-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Raiding is not viable due to massive relations penalty
- 主题发起人 durbal
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Mountainhorse
Regular
There's a lot of way to lose relations with everyone but barely any to raise them. Hell if you pick 'treat people good' during character creation a lot of village notables will outright have -2 relation with you right of the bat. Then we have only reliable way to increase relation with lords is to attack, beat then release them.
I don't see an issue with the relations loss.
But the good point that has been brought up in my opinion is: raiding is not a choice simply because the benefits in my opinion do not outweigh the cons under any circumstance.
It takes too long, doesn't earn you much at all aside from the reputation loss. Sure it marginally helps from a strategic point of view to do it in an effort to lower a garrison, but truthfully speaking, it takes too long to achieve a meaningful result, between raiding the villages and waiting for the garrison numbers to drop, you are giving that faction the time to assemble an army and fence you off.
It simply needs a rework in my opinion, not worth it at the minute. But the right route I believe it's not messing with the relations loss, but simply making the raids themselves worth considering as an option depending on circumstances.
But the good point that has been brought up in my opinion is: raiding is not a choice simply because the benefits in my opinion do not outweigh the cons under any circumstance.
It takes too long, doesn't earn you much at all aside from the reputation loss. Sure it marginally helps from a strategic point of view to do it in an effort to lower a garrison, but truthfully speaking, it takes too long to achieve a meaningful result, between raiding the villages and waiting for the garrison numbers to drop, you are giving that faction the time to assemble an army and fence you off.
It simply needs a rework in my opinion, not worth it at the minute. But the right route I believe it's not messing with the relations loss, but simply making the raids themselves worth considering as an option depending on circumstances.
Maybe an additional advantage of raiding could come in form of a bonus for the party, e.g. morale.
Pillaging and looting was of major interest for soldiers, as it constituted a major source of income during campaign.
Actually only extremely respected commanders were able to fully control the urge of their army to loot.
(I remember one byzantine general who severely punished his troops when they broke formation in order to loot enemies or make a run for the enemy baggage train. So this seems to have been a common problem.)
So maybe, pillaging a village could come with a substantial boost to morale and XP for troops (XP reflecting not only the experience from slaughtering the villagers, but from being able to buy better gear from the loot).
Nevertheless, negative repurcussions should stay in place.
Pillaging and looting was of major interest for soldiers, as it constituted a major source of income during campaign.
Actually only extremely respected commanders were able to fully control the urge of their army to loot.
(I remember one byzantine general who severely punished his troops when they broke formation in order to loot enemies or make a run for the enemy baggage train. So this seems to have been a common problem.)
So maybe, pillaging a village could come with a substantial boost to morale and XP for troops (XP reflecting not only the experience from slaughtering the villagers, but from being able to buy better gear from the loot).
Nevertheless, negative repurcussions should stay in place.
Jviking
Recruit
Raiding is garbage right now you make 0 money during the raid and by the time you get to sell what you raided for you already lost more then you sell
Also the biggest problem for me personally when you raid force recruit you dont get all the units...
I have 170h right now and i have never raided once unless it was doing a raider save
But if you are going to raid dont raid a village that recruits units that you potentially want
Also the biggest problem for me personally when you raid force recruit you dont get all the units...
I have 170h right now and i have never raided once unless it was doing a raider save
But if you are going to raid dont raid a village that recruits units that you potentially want
the problem is that the AI is immune to those effects, so it's Warband all over again (the bad part of Warband, that is)
Yeah I figured what he was saying few comments into our conversation. I think AI should suffer the same penalties really.
Speaking of rep, I think we definitely need to get rep from clearing those pesky bandits around villages (outside hideouts I mean), quests are too few and far apart usually so recruiting noble units (looking at you Sturgia!) can be a pain in the butt.
This will be slightly off topic but another problem with the raiding is that AI raid villages with their own culture. They lose one of their core cities and the next day they decide to raid one of the towns connected to that city. This doesn't make any sense. Why would you do that to your own people?
Teslanbenz
Recruit
Many very good points were made here. I would like to to leave my opinion on the subject too.
I think raiding is mostly fine, except for a few things, which include the lack of consequences for AI raiding. I'm heavily penalized for initiating a raid, but not for participating in one IIRC. My clan's parties also seem to be able to raid without penalties to relations. Before that's addressed, though, there needs to be an option to tell parties not to raid or else they will completely destroy years of hard diplomatic work in a single month.
Even though the actual numbers for the bonuses and penalties and how they're applied (if all in a single moment or distributed in a span of time instead) might need fine tuning, normal recruiting, for example, should not be a practical possibility after a raid. The need to take recruits by force (a possibility which is also weird to me, but less weird than having people volunteer to fight for you after you've raided their home) is much more logical in this case. To make them "forget" that would realistically take a whole generation or longer. Imagine trusting the people who just robbed your house, maybe even physically violating the village's women in the process, to bring your runaway daughter back.
Good points were made on not raiding villages you'd like to recruit volunteers from. On the other hand, the same should happen to the AI. Other clans shouldn't be able to peacefully recruit from villages they raided either. They should take that into consideration before deciding to raid and that's probably going to make them less likely to raid (at least villages with the same culture).
Concerning the viability of raiding as a macro strategy, though that also depends on what is the macro strategy, I'd advise against it unless strictly necessary (for a "bandit playstyle", for example). If your strategy depends on any type of support at all from a village, then it's probably not a good idea. To be honest, the game's economy is complex and interesting enough for us to reflect on real life and why people try not to get into wars to get what they want today. It's not because we're any "better", but because were "smarter" and know that wars are expensive and damage the economy. Raiding villages damage the economy. If a player plans on owning any fiefs any close to a given village, it's definitely a bad idea to raid it regardless of who "owns" the village.
In short: I don't think raids are penalizing raiders too much. IMO it's just not penalizing all raiders equally.
In the end, except for surgical, strategical war moves, upon which heavy negative consequences would be fair to befall nonetheless, only bandits and "evil" leaders (shortsighted people) will be likely to raid as part of a lifestyle.
I think raiding is mostly fine, except for a few things, which include the lack of consequences for AI raiding. I'm heavily penalized for initiating a raid, but not for participating in one IIRC. My clan's parties also seem to be able to raid without penalties to relations. Before that's addressed, though, there needs to be an option to tell parties not to raid or else they will completely destroy years of hard diplomatic work in a single month.
Even though the actual numbers for the bonuses and penalties and how they're applied (if all in a single moment or distributed in a span of time instead) might need fine tuning, normal recruiting, for example, should not be a practical possibility after a raid. The need to take recruits by force (a possibility which is also weird to me, but less weird than having people volunteer to fight for you after you've raided their home) is much more logical in this case. To make them "forget" that would realistically take a whole generation or longer. Imagine trusting the people who just robbed your house, maybe even physically violating the village's women in the process, to bring your runaway daughter back.
Good points were made on not raiding villages you'd like to recruit volunteers from. On the other hand, the same should happen to the AI. Other clans shouldn't be able to peacefully recruit from villages they raided either. They should take that into consideration before deciding to raid and that's probably going to make them less likely to raid (at least villages with the same culture).
Concerning the viability of raiding as a macro strategy, though that also depends on what is the macro strategy, I'd advise against it unless strictly necessary (for a "bandit playstyle", for example). If your strategy depends on any type of support at all from a village, then it's probably not a good idea. To be honest, the game's economy is complex and interesting enough for us to reflect on real life and why people try not to get into wars to get what they want today. It's not because we're any "better", but because were "smarter" and know that wars are expensive and damage the economy. Raiding villages damage the economy. If a player plans on owning any fiefs any close to a given village, it's definitely a bad idea to raid it regardless of who "owns" the village.
In short: I don't think raids are penalizing raiders too much. IMO it's just not penalizing all raiders equally.
In the end, except for surgical, strategical war moves, upon which heavy negative consequences would be fair to befall nonetheless, only bandits and "evil" leaders (shortsighted people) will be likely to raid as part of a lifestyle.
最后编辑:
Or if they have zero interest in said land. To be quite frank, I think that once the game get's it's basics done, i'll probably run a campaign where I'll eternally raid Khuzait and never conquer their lands. Even if I become Emperor and what-not. I usually avoid Khergits in Warband too, if I play them it's too much cheese... Too easy.
durbal
Sergeant
Go to your neighbors and ask what your current relations level is at and if they have any quests they're willing to give to you.
This would just make raiding equally useless for everyone. Might as well code the AI to never raid, since if they did they'd never have a place to recruit from.
The problem is that raiding as a means of indirect warfare is a very cool concept and the economic and settlement growth systems tie heavily into it. Lots of emergent gameplay and fun strategies can result from it. Unfortunately, it's not viable because if you raid a village you are pretty much forever locked out of ever interacting with it.
Teslanbenz
Recruit
I would let you come back to my village and greet you with open arms. I'd also poison every ounce of grain you purchased. I get you dont like the realistic negative opinion hit, but the fact is raiding someones home is RARELY something that is forgiven. You want to live a bandit lifestyle but not deal with negative implications that come with that, like being labeled a criminal. You cant "have ur cake and eat it too" bud. Do you think europeans allowed viking raiders into their settlements to recruit men or obtain supplies for their army? Of course not. The vikings raided and took what they pleased.
Not at all. They can always recruit by force. I've tried it and it works pretty well. There can be a fight before the recruits are available and the recruiting by force ends up becoming the only option because each time you do your relation with the village notables gets worse, but that's absolutely, perfectly consistent with the fact you raided the village. I really don't think it should be practical to restore relations with a village you raided.
I think I do understand your point, though, where raiding could/should be an everyday part of the game during wars etc. I assume it's a desire to be able to raid like the AI does and be only slightly penalized like, say, in a failed quest, if at all. That would mean villagers wouldn't be "taking it personal". They would understand "it's just war" and continue to offer you quests and recruits regardless. It's a perfectly valid designo option, IMO, but one I wouldn't like to see chosen as standard for the core game. How much raiding devastates the involved settlements' economy indicates it's probably not something designed/supposed to be done indiscriminately to all "enemy" villages in one's path, at least by leaders who understand that if the war goes well, those now devastated villages won't help the newly conquered settlements' prosperity as much as if they were left alone. In order to "make raiding great again" changes would have to be made in order to make it so raiding doesn't affect the villages' production or storage.
durbal
Sergeant
So how do you feel about being locked out of recruiting because you failed a quest? It's the same fundamental issue.
And you can't always recruit by force. For one thing, against neutral villages this will declare war (and as a vassal for another kingdom I don't know if that's possible). You also do not have that option if the village is owned by your faction.
As to your statement that you feel you shouldn't be able to recruit from a village you once raided: currently that's not how the game works. You're arguing in support of the flawed, overly-harsh relationship penalties from raiding but you don't seem to realize that you actually can freely raid villages -- and I'm going to have to say this yet again in this thread -- as long as you become the owner of the fief afterward. You. Not your faction. You. You must win the election. Alternatively, if you alternate between doing quests and raiding then you can also raid as much as you want. The problem is that once relations dip below -10 you are locked out of doing quests which are the primary means to raise relations.
Face it, the system doesn't work and attempts to rationalize it can't hold up to scrutiny. I'm not asking for raiding to be free of penalties. I'm not even asking for raiding penalties to not be harsh. I'm just asking for raiding to be viable and to not be eternally locked out of village relations, because right now there are two camps of people in this discussion:
1. Those who don't raid for some RP reasons or some such.
2. Those who don't raid because it's not a viable strategy.
There are lots of people in this thread that have voiced that they're part of group 2. You sound like you're from group 1. Unfortunately, both groups don't use the mechanic. Group 1 can continue doing what they're doing independent of any game mechanics changes. Group 2 is stuck with an unviable game mechanic that would add fun gameplay options if it were viable, especially at the already lackluster clan tier 1/2 and small party level.
最后编辑:
It feels awful and while I do agree the whole recruiting and relation system might need rebalancing and even be worth reviewing, the failure of a single quest negatively affects your recruiting (I don't like that either) but doesn't lock you out of anything. For a starter I think quests should award more upon successful completion and penalize less upon failure. I also think Charm is affecting rewards way too much.
EDIT: If you're playing on Realistic difficulty then it might indeed "lock you out" until you work your relation back up with the notable in question. I tried a 100% Realistic game (since the start) once, but it was too hardcore for me. Maybe I'll slowly raise the difficulty as the game starts getting easier because of gear and stats etc. And while we're at it: there should be an experience gaining rate bonus or some other kind of "reward" from playing in higher difficulties.
To spell out an example of one of the issues @durbal is talking about:
You can build your relations up by questing. Highest I've gotten to with a village notable is 56.
If you build relations high THEN raid the village, you can resume questing again as soon as the village returns to business.
The consequences of raiding are brutal and they should be brutal. How numerically brutal is a matter for tuning. The fundamental issue is that -10 is a magical relationship number that prevents questing and slams doors of relationship recovery in your face. Some people argue that raiding should slam the door in your face for a generation and maybe that's realistic, maybe it's even are viable gameplay design - the problem is that raiding doesn't slam the door in your face, -10 relation does. So you can raid and not have the door slammed in your face if you plan for it, or you can have the door slammed in your face without ever having raided.
When you complete the Family Feud quest by talking down the aggrieved party, you take a 5 relation penalty with them. Do the quest twice with the same aggrieved party (which you won't even realise you're doing unless you are paying keen attention) and BOOM, you are locked out from questing for that notable and outside of praying for someone else to mess with the village so you can save them and recover some relation, the village is basically dead to you. I have a guy in one of my games who keeps being the aggrieved party of Family Feud quests and I think I'm down to -45 relation with him now lol. There is effectively no disincentive to just keep driving his relation lower after it gets to -10.
For all the ethical and gameplay debate about the effects of raiding, the key problem isn't directly raiding at all - it is the arbitrary lock on questing that applies from -10 relationship. It is easy enough to argue that quest lockout is realistic and -10 is as good a number as any, but for gameplay purposes there are clearly issues with it.
You can build your relations up by questing. Highest I've gotten to with a village notable is 56.
If you build relations high THEN raid the village, you can resume questing again as soon as the village returns to business.
The consequences of raiding are brutal and they should be brutal. How numerically brutal is a matter for tuning. The fundamental issue is that -10 is a magical relationship number that prevents questing and slams doors of relationship recovery in your face. Some people argue that raiding should slam the door in your face for a generation and maybe that's realistic, maybe it's even are viable gameplay design - the problem is that raiding doesn't slam the door in your face, -10 relation does. So you can raid and not have the door slammed in your face if you plan for it, or you can have the door slammed in your face without ever having raided.
When you complete the Family Feud quest by talking down the aggrieved party, you take a 5 relation penalty with them. Do the quest twice with the same aggrieved party (which you won't even realise you're doing unless you are paying keen attention) and BOOM, you are locked out from questing for that notable and outside of praying for someone else to mess with the village so you can save them and recover some relation, the village is basically dead to you. I have a guy in one of my games who keeps being the aggrieved party of Family Feud quests and I think I'm down to -45 relation with him now lol. There is effectively no disincentive to just keep driving his relation lower after it gets to -10.
For all the ethical and gameplay debate about the effects of raiding, the key problem isn't directly raiding at all - it is the arbitrary lock on questing that applies from -10 relationship. It is easy enough to argue that quest lockout is realistic and -10 is as good a number as any, but for gameplay purposes there are clearly issues with it.
Your relationship will slowly (and seemingly randomly) recover if you own the fief. It does not replace the notables.
This might be because my character has high charm, or it might be the high security bonus to relations. The latter pops up in the event log but I don't get the top banner with any notables' relations improving, whereas I sometimes get a bunch of "Your relationship with X of FIEF has improved by 2 to 52" if I'm in the area or resting in a settlement nearby. It might be one of the parties in my clan saving villagers from bandits (sometimes the improvement is like +12 relations, which is damned big) but I can't be sure.
But at any rate, if you own the fief, yes, your relations will slowly improve on their own. Even if they utterly despise you.
I'm actually fine with this, because raiding has never not been annoying and imbalanced (in one way or another) in every Mount and Blade title, spin-off and mod. Remember getting your first village in Warband and having to camp on it to stop it from being raided from across the map? Remember your army peeling off parties to raid some village rated as "Poor" just so they could make it "Very Poor"? Well, that was Warband, and let's put the past behind us: what about raiding a village with a silver mine in Bannerlord, only to discover that SURPRISE there are only two bits of silver ore but eleven bags of grain and some cheese as a result of your larceny and arson? This is spite of there having been fifteen silver ore on the village market to purchase. It is absolutely no exaggeration to say that you lose potential profit by raiding instead of purchasing.
The entire system needs to be reworked because it is nothing more than a trap. Even if you don't give a damn about the village, you're better off engaging in some other activity to gain income because the actual payouts from raiding are objectively terrible. Worst is that raiding is a fixed time, mostly static amount acitivity that does not scale with anything except (maybe) your Roguery skill and some of the perks. Beating up groups of looters pays similar amounts, even before factoring in the risks involved and the opportunity costs of lost relations.
I'm thinking they really just want to leave it as a noob trap though.
