kalarhan said:El Turco said:
damn, I just sent all my money to a Nigerian prince ... I gonna have to wait until next month to pre-order
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
I actually think they could have done better with their vassalge system... They say all lords will be of equal rank +/- Influence.
They should have made a system like Crusader kings with Lords-Barons-Counts-Dukes-Kings-(Emperor?) Being a Baron you could eventually have a Lord as a vassal etc. This would make it posible to systematically give players more experience with ruling while growing the noble ladder. While at the same time let players who are not the Monarch still have some ruling to do though at a lower scale.
Also it could add a whole new playstyle with being invited to the kings council/court. This would be a perfect oppurtunity to add misions/ mini-games etc.! If anyone remembers the old sid meiers pirates where you could dance with the gouverners daugther etc. Wouldn't exactly have to be dancing but could be anything from getting invited to a game of cards with the high nobles to get into the inner circle etc. Would be cool to be a sort of Puppetmaster actually ruling the whole kingdom in the shadows!
Also at last it would make civil wars much better and realistic! Since a mighty Duke could have more lands and vassals under him than even the king! That way if you as a player are the king you would need to really satisfy the powerful dukes, and at the same time as a powerful Duke you could be the one actually running the kingdom because most of it's power was provided by you! Granted it should be rare a NPC Duke would be more powerful than the king of course, was thinking around 2-4 Dukes per kingdom to balance the power out.
At last it would also make it somewhat easier to manage as a king because you would have 2-4 Dukes and then maybe a few Counts and Baron directly under you instead of all Lords in your kingdom
Instead they seem to have gone with a Influence Point system which seems a bit lazy to be honest... "It's not like oh you only saved 5 villages ?? damm you need to save 6 for me to follow you!"
They should have made a system like Crusader kings with Lords-Barons-Counts-Dukes-Kings-(Emperor?) Being a Baron you could eventually have a Lord as a vassal etc. This would make it posible to systematically give players more experience with ruling while growing the noble ladder. While at the same time let players who are not the Monarch still have some ruling to do though at a lower scale.
Also it could add a whole new playstyle with being invited to the kings council/court. This would be a perfect oppurtunity to add misions/ mini-games etc.! If anyone remembers the old sid meiers pirates where you could dance with the gouverners daugther etc. Wouldn't exactly have to be dancing but could be anything from getting invited to a game of cards with the high nobles to get into the inner circle etc. Would be cool to be a sort of Puppetmaster actually ruling the whole kingdom in the shadows!
Also at last it would make civil wars much better and realistic! Since a mighty Duke could have more lands and vassals under him than even the king! That way if you as a player are the king you would need to really satisfy the powerful dukes, and at the same time as a powerful Duke you could be the one actually running the kingdom because most of it's power was provided by you! Granted it should be rare a NPC Duke would be more powerful than the king of course, was thinking around 2-4 Dukes per kingdom to balance the power out.
At last it would also make it somewhat easier to manage as a king because you would have 2-4 Dukes and then maybe a few Counts and Baron directly under you instead of all Lords in your kingdom
Instead they seem to have gone with a Influence Point system which seems a bit lazy to be honest... "It's not like oh you only saved 5 villages ?? damm you need to save 6 for me to follow you!"
I like your idea Rungsted! I think it would be a nice addition.
Rungsted93 said:I actually think they could have done better with their vassalge system... They say all lords will be of equal rank +/- Influence.
They should have made a system like Crusader kings with Lords-Barons-Counts-Dukes-Kings-(Emperor?) Being a Baron you could eventually have a Lord as a vassal etc. This would make it posible to systematically give players more experience with ruling while growing the noble ladder. While at the same time let players who are not the Monarch still have some ruling to do though at a lower scale.
Also it could add a whole new playstyle with being invited to the kings council/court. This would be a perfect oppurtunity to add misions/ mini-games etc.! If anyone remembers the old sid meiers pirates where you could dance with the gouverners daugther etc. Wouldn't exactly have to be dancing but could be anything from getting invited to a game of cards with the high nobles to get into the inner circle etc. Would be cool to be a sort of Puppetmaster actually ruling the whole kingdom in the shadows!
Also at last it would make civil wars much better and realistic! Since a mighty Duke could have more lands and vassals under him than even the king! That way if you as a player are the king you would need to really satisfy the powerful dukes, and at the same time as a powerful Duke you could be the one actually running the kingdom because most of it's power was provided by you! Granted it should be rare a NPC Duke would be more powerful than the king of course, was thinking around 2-4 Dukes per kingdom to balance the power out.
At last it would also make it somewhat easier to manage as a king because you would have 2-4 Dukes and then maybe a few Counts and Baron directly under you instead of all Lords in your kingdom
Instead they seem to have gone with a Influence Point system which seems a bit lazy to be honest... "It's not like oh you only saved 5 villages ?? damm you need to save 6 for me to follow you!"
I have 3 responses to this. But first, I'll preface this with saying that I do agree with what you say. It would be very nice.
1) They talked nearly a year ago about this (maybe, I don't remember what event it was, but it's been at least half a year). So, there's nothing to say they haven't changed or made plans to change it since then.
2) I'm thinking there's going to be more to it than their influence points system. From my experience in Viking Conquest, I feel like there was a form of hierarchy among the vassals. It was never explicitly stated, but they did give you a sense that some of the vassals were more respected, revered, or feared. I could be wrong and there may have been nothing to it, but if there was, (and even if there wasn't) I think they would implement something similar to this in Bannerlord. A sort of behind the scenes ranking system.
3) MODS!!
This seems like it would be a much wanted feature if it's not in the game, so I think there would be some early mods to address this.
SirMairaki said:
Renown already does this in warband. Taleworlds has instead decided that the influence system will be an expendable "currency" which is an absolutely horrible idea in my opinion.
Renown will be in the game still surely?Jacobhinds said:
I quite like the idea of influence, as it puts a realistic cap on your requests. When would a lord do everything you ask, whenever and wherever?
Yeah, it doesn't really make sense. Hopefully it's just a supplement to a system similar to Warband, which allows you to just 'pay up' for giving orders to lords who in previous game would ignore you out of spite. I mean, 'influence' already exists in Warband and you can pay for certain things with relations with party you ask to do something, costing you your 'influence' in less abstract form of relations with lords of the realm, it would be fun if they'd expand on this and make relations fluctuate a bit more, making the brackets more important than the number itself. Don't know, I don't really like the idea, it makes more sense in TLD as player plays a role of just a pawn on the board in a set game, so their influence over war should be limited.
I have a feeling that turning influence into currency is just a way to walk around lords' dying.
I have a feeling that turning influence into currency is just a way to walk around lords' dying.
AmateurHetman said:
Warband already has realistic caps on requests. If you asked a lord to follow you, you would get a relation hit or boost depending on what the final outcome of the expedition was. Fail too many times and he won't listen to you any longer. Succeed a lot and he'll be more likely to do what you want in future.
However an expendable influence system (where you "pay" as soon as you ask) would not take into account whether you succeed or fail in an expediton. The only way this would work is if you gain points back when you succeed. But that's exactly what the relations system does, and on a per-lord basis rather than a silly global currency.
I can't stress this enough: influence bucks are trying to fix a problem which has already been solved by much more dynamic, realistic and player-involved systems.
So is real life.
How would the influence currency system make it less grindy?
How would the influence currency system make it less grindy?
Jacobhinds said:
This is a game not real life simulation. With influence system, in my understanding, is that you gain these points by doing worthy things and then can spend those to whoever lord you need to spend them on. So you dont need to grind positive relationships with every single lord. Also Warband's relationship system was not realistic at all. I really doubt I would have to run errands for someone when I have conquered whole cities myself. Fame is what would make you worthy of someone's time, be it enemy or friend. Part of the problem of warband was that the quests were all bad. Run cows to someone? Give letters? Find some scum in a village and kill him? The variety was way too small for the grind it needed.
578 said:
You don't have to do this in warband either because honour increases relations.
578 said:
Fame = Renown
But with a vassal system i actually think the Influence Points system would work even better! Nobles sworn directly or indirectly to you would cost almost nothing also taking into factor how much they like you of course! Other lords cost would then depend on their rank and your relationship with them. Regarding the dying lords it could be done so if you were friends with the dead lord you would have a good relationship with the heir as well (Unless you're the reason he died ^^ ). I mean if you had a friend you would probably have met his son / brother a few times at least + the old lord would have spoken well of you to his heir giving him a good opinion of you! (However he can have another personality so you would not be guarenteed to be friends but you would start at better terms! ) Maybe start with 3/4 or half of the relantionship you had with the old Lord.
Just think it would generally be cool that after you became a very minor noble you could play the game in almost only a political way to climb to the top adding another playstyle! (Should be hard of course and not an easy way to just become king )
But yeah i hope if it's not included mods will do it
Just think it would generally be cool that after you became a very minor noble you could play the game in almost only a political way to climb to the top adding another playstyle! (Should be hard of course and not an easy way to just become king )
But yeah i hope if it's not included mods will do it
Jacobhinds said:
Okay, some fair points. I've never noticed this much in my gameplays, perhaps making it more noticeable would be a good option.
JuJu70
Influence points is the most bizarre feature that they announced.
Hey, lord Dumbass, I delivered 20 letters for you, and collected some taxes, would you mind going and attacking that big army over there? Thanks, mate.
Hey, lord Dumbass, I delivered 20 letters for you, and collected some taxes, would you mind going and attacking that big army over there? Thanks, mate.
Although we are light on information (as usual) it appears to me that the new influence will have some advantages over the old relations system. In one of the siege videos (I think where they sallied out and attacked the siege engines) they said that if you have enough influence you can use it to make peace deals without being king--spending influence to convince your lords to accept the deal instead of needing relations with every lord. Presumably there will be other faction wide impact uses for influence.
Additionally it was said, or at least heavily implied, that other (AI) lords would gain, loose and spend influence. I'm going off memory here, but I believe they said that the lord they defeated will loose influence (standing) and that could cause him to raise taxes on his holdings to rebuild his army in an attempt to regain influence. We've been told that one of their focuses with Bannerlord has been to make the world a more integrated sandbox. AI lords will need to buy food for their troops, worry about moral, ect, and that actions will have a bigger impact in the wider world. I believe that the influence system will likewise tie into this better that relations did.
Additionally it was said, or at least heavily implied, that other (AI) lords would gain, loose and spend influence. I'm going off memory here, but I believe they said that the lord they defeated will loose influence (standing) and that could cause him to raise taxes on his holdings to rebuild his army in an attempt to regain influence. We've been told that one of their focuses with Bannerlord has been to make the world a more integrated sandbox. AI lords will need to buy food for their troops, worry about moral, ect, and that actions will have a bigger impact in the wider world. I believe that the influence system will likewise tie into this better that relations did.
Sir Mordred said:
THIS IS ALREADY IN WARBAND. ??
If they go ahead with this retarded ayn rand "friendship is a transaction" system I'm nuking turkey. I don't think many people realise how in-depth the relation system is, it's just that some of the effects aren't overly obvious at first glance. If Taleworlds just toned up the effects of most of these features then every single argument in favour of the influence system would be solved.
These abstract currency systems sucked ass in Total War, they sucked ass in Europa Universalis IV, they sucked ass in the Civilisation series and they're unjustifiable when it comes to believability. Human beings and human relations just don't work this way.
Jacobhinds said:
I have yet to play either Total War or EU4, but I'm not sure what you're referring to in Civilization. Was there an influence points system in one of the older installments? There certainly aren't any in there now.
Anyways, I have no problem with this kind of currency as long as they do it right. It should be more than just a straight-forward currency, it needs to be effected by other elements in the game and have a little depth to it. Like has been said before, your relationship with the lords should have an effect on how much influence points you must spend in interactions with them. I'm thinking that if they make it effected by many behind the scenes modifiers, it should still feel natural while also making it more accessible and understandable than the 'influence' system in Warband was.
- Status
Similar threads
