Weapons, Armor and the Hit to Kill Ratio

[nereid]

Just somethings that started to irk me slightly. I know that there are several threads available over the current state of the armor (too thin and more akin Bannerbling, as it usually does not really matter what kind of armor you wear as long as you reach the upper 30ties or so and have a decent helm) and there are various posts about the weapon damage (either too high or too low, depending on the weapon and/or opposing armor combination). But back to the point I wanted to raise with this thread: the hit-to-kill-ratio or in short HTK.

I did not do very specific test runs and collected a lot of data, but you can easily see parts of it in the tourneys: the usual HTK in tourneys is about 1 to 3 depending on the weapon (and the current blunt damage type vs the different armors, and the relative speed). In the end you will see that the different weapons will follow, more or less, these values (assuming these assumptions: low relative speed, skill level about 100 for the specific weapon type):

• One handed weapons: 2-3 HTK
• Two handed weapons: 1-2 HTK
• Swinging pole arms: 1-2 HTK
• Thrusting pole arms: 4-5 HTK
• Javelins: 2-3 HTK
• Bows: 2-4 HTK

A very high skill level and/or high relative speed will reduce the HTK by 1 or 2. Thus enabling an instant death with a couched lance, while standing still and thrusting the lance will take about 4-5 hits to kill the agent.

The only reasonable way to raise the HTK at the moment is to gain additional hit points. For example, one of the first medicine perks will give your character five additional hit points, which can result in one additional hit which is needed to kill said character.

Even extrapolating these values to battle scenarios will show that the hit points of the agents usually can withstand about 1 to 3 hits before the agent dies. This means that the battle is rather fast paced and armor values are only helping a little bit, as even "cheap" one handed weapons can kill a heavy armored agent rather fast. In my humble opinion wouldn't it be better to apply these values to mid level armors (in the range of 20-40 or something like that) and allow heavier armor to soak one or even two additional hits?

 

[Penn]

Just fix armors

 

[Ask]

I'm not 100% sure but didn't they already say they weren't gonna change the damage calculations? Like I totally agree with this, armor is fairly superficial, but IIRC from all other threads they've made about the topic there's no answer or I've read that they're "working as intended".

I suppose they could just bump up the numbers like increasing the armor values for the heavier ones. It clearly doesn't address the issue but it'd be something.

 

[five bucks]

Armour is the problem here. Low HTK is fine on units with no armour, so the base damage of weapons is mostly fine (except spears which is too low). So the problem is: Armour needs to provide better protection.

If I'm wearing Tier 6 Cataphract Lamellar Armour that cost me upwards of 281166 denars, then even a T6 Fian Champion should take ~10 body shots to kill me, not 4 like it takes currently. And a T2 Militia Archer should take around 30-40 bodyshots to kill me, not 7 (!!!) like it takes currently.

Nothing in the game except a catapult, ballista or a couched lance hit from a well-trained polearm user should be able to one shot me.

As Penn said, fix armour.

I'm not 100% sure but didn't they already say they weren't gonna change the damage calculations? Like I totally agree with this, armor is fairly superficial, but IIRC from all other threads they've made about the topic there's no answer or I've read that they're "working as intended".

Their Future Plans post says that they will work on armour effectiveness. A more recent statement from Dejan says they're still looking at it but haven't figured out what to do yet.

I suppose they could just bump up the numbers like increasing the armor values for the heavier ones. It clearly doesn't address the issue but it'd be something.

There are already solutions out there people have made - including writing code and offering it to TW, which they are legally allowed to just copy+paste into the game if they so wish.

 

[froggyluv]

A more recent statement from Dejan says they're still looking at it but haven't figured out what to do yet.

 

[black_bulldog]

A more recent statement from Dejan says they're still looking at it but haven't figured out what to do yet.

My god I really dispair when I read things like this. I mean have to ask myself why do they even have a test build? Why not try buffing the numbers and seeing how well players like or dislike it? I guess this is too much for someone at Taleworlds to figure out. They gotta get their priorities straight because figuring out who gets what offices in the new building are more important.

 

[0tto]

the useless armour make the battles way too shallow
everyone's "soldier"
their skills don't matter
shield, horse, or bow is the only variant
their weapons are all 1-3 hit-ko

from looter to dismounted imperial cataphract, the difference is minuscule.
both "soldier", 3 hit points, hit for 1-3


it's really boring, wish the combat got more attention than +-3 damage/armour

 

[nereid]

Their Future Plans post says that they will work on armour effectiveness. A more recent statement from Dejan says they're still looking at it but haven't figured out what to do yet.

I hope that they will rework the formula.

from looter to dismounted imperial cataphract, the difference is minuscule.
both "soldier", 3 hit points, hit for 1-3

it's really boring, wish the combat got more attention than +-3 damage/armour

And that is really the problem. IMHO battles would be more interesting if there really was a difference between the troops. Swadian Knights and Huscarls from Warband where maybe a little bit overpowered, but you could really see that they made a difference.

 

[0tto]

man, i want that pendor feeling of
"aww **** they have order knights"
"im gonna stay the **** away from Berserkers"
"nopeing away from a merc company + king"

then finally, after a hundred battles, building a force capable of taking them on.

 

[nereid]

And as you have stated in the 1.7.2 Equipment Change thread it currently does not matter if you have 30 armor or 50 armor.

 

[darksoulshin]

I don't understand why you complain about the armor system.
After all, you don't really want to change it.
I wrote a system months ago that changed the paradigm of "how the system should be" and you can see from the votes that no one wants the system to change in that sense.
I'm not going to write a summary here because in the link you can read it and understand how it works.
If you wanted a more realistic armor system (which not only limits damage but also makes various hurtboxes covered or uncovered), you would have already filled the forum with threads to do so.
But you haven't and apparently you don't want to do this or you don't fully understand what it takes for the system to work the way you really want it to work.
Just tweaking some trivial formula of damage and reduction of the same is not enough.
JOINT HURTBOXES and ARMOR HURTBOXES: an armor system that provide a way to balance factions warfare and make more deep the combat system(suggestions)

 

[five bucks]

"If you don't want my overcomplicated idea then you mustn't want armour to change at all" dude stop it with that nonsense

We just want the damage formula to properly account for blunt damage and to give proper protection against arrows. It's that simple

 

[darksoulshin]

"If you don't want my overcomplicated idea then you mustn't want armour to change at all" dude stop it with that nonsense

We just want the damage formula to properly account for blunt damage and to give proper protection against arrows. It's that simple

it's so simple that after 2 years you still complain that nothing has changed.
Throughout my thread I clarify why it is not enough to tweak those formulas and above all I explain why impact damage is useful in cases of very well protected people (chainmail + plate, like a legionnaire). In the cases of gambeson+chainmail+ plate, impact damage generally causes more damage than the others(cut and perforation).
But I am talking about the system that I have proposed, which DOES NOT JUST RETOUCH THE FORMULAS.
And I explain that just doing that is not enough, you have to put your hand to hurtboxes and reconceive the armor system.
System that is extremely simple.

 

[nereid]

I don't understand why you complain about the armor system.
After all, you don't really want to change it.
I wrote a system months ago that changed the paradigm of "how the system should be" and you can see from the votes that no one wants the system to change in that sense.
I'm not going to write a summary here because in the link you can read it and understand how it works.
If you wanted a more realistic armor system (which not only limits damage but also makes various hurtboxes covered or uncovered), you would have already filled the forum with threads to do so.
But you haven't and apparently you don't want to do this or you don't fully understand what it takes for the system to work the way you really want it to work.
Just tweaking some trivial formula of damage and reduction of the same is not enough.
JOINT HURTBOXES and ARMOR HURTBOXES: an armor system that provide a way to balance factions warfare and make more deep the combat system(suggestions)

You do know that you have to calculate this whole shebang every time any damage is calculated? Including keeping track of the different hitboxes that you proposed and also the relative position of the agent and the attack angle for each single attack?

I doubt that Taleworlds would do such a deep change to the game engine at the moment. Adjusting the existing formular may not result in a realistic simulation but nobody asked that the armor and damage system is realistic. The point I simply wanted to raise was the hit-to-kill-ratio that is currently abundant in the game. @five bucks summarized it quite clear in his answer above. I would like to add that I would love it, if heavier armor would also be worth more, as currently any armor over 30 is more or less just a cosmetic change.

 

[froggyluv]

I don't understand why you complain about the armor system.
After all, you don't really want to change it.
I wrote a system months ago that changed the paradigm of "how the system should be" and you can see from the votes that no one wants the system to change in that sense.
I'm not going to write a summary here because in the link you can read it and understand how it works.
If you wanted a more realistic armor system (which not only limits damage but also makes various hurtboxes covered or uncovered), you would have already filled the forum with threads to do so.
But you haven't and apparently you don't want to do this or you don't fully understand what it takes for the system to work the way you really want it to work.
Just tweaking some trivial formula of damage and reduction of the same is not enough.
JOINT HURTBOXES and ARMOR HURTBOXES: an armor system that provide a way to balance factions warfare and make more deep the combat system(suggestions)

I like your idea and wish the Developers would go more into this direction. I wouldnt put much stock in a poll in which only 20-25 people responded. This place is like the lamentation of lost souls - they see no positivity here -only dread, doom and future console horrors.

 

[Ask]

I don't understand why you complain about the armor system.
After all, you don't really want to change it.
I wrote a system months ago that changed the paradigm of "how the system should be" and you can see from the votes that no one wants the system to change in that sense.
I'm not going to write a summary here because in the link you can read it and understand how it works.
If you wanted a more realistic armor system (which not only limits damage but also makes various hurtboxes covered or uncovered), you would have already filled the forum with threads to do so.
But you haven't and apparently you don't want to do this or you don't fully understand what it takes for the system to work the way you really want it to work.
Just tweaking some trivial formula of damage and reduction of the same is not enough.
JOINT HURTBOXES and ARMOR HURTBOXES: an armor system that provide a way to balance factions warfare and make more deep the combat system(suggestions)

We don't need an overcomplicated system. Armor/survivability worked much better in Warband than in Bannerlord and the damage calculations didn't need a whole bible like this to be explained. The alternative you explain isn't the only alternative there is, we just don't like yours

 

[CrazyElf]

The bottom line here is that armor needs a huge buff.

High end armor should be several times more effective than it currently is.

 

[0tto]

just use warbands formula for a placeholder
instead of the current anemic placeholder

 

[Hans 77]

Armor and damage calc worked perfectly fine in Warband. It gave the game depth and added tangible distinction between units.

I don't know why Bannerlord's system is so busted.

Why are my Vlandian Footmen (Tier 2 troops) able to kill Elite Cataphracts in 2-3 hits? Why?

 

[darksoulshin]

You do know that you have to calculate this whole shebang every time any damage is calculated? Including keeping track of the different hitboxes that you proposed and also the relative position of the agent and the attack angle for each single attack?

Oh a constructive though critical comment, what a rarity.
Anyway yes, I am aware of it.
In the thread I put a maximum number of hurtboxes that make the game very similar to reality.
But nothing prevents this number from being reduced to the point of making the game bearable by the machine. In the thread the maximum number is 25, but the thread has a purpose linked to the potential of the method, not to its practical application.
In practice, a good compromise between the number of hurtboxes and realisticity would be 8-10.
There are currently 6 hurtboxes in the game (head, neck, shoulders, torso, arms and legs).
If the step from 6 to 10 requires something else to be reduced somewhere else (for example the number of models per battle), that's an acceptable choice for me.
After all, a battle between 2000 models (1000 per faction) who have an armor system that does not work seems to me less realistic and tactically playable than a battle with 1000 models (500 per team) in which the armor works as in reality (or how much more similarly).
Not to mention how the relationship between archers and the rest would improve.

Adjusting the existing formular may not result in a realistic simulation but nobody asked that the armor and damage system is realistic. The point I simply wanted to raise was the hit-to-kill-ratio that is currently abundant in the game.

And I repeat that increasing the armor value alone is not enough because it solves one problem and creates another.
Increasing the armor value does not solve the problem of the relationship between "arrows / darts and infantry without a shield".
Raising everyone's armor value too much (to increase the k / d ratio) would result in archers who:
Low armor value: Kills even units with beautiful shiny armor with just a few hits.
armor value too high: archers become useless.
Slightly increased armor value: still kill units with shiny armor.
all BOTH FROM GREAT DISTANCE AND CLOSE DISTANCE.
And the reason for these consequences is simple: if you take 20 of these warriors with shining armor and long swords, without shields and send them at the archers from 100 meters away, the archers will obviously shoot their arrows.
These arrows will mainly cover the area where the warriors move and generally most of the arrows will hit someone, and potentially can hit ALL HURTBOXES, because on average they are defended in the same way by good armor (with very small differences).
(the greater the number of target units close together, the greater the likelihood that an arrow will hit a target unit, hopefully this is clear).
Since all such warriors' hurtboxes have a "slightly increased" armor value (or as low as now) as you suggest, they will die with 5 arrows instead of 3, and most of them will die in the first 3-4 arrows forests, practically in the time it takes to get to the 20 archers to find themselves outnumbered anyway and be killed.
If instead the armor value were too high (without touching anything else), then they would die in 15-20 arrows and this would make the archers useless in fast fights, as such damage requires the use of hit and run tactics. But we know well that archers, in this game, can't get away any more than those who chase them. In practice they end badly.
Furthermore, in PVP, the archer can still hit the target anywhere he wants without being rewarded or punished for choosing one part of the body over another, because the average armor value is the same in all hurtboxes. 'archer shooting arrows anywhere on the enemy, who even if he is in motion, has weaknesses as large as his entire model.
This means that a low armor value makes it too vulnerable, a high armor value makes it too resistant.

The solution that I propose solves several problems, not just one, and solves this one of the archers without going to damage the hand-to-hand combat (indeed, it improves it).
Specifically, warriors in heavy armor (plates), without shields, would be very protected from a distance and only the misfortune of an arrow in a small hurtbox can cause them damage (the approach is probabilistic), while from close range everything depends on the aim. of the archer (end of the probbailistic approach), who has to hit small hurtboxes on the move, but this is possible only if, in addition to retouching the armor values, the system of hurtboxes is reconceived.
If, on the other hand, we only increased the armor value without tweaking anything else, the hurtboxes in motion would always be as large as the whole model and therefore an easy target both from a short distance and from a great distance.
Specifically, my solution also offers a balance for PVP, since an archer could no longer aim randomly at any part of the target's body, because where heavily protected, the target would suffer almost nothing, while hitting him in the uncovered points would inflict many. damage.
This would force the archer either to aim well and quickly, or to switch to the hand-to-hand approach, where his equipment makes him disadvantaged.

We don't need an overcomplicated system.

Seems complicated to you.

it is difficult to understand:
where you have armor you take little damage and where you don't have it you take a lot of damage.

How do you determine where you have little and a lot of protection with armor that covers 100% of your body?
you will say: with different armor parts that have different armor value.
Good. the legionnaire has armor parts with a similar and high armor value. He pretty much has the same high defense everywhere.
Where is the legionnaire's weak point?

in the thread I suggest: let's put some extra hurtboxes and make it uncoverable (ie you can't put armor on it).
Thus you CREATE A WEAK POINT.
The more hurtboxes there are, the more you can decide what and how much can be covered by a given type of protection.

Hard to understand?