• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

How good should passive income be?

  • Passive income should exceed passive expenses. I should be making a decent profit.

    Votes: 19 38.8%
  • Passive income should barely be able to pay for passive expenses.

    Votes: 28 57.1%
  • Passive income should NOT be able to pay for passive expenses. Grinding for maintenance is required.

    Votes: 2 4.1%

  • Total voters
    49

Users who are viewing this thread

Schoulayer

Recruit
I'm curious where people stand on this. I take the position that caravans and workshops should be sufficient to pay for passive expenses like troop wages and food. Passive income from fiefs should be sufficient to pay for a reasonable garrison for a castle. What I earn in battle should be what I use to splurge on one-time purchases like upgrades for my castles, troops, and equipment.

For the most part, the reason why people are walking around with millions of denars is because of battles, not because of passive income. There's also nothing to spend denars on in the very late game, so players will continue to accumulate money.

I think what we need is not more passive expenses or less passive income, because that will only make the early game more boring and grindy. It will also limit the playstyle of people.

What we need are more one-time expenses, such as the cost of upgrading troops to the next tier - which is basically the cost of you upgrading the equipment of your troops. If the one-time cost of upgrading troops to the next tier was higher, then it would provide a renewable money sink for late game players. It would also eliminate the absurdity of low level players in leather armor walking around with high-tier troops in plated mail.
 

Lemondude

Regular
Well that question is very much dependent on the situation of the game.

Is the player at war? What condition are the settlements in? Are they a ruler? What kingdom policies are in play?

Taking all of this into account, your passive income could be not enough to sustain your situation, just enough, or more than enough.

It's purely situational and you can influence it by the way you play the game.
 

DocShotgun

Regular
WBM&BWF&SNWVC
Agree with a lot of the points here - including that too much passive income isn't the main cause of late-game piles of denars. Ideally we would have more features late-game that would serve as some sort of gold sink as well as enrich the game (things like Pendor's knighthood orders for example), but of course this would have to be a more long-term goal as the game develops. However, nerfing businesses into the ground now isn't really the solution.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
Agree with a lot of the points here - including that too much passive income isn't the main cause of late-game piles of denars. Ideally we would have more features late-game that would serve as some sort of gold sink as well as enrich the game (things like Pendor's knighthood orders for example), but of course this would have to be a more long-term goal as the game develops. However, nerfing businesses into the ground now isn't really the solution.

Not gonna lie, in addition to serve as money sink being able to have some kind of custom troops would be amazing. I would love that.
 

Wehveechen

Regular
I got business because I wanted a safe source of income to make sure there's something to rely on. So I can just relax and not beat enemy Lords every other day to sell all their belongings. It was satisfying to just have the money, even if I'm not spending it on anything. Really annoyed that the Devs decided that this is an invalid position.
 

Schoulayer

Recruit
Well that question is very much dependent on the situation of the game.

Is the player at war? What condition are the settlements in? Are they a ruler? What kingdom policies are in play?

Taking all of this into account, your passive income could be not enough to sustain your situation, just enough, or more than enough.

It's purely situational and you can influence it by the way you play the game.

I agree that if you are at war and enemy nobles are raiding your fiefs, that those fiefs should no longer be able to sustain a larger garrison. At that point, you should be forced to cut down on the garrison. Your caravans should be intelligent enough to avoid territories that you are at war with, and should focus on trading with friendly kingdoms where the risk of being attacked by an enemy noble is very low. There could be a small hit to their income because they may not be able to sell in the very best place, but it should not be a tremendous drop. In that case, your workshops and caravans should 'almost' be able to cover the passive expenses of your armies. If you go into the red it should not be by much, IMO.

In general I do not think that players should be forced to engage in continuous battles just to maintain what they already have, as long as they're not doing unreasonable things like stuffing a garrison with a huge number of troops.
 

YariAshigaru

Recruit
For people who choose to be a war lord and make profits from the war economy, Option 2 is the best.

For people who like the trading aspect they need to spec their character for option 1 to occur.

Thats how it should be altho that wont happen with the current caravan **** storm. now goods and money cant even circulate.

I prefer the war economy route but the current workshop nerfs and caravan hit has made being able to stand an army that can fight nearly impossible without hours of grinding.
 
I honestly don't get why so much time and effort right now is so focused on the players income and nerfing passive income methods etc

3/4's of the game isn't finished or just doesn't work at all. Stop wasting the time on the economy and get the game into a decent place with fleshed out features before you worry about balancing something, that could repeatedly need readdressing as they add stuff and fix what's broken anyway.

In it's current state, short of making towns so poor they can't buy your loot. No economy change will stop the people from rapidly becoming a multi millionaire and steam rolling the map, simply on loot sells alone. I've never once been hampered by a negative income, even with thousands a day upkeep, because in a single day, I can kill and loot enough to off set that for a week. the next 6 days is complete profit.

I'm baffled, why the economy is so important atm, when the game is so easily beaten (map dominance) without spending a second worrying about it
 

YariAshigaru

Recruit
I honestly don't get why so much time and effort right now is so focused on the players income and nerfing passive income methods etc

3/4's of the game isn't finished or just doesn't work at all. Stop wasting the time on the economy and get the game into a decent place with fleshed out features before you worry about balancing something, that could repeatedly need readdressing as they add stuff and fix what's broken anyway.

In it's current state, short of making towns so poor they can't buy your loot. No economy change will stop the people from rapidly becoming a multi millionaire and steam rolling the map, simply on loot sells alone. I've never once been hampered by a negative income, even with thousands a day upkeep, because in a single day, I can kill and loot enough to off set that for a week. the next 6 days is complete profit.

I'm baffled, why the economy is so important atm, when the game is so easily beaten (map dominance) without spending a second worrying about it
100% agree. the items shops dont even have all the items in there yet either. still got that same crossbow for 44k now use to be 22k.
 

Sepone

Regular
I like the idea to have lots of "passive" income, if you actually have to take care of it. Like having lots of workshops all over Calradia, but when cities get conquered you have to go there and negotiate with the new lord. That way players can have a small passive income in secure places, just like you do it now, and those of us who want to concentrate on the merchant aspect have to actively take care of our business empire.
 

McGough

Recruit
Depends what you mean -

Should 5 workshops and 2 caravans cover the costs of a 40-50 tier 1-3 band? Sure.

Should it cover the cost of a 500 man tier 5 army? Nope.

I kind of have a rule of thumb that a workshop/caravan should be able to cover the cost of 10-15 tier 3 troops (roughly speaking). So 3 workshops could support up to 45 tier 3 grade troops.

A castle and 2 villages should be capable of supporting around 80-100 tier 2/3 troops.

A City/town and suporting villages should be able to support around 200-250 T3 troops.

That way I can run a caravan and 2 workshops, and have a band of 45 tier 3 troops, or 30'ish tier 4 troops or 20'ish tier 5 troops and have passive income covering the wages.

I am kind of also leaning towards the idea that tier 4/5 troops should only be trainable/equipped at a castle, so a player would first need a fief of some kind to access them, but I am pretty sure I am in a small minority there.
 

Sepone

Regular
I am kind of also leaning towards the idea that tier 4/5 troops should only be trainable/equipped at a castle, so a player would first need a fief of some kind to access them, but I am pretty sure I am in a small minority there.
Hmm... makes it more difficult to balance the game. But IF TaleWorlds can get it balanced it's a great idea. The two castles I owned in my first playthrough were just annoying to defend and manage prosperity/food growth. But if I need a castle for high tier troops, then I DEFINITELY WANT SOME!
 

Shnordo

Recruit
I find it hard to answer this question with the options your provided. In my current games, the latest patch has had minimal effect on my passive income. I feel like if the player makes correct choices about where to build workshops and who to lead your caravans, you should make a decent profit. But I do not think you should just be given profit for every decision you make, unless you are a genius and dont make mistakes.

I have had to rescue my caravan several times since the patch, but I was fortunate enough to reach them before they were taken prisoner right outside of Praven. Aside from a couple of setbacks, my caravans still bring in 1-2k daily which I feel is a decent amount. There is more risk, but i dont feel I'm making a tremendous amount less than I was before the patch.

I have not been able to try out workshops yet on my current save because I had just started my kingdom right before the patch and had not yet had my own town, so I would immediately lose them due to the constant wars i apparently love to declare (grrrrrr). I just successfully got Dunglanys and will be trying out some workshops there now that i have a relatively safe place to have some long term workshops. Cheers :smile:
 

Glowcat

Recruit
Caravans and workshops should absolutely be able to provide a sizeable profit *with player input* into making them profitable, in the same way that fiefs should have ways to manage them for better returns. Both of the "trader systems" already have limits based on renown—which is a move that I like because it provides a long-term goal to reasonably acclimate to—and at least caravans have the additional drawback of removing a companion who could be fighting for your army (potentially adding perks.. once they function), building their own party's army, or governing your fiefs (currently not implemented well).

Ideally, your workshops and caravans should be able to work together to create serious profits, and bandits would be a more interactive aspect that players could work to suppress or make deals with to let their caravans thru. Similarly, being able to negotiate trade agreements and secure peace with other kingdoms are essential to making these game systems rewarding.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
I'm curious where people stand on this. I take the position that caravans and workshops should be sufficient to pay for passive expenses like troop wages and food. Passive income from fiefs should be sufficient to pay for a reasonable garrison for a castle. What I earn in battle should be what I use to splurge on one-time purchases like upgrades for my castles, troops, and equipment.

For the most part, the reason why people are walking around with millions of denars is because of battles, not because of passive income. There's also nothing to spend denars on in the very late game, so players will continue to accumulate money.

I think what we need is not more passive expenses or less passive income, because that will only make the early game more boring and grindy. It will also limit the playstyle of people.

What we need are more one-time expenses, such as the cost of upgrading troops to the next tier - which is basically the cost of you upgrading the equipment of your troops. If the one-time cost of upgrading troops to the next tier was higher, then it would provide a renewable money sink for late game players. It would also eliminate the absurdity of low level players in leather armor walking around with high-tier troops in plated mail.

The passive income isn't the problem, lack of good money sinks is the problem, key word being "good". If there was something to do with your money, all would be fine. However, I can't spend it as fast as I earn it. Part of this is down to the never ending wars with the lord spam going on. If I wasn't forced to fight 10 times a hour, I wouldn't have quite a much loot to sell but the real problem is the money sink.

For example, let say you have a city as a fief. First instead of you being able to upgrade your city passively for free over time or adding a bit of reserve to make it faster, make it a flat fee. You want level 3 walls? No problem, it is going to cost you 1,000,000 Denars for the cost of mining the stone or cutting the wood, hiring skilled craftsmen, overseers, etc. Want to train more milita? It it going to cost you 200,000 to upgrade to a new training field and provide barracks housing for the milita. Want to increase tax income? Great, it is going to be 150,000 Denars to build a market and so on..

Then you add in actual "Management" to ruling a city. For example, you get a random message that there has been a major fire in your city and that because of this, the town has lost half its prosperity and people are leaving in droves. You stewart tells you it will take 10 years for the city to recover with out its lord investing funds to speed up the rebuilding. You can chose to spend nothing and have your city give you negative income for 10 years. Spend 500,000 to provide emergency funds or 1 million to rebuild the city back to way it was or you can spend 3 million to improve you city. Then you might get a message that it was a long winter and the people are starving. You can chose to do nothing which harms the city or you can pay for food to be delivered to the city.

Basically there are tons and tons of things that can be added as money sinks that make perfect sense, add tons of immersion and makes it so earning 10-15k of passive income a day, feels like the only way you can upgrade your fiefs and prepare for an emergency when it comes.
 

Shnordo

Recruit
The passive income isn't the problem, lack of good money sinks is the problem, key word being "good". If there was something to do with your money, all would be fine. However, I can't spend it as fast as I earn it. Part of this is down to the never ending wars with the lord spam going on. If I wasn't forced to fight 10 times a hour, I wouldn't have quite a much loot to sell but the real problem is the money sink.

For example, let say you have a city as a fief. First instead of you being able to upgrade your city passively for free over time or adding a bit of reserve to make it faster, make it a flat fee. You want level 3 walls? No problem, it is going to cost you 1,000,000 Denars for the cost of mining the stone or cutting the wood, hiring skilled craftsmen, overseers, etc. Want to train more milita? It it going to cost you 200,000 to upgrade to a new training field and provide barracks housing for the milita. Want to increase tax income? Great, it is going to be 150,000 Denars to build a market and so on..

Then you add in actual "Management" to ruling a city. For example, you get a random message that there has been a major fire in your city and that because of this, the town has lost half its prosperity and people are leaving in droves. You stewart tells you it will take 10 years for the city to recover with out its lord investing funds to speed up the rebuilding. You can chose to spend nothing and have your city give you negative income for 10 years. Spend 500,000 to provide emergency funds or 1 million to rebuild the city back to way it was or you can spend 3 million to improve you city. Then you might get a message that it was a long winter and the people are starving. You can chose to do nothing which harms the city or you can pay for food to be delivered to the city.

Basically there are tons and tons of things that can be added as money sinks that make perfect sense, add tons of immersion and makes it so earning 10-15k of passive income a day, feels like the only way you can upgrade your fiefs and prepare for an emergency when it comes.
Excellent post.
 

YariAshigaru

Recruit
The passive income isn't the problem, lack of good money sinks is the problem, key word being "good". If there was something to do with your money, all would be fine. However, I can't spend it as fast as I earn it. Part of this is down to the never ending wars with the lord spam going on. If I wasn't forced to fight 10 times a hour, I wouldn't have quite a much loot to sell but the real problem is the money sink.

For example, let say you have a city as a fief. First instead of you being able to upgrade your city passively for free over time or adding a bit of reserve to make it faster, make it a flat fee. You want level 3 walls? No problem, it is going to cost you 1,000,000 Denars for the cost of mining the stone or cutting the wood, hiring skilled craftsmen, overseers, etc. Want to train more milita? It it going to cost you 200,000 to upgrade to a new training field and provide barracks housing for the milita. Want to increase tax income? Great, it is going to be 150,000 Denars to build a market and so on..

Then you add in actual "Management" to ruling a city. For example, you get a random message that there has been a major fire in your city and that because of this, the town has lost half its prosperity and people are leaving in droves. You stewart tells you it will take 10 years for the city to recover with out its lord investing funds to speed up the rebuilding. You can chose to spend nothing and have your city give you negative income for 10 years. Spend 500,000 to provide emergency funds or 1 million to rebuild the city back to way it was or you can spend 3 million to improve you city. Then you might get a message that it was a long winter and the people are starving. You can chose to do nothing which harms the city or you can pay for food to be delivered to the city.

Basically there are tons and tons of things that can be added as money sinks that make perfect sense, add tons of immersion and makes it so earning 10-15k of passive income a day, feels like the only way you can upgrade your fiefs and prepare for an emergency when it comes.
Agreed, city management can be the ultimate money sink in the game. wall being built ina month is too fast make it a couple months. but at the same time they have to make protecting castles and cities worth it.
 
Top Bottom