Why the hell is the Tannery so overpowered?

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Best answers
0
I was probably guilty of venting my annoyance after reading 5 pages of arguments on (mostly) the related but different topic of passive vs active income in general, looking for scraps directly relevant to the topic of the OP. Those related topics are absolutely worth talking about, they just belonged in their own thread where they wouldn't bury potential resolutions to the question of what makes Tanneries different to other workshops. I apologise for speaking in a way that could be interpreted otherwise.
No worries at all! The only reason why I even mentioned it is that I have admired how you were able to respond very calmly to people who were obviously trying to bait you into a fight in other threads, and that paragraph seemed out of character :smile:. And you are right on that. I honestly was debating making a thread in the suggestions section on this issue myself, but I am not sure how much that is even looked at given that most threads seem to go unanswered. After a search I have also noticed a few threads mentioning this issue so I think we can assume that the devs are aware and will get around to it eventually. One can hope at least.

Edit: eh, what the heck, I am making the thread. If they don't read it too bad, at least I tried.
 
Last edited:

Dionaea

Veteran
Best answers
0
A workshop making 400/day isn't game breaking at this level, it might be a little much early game. You cannot amputate a patient until it survives. If anything other workshops should be on the same level as the tannery, but that makes it where it's pretty lame if all of them produce the same income no matter what the player does, which is now largely the case.
Workshops where good but then the bragging assholes came declaring it ridicilous and "wayyyyyyyy too easy hurr durr look how great I am! thiz shuld be nerfed11111" And all nice things get nerfed because of these mother****ers.

If they find something too OP, don't make use of it then, instead of bithching about it so they can humblebrag and ruin every quality of life thing for those of us who like these things.
Paying tons of gold for equipment, making peace and recruiting lords, is just a desperate and poor way to try to deal with players getting insanely rich in this game. I personally would prefer less income for the player and less crazy costs for equipment which make the game less immersive and bring more economy issues.
Only time I got "insanely rich" is when I used the export character mod and gave my dude 60 milion
 

Dabos37

Knight
Best answers
0
Workshops where good but then the bragging assholes came declaring it ridicilous and "wayyyyyyyy too easy hurr durr look how great I am! thiz shuld be nerfed11111" And all nice things get nerfed because of these mother****ers.

If they find something too OP, don't make use of it then, instead of bithching about it so they can humblebrag and ruin every quality of life thing for those of us who like these things.


Only time I got "insanely rich" is when I used the export character mod and gave my dude 60 milion
🤣🤣🤣🤣

You can just continue using cheats instead of saying us what we should use or not.
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
Best answers
0
🤣🤣🤣🤣

You can just continue using cheats instead of saying us what we should use or not.
At any rate, I can exploit the game without cheating, it's rather easy. It's just narrow, takes the fun out of the game, makes things boring. It also impedes any kind of RPing (which is basically the core experience of M&B, all of them) forcing you into some ****ty meta. This game, not this, all M&B are too easy, nobody really NEEDS to cheat, and your feelings of grandeur are but an illusion. Any average joe can do what you did, hold your horses
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dabos37

Knight
Best answers
0
So, Tanneries need to be OP in order to make the game fun? xD... Maybe you could suggest to revert the Wood Workshop nerf to get 15K daily again and make the game more enjoyable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
Best answers
0
So, Tanneries need to be OP in order to make the game fun? xD... Maybe you could suggest to revert the Wood Workshop nerf to get 15K daily again and make the game more enjoyable.
strawman argument, don't try to dodge the subject, I was criticizing your behavior, not the topic at hand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dionaea

Veteran
Best answers
0
So, Tanneries need to be OP in order to make the game fun? xD... Maybe you could suggest to revert the Wood Workshop nerf to get 15K daily again and make the game more enjoyable.
But they aren't OP stop saying they are OP just so you can be proud of the size of your e peen
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dabos37

Knight
Best answers
0
But they aren't OP stop saying they are OP just so you can be proud of the size of your e peen
1- I can say whatever I want.
2- I have given proves about why Tannery Workshops are OP and compared them with Warband workshops. I have been talking about numbers while people just say silly arguments like: there are other thing more OP, they need to be OP to make the game more enjoyable, etc.

This is not about the size of my peen (which I am already proud), It is about giving feedback because I think that a too easy game is bad for replayability. People can continue insulting me or saying dusgusting commentaries, I really do not care about it and even find It funny.
 

Dabos37

Knight
Best answers
0
No... This is an example of an opinion:

Just though of an amazing idea that will solve everyones problems. For the people that think tanneries give too much. Heres what you need to do. You will kick yourself for not thinking of it. Ok... so here it is. What you need to do is...... ready? *whispers* Don't buy them. How amazing is that. Bet you feel like a complete idiot for not thinking of it.

These are proofs:

Dyeworks 500 weekly - buy price 10000
Tannery 3500 weekly - buy price 13500

- 20 weeks to get money back from dyeworks.
- 4 weeks to get money back from tanneries.
- Warband workshops are under sequestration at war times.
- Bannerlord workshops are lost at war but you can sell them.
- You can get workshops everywhere in Warband.
- You can get 6 workshops at maximum in Bannerlord but they are simply much more profitable than Warband workshops, Plus you can get caravans in Bannerlord.


Swadian Knights 59 weekly
Vlandian Banner Knights 98 weekly


Now, once you realize that most of people buy Workshops in Warband and they find them profitable, It is clear that It is something wrong with Bannerlord passive income.

Paying tons of gold for equipment, making peace and recruiting lords, is just a desperate and poor way to try to deal with players getting insanely rich in this game. I personally would prefer less income for the player and less crazy costs for equipment which make the game less immersive and bring more economy issues.
Tanneries are by far much more profitable than Dyes in Warband, eventhough, most of the people find Dyes pretty useful in Warband.
 

TheShermanator

Veteran
Best answers
0
Lots of good stuff to respond to.

First, a meta comment on the thread: Clearly we are talking about parallel related topics: Tanneries specifically relative to other workshops, workshops in general, workshop income as a function of passive income, and overall income, i.e. passive sources vs. active sources. That kind of parallel but relevant topic discussion is exactly what forums are for, of course. Otherwise ... why forums? Other venues and formats would of course be better and more efficient for addressing rigidly narrow topics.(To be fair, there is always room for finding a relativistic middle ground in forum topic curation, but rigid topic allocation misses the whole point of forum discussions, IMHO.)

More specifically: The disproportionately good performance of Tanneries vs. other workshops is interesting to so many precisely because so many people think that workshop income, and more generally passive income, is under-powered. Thus, abusing Tanneries has for many become a way to (partially) exploit their way, for now, out of a passive income situation that they view as basically broken in general. Thus, the anger about re-calibrating Tanneries. For many on here, it's not really about the mechanics of Tanneries per se (see my past posts, Bannerman man's posts, and many others about possible issues with supply/demand game-math mechanics for possible answers there). Then, given the clear controversy about passive vs. active income sources, combined with the dev's recent track record of making big (e.g. 95%) nerfs/buffs, the issue of likely economic re-balances and the dev's balancing approach presents itself.

Now, clarifications on balancing (@Badcritter, @eddiemccandless, @Bannerman Man): While I do think that my core thesis in my post still stands largely uncontested, I agree that semantics a la 'pendulum swings' are getting in the way. To be clear, I don't have an issue with the slight over-shoot / slight under-shoot triangulation/calibration methodology that you're describing per se. However, that methodology presupposes two things: a) that you're already pretty close, and you are just trying to make small adjustments and b) that the variable that you are trying to target can be isolated. It's clear to me, reading back over my post, that my post is premised on the opposite propositions: a) The dev's clearly aren't all that close with any of this; they have shown a willingness to make massive swings and b) the variables can't be isolated, especially when making big all-at-once rebalance choices. To invoke the pendulum analogy: That's fine as long as the pendulum back-and-forth movements are those little ones near the nadir of the pendulum's arc. But I think that's not what is colloquially understood to be the meaning of 'pendulum swings'. 'Swing' indicates the big disruptive change.

In that context, I think your responses, while thoughtful, fall down in two areas:

1) Many signs indicate that the devs really are not that close yet. See again the 95% nerf to prisoner influence value. See xdj1nn's posts about his experience with very different gameplay patch to patch. See Bannerman man's own post about the less-than-fully-implemented workshop level system. Of course, we can't read the dev's minds, but available evidence suggests to me that they know they are not yet close to the final balance stasis for the game.

2) Your responses fail to account for my core point about unintended second order consequences - especially when those second order consequences recursively impact the originally intended balance target. That is to say: Even if they were close, and I'm off on (1) - I saw Bannerman man speculate that they may be pretty solid on 90% of these things via internal testing, so let's just accept that and ignore (1) for the sake of argument - big fat nerfs and buffs all at once (vs. the incremental approach) would have 2nd order effects that would undermine those pre-established certainties about 90% of the balance dynamics from internal testing. E.g. Let's say that they think they've had the gameplay flow of war, enemy parties hunting each other, etc. figured out for a long time via internal testing. If they make a huge all-at-once nerf to passive income, they would risk driving the player into unexpected enemy party farming (loot farming = party farming) behavior that might radically change what they thought they had already figured about about how parties move on the map. And, even worse, if the make the big balance change all at once, it's more likely that they will fail to understand that this 2nd order effect, disrupting their prior certitudes, has even happened. In this way, big all-at-once nerfs and buffs might actually create net regression vs. net progression towards the desired balance goal.

So it's not really about the current player experience. I agree that current beta players like me need to suck it up a little bit. But even if the goal is the dev's long term objective to achieve balance for the future player experience, big fact all-at-once changes are counter-productive. To reiterate: Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.
 
Last edited:

AfLIcTeD

Sergeant
Best answers
0
That is still only your opinion on the matter.
Since you can only get 6 max and you lose them when you go to war against a faction the workshop is in. It is only fair that they provide more profit. They aren't completely safe, unless you never join a faction and stay neutral the entire game.

The entire workshop system needs an overhaul so that they are all viable options. Either make it like Warband, where they all have different start up costs but provide different profits. Or if they cost the same then they all need to be producing similar profits.
Just nerfing them into the ground isn't the solution. This will just make it so the warmongering playstyle is the only playsyle.
 

Dabos37

Knight
Best answers
0
That is still only your opinion on the matter.
Since you can only get 6 max and you lose them when you go to war against a faction the workshop is in. It is only fair that they provide more profit. They aren't completely safe, unless you never join a faction and stay neutral the entire game.

The entire workshop system needs an overhaul so that they are all viable options. Either make it like Warband, where they all have different start up costs but provide different profits. Or if they cost the same then they all need to be producing similar profits.
Just nerfing them into the ground isn't the solution. This will just make it so the warmongering playstyle is the only playsyle.
Nobody is talking about nerfing tanneries into the ground, but they are currently giving too much money. They should give 200-300 daily IMO, and they would still be pretty useful.

Problem currently is that It is too easy to get money and devs are aware of this, and the result is ridiculous high prices for armors, to make peace or to persuade lords.

I personally think that tanneries give too much money, loot give too much money and plunder is also too high some times, but at the same time I also think that armors should be much cheaper, asking for peace much cheaper, and persuading lords much cheaper.

Someone could say: "if you TW Nerf income but also low the prices, the result would be the same". But It is not the case... Aside from armor, all other expensive things are just related to have our own kingdom but if you play as vassal, you simply can easily get an insane amount of money before creating the new kingdom and problem solved.

Anyway, I am done with this thread and yes, I just could stop bying tanneries and It is not a big problem for me. I was just giving feedback as we are supposed to do in EA.
 

TheShermanator

Veteran
Best answers
0
Nobody is talking about nerfing tanneries into the ground, but they are currently giving too much money. They should give 200-300 daily IMO, and they would still be pretty useful.

Problem currently is that It is too easy to get money and devs are aware of this, and the result is ridiculous high prices for armors, to make peace or to persuade lords.

I personally think that tanneries give too much money, loot give too much money and plunder is also too high some times, but at the same time I also think that armors should be much cheaper, asking for peace much cheaper, and persuading lords much cheaper.

Someone could say: "if you TW Nerf income but also low the prices, the result would be the same". But It is not the case... Aside from armor, all other expensive things are just related to have our own kingdom but if you play as vassal, you simply can easily get an insane amount of money before creating the new kingdom and problem solved.

Anyway, I am done with this thread and yes, I just could stop bying tanneries and It is not a big problem for me. I was just giving feedback as we are supposed to do in EA.
Yeah, I think there’s a lot of productive discussion (I.e. sound EA feedback) happening along side of a lot of really dumb discussion.
 

mfuegemann

Recruit
Best answers
0
From my point of view tannries should give influence penalties instead of nerfing the income ratio.
Think of the smell alone! Someone who deals with that stuff should have problems commanding real lords...

Why not cross-use the variables we already have?
 

Yangbang

Sergeant
WBWF&SVC
Best answers
0
I'm going to be making my own thread about this to help balance the game, but recruitment prices and wages need to be increased on a scale. That's how to make these workshops seem viable and not OP. But also resources and specific workshops should have region specific favorable markets.
 

Dabos37

Knight
Best answers
0
I'm going to be making my own thread about this to help balance the game, but recruitment prices and wages need to be increased on a scale. That's how to make these workshops seem viable and not OP. But also resources and specific workshops should have region specific favorable markets.
Problem with this is that you are directly punishing AI lords who are not able to buy workshops and caravans, and a lot of them would go to bankrupt for this change. Devs have said that It is a decision to do not allow lords to get workshops and caravans.
 

Yangbang

Sergeant
WBWF&SVC
Best answers
0
Problem with this is that you are directly punishing AI lords who are not able to buy workshops and caravans, and a lot of them would go to bankrupt for this change. Devs have said that It is a decision to do not allow lords to get workshops and caravans.
Recruitment and wages changes should just be player specific. The AI already pop out X amount of recruits regardless of the the recruitment pool being empty. No debuffs on them, just player specific as we have multiple ways to make money that they don't have.
 

King Yngvar

Squire
WBVC
Best answers
0
Yeah manual trade is super op and needs to be cut down to 1/5 or so of effectiveness
The only result of nerfing manual trade is that the early stage of trading between towns will drag on for much longer.

Buff tax income and increase unit upgrade prices instead.