Quests are boring

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

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.

You are able to. Buy up all the food they are willing to sell. Have the notables support your clan (if in enemy town -> loyalty loss iirc). Raid their villages. Start a siege. If you wish to "bolster" it in turn, you can use various sandbox mechanics (be it trade, clearing hideouts, defending villages) as well as complete quests (they do give boosts - they just don't resolve / override larger sandbox dynamics).

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.

That is the argument I am making A balance needs to be struck between having meaningful issue quests, having plentiful issue quests and having non-obligatory issue quests.

 

[JunKeteer]

You are able to. Buy up all the food they are willing to sell. Have the notables support your clan (if in enemy town -> loyalty loss iirc). Raid their villages. Start a siege. If you wish to "bolster" it in turn, you can use various sandbox mechanics (be it trade, clearing hideouts, defending villages) as well as complete quests (they do give boosts - they just don't resolve / override larger sandbox dynamics).

All I hope is that the encyclopedia is fleshed out further in the future to explain how all these systems tie together as it's not too clear sometimes. I get that it might remove some immersive elements from the game by spoon-feeding too much info to the player but that stance was already removed with the decision to look up 'instant' info on NPCs in the encyclopedia; which as a byproduct, removed the necessity of those dialogue interactions/routes in the game world with NPCs.

That is the argument I am making A balance needs to be struck between having meaningful issue quests, having plentiful issue quests and having non-obligatory issue quests.

Yep, I myself don't particularly care for the story/immersion elements of the quests (given the RP story is not good/the point in the game - to be honest) as it's just an X>Y>Z function/objective for me.
We get that clan reputation banner, skill/exp text, and tune notifications upon completion; but maybe also something like a 'prosperity/criminal/influence in X town' or a 'honesty/devious trait/etc...' counter would be nice too.
Or if there is a chain reaction of the quests (unless there is already) that leads from one subset probability of quest to another subset that could influence the multiplier of the rewards you receive or the 'direction' you want to influence a certain region as a background objective.
Ie. completing/failing # of prosperity 'X' quests > +/-%frequency of denar/trade related 'Y' quests > +/-%frequency of 'Z' quests (being criminal/combat or whatever).

 

[Lusitani 5th Empire]

Yep, I myself don't particularly care for the story/immersion elements of the quests (given the RP story is not good/the point in the game - to be honest) as it's just an X>Y>Z function/objective for me.

Yep, I think this is the issue. If the reward for doing a quest can be matched by doing something more engaging like fighting you won't choose doing the quest. The game will have the main story line and this kind of small replayable quests, why not having some "medium sized" quests that are more unique and interesting, it's possible to make them replayable too, allow different choices and add different outcomes.
Exploring places like the settlements (that no one visits) and adding ruins, temples, caves that could go along with these quests would be great.
As for rewards, there needs to be something more unique, that you can't get otherwise, like weapons, armor, books, skills...

 

[JunKeteer]

Yep, I think this is the issue. If the reward for doing a quest can be matched by doing something more engaging like fighting you won't choose doing the quest. The game will have the main story line and this kind of small replayable quests, why not having some "medium sized" quests that are more unique and interesting, it's possible to make them replayable too, allow different choices and add different outcomes.
Exploring places like the settlements (that no one visits) and adding ruins, temples, caves that could go along with these quests would be great.
As for rewards, there needs to be something more unique, that you can't get otherwise, like weapons, armor, books, skills...

Exactly, quests in this game aren't exactly riveting or story-building. But if that is the case/direction TW is sticking with (which is fine imo), maybe add additional rewards that have a wider or more 'targeted' range of results that don't necessarily affect the world economy system.
They are only useful for the very early stages as by the time you get even to the early mid-game, they become obsolete as there's plenty of easier/quicker/more fun ways to get reputation/money.

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

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.

Right! Interesting, so as long as the sandbox mechanics aren't disturbed...

But even if there was a quest with significant impact, say, broker a peace treaty, the one I mentioned earlier was in Warband. Wouldn't the sandbox mechanics smooth out that disturbance? If Kingdom A was on the verge of snowballing so Kingdom B and C start a war. And Kingdom A asks you to broker a peace with kingdom B and you succesfully do so. Wouldn't the sandbox mechanics take the hit and ask kingdom D to wager a war, to balance the scales again?

In short, are the sandbox mechanics as delicate as we think or can it smooth itself out after a disturbance?

The Rebellion system was mentioned earlier and I think thats a prime example. But why not tie a quest to it? If a rebellion is detected to occur by the system, trigger the quest: Assassinate a notable / install a rebellion. The sandbox mechanic was about the trigger the rebellion anyway. Not doing the quest could only prevent you from gaining favorable relationpoints and traitpoints and perhaps slightly delay the rebellion.

 

[Goyyyio]

Duh gives interesting information.... Number wise. A small growth in a village upon doing a quest is great, sure, but as a player being immersed in a world, I'm still just getting an instant reward after doing something, without any in game feedback on how I'm helping or that people in the game even care about it. I don't want to play a game to see results behind of what I'm seeing, am I the only one on this? They've made a personality feature for NPCs that only matters behind the set of the game, but when you speak with them it could be any of the other NPCs really, which is why I always have a bland experience with this game. It's cool that a number raises from 5 to 6 if you do one thing but why me as a player who needs to be immersed into a world would actually care if no one in the game cares!!! It's a videogame not a math competition

 

[Brano]

More of "Small War" and "Small Unit Tactics" quests would spice up my avatars experience. Smtg to do just with companions or alone. Bar fights, ambushes, sabotage, kidnapping, hunting, hazard games, drinking contests, stealing...

 

[froggyluv]

Duh gives interesting information.... Number wise. A small growth in a village upon doing a quest is great, sure, but as a player being immersed in a world, I'm still just getting an instant reward after doing something, without any in game feedback on how I'm helping or that people in the game even care about it. I don't want to play a game to see results behind of what I'm seeing, am I the only one on this? They've made a personality feature for NPCs that only matters behind the set of the game, but when you speak with them it could be any of the other NPCs really, which is why I always have a bland experience with this game. It's cool that a number raises from 5 to 6 if you do one thing but why me as a player who needs to be immersed into a world would actually care if no one in the game cares!!! It's a videogame not a math competition

Well said. The math needs to effect personalities and NPC relations in a an illustrative and fun way - gamers always want to feel that they've made a difference and see that difference in the game world. Just giving you a +1, is the opposite of immersive

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

But even if there was a quest with significant impact, say, broker a peace treaty, the one I mentioned earlier was in Warband. Wouldn't the sandbox mechanics smooth out that disturbance? If Kingdom A was on the verge of snowballing so Kingdom B and C start a war. And Kingdom A asks you to broker a peace with kingdom B and you succesfully do so. Wouldn't the sandbox mechanics take the hit and ask kingdom D to wager a war, to balance the scales again?

If we take the peace "treaty" as an example, and ignore that we are giving the player a huge power over all other actors (forcing them into peace), I think the challenge lies with believable, meaningful consequences. Specifically, when do you restore the sandbox mechanics? Immediately after the quest? If the peace was forced, there would likely be an immediate redeclaration of war. Or do you enforce peace for X number of days? That is a fairly significant intrusion and would likely also warrant some sort of special penalty if the player, in turn, breached said peace. Or do you want the quest to change all the preferences of the various decision makers - which are normally derived from their assessment of the sandbox context? Finally, you mention that the sandbox should address the balance of power consequences - but what if the player does several such quests (assuming they have enforced long term rules)?

In short, are the sandbox mechanics as delicate as we think or can it smooth itself out after a disturbance?

Depends on what you mean in detail. When it comes to game development & software in general, what an end user may think is easy can be rather hard/impossible and vice versa.

Duh gives interesting information.... Number wise. A small growth in a village upon doing a quest is great, sure, but as a player being immersed in a world, I'm still just getting an instant reward after doing something, without any in game feedback on how I'm helping or that people in the game even care about it. I don't want to play a game to see results behind of what I'm seeing, am I the only one on this? They've made a personality feature for NPCs that only matters behind the set of the game, but when you speak with them it could be any of the other NPCs really, which is why I always have a bland experience with this game. It's cool that a number raises from 5 to 6 if you do one thing but why me as a player who needs to be immersed into a world would actually care if no one in the game cares!!! It's a videogame not a math competition

• Quests have dialogues that provide in game feedback
• Quests and other actions increase your relationships (which is accompanied by very clear in game feedback, annoyingly so for me)
  • This affects
    • Greetings (All)
      • On a sidenote - we updated these to cover cases where players managed to have relations with characters that they haven't yet met. This was done based on player feedback, despite your claims that we ignore it.
    • Available Recruits (Notables)
    • Willingness to become your clan supporter (Notable)
    • Willingness to give you quests (All IIRC)
    • Voting (Lords)
    • IIRC - Willingness to attack your fiefs (Lords)
    • I think there are other things as well, such as cost to invite someone to your army, ability to enter some fiefs, etc... but I can't recall everything offhand.
• Quests can affect player character traits as well
  • If enough is shifted, you will receive a circle notification on that. (Not sure if its already released. But i think this too came up based on community discussion we observed.)

To be honest, your post is lacking a real suggestion. Do you have a specific thing that you want to see?

 

[Death2Tyrants]

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.

When you say "Not currently" are you saying that there are plans to have high security reduce crime? Also, I would disagree that it reflects the situation. You can have very high security and still have many bands of looters roaming just outside your gates. At least, that has been my experience.

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.

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.

Also, it seems the "sanctity" of the sandbox takes precedence over everything? What is the sandbox? I'd imagined that quest is a sandbox mechanic.

You are able to. Buy up all the food they are willing to sell. Have the notables support your clan (if in enemy town -> loyalty loss iirc). Raid their villages. Start a siege. If you wish to "bolster" it in turn, you can use various sandbox mechanics (be it trade, clearing hideouts, defending villages) as well as complete quests (they do give boosts - they just don't resolve / override larger sandbox dynamics).


That is the argument I am making A balance needs to be struck between having meaningful issue quests, having plentiful issue quests and having non-obligatory issue quests.

It would be great if our parties/caravans could act as an extension of our agency. Right now, they act like any other npc which is a major source of annoyance. Right now, I just don't bother with caravans because eventually, those idiots will run into some far off part of the world and get destroyed by either looters or enemies.

If we had agency over our caravans and parties, we could at least deal with the food shortages but I'm guessing that'll interfere with the sandbox too.

I think the lack of control over my "dominion" is something that frustrates me. It's really all the little things that makes the game annoying mid game onwards.

Once you get a 2nd party or caravan going, the idiot runs off to get slaughtered and then you have to fetch the idiot who lacks basic sense to return home. Changing a party leader's gear is tedious. You can't tell them to hire only certain troops so they have lots of useless looters. Worst, they like to dump their looters in your garrisons (is that how we solve crime? TW's idea of UBI? LOL) Or they'll go around giving others the best troops that you've just given them. They don't defend our villages. Etc etc. Frankly, anything outside of your personal party is annoying to interact with.

Is that what the sandbox is? That everything will just keep on keeping on with or without the player? I don't find that fun.

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

When you say "Not currently" are you saying that there are plans to have high security reduce crime? Also, I would disagree that it reflects the situation. You can have very high security and still have many bands of looters roaming just outside your gates. At least, that has been my experience.

No, I am just not ruling it out for potential consideration / implementation. I personally think such a change should probably not be made unless it is part of a larger overhaul that comprehensively reevaluates & balances all the interdependencies. But I only make recommendations, not final decisions.

Also, it seems the "sanctity" of the sandbox takes precedence over everything? What is the sandbox? I'd imagined that quest is a sandbox mechanic.

I use the term as shorthand for the sandbox simulation, which, admittedly, the quests are also a part of. So to clarify - In my understanding, there is meant to be a relatively level playing field. The player has some advantages, the AI has some advantages. But by and large we seek to keep them playing the same game. So quests that can override the generic systems that everyone uses challenge that.

Edith: This general inclination may help explain the significance of the problems that were discussed earlier in the topic - Some quest ideas can be invalidated by the sandbox lest they significantly interfere with its generic rules. (Like the quest that makes peace / war just to be invalidated the day after through a vote.)

It would be great if our parties/caravans could act as an extension of our agency. Right now, they act like any other npc which is a major source of annoyance. Right now, I just don't bother with caravans because eventually, those idiots will run into some far off part of the world and get destroyed by either looters or enemies.

I personally agree on that front and would have liked to see something that allows players to define trade routes, etc. However, the desired level of control is below that - with the intention to have NPC characters with their own agency rather than just an extension of the player's. While there is certainly grounds for debate when, where and how much it should be applied, IMO this partial / limited control is one of the things that has been with the M&B series from the start (think about how you don't have any bird's eye view during battle).

 

[Death2Tyrants]

No, I am just not ruling it out for potential consideration / implementation. I personally think such a change should probably not be made unless it is part of a larger overhaul that comprehensively reevaluates & balances all the interdependencies. But I only make recommendations, not final decisions.

Hmmm fair enough. I do understand that we need bandits at the start otherwise as a player, or even NPCs there's really no easy way to level up.
However, if we tie bandit spawn with security, we could simply have most of the border towns start with low security so the player can go there to farm?

In my understanding, there is meant to be a relatively level playing field. The player has some advantages, the AI has some advantages. But by and large we seek to keep them playing the same game.

That's very laudable. I certainly welcome that design philosophy. However, in a way, it's like typecasting PC to NPC.
It's a tough thing to balance for sure. A very interesting problem.

So quests that can override the generic systems that everyone uses challenge that.

Edith: This general inclination may help explain the significance of the problems that were discussed earlier in the topic - Some quest ideas can be invalidated by the sandbox lest they significantly interfere with its generic rules. (Like the quest that makes peace / war just to be invalidated the day after through a vote.)

Well, if quest are part of sandbox mechanics, maybe the solution is to create more cohesion rather than dilute the power of quests/events. As you say, everyone, pc and npc have access to quests. Speaking of war and peace, current formulation behind it isn't realistic. A good rule is to not fight on 2 or 3 fronts. Unfortunately, my lords and ladies love a good rumble. Much to our demise.

I personally agree on that front and would have liked to see something that allows players to define trade routes, etc. However, the desired level of control is below that - with the intention to have NPC characters with their own agency rather than just an extension of their own. While there is certainly grounds for debate when, where and how much it should be applied, IMO this partial / limited control is one of the things that has been with the M&B series from the start (think about how you don't have any bird's eye view during battle).

Yes, but in warband, we didn't have other parties or caravans to control. I'm not overly fussed with the npc clans doing as they will. I think we can even take that a step further, for example, clans who are against the war might not even leave their areas to fight unless called to an army. Or they might form their own army to patrol their own regions. The relationship system needs some work too.

My parties and my caravans however, ought to do as I tell them to do. I'm glad to hear you agree. Please please try to convince the powers that be to include that. I'll give y'all a cookie.

TWO!

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

As you say, everyone, pc and npc have access to quests.

No, quests fall into the category of "player benefit that the AI doesn't have". NPCs don't actively pursue quests, there is just a random chance for them to be solved when a lord party enters a city (iirc). Given that (some) players already find the decision system (which they have some means to influence) annoying when it interferes with their plans... imagine how such a random event would feel.

So the point of this statement was - because it is geared to the player and because there is an inclination towards a level playing field and because certain quest ideas require significant interference with the generic mechanics that everyone normally works with, issue quests are limited in scope and effect. In my view.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

No, quests fall into the category of "player benefit that the AI doesn't have". NPCs don't actively pursue quests, there is just a random chance for them to be solved when a lord party enters a city (iirc).

So npcs don't gain the benefit of quests? Or is it a case of they don't benefit as much because they don't actively pursue quests? I'm assuming it is the latter as I have noticed the quests are occasionally resolved. If the power of quests are limited because of unequal benefits arising from unequal pursuit of quests, it begs the question, why aren't NPCs programmed to actively pursue quests.

Alternatively, one could also argue that it balances out to a certain extent. NPCs don't need to put in effort to resolve quests. That's currently an auto resolve feature isn't it? It's not like they actually accompany a caravan or buy the goods. They're just getting the benefits free at x% chance.

Unless of course, it gets resolved but they don't benefit at all. If so, why not then?

Given that (some) players already find the decision system (which they have some means to influence) annoying when it interferes with their plans... imagine how such a random event would feel.

Ah yes. The decision system. Count me in as one of the annoyed. It's not that I disagree with the system but that the decision system needs work. Some of my reasons:

1. Stipulating an influence cap doesn't make sense. If you really wanted something badly, you'd call in all your favors. That's what influence points are meant to reflect (or should reflect). You should be able to sway votes too. People with good relations ought to vote in line with you. People who dislike you ought to vote against you.

2. Relations count for jack. The person who is loyal and loves me 100% dares to vote against me? Really?

3. Fief distribution - it's always the same few names. The 2 idiots who constantly fail to defend their fiefs and the 1 guy who's closest to the new fief. Nobles should use their influence to nominate who gets the fief. Nomination improves relations. Good relations attract nominations. But we're stuck with 3 options only because the UI only allows for max 3? Make it a loop then. You nominate A/B repeatedly until we're left with the 3 with the most nominations and then we vote.

4. War/Peace - the NPCs calculations are too basic. We're stronger so we declare war works well when you're facing 1 opponent. So why declare a 2nd front? And a 3rd? The fix is just as simple. While in a war, do not declare another war. Improve the algorithm and players would not get so annoyed.


We should try to capture the essence of the player's progression as well. At the start, you try to win favors and do stuff to get people to like you. You vote the way your patron votes. At some point, you own a few towns and castles and you're now a powerhouse. You have lots of influence. Weaker nobles would tend to gravitate towards you and their votes reflect that. *Now you start to influence the direction of the kingdom.

When you finally become king, you have to deal with the powerhouses in the kingdom. But now, there's no progression. From landless noble to king, it feels exactly the same. I can have tons of influence and still not feel like I have any influence.

*A few suggestions on how we can implement that. One way, influence decay. Landless nobles need patrons to supply them with influence. By supplying them with influence, you buy their votes. Another way is to have a feudal hierarchy but that'll require a different system. Influence is fine imo. We just need to add some value to it. Right now, influence seems pretty useless as the NPCs tend to vote in lockstep all the time. I don't bother voting except to buy good relations.

So the point of this statement was - because it is geared to the player and because there is an inclination towards a level playing field and because certain quest ideas require significant interference with the generic mechanics that everyone normally works with, issue quests are limited in scope and effect. In my view.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with limiting it in scope but disagree that we should limit the effects to the extent that it seems negligible because in the grand scheme of things, it balances out. I think the effects should be more meaningful. Little impact just makes it meaningless and if it's meaningless, why have it? I leave you with this quote:

Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there.

— Anton Chekhov



Edit:

I don't know why I bother buying good relations either. I just do it because.

 

[JunKeteer]

隐藏: snip

Ah yes. The decision system. Count me in as one of the annoyed. It's not that I disagree with the system but that the decision system needs work. Some of my reasons:

1. Stipulating an influence cap doesn't make sense. If you really wanted something badly, you'd call in all your favors. That's what influence points are meant to reflect (or should reflect). You should be able to sway votes too. People with good relations ought to vote in line with you. People who dislike you ought to vote against you.

2. Relations count for jack. The person who is loyal and loves me 100% dares to vote against me? Really?

3. Fief distribution - it's always the same few names. The 2 idiots who constantly fail to defend their fiefs and the 1 guy who's closest to the new fief. Nobles should use their influence to nominate who gets the fief. Nomination improves relations. Good relations attract nominations. But we're stuck with 3 options only because the UI only allows for max 3? Make it a loop then. You nominate A/B repeatedly until we're left with the 3 with the most nominations and then we vote.

4. War/Peace - the NPCs calculations are too basic. We're stronger so we declare war works well when you're facing 1 opponent. So why declare a 2nd front? And a 3rd? The fix is just as simple. While in a war, do not declare another war. Improve the algorithm and players would not get so annoyed.

We should try to capture the essence of the player's progression as well. At the start, you try to win favors and do stuff to get people to like you. You vote the way your patron votes. At some point, you own a few towns and castles and you're now a powerhouse. You have lots of influence. Weaker nobles would tend to gravitate towards you and their votes reflect that. *Now you start to influence the direction of the kingdom.

When you finally become king, you have to deal with the powerhouses in the kingdom. But now, there's no progression. From landless noble to king, it feels exactly the same. I can have tons of influence and still not feel like I have any influence.

*A few suggestions on how we can implement that. One way, influence decay. Landless nobles need patrons to supply them with influence. By supplying them with influence, you buy their votes. Another way is to have a feudal hierarchy but that'll require a different system. Influence is fine imo. We just need to add some value to it. Right now, influence seems pretty useless as the NPCs tend to vote in lockstep all the time. I don't bother voting except to buy good relations.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with limiting it in scope but disagree that we should limit the effects to the extent that it seems negligible because in the grand scheme of things, it balances out. I think the effects should be more meaningful. Little impact just makes it meaningless and if it's meaningless, why have it?

Edit:
I don't know why I bother buying good relations either. I just do it because.

Good points, influence was an interesting add-on in BL besides just the permanent growth of renown/clan tier from Warband. There just has to be better or more uses and areas we should be able to spend influence on as once you get mid/late-game, you just accumulate a ****load of it. The only influence sink is clicking that button to boost your relation/influence of the other clans (not really good gameplay); and it also gives the PC an unfair advantage creating very purposeful armies to take castle after castle (vs the current AI army mechanics).

It's probably too late at this stage, but it would've been nice if influence more heavily focused on influencing your clan's tier or if clan tier had more purpose with it having the ability to drop as well. Other influence options such as:

• affecting your workshop# and viability
• 'maintenance' factors for your clan's tier upkeep
• kids' education (increase or heavy focus directions); or even culture upbringing
• voting as a spend/% vs just the 1-2-3 options (and any diminishing return factors)
• how many castles/towns you can/should be able to handle (not a popular opinion)

As of now, clan tiers means nothing at a certain point as you only go up. I get that it get's requires more points the higher you get but if one was to do a playthrough multi-generationally, what is the cap or purpose of it? I've only done to T6; can you get to T20, +X workshops, +X companions, can NPCs get to T20?
There's a lack of 'difficulty' in the end game where things only go upwards and there's hardly any challenge or obstacles that go against you (unless you try really hard to RP so that it's a serious handicap).

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

influence was an interesting add-on in BL besides just the permanent growth of renown/clan tier from Warband.

Nope, it was not.

Hitting Multiple People

Can you explain why exactly these are that bad and how this will ruin Bannerlord? 1. Influence from my persoective looks like another currency you can manage, like reown, money, honor, etc. 2. The armor design is subjective and looks perfectly fine in my eyes. 3. Multi enemy cleaving is not a...

forums.taleworlds.com

Boiiiiii I'm finna flame yo ass

1. "Influence" is a (very poor) approximation of how much people in your faction like you. In a pre-capitalist society, somebody is influential due partially to their authority*, but mostly due to how many friends they have. This was already present in warband, with renown and honour taking the place of authority, while person to person friendships simulated themselves. this did not need abstracting. when you abstractify a system, you amoutate the ability to interact with it in a dynamic way.
Let's take Homeworld 1 and 2. Excellent space RTS games, although the first game offered far more tactical options. The reason was that in HW1, all the bullets and lasers were real entities that could be avoided if the player was good enough.
However, in HW2 it's abstracted into a percent chance to hit, with some modifiers based on ship size. For many situations this didn't change anything, but it meant that you couldn't dodge shots, you couldn't use different formations to increase or decrease hit chance, and missed shots didn't hit ships behind the target. It was a pointless abstraction for something the game is perfectly capable of simulating entirely. This is my main gripe with the influence system.

Influence as we've seen it so far is an irredeemable mechanic because first of all, how do you "spend" influence? If you ask for a favour in the countryside, why would anyone in the city care about it enough to lower your influence globally? Why does asking for favours make you less influential? In an authority-based, hierarchical society, why should a king ever be less influential than a subordinate just because he asked someone to follow him around (WHICH IS HIS DAMN JOB)?
Gameplay wise, it punishes these actions for no reason. Why should a player be punished for asking for help within his own faction? What's the point of making friends if they might refuse you if you don't have enough influence mana points to spend?
Renown is not a currency. You don't "spend" renown on anything, you instead lose it by not living up to the ideal it represents, like by losing a battle. Honour is the same. Influence should be the same. You should lose influence by not living up to theideal of an influential person. Maube you get caught boning a pig or something. But literally doing what in influential person should do, i.e. boss people around, should not cause you to become less influential. It's a gamified, zero-sum system which is needlessly balanced around constantly grinding for influence, essentially discouraging any use of the system at all.

*Authority is how much social clout somebody has. This varies between societies. In herder societies an old person with lots of descendants has lots of authority. In societies which value war, authority is gained by fighting and repaying blood for blood. In most agrarian societies authority is imposed and probably indistinguishable from "power" which is authority by force or by coercion.
Modern democracies generally lack authority figures in the same way you'd get in the aforementioned, hence why it's quite a difficult term to explain easily.

tl;dr if somebody is influential within a society, people will do stuff for them even if there are no consequences whatsoever for disobeying.

This post is from June 01, 2018 by @Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James . Everything he said right on point before we even got a chance to play the game. I was optimistic back then about this new influence mechanich but I was wrong. It is unimmersive as hell. I dare to say it is unimmersive objectively not subjectively.

 

[JunKeteer]

I'm not saying I'm satisfied with it, it is another half-baked system in the game as it is due to the lack of real purposeful uses for it.
Warband renown went the way of clan tier in BL; honor the way of the 'traits'.
Influence is just another meter in BL but as it is, lacks features that one would assume influence would or could impact in a medieval setting. Or maybe it was a translation thing as I'm sure there's a better word to describe what its current functional purpose is in game vs naming it 'influence'.

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

it is another half-baked system in the game as it is due to the lack of real purposeful uses for it.

The problem is not about its being half-baked but its existence in the first place.

 

[JunKeteer]

The problem is not about its being half-baked but its existence in the first place.

Well, it was probably already at too late at that stage by TW to change course; considering the other effects it has on the other systems. We're stuck with it and see no point bringing that past up as, realistically, it won't be removed now. So the only thing we can do is provide whatever feedback and possible suggestions where it may be improved upon if that is even in their scope/consideration still to fix.
There's a lot of other things in the game besides the influence system that I saw and still see as questionable from the first EA playthrough ~2+ years ago. Some were improved upon, but wishing things removed at this stage is too late and would only further reduce what content of the game as it is has to offer since I don't really see them even adding future/notable features; only QoL/balance adjustments here or there.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

As of now, clan tiers means nothing at a certain point as you only go up. I get that it get's requires more points the higher you get but if one was to do a playthrough multi-generationally, what is the cap or purpose of it? I've only done to T6; can you get to T20, +X workshops, +X companions, can NPCs get to T20?
There's a lack of 'difficulty' in the end game where things only go upwards and there's hardly any challenge or obstacles that go against you (unless you try really hard to RP so that it's a serious handicap).

Yea clan tiers aren't well fleshed out either. It's like an MMO concept that doesn't translate well to BL.

Well, the challenge is there but it's hacked in. The challenge comes from your nobles declaring war on everyone at the same time. It's not a real challenge per se but it sure is annoying. It's just playing whack a mole.

The problem is not about its being half-baked but its existence in the first place.

Can't really be helped at this stage

We can only try to be constructive and hope they wake up. I find it helpful to just walk away for a few months at a time.