kalarhan said:El Turco said:This web site[/url] receives pre-orders for M&B II Bannerlord
damn, I just sent all my money to a Nigerian prince ... I gonna have to wait until next month to pre-order
kalarhan said:El Turco said:This web site[/url] receives pre-orders for M&B II Bannerlord
damn, I just sent all my money to a Nigerian prince ... I gonna have to wait until next month to pre-order
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!"
SirMairaki said: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.
Renown will be in the game still surely?Jacobhinds said:SirMairaki said: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.
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.
AmateurHetman 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?
Jacobhinds said:AmateurHetman 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?
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.
Jacobhinds said:So is real life.
How would the influence currency system make it less grindy?
578 said:So you dont need to grind positive relationships with every single lord.
578 said:Fame is what would make you worthy of someone's time, be it enemy or friend.
Jacobhinds said:AmateurHetman 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?
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.
Sir Mordred said: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.
Jacobhinds said: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.