I think the current relationship system is bad. It is in my eyes the aspect of the game that need work the most (i don't play MP), battle are good, but the things that keep the world map running and interesting are people and the relation between them. It is honeslty the aspect of the game which I expected the most of and i feel that TalesWorld is undershooting it. (early access i know).
I will not talk about how hard it is to gain relation with clan because i think it is just a missing mean and it could be implemented in the world during the early access. I will talk about the clan and how they interract with the world and says how i think it could be improved because the world currently feel really lifeless.
I.Relationships, Clans and Nobles:
We can consider the relationship system to have 2 level, clans and kingdoms and this is quite disappointing because i haven't seen individual relationship with noble. The whole clan either love you or hate you, and they stand united against all. So in the current state of the game, noble don't exist on an individual level they are just the lifeless hand of a clan. And i haven't see any clan break free from their ruler without player intervention. If every decision taken by the ruler is opposed to a clan the relation should worsen significantly until the clan could betray the king or break free from his influence. The IA should obviously try to stick to a balance to maintain the world status-co but it would be more interestng to passively see clan raise and fall from favors. As for Kingdoms relations, they are limited to war or peace, but i will talk more about them in part II.
To suggest a new relationship systems :
Some vocabulary : relation is a value that a noble has toward you and his displayed on his profile in the Encyclopedia and an opinion is a modifiers that has impact on the relationship. (some action give + or - relationship and modifiers amplify or reduce them)
Noble should have a more significant personnality and impact on the world. Their relation with player should be defined a mix of (in order of importance) personnal opinion ( if they like the way you acted, ...) clan opinion (freed his brother, wed his sister) and kingdom opinion (war, ... ). To give an exemple, if you meet a vlandian noble :
If you just started a game, your renown is low, you have never met him or one of his allies : no opinions of you and he will be neutral.
If you have never met him or one his allies but your name is know : he will judge you has a noble of Vlandia so mainly thought kingdoms relation.
If you have never met him but know his brother : he will also judge you has a Vlandian but also and more significantly by what he heard from his brother (blood stronger then gossips)
If you know him personnaly : The other relation still applies, but we all trust ourself more then the others.
All this data create a more interactive relation between you and the noble. No need to says that relationship with clan also scale with his opinions, if he hates his clan (talking about it later), a possitive relationship with his clan would hurt your relationship with him.
It will make your relation change differenly with noble according to their traits, for exemple :
You execute a noble :
Old system :
Big relationship loss with clan
Medium relationship loss with kingdoms
New system :
Loose opinion with his kingdom (because it get weaker)
Loose opinion with his clan (if they don't hate him)
Gain opinion with his ennemies that don't mind you execute him.
Loose opinion with his allies and his "honorable ennemies" (people who don't like execution)
The whole idea behind this system is to make the world more complex and less predictable, without just adding randoms modifiers. More lifelike. It is obviously not a perfect idea but it could still had a lot more depth compared to the current system.
I also talked about a clan member hating another member of the same clan, it is quite unrealistic that there is no realationship between brothers. I think every NPC should have relationship with one another, for some, less significant; we can't except to have every NPCs to have a complex backstory and realtionship with every other NPCs but i think inter-clan relationship would allow things. Imagine the situation :
You are part of a kingdoms and want to plan coup d'Etat, so you start increasing relationship with your fellow nobles, especially the one that are dissatisfied with your ruler. But you still think that the royal faction is too powerfull for you to take head on. So you go to see one of the most important opposing nobles, but there is no hope to make him join your ranks, so you meet his daughter, as a women, she cannot hope to take the lead of her clan at the death of her father, but she is ambitious and you managed to convince her to take control of the clan and join you. You gained an ally and (maybe killed a potential ennemy) just throught diplomacy (or almost if you had to kill a few people).
But to achieve that, you have to create more lifelike noble thought traits (i don't know if the current one are doing anything) and interaction between them.
II.Kingdoms :
Currently there is 2 types of Kingdoms :
- Those created by the game when you start a campaign.
- The one you can create during the campaign.
And i kinda regret that there is no kingdom created by IA during a campaign. It will be a challenge because as some says : to be more enjoyable the game should be at a relative stand-still so the world doesn't get dominated by 1 or 2 superpower or else the player would loose his impact on the world and the game would get boring.
So i suggest to revise the idea behind kingdoms :
- Clan1 can swear fealty to another clan2 and become clan2's vassal.
- Vassality can be voluntary (diplomacy) or forced (war).
- IA clan, like cities have a loyalty values toward their ruler and it is affected by relationship, balance of power, etc and affect things like price to mobilize them, risk of revolt etc.
- By definition, a kingdom is a independant clan owning land.
- Clan can ally with each other for money, diplomatic advantage (vote in the kingdom counsil, vote for territory, etc)
or just because they are friends.
- Clan are divised in more tier to describe difference between them ( like current but with more levels, like Tier 10 to create a kingdoms (no Grindfest, like 3000 renown, just more differences and change alongs the way)).
- Compagnions can be replaced by small one man clan (like you) in early game and they swear loyalty to you when you engage them in early games, they can then grow with you and become the big noble of your kingdom later.
In term of relation between kingdoms (i have already evoked about relation between clan and individual in part I) the opinion modifiers would then also judge yours according to the policies of your kingdoms, like some kingdoms can be ruler centred (with strong ruler and weaker nobles (royal guards, royal mercenaries, etc)) and more "communist" kingdoms (Council of the Commons (need a nerf btw too powerfull), Tribunes of the People, etc).
III.Commons & Mercenaries:
I'm talking about merchant and gang boss in cities, i don't know if the category of character as name but since they are refered as common in policies (counsil of the commons) i will call them like that (commoners for an individual). On the contrary of nobles, common are alone and unsignificant, i don't think your relation with them as any effect. I haven't play much end game so maybe it matter more if you control the city they become more significant and i just haven't reach that point.
I think commoner should also be minor clans and shouldn't be attached to a city, they should travel and have a "sphere of influence" that could extend to a few cities, you could maybe meet the brother of such merchand in the neighboring town or leading a caravan, etc.They should also hold a more defined and significant power on the relation of the player with cities, it could impact prices, recruitment, quest and other local features and it could scale with the influence of the commoners. They are marchands and leader of the underworld, if noble hold the power of war and people, they hold the power of money. Contrary to nobles they don't move with the frontline but are still affected by war (looters pillaging and armies buying a lot of food, etc).
You could implements them as minor clans like mercenaries, so they would be :
- Noble clan, fighting for land and world domination.
- Mercenaries, nomad clan (no land) selling their sword for money.
- Commoners clan, owning workshop et caravan, they main goal is to make money and they usually don't travel and aren't much affected by the ownership of cities(except for policies, etc so they could help another kingdoms to get under a better ruler for their interest, like medieval multi-nationals).
Develloping commoners in this way and creating a path for them would make the game playable as a merchand-king or gang leader. In the current game, player will always get caravans and workshop for money, join a kingdom as mercenary for money and relation with noble and the end game is always becoming a noble and conquering the world with your blade.
Creating such a system for the IA would allow the player to play as a commoners clan, and conquering the world thought trade or thugs or both. It would create new way to play the end game and i think it is essential in a sandbox game and for replayability.
Done
Don't hesitate to give me your opinions or tell me if i made any typo or something it is almost 5 am, my english is bad and i'm tired >< If you have any suggestion about potential improvment of this "new system" don't hesitate
I will not talk about how hard it is to gain relation with clan because i think it is just a missing mean and it could be implemented in the world during the early access. I will talk about the clan and how they interract with the world and says how i think it could be improved because the world currently feel really lifeless.
I.Relationships, Clans and Nobles:
We can consider the relationship system to have 2 level, clans and kingdoms and this is quite disappointing because i haven't seen individual relationship with noble. The whole clan either love you or hate you, and they stand united against all. So in the current state of the game, noble don't exist on an individual level they are just the lifeless hand of a clan. And i haven't see any clan break free from their ruler without player intervention. If every decision taken by the ruler is opposed to a clan the relation should worsen significantly until the clan could betray the king or break free from his influence. The IA should obviously try to stick to a balance to maintain the world status-co but it would be more interestng to passively see clan raise and fall from favors. As for Kingdoms relations, they are limited to war or peace, but i will talk more about them in part II.
To suggest a new relationship systems :
Some vocabulary : relation is a value that a noble has toward you and his displayed on his profile in the Encyclopedia and an opinion is a modifiers that has impact on the relationship. (some action give + or - relationship and modifiers amplify or reduce them)
Noble should have a more significant personnality and impact on the world. Their relation with player should be defined a mix of (in order of importance) personnal opinion ( if they like the way you acted, ...) clan opinion (freed his brother, wed his sister) and kingdom opinion (war, ... ). To give an exemple, if you meet a vlandian noble :
If you just started a game, your renown is low, you have never met him or one of his allies : no opinions of you and he will be neutral.
If you have never met him or one his allies but your name is know : he will judge you has a noble of Vlandia so mainly thought kingdoms relation.
If you have never met him but know his brother : he will also judge you has a Vlandian but also and more significantly by what he heard from his brother (blood stronger then gossips)
If you know him personnaly : The other relation still applies, but we all trust ourself more then the others.
All this data create a more interactive relation between you and the noble. No need to says that relationship with clan also scale with his opinions, if he hates his clan (talking about it later), a possitive relationship with his clan would hurt your relationship with him.
It will make your relation change differenly with noble according to their traits, for exemple :
You execute a noble :
Old system :
Big relationship loss with clan
Medium relationship loss with kingdoms
New system :
Loose opinion with his kingdom (because it get weaker)
Loose opinion with his clan (if they don't hate him)
Gain opinion with his ennemies that don't mind you execute him.
Loose opinion with his allies and his "honorable ennemies" (people who don't like execution)
The whole idea behind this system is to make the world more complex and less predictable, without just adding randoms modifiers. More lifelike. It is obviously not a perfect idea but it could still had a lot more depth compared to the current system.
I also talked about a clan member hating another member of the same clan, it is quite unrealistic that there is no realationship between brothers. I think every NPC should have relationship with one another, for some, less significant; we can't except to have every NPCs to have a complex backstory and realtionship with every other NPCs but i think inter-clan relationship would allow things. Imagine the situation :
You are part of a kingdoms and want to plan coup d'Etat, so you start increasing relationship with your fellow nobles, especially the one that are dissatisfied with your ruler. But you still think that the royal faction is too powerfull for you to take head on. So you go to see one of the most important opposing nobles, but there is no hope to make him join your ranks, so you meet his daughter, as a women, she cannot hope to take the lead of her clan at the death of her father, but she is ambitious and you managed to convince her to take control of the clan and join you. You gained an ally and (maybe killed a potential ennemy) just throught diplomacy (or almost if you had to kill a few people).
But to achieve that, you have to create more lifelike noble thought traits (i don't know if the current one are doing anything) and interaction between them.
II.Kingdoms :
Currently there is 2 types of Kingdoms :
- Those created by the game when you start a campaign.
- The one you can create during the campaign.
And i kinda regret that there is no kingdom created by IA during a campaign. It will be a challenge because as some says : to be more enjoyable the game should be at a relative stand-still so the world doesn't get dominated by 1 or 2 superpower or else the player would loose his impact on the world and the game would get boring.
So i suggest to revise the idea behind kingdoms :
- Clan1 can swear fealty to another clan2 and become clan2's vassal.
- Vassality can be voluntary (diplomacy) or forced (war).
- IA clan, like cities have a loyalty values toward their ruler and it is affected by relationship, balance of power, etc and affect things like price to mobilize them, risk of revolt etc.
- By definition, a kingdom is a independant clan owning land.
- Clan can ally with each other for money, diplomatic advantage (vote in the kingdom counsil, vote for territory, etc)
or just because they are friends.
- Clan are divised in more tier to describe difference between them ( like current but with more levels, like Tier 10 to create a kingdoms (no Grindfest, like 3000 renown, just more differences and change alongs the way)).
- Compagnions can be replaced by small one man clan (like you) in early game and they swear loyalty to you when you engage them in early games, they can then grow with you and become the big noble of your kingdom later.
In term of relation between kingdoms (i have already evoked about relation between clan and individual in part I) the opinion modifiers would then also judge yours according to the policies of your kingdoms, like some kingdoms can be ruler centred (with strong ruler and weaker nobles (royal guards, royal mercenaries, etc)) and more "communist" kingdoms (Council of the Commons (need a nerf btw too powerfull), Tribunes of the People, etc).
III.Commons & Mercenaries:
I'm talking about merchant and gang boss in cities, i don't know if the category of character as name but since they are refered as common in policies (counsil of the commons) i will call them like that (commoners for an individual). On the contrary of nobles, common are alone and unsignificant, i don't think your relation with them as any effect. I haven't play much end game so maybe it matter more if you control the city they become more significant and i just haven't reach that point.
I think commoner should also be minor clans and shouldn't be attached to a city, they should travel and have a "sphere of influence" that could extend to a few cities, you could maybe meet the brother of such merchand in the neighboring town or leading a caravan, etc.They should also hold a more defined and significant power on the relation of the player with cities, it could impact prices, recruitment, quest and other local features and it could scale with the influence of the commoners. They are marchands and leader of the underworld, if noble hold the power of war and people, they hold the power of money. Contrary to nobles they don't move with the frontline but are still affected by war (looters pillaging and armies buying a lot of food, etc).
You could implements them as minor clans like mercenaries, so they would be :
- Noble clan, fighting for land and world domination.
- Mercenaries, nomad clan (no land) selling their sword for money.
- Commoners clan, owning workshop et caravan, they main goal is to make money and they usually don't travel and aren't much affected by the ownership of cities(except for policies, etc so they could help another kingdoms to get under a better ruler for their interest, like medieval multi-nationals).
Develloping commoners in this way and creating a path for them would make the game playable as a merchand-king or gang leader. In the current game, player will always get caravans and workshop for money, join a kingdom as mercenary for money and relation with noble and the end game is always becoming a noble and conquering the world with your blade.
Creating such a system for the IA would allow the player to play as a commoners clan, and conquering the world thought trade or thugs or both. It would create new way to play the end game and i think it is essential in a sandbox game and for replayability.
Done
Don't hesitate to give me your opinions or tell me if i made any typo or something it is almost 5 am, my english is bad and i'm tired >< If you have any suggestion about potential improvment of this "new system" don't hesitate
