Honestly, it might need a bit fine tuning after this, but I agree.
Armor absolutely needs to be increased in protection against piercing damaging.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Armor lack of effectiveness Devs should consider
- 主题发起人 Halvdan
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Honestly, it might need a bit fine tuning after this, but I agree.
Armor absolutely needs to be increased in protection against piercing damaging.
Absolutely agree armor needs to actually matter.
The sad news is: for TW, we are just an upset subset of players that do not represent the majority, thus, nothing will be changed regarding it.Check the relevant link in my signature (using phone, so cant look it up now). this:
Also the official statement from early 2022 (which means it has already been implemented):
In the wise words of someone else in these forums: "thank **** for mods".
The sad news is: for TW, we are just an upset subset of players that do not represent the majority, thus, nothing will be changed regarding it.
Also the official statement from early 2022 (which means it has already been implemented):
In the wise words of someone else in these forums: "thank **** for mods".
最后编辑:
RozBritanicus
Sergeant
Armour is pretty weak even to crazy priced armours. Armours should be effective against different weapons. I have a friend who as ps5 Bannerlord and he complains about armour all the time.
Earth Dragon
Sergeant
This is the new state of gaming. It's a job for a lot of people who don't even like the type of game they are working on. "Diverse" hiring over "Likes and is good at designing this type of game" preference.
Until the gaming community gets more upset at these sorts of things in general, half-baked ideas is what we are going to get.
What "diverse hiring"? I see your point, but it stands to reason that a game dev company with 10 employees will surely have one person who doesnt quite like what they are working on, regardless, it gets done. And it has always been this way, for basically every professional field in the world. This seems like plain gatekeeping, elitism and good, decent and old fashioned snowflake fearmongering: "The wokedom is destroying [insert_field_i_care_about]!!". If you are referring to a specific case here, sorry for my ignorance and please enlighten me.
Also, what community do you refer to? M&B community, or the most oppressed group of all:
This is definitely not an exclusive case of half baked ideas being made into games. It is the plain old capital principle: profit > all. Doing half-assed games, decent enough to garner above medium reviews gets enough sales to compensate for the work. Look at mcD's, the giant of fastfood, built around making barely above mediocre food, passable enough and consistent enough that it is one of the biggest industries in the world. Should the Eating Community rise in arms against it?
It definitely is much more complex and much more individual than that, but i wholeheartedly agree it is a terrible practice that has become the norm.
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
You have to be ****ting me if you really think that some Turkish company is gonna be woke or whatever lol.
Even if it was, I fail to see how that's the problem when we already get glimpses of the real problems.
Taleworlds is a Turkish company, so I doubt there are any "diversity hires" or some woke agenda being pushed lmao.
The poor game design choices are honestly a baffling mystery. In vanilla Bannerlord, expensive tier 5-6 units get absolutely folded by just two or three hits from trash units. Plus the player -decked out in the most ridiculously expensive armor in the game, has to cower several hundred meters away from the actual fighting lest an arrow fired from a militia archer one-shots them.
Why would you make a game system that discourages the player from taking an active role in the gameplay? Does the game designer have a massive concussion? We want to play, not left-click our way through a soulless simulator. Don't they know T.A.B.S. already exists?
Just 100% simulator, 0% engagement. Vanilla Bannerlord is sooo fun.
1. The armor works fine.
2. No the arrows aren't too accurate at all.
3. The overall depiction of projectile effectiveness isn't too much.
4. And how it is depicted currently is the only reasonable way for simplified depictions considering gameplay concessions.
Selective memory syndrome is a b**ch.
- You never count all the arrows that missed you in the game
- You never notice all the times you were just lightly grazed with am arrow that hardly dealt any damage
- You don't remember the times all the archers missed as you led your cavalry to enemy flank
- You never remember at which distance the arrow hit really hard
Instead you only remember "that one time"...
- you were hit at an unusual distance
- or, that time you led an idiot charge, presenting yourself as the easiest target in front of dozens of archers all targeting you
- or that time you went in full speed on horseback, getting hit with a full speed bonus impact
...
So, I will present something I hope people think about here:
1. We perceive the bar as "Health Points" because it says so. So when this bar gets damaged, you think that we're getting hurt.
2. However, if people like realism so much, people should not be omitting another crucial part of realism, which is IN REAL LIFE THERE IS NO HP BAR.
3. Hear me out:
.... so how's that different from what we currently have?
What we have in the game currently, exactly works like that, doesn't it. Thought experiment ==> change the term "Health Point" into "Armor Durability" and it's exactly the same thing.
In the current game, with the highest tier of armor, and strong physical conditioning, I get around average 150 "HP"(=AP) in total, and from over 150 meters, average arrows that land on me do what.. 15 damage at max? I can get hit with it like 10 times and I'm still up. However, if I go charging head-on and then get hit, I can get like 40 damage.
Ohh! The armor should have protected me! This is bull****!
Is it? I'm functioning normally. There's no "realism of damage" in this game. Which means, getting hit by damage and having your "HP" go down, is conceptually and practically the exact same things as armor protecting you from damage but the armor durability going down until it fails. And "armor fails to stop damage and you're hit" is the same thing as "HP dropping to zero."
There is LITERALLY no difference.
So, let's not bullshi* ourselves.
What you guys want isn't "realism." What you guys want is "selective realism" where you want:
(a) armor protection against damage is realistic
(b) armor durability is unrealistic (armor never gets damaged)
(c) physical reaction to damage is unrealistic (doesn't matter if you're impaled through the chest so long as HP>0)
2. No the arrows aren't too accurate at all.
3. The overall depiction of projectile effectiveness isn't too much.
4. And how it is depicted currently is the only reasonable way for simplified depictions considering gameplay concessions.
Selective memory syndrome is a b**ch.
- You never count all the arrows that missed you in the game
- You never notice all the times you were just lightly grazed with am arrow that hardly dealt any damage
- You don't remember the times all the archers missed as you led your cavalry to enemy flank
- You never remember at which distance the arrow hit really hard
Instead you only remember "that one time"...
- you were hit at an unusual distance
- or, that time you led an idiot charge, presenting yourself as the easiest target in front of dozens of archers all targeting you
- or that time you went in full speed on horseback, getting hit with a full speed bonus impact
...
So, I will present something I hope people think about here:
1. We perceive the bar as "Health Points" because it says so. So when this bar gets damaged, you think that we're getting hurt.
2. However, if people like realism so much, people should not be omitting another crucial part of realism, which is IN REAL LIFE THERE IS NO HP BAR.
3. Hear me out:
- In real life, one good penetrated shot from an arrow will almost surely immobilize you and drop you on the spot. In real life there's no "oh, I'm a tough warrior, I got shot three times but I can handle it and just pull arrow out like a boss." No sir. In real life, you're going down, on the spot unless it was a very, very light penetration.
- Same with strikes from melee weapons -- a slash or stab that penetrated, or made through damage parts of the armor, or bypassed the armor through weak points, doesn't just hurt. It almost INSTANTLY MAIMS you. Unless the strike was very luckily light (which is still gonna see a helluva lot of blood), if you're hit in the arms that arms done for use in battle. If it's the legs, you're down. If it's the torso or head, you'll probably die from it.
- So, in real life, the armor will protect you very well, enabling you to function, move, so you can fight and survive. But an armor is not an invincible shell. It has weak points. It has openings here and there. It will be damaged with continuous strikes and eventually fail to stop a shot or a strike.
- So, let's say the game changed its depiction to the ultimate realism: armor now almost completely protects against damage. But now, the armor will also get damaged, with each attack it stops the likelihood of failure will rise. So, while the armor holds, you can be shot 6~7 times with arrows and nope, you're fine. But, after taking such damage, eventually the armor will fail, and an arrow lands on you and you go down. A sword slashes or stabs you, and you're critically injured and go down.
.... so how's that different from what we currently have?
What we have in the game currently, exactly works like that, doesn't it. Thought experiment ==> change the term "Health Point" into "Armor Durability" and it's exactly the same thing.
In the current game, with the highest tier of armor, and strong physical conditioning, I get around average 150 "HP"(=AP) in total, and from over 150 meters, average arrows that land on me do what.. 15 damage at max? I can get hit with it like 10 times and I'm still up. However, if I go charging head-on and then get hit, I can get like 40 damage.
Ohh! The armor should have protected me! This is bull****!
Is it? I'm functioning normally. There's no "realism of damage" in this game. Which means, getting hit by damage and having your "HP" go down, is conceptually and practically the exact same things as armor protecting you from damage but the armor durability going down until it fails. And "armor fails to stop damage and you're hit" is the same thing as "HP dropping to zero."
There is LITERALLY no difference.
So, let's not bullshi* ourselves.
What you guys want isn't "realism." What you guys want is "selective realism" where you want:
(a) armor protection against damage is realistic
(b) armor durability is unrealistic (armor never gets damaged)
(c) physical reaction to damage is unrealistic (doesn't matter if you're impaled through the chest so long as HP>0)
It's settled, then. That's it! We already have what we should have! Thanks TW for being so considerate.
While i understand and somewhat agree with your points, you are being too literal, or deliberately obtuse in defending the armor system as it stands. Yes, its a game, we all know it. But you, however, take anecdotal evidence as a basis for your argument: the sepeculative memory, while completely disregarding the amount of data accumulated showing that ranged weapons surpass essentially every troop tree, becoming the meta; basically, if you truly wanna win efficiently, become the mongol horde. As well as ignoring that a heavily armored dude is quickly killed by 2 recruits with the correct timing in a matter of 3-4 blows. This is no exceptional anecdotal case, by the way, everyone has noticed it. Its not a matter of elites dying to recruits, but rather quickly dying to them, as quickly as if it was another elite. The stunlock mechanic is very nice and eliminates skill difference in a realistic manner as it is in vanilla, however, armor is pointless sometimes (even though it has improved dramatically since 2020). It barely makes a difference from wearing rags or 3-layered mail, fabric and plate. Which in a 'game sense', should hold at least double the amount of hits it currently does. As i said, ita not the dying part that is the problem, but rather the quickly dying.
RBM did a painstaking job of rebalancing armors to the point they become cute cushions around the body if youre using anything but blunt force or a 600 pound ballista to attack armor, which may be a bit too much in some circumstances, but is not at all unrealistic. They balanced it by adding the weak points and killing blows mechanics, which is a nice balance.
By no means I want RBM's system in the base game, however a simple change to allow armor material to provide damage reduction, even if a stale flat reduction, would work better than the vanilla system, as many have proven to be the case with countless "armor matters" mods over the years. Doing so would automatically balance the complex damage and troop systems. No need to nerf ranged, to buff polearms, not the way people demand it now. Make it so the armor material matters, and the complex system already in place is automatically fulfilled, and balance is achieved in troop variety, not weapon damage (of course balance would still need to be made for weapons amd armor, but in a much more modular manner, and therefore easier and more complex, instead of as simple as it is now, and artificially hard, if not barebones and nonsensical).
Theres plenty of data on this if you do a forum search on armors. We are not questioning health points, or the gamey nature of damage reduction, we just want a better system than what we currently have, because it feels off, unnatural, it detracts from the challenge of the game making it artificially hard for heavy armors and artificially easy for low tier attacks. Of course everyone thinks one way is better than the other, but the majority of people who thought about this seem to overwhelmingly agree that armors should provide more protection based on the material they are made out of. Not too much protection, mind you, just more than what we have. The system allows for it, but they wanted to disregard it, considering us who complain an "upset subset of players" and believing the system as is to be fun enough for the majority (vide my signature image link). It seems that that is their... vision™ of the game.
I have no hopes theyll actually do it, and as such I end quoting another forum member whom I can't recall:
While i understand and somewhat agree with your points, you are being too literal, or deliberately obtuse in defending the armor system as it stands. Yes, its a game, we all know it. But you, however, take anecdotal evidence as a basis for your argument: the sepeculative memory, while completely disregarding the amount of data accumulated showing that ranged weapons surpass essentially every troop tree, becoming the meta; basically, if you truly wanna win efficiently, become the mongol horde. As well as ignoring that a heavily armored dude is quickly killed by 2 recruits with the correct timing in a matter of 3-4 blows. This is no exceptional anecdotal case, by the way, everyone has noticed it. Its not a matter of elites dying to recruits, but rather quickly dying to them, as quickly as if it was another elite. The stunlock mechanic is very nice and eliminates skill difference in a realistic manner as it is in vanilla, however, armor is pointless sometimes (even though it has improved dramatically since 2020). It barely makes a difference from wearing rags or 3-layered mail, fabric and plate. Which in a 'game sense', should hold at least double the amount of hits it currently does. As i said, ita not the dying part that is the problem, but rather the quickly dying.
RBM did a painstaking job of rebalancing armors to the point they become cute cushions around the body if youre using anything but blunt force or a 600 pound ballista to attack armor, which may be a bit too much in some circumstances, but is not at all unrealistic. They balanced it by adding the weak points and killing blows mechanics, which is a nice balance.
By no means I want RBM's system in the base game, however a simple change to allow armor material to provide damage reduction, even if a stale flat reduction, would work better than the vanilla system, as many have proven to be the case with countless "armor matters" mods over the years. Doing so would automatically balance the complex damage and troop systems. No need to nerf ranged, to buff polearms, not the way people demand it now. Make it so the armor material matters, and the complex system already in place is automatically fulfilled, and balance is achieved in troop variety, not weapon damage (of course balance would still need to be made for weapons amd armor, but in a much more modular manner, and therefore easier and more complex, instead of as simple as it is now, and artificially hard, if not barebones and nonsensical).
Theres plenty of data on this if you do a forum search on armors. We are not questioning health points, or the gamey nature of damage reduction, we just want a better system than what we currently have, because it feels off, unnatural, it detracts from the challenge of the game making it artificially hard for heavy armors and artificially easy for low tier attacks. Of course everyone thinks one way is better than the other, but the majority of people who thought about this seem to overwhelmingly agree that armors should provide more protection based on the material they are made out of. Not too much protection, mind you, just more than what we have. The system allows for it, but they wanted to disregard it, considering us who complain an "upset subset of players" and believing the system as is to be fun enough for the majority (vide my signature image link). It seems that that is their... vision™ of the game.
I have no hopes theyll actually do it, and as such I end quoting another forum member whom I can't recall:
最后编辑:
sh1ny4
Sergeant at Arms
we have a saying for this kind of text in france, it's called "mauvaise fois"
10 shots is nothing at 150m, even more so with the best of armors. If cataphracts went down in 10 shots historically then they wouldn't have been the main force of the byzantine empire. English longbowmen, which were the most famous archers in history, couldn't do **** against heavy knights by themselves, but somehow fian can decimate anything with ease outside of Khan's Guards.
Even if HPs were to be considered as armor durability, what kind of armor goes down in 4 arrows (150AP when taking 40 damages) ? or even 10 ? real life gambeson has more defence than full plate in bannerlord.
Knights, druzhinniks, cataphracts or faris didn't wear 30+ kgs of steel to get protection from just 4 shots, we have historical cases of knights "looking like hedgehogs"
Earth Dragon
Sergeant
While I agree that the post you are responding to had logical holes, this is just as pourous, and omits plenty of what the game is presenting.
"Real life" armies had ammo trains with animals dedicated to reloading its soldiers. They almost always had more ammo at their disposal that what is represented here.
"Real life" armies were 10x the size as those here. So while we're having a great time emulating in an acceptable way, it's still not some sort of magical accurate video game translation. By it's very nature there are "get to the point" arcade style gaming features. They will never not be there.
"Real life" armies had practiced maneuvers where archers in the front would quickly slip behind lines of infantry in a practiced form. This would be exceptionally difficult to represent in a game, and no game has come close at this stage. I also understand that cavalry told to charge would stay in formation and not turn the entire battlefield into a mindless scrum once the order was given, but we got what we got.
"Real life" battlefields were littered with caltrops, oil, fire traps, rock formation archers could hide in that cav couldn't get to, etc that can't be simulated. There HAS to be a lot of give and take here as so many tactics and interactions are either undoable, or too complex to even be worth the hassle.
It needs to be noted that this game is supposed to be PRE plate armor, not POST. I understand some of the artists lost the plot and started basing some of their things on pictures they could find including fantasy examples (this is one of those things where games almost universally have devs that would rather be working on something else, but they have this job, so due diligence is lost in areas), but that is the setting as laid out in plenty of places. It's an amalgamation of the collapse of the Romans through the time before the Crusades but NOT including the crusades. (And please save the "Mongol" arguments. It's a true show of ignorance of all the other people that came from the same region, including the people who were very active for the entirety of this timeframe, the ancestors of many of the folks working on this game, and the group of people whose extension CAUSED the damn crusades, The Seljuk Turks). It's unfortunate that because fantasy settings almost universally decide that they need to be late medieval that now ALL historical (historically adjacent here) and fantasy settings have to follow that trend.
Video games almost universally simulate "grazes until the kill shot lands". You'll never get the PvP crowd on board with this being anything, and sensibly so, as no one wants to play a game where there is a 3% chance of getting a kill if the arrow hits, and nothing else registers at all. While I hate, and I really do mean HATE, the absurd DnD HP explanation of them being your ability to deflect blows (more player driven explanation then anything official), this is the universally used approach for most things that would literally take no damage from most attacks, such as tanks and other armored vehicles, in video games.
And with all that..........Archers have been too powerful in this game. I think the changes to horse charge damage have helped, even though others act like it did nothing. I certain don't think things are in a bad spot, and the strength of Fians may very be an issue with 2H-weapons as much as anything else. The solution is not to make Cavalry the end all be all though. In truth, infantry still dominated the vast majority of this game's timeline footprint.
sh1ny4
Sergeant at Arms
I entirely agree on your points where real archers and battles in general can not be mimicked in bannerlord and that archers would thus be underpowered if they dealt as much damage as they did back then, but they don't. They deal way too much damage. Both from a more historical perpective and a gameplay one. There is a reason why no army was solely made of archers, it's because they couldn't win a battle by themselves. Which is not the case in bannerlord as you can steamroll the map with only fians.
Yes, I know, the game isn't the time period of the crusades and full plate doesn't exist, (vlandia does gets some armours that would technically fit historical crusades but seeing battania that looks like some fantasy 2nd century celts I can understand the inconsistancy of armor values), but I don't think it changes that much. Yes the armor would be less effective but still much more than what we have, also the archery wasn't as developed as it was later on like in agincourt
I won't start the argument about mongols and seljuk turks because honestly it could be either it wouldn't change much as TW took a LOT of liberty with every faction's behaviour and troops, with no consideration for even a consistant armour style within a faction
As for the damage calculation, in my opinion warband had a really nice balance going without the game being tedious with wounds or traumas. I believe that if TW went back to it there wouldn't be any complaint about archers. Yes the cavalry would be much more powerful, probably too much even but TW doesn't seem to want to change the salary of troops which would be a nice way to balance things alongside needing grain to feed the horses, and some other ideas that I guess we will have to leave to modders. Why TW made it so easy to find elite troops is still beyond my comprehension
I don't think the issue with fians is their 2H sword, if anything it's a good thing (although it needs a nerf in skill level) as is distinguishes them from other archers, making them truly elite instead of "normal but better".
I don't want cav to be too powerful as I much prefer infantry, but I'd rather fight a strong cav that I can immobilize and then have it decimated if I play well than fight archers that I can't even reach before I lost most of my troops
Earth Dragon
Sergeant
I definitely don't think realism is ever a strawman. Plenty of players want to be immersed in a game, and if the game is historical or historically adjacent, that's a fairly reasonable ask.
Armor shouldn't be as effective in Bannerlord as it was in Warband. Widespread Mail versus Widespread plate. The number of crossbows brought to the field was the #1 factor in plenty of 10th and 11th century battles, which is one of the bookends for the game.
Though I wonder if the real solution could be just broadening the RNG for arrows with a little more on the bottom end. That way you still get that chance of a "thread the needle" wallop, but it increases the number of chip shots. I'm not positive on how the "code" is written for weapons in general in this game, and how much RNG is even apart of it.
Earth Dragon
Sergeant
Appreciate the response.
I did just want to ensure you that even though I quoted you, much of my comment was "in general" just in case you thought "I didn't say that" lol. Things like the Seljuk Turk comment was definitely added due to how many people have lost their minds in this forum claiming everything in 14th century is free game due to Mongols being in the game. Most times I can chuckle, but it does wear thin how clueless people are of the Turks, in particular with how much their actions were responsible for ushering their preferred setting in.
The thing with pushing more towards realism, they have to make sure practically all else within the game adheres to that mindset; just isolating armor effectiveness alone to realistic interpretations is where we get RBM. Which, though I appreciate the work involved with that mod and what it's trying to achieve, you really need many other likeminded mods that cover the rest of the game besides the battle/armor aspects to make the 'realism' work. And you need so, so many mods to get there (until certain mods come out all encompassing) from how shallow the base game is.
With arrows, though some rather armor be even further more impervious to damage (from the recent adjustments), I still think it's better to reduce their accuracy a bit; that's the only 'rng' thing you can really add to it.
Earth Dragon
Sergeant
Fair enough. I just wouldn't label it as a "strawman" because you could easily replace it with synonyms that would then sink the idea that it was.
The individuals point is that they are being pulled out of the game. That's whether I agree with them or not on that individual point.
The issue with dropping the accuracy, that I've seen, is that it is too much tied directly to when troops will even start firing. Most range weapons already start lobbing missiles at too short of range, it makes a frustrating experience when you see that getting cut down. Though, I wonder if anyone has tried making the hit boxes less......sticky. There's already an argument that base health should be based on frame size, since larger frames are at a marked disadvantage in this game
War POG Actual
Recruit
I'm one for realism, but when the "realism" is only towards just me and not both the enemy and myself...then I have a problem with "realism".
For example; I was soloing a group of looters. I have 120+ in crossbow with the 50% more headshot damage perk and I'm using a t3 crossbow, but appearently I still have to shot a looter twice in the head to kill them and they tank 3 bolts to the chest, rarely they tank 4, and all while they're wearing cloth that shows their bare chest.
I love realism in games and don't mind getting killed easily, but only if is it's the same way towards the enemy. If they're plated in armor I can understand the higher damage resistence and don't have an issue there, but as for what I mentioned about the looters is pure asinine.
I'd love to see things like chainmail is strong against slash but weak towards thrust/pierce, and plate strong against blades but weak against blunt, etc.
RozBritanicus
Sergeant
Armour is almost pointless wearing cloth to all the best armour per body location really doesn't make that much of a difference you can take a few hits 2 to 4 arrows but when you wear no armour you move quicker in melee which means you win the more armoured because they can't keep up.
