-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Information about developments at snowballing problem
- 主题发起人 mexxico
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Squire
D0c1
Knight at Arms
i thought bannerlord was a medieval lord simulator...
i'm no historian. did lords depend on loot to pay the wages of their troops?
was winning battles this profitable?
did they go bankrupt during peace times?
i think war was profitable for lords in the sense of controlling a certain resource or a trade rout. not selling battle loot.
again, i'm no historian nor well read on the subject by any means.
maybe a history student can answer us
D0c1
Knight at Arms
trade penalty wasn't applied to lords' loot. they (i think mexxico) just applied it.
we're arguing what should be the main source of income for lords and the player.
I agree with tier connections but I don't agree with the rest. Clans are fielding more than one party so even smaller kingdoms wouldn't have a problem with gathering 10 lords for army. There's no minimum size for an army. You can raise one with single lord. Most of the armies I see contain of 4 to 6 lords. The biggest one I saw was 11 lords but I saw it only once. Adding minimum members number to army will balance it out cause in bigger and more wealthy kingdoms with higher tier clans raising army is more expensive in influence. So gathering armies containing at least 10 lords will limit the number of armies in the whole map no matter how big and wealthy is a kingdom. In my opinion it's better to have strong kingdoms raising 2-3 really big armies instead of 5-6 big. One thing is that when they start raising ton of different armies that are not coordinated in any way most kingdoms loose any ability to defend their realm cause everyone is in the armies instead of patrolling.
Yes, yes, yes, it depended.
However, this is the thread about fixing snowballing, so whether income should come from battle or control of resources (which I fully agree with) has pretty small bearing on the matter at hand. A faction that is snowballing will have far more money in either case and use that advantage (currently) to retain 100% of all clans that join them. The losing factions are rather less successful at this.
Dabos37
Sergeant Knight at Arms
@mexxico I have been thinking on the issue related to AI getting tons of T5 units in lategame, and I have the feeling that nerfing perks which give passive XP to units would be a mistake, due to the following reasons:
- These perks are actually pointless for the player in my view. We can easily get tons of T5 units pretty early in the game without the need of these perks. Units are getting an insane amount of XP in battles and getting a good number of T5 units in the first 20 campaign days is pretty easy. So the issue does not look related to these perks at all when we think on the player.
- Is the AI still getting the cheat to help to level up units faster, right? Not sure if it is a good moment to remove it (except if this means having to fight tons of recruits again).
- It is good that the AI lords are able to improve units to T2 and T3 fast, because fighting tons of shieldless recruits is quite boring, but T4, T5 and T6 units should be harder to get. Fighting full elite armies is as bad as fighting full recruits armies. High tier units should be harder to get for the player and for the AI.
- The perks do not feel OP for the player at all. I just get these perks due to upgrade faster low tier units and complete “train troops” quests faster. For getting T5 units, battles are by far the reason because we can get these units quite easily and without any effort now. You can fight 3-5 battles against looters and get tons of XP without much risk.
For these reasons, I think that the way to go should be increasing XP cost for upgrading units to T4, T5 and T6, while lower tiers remain at the same cost.
Another option could be removing the AI passive cheat or enabling this cheat just for T1, T2 and T3 units, while the player gets some kind of nerf for XP gaining in battles, but I prefer the first option. What people most hate is to have to play with and against tons of recruits, but getting tons of T5 units so easily as it is currently for the player is also a bad thing for the game IMO.
- These perks are actually pointless for the player in my view. We can easily get tons of T5 units pretty early in the game without the need of these perks. Units are getting an insane amount of XP in battles and getting a good number of T5 units in the first 20 campaign days is pretty easy. So the issue does not look related to these perks at all when we think on the player.
- Is the AI still getting the cheat to help to level up units faster, right? Not sure if it is a good moment to remove it (except if this means having to fight tons of recruits again).
- It is good that the AI lords are able to improve units to T2 and T3 fast, because fighting tons of shieldless recruits is quite boring, but T4, T5 and T6 units should be harder to get. Fighting full elite armies is as bad as fighting full recruits armies. High tier units should be harder to get for the player and for the AI.
- The perks do not feel OP for the player at all. I just get these perks due to upgrade faster low tier units and complete “train troops” quests faster. For getting T5 units, battles are by far the reason because we can get these units quite easily and without any effort now. You can fight 3-5 battles against looters and get tons of XP without much risk.
For these reasons, I think that the way to go should be increasing XP cost for upgrading units to T4, T5 and T6, while lower tiers remain at the same cost.
Another option could be removing the AI passive cheat or enabling this cheat just for T1, T2 and T3 units, while the player gets some kind of nerf for XP gaining in battles, but I prefer the first option. What people most hate is to have to play with and against tons of recruits, but getting tons of T5 units so easily as it is currently for the player is also a bad thing for the game IMO.
最后编辑:
We found problem about this @Dabos37. Two perks give +15 daily xp to all tiers and +30 to tier 1-2-3 tiers while other perks give only 1-2-3 xp per troop per day generally. It seems because of a code conflict effects of these two perks increased 10x. We will revert it. Currently half of world troops are tier-5 at mid and late game since 1.5.5, this damages economy (effects also snowball a bit) and gameplay balances. Players upgrade troops so fast also before developing their economy and upgrading troops is so easy because of these 2 perks. These are not good for gameplay. Effects of these 2 perks should be lowered.
We have about 10-12 perks giving passive xp to troops (some are party leader perks and some are governor perks) Each should give 1-2-3 xp per troop per day if perk is not giving xp to troops under some conditions. If there are conditions or xp is given to only some tiers then that perk can give 3-4-5 xp per day.
Other than these xp level needed for tier 4-5 can be increased a bit maybe as you suggested but this should be small increase.
We have about 10-12 perks giving passive xp to troops (some are party leader perks and some are governor perks) Each should give 1-2-3 xp per troop per day if perk is not giving xp to troops under some conditions. If there are conditions or xp is given to only some tiers then that perk can give 3-4-5 xp per day.
Other than these xp level needed for tier 4-5 can be increased a bit maybe as you suggested but this should be small increase.
最后编辑:
I agree with this. All passive xp gain for troops should be only for T1-T3. Higher tiers should be gained only through battles. You can't get veterans if You are not fighting.
Dabos37
Sergeant Knight at Arms
Ok, thanks Mexxico. On the other hand, I am noticing that I am being able to upgrade my units too fast just in battles, and not even taken into account these perks which are currently not OP in my view. I do agree with battles should be the main source for XP, but currently battles are just much superior. Anyway, decreasing XP gain per battle is probably something that some player won’t like much (some people love getting everything too easy and be king since day 100), and it is something which I can mod easily.
Talking again about perks, I find them pointless if we are able to upgrade units pretty damn fast after killing some few looters.
Anyway, it is good that AI won’t be able to get full elite armies anymore, thanks for that!
EDIT: I have run some tests getting 20 recruits and waiting in a town to see how fast they get upgraded and yes, current perks are a bit too strong, so it is good that they are getting a nerf, especially Raise the Meek which we can get since the beggining. On the other hand, halving the current numbers would have been enough I think.
最后编辑:
Here is my more detailed 5th test
Bonus: Influence/policies test
-AI seems to never rollback policies
-Influence balance needs some tweaks
This is really great stuff @Nawki. Thanks for all your efforts. I will share them internal at TW. Currently we have nearly no AI for policy selection. It needs to be worked on.
最后编辑:
I didn't see AI to rollback policies either, btw how do you get influence data?Here is my more detailed 5th test
Bonus: Influence/policies test
-AI seems to never rollback policies
-Influence balance needs some tweaks
hey nice pfp
Nawki
Sergeant
Exacly what you said. Once a year I joined each of the factions and record what each clan had at the time. Previously I done it once for 1.4.0
Nawki
Sergeant
Few hours total (4h-5h). I run bannerlord mostly in background while doing other stuff
A perk is giving 10X more exp then it should? And I still don't even see it being worthwhile. Sure sometime I look in the party and can upgrade some recruits and looters into infantry men...so what? What perk combo is making them give 10X more?
On this note, any chance we will every get AI lords NOT doing hostile things as soon as they re-spawn and instead building up their units on looters/bandits in a natural way? I feel like the "Oh no they only have recruits" is being taken the wrong way. It's not just that they have poor troops but that they immediately come back and try to raid or join an army. Beating down a faction just depreciates into a ant hill of little puny parties that won't ever just go away and fight some looters and get stronger. I think that's wrong. They should have a real time out and build back up before they try to raid.
You've got a point but this would be more for a levy type system as in the 1257 AD mods. Fiefs should give a bit more supports for player, but a medieval lord wouldn't be able open a few velvet shops and afford a professional army of knights either. Not that you can do that with workshops, I'm saying it's okay that they don't pay for the whole army easily.
The biggest part of the snowballing problem imo, and there are a bunch, is that several Kingdoms just get into too many wars at once (all the Empire Kingdoms especially). Perhaps if the AI recognized their 'greatest threat' neighbor and didn't try to fight more than 1 enemy while at war with this enemy and even attacked them when that enemy is already in a war. Right now, Khuz is always jumping in on someone who is already at war with their armies away from the Khuzait border. Once Khuzait gets a couple extra cities, nobody attacks them anymore, instead they are only attacking and attacking people who are already in a war usually.
