HugoTheFrenchMan
Grandmaster Knight
Straight up dont like em instead of feeling like its its something cool or that you can influence its just annoying
IDK if you really want to inundate people with what's effectively two rounds of voting.For me a good approach will be having a vote council where you can speak and spend influence with lords before the vote and then proceed, only lords assisting the council (or sending a representative like his wife) can vote. It will be immersive, will add some politics layer to the game, will give you a reason to enter into a scene, etc and ... it is not going to happen, anyway thks for reading and I really appreciate your effort to get feedback from the forums.
This is a step in the right direction Mex, but it's only a solution for the first few hundred days or so, by day 1000 it still will not matter because of all the passive influence policies that give far too much to the Vassal clans. I feel your solution is a bit more on side of treating the symptoms; not the disease per se. I could be wrong, but I believe the core of the issue is everyone simply has way too much influence. So here's what I believe needs to be done to avoid there player and ai clans from amassing too much influence.
-Remove or change all passive influence granting policies for vassals -- nerf sacred majesty to 1 influence per day (in the end the liege should almost always have the most influence unless they are entirely inept)
-Change influence gains to a flat rate instead of scaled (who cares how many looters you killed with x amount of men, all -
we care about is how many of those damn vermin are now dead!)
-Influence degradation similar to warbands renown degradation (In short, amass up to around 1k but after that, you start hitting a steeper and steeper treadmill of diminishing returns -- additionally -- degradation only significant if the player/clan is reaching the DR treadmill -- or inactive from faction contribution ie waiting around in a town or castle for weeks on end)
This is a step in the right direction Mex, but it's only a solution for the first few hundred days or so, by day 1000 it still will not matter because of all the passive influence policies that give far too much to the Vassal clans. I feel your solution is a bit more on side of treating the symptoms; not the disease per se. I could be wrong, but I believe the core of the issue is everyone simply has way too much influence. So here's what I believe needs to be done to avoid there player and ai clans from amassing too much influence.
-Remove or change all passive influence granting policies for vassals -- nerf sacred majesty to 1 influence per day (in the end the liege should almost always have the most influence unless they are entirely inept)
-Change influence gains to a flat rate instead of scaled (who cares how many looters you killed with x amount of men, all -
we care about is how many of those damn vermin are now dead!)
-Influence degradation similar to warbands renown degradation (In short, amass up to around 1k but after that, you start hitting a steeper and steeper treadmill of diminishing returns -- additionally -- degradation only significant if the player/clan is reaching the DR treadmill -- or inactive from faction contribution ie waiting around in a town or castle for weeks on end)
maybe passive influence gain should be removed entirely and influence from actions buffed?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.
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.
22 party vs 18 looters -> 2.2 influence (similar for renown)
1200 army (all my troops) vs 900 army -> 4-5 influence (around 6-7 renown iirc) ... WTH?!?
The current influence/renown system has to be rebalanced
Third option seems to be the best.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 :
Would it be possible to seperate influence and renown gains from each other? At the moment it seems they are closely tied together with the player getting similar amounts of both no matter the battle.Well, at 1200 army you have all your clan parties? Not any other party from another clan?
At the end of battle you see only how many influence / renown your party gained. Gains of your clan parties probably not shown there but they will be added to your clan's variables (that screen needs a development so player can see how many renown / influence you get through your clan parties at that battle). So for best results please note somewhere your renown / influence before battle and check it afterwards.
Would it be possible to seperate influence and renown gains from each other? At the moment it seems they are closely tied together with the player getting similar amounts of both no matter the battle.
The situation right now is something along the lines of:
Win 5v50 - 20 renown, 15 influence (high/high)
Win 200v100 - 10 renown, 5 influence (low/low)
What's happening here is both values are mostly being based on the "impressiveness" of winning the battle (overcoming the odds). If we were to seperate them and reward renown for the "impressiveness" and influence for consistency/fighting big battles instead it would look something like this:
Win 10v10 - 5 renown, 1 influence (low/low)
Win 5v50 - 25 renown, 3 influence (high/low)
Win 200v100 - 10 renown, 25 influence (low/high)
Win 200v500 - 50 renown, 45 influence (high/high)
I think this would make sense as it rewards fighting in big battles even if you have the number advantage and won't get much renown. It also makes sense roleplay-wise, as the guy going around taking on groups of 50 men by himself may be more popular, but he won't hold more influence than the lord with 200 men in his army.