Armor [high and low tier] is irrelevant - it needs to offer % based dmg mitigation, rather than just subtracting from dmg dealt

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Pancakelord333

Regular
Best answers
0
I've now been seeing some uncommon high tier armor in 1.2.0. In one of the battanian cities I saw some Noble northern armor (or whatever it's called - its the gold-trimmed stuff battanian lords wear) going for 40k.

This is great, but the problem with armor right now is that its basically pointless... it acts as a subtractive component in the damage equation. Instead it needs to offer % mitigation to be relevant.
  • For example if I hit you in the chest for 150 damage [e.g. hit by a thrown javelin on horseback or hit by a polearm], and you're wearing that 40k armor which gives something like 42 damage mitigation, you're still getting (150dmg-42chest armor) ~108 damage to your chest. An instant kill. (its not purely 1:1 subtraction because of the force component, but it's near-enough)
    • You still die, whether you wear that expensive noble armor or a 29 gold cloth tunic.
  • For armor to be relevant it needs to offer % mitigation, rather than integer-based mitigation.
    • E.g. that noble armor could offer 60% damage reduction to the chest (150 - (150*0.6)= 150-90 = 40 damage received after that 150 dmg javelin strike.
    • Suddenly that 40k chestplate is something I WANT to buy as it will actually protect my bloke from a nasty death.
  • Right now, an expensive bit of armor is really only good for protecting you from minor grazes, or glancing hits that wouldn't have killed you anyway, like a chop to the arm or shoulder (even on realistic).
    • There's no reason to spend the equivalent value of an entire army's worth of troops on expensive gear... when I could just buy an army's worth of troops and win all my engagements through numbers. Or use a fast moving horse+shield+polearm strategy so I just don't get hit.
In addition to making expensive armor an attractive proposition, changing to using % mitigation would also go some way to normalising protection across armor tiers.
  • Right now you have armor that is a higher tier in some cases but simply isn't better than armor at a lower tier - either because it weighs more for the same protection or offers more protection but not enough to justify the increased cost and weight (and that increased protection wont actually save you in most cases either, as my above example shows).
  • It would also make more elite units... actually feel elite.
    • For example, Catephracts could have armor that mitigates 2/3 of the damage done to them, per hit, turning them in to actual tanks on the battlefield -- right now they die extremely easily (just as easily as low tier cavalry which makes them feel pointless) to most weapons because the difference in armor protection between a tier 2 horseman and a top-tier horseman is like 20-30 damage, which is beyond negligible.
  • This might also be a good way to make blunt weapons stand out, if you have different % mitigations for slash/pierce and blunt damage on armor - so the catephract from the above example might mitigate 90% of all slashing damage, but only 50% of piercing damage and 10% of blunt damage to their chest, making 2h mauls useful for killing certain units, actually adding some tactical depth to combat / justifying taking different types of weapons to battle - depending on who youre fighting.
And in case anyone suggests this would turn units/players into unkillable juggernaughts with high tier protection (e.g. offering 80% piercing dmg mitigation) - keep in mind that armor does not cover the whole body, there are still plenty of weakspots to get an easy kill.
 
Last edited:

Archonsod

Marquis
M&BWBWF&S
Best answers
0
When was the last time you saw the AI achieve 150 damage from an attack? Most of the time they don't even remember to couch their lance :razz:

Experimenting with the high tier armours it tends to work fine as is - with 50 ish armour on everything I could pretty much stand all day in front of any of the raider troop types without taking more than a handful of damage (pretty much only pierce or blunt was actually capable of getting through the armour). Even against the higher tier faction troops it was taking them a good minute or so to bring me down, even when trying to solo a few hundred of them. The key thing there though is consistent armour on every location; the issue with spending 40k on noble armour isn't that the armour itself isn't useful, it's that unless you also have helmet, gloves, cloak et al of comparable quality it's not going to add to survival a huge amount.

I suspect with a percentage based system you'd actually get the opposite effect. Given every attack would deal some damage it'd shift the utility of weapons to simply that with the highest raw damage, not to mention make looters mysteriously lethal even when you had full plate.
 

Maximum997

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
When was the last time you saw the AI achieve 150 damage from an attack?
When i played against batanians that throw their umbrellas.
nd you're wearing that 40k armor which gives something like 42 damage mitigation, you're still getting (150dmg-42chest armor) ~108 damage to your chest.
It is even worse

Piercing damage cuts armor in half. And it will be 100-42\2 = 79
Blunt damage ignores about 75-85% of armor, so it will be 100-42\7 =94
 

DocShotgun

Regular
WBM&BWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
The way armor factors into damage could definitely use a balancing pass, however I don't believe straight up changing it to a %-based system would necessarily fix it. Flat damage reduction works incredibly well against frequent weak attacks but not so much against a single powerful attack, which I think makes sense for how armor should function. Maybe they could adjust the way damage types pierce armor?
 

Pancakelord333

Regular
Best answers
0
When i played against batanians that throw their umbrellas.

It is even worse

Piercing damage cuts armor in half. And it will be 100-42\2 = 79
Blunt damage ignores about 75-85% of armor, so it will be 100-42\7 =94
That... actually explains a lot and why I couldn't quite get the numbers to match up with the damage log.
No wonder they haven't added many 2h mauls into the game yet -- Imagine hitting someone with 80% armor bypass + the extra speed from horseback, with a "tier 5-equivalent" maul. It'd probably even put a couched lance hit to shame.
... I also need to have another look at that 2h hammer you can use as the Sturgians or battanians (i think?) in MP to see how effective it is.
 

Maximum997

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
Flat damage reduction works incredibly well against frequent weak attacks but not so much against a single powerful attack,
It is just becouse of numbers.

For example warband:

Best armor 55 + 7 from gauntlets. And it can be lordly
Best 2 hander 50 damage
Best bow 25 damage

Bannerlord:
Best armor 50+20
Best 2 hander 170
Best bow 95

Do you see the difference?
In warband damage from weapon was buffed with hero skills.

So you was keeping eye on elite warroiors with 2 handers, crossbows and maces. Like the armored guy
Thats why you had feeling of armor.

Right now i have about 16 armor on body from wolven cloack, becouse it looks cool and armor means almost nothing.