Real Battle

[darksoulshin]

I think that you are spamming that thread a little too much.

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/unexpected-mechanic-depth-from-mordhau.384149/post-9726188

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/spears-feel-weak-and-unsatisfying.445218/post-9725132

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/armor-properties.444974/post-9723690

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/just-nerf-ranged-damage-by-30.444895/post-9722642

We get it, you are passionate about your suggestion, but this is a little much.

Spoiler: the answer

It's a reply thread.
Often when I read a comment and see that the same questions are always running in the fanbase, I reply by saying the same things written in the thread.
It may sound like spam, but it's not.
It is the alternative to writing a long, articulate response comment that leaves nothing to chance and that would end up really clogging up an entire page.
So do you think I should just copy and paste what is written on it and fill in a sheet?
or link you to the thread giving some clue about the content, so that the rest of the readers can continue on the current page without seeing that my comment takes up the entire space?
I simply opted for the less redundant option.
The problem is that you have this perception that someone inserts a link because in life they have nothing to do but spam things.
I have other things to do and I wrote the threads I wrote with the idea that:
"I write what I have to write, in the clearest and most complete way possible, so that I don't have to repeat the same things a thousand times in the comments, but with forgetfulness, inaccuracies and errors".

What I ask myself is: "Are the readers interested in a discussion in which you really want to hear an argument or do you just want to exchange inconclusive opinions?".
Because I see more memes and complaints than suggestions that are not simple variations of parameters that have already been retouched N times first in one direction and then in the other, just because twisting them does not solve the problem.
Short comments, no one who really wants to understand the other's idea, who doesn't make the effort to simulate in mind what the implementation of a given idea would be like, and if it has small errors, doesn't make the effort to seek a solution to that idea. 'error.
We always look for the easy way without taking into account that it can be cyclical and inconclusive and therefore we respond with short comments, which do not go into detail, at the heart of the problem and which propose a solution that has already been adopted many times and that has not worked. and that it cannot work without compromising that partially spoils the gaming experience.

I do not post those links in discussions where the context does not provide them as a "reply comment".
If we talk about economics I insert my thread on the economy, if we talk about the armor system, give I insert the appropriate thread.
And if we talk about mechanics that someone proposes, I tend to suggest improvements and if necessary or appropriate I suggest some threads I wrote that can be joined independently.
As you can read from the threads I posted it in (avoid filling the pages, which in theory should be appreciated):
1) armor-properties
2) just-nerf-ranged-damage-by-30
3) spears-feel-weak-and-unsatisfying
Where I put the thread on the armor system just because it would be my answer as a suggestion to the simple "nerf this, buff this", which I think is a spin around the problem without ever solving it.
4) unexpected-mechanic-depth-from-mordhau.
In which I first suggested a change to the thread presenter's suggestion to ensure that the mechanics are consistent with mount and blade, balanced, well thought out and use assets already in the game, and that the community interested in the core game may like it.
After that I inserted the link related to the step-dodge (movement mechanics) as well as to this armor system but only as a possible balance (for the same reasons explained in the thread and elsewhere in the comments).
I repeat: if I were to answer explicitly, it is true that you would not even see a link, but you would see the page clogged with a comment of mine that practically, in addition to responding to a comment in a proactive way (unlike many who are offensive, do not even read and ask the speaker of a thread to go back to play elsewhere ...) copy and paste the text of the suggestion thread I wrote, simply because I would suggest what I have already suggested, as an alternative to what the thread speaker proposes .

Actually I have another thread to finish, about sieges, but I stopped finishing it because I realized it's not worth it, since nobody really cares about reading something more complicated than a "nerf this, buff this".
The fan base doesn't care (I understand that those who have other things to do in life may not have the time and energy ... but I don't rush them, they've been there for months), and probably the developers don't care just because the fan base doesn't give any feedback on something they don't want to read.
So I just answer a with 1 lik of 2 lines instead of instasing the page.
I apologize for not filling the page and not suggesting "nerf this, buff this".
We comment on everything: on memes, on how others write, on why others write ... but if I insert a thread in which I talk about what we should talk about and without clog everything up, ah I commit the sin.

 

[five bucks]

That's the player expectation: that they're going to basically be able to kill anyone on the field with mid-game gear and not too much challenge

You've separated the argument from its context. The statement was "easily killed," not just "not too much challenge."
With noble T6 enemies/lords being a major threat in the early game, a medium challenge in the mid game and a run of the mill challenge in the lategame.

Assuming "not too much challenge" means "a bit above medium difficulty", I'd agree most players would probably expect to kill high-tier enemies with mid-game gear with "not too much challenge".

But I would strongly disagree that most players would expect to be able to 1shot/2shot high-tier armored enemies with mid-game gear (couching aside). You'd need some kind of poll to make a statement like that.

Sure, improve armor and a lot of the stupid deaths of high-tier troops are going to go away. But once they fix cavalry, I fully expect anyone with a couchable lance to go right through that armor like a hot knife through butter, both from a realism standpoint and from the standpoint of prior games.

Of course couched lances at full tilt on horseback should be dealing serious damage even to heavy armor, but once the game's mechanics are all in and working, it will/should only function in a specific set of circumstances:
* you've had enough of a run-up to get the speed bonus
* target can't be bracing a polearm longer than your lance
* target can't be standing somewhere a charge doesn't work, ie a wall in a siege
* target can't be using a large shield to protect against couched charges
* target can't be in a very thick formation, or you get bogged down and die for your singular kill
* target actually needs to be either on foot, moving roughly perpendicular to you, or moving towards you. Otherwise you can't get the speed bonus
* you can't miss your target
These things combined means couched attacks will not be an easy method of dealing with high tier enemies in all situations, only specific ones. Making its damage an exception, rather than the rule, with the vast majority of other weapons not oneshotting or twoshotting heavy armor.

 

[Apocal]

Assuming "not too much challenge" means "a bit above medium difficulty", I'd agree most players would probably expect to kill high-tier enemies with mid-game gear with "not too much challenge".

But I would strongly disagree that most players would expect to be able to 1shot/2shot high-tier armored enemies with mid-game gear (couching aside). You'd need some kind of poll to make a statement like that.

Couching is explicitly what I'm referring to. And by not too much challenge, I mean I'll be able to basically farm them without breaking a sweat, assuming I'm not distracted or unlucky.

It may sound like spam, but it's not.

It literally is.

 

[darksoulshin]

Couching is explicitly what I'm referring to. And by not too much challenge, I mean I'll be able to basically farm them without breaking a sweat, assuming I'm not distracted or unlucky.

It literally is.

"Literally" it would mean that one writes useless, nonsense and repeated 100 times in the same thread.
I write and insert links only once(twice in rare occasions), inherent to the context and that suggest proactively.
This is literally not spam.

The funny thing is that the only topic you talk about is this, not inherent to the thread ...
Apparently finished the arguments and suggestions ("buff this, nerf this"), it remains only the complaining of those who propose something different.

This thread talk about "real battle" and i propose a suggestion that is what this thread are talking about.

 

[five bucks]

Couching is explicitly what I'm referring to

And the omitted second half of my post addresses it.

And by not too much challenge, I mean I'll be able to basically farm them without breaking a sweat, assuming I'm not distracted or unlucky.

So you think all players, not just you, expect the game should ideally let them "farm" cataphracts, fians, banner knights etc "without breaking a sweat".
Nah.

 

[eddiemccandless]

@darksoulshin no one has a problem with you suggesting things, it's the way that you go about it that is counter productive. It feels like you are trying to highjack other people's threads to push your own agenda for the game, and honestly most people will have a knee jerk reaction of "oh look it's that guy again". The giant blocks of text don't help with that either.


Ultimately it's not just that it's spammy, it's also going to work against your ideas being taken seriously. Specifically in this thread, you quoted me saying that a better armor implementation would be easy to implement at a basic level, and linked a suggestion for a much more (unnecessarily in my opinion) complicated system. That was only tangentially related to what I said and it comes across as you not even reading what other people post and just wanting to share what you want (and kind of shoving it down their throat especially with that "read before commenting" bit).

 

[darksoulshin]

no one has a problem with you suggesting things

You have no problems, but some people (usually always the same) have them, primarily due to lack of understanding due to not reading the thread but to the title alone or to a misinterpretation of the content.
If I said to add 100 hurtboxes, obviously it would be great bull****, but that doesn't imply that if I said 5 hurtboxes instead, the principle behind the suggestion remains bull****.
A lot of people read 25 hurtboxes (which are not few and I know), and say no to the whole thread without considering that that number is arbitrarily placed and that it could be a 5, a 10, numbers that could be argued for.
Discussing that "number" would be something developers should focus on, and it's on principle instead that the discussion of the fan base (as well as developers) should turn.

it's the way that you go about it that is counter productive. It feels like you are trying to highjack other people's threads to push your own agenda for the game, and honestly most people will have a knee jerk reaction of "oh look it's that guy again". The giant blocks of text don't help with that either.


Ultimately it's not just that it's spammy, it's also going to work against your ideas being taken seriously

The intent is not to hijack but to provide a method other than "buff this, nerf this" and parameter changes that don't fix anything.
I don't know of other less invasive methods, I don't know people in the forum and I can't afford to start endless discussions because I can barely find the time to respond and I do it when I'm already tired of doing other than life requires me to do.

So I write a thread with the suggestion (and it takes me 1-2 months to think it through, take into account assets already present and any balances to suggest in the case of an implementation, and then I have to write it well in a language that is not the native one) .
Since the thread expresses my thoughts on a given topic, it is also valid as a response to any other thread that considers the same topics covered in mine, but not so much as an alternative, but as an "additional point of view".

All the threads I've seen on armor systems talk about only 1 thing: the armor value, bringing out functions that modify it.
I simply say: there are also hurtboxes to act on.
And by cleverly increasing it, you can make a very realistic armor system.

Specifically in this thread, you quoted me saying that a better armor implementation would be easy to implement at a basic level, and linked a suggestion for a much more (unnecessarily in my opinion) complicated system. That was only tangentially related to what I said

It is the exact opposite.
As soon as I read that the usual looters kill a heavily protected warrior by throwing stones at him ... I said to myself:
"oh, one of the reasons why I wrote the thread, well I will insert it as an answer comment since it responds perfectly to that problem and to the fake solutions that I often read in the forum".
In your case, you said that it was "complicated" so i inserted the link related to my thread which is not so complicated as you think.

Specifically, it explains how it works :
1) increase hurtboxes to 15 (for example)
2) 10 of these 15 are covered by rigid armor and we call them armor slots, the rest can only be covered by what is not rigid or not covered at all.
3) we change the armor values of the armor in such a way as to make them realistic, therefore very heavy armor in terms of protection will have very high armor values, such as to reduce the damage even by 100%.
Obviously other less protective armor will have lower armor values, but the principle is that compared to now, they can be increased a lot.

what happens making these changes?
-5 hurtboxes are uncovered (therefore unprotected), so even those wearing armor that protect against 100% damage in covered armor slots are still vulnerable in those spots.
-Suppose the model is in front of us.
the relationship between the area of its uncovered parts compared to its total gives us an idea of how protected it is.
Let's assume it's 95% covered with armor that protects 100%.
Let's say it has 100hp and a looter deals 25 damage to open areas.

From a distance, provided the looters have perfect aim, they will always hit the target.
But given that only 5% is exposed, out of 20 looters who throw the stone, only 1 will be able to hit the warrior in the less protected areas.
If in those areas he will wear a non-rigid armor component (gambeson and chainmail or even just padded clothes), according to the type of protection he will see the damage suffered decrease from 25 (damage that would suffer if he had no protection) to the corresponding value reduced by the 'armor value(suppose 15)
In this case with 10 stone will kill the warrior, so looter need to shot 10 stones*20 looters=200 stones to kill this guy.
From a distance, therefore, the looters could not do much against this warrior.

Up close, however, if they aim well, they can increase their probability of hitting one of the least protected points and therefore the number of stones that would hit our warrior in an uncovered hurtboxes would be greater than 1 per 20 looters.


In the melee instead?
Suppose there is only 1 looter.
Is he able to take out our warrior?
Let's assume the looter has a knife or dagger.
-If our warrior had plates, chainmail and padded armor:
1)the looter would not inflict damage in the areas covered by the plates.
2)With slashing blows it would inflict little damage in the exposed parts (reduced by chainmail and padded armor)
3)With exposed lunges it would inflict slightly more damage than slashing.
4)Blunt damage, on the other hand, would have a greater advantage over cutting and drilling.

- if our warrior only had plates and padded armor:
1)Hitting the plates would still be useless, as we assumed that the damage would be equal to 0.
2)hitting with cutting attacks and even better piercing in the uncovered areas (not protected by plates) could allow the looter to take down our warrior in a few hits.
Obviously our warrior is 95% covered, so it is very difficult for the looter to hit the right points, but he doesn't have to hit them an infinite number of times, but only the number of times it would take that weapon to take down the same warrior equipped only with padded armor by hitting it in the same place (so 5-6 times at most).

I hope that the example is clear and inherent to the problem you have posed.
The same example can be done with archers and crossbowmen instead of stone throwers.

From distance the clash is more probabilistic but in physical terms, from proximity it becomes a question of aim.

Currently in the game this does not happen, as your character, having few hurtboxes and all covered, needs to have a low armor value in order not to become invincible in melee and in distance.
But this means that from the distance, the damage suffered by the stone is reduced by a little in all points.
There are no points where it is strongly reduced.
And with 20 looters... you receive the damage of 1 stonex20 with little difference due to the located damage.
The only condition for this difference to occur is not wearing the equipment in one of the hurtboxes.
This, in the current game, is equivalent to what in my suggestion thread is a character with 5 out of 20 uncovered hurtboxes.

As you can see, the system is actually very simple and above all it responds directly to the problem posed by you, solving it also for other units and other threads that highlight the problems with remote units and armor.

There are other advantages, but here I wanted to answer only about what you wrote about stone throwers.

That was only tangentially related to what I said

Have I been able to prove that it is not tangentially related but strongly related to what you said?

it comes across as you not even reading what other people post and just wanting to share what you want

I read what people write, simply if I read something that does not propose a solution or a modification to the proposal, I tend not to answer.
Basically I post a comment on something that someone else proposes and that I think is good but can still be improved.
If I believe that a certain method proposed is deleterious, useless or already applied and failed, I highlight it and explain why I think it does not work but alternatively I propose something, otherwise if I think it is good I try to improve it.
In the other cases I don't write at all, but obviously I put what I think and what I think about the topics: armor, damage, bullets and melee, is in that thread.

and kind of shoving it down their throat especially with that "read before commenting" bit)

That was just a tip to avoid talking about anything or opinions based on misinterpretations of a text that has not even been read.
I don't force anyone to read, I just say that if someone has to answer me, they have to do it about the content of the topic I am presenting to them, not the way I am presenting it to them.
And if the ways seem inappropriate, I apologize, it was not my intention.
I'm just trying to contribute and point out that certain methods tend to be time-consuming.
It's been a year (or more) and the armor is still paper ... and changing the armor values and raising them will raise the problem of spending half an hour filling a guy with blows because his armor value brings all the damage to 1 or 0, which will reward spam instead of tactical combat.

I apologize if I have written a lot, I wanted to clarify some things.
I will avoid writing so much so as not to force anyone to read too much, so as not to take too much time.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

[...] However, your concerns about armour have been raised previously by other players and that is something we will continue to report to the developers. And even if that doesn't amount to the changes that you and some others would like to see, at least you already have access to an awesome mod that provides you with the gameplay experience that you want!

How bad that sentence sounded Callum.... ?

#Thebannerlordexperience™

 

[Mad Vader]

Basically, making such a change would hurt developers' feelings, so use the mod that fixes this, because we are not really listening.
It's a universal "**** off" reply.

Lol at the autistic spam dude. He ruined the word "hurtbox" for me.
Even when shown months ago how increasing the number of hurtboxes per troop will increase collision detection effort and decrease performance, basically increasing the minimum PC requirements, which is the single thing that Taleworlds wants to avoid, he can't let go of his vanity walls of text. It's pathetic and eddie there is right that he doesn't really want to communicate, it's just one-way spam shoehorned into every thread he finds.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Basically, making such a change would hurt developers' feelings, so use the mod that fixes this, because we are not really listening.
It's a universal "**** off" reply.

+5 Absolutely, you thought so too, didn't you? ?

Lol at the autistic spam dude. He ruined the word "hurtbox" for me.
Even when shown months ago how increasing the number of hurtboxes per troop will increase collision detection effort and decrease performance, basically increasing the minimum PC requirements, which is the single thing that Taleworlds wants to avoid, he can't let go of his vanity walls of text. It's pathetic and eddie there is right that he doesn't really want to communicate, it's just one-way spam shoehorned into every thread he finds.

+1 The funny thing is that he doesn't take the hints...

 

[vonbalt]

warband had like one or two mods from hundreds who messed with armor formula in more than a decade of existence because the vanilla one worked fine and delivered a good medium between realism and gameplay.

Bannerlord has mods changing armor formula since the first month of release and it's most popular mod is one that completes overhaul it, that says everything about how "good" they reinvented the wheel here...

 

[darksoulshin]

+1 The funny thing is that he doesn't take the hints...

It is not a suggestion, it is an information that is already inserted in the thread.
My suggestion regarding adding hurtbox is not at no cost.
It is clear that you have to choose between having multiple hurtboxes or multiple models.

In my opinion, given that the system does not hold more than 2000 models and therefore does not allow large battles, I think it makes more sense to make small battles more realistic and to do so I suggest a certain type of amor system that provides for an increase in the number of hurtboxe per model and consequently a reduction in the number of models in battle, all to ensure that the minimum requirements do not increase beyond a certain threshold.

His was not advice.
It was a way like any other to throw down an idea by asserting that it had a defect implicitly implying that it was unsolvable, when in reality it is very solvable because that "defect" is a choice between:
1) more hurtboxes, more realism, more depth in gameplay, resolving armor system balance and balance issues between units, and discourage spam attacks
2) large numbers and combat system that rewards the spam of the attacks.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

an awesome mod that provides you with the gameplay experience that you want!

Nope it does a bunch of stuff I don't like too. I just want more disparity between troop tiers' performance and survival and revisions to armor and damage calc. I don't want a bunch of different items and troop loadout changes. Plus it doesn't touch the other side of the problem : Troops that underperform via thier AI and mechanics, such as Cavalry missing it's attacks and separating too easily, Infantry being unable to run with shields up, Cavalry also being unable to gallop? with shield up, units chasing routing enemies while live enemies are active.
I mean tbf the RBM AI + the RTS command mods do some work in the second category, but I really look forward to this stuff being sorted out in the base game.

 

[ShakenSpeare]

Realism and gameplay are quite often at odds when it comes to games (we play games to distract us from real life after all!). This is something we take into consideration when designing different features, and we always go in favour of what we think will make for a more fun and enjoyable game.

I don't get why people think that realism=less fun in an inherent way. Of course, some aspects of realism, such as standing and moving around for hours, trying to bring about the battle in a position favorable to you, isn't particularly fun. However, there are many aspects to realism that are very fun, often for the fact that they're... well, realistic. Like armor working like armor, for instance. Also, there's so much of a lack of realism in video games anyway, that realism in itself is often unique and fun for me. Arcadey action and less realism are not what make M&B great, it's the stuff that makes you feel like you're in an actual Medieval battle/skirmish. Individual enemies not being a threat, armor being paper, and combat being so ridiculously fast might be fun for some people for some hours, but that kind of stuff gets seriously dull after enough time and does not feel real or immersive at all. There are countless titles that say "fun over realism" already, Bannerlord doesn't need to join the pack. Bannerlord needs to stand out. A realism feature is probably not "unfun" unless it's overly tedious, too grinding, or too time-consuming. Realism doesn't even need to be completely realistic, it just needs to slightly dwell in the realm of plausibility.

It is not a suggestion, it is an information that is already inserted in the thread.
My suggestion regarding adding hurtbox is not at no cost.
It is clear that you have to choose between having multiple hurtboxes or multiple models.

In my opinion, given that the system does not hold more than 2000 models and therefore does not allow large battles, I think it makes more sense to make small battles more realistic and to do so I suggest a certain type of amor system that provides for an increase in the number of hurtboxe per model and consequently a reduction in the number of models in battle, all to ensure that the minimum requirements do not increase beyond a certain threshold.

His was not advice.
It was a way like any other to throw down an idea by asserting that it had a defect implicitly implying that it was unsolvable, when in reality it is very solvable because that "defect" is a choice between:
1) more hurtboxes, more realism, more depth in gameplay, resolving armor system balance and balance issues between units, and discourage spam attacks
2) large numbers and combat system that rewards the spam of the attacks.

Congratulations, you're obnoxious attitude in advertising has motivated me not to click on any of your threads at all.

 

[vonbalt]

I really look forward to this stuff being sorted out in the base game.

This ^

I want the base game to be a good, cohesive and complete experience instead of having a huge mod list pinned as a recommendation to any new player "download this first to actually enjoy the game!"

Realistic battle mod is good but it does a bit too much to my tastes, the base game should be good enough that it doesn't NEED mods to be enjoyable but currently it does and it does badly..

 

[darksoulshin]

Congratulations, you're obnoxious attitude in advertising has motivated me not to click on any of your threads at all.

I don't get why people think that realism=less fun in an inherent way. Of course, some aspects of realism, such as standing and moving around for hours, trying to bring about the battle in a position favorable to you, isn't particularly fun. However, there are many aspects to realism that are very fun, often for the fact that they're... well, realistic. Like armor working like armor, for instance. Also, there's so much of a lack of realism in video games anyway, that realism in itself is often unique and fun for me. Arcadey action and less realism are not what make M&B great, it's the stuff that makes you feel like you're in an actual Medieval battle/skirmish. Individual enemies not being a threat, armor being paper, and combat being so ridiculously fast might be fun for some people for some hours, but that kind of stuff gets seriously dull after enough time and does not feel real or immersive at all. There are countless titles that say "fun over realism" already, Bannerlord doesn't need to join the pack. Bannerlord needs to stand out. A realism feature is probably not "unfun" unless it's overly tedious, too grinding, or too time-consuming. Realism doesn't even need to be completely realistic, it just needs to slightly dwell in the realm of plausibility.

Congratulations on consistency.
You talk about wanting something that I propose but you write that you don't want to read it just because I "suggest" you read it instead of complaining that I kindly put a link in front of you.
Link that you would not find because either it ends at the bottom or you simply do not look for it or in the tide of threads you end up considering it equivalent to the others in terms of content.
You don't have to read it, nobody forces you.
If you are interested in the topic of realism and how to get it, the thread is there and you can read it, or you can go to other suggestion threads that offer the usual, ineffective, "nerf damage or increase armor value" solution.
I did not write that thread to save time only for me, but also for those who wanted that realism that is missing in the game, but without unbalancing it and indeed adding depth to the gameplay.

 

[Apocal]

And the omitted second half of my post addresses it.

I left it out because I didn't object to any of that.

So you think all players, not just you, expect the game should ideally let them "farm" cataphracts, fians, banner knights etc "without breaking a sweat".
Nah.

Not necessarily all, but in general, yes. I'm pretty sure most players believe they should be able to consistently (and without much effort) hit someone with a couched lance and have him go down, dead right there. That's the expectation Warband created. Bannerlord gets complaints about changing it, both in the form of cavalry not working and of lances being somewhat more difficult to aim by players.

You're free to disagree.

 

[five bucks]

Not necessarily all, but in general, yes. I'm pretty sure most players believe they should be able to consistently (and without much effort) hit someone with a couched lance and have him go down, dead right there. That's the expectation Warband created.

I don't disagree that you should be able to have someone go down if you can actually hit them with a couched lance, but that's not the same thing as "farming someone with minimal challenge", since as I said there's other factors in couched lance combat that should make it not trivially easy to receive that hit.
In other words, the way your prior posts were phrased makes it sound like you're saying something different to what you actually mean.

 

[Gandamula]

Realism? You think that you, and your troops can run, sprint some times, across all map for so many time with a 20kg Armour?

 

[ShakenSpeare]

Realism? You think that you, and your troops can run, sprint some times, across all map for so many time with a 20kg Armour?

Nice straw man attempt. Nobody said that. Forcing your troops to walk in battle 90% of the time would be an annoying realism feature that doesn't add hardly anything to the game except unnecessary time wasted. When people talk about realism, they're talking about the most upfront things that would make the game more fun, not tedious, such as, overhauling formations, formation combat, armor, damage, etc.