What do you guys think about Influence?

Gameplay wise, do you think that it is something good to have?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 36.2%
  • No

    Votes: 10 21.3%
  • The way of earning influence should be changed

    Votes: 20 42.6%

  • Total voters
    47
  • Poll closed .

Users who are viewing this thread

I'm with this group here.

I do think the system is interesting and has potential. Raising armies with influence is definitely something I like, and I'd rather have the whole mechanic expanded and made more meaningful rather than just cut.

I would love to have more ways of gaining it, and more ways to spend it (so to speak.) For example: a trader character might use his connections to local merchant to gain influence every time he solves an issue. A rogue-ish character could use intrigue to blackmail another lord in exchange for influence. Capturing a powerful leader should also grant you large amounts of influence. Pay large amounts of it in exchange of freedom after you've been captured. Lose it if you marry into a lesser clan, gain it if you marry into a ruling clan.

As for how the mechanic (I think) would be more enjoyable and engaging. I was thinking how great it would be if influence as some kind of token (as it is now) could be used to perform background actions that grants you bonuses. Gain favors from lords or constables. Examples: spend 50 influence for a relation boost - helping out a fief through background deals that don't have to be shown or played out netting you the positive relation increase. Use it to spread your fame through stories and ballads, influence for renown (less grind that way.) Use it to butter up the "contractors" and have a fief build stuff quicker for a period of time. Also, influence should have (imho) a permanent status going hand in hand with the floating value. When you reach a "milestone" (example, 500 influence) you gain a perk that gives you more "right to rule." If you have 1000 influence and you begin a civil war to get that crown, you should totally be able to persuade more lords to join you than you would have with 50 influence.

I know it's all over the place, but I'm kinda sleepy. Sorry.
Some of this is already there.

You can literally spend 50 influence to gain a (trivial) relationship boost with a clan.
Handing in a captured noble to someone´s dungeon will give you influence.

Indirectly, there are some quest that require fighting and thus gives influence. There are also a few notable quest that can be solved by throwing influence at them.

Most actions that gives influence will also give renown so buying renown for influence would essentially just be a converting one currency to another. It would do very little to encourage changing what you actually do.
 
Last edited:

Bjorn The Upset

Grandmaster Knight
WBVCNWWF&SM&B
As most of you mentioned, i have no hope TW will change this except some aspects of it, maybe. That is why i opened the thread and also this is frustrating for me because npcs are treating me like i am Alexander The Great as soon as i join a faction. But if a mod swap this system entirely or make it something believable, i think i will never gonna touch native system again like what RBM mode offered for battles.
 
As others have stated, and as is the case with many things in this game, the idea has some not insignificant potential, but the way it is implemented in the game is perhaps the worst anyone could've come up with. I'd therefore rather see it removed than kept as it is, because I know that this failed studio will not in any of our lifetimes care to implement a feature that provides depth and immersion. There are so many interesting and useful ways you could have an influence system, especially in a game like this where inter-familial and interpersonal relationships are emphasised on a background of an ever-changing political sphere- oh, those.. those are all absent from the game.

Modders, please fix.
 

Bluko88

Regular
When first announced in one of TW devblogs, I thought it would be a good mechanic. But as soon as I started to play, this influence system feels off for me. Simply because, when I farm sufficient amount of looters, I am able to order around other clan members of the faction I am in. I mean how can killing lots of looters give me the power to order a ruling clan member who is the part of the faction maybe for centuries while I am just a new guy. On top of that, I am just so special that no one in the kingdom have a right to order me around. They can't summon me to their armies. I know, it would be annoying to be summoned but giving player a tool to avoid that summon would solve the issue. I know I talking about army mechanic here but influence system and army mechanic are somethings very intertwined with each other.

If you are satisfied with influence, please explain why.
If you are not satisfied with influence but you think that it is redeemable, please explain how.
If you are not satisfied with influence and you think it must be scrapped from the game, what would replace it?

Influence is okay as is, but it tends to clout in bad way especially late game and with big clans.

I don't think it's bad you get Influence for killing looters/brigands, as you are "making the realm safe" for trade, etc. In a feudal world part of the idea with taxes is that your Lord should be incentivized to protect common people from harm (so they keep paying taxes), hence the whole thing of raising troops.


I do agree too much Influence is gained from battles (especially insignificant ones). Influence really should come passively/slowly primarily from fiefs and maybe their prosperity. Why would anyone listen to a landless Lord or one with just a small cruddy castle? Influential people should really be those with the most, biggest, and richest cities.

So there should be a small bit of passive influence, like maybe +0.5 for each Village, +1 for Castle, +2 for Cities a day. And then say defeating a band of 20 looters gets you maybe +1 Influence, 200 man warband +10 Influence, and a big 1000 man army like +50 Influence. Good martial prowess should help, but it really should just be a bonus and not anyone's main source.


More importantly is there needs to be serious drains for Influence besides Voting and Armies, especially during war. You should lose Influence for letting villages get raided, say -10 Influence for each. Losing a fief should be a big no-no, maybe a Castle loses you like -50 Influence and a City -100 Influence. Perhaps more importantly (especially for the A.I. - but player too) you should lose Influence when you lose battles. Probably should lose Influence for ransoming enemy Lords too. Also should lose influence for Clan members getting captured.

This just ties in with what I've said in other posts, if a King/Clan Leader gets captured they should really be hurting their faction, since they are strengthening their rivals. This should probably be tied to Clan Tier, i.e. a small Clan member should cost like -1 Influence a day if captured. But a Clan Tier 5 Leader might end up losing -10 or -20 Influence a day whilst captured. This would help keep players in check too, since failing to safeguard your Parties/Caravans is gonna cost ya. This is also makes ransoming/capturing clan members that much more important.


Player and Clans should probably lose Renown as well for battle loses, but it's absolutely ridiculous you can lose Armies and Fiefs in your Kingdom with no Kingdom penalty (other then inadvertently weakening the faction).


The game should favor long established clans with lots of fiefs, that are in safe territory, and that don't do stupid things. A rising clan should really struggle as you'll likely be on the border and be very susceptible to losses. Right now it's way too easy to rockstar your way to high Influence simply by winning lots of battles.
 

WarTorn87

Regular
WBNWVC
@TheDesertRex Helping nobles, feats and marriage could be a way of earning influence but there is one thing wrong about this is that influence within the faction is universal. Helping a clan whose tier is 3 or 4 is one thing while helping ruling clan is another. The amount of influence we gain with respect to the tier of clan we are helping could solve the issue. But one thing for certain that killing looters is a responsibility of a noble. We should not gain influence by it. There is already incentive to kill looters like gaining exp for your soldiers and some loot.

@nozhkeech What I think about armies is that being a marshal should come back to the game. For example, as soon as the faction we are in declares war or other faction declares war on us, there could be a voting for deciding who should be a marshal or marshals like when taking a castle or town. After that marshal or marshals should not spend influence to gather army while other lord should decide whether they join the army or not, or when to leave the army based on the traits, their relation with the marshal or if their castles or towns are under attack and the army they are in is not responding that threat.
Absolutely. Only the Marshall and King should be able to summon armies. I dearly miss the marshall system, and prefer it far and away over the 'army' mechanic. If I knew how to mod, I would remove the army mechanic entirely and replace it with the King and marshal only. I don't like the armies being so massive etither, in warband I enjoyed being able to pick off stragglers from the marshal's folllowers. I wish that had never been changed into the massive blobs we have now, resulting in massive battles with reinforcements that pop out of nowhere on the battlefield.
 

Bjorn The Upset

Grandmaster Knight
WBVCNWWF&SM&B
I don't think it's bad you get Influence for killing looters/brigands, as you are "making the realm safe" for trade, etc. In a feudal world part of the idea with taxes is that your Lord should be incentivized to protect common people from harm (so they keep paying taxes), hence the whole thing of raising troops.
This part of the game, i simply dont get it. Maybe i am wrong but as the way of i am thinking, lords are responsible for making their fiefs more secure, this should only yield relation bonus with their fiefs or the lord you helped their fiefs. Even relation loss with a lord you helped her/his settlement based on her/his personal traits like in Warband. There was some lord who warn you for helping their subjects. Maybe this is in Bannerlord but i did not encounter such a dialog yet.

Only way it make sense to me that as you kill looters, lets say you get relation bonus with the closest settlements and that relation starts to yield some influence in a balanced way.
 
Influence is okay as is, but it tends to clout in bad way especially late game and with big clans.

I don't think it's bad you get Influence for killing looters/brigands, as you are "making the realm safe" for trade, etc. In a feudal world part of the idea with taxes is that your Lord should be incentivized to protect common people from harm (so they keep paying taxes), hence the whole thing of raising troops.


I do agree too much Influence is gained from battles (especially insignificant ones). Influence really should come passively/slowly primarily from fiefs and maybe their prosperity. Why would anyone listen to a landless Lord or one with just a small cruddy castle? Influential people should really be those with the most, biggest, and richest cities.

So there should be a small bit of passive influence, like maybe +0.5 for each Village, +1 for Castle, +2 for Cities a day. And then say defeating a band of 20 looters gets you maybe +1 Influence, 200 man warband +10 Influence, and a big 1000 man army like +50 Influence. Good martial prowess should help, but it really should just be a bonus and not anyone's main source.


More importantly is there needs to be serious drains for Influence besides Voting and Armies, especially during war. You should lose Influence for letting villages get raided, say -10 Influence for each. Losing a fief should be a big no-no, maybe a Castle loses you like -50 Influence and a City -100 Influence. Perhaps more importantly (especially for the A.I. - but player too) you should lose Influence when you lose battles. Probably should lose Influence for ransoming enemy Lords too. Also should lose influence for Clan members getting captured.

This just ties in with what I've said in other posts, if a King/Clan Leader gets captured they should really be hurting their faction, since they are strengthening their rivals. This should probably be tied to Clan Tier, i.e. a small Clan member should cost like -1 Influence a day if captured. But a Clan Tier 5 Leader might end up losing -10 or -20 Influence a day whilst captured. This would help keep players in check too, since failing to safeguard your Parties/Caravans is gonna cost ya. This is also makes ransoming/capturing clan members that much more important.


Player and Clans should probably lose Renown as well for battle loses, but it's absolutely ridiculous you can lose Armies and Fiefs in your Kingdom with no Kingdom penalty (other then inadvertently weakening the faction).


The game should favor long established clans with lots of fiefs, that are in safe territory, and that don't do stupid things. A rising clan should really struggle as you'll likely be on the border and be very susceptible to losses. Right now it's way too easy to rockstar your way to high Influence simply by winning lots of battles.
In practise, with the small exception of lowering the influence gain from battles, this is virtually all "nerf" the AI.

When is the last time you have lost a city? Had your villages burned? Been defeated in battle?
 
Absolutely. Only the Marshall and King should be able to summon armies. I dearly miss the marshall system,
That was not a thing in warband either. Anyone could "summon" an army.

The only practical difference between warband and bannerlord is that

in warband you had to reach a minimum treshold based on relationship, cham level and your influence relative to theirs; at which point you could permanently call them for free.
in bannerlord there is no minimum treshold, instead you pay for their services with influence and those factors instead modify how much influence you pay.
 

Bjorn The Upset

Grandmaster Knight
WBVCNWWF&SM&B
in warband you had to reach a minimum treshold based on relationship
At least that threshold force us to roleplay to some degree. But in Bannerlord, you have a instant access to call upon anyone except king as long as you have enough influence which does not require any roleplaying for my taste.
 
At least that threshold force us to roleplay to some degree. But in Bannerlord, you have a instant access to call upon anyone except king as long as you have enough influence which does not require any roleplaying for my taste.
You could fundamentally say the same about warband, though. With high enough charm you could conjure up an army the moment you joined a faction.

Warband should get credit for that though. With minor differences (adjustments really), I have used basically the same build for my chars since day 1.
 
Honestly, dont take any policy that adds passive influence. No matter how much it is in your favor its basically always going to be more costly to vote everyone else out of influence.

You should have a huge advantage relative to everyone else in actively farming influence.

There is an argument that enacting policies that benefits everyone is good because your lords will be able to form armies more, but I see what you are saying.

My issue is that this policy always seems to already exist in any faction I join, so there is no avoiding it if you want to be a vassal.
 
There is an argument that enacting policies that benefits everyone is good because your lords will be able to form armies more, but I see what you are saying.

My issue is that this policy always seems to already exist in any faction I join, so there is no avoiding it if you want to be a vassal.
Well, if you intend to stay long enough you can always vote them away.
 

loulou76100

Veteran
As others have stated, and as is the case with many things in this game, the idea has some not insignificant potential, but the way it is implemented in the game is perhaps the worst anyone could've come up with. I'd therefore rather see it removed than kept as it is, because I know that this failed studio will not in any of our lifetimes care to implement a feature that provides depth and immersion. There are so many interesting and useful ways you could have an influence system, especially in a game like this where inter-familial and interpersonal relationships are emphasised on a background of an ever-changing political sphere- oh, those.. those are all absent from the game.

Modders, please fix.
Bannerlord development in a nutshell : nice ideas with big potential, wasted by terrible half arsed implementation...
It's all so tiresome...
 

Bluko88

Regular
This part of the game, i simply dont get it. Maybe i am wrong but as the way of i am thinking, lords are responsible for making their fiefs more secure, this should only yield relation bonus with their fiefs or the lord you helped their fiefs. Even relation loss with a lord you helped her/his settlement based on her/his personal traits like in Warband. There was some lord who warn you for helping their subjects. Maybe this is in Bannerlord but i did not encounter such a dialog yet.

Only way it make sense to me that as you kill looters, lets say you get relation bonus with the closest settlements and that relation starts to yield some influence in a balanced way.
I agree it would probably be better, and actually I would like to see defeating Looter/Brigand bands raise your relation with Rural Notables as well. Kind of annoying only clearing Hideouts does that.

Looters and such are always running around, but other then the safety of peasants, there isn't much reason to deal with them after Clan Tier 2. It'd be nice if defeating Looters could be used to gain + relations with Rural Notables. Then there's still some reason to deal with them at least.

Influence is a pretty broad term, especially when applied to a game like this. I don't see it as wrong that you get a small amount of Influence for defeating Looters/Brigands, since it's better then simply sitting in one's Castle. But it is definitely way too much right now. And I probably wouldn't be against removing it entirely as battle reward either (but I don't think that'll happen).

Though it's bit silly as well to say no one's ever become powerful/influential in a society through military conquest.

In practise, with the small exception of lowering the influence gain from battles, this is virtually all "nerf" the AI.

When is the last time you have lost a city? Had your villages burned? Been defeated in battle?
Uh my villages get raided all the time. It's literally unavoidable unless you never leave your fiefs. I don't lose Cities too often, but Castles are harder to keep. I wouldn't say I lose them a lot, but you know sometimes you're on the other side of the map and you just can't get there in time. Take my latest playthrough with Northern Empire. I'm off leading an Army against the Khuzait's, but were also at war with the Battanians because our faction is pretty strong. If a large enough Battanian host goes after one of my fiefs I'm not going to get there in time on the West side of the map to save it. And or maybe I don't want to give up a battle I'm winning against the Khuzaits.

I had another playthrough with Sturgia where I am just barely managing to keep my Castle along the Vlandian border. I was mostly taking other Castles to server as buffer since Nevaynsk Castle is such a prime target.

I admit battlr defeat is rare, and I like most people savescum to avoid it. But if you are on Ironman mode you can't.

Granted most of what I proposed is to keep the A.I. in check, but it's not like it won't hurt the player (especially as your Clan gets bigger). It's also important that we don't make the game effectively impossible for newcomers. My idea is simply to add more "drains", because the creep is there for both Player/A.I. Unless you create your own Faction and really "Meta" it so your the only one with Influence.

I would like to see things like "lobbying" for Kingdom policies i.e. you spend Influence to change opinions on Kingdom Policies. That would ideally be the very best drain (if A.I. uses it). But I don't see TW doing much more with Kingdom Policies.
 
Uh my villages get raided all the time.
Just make friends with your enemies then they will leave your villages alone.

Note. I think the intend was to make friends less likely to attack your stuff, but from my experience it seems to put a total stop to it.
 
Top Bottom