There shouldn't be any influence reward for killing looters and bandits

Users who are viewing this thread

We shouldn't be gaining influence for killing looters and bandits, it makes no sense that we do and it contributes to the game feeling unimmersive. Getting influence for killing looters is the equivalent of being elected an MP or a senator for killing homeless people on the streets. It especially becomes a glaring immersion issue when we make bank as a mercenary for killing bandits in for example Vlandia while we are serving the Khuzaits in the opposite corner of the map.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
We shouldn't be gaining influence for killing looters and bandits, it makes no sense that we do and it contributes to the game feeling unimmersive.
I disagree. I think that if I singlehandedly wiped out all roving gangs of criminals from the kingdom, I would certainly gain some sort of political cred.
It especially becomes a glaring immersion issue when we make bank as a mercenary for killing bandits in for example Vlandia while we are serving the Khuzaits in the opposite corner of the map.
Ok, now this part is fair enough.
 
I disagree. I think that if I singlehandedly wiped out all roving gangs of criminals from the kingdom, I would certainly gain some sort of political cred.
I mean sure I agree, it's not illogical by any means to get influence from defeating bandits, but these gangs of criminals also just spawn out of thin air. A better solution would be to decrease the influence gain from bandits and giving the player an influence gain radius that scales with the size of the kingdom? Tho I'm 100% sure that the latter would have adverse effects.

It just seems to me as an easier solution to make bandits give 0 influence. I mean technically we can also get influence on the other side of the map through winning tournaments with the charm 25 perk, so it's not really a solution, but whatever.
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
It's because 'influence' is a currency in this game and how they decided to use/tie it with the mercenary stage for income. The more you have, the faster the decay; forcing you to 'chase/grind' that same looter party after looter party. You can't even control how much influence you 'spend' against your wage, at least give us that option (but I guess because there's technically nothing else to use influence on as a mercenary).
 
It's because 'influence' is a currency in this game and how they decided to use/tie it with the mercenary stage for income. The more you have, the faster the decay; forcing you to 'chase/grind' that same looter party after looter party. You can't even control how much influence you 'spend' against your wage, at least give us that option (but I guess because there's technically nothing else to use influence on as a mercenary).
Sure, but we should actually be doing something that benefits the kingdom to earn influence, like fighting enemy lords, caravans and villager parties as well as raiding villages. There are many ways of getting influence anyways.

I don't mind the scaling influence drain as a mercenary, it's actually logical and lucrative. Although I would like to see kingdoms terminating contracts if it seems like they won't be able to pay for mercenaries anymore.
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
There are a whole host of possible ways for a more 'RP' way of gaining/using/'spending' influence; but it is where it is at because TW decided it was finished with that 'feature'. So now, they can 'pad' their content list saying the game has this or that feature, which it technically does, but not really (much like a bunch of other features they have).
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
You only get it if you're with a faction and Who the **** fights bandits when you're a merc, vassal or ruler? It's least productive and least influence rewarding things you could do. In short, no this doesn't matter at all.
 

xdj1nn

Knight at Arms
WBWF&S
We shouldn't be gaining influence for killing looters and bandits, it makes no sense that we do and it contributes to the game feeling unimmersive. Getting influence for killing looters is the equivalent of being elected an MP or a senator for killing homeless people on the streets. It especially becomes a glaring immersion issue when we make bank as a mercenary for killing bandits in for example Vlandia while we are serving the Khuzaits in the opposite corner of the map.
arguably there shouldn't be any influence system, it's ultimately useless
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
arguably there shouldn't be any influence system, it's ultimately useless
Yes it's very bizarre. The only real use is to make new clans as ruler.... but then that's just an arbitrary cost and in this context it's even Stanger. What exactly is going on here? The people in the 1 fief attached to my faction get so exited each time I beat up an enemy army that they eventually let me give the town away to some bozo in celebration? Then this cycle repeats it's self 40+ times until the map is painted and populated by 40+ bozos. "You have to beat up X people before you can make another clan"..... "but you have to also beat up infinite people or else they're take all your fiefs anyways".
 
arguably there shouldn't be any influence system, it's ultimately useless
Honestly wouldn't mind it a bit if influence was removed altogether. The only place it makes sense that we get political capital for killing enemies is as a mercenary, otherwise it feels nonsensical and unimmersive to have a quantifiable amount of political capital.
This is literally modern New York.
homeless.jpg
 

geala

Sergeant at Arms
Looters and bandits are not homeless people, they rob and possibly kill peasants, whereby robbing poor peasants was easily an equivalent to killing (by hunger) in earlier times. They diminish the prosperity of fiefs and such of kingdoms. In my opinion removing them from the landscape should give you influence (oh, it does), and relations to the surrounding notables (it does with a mod). Getting influence for killing them in the far corner of the map is not very meaningful, but it's just one of the many simplifications in the game.
 
Nowhere in the game do we actually see them robbing or looting or doing anything really. They occasionally attack villagers by running in to them but thats it. Theyre like flies.

Honestly wouldn't mind it a bit if influence was removed altogether. The only place it makes sense that we get political capital for killing enemies is as a mercenary, otherwise it feels nonsensical and unimmersive to have a quantifiable amount of political capital.

Ive been saying this since 2018, not as succinctly as this though. There was no need for them to make political power into an abstract currency like some crappy paradox game. It wipes out most of the interpersonal interactions in warband and replaces them with bland voting against a mass of r-words. There is less need to remember different characters because the influence bar just makes everything blend in to one. I hated the idea of it the moment they announced it 5 years ago, I had no idea how they could make it work any better than warband, and unfortunately I was right.
 
Nowhere in the game do we actually see them robbing or looting or doing anything really. They occasionally attack villagers by running in to them but thats it. Theyre like flies.



Ive been saying this since 2018, not as succinctly as this though. There was no need for them to make political power into an abstract currency like some crappy paradox game. It wipes out most of the interpersonal interactions in warband and replaces them with bland voting against a mass of r-words. There is less need to remember different characters because the influence bar just makes everything blend in to one. I hated the idea of it the moment they announced it 5 years ago, I had no idea how they could make it work any better than warband, and unfortunately I was right.
I understand why they implemented the influence system, at some point relationship becomes a hassle due to the number of lords so I don't mind a quantifiable political capital currency if it were implemented in an interesting way. But if they wanted to have a quantifiable political power mechanic I would much rather have something along the lines of buying & selling of "political favours" in a closed loop where a kingdom always contain the same sum of political power currency (influence), unless we increase or decrease this sum by conquering/losing fiefs or recruiting/losing/raising new clans. We would buy/sell influence through the barter menu (imagine like in civ 5 where we could buy votes for specific proposals for the world congress if we had a diplomat in their capital and good relations with the other civ), through completing quests for nobles and notables (but for smaller amounts of influence for notables), getting the raw amount of influence for conquering new settlements that the kingdom would get as an increase to their maximum influence pool divided among the people participating in the army which conquered the settlement etc (don't know if my explanation made any sense).
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
Influence (or how they used it) 'currency' was/is such a stupid idea. Heck, even clan tiers/unlocks is sort of stupid.

Looters/bandits shouldn't scale with the player, they should always start small and only harass villagers (or really small parties) at first. If enough are left to their own devices, spawn the hideout after X% of parties in a region - then when they stop by their hideout, another X% change they merge their parties and get larger. Maybe even add a better bandit troop tree, so when they win X% battles (or loot - much like AI parties do), give them the ability to upgrade some units so it's not just half-naked afro looters all the time but a smattering of forest/mountain/raider units. To the point where you/lords should have to deal with them or create a more 'dynamic' type quest when these happen, especially in regions where the player isn't by (given how poorly AI parties deal with looters/bandits).

As much as it is enjoyable mowing down 100 of these looters sometimes, it's not good gameplay.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Well, too late now. Too much is built around it. May as well make the magical influencebux system as good as it can be and move on.
 

Lucius Confucius

LeastBlunted
Sergeant
This feels like a useless discussion for many reasons.

1. The game is released, I doubt they would make any major changes to core systems now.

2. It would require a rework of many things.

3. The change would just make things more grindy.

4. It is probably an unpopular suggestion.

5. ???

6. No profits to be made here, sadly.
 

anoddhermit

Sergeant at Arms
I think influence and renown gain from looter/bandit battles is too high and easy to game since you can solo them to inflate the gains. Who is even finding out about these battles? Are defeated looters singing your praises?

Maybe for "help with brigands" sort of quests, that makes sense, as the villagers know, but otherwise it's a bit weird how killed 20 looters in the middle of nowhere gets me more renown than many battles with lords.

I for one am also tired of being a solo horse archer shooting hundreds of looters and bandits in the face for 50 renown every new playthrough, but it's hard to beat for XP/renown gains. Early game renown is just a pain unless you raid villages like a jerk, or have 25 charm for the tourney perk.

I'd just buff quests - they should give much more renown and influence. I think you should also be able to find quests more easily than going town to town, village to village. You used to be able to use the encyclopedia, which admittedly was a bit gamey, but they have have tavern keepers or whatever have "I'm looking for work" sort of option where you can check for nearby quests that give decent rewards.
 
Top Bottom