Right, so it sounds like we are saying the same thing in different ways.
The reason why high end armor does not protect in game is because the model used for damage after armor is just bad. Here is the thread I was talking about:
I would also be interested in @Ananda_The_Destroyer's take on the shield wall formation. I was under the impression that shields were also not that effective against ranged, but I haven't played in a while so I could be mistaken on that.
The proof of concept is there but it has to be overhauled.
I think a lot of the game needs polishing with the base mechanics working more or less correctly. But smithing needs to be redone from the ground up.That is basically all of Bannerlord at the moment. A lot of great concepts, just not implemented correctly/needs overhauls.
I know that you just want to promote your hurt boxes, but this is false.The solution of the thread you propose does not solve these two problems because:
- inserting high armor values makes the characters tougher, to the point of having to take hours to beat just 1.
But in your proposed solution, I don't see any methods of dealing with an enemy with high armor value.
In that thread this is the most important part IMO:I know that you just want to promote your hurt boxes, but this is false.
-There should be a meaningful gameplay distinction between using Cutting, Piercing and Blunt weapons. The player should find themselves in situations where they have to weigh up the pros and cons of which item type to equip. There sort of already is a distinction between cutting and the other damage types, but ideally there should be a distinction between piercing and blunt too.
I don't want to promote my thread because it makes me happy, but because I think the idea behind it is the best solution.I know that you just want to promote your hurt boxes, but this is false.
Your whole post started from a false premise. OP did take into account the fact that high damage needs to go through armor, and the whole topic was much more nuanced than what you said, the quote from @Ted Striker is an example. The damage/armor model is a parabolic curve exactly to have a smaller percentage of damage reduced at higher damage.I don't want to promote my thread because it makes me happy, but because I think the idea behind it is the best solution.
Do you know how much I care about visibility? nothing.
Having said that, what I say is not false.
Perhaps you have misinterpreted.
If I say that by raising the armor value in all the hurtboxes it takes longer to knock a guy down with the same damage dealt per hit and with consistency of animation time, am I saying something false or wrong?
No.
So setting a VERY HIGH armor value to reduce the damage to 1 or 0 would take a really long time to knock a guy down.
Instead of criticizing me or how I "promote" an idea, criticize the idea.
And then seriously ... you extrapolate a single sentence from my comment (which took some time to write) and instead of criticizing the comment do you criticize me personally for bias without even arguing for criticism of the comment?
I have just shown you that what I said is not false, but that you have misinterpreted because you are convinced that I am a certain type of person and this affects your judgment.
I mean ... seriously .. do I have to answer to defend myself instead of my idea?
Are my ideas hindered only because they come from me, and not because they are not good?
So two or three months of work with the use of physical and mathematical knowledge are useless in this forum if someone does not take a liking to you.
The damage/armor model is a parabolic curve exactly to have a smaller percentage of damage reduced at higher damage.
Yeah this is bad, major battles should have more impact. Both on manpower and willingness to fight (Diplomacy)AI being able to throw hundreds of men at you just after a wipe is definitely part of the issue for boring/tedious late game play.
Could not have said it better myself ?In that thread this is the most important part IMO:
There is not enough distinction. There seemed to be more in Warband but since I played mods almost exclusively I don't know if it was mods that caused it or vanilla.
- Cutting weapons (swords mostly) should be fastest, easiest to parry lighter attacks with, good cutting damge vs lightly or unarmored opponents. Damage falls off significantly as armor is increased and not all swords can thrust/pierce effectively, especially in this time period.
- Piercing should be effective vs all armor types if melee weapon, with longest reach and damage scaling up significantly with momentum like from horseback. Parrying is slower than swords but not as slow as blunt weapons. Piercing weapons are mostly spears and lances in this game. Not sure if there are any dedicated thrusting swords in the game but those types of swords were designed specifically as thrusting-only to defeat armor. You couldn't go around slashing with them. Spears also can't have that stupid minimum range damage penalty thing the current spears have. I train personally with spears as well as swords and believe me a good spear user with that increased range is a serious threat. It is a totally underrated weapon.
If it's arrows or bolts it should greatly depend on the draw weight whether it's effective vs armor. I have no formulas in my head for this.
- Blunt should be effective vs all armor types, should have a slight stagger effect that is increased if it's a blow to the head and should cause a minor stagger or temporary swing speed penalty to the opponent if parried (try parrying a heavy mace with a sword, or worse a modern sledgehammer. Go ahead, try it). This is to offset their generally shorter range, slower swing speed, slower recovery for a miss and decreased ability to parry. They're basically offense-only weapons, but wow what an offense.
Only the t5 infantry have good defense from ranged in SW and only from the front. Any other units seem to magically get picked off in the SW on approach. This is based on campaign single player, player VRS AI fights, not custom battle or "Hey dudes which infantry is the badest" BS.I would also be interested in @Ananda_The_Destroyer's take on the shield wall formation. I was under the impression that shields were also not that effective against ranged, but I haven't played in a while so I could be mistaken on that.
If it kept going as a parabola after the slope is equal to one the slope would keep increasing, therefore magnifying the damage instead of reducing it. What you are saying doesn't make sense from a mathematical point of view. And no, it is not similar to the old system, there is a larger reduction in damage than in the current system. You also can play with the slope or add more non linearities, although I don't see why you would.That curve just tells you "how he would like the damage trend to be".
But in the graphs the damage is not distinguished by type, the structure of the armor is not taken into consideration and the trend, although it resembles a parabola initially, is linear and similar to the old system for high damage values.
is it so hard to understand?Also, in your previous post you had a problem with armor being effective against damage, now you have a problem with the opposite.
For low damage the reduction is high.And no, it is not similar to the old system, there is a larger reduction in damage than in the current system. You also can play with the slope or add more non linearities, although I don't see why you would.
DUELS:Things like attack spam are only relevant for duels and small skirmishes, not for typical battles. Again you are inventing a problem to justify your walls of texts that you love so much. Maybe you should go bother the MP guys with this as it's not really relevant for SP.
Yeah, this is sad and is part of "everything dies in 2-3 hits from anything". It's hard to say how many shots is right but what I would ultimately like is for ALL types of t5/6 units to be equally powerful if used correctly (may require better player controls). If you allow 50 t5 archers to flank your t5 SW..uh oh... but if they allow the SW(that works properly) to get to theirr50 t5 archers uh oh for them.. of course this is expecting the skill and weaponry to actually play a much bigger role then it does currently! And it's okay to have some exceptional units, like fian champions being very powerful in close combat, but the problem is all ranged is relatively powerful in close combat now.Right now most T5 archers can kill through the armor T5 infantry wears in about 3-4 shots.
Yeah, I think thinning out low tier units is the main role for ranged. Likewise I would be okay with t2-t3 ranged being near useless against the highest tier units, like if they did zero to t5/6 units I would be fine with that. This somewhat applies to all low tier units for me too, I think speed boosted damage get out of control and I can't stand to see "t6 killed by recruit" in the feed. I would be fine with a Banner Knight charging up to a recruit and the recruit bumping it's knee for zero and getting crushed by the horse!However, I agree that T5 ranged is performing against low tier units in poor armor pretty much the way they should.
This is going be ill-received, but what if the headshot bonus only worked on/for the player? I feel like for AI it just seems like RNG and basically negates armor and tiers and what not. But for the player both landing them and suffering them is an interesting thing! Maybe remove or reduce it greatly for AI on AI but still let the player experience "1 shot head shots" both giving and receiving. Or just turn it all down! It could also be a bonus for certain types of troops to suffer far less from headshots! Lots of things they could do to make it better and not "sometimes they just die".Headshots are also almost always a kill, and that makes headshot damage related perks pretty useless.
+1 to all of this, and I also like the concept of some ranged units continuing to be hybrid melee/ranged to compensate for a certain weakness, like sharpshooters (good melee offsets their low ammo count), fian champs (good melee balances that they're the only noble unit with no horse), etc.Yeah, this is sad and is part of "everything dies in 2-3 hits from anything". It's hard to say how many shots is right but what I would ultimately like is for ALL types of t5/6 units to be equally powerful if used correctly (may require better player controls). If you allow 50 t5 archers to flank your t5 SW..uh oh... but if they allow the SW(that works properly) to get to theirr50 t5 archers uh oh for them.. of course this is expecting the skill and weaponry to actually play a much bigger role then it does currently! And it's okay to have some exceptional units, like fian champions being very powerful in close combat, but the problem is all ranged is relatively powerful in close combat now.
The way I see it their roles should be outshooting ranged cav (thanks to no horseback accuracy/fire rate penalties and being able to use more powerful bows or carry more ammo), thinning out low tier trash as you said, possibly having some sort of morale effect on enemies too if the morale system ever gets that kind of depth, and also being really good in sieges due to protection from being rushed by the enemy.Yeah, I think thinning out low tier units is the main role for ranged.
Well technically their entire accuracy model is RNG already. But yes it does feel a bit BS.This is going be ill-received, but what if the headshot bonus only worked on/for the player? I feel like for AI it just seems like RNG and basically negates armor and tiers and what not. But for the player both landing them and suffering them is an interesting thing!
Definitely turn it down.Maybe remove or reduce it greatly for AI on AI but still let the player experience "1 shot head shots" both giving and receiving. Or just turn it all down! It could also be a bonus for certain types of troops to suffer far less from headshots! Lots of things they could do to make it better and not "sometimes they just die".