Information about developments at snowballing problem

Users who are viewing this thread

Agree and thanks for the data provided so we can see how the development team has constructed it as i love the deepth youre putting in to it. Even if theres something else here that im feeling is missing like the affect of the AI around you towards that faction you choose to pick which you mentioned is a bug ofc. But since now when im roaming around with Khuzaits the game feels more stable and longer... even if we do have a lot more troops at hand and get them in the long run. But it could be because the actual battles are making them loose more troops which prolongs the conquering which make us come back to the bonus..... but it also affects the diplomacy on how factions react from what ive seen so far. South Empire are now even conquering alot of west and Aserai now playing as Khuzaits and we have never been in war--- which i havent seen before playing as the others....Could been a quick fix patch i guess just to hold it for now. I mean 615 days and we havent been at war once with South Empire and never been in peace with Aserai to which we where at war with from the start :smile:

IIIWIqo.png


With this said i want an M&B game not some preset later Total War games. As i remember ex The nords could either go in to an full campaign against Vaegirs instead of Swadia early on in different games or heck even not at the start. See where im getting at here :wink: But sure those times where different terrain though and more open ground with lesser choke points in some way even if Nords had some as well as Khergits to. And all these factors to without food shortage and such, as being solved due time so..... I know youre in stages that quick fixes needs to be there to hold up some sort of structure right now, but im just saying
 
Last edited:
I guess with those changes there will be less easy picking on weak factions.
It will be better to attack faction that is overstretched.
I like it.
 
This is an update I can say "Well done". Clearly explained with proper data and graphs.

Small Suggestion:
As far as I know, this data isn't included in the game's save files and therefore it's hard for you to track this behaviour when someone reports it. Perhaps this can be added into game's save files.
Or better, perhaps we can also have a visual overview of this type fo data
g5li1.png
in a screen like this
ZfFVTY.jpg
so that we can see what's happening and what to do and so on.
 
This is an update I can say "Well done". Clearly explained with proper data and graphs.

Small Suggestion:
As far as I know, this data isn't included in the game's save files and therefore it's hard for you to track this behaviour when someone reports it. Perhaps this can be added into game's save files.
Or better, perhaps we can also have a visual overview of this type fo data
g5li1.png
in a screen like this
ZfFVTY.jpg
so that we can see what's happening and what to do and so on.
@emrozdemir This is a good idea, could something like this be done (if the data was being tracked)?
 
This is an update I can say "Well done". Clearly explained with proper data and graphs.

Small Suggestion:
As far as I know, this data isn't included in the game's save files and therefore it's hard for you to track this behaviour when someone reports it. Perhaps this can be added into game's save files.
Or better, perhaps we can also have a visual overview of this type fo data
g5li1.png
in a screen like this
ZfFVTY.jpg
so that we can see what's happening and what to do and so on.
Wow that is a great idea Why can`t I think of theses things.
 
@mexxico did these tests take into account whether the not voting of fiefs bug was happening and causing clans to leave because of it?\
If not the results could be tainted because that bug will have clans leave it faster than normal
 
Nice changes, I have one suggestion:
Make lords defect from strong factions if their relations with other clans are low.
So instead of just buffing weak factions, you also introduce destabilization of strong countries. This could become especially common when the faction leader keeps granting himself fiefs instead of giving them to the weakest and poorest clans in his country, Then those would just leave and join someone nominally weaker, even if their original faction is very strong.
 
Thank you Mexxico for being the most interactive single player developer. Your work is appreciated.

I see that AI-only tricks and ruleset keep increasing with each patch such as income sharing. It would be nice and informative to see the complete list of AI-only behaviors and mechanics.
 
I also wanted to see this graph inside game (like age of empires do) not as strength but as fiefs and suggested one year ago before EA. It was not accepted these days. Maybe if community want this it can be reevaluated.

Something like this :
Exactly. Something like that would be useful for players and would provide nice statistics throughout the campaign.
I guess game itself doesn't have any graphs in it right now so this should be created as GUI widget/template first.
 
I also wanted to see this graph inside game (like age of empires do) not as strength but as fiefs and suggested one year ago before EA. It was not accepted these days. Maybe if community want this it can be reevaluated.

Something like this :
1PymN.jpg
This is what I was thinking too! That is very disappointing to here it was rejected.

I understand it likely isn't a high priority compared to other things, but there is nothing more that I love than being able to see the history of my gameplay laid out visually like AOE does.

Also its funny you bring up AOE, it has always been part of my description of Warband. Being essentially AOE, my favorite game before Warband, but you actually get to fight in the battles.
 
Thank you Mexxico for being the most interactive single player developer. Your work is appreciated.

I see that AI-only tricks and ruleset keep increasing with each patch such as income sharing. It would be nice and informative to see the complete list of AI-only behaviors and mechanics.

I know it is not good having AI only tricks but this addition can be applied to player also in future. I did not want to take risk. We can start with npc clans first. It can change in future. I can give you a list next week.

Nice changes, I have one suggestion:
Make lords defect from strong factions if their relations with other clans are low.
So instead of just buffing weak factions, you also introduce destabilization of strong countries. This could become especially common when the faction leader keeps granting himself fiefs instead of giving them to the weakest and poorest clans in his country, Then those would just leave and join someone nominally weaker, even if their original faction is very strong.

Actually with these developments clans now also start to take relations with other clans into calculation, I mentioned this inside post. In 1.5.4 only relation with king is important but with 1.5.6 relation with other clans will also effect defections.
 
Last edited:
This is what I was thinking too! That is very disappointing to here it was rejected.

I understand it likely isn't a high priority compared to other things, but there is nothing more that I love than being able to see the history of my gameplay laid out visually like AOE does.

Also its funny you bring up AOE, it has always been part of my description of Warband. Being essentially AOE, my favorite game before Warband, but you actually get to fight in the battles.
he said if the community wants it can be revaluated, good idea to make a most and lets get the community on board
 
Actually with these developments clans now also start to take relations with other clans into calculation. In 1.5.4 only relation with king is important but with 1.5.6 relation with other clans will also effect defections.
Now That is a great dynamic, it's somewhat out of your control, but very realistic, some clans just hate each other and dont want to be around them
 
Yeah, very good analysis.

But the kingdom budget is something i struggle with. A healthy clan want normaly 3 Towns and 2M denars for joining me. A poor clan is happy that he get at least something. If a Clan can´t get poor, it will be alot harder to get vassals.

Of course there still will be poor clans. Only their percentage will be less and maybe you need to spend more effort discovering them and they can start appearing a bit late (like after first 7-9 years at least) comparing 1.5.4. And usually there will not be a millioner lord in a kingdom which has several poor clans. I can give you more tables next week for comparision. So player still will be able to recruit lords. This is important as you said.

Actually in one table you can see counts of lords having <15K gold after developments, they are 60% less compared to 1.5.4 and they start to occur a bit late (I will give 1.5.4 poor clan leaders data later)
s0rFN.png


After all conquering world in Bannerlord of course will be harder compared to 1.5.4
 
Last edited:
There is one other consideration - a mechanism that is stronger to allow factions that are without settlements to be able to bounce back. This was explored in the original post and I think needs to be eliaborated on.

Maybe some sort of an income and food bonus for factions without any settlements that used to be major factions?

Weakened factions cannot make comebacks, you can see this from graph and datas. This make OP factions work easier when conquering half of world. When a faction go below 10 control points (something like 3 towns and 4 castles (3 x 2 + 4 x 1 = 10)) they cannot go up 15 again. This make game also a bit boring because you know that a weakened faction cannot save themselves from that bad situation. This is a bit related to financial problems they are having however when I deeply examined I see they also cannot form even armies. Because influence incomes are nearly all related to settlements they have. When a kingdom lose their settlements they also remain without influence. Then they cannot form even armies. To fix this problem I removed one condition at influence gain from supporter notables. Now supporter notables of a clan give influence to clans even owner of their settlement is another clan. So this is a good passive influence income for NPC clans. Even they lose their settlements they can gain influence from their supporters. After this change weakened factions become more resistant, they started to form armies and started to take get back their lost settlements.

I propose:
  1. While an AI faction has no settlements, they get volunteers that are willing to fight for free, which would become a reduced charge with a few settlements and full cost at full settlements (this would be AI only and be applied on a per clan basis)
  2. No influence cost for raising armies for AI factions with no settlements and reduced influence costs the fewer settlements they control
  3. I know that the rebellion needs to be expanded on later, but on idea is that AI parties get the ability to raise a rebellion for captured settlements of their own culture (ex: lowering the loyalty of captured settlements)
  4. Losing clans will have more dead lords (from battles they lost). They should have more kids too replace their dead and maybe even someone "adopted" into the family.

This would give a much bigger chance for comebacks as the clans get underwhelmed.



I also wanted to see this graph inside game (like age of empires do) not as strength but as fiefs and suggested one year ago before EA. It was not accepted these days. Maybe if community want this it can be reevaluated.

Something like this :
1PymN.jpg

That would be a very good idea. Nice explanation by the way, very good explanations.

It's a good match of relative strength. Maybe adjust for income or prosperity of each settlement (ex: castles are less valuable). For example, a 1000 prosperity settlement is worth less than a >10000 prosperity settlement.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom