What do you think about current influence costs at proposals ?

Currently viewing this thread:

I would like to see Renown become a currency instead that you spend to upgrade your clan (companions, workshops, etc passives AND quantity) and raise opinion of Town and village notables.

It would be nice to have that level of customization for your clan rather than a flat generic level up we have now with clan tiers
+1 man I like that idea, but I fear TW could consider this too drastic of a change. Could you flesh it out more and post in the suggestion subforum. I would gladly give it a +1 and advertise it.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
We also need to make some adjustments so player can get more supporters at game, currently it is nearly impossible :
I'm curious how you came to that conclusion?

In a normal playthrough, I get lots of supporters due to maxed-out relations. It takes a relatively long time (12-16 years) but in that time I can get enough supporters for +2 influence per day. It doesn't require grinding out quests either; the emissary system is setup so that you can get maximum relations with all notables in a town just by leaving your family member or companion there.
xLC99Sa.png

Are players supposed to have more than that?
 

Bluko88

Regular
Third option seems to be the best.

But there is another big problem, specifically when castles and town ownership is decided, the candidates seem to be random. I think there should be at least 5 candidates:
ruler
most deserving guy - the guy that gained most influance from actual assault of that town or maybe one of the top 3 guys
most powerful guy in the kingdom - the guy with most combined influance + prosperity + army, or again one of the 3 top guys
most needful guy - the guy that have less than he should have according to his clan level (I think this is currently being used in some form)
random guy - well randomly chosen guy
Yeah this makes a lot more sense.

I think to some extent "most needful guy" is already in effect since Clans without Fiefs are the most common candidates in my experience. Personally I would keep it at 3 (don't have to mess with the UI as much):

most deserving guy - the Clan that gained most influence from actual assault of Town/Castle
most powerful guy in the kingdom - the guy with most combined influence + prosperity (IDK if you really need to factor in Army)
most needful guy - the Clan that has the fewest fiefs and or least valuable (prosperity) fiefs
 
Yeah this makes a lot more sense.

I think to some extent "most needful guy" is already in effect since Clans without Fiefs are the most common candidates in my experience. Personally I would keep it at 3 (don't have to mess with the UI as much):

most deserving guy - the Clan that gained most influence from actual assault of Town/Castle
most powerful guy in the kingdom - the guy with most combined influence + prosperity (IDK if you really need to factor in Army)
most needful guy - the Clan that has the fewest fiefs and or least valuable (prosperity) fiefs
+1
 

Sir_Smittih

Recruit
Yes you are right. Currently there is an influence inflation in game and this problem has connection to policies as you stated (policies are not only reason of course). You know policy system is broken currently and kingdoms are having more and more policies as time passes. They do not remove existing policies anytime and most of policies are unbalanced and some are giving too much influence.

Why you suggested changing influence to flat rate? Yes it is more logical but it does not solve any of existing problems. Isn't it or I miss something?

Yes I also agree we should have influence degradiation. We talked it with @SadShogun about 3-4 weeks ago already. We will suggest it otherwise it become too hard to balance influence and having a degration is also logical because you do something and you gain influence but it should be forgetten by time pass, at least for above a limit (something like 1000+). Only problem here is kings should have a way more influence than others and if we have a degradiation kings will suffer most (because they have highest influence general). We need to think something to this because we should not make kings have less influence than current situation, they are already less effective at game.

I will make some more detailed research tomorrow about influences and will share you results.

By the way I was away from forum for about one week because need to spend too much time at dentist in last one week (because of covid was delaying these operations but cannot delay more), now I will catch up things here.
Love the idea of raising the amount of influence in votes as outlined at the beginning of this thread. Preference is for highest values, though any buff would help.
Not such a fan re the degradation. Sometimes late game I want to be able to spend 3000+ influence to veto a badly timed war declaration put forward by my vassals. To ensure I have enough influence to do so, I generally try to hire as many mercenaries as I can to farm influence (money generally isn't a problem at this point in the game). Would hate to have all that expensive, hard-earned influence dwindle away... to be honest, I don't really see a problem with influence inflation. What's the harm? I like it that my vassals can raise an army whenever necessary, for instance.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
What's the harm? I like it that my vassals can raise an army whenever necessary, for instance.
The AI can do the same, creating the problem of endless* armies coming to attack the player.

*They aren't actually endless but it takes a few massive battles to drain the enemy garrisons enough to notice.
 
mexxico RSPCT man!

I vote :grin: for the same ratio for all the choices and higher cap for example:
x3 for 20 - 60 - 180 or 30 - 90 - 270

or something similiar and balanced (not x5 for 50 - 250 - 1250)

I hope some day for slider - spend what you want from your own influence.

I'm not sure if the AI must have this ability, because they accumulate it slower than player and may cause mayhem in kingdom related stuff when they blow it up voting for a castle.

But for the player, I think it will contribute for the general feel of the game, making impact, changing course of the realm, high stake, risky, with good and bad consequences, etc. related stuff for better gameplay and immersion.

Gerrodot I don't think I'm nobdoy with 5k influence, the wealthiest 4 towns in my kingdom (6-7k) all maxed out with the largest garrisons in the kingdom, with most largest party with higher tier units, 3 milions denars, leader of the most powerfull clan, better equiped, some good skills, killed more enemies alone (with party) or with companion parties, then half of my kingdom, sieged every fortress and town from the steps to the great Sea, and so on....while the four clans behind me all together have 3k influence with 2 towns and 6 castles.... You got the idea - those are the rules of all Calradian kingdoms, not some deep highborn-background-immersive-social-thing. We made it for 4-5 years and the rest of the clans in the world are strugling decades to aconplish it. Just a shadow to us :grin:
you complatly missed the point and its like you done it on purpose rather than help you instead compleatly chanced/put your own narrative.
 

cane122

Recruit
Currently in proposals player and other clan leaders can spend 10 influence (slightly favor), 40 influence (strongly favor) or 100 influence (fully push) for favoring any outcome. However it seems in most cases player cannot change what will be chosed even he / she spends 100 influence because lowest & highest limits are so low (10 influence / 100 influence) and clans mostly vote on same outcome all together (another problem, we are trying to differentiate selections of npc clans more however in most cases this is hard to achieve). So this making proposal feature is mostly not used by player (because it is useless in %90 cases).

I think making these amounts higher (especially lowest one) can result in better gameplay because more clans will stay abstain and player will be able to spend higher influence if he / she really wants to change current situation. What do you think about this? It can be good to collect more feedback about this issue from you.

Here is an example for comparing 10 / 40 / 100 vs 20 / 60 / 180 vs 30 / 75 / 200 for same cases :

rwHQz.png
Well i'am an old player tf you want to be rich in Banerlord you must follow the tips follow the link seening the youtube videos somtime you can find the solutions about your problems.

Edit: Removed link.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AxiosXiphos

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Well i'am an old player tf you want to be rich in Banerlord you must follow the tips follow the link seening the youtube videos somtime you can find the solutions about your problems
Whoa... this certainly screams scam....

Edit: Removed link from the quote.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Spinozart1

Sergeant
Hello @mexxico
Sorry for tagging you again but do you have any update regarding influence cost and balance?
I'm also referring to your other thread about influence and related policies that need to be worked on.
Would be nice to get some fresh info :coffee:
 

Ling*

Knight at Arms
What factors influence Ai lords proposals? This calculation should include personality traits, for example a cowardly lord might be more likely to reject going to war with anyone out of fear, a hotheaded lord might be more likely to vote yes on all wars. Additionally consider the history that the ai lord has with the potential enemy kingdom and proximity of each lords fiefdoms to this potential enemies land. Hisory: This Ai lord has lost 12 battles to khuzait in the past and has won 0 battles against them so he will probably want to vote no to avoid getting slaughtered again. Proximity: A cautious lord with a border fief may be more cautious about voting yes out of fear of losing his territory, or an opportunistic lord with a border fief may want to go to war to expand his holdings. Wealth: An ai will consider his own financial status to see if he can even afford to go to war, if he has 2,000 denar left maybe that will imfluence him to say no. In summary votes should take into consideration Personalities, History, Proximity, and Wealth of each Ai lord. These are the types of changes that need to be made in order to differentiate the Ai and to get them out of their echo-chamber during votes.
 
Last edited:

vito397

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVC
What factors influence Ai lords proposals? This calculation should include personality traits, for example a cowardly lord might be more likely to reject going to war with anyone out of fear, a hotheaded lord might be more likely to vote yes on all wars. Additionally consider the history that the ai lord has with the potential enemy kingdom and proximity of each lords fiefdoms to this potential enemies land. Hisory: This Ai lord has lost 12 battles to khuzait in the past and has won 0 battles against them so he will probably want to vote no to avoid getting slaughtered again. Proximity: A cautious lord with a border fief may be more cautious about voting yes out of fear of losing his territory, or an opportunistic lord with a border fief may want to go to war to expand his holdings. Wealth: An ai will consider his own financial status to see if he can even afford to go to war, if he has 2,000 denar left maybe that will imfluence him to say no. In summary votes should take into consideration Personalities, History, Proximity, and Wealth of each Ai lord. These are the types of changes that need to be made in order to differentiate the Ai and to get them out of their echo-chamber during votes.
Right, but all this info could not reasonably fit in a menu. Thats why i always proposed having feasts to have all the lords gathered in one place (the COURT smh) so you could ask each lord what their vote was going to be and if you could influence it. This would utilise both feasts (for policy and war votes, and by extension having a court) but it would also make interacting with lords hace actual content

As far as i know, tw is reluctant to do it because it would make the kingdom vulnerable if all the lords were to be at one place, which in itself is true, but because of the lack of war cap. So instead of adding this feature and putting a set mandatory peacetime between wars (for example one season, 20 days) they just axed this whole concept in favour of more war. Might be added in future, will probably be not

The only other concievable concept which tw might be more comfortable with is redesigning the peace/war menu in a way that there are two sides with the decision on the top, and an exact list of lords who vote for and against. There you would hover over the icon or name and see why they vote (based on trait and proximity templates, as you have suggested, for example "fiefs too close to enemy" or "warlike character") and how much influence they put in. However at this point im just derailing the thread
 
Last edited:

Apocal

Master Knight
So instead of adding this feature and putting a set mandatory peacetime between wars (for example one season, 20 days) they just axed this whole concept in favour of more war. Might be added in future, will probably be not
Mexxico doesn't like fixed truce timers.
I am aganist placing strict rules currently. I was fan of 25 days strict truce period previously because in these times there was no tribute system, player was paying a kingdom 100K to make truce then just 1-2 days later same kingdom was declaring war again so these times strict rules were needed. Now we have tribute system and if a kingdom break truce they lose tribute income. So we can get rid of strict rules like forcing kingdoms X days of truce after peace. Its better to balance things naturally if possible. So if we determine tribute amounts carefully kingdoms will not break truce just after war is declared except some special situations I mentioned before.
 

Ling*

Knight at Arms
Right, but all this info could not reasonably fit in a menu. Thats why i always proposed having feasts to have all the lords gathered in one place (the COURT smh) so you could ask each lord what their vote was going to be and if you could influence it. This would utilise both feasts (for policy and war votes, and by extension having a court) but it would also make interacting with lords hace actual content
If the devs are fearful of lords gathering all in one place for a council/ holding court perhaps there could be a "Conference Call" method used where the lords don't actually have to be physically at the location on the map, but instead an interface pops up and you can speak to the council of lords remotely as the decision for war is being made and speak to them individually as if they were using Skype or something. It may not be the most realistic approach but it makes a good compromise between having a council and not putting lords all in one basket for the enemy to attack.
 
Voting system should be like Crusader Kings 2 or 3. 1- There should be more time till the deadline. 2- Lords should not vote immediately the game should rather show us their leaning and what affects their decision and should give us another influence action to sway lords individually. 3- Certain personality traits may have an effect on certain votings on top of strategic reasons.
 
If the devs are fearful of lords gathering all in one place for a council/ holding court perhaps there could be a "Conference Call" method used where the lords don't actually have to be physically at the location on the map, but instead an interface pops up and you can speak to the council of lords remotely as the decision for war is being made and speak to them individually as if they were using Skype or something. It may not be the most realistic approach but it makes a good compromise between having a council and not putting lords all in one basket for the enemy to attack.
Personally, I don't like the idea of this method. Not only is it an immersion killer, but the many fears that you mention seem like interesting fresh gameplay to me.

I mean, if the lords of the realm are incapable of meeting at the capital to discuss kingdom matters due to them being occupied defending their borders, it gives the impression of "we will discuss who gets x fief or y policy once we subdue our enemies" which could lead to instability if much time occurs between meetings. The catch, of course, is if they still decide to hold this meeting while at war, there could be consequences since the most powerful figureheads of the faction are indisposed while their enemies loot and siege their lands. Apply this to every faction, and this mechanic can give more power and responsibility as a ruler, as you/they would decide if the risk of holding a council mid-war would be worth it to figure out fief distribution/policy management/international diplomacy. This would also heavily benefit non-warring factions as their free agendas would allow for them to arrive at the council, discussing the many needs of the realm and overall allowing the ruler to appease his vassals and prosper the people (feast?).
 
Top Bottom