Reducing the headshot damage multiplier from ranged attacks in singleplayer

[Totalgarbage]

In the patch notes of 1.2.4 there was the following change to head and neck damage from thrust attacks:

• Reduced the Head and Neck pierce damage multiplier from 2.0 to 1.5 for all melee thrust attacks.

I'm wondering what the community would think if the same change was made to ranged attack damage multiplier to head and neck shots. In my experiences, my fully kitted-out characters get taken down most often due to ranged hits to the head or neck.

I am probably exaggerating in my mind, but it feels like head and neck hits dealt between 4-10x the damage compared to body shots when heavily armored. If the damage multiplier was reduced, it would help the player and heavily armored troops (mostly infantry units) survive much better against the currently archer-dominated "meta" (I'm only suggesting this change for singleplayer because I don't play MP and therefore have no idea if this change would be good or not).

The decreased damage output from the player, which would therefore result in decreased exp gain. This can be balanced out by picking the lvl 25 archery perk that increases headshot damage, so there would little downside for the player character and companions.

What is the forum's opinion on such a change for singleplayer?

 

[JunKeteer]

In the patch notes of 1.2.4 there was the following change to head and neck damage from thrust attacks:

• Reduced the Head and Neck pierce damage multiplier from 2.0 to 1.5 for all melee thrust attacks.

I'm wondering what the community would think if the same change was made to ranged attack damage multiplier to head and neck shots. In my experiences, my fully kitted-out characters get taken down most often due to ranged hits to the head or neck.

I am probably exaggerating in my mind, but it feels like head and neck hits dealt between 4-10x the damage compared to body shots when heavily armored. If the damage multiplier was reduced, it would help the player and heavily armored troops (mostly infantry units) survive much better against the currently archer-dominated "meta" (I'm only suggesting this change for singleplayer because I don't play MP and therefore have no idea if this change would be good or not).

The decreased damage output from the player, which would therefore result in decreased exp gain. This can be balanced out by picking the lvl 25 archery perk that increases headshot damage, so there would little downside for the player character and companions.

What is the forum's opinion on such a change for singleplayer?

Easier to just reduce the accuracy of archers to reduce that frequency.
Also, heavy armored units are already quite op, especially with how easy they are to obtain - this will make the castle assaults significantly easier than they already are (vs warband). Not to mention shields already acting like a 180deg forcefield and can take 50+ arrows.

They make this change, they have to make others alongside to nerf HA units someway else.

 

[Totalgarbage]

Easier to just reduce the accuracy of archers to reduce that frequency.
Also, heavy armored units are already quite op, especially with how easy they are to obtain - this will make the castle assaults significantly easier than they already are (vs warband). Not to mention shields already acting like a 180deg forcefield and can take 50+ arrows.

They make this change, they have to make others alongside to nerf HA units someway else.

These are all valid concerns, especially the shield one. The 1.2.4 notes suggest that arrows and bolts do more damage to shields (and nerfed throwing axes' damage to them for some reason, this hopefully gets reverted) but I haven't tested if it makes a tangible difference. The forcefield around the shield could use a bit of trimming.

Siege offences becoming easier is also true, and I have no idea how to remedy it outside increasing the number of garrisoned units left by the AI, but that would be a separate subject. Maybe the best would be to decrease ranged damage to head/neck but by a smaller amount.

I don't want an accuracy decrease for ranged weapons, that would make the early game too annoying for the player and would make lower tier archers/xbowmen more unreliable.

 

[JunKeteer]

These are all valid concerns, especially the shield one. The 1.2.4 notes suggest that arrows and bolts do more damage to shields (and nerfed throwing axes' damage to them for some reason, this hopefully gets reverted) but I haven't tested if it makes a tangible difference. The forcefield around the shield could use a bit of trimming.

Siege offences becoming easier is also true, and I have no idea how to remedy it outside increasing the number of garrisoned units left by the AI, but that would be a separate subject. Maybe the best would be to decrease ranged damage to head/neck but by a smaller amount.

I don't want an accuracy decrease for ranged weapons, that would make the early game too annoying for the player and would make lower tier archers/xbowmen more unreliable.

If changes made with the main byproduct being that heavy armored units become more op, simply make their cost factor more expensive. Be it the exp it takes, recruit/upgrade/upkeep cost, AI party composition ratio adjusted, etc...
Otherwise, there's no longer any reason (or less than is already) balancing your party; just click upgrade all and continue steamrolling castle after castle.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

It'd be fine but I'll miss getting early 1hko from headshots. It doesn't really make sense for a arrow to have a higher multiplier then a stabbing sword.

Easier to just reduce the accuracy of archers to reduce that frequency.

They don't get head shots by aiming for the head, they get them by spamming shots into big groups of enemies and you get them just riding into them "wrong place wrong time".

 

[Totalgarbage]

If changes made with the main byproduct being that heavy armored units become more op, simply make their cost factor more expensive. Be it the exp it takes, recruit/upgrade/upkeep cost, AI party composition ratio adjusted, etc...
Otherwise, there's no longer any reason (or less than is already) balancing your party; just click upgrade all and continue steamrolling castle after castle.

Well if we decreased the ranged headshot multiplier from 2x to 1.5x (or 1.75x), which would be decreasing headshot damage by 25% (or 12,5%), and if we say that 1/5 of the shots landed by the AI are headshots (pulled the number out of my ass, it's probably lower in reality), it would effectively be decreasing their damage output by 8.33% (or 4.16%).

Do tell me if my calculation is wrong, I am tired, and even in my best condition, my math skills are generally iffy. I calculated it as 5.5x/6x = 0.9166 (or 5.75x/6x = 0.9583). If it's correct (the assumptions of AI's likelihood of landing a headshot notwithstanding), the resulting decrease to the overall ranged damage would not be that much, however, there would be less spikes in the damage output. It would actually primarily nerf the player's damage output if they are otherwise able to land headshots more consistently. But as I've said, the level 25 perk in archery would easily make up for this and more.

 

[JunKeteer]

Well if we decreased the ranged headshot multiplier from 2x to 1.5x (or 1.75x), which would be decreasing headshot damage by 25% (or 12,5%), and if we say that 1/5 of the shots landed by the AI are headshots (pulled the number out of my ass, it's probably lower in reality), it would effectively be decreasing their damage output by 8.33% (or 4.16%).

Do tell me if my calculation is wrong, I am tired, and even in my best condition, my math skills are generally iffy. I calculated it as 5.5x/6x = 0.9166 (or 5.75x/6x = 0.9583). If it's correct (the assumptions of AI's likelihood of landing a headshot notwithstanding), the resulting decrease to the overall ranged damage would not be that much, however, there would be less spikes in the damage output. It would actually primarily nerf the player's damage output if they are otherwise able to land headshots more consistently. But as I've said, the level 25 perk in archery would easily make up for this and more.

If it's about tampering their overall damage output, reducing accuracy has a more direct relation towards that imo. Player accuracy is already too pinpoint, even on horseback without reticles. But that's because of how archers/armor/units are represented in this game vs what we supposed medieval reality was more like (game missing a lot of that anyways).

It's 'fine' where it is currently. It's up to TW to figure out if they want to tweak it further depending on associated adjustments elsewhere; when they can get us a finished game product.