equipments to take that town. After all these we can add damaging projects during siege preperation / siege mission phase. So to apply this solution we need to solve other problems first otherwise it will not be a user-friendly feature.

Addition (Warband Siege) :


make it so defenders can use fire to destroy siege equipment like rams and siege towers more easily. like ammunition for ballistas could be greek fire pots. and fire arrows for regular archers. there are already fire baskets on some of the ramperts, you only need to implement the mechanics.
 
make it so defenders can use fire to destroy siege equipment like rams and siege towers more easily. like ammunition for ballistas could be greek fire pots. and fire arrows for regular archers. there are already fire baskets on some of the ramperts, you only need to implement the mechanics.
There are fire ballistas and catapults already, but its locked behind an engineering perk which isnt active yet. But you can test them out in custom battles where they do work. braziers with fire arrows would be amazing for defenses

Mexxico idk if this is in your ability to change, but please let the player have control over building defensive siege equipment, right now its controlled purely by AI even when the player is the owner of that settlement.
 
Last edited:
Yes this solution already thought. Only bad side of it is currently besieger mostly win the siege and capture settlement (this is another problem and yes we should make this ratio less, especially mission side siege for player is so easy not challenging = its reason is now in Bannerlord we have multiple ledders + siege equipments for attackers and number of attacker agents getting inside castle / town per minute is more compared to Warband. Warband sieges seem really annoying with only one ladder and agents were so crowded on that ladder (or siege tower) they were moving very slow but this problem made Warband sieges more challenging for attacker, attackers were losing so much men during siege because of this problem. When any attacker make his first step on enemy fortification he was attacked by many defenders at same time and there was only one enterance. Also while attackers are at ladder they were attacked by defender archers... Anyway this is another topic lets move on real topic) and after taking fortification winner side will be unhappy with destroyed projects. If we make this optional and if we damage projects if and only if attacker builds catapult / trebuchet then nobody will build catapults / trebuchets at preperation phase (for current situation). If we make catapults / trebuchets very effective and a must for taking a settlement - which is far from current situation - then this damage can be acceptable by player. Or besieger can make siege not for taking enemy town but only for damaging it's projects & enemy's economy but for this still sieges should be better for defensive side otherwise why they will do that rather than taking town. Attackers should lose 4-6x more man compared to defenders especially if they only attacked with ladders. We can easily do this in simulation but if mission side is very different from simulation it will not work well.

I know current siege design do not needs siege equipments much (for player siege especially) and this is something we need to develop. I inform mission side about this problem for long time. We need better siege defence AI (especially archers), more challenging sieges, we need more AI mechanics / tactics / equipments for better defence at sieges. Then player can feel he should build siege equipments to take that town. After all these we can add damaging projects during siege preperation / siege mission phase. So to apply this solution we need to solve other problems first otherwise it will not be a user-friendly feature.

Addition (Warband Siege) :

It is great to know that the actual developers know the issues about sieges, which can mean they will fix them. Really thanks
 
Yes this solution already thought. Only bad side of it is currently besieger mostly win the siege and capture settlement (this is another problem and yes we should make this ratio less, especially mission side siege for player is so easy not challenging = its reason is now in Bannerlord we have multiple ledders + siege equipments for attackers and number of attacker agents getting inside castle / town per minute is more compared to Warband. Warband sieges seem really annoying with only one ladder and agents were so crowded on that ladder (or siege tower) they were moving very slow but this problem made Warband sieges more challenging for attacker, attackers were losing so much men during siege because of this problem. When any attacker make his first step on enemy fortification he was attacked by many defenders at same time and there was only one enterance. Also while attackers are at ladder they were attacked by defender archers... Anyway this is another topic lets move on real topic) and after taking fortification winner side will be unhappy with destroyed projects. If we make this optional and if we damage projects if and only if attacker builds catapult / trebuchet then nobody will build catapults / trebuchets at preperation phase (for current situation). If we make catapults / trebuchets very effective and a must for taking a settlement - which is far from current situation - then this damage can be acceptable by player. Or besieger can make siege not for taking enemy town but only for damaging it's projects & enemy's economy but for this still sieges should be better for defensive side otherwise why they will do that rather than taking town. Attackers should lose 4-6x more man compared to defenders especially if they only attacked with ladders. We can easily do this in simulation but if mission side is very different from simulation it will not work well.

I know current siege design do not needs siege equipments much (for player siege especially) and this is something we need to develop. I inform mission side about this problem for long time. We need better siege defence AI (especially archers), more challenging sieges, we need more AI mechanics / tactics / equipments for better defence at sieges. Then player can feel he should build siege equipments to take that town. After all these we can add damaging projects during siege preperation / siege mission phase. So to apply this solution we need to solve other problems first otherwise it will not be a user-friendly feature.

Addition (Warband Siege) :

I think its a fair tradeoff that if you take a town, you'll need to repair or rebuild all the buildings. Often in the late game, you take a town and every building's already maxed out, so there's nothing left to build. I'd even be perfectly fine if every building just automatically downgraded to a lower stage regardless of whether you used siege weapons or not.
 
I think its a fair tradeoff that if you take a town, you'll need to repair or rebuild all the buildings. Often in the late game, you take a town and every building's already maxed out, so there's nothing left to build. I'd even be perfectly fine if every building just automatically downgraded to a lower stage regardless of whether you used siege weapons or not.
exactly, when you siege then improvements can get damaged as well so your marketplace could go from level 3 down to 2 or 1. Just weird right now that once you build all improvements that they all stay perfect after a siege everytime, even if a siege fails then improvements can get damaged
 
Since the topic has drifted away from snowballing:
1.
I would like to see more unique buildings for each faction(comparison TW:WH2) . Atm every castle and town has the same. It will get boring to rebuild every castle/town cause they all have the same buildings.
E.g. Marunath, building: fian training field
Bonus: notables of this town have x% chance to offer noble recruits

2.
Maybe take for the variations of buildings,in castle/towns, the primary production of the surrounding villages into account.


3.Rename and attach different icons for the buildings for each faction. So the player needs to look which building provide which bonus. Atm after the third castle, the player knows what to build and can handle this with closed eyes.
 
Last edited:
This is definitely the development that has my attention the most and keen to see how it plays out. Regarding the issue of maxed out cities, I wouldn't be disappointed at all to find some buildings damaged after I've taken a city or castle in a siege - in fact I'd expect it. The attacker isn't really "losing" anything; even if every building is reduced to level 1 it is still a net gain for the attacking faction because they took the city and associated villages. Having to rebuild is just part and parcel of territory gain in war. Personally, I'd rather build the siege engines, damage the city and give me the best chance of retaining as many of my troops as possible than skip out on engines to save the buildings at the expense of higher casualties during the battle. For me at least, the desire to minimise casualties is number 1 priority in any engagement.

I'm also wholeheartedly behind Medivhtratos's suggestion above for culture-specific buildings. In my mind, they should be reduced to level 0 whenever the culture of the city/castle's owner changes (to allow the new owner to build to their own cultural preferences), even if peacefully passed from one owner to another in a culturally diverse kingdom. CK2 has a similar mechanic for its culture-specific buildings. It's actually really annoying in CK2 because the player's culture can change from character to character, causing the player to lose upgrades in a region they've continuously controlled, but given the player's culture is fixed in this game that shouldn't be a problem. Certainly anything which allows a fief to become more "personalised" is a positive for me. Even having characters' personality traits open up new building options would be good. For instance, cruel characters could build torture rooms which provide a bonus to roguery or siege defence, with the upgrade destroyed when the castle is taken over by a player without the cruel trait.
 
It's actually really annoying in CK2 because the player's culture can change from character to character, causing the player to lose upgrades in a region they've continuously controlled, but given the player's culture is fixed in this game that shouldn't be a problem.

Heirs in BL can be of a different culture.
 
It is great to know that the actual developers know the issues about sieges, which can mean they will fix them. Really thanks

Unfortunately knowing the problems does not mean they will be 100% fixed. I am trying to underline this problem for long time (started 2-3 years ago) however situation is still same. So I cannot give you a guarentee for fix. For any problem, (1) possible solutions need to be found and (2) these solutions need to be approved then (3) lastly they need to be applied. However step-2 is a bit hard to pass here.

For example currently a new feature rebellions is added to game. According to design after a rebellion occur a new clan is added to game. Yesterday I made a new test run and collect datas to see if everything is ok after rebellions is implemented and see that total clan count increases 1.5x in first 20 years so lord party counts too (actually lord party count become 2x more than clan count increase because all clans also tier up and spawn more parties by time). I prepaired charts / graphs / data tables and reported problem. Offered 2 different solutions for fixing this problem (npc clans to tier up 50% slower (yes it is a cheat not perfect solution but we need to slow down tier up process for npc clans to lower number of parties at late game, fast tiering up of npc clans is not important thing for gameplay it is only important for player to feel progress) & rebel clans to be removed from game if they cannot hold their initial settlements (most cannot hold)). These 2 solutions were solving problem mostly without damaging other mechanics. However they are not accepted and no new solution is offered yet. So this problem is left in game. So currently number of clans / lord parties at game consequently increases after rebellion feature. All efforts done previously for balancing game is damaged with this addition because now we have 2x party on map at late game (20-30 years after starting) it was 1.3x previously (from tier ups). So settlement per clan decreases by half by time, this decreases tax income average per clan, this increases ratio of poor lords so parties start to recruit less people to their parties, when all lords are poor and has less men they stop wars and all world go into peace. Also because of income decrease kingdoms stopped hiring mercenies at late game. As summary lots of balance and game mechanic get hurt after one new feature.

I am trying to give an example. As a dev we are not in so different situation with players. You play the game and see problems and you offer different solutions to your valid problems and when you see there is no development about your problem for long time you can feel that your possible solutions are not cared. However it is similar for us too and knowing the problem sometimes does not mean it will be fixed. We prepare tables offer solutions and sometimes nothing is done.

B75y8.png
xI4GT.png
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately knowing the problems does not mean they will be 100% fixed. I am trying to underline this problem for long time (started 2-3 years ago) however situation is still same. So I cannot give you a guarentee for fix. For any problem, (1) possible solutions need to be found and (2) these solutions need to be approved then (3) lastly they need to be applied. However step-2 is a bit hard to pass here.

For example currently a new feature rebellions is added to game. According to design after a rebellion occur a new clan is added to game. Yesterday I made a new test run and collect datas to see if everything is ok after rebellions is implemented and see that total clan count increases 1.5x in first 20 years so lord party counts too (actually lord party count become 2x more than clan count increase because all clans also tier up and spawn more parties by time). I prepaired charts / graphs / data tables and reported problem. Offered 2 different solutions for fixing this problem (npc clans to tier up 50% slower (yes it is a cheat not perfect solution but we need to slow down tier up process for npc clans, it is not important thing for gameplay) & rebel clans to be removed from game if they cannot hold their initial settlements (most cannot hold)). These 2 solutions were solving problem mostly without damaging other mechanics. However they are not accepted and no new solution is offered yet. So this problem is left in game. So currently number of clans / lord parties at game consequently increases after rebellion feature. All efforts done previously for balancing game is damaged with this addition because now we have 2x party on map at late game (20-30 years after starting) it was 1.3x previously (from tier ups). So settlement per clan decreases by half by time, this decreases tax income average per clan, this increases ratio of poor lords so parties start to recruit less people to their parties, when all lords are poor and has less men they stop wars and all world go into peace. Also because of income decrease kingdoms stopped hiring mercenies at late game. As summary lots of balance and game mechanic get hurt after one new feature.

I am trying to give an example. As a dev we are not in so different situation with players. You play the game and see problems and you offer different solutions to your valid problems and when you see there is no development about your problem for long time you can feel that your possible solutions are not cared. However it is similar for us too and knowing the problem sometimes does not mean it will be fixed. We prepare tables offer solutions and sometimes nothing is done.

B75y8.png
xI4GT.png
Thanks a lot for the clarification, great to have you talk openly about them. Now for the solutions that's a problem, maybe players will come with better solutions when the feature gets released?
 
Unfortunately knowing the problems does not mean they will be 100% fixed. I am trying to underline this problem for long time (started 2-3 years ago) however situation is still same. So I cannot give you a guarentee for fix. For any problem, (1) possible solutions need to be found and (2) these solutions need to be approved then (3) lastly they need to be applied. However step-2 is a bit hard to pass here.

For example currently a new feature rebellions is added to game. According to design after a rebellion occur a new clan is added to game. Yesterday I made a new test run and collect datas to see if everything is ok after rebellions is implemented and see that total clan count increases 1.5x in first 20 years so lord party counts too (actually lord party count become 2x more than clan count increase because all clans also tier up and spawn more parties by time). I prepaired charts / graphs / data tables and reported problem. Offered 2 different solutions for fixing this problem (npc clans to tier up 50% slower (yes it is a cheat not perfect solution but we need to slow down tier up process for npc clans to lower number of parties at late game, fast tiering up of npc clans is not important thing for gameplay it is only important for player to feel progress) & rebel clans to be removed from game if they cannot hold their initial settlements (most cannot hold)). These 2 solutions were solving problem mostly without damaging other mechanics. However they are not accepted and no new solution is offered yet. So this problem is left in game. So currently number of clans / lord parties at game consequently increases after rebellion feature. All efforts done previously for balancing game is damaged with this addition because now we have 2x party on map at late game (20-30 years after starting) it was 1.3x previously (from tier ups). So settlement per clan decreases by half by time, this decreases tax income average per clan, this increases ratio of poor lords so parties start to recruit less people to their parties, when all lords are poor and has less men they stop wars and all world go into peace. Also because of income decrease kingdoms stopped hiring mercenies at late game. As summary lots of balance and game mechanic get hurt after one new feature.

I am trying to give an example. As a dev we are not in so different situation with players. You play the game and see problems and you offer different solutions to your valid problems and when you see there is no development about your problem for long time you can feel that your possible solutions are not cared. However it is similar for us too and knowing the problem sometimes does not mean it will be fixed. We prepare tables offer solutions and sometimes nothing is done.

B75y8.png
xI4GT.png
maybe have the faction that the clan rebelled from execute the whole clan if they catch them (even years later)?
maybe have the execution not lower honor and lower relations loss with their friends?
(first they will be friendless and they can't hold their territory so i don't think it will affect relations for the AI)
 
That is really sad to hear tbh...

Is a poor way do develop something if people who make decisions just dodge problems. I will never understand why they do that.

If we finally recieve new content (rebelions), and is going to create more clans than persons on the map... I prefer just not having that feature. It makes no sense to launch a feature when they know the problem and have more than 1 solution....

Thanks for keep us informed again Mexxico.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom