Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

[Do not look here]

Okay, only two things, one, you don't have to grind relations, working in favour of the kingdom will still make them, yes, slowly, trickle in, and two, don't you think that making influence a currency implies that you have to grind for it instead?

 

[CaptainLee]

Okay, only two things, one, you don't have to grind relations, working in favour of the kingdom will still make them, yes, slowly, trickle in, and two, don't you think that making influence a currency implies that you have to grind for it instead?

Well if it's a universal currency rather than faction specific (which is a bit weird frankly) then it'll require less grinding with one individual working out of the same area. I can understand how it would work with you being unaligned with any kingdom, you've built up trust, respect and fame that requests are more likely to be granted. It's just seems a little inelegant from what we know.

Probably all subject to change though (as an awful lot seems to be)

 

[MrMundy]

Okay, only two things, one, you don't have to grind relations, working in favour of the kingdom will still make them, yes, slowly, trickle in, and two, don't you think that making influence a currency implies that you have to grind for it instead?

Well if it's a universal currency rather than faction specific (which is a bit weird frankly) then it'll require less grinding with one individual working out of the same area. I can understand how it would work with you being unaligned with any kingdom, you've built up trust, respect and fame that requests are more likely to be granted. It's just seems a little inelegant from what we know.

Probably all subject to change though (as an awful lot seems to be)

Running errands is not the smallest bit different if you do it in the desert rather than in the forrest. You spending those points rather than just gaining them and keeping them means that you will have to constantly work for them. It will be more of a grind than it already is.
I don't see why some babarian would give a damn about your standings in the empire.

 

[Silen]

I think some of you here have the illusion that you are real warriors in medieval era. This is a game, the points is more accessible than the grindy **** old system.  There is nothing fun about grinding delivering letters and errands like a moron for lords 24/7.

Completely agree. Guys, we're talking about a GAME, since videogaming was born there's never been something 100% realistic, the realism you so much desire was always replaced with points or generally the best COMPROMISE. Because we're talking about AI and it cannot behave like humans. This influence system is fine and I am sure it is much deeper than you all think.

 

[CaptainLee]

Running errands is not the smallest bit different if you do it in the desert rather than in the forrest. You spending those points rather than just gaining them and keeping them means that you will have to constantly work for them. It will be more of a grind than it already is.

This presupposes they have removed the previous system rather than having influence to supplement it. Is this the case? I don't know. Also it's a universal currency presumably rather than based on one individual (which could be mind-numbingly grindy). So it's not hard to see it as being more flexible, if not making much sense from what we know.

I don't see why some babarian would give a damn about your standings in the empire.

No it doesn't, but it didn't make much sense in Warband when you could have the highest amount of relation with a faction king and his subjects couldn't give a fig and wouldn't follow you even if their last city was burning down. Oh, I didn't get back that money you lent to Count Devlian? Well **** the kingdom then!

 

[Looter]

Or as bad as you even with 100 relation not being able to convince even a single lord to vote a certain way towards who gets a fief, if it's near impossible to convince them I fail to see the point of having it as a feature at all.

 

[Sir Mordred]

This presupposes they have removed the previous system rather than having influence to supplement it. Is this the case? I don't know.

@20m 15s "basically a new currency in the game in addition to money and relation"
No idea how influence and relations will interact, but certainly sounds like the old relations is still in the game

 

[DanAngleland]

I think it sounds like a good system, but of course we won't know for sure until we've played the game.

 

[Sasquatch_Punter]

This presupposes they have removed the previous system rather than having influence to supplement it. Is this the case? I don't know.

@20m 15s "basically a new currency in the game in addition to money and relation"
No idea how influence and relations will interact, but certainly sounds like the old relations is still in the game

Iirc relations acts as a modifier for AI behavior and your bargaining power with that person.

So influence is basically an abstract currency that can be spent in diplomacy/bartering along with other things. A lord who hates you will be more likely to raid your village/town, and negotiating a truce will require you to put more value on the table in the form of influence/denars/stuff. I also remember hearing somewhere that your bargaining options will be limited by relations, so a lord who really, really hates you won't even entertain a truce regardless of how much you can offer him.

 

[Nickel-Kingins]

I got a good ideas for the new system
How about the dev put a limit on how much influence you can get?
An example would be title and renown, where if you are a duke, then you can gain lot more influence than a commoners or a baron would gain by delivering letter and errand and at some point, the commoners/baron influence stop growing until he either get a better title or gain a lot of renown

As I keep thinking of this, there's a lot of factors that have to be considered when putting a limit like relationship, council, marshal, character (like role playing a honest mercenary, trader, bandits, etc).

 

[CaptainLee]

This presupposes they have removed the previous system rather than having influence to supplement it. Is this the case? I don't know.

@20m 15s "basically a new currency in the game in addition to money and relation"
No idea how influence and relations will interact, but certainly sounds like the old relations is still in the game

And influence is faction-dependent, cool. Okay, I'm on board with it. It's just a representation of the good will you've built up with the faction as a whole.

 

[Plovercrest]

I think it sounds like a good system, but of course we won't know for sure until we've played the game.

That's true about everything in this game unfortunately. 

 

[SunFlash]

I'm fine with influence, and while I understand the pushback towards it, from where I'm sitting it just looks as though a hidden calculation is now more transparent for the player. 

Besides, the nobility throughout history have often been a bunch of "old boys clubs" and I see the influence system being a more direct way of making that happen.  E.g. "This guy hasn't done a ton for me - but he helped out Bruce whom I like, is sworn to my faction, and has defeated my enemies - probably wouldn't hurt to help him out for awhile?"

Seems pretty consistent with reality to me.

 

[RoboSenshi]

I feel like influence should work less like a deductible currency e.g. gold and more like an abstract value e.g renown, right to rule, honour etc. In an ideal world influence would work exactly like real life but because it's a game there has to be a smart compromise and I think having an influence "level" better emulates real life influence.

So you would accumulate influence similarly to renown. By winning battles, completing quests, holding tournaments etc. Basically the same way it works now. The difference is you don't "spend" the points. They are just a modifier that makes it easier to get people to do what you want. Like renown, relations etc. You can hate someone's guts but you still have to obey the person if you have too. Similarly you may be best friends with someone but sometimes your priorities may not align. In those cases being influential would help. What I just said can also be said for renown. Because you're well known doesn't mean you can influence people. It does help though.

What I'm doing is separating relations and renown and showing that a separate influence level would work pretty well imo. Influence can be accumulated but at the same time it degrades fast so you must constantly keep active to maintain your level of influence. You could also have a base influence level depending on your rank. So as a king the lowest influence you can have could be 500 for example. The level will never fall below that as long as you are king. You can even gain large influence boosts for large events.

The main reason I don't like a spend able influence system is cause of something Jacob mentioned. Surly leading your allies to victory would make you more influential. Picture this: On the current game, you spend all of your 400 IF points to gather some vassals and retake an important town. Suddenly you have no influence even after winning a great victory. It really should be the opposite. Winning a victory like that would make you more influential. With the system I propose your IF level would allow you to gather those vassals and if you win, your IF level goes way up. However, if you lose and the armies are destroyed you take a big hit to you IF level.

You can also make the influence level faction dependent. I.e. your character has an influence level for every faction in the game. And a Global influence level. The Global influence level would be an end game feature mostly affecting how powerful faction leaders influence other faction leaders. Global IF could accumulate by increasing your faction's territory for example.

Just my thoughts.

P.S. I typed this with my phone so forgive  any bad spelling/grammar. 

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Besides, the nobility throughout history have often been a bunch of "old boys clubs" and I see the influence system being a more direct way of making that happen.  E.g. "This guy hasn't done a ton for me - but he helped out Bruce whom I like, is sworn to my faction, and has defeated my enemies - probably wouldn't hurt to help him out for awhile?"

This is already the case in warband. There is a calculation which makes lords like you more if you have mutual friends.

I feel like influence should work less like a deductible currency e.g. gold and more like an abstract value e.g renown, right to rule, honour etc. In an ideal world influence would work exactly like real life but because it's a game there has to be a smart compromise and I think having an influence "level" better emulates real life influence.

This is my main problem with the feature. Only negative actions like losing battles or getting caught doing something shady should deplete something as abstract as "influence".

My other problem with the feature is that renown is pretty much identical, except it's not a spendable currency. If they slapped the influence feature over it the two mechanics would cannibalise each other.

 

[Looter]

To add to the above post by Robo, have the number and type of fief you hold slow the decay of influence.

 

[Mr.Milker]

In your example, you would be rewarded with some new influence for a victory, plus with the fact you won, which could mean a rise in rank/renown (and other results). So you're not just in the negative numbers of influence, you're also up in other things. Higher rank/renown also means you recover influence faster.

It's funny how closely this discussion follows the endless debates about the rank/influence/resource model we designed for The Last Days.

It's not perfect, sure, but i think it could be made to enhance the existing systems.

 

[SunFlash]

Besides, the nobility throughout history have often been a bunch of "old boys clubs" and I see the influence system being a more direct way of making that happen.  E.g. "This guy hasn't done a ton for me - but he helped out Bruce whom I like, is sworn to my faction, and has defeated my enemies - probably wouldn't hurt to help him out for awhile?"

This is already the case in warband. There is a calculation which makes lords like you more if you have mutual friends.

That's what I'm saying.  A more transparent view for the player on a calculation that already exists.  You can get lords than like you to follow you in warband as well, but having influence allows you to know exactly what's going be required in advance.

In particular for the new bartering in Bannerlord (that we've seen in the videos) having a tangible currency makes sense.  I'm not seeing how it's any different from what's in warband with the exception of catering to other new features.

 

[JuJu70]

The problem with the current system is that it's a one-way positive street, do some favors for lords, win battles, and everyone loves you. IRL it will be just the opposite, the more you rise the more enemies you will get. Intrigues, where are they? Especially if you start as a nobody rising through the ranks, why would proper lords like you. Essentially, they ignore the fact that the Byzantium was built on politics and intrigue, and not military might.

For influence, again look at Nova Aetas, I'm fairly certain this is the system we'll get in Bannerlord.

 

[SunFlash]

The problem with the current system is that it's a one-way positive street, do some favors for lords, win battles, and everyone loves you. IRL it will be just the opposite, the more you rise the more enemies you will get. Intrigues, where are they? Especially if you start as a nobody rising through the ranks, why would proper lords like you. Essentially, they ignore the fact that the Byzantium was built on politics and intrigue, and not military might.

For influence, again look at Nova Aetas, I'm fairly certain this is the system we'll get in Bannerlord.

This makes a lot of sense, social order of the time dictated that one did not advance their god-given station.  I'd be on board with all the lords hating me and having to win them over.