Buying off lords to defect to your kingdom can be a pretty big money sink.
Some lords ask for millions depending on their strength.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Users who are viewing this thread
Some lords ask for millions depending on their strength.
I'm pretty sure Taleworlds doesn't want us to play this game. I've put it down and I wish I could refund it. This is ridiculous, I just saw today that they have decreased influence to 1/20. This means playing as a mercenary, you actually don't get paid because it's based on influence. But you're forced to play as a merc until you have enough resources to level up to another clan level. This is insane!
And the people on this poll that say they don't feel the changes are bad...well there's always a way to tell a Kool-Aid-drinking fanboy.
And the people on this poll that say they don't feel the changes are bad...well there's always a way to tell a Kool-Aid-drinking fanboy.
Maahes
Recruit
Influence was insanely easy to increase previously, to where everyone and their mother had a near-permanent bank of 5k+. Just because TW is fiddling with the values in EA doesn't mean they're out to nerf things specifically, only that things were out of hand and they're trying to find a way to slowly find that equilibrium. And seriously, M&B has had longevity due to its mods, and everything I keep seeing you complain about has had a mod spring up to solve it. More to the point, though, a few mods are being made redundant because TW is implementing/fixing those items. The game hasn't been in EA for that long, and the roadmap has it staying here for a while.
The amount this game has changed since it first hit EA is fairly impressive and consistent, and there's no kool-aid drinking required to see that.
Nakh
Sergeant
This is stupidest mechanic of all times. No lord, even most treacherous and dishonorable must wish to sell his clan's name for any amount of money.I can understand buying them for fiefs, or persuading them to rebel against their ruler because they have bad relations/grudges, but just buying lords is insanity.
Are you sure this is such a problem for merc? I'm on beta 1.4.1 in new game and popping a basic lords party still gives me 4-10K in money/drops + another 2-5K from the ransoms. You just need renown to get clan rank up and not even that much to be a vassal, all you need to do is fight. For vassal influence I've never done anything but fight and build forums too, I'll have to see if it's an issue in new beta or not though.
EDIT: This is not Kool aids, this is the truth look at all this loot and prisoners you get!
That's not even the full loot list!
I agree with other feelings that more features and less balancing/nerfing of the players side would be a better use of work, but it's not making the game harder or worse.
Last edited:
Dude, most of my money as a mercenary, even before the influence nerf, was from selling loot. That's why I asked what you were doing with it in my first post in the other thread.
Make battle loot be mostly about gaining renown and money but most of the money should be coming from ransoms while the rest of the loot affects 3 things- party morale, influence/renown, money.
Win a battle and get 10k just from selling the loot- doesn't make sense with the current system of unit upgrades etc. What it should be is that loot value is simply based on the unit tiers and lords defeated with a small modifier based on the renown of the lord/faction defeated.
Let there be a triangle scale between renown/influence at the top, morale on the left, money on the right.
Defeat a party worth 10k? The Faction has 1000 renown and the Lord leading the enemy party has 400 influence, you get 1 renown per 100 and 5% of the Lord's renown you defeated IF you do 100% to the top of the triangle. So 10 renown and 40 influence but 0 party morale or gold.
If you select the middle of the triangle you get 3,333 money, 3 renown, 14 influence(roughly 1/3 of full value) and at +1 morale per 1k of defeated enemy value, +3 party morale. If the party defeated was a main faction get 1.2x modifier so 4k money, 4 renown, 16 influence, and +4 morale.
High morale should be correlated along with medicine to the % wounded after battle. High morale = less deaths. AI faction leaders could get a small buff to morale. I think TW obsession with having AI and players follow the same rules is admirable and should be a design guideline but not the only rule.
Capture a Lord? Ransom for 5k or whatever based entirely on that Lord's rank/influence.
The current system where you earn loot and pieces of armour from a battle will never work when you also have to equip units and use loot for smithing. If you didn't get loot from battles (aside from stripping captured lords of their gear) you would have to win gear in tournaments or buy it.
Remove the loot from battles as equipment and make it straight money/renown/morale. If TW really wants to keep something of value in- trade items can still be looted so production doesn't 'disappear' from the game. The tediousness of clicking thousands of times to transfer gear to sale screen is a huge downer not to mention that model simply does not make sense with the unit upgrades/economy/smithing systems.
High tier units should require a certain party morale to join and remain (other than companions whose morale should be based on fulfilling their quests aside from a handful of pure mercenaries who will only stay so long as battles are won). This way getting and keeping higher tier units requires maintaining morale and posting high tier units to a town with no food/constantly under siege/no companion leader will lead to desertion.
Lower tier units will stay at lower morale levels as they have fewer options so even gross mismanagement won't leave cities without a garrison, just that garrison will be filled with thugs and recruits.
Once player declares their own Kingdom or is Appointed high enough rank in another Kingdom they can borrow the Faction's morale giving some +% of base morale (which is based on leadership) so you can have a chance of keeping high tier units even if lost a couple battles or posted to a town/garrison with no leader for a couple weeks.
Doofus
Sergeant
I don't play games to find exploits & generally instructions on in-game strategies don't come with the game, so a lot of the things I do are hiit & miss until finding something that works. I prefer not to search in forums and on-line for easy ways to do things unless I'm stuck. Getting money seems pretty easy in the game. I wish battle balance was better and the frequency of other actions attacking you was better. I find field battles fairly challenging, but fun on easy level. On easiest level its ridiculous how much you can dominate the opponent and I feel no sense of accomplishment. On the other hand, when you form a faction and get armies of 500+ attacking you multiple times a day, you have to play on easiest setting. Even then, you are slowly being worn away and don't have the opportunity to go get more recruits and charge up your party. I also find sieges are perhaps more realistically balanced on easiest setting. If its a fairly even battle in numbers and you did proper prep you'll generally win, but you will take losses. Sadly, because of the constant attacks with no chance to recover I'll probably be quitting the game soon (again) if there's no way to bypass the Neretzes quest and still set up a kingdom.
Similar threads
