Damage/protection conception: the elephant in the room

Do you like the armour protection/infliction damage calculations currently applied in SP Bannerlord


  • Total voters
    169
  • Poll closed .

Users who are viewing this thread

It's funny how when I review certain threads, I always get back to the same thing... we're in a loop, both us fans and Taleworlds :lol:.

Regarding the projectile damage issue, I think there is a general consensus that projectiles operate at an exorbitant magnitude. Personally, before capping the accuracy of certain units with certain bows, I'd look into applying a " draw time"... basically what we discussed here.

If the ranged units were to be given a " draw time" depending on their tier and they were defined weapon skills related to their role/function (archers --> ranged function never better than infantry--->melee function) and finally the expected reformulation of the protection/damage calculations with results somewhere between what we had in warband and what RBM offers; all this together would improve the playable experience imho.
We're in a loop because Taleworlds won't even discuss it, besides saying their still looking at it. ? They obviously feel that the system is working as intended and there is no problem as is, otherwise we wouldn't get posts like this.
If you are struggling with the amount of damage you are taking then you might want to consider lowering the "Player Received Damage" Campaign Options difficulty setting.

It's amazing that they had a combat system that was so well loved in Warband and just threw that out the window because "reasons". Imho all Callum is saying is git gud in the most polite diplomatic way he can.
 
We're in a loop because Taleworlds won't even discuss it, besides saying their still looking at it. ? They obviously feel that the system is working as intended and there is no problem as is, otherwise we wouldn't get posts like this.
Honestly I get a laugh every time I check back on this thread and see how absurdly hated this feature is. Every time a new person selects the "No" button, and the sole yes vote is from one dev, its just hilarious. And yet what have we heard? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
It's amazing that they had a combat system that was so well loved in Warband and just threw that out the window because "reasons".
Why replicate an amazing combat system when you could create one that's worse?
 
It is pretty obvious that no one in TW has actually bothered to balance armor values. It's just a placeholder.
Not that they care really. A single competent person could balance and sort these values out, especially considering the development cycle of 12 ****ing years.
Such a shameful display...
 
in EA it's a givin we're beta testers.
we can't test any aspect of balance or combat flow cause all units are twigs

tactics, unit type, weapons, formations, etc are all filled with little bugs but they're unnoticed because none of it matters when everyone's a looter variant (shield/horse/bow)


the shieldwall's suicide for example, they can't attack cause the shield hitbox is too big and clearance is too wide. both in all directions
shields blocking when you hit a guy from behind...
cav missing 2/3 thrusts
some weapons have weird bounce and hit zones
lightspeed blocks
perks doing nothing
etc...

everyone dies too fast for any bug or oddity to matter
 
in EA it's a givin we're beta testers.
we can't test any aspect of balance or combat flow cause all units are twigs
The man speaks truth. How are we supposed to give good feedback on battles when they end in the blink of an eye?
 
6eaeq2.jpg
 
I wonder if the poll had been anonymous, it would have been a bit different. Anyway, the players' subgroup has spoken and I guess this thread has run out of steam; no more data or feedback can be given than what has already been added.

giphy.gif


The ball was always in Taleworlds' court...
 
There was a debate prior to the release. Armor should deflect arrows or something like that. At that time, I was against it and still I am but in Bannerlord, archers have mg42s in their hands.
Or perhaps armor could significantly reduce power of arrow but still make it deal some damage, so best of both worlds.
 
It is pretty obvious that no one in TW has actually bothered to balance armor values. It's just a placeholder.
Not that they care really. A single competent person could balance and sort these values out, especially considering the development cycle of 12 ****ing years.
Such a shameful display...
This, only thing to know that its placeholder / they dont care is just to compare armor values of some items, often random "garbage" will have more armor than medium-heavy armor. One intern could go over all the armor in game and tweak the values in one day (or maybe few days), I know what I am talking about because I did such overhaul multiple times, only thing you need is a system like leather = +/- X armor, mail = +/- Y armor etc.
 
Armour does not have to be a super-realistic simulation, but we do want something that resembles reality, like Warband did.
warband wasn't realistic and didn't even come close, it had an armor system similar to that of many other games. What made warband different was the "directionality" that was lacking in other games since they still rely on pre-built combos and movesets today.
warband = bannerlord + armor value increased.

And I repeat for the thousandth time: this does not solve the problems.
the problems, not the problem.
Because there are several problems and they are not solved by raising the armor value, they are not solved by reducing the damage output and they are not solved by making the archers blind.

Net of this bannerlord should not be a "warband +", but something that INNOVATES compared to the previous title.
I have already offered the solution and in my opinion it is a working model that solves all the points you described in your comment, but requires a price.
 
warband didn't even come close to seeming realistic
Wrong.
And I repeat for the thousandth time: this does not solve the problems.
the problems, not the problem.
Because there are several problems and they are not solved by raising the armor value, they are not solved by reducing the damage output and they are not solved by making the archers blind.
The actual real problems with armour are solved by raising the armour value/altering the formula slightly, and changing the armour ignoring proportion of blunt damage and pierce. The other "problems" are largely only an issue to you and not to anyone else.
Net of this bannerlord should not be a "warband +", but something that INNOVATES compared to the previous title
It already did innovate, Bannerlord has multiple new hit areas than Warband does, actually more than the player will use for any meaningful difference. Innovation isn't the issue, the formulas are just wrong.
I have already offered the solution and in my opinion it is a working model that solves all the points you described in your comment, but requires a price.
And many people on this forum have told you over and over again why your ideas are unnecessary, and that modelling armpit and testicle hitboxes for every troop in a 1000v1000 battle has no practical benefit since you can't target that precisely in melee anyway and would make performance worse, but like a brick wall with a broken record on it, you don't listen and just keep repeating yourself.
 
And many people on this forum have told you over and over again why your ideas are unnecessary, and that modelling armpit and testicle hitboxes for every troop in a 1000v1000 battle has no practical benefit since you can't target that precisely in melee anyway and would make performance worse
If you had read the thread, you would have read, in the beginning, that there doesn't necessarily have to be 25 hurtboxes.
There are currently 6.
Going from 6 to 10, although it has a cost, I do not think it is unsustainable.
If then for someone it is difficult to distinguish the hyperbolic example (25 hurtboxes which would guarantee a very high realisticity) from the realistic one (going from the current 6 to 10), the problem lies with those who base the criticism on the hyperbolic example by criticizing the "practicality of the example "instead of the" concept or model ".
Practicality should be criticized in the case of 10 hurtboxes.
It is up to the developer to make the uncoverable hurtboxes small enough to be hardly hit but positioned in such a way that directional attacks can reach them.
All possible things and not even difficult to do.

That said, innovating doesn't mean "taking old stuff from other games and putting it in here".
Innovating means "making new stuff, possibly expansive of the old one". And in the case of bannerlord, the core system, the combat.
And combat involves an overhaul of the armor system that isn't like the old system.
But apparently you like to pay for the reheated soup, not the new soup.
 
If you had read the thread, you would have read, in the beginning, that there doesn't necessarily have to be 25 hurtboxes.
There are currently 6.
Going from 6 to 10, although it has a cost, I do not think it is unsustainable.
If then for someone it is difficult to distinguish the hyperbolic example (25 hurtboxes which would guarantee a very high realisticity) from the realistic one (going from the current 6 to 10), the problem lies with those who base the criticism on the hyperbolic example by criticizing the "practicality of the example "instead of the" concept or model ".
Practicality should be criticized in the case of 10 hurtboxes.
It is up to the developer to make the uncoverable hurtboxes small enough to be hardly hit but positioned in such a way that directional attacks can reach them.
All possible things and not even difficult to do.

That said, innovating doesn't mean "taking old stuff from other games and putting it in here".
Innovating means "making new stuff, possibly expansive of the old one". And in the case of bannerlord, the core system, the combat.
And combat involves an overhaul of the armor system that isn't like the old system.
But apparently you like to pay for the reheated soup, not the new soup.
Look. TW is already struggling (or actively resisting) to implement the stuff that they promised / that would be necessary to make the game balanced and playable. I don't see how being adamant about a completely new game system which wouldn't be adopted by TW anyways helps the discussion. It was hard enough making TW agree that there is a problem with armor and that WB did it better.

Everybody loves realism. But you do have to remember that this is a game not a simulator. The more complex the game becomes the harder it will be to develope, the more prone it will be to bugs and the more demanding it will be on hardware. If complexity is added it should really positively change the game experience. People aren't opposed to more realism, people rightfully believe that your proposal isn't enough bang for its buck.
 
I would also like to be able to cut off a single finger but as @Life_Erikson already said, we need to be realistic. And there is no way that TW will add more hitboxes.
ok, got it, the problem is the possible performance of the machine.
Then I amaze you by presenting the SAME EXACT SYSTEM (identical to that of the thread).

Hurtboxes do not increase, 6 are and 6 remain, BUT ...
Since there are 5 types of coverage at stake (head, shoulder, arms, torso and legs), the solution would be to completely eliminate one or two of these protections and greatly increase the armor value of the others.
This would result in 3 uncovered and 3 heavily covered hurtboxes.
Basically we have the neck which is already uncovered, so we have to choose something other than the shoulder and clearly the torso cannot be eliminated, so we have to choose between arms and legs.

But if we remove the protection from the arms and legs, you practically lose half the charm of wearing armor, and you lose in realism as well.
But the gameplay would be more realistic, because the arms, legs and neck would suffer the most damage, while the head, shoulders and torso would suffer the least damage.
If a character is wearing fewer pieces of armor (thus lacking a helmet or shoulder protection) from a distance, against arrows, he or she will have a higher chance of being hit severely. So by wearing more pieces of armor you make yourself much less vulnerable to archers, while wearing less you risk big. But getting hit is a question of probability. If your armor completely negates damage only where it covers you, then the more you wear, the less likely the enemy is to hurt you.
The current system, on the other hand, means that wherever it hits you, where you wear or don't wear armor, the damage will still be significant and potentially fatal.
In melee, on the other hand, you will try to hit where the enemy does not wear protections, because hitting him hard wearing them reduces the damage by a lot.

The system is the same as I have already proposed, but the hurtboxes are the same.
On the other hand, to have the same advantages, you have to remove protections, i.e. leave some parts of the body uncovered and greatly increase the armor value (so where you cover yourself you are very protected).
And on the other hand you lose the immersion although you gain in GAMEPLAY realism and in depth of gameplay.
An advantage for the developers is that they could remove gauntlets and leg protection from the catalog.
One drawback is that the legs and arms are not small enough hurtboxes to be hardly hit in close combat.
Furthermore, the small shields would never protect the legs from arrows, which would always be uncovered ... but unfortunately "we have no other hurtboxes to choose from to make them uncoverable".

In order not to lose anything (therefore not even those parts of the armor catalog), it would be enough to introduce 2-3 hurtboxes, small so that the armor catalog does not cover them.
So you don't even need to expand the catalog.
And here it would make sense to greatly increase the armor value.

If no hurtbox is discovered, raising the armor value only makes soldiers too resistant in any part of the body.
This means that archers wherever they strike will do damage that:
if the weapon value is too high the damage will be too low from ANY DISTANCE, AND up close they will not even benefit from "better aim", because "THERE IS NOTHING TO AIM BUT ALL THE MODEL" (apart from the neck)
If the armor value is too low, archers simply dominate because they do too much damage.

Conversely, with more hurtboxes and the increased value weapon:
from distance it will be a question of probability linked to coverage.
From proximity it will be a matter of aiming the archer.

I have proposed a definitive solution in both directions, adding or subtracting, and I have exposed the price to be paid and the gains in both directions.
And I have also explained to you why the increase of the arm value alone IS NOT ENOUGH.
 
Dude...TW will not change the core of their combat system, there is just no way...you are not new here but didn´t you read all those answers from TW related to feature requests?
 
I would also like to be able to cut off a single finger but as @Life_Erikson already said, we need to be realistic. And there is no way that TW will add more hitboxes.
Exactly, people have been crying for like 2 years now for TW to fix it's damage/armor formulas to at the very least compare to warband, sorry but there is no way in hell that they'll implement more complex and realistic hitboxes and things like that.
 
Back
Top Bottom