Quests are boring

[Bjorn The Dead]

Explain both the preconditions and quest rewards in an immersive, roleplaying way.

Yeah, these preconditions and affects of quest completion can be experressed by dialog in immersive way.

• The settlement produces grain.
• The nearby town market has less than 50 grain.
• The Grain price in the IssueGiverSettlement > average price of requested item in the world * 1.3.

The headman notable: Oh sir, we are simple folk raising crops (the settlement produces grain). Last year, weather was dry and it became very hard to find grain in this part of the land (the nearby town market has less than 50 grain). Like this was not enough, price were increased (the Grain price in the IssueGiverSettlement > average price of requested item in the world * 1.3). We need help.

• Issue is resolved (aka issue effects are no longer applied)
• +10 Quest giver power
• +2 relation with questgiver
• +1 relation with all other notables of the village
• +50 Town prosperity

The headman notable: Thanks to you sir, we are back on our feet (+10 Quest giver power). You were huge help in time of our need (+2 relation with questgiver). The whole village really appreciated what you have done (+1 relation with all other notables of the village).

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

The headman notable: Oh sir, we are simple folk raising crops (the settlement produces grain). Last year, weather was dry and it became very hard to find grain in this part of the land (the nearby town market has less than 50 grain). Like this was not enough, price were increased (the Grain price in the IssueGiverSettlement > average price of requested item in the world * 1.3). We need help.

Actual ingame dialogue:

The harvest has been poor, and rats have eaten many of our stores. We can eat less and tighten are belts, but if we don't have seed grain left over to plant in the spring sowing, we'll starve next winter.

Grain will solve our problems. If we had X units, we could use it to sow our fields. But I doubt that {NEARBY_TOWN} has so much to sell at this time of the year. {GRAIN_AMOUNT} units of grain costs around Y denars in the markets, and we don't have that!

As for the suggested quest outcome conversation

Thanks to you sir, we are back on our feet (+10 Quest giver power). You were huge help in time of our need (+2 relation with questgiver). The whole village really appreciated what you have done (+1 relation with all other notables of the village).

I doubt most folks would find that indicative of a power increase lest you mean to actually include the brackets in the written dialogue. All relation ship gain is already communicated with a center top banner notification.

Aren't lords supposed to do "quests" too?

I mean, if that's the case it shouldn't impact settlements too much unless there is war (which would in theme).

The below applies to lords as well.

The player can only help out with issues that exist. If the governors resolve them, the availability of issues is reduced. So the same would be achieved by reducing the % of issues to occur. But that comes with its own drawbacks (harder to target specific characters / locations). We also already do have AI lords resolving some issues (IIRC), though - to me - that is more geared towards a "living world" than enabling & counter-acting harsh(er) issue consequences.

If AI resolves issues too much, it means less opportunity to have the player focus on a location/character. Personally, I would also want to avoid creating spiderwebs of significantly balance relevant systems (various sandbox systems (not just war) -> lord parties / governor availability -> issues breaking economy of settlements / locations -> various sandbox systems). If the sole purpose is to facilitate harsher consequences/effects, then spawning them at a lower rate would be much less prone to failure.

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

It is my fault not remembering or not paying attention to that dialogue. Last time I played 1.6.0 so I do not know which is my fault.

I doubt most folks would find that indicative of a power increase lest you mean to actually include the brackets in the written dialogue.

The point is there could be line, more indicative than this. This is something I write in a second or so.

 

[AxiosXiphos]

Bit of a side-step here; but one thing I would like to see is small random narrative events.

As part of the tax collection mission you have pop-ups where you have to make one of a few choices (with various minor effects on the outcome of the mission). I'd love to see a few of these just thrown into your general travel time.

 

[Calabanar]

Actual ingame dialogue:



As for the suggested quest outcome conversation

I doubt most folks would find that indicative of a power increase lest you mean to actually include the brackets in the written dialogue. All relation ship gain is already communicated with a center top banner notification.


The below applies to lords as well.

If AI resolves issues too much, it means less opportunity to have the player focus on a location/character. Personally, I would also want to avoid creating spiderwebs of significantly balance relevant systems (various sandbox systems (not just war) -> lord parties / governor availability -> issues breaking economy of settlements / locations -> various sandbox systems). If the sole purpose is to facilitate harsher consequences/effects, then spawning them at a lower rate would be much less prone to failure.

You most definitely have a point there!

Ironically, it almost makes me wish some systems were simpler and less impactful on one another to improve control, betting more on the illusion than on complex, direct causality.

Btw are quests guaranteed to "spawn" if conditions are met or is it limited?

Bit of a side-step here; but one thing I would like to see is small random narrative events.

As part of the tax collection mission you have pop-ups where you have to make one of a few choices (with various minor effects on the outcome of the mission). I'd love to see a few of these just thrown into your general travel time.

Wholeheartedly agree, I miss the "Random Events" mod, which was in the same line of thinking.

 

[Lesbosisles]

This isn't true. Naturally, you may mean "they don't impact the world enough", but I can only go with what you actually write.

Issues have preconditions, issue effects and resolution (success/failure/cancel) consequences. They are resolved over time, by AI lords or through the player taking quests. Preconditions typically look at if suitable characters are in the location and if the world and more specifically the location are in a suitable state for an issue to occur. If the preconditions are met, there is a chance for an issue to occur. Issue effects are continuous, negative effects that apply for as long as the issue is active and affect the location and/or character that has the issue. Resolution consequences can affect the player (if they are involved through a quest) as well as the location and/or character that has the issue. They are applied when the issue is resolved - but keep in mind that the resolution also cancels the issue effects.

Let's take the "need grain seed" issue quest, which you seem to refer to, as an example. From what I can tell...

Preconditions:

• There is a Headman Notable (so it won't occur in a town)
• The settlement produces grain.
• The nearby town market has less than 50 grain.
• The Grain price in the IssueGiverSettlement > average price of requested item in the world * 1.3.

Issue Effects:

• -0,2 / day to bound center prosperity.
• -0.5 / day to bound center loyalty

Issue Resolution:

Let's just look at a quest success and ignore the different player facing effects for companion vs. player quest solutions.

• Issue is resolved (aka issue effects are no longer applied)
• +10 Quest giver power
• +2 relation with questgiver
• +1 relation with all other notables of the village
• +50 Town prosperity

Soo, maybe you, guys, could add this useful information into a quest log? Say, you took a quest, open a log - there is a description of the quest taken + the effects it may bring upon completing it? Like '+50 town prosperity, +10 notable power, etc.' ? I am one of those who thought quests influence nothing, because I can hardly understand which quest influences what.

 

[froggyluv]

Actual ingame dialogue:



As for the suggested quest outcome conversation

I doubt most folks would find that indicative of a power increase lest you mean to actually include the brackets in the written dialogue. All relation ship gain is already communicated with a center top banner notification.


The below applies to lords as well.

If AI resolves issues too much, it means less opportunity to have the player focus on a location/character. Personally, I would also want to avoid creating spiderwebs of significantly balance relevant systems (various sandbox systems (not just war) -> lord parties / governor availability -> issues breaking economy of settlements / locations -> various sandbox systems). If the sole purpose is to facilitate harsher consequences/effects, then spawning them at a lower rate would be much less prone to failure.

Would you guys consider tying in more Quests that could potentially raise (sometimes expertly) skills/proficiencies? That is an area most would agree advance way to slow, but now if we had the occasional Quest that could surprisingly raise these -it would kill 2 birds with one stone without effecting the World Stage

 

[Death2Tyrants]

The player can only help out with issues that exist. If the governors resolve them, the availability of issues is reduced. So the same would be achieved by reducing the % of issues to occur. But that comes with its own drawbacks (harder to target specific characters / locations). We also already do have AI lords resolving some issues (IIRC), though - to me - that is more geared towards a "living world" than enabling & counter-acting harsh(er) issue consequences.

Yes? I agree. Availability of issues being reduced is a good thing no? I'd think players aren't terribly interested in doing quests for the sake of doing quests.

A "living world" and stronger issue consequences aren't mutually exclusive. Lousy governance leads to terrible consequences. Issues that are ignored, tend to snowball. This is quite realistic and gives an impetus to groom better governors. It would also serve as a better brake on snowballing than the artificial restrictions we currently have. How? Ignored issues lead to Rebellion and/or Civil war. Those are some of the historical reasons why conquerors don't go on conquering.

Conquerors weren't stopped in their tracks because their feudal lords voted to open up additional fronts or because their enemies had an inexhaustible supply of recruits (i.e. the current TW solution to snowballing).

I'd also appreciate if you could comment on the points made in this post. Thank you.

Well, I'd argue that they mean the same thing from a player's perspective since we don't have the benefit of being able to see under the hood.

I'd also argue that players would prefer to see a reduction in crime vs an increase in prosperity. What does that even do besides ending in starvation? I assume it increases taxes? If it did, it's woefully insufficient to feed your armies. Far, far simpler to go around fighting. Ransom and selling junk is by far the best means of making money besides smithing. It trumps anything else by orders of magnitude. But that's another point. Even better if an increase in prosperity actually led to a reduction in crime.

Hmm it might seem that your precondition is actually causing the loop? So, if I buy the grain from the nearest town, thereby causing it to drop below 50, and I give it to the headman, it will trigger the quest again?

Is that why I'm getting the quest repeatedly? There should at least be some kind of timer before it can trigger again. Even better if resolving the quest actually leads to resolving the issue. Like increase in productivity so that the next time the farmers go to market, they'll be selling more grain which would make it less likely that the nearby town has less than 50 grain.

I mean, you have another quest called art of the deal or something. Tie them in together. Why is the town having less than 50 grain? Because armies are buying it or because of consumption? You don't have to factor that in. Simply keep increasing productivity from "Need grain seed" until demand starts tapering off. At some point, farmers can't sell to the town because supply > demand (i.e. production cost > sell price or something. I assume farmers aren't giving away their grain for nothing so there ought to be a min price that they can't sell below) which triggers "Art of the deal" and reduces productivity.

Know what I mean? That would be impactful. Also, if the farmers are so productive, why are they leaving to become looters? All the +1 this and -2 that is great but I what I really want is to see the impact please.

It's an RPG game of sorts, right? I'm trying to be a good lord. Doing everything you can and still see your peasants turn to crime is mildly infuriating.

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

I'd think players aren't terribly interested in doing quests for the sake of doing quests.

>But that comes with its own drawbacks (harder to target specific characters / locations).

Even better if an increase in prosperity actually led to a reduction in crime.

What is crime to you? Why would prosperity reduce it (instead of security)?

Hmm it might seem that your precondition is actually causing the loop? So, if I buy the grain from the nearest town, thereby causing it to drop below 50, and I give it to the headman, it will trigger the quest again?

Issues can be narratives within a larger socio-economic context. Quest in these cases typically only solve the immediate issue, not the broader context. So to answer your question - it depends. Going the route you described, may maintain the broader context or worsen it and thus enable further issues of the same kind to arise. (Though it's not guaranteed, as lowered prosperity also reduces consumption and the higher price (that you push further through your purchase) makes the location more attractive to caravans.) Whatever the case - if you want to resolve the broader shortage, you will need to address that through other means than solving the quest that is dealing with a much more focused issue.

Even better if resolving the quest actually leads to resolving the issue. Like increase in productivity so that the next time the farmers go to market, they'll be selling more grain which would make it less likely that the nearby town has less than 50 grain.

Generally, it is not desired for quests to override the sandbox. Naturally, a quest may ask the player to utilize sandbox mechanics to shift the balance. But that would ultimately be a quite different quest (It doesn't really make sense for a village notable to arrange for the resolution of a regional crisis. That sounds more like a lord / governor.) And, more importantly, the sandbox may resolve the issue long before the players do their part.

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

What is crime to you? Why would prosperity reduce it (instead of security)?

Prosperity and crime have always been linked. A better prosperity ment less low income families, more jobs, higher education levels and higher taxes (all leading to better security).

Security without prosperity means a totalitarion regime and can be argued to lead to corruption and thus more organized crime.



I noticed on the Bannerlord Wiki that there are Nobility quests but To Be Announced.
Will quests like "Persuade Lords to Make Peace" from Warband make their appearance in Bannerlord?

The quests that are in the game right now are either notable related or linked to the dragonbanner quest. The dragonbanner quest doesn't really lend itself for replayability and the notable quests are outgrown mid-late game. Will there be quests introduced that are more tied to the later stages of the game?

 

[Death2Tyrants]

>But that comes with its own drawbacks (harder to target specific characters / locations).

I'm not sure I follow...is it in relation to the appearance of quests? Is there a need to target? If the conditions present themselves, it appears? For example, the grain quest, if the conditions are triggered, the quest appears. The governor attends to it and you could do a biased roll, i.e. the more skill points the governor has in that type of quest, the more successful the outcome but if it fails, then the quest lingers, same outcome as if the player doesn't accept the quest right?

If the governor keeps failing, there will be lots of issues which iirc, does already affect loyalty. I suppose that brings us back to the impact of quests.

What is crime to you? Why would prosperity reduce it (instead of security)?

Hmmm. This is a really good question. Well granted security does have a big part to play of course but so does prosperity. People who are well off and have enough food in their bellies generally do not turn to crime. I would think prosperity actually plays a bigger role in reducing crime in general. All the harsh punishments in medieval times didn't deter petty crime when the people were starving.

Having said that, there's always a certain percentage of the population that prefer violence. For those, neither prosperity nor security have any sway over their tendencies.

Issues can be narratives within a larger socio-economic context. Quest in these cases typically only solve the immediate issue, not the broader context. So to answer your question - it depends. Going the route you described, may maintain the broader context or worsen it and thus enable further issues of the same kind to arise. (Though it's not guaranteed, as lowered prosperity also reduces consumption and the higher price (that you push further through your purchase) makes the location more attractive to caravans.) Whatever the case - if you want to resolve the broader shortage, you will need to address that through other means than solving the quest that is dealing with a much more focused issue.

What other means? Prosperity leads to starvation which leads to my garrison dying. Now, the former doesn't really bother me that much, yes the town starves until prosperity is low enough for it to start growing again - rinse, repeat. I don't really care. The loyalty issue could be a cause for concern but the real issue is my garrison dying. If I plop a 100 KG in there, I expect to see a 100 KG when I return. It's really quite annoying when your once proud garrison of elite troops becomes a ragtag bunch of misfits.

I am quite intrigued that we can address shortages through other means. I am not aware that we could impact it short of buying grain ourselves (which is incredibly annoying and short term). Pray tell good sir/mam!

Generally, it is not desired for quests to override the sandbox. Naturally, a quest may ask the player to utilize sandbox mechanics to shift the balance. But that would ultimately be a quite different quest (It doesn't really make sense for a village notable to arrange for the resolution of a regional crisis. That sounds more like a lord / governor.) And, more importantly, the sandbox may resolve the issue long before the players do their part.

I'm not too sure I follow this either. Shouldn't everything impact the world to a certain extent? Like the butterfly effect? Do governors resolve regional issues? I wasn't aware there were regional issues.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

Oh I forgot to add. Does security reduce crime? Like less bandits, looters etc? All those little stacks running around really bugs me.

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

Prosperity and crime have always been linked. A better prosperity ment less low income families, more jobs, higher education levels and higher taxes (all leading to better security).

Security without prosperity means a totalitarion regime and can be argued to lead to corruption and thus more organized crime.

In a game that has a security and crime variable, players will usually expect those to interact. We don't have a crime variable, hence my question. Though, I guess one can consider "low security" as "high crime" - in that case, prosperity and crime are already linked.

Will quests like "Persuade Lords to Make Peace" from Warband make their appearance in Bannerlord?

I don't think it would reappear in the warband fashion (aka overriding the entire sandbox decision process to force a peace for some period of time).

Will there be quests introduced that are more tied to the later stages of the game?

If other priorities have been completed, additional quests may be introduced.

Oh I forgot to add. Does security reduce crime? Like less bandits, looters etc? All those little stacks running around really bugs me.

Not currently. It reflects the situation somewhat, though. Security increases when criminals / hideouts are defeated, it is reduced by raids & destroyed villager and caravan parties. It affects caravan target selection, corruption (tax loss %), militia generation & rebellious state, relations with artisans & merchants, loyalty, tariffs, issues.

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

In a game that has a security and crime variable, players will usually expect those to interact. We don't have a crime variable, hence my question. Though, I guess one can consider "low security" as "high crime" - in that case, prosperity and crime are already linked.

Ah, ofcourse! Yes, then a high prosperity means high security which means low crime. Low prosperity + low security = high crime. Where crime is the result of the two variables but not a variable themselves. Appreciate the answers!

I don't think it would reappear in the warband fashion (aka overriding the entire sandbox decision process to force a peace for some period of time).


If other priorities have been completed, additional quests may be introduced.

Hmh, alright. I picked that quest from the Warband list as an example for its impact on the bigger world. That'd, for me, be a quest worth doing. A high stakes quest which would have real consequences if you did or didn't complete it.

Which also closes the door for other big impact quests?
Such as scheming with other lords to rebel against their king or curry favors with other kings to eliminate a common enemy.

I understand it'd upset the balance brought into the game by the underlying systems but I also feel that preserving the balance sometimes comes at too great a cost. I'd love to play out a Game of Thrones style quest to conquer, scheme and plot my way through the world instead of doing just the go & fetch quests. Especially in the later stages of the game where those quests aren't worth the time invested for the reward gained.

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

Ah, ofcourse! Yes, then a high prosperity means high security which means low crime. Low prosperity + low security = high crime. Where crime is the result of the two variables but not a variable themselves. Appreciate the answers!

From what I can tell, the effect of prosperity on security is based on the amount of garrison you have per X prosperity. (Ratio 1/5 to 1/20 -> +0-3 security, Ratio 1/20 to 1/60 -> -0-3 security. Aka lots of assets & few guards make for less security or "more crime".

Which also closes the door for other big impact quests?

Only insofar that issue quests are generally not meant to overwrite sandbox mechanics. F.e. I think there is an issue quest to take an enemy castle. That has a significant impact, but you are taking the castle through the sandbox mechanics, not because you succeeded the quest.

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

Only insofar that issue quests are generally not meant to overwrite sandbox mechanics.

I do not get it, sir. From answers we are getting from devs, it seems sandbox part of the game is so fragile that no features should have a real impact over sandbox. Like kingdom management, we had no real control over our lords, just we can decide how aggressive they should be in a war and that is it. We have no feasts bc that would impact sandbox. Like Lord Grindelvand said, we have not some Warband quests bc again that would impact sandbox. But as a player, if we have no real impact over sandbox with respect to how we play, why we should have incentive to play the game other than experiencing battles the game offers. I mean, are not we, as a player, playing this game bc our actions would change the course of sandbox in the first place. I think that is why for some people including me Warband feels superior over Bannerlord bc we had more choice to impact sandbox or we felt that was the case. But in Bannerlord, it seems only thing we could do to impact sanbox is winning ridiculous amount of battles.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

@Duh_TaleWorlds
I think maybe the word sandbox is being use to mean "simulation". Sandbox would be the game structure where the player DOES effect things and does as they wish and the simulation is the game's systems running without the player interfering. Anyway I think some compromise would be good like certain quests be always available to the player so they can raise relations with notables of just have something to do as they trot around the map early.

Also I agree (may not be in this topic?) that quests that award skill exp would be greatly appreciated! Perhaps they could be triggerable by the player and as a new addition they couldn't mess up the sandbox/simulation. Say the player inquires about helping the sick in the village and there is given villagers to carry in the party to heal and then return or some more creative thing. Or look for the thief in the village for... or you see, any number of things could be added. I do think it's important to have some means of circumventing the simulation though, it's very obnoxious to start a new game and for whatever reasons there's just no good quests, no recruits, etcetera. Adding something else to do at fiefs for the player not tied to "reasons" would help and if it could raise slower 'trouble' skills too that'd be two birds 1 stone.

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

I do not get it, sir. From answers we are getting from devs, it seems sandbox part of the game is so fragile that no features should have a real impact over sandbox.

That's not what I'm saying here. It is simply not desired that the sandbox simulation ( ) is significantly limited or overridden by more rigidly / linearly scripted mechanics such as quests. Currently, only the main storyline quest does so.

Having said that, it is certainly true that extending complex systems is more challenging and time intensive than simple ones. I gave an example earlier regarding a quest idea to "solve the shortage". Despite this being perfectly viable for the player to address with base game mechanics (purchase X at Y and deliver to Z)... the normal trade / production / etc. that happens during the time the player takes may very well resolve the shortage. So one would either need to accept rather akward situations (player observes an abundance of resources despite a shortage being described), cancel the quest when conditions are going the wrong way (potentially frustrating players) or artificially maintain the shortage (interfering with a number of sandbox systems - and thus allowing players to harm settlements simply by taking and not completing quests).

Anyway I think some compromise would be good like certain quests be always available to the player so they can raise relations with notables of just have something to do as they trot around the map early.

It doesn't seem realistic to me that a new type of quest would be introduced for the base game at this point. Having said that, I personally would have liked to have the ability for stationed clan members to target specific characters rather than the random gains they provide now.

I am also not entirely sold that the issue quests would suddenly be a lot more fun to people that don't enjoy them now - just because they became more impactful. Indeed, do the people here that didn't know the effects before we discussed them now find "need grain seeds" more engaging and entertaining?

In the worst case, stronger effects would just make the players that don't enjoy issue quests feel more obligated to engage with them. Whatever the case, the first step - to me - would be to improve what information is conveyed how. (I still favor the quest log over dialogues as it can be less ambiguous.)

Would you guys consider tying in more Quests that could potentially raise (sometimes expertly) skills/proficiencies? That is an area most would agree advance way to slow, but now if we had the occasional Quest that could surprisingly raise these -it would kill 2 birds with one stone without effecting the World Stage

Also I agree (may not be in this topic?) that quests that award skill exp would be greatly appreciated! Perhaps they could be triggerable by the player and as a new addition they couldn't mess up the sandbox/simulation.

I personally don't see an issue with such a quest reward assuming they make thematic sense. So I am happy to forward that some people enjoy them very much. Having said that, I do not believe that the fundamental issue of imbalanced or unsatisfactory skill experience gains should be fixed through it. Ideally, the foundation is improved to an acceptable degree and other mechanics provide additional options to the player.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

It doesn't seem realistic to me that a new type of quest would be introduced for the base game at this point.

Okay, I have no idea how close to the end point you are. It could perhaps be more like an existing quest or several can be triggered by the player by talking to a notables, simple ones like "deal with brigands" "needs things", just so the lay has some means to do something for a notable on demand.

Having said that, I personally would have liked to have the ability for stationed clan members to target specific characters rather than the random gains they provide now.

Also I don't think the emissary works in villages. I can't remember if this has been addressed as a bug or design though.

I am also not entirely sold that the issue quests would suddenly be a lot more fun to people that don't enjoy them now - just because they became more impactful. Indeed, do the people here that didn't know the effects before we discussed them now find "need grain seeds" more engaging and entertaining?

I guess so. I look at it very differently: I'm looking at the effect and progress of my clan as I progress the early game and it's more about having convenient things to do as I move across the map. Later it's making use of rare luls in campaign time to raise relations with notables. So I don't even consider "is it fun to catch 8 groups of looters" I only consider "If I do this without waiting too much (campaign) time can I recruit more things to throw in garrisons later?"

I personally don't see an issue with such a quest reward assuming they make thematic sense. So I am happy to forward that some people enjoy them very much. Having said that, I do not believe that the fundamental issue of imbalanced or unsatisfactory skill experience gains should be fixed through it. Ideally, the foundation is improved to an acceptable degree and other mechanics provide additional options to the player.

I agree it should be fixed in other ways but I feel there is need to raise non-combat skills like medicine consistently and early and quest rewards would aid this. Of course, I have no idea what improvements you guys are working on for it.

 

[JunKeteer]

I think maybe the word sandbox is being use to mean "simulation". Sandbox would be the game structure where the player DOES effect things and does as they wish and the simulation is the game's systems running without the player interfering.

It's like a sandbox, but there's this mesh-netting of systems tied overtop it that prevent true 'sandbox' playthroughs; at least from what I expect sandbox-type games to portray.

Having said that, it is certainly true that extending complex systems is more challenging and time intensive than simple ones. I gave an example earlier regarding a quest idea to "solve the shortage". Despite this being perfectly viable for the player to address with base game mechanics (purchase X at Y and deliver to Z)... the normal trade / production / etc. that happens during the time the player takes may very well resolve the shortage. So one would either need to accept rather akward situations (player observes an abundance of resources despite a shortage being described), cancel the quest when conditions are going the wrong way (potentially frustrating players) or artificially maintain the shortage (interfering with a number of sandbox systems - and thus allowing players to harm settlements simply by taking and not completing quests).

I think that is the main issue, due to the decision to tie quests to the overall 'simulation/economy/loyalty' in game - they become awkward or can be manipulated by players. But on the flip side, although it may mess the 'balance' of the game, it gives more freedom to players to essentially control the flow of their single-player game. We should be able to starve out a region to create imbalance/loyalty/rebellion in a certain area, or ignore quest and things go on as normal, or do the quest to 'bolster' a region.
Albeit in a more...realistic theme vs solely abusing game mechanics given we are not part of the 'script'.

I am also not entirely sold that the issue quests would suddenly be a lot more fun to people that don't enjoy them now - just because they became more impactful. Indeed, do the people here that didn't know the effects before we discussed them now find "need grain seeds" more engaging and entertaining?

In the worst case, stronger effects would just make the players that don't enjoy issue quests feel more obligated to engage with them. Whatever the case, the first step - to me - would be to improve what information is conveyed how. (I still favor the quest log over dialogues as it can be less ambiguous.)

True, but at the same time, not doing the quests also shouldn't punish the players in a way that 'compels' them to do them in a sandbox game. Rebellion system itself is fine, but the factors to reduce the towns loyalty with both the culture differentials and unresolved quest negatives make it feel like we have to do quests or get specific culture companions.

I personally don't see an issue with such a quest reward assuming they make thematic sense. So I am happy to forward that some people enjoy them very much. Having said that, I do not believe that the fundamental issue of imbalanced or unsatisfactory skill experience gains should be fixed through it. Ideally, the foundation is improved to an acceptable degree and other mechanics provide additional options to the player.

Yes, quests shouldn't cover for the current imbalance/unsatisfactory skill experience gain. But once that is at a better state, it would be nice to have isolated quests that players can 'target' to build a specific RP character if they wish to as an added layer.