[Game Design] A point about projectile / piercing damage

[Hoshiqua]

Greetings !

Been a while since I last posted here. However, I AM a very big fan of Mount & Blade and have been for many years.

I've recently updated myself on Bannerlord development and came accross this blog : https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/57

In this blog they make the point that, altough in regards to making the game more "lifelike" they should make heavy armor resistant to arrows and bolts, it would make ranged classes no fun to play.

This is where I kind of jumped, because I've played a LOT in heavy armor whenever I'd get enough coin for it (in multiplayer) and just like any player this is what I go for in SP. Let's say I have experience in how it feels to be fighting archers with heavy gear.

The problem with, apparently, doing what is required to make archers and crossbows fun, that is making projectiles do piercing damage and coding piercing damage to mostly ignore armor, is that it kind of makes the heavy armored, two handed pole weapon / sword fighter impossible to play in a lot of scenarios that involve archers or crossbowmen. Why ? Because the heavy armor makes you survive one or two, maybe three more shots at best, while slowing you down too much for "good footwork" to be of any real help against good archers.

And this is where my point comes in. This situation about ranged fighters has always been, in my opinion, a part of the game that does not have design constistency. That means the thinking behind this design decision does not seem to match how the rest of the game works. The inconsistent part here is that getting heavy armor is costly in MP or SP, you earn it. This system works for making heavy armor scarce both in MP and SP (only skilled players in MP and rich lords / rich players for troops in SP), so I am confident it will also work in Bannerlord.

We have a """"class"""" of fighter (I don't really like using that word for M&B) that is costly to get to, as such it should objectively be stronger all around than other, less costly, easier to get to classes. Yet, because we need to make ranged play "fun", it really isn't. You can already get pummeled to death by naked people even if you got the best equipment, and I don't mind that because you can actually fight back. But you can also get shot in a few arrows (several if you have really good armor), which means even though you have earned the best gear in the game, not taking a shield is still not an option, unless you want to stay in places where archers can't shoot you from a safe distance the whole game.

This doesn't add up both in terms of gameplay (something you've earned makes you mortally weak in one place) and in terms of realism (the reason people started ditching the shield in favor of two handed polearms is precisely because they didn't need a shield anymore !).

I can already hear you telling me : "But Hoshi ! If we make heavy armor resistant to projectiles and piercing damage in general, archers / crossbowmen will not be fun to play as !"

Because this is what I always heard when I made similar, altough less argumented complaints about it when I played a lot of Warband. Yet, because of what I explained about scarcity, making heavy armor resistant to piercing damage really won't change much for ranged players. They'll simply not have the option of shooting ANYBODY that doesn't have a shield pointed straight at them anymore. They'll need to choose their targets a bit more. Is that really a fun-killing thing ? Considering they can already click on people that are not actively raising their shield at them and damage them sometimes more than is possible with one handed melee weapons, I'd say not.

Before I talk about what it actually brings to the game, one point I want to adress right now about thrown projectiles. These guys are different, because they have a lot more mass than arrows or bolts, and their carriers have a lot less of them than archers or crossbowmen have arrows / bolts, so they should be effective against everyone, right ?

Yes, and no. They should still not be able to pierce heavy armor. However, there is, as always, a way to reconcile gameplay and realism here. How about accounting for their extra mass, by adding blunt damage to them ? That way, they will do a bit of damage because of their mass no matter what, and if they find a target that only has cloth or light armor, they will also apply piercing damage. Heavy armor remains useful against these, but not to the same extent than against arrows and bolts : everyone wins !

Now, what would this change bring to the game ? I'm pretty sure not everyone cares about historical realism as much as me. It really depends on what you want to find in a game. But bear with me, this wouldn't only impact the realism of the game.

I've briefly mentionned it earlier, but I will do it more clearly here : heavy armor not being sufficient replacement for a shield against arrows and bolts pretty much eliminates a whole lot of two handed weapons from being used in ranged-heavy game modes (siege and battles mostly as I can recall). This is bad, because this means a big part of the game's content is not being used where a lot of players are ! I don't need to explain why this is a problem.

It would also bring in REAL reward to skilled players who manage to accumulate enough gold (especially in battle mode, or whatever it will be in bannerlord), as they will be able to kick some arse with their polearms and swords and benefit from longer reach and higher damage, while being a lot tougher to kill. It would open up new ways of fighting and new tactics : heavy cavalry would finally be an actual HARD counter to ranged weapon, and there technically would be a melee class that soft counters other melee classes.

I'd be happy to keep discussing this with you guys in the thread. Thanks for reading !

 

[Roccoflipside]

Before I start, I don't play MP, so anything that affects MP I'm not 100% sure about. However, I don't think heavy armor was the reason people went to polearms, rather it was in response to the heavy cavalry knights that could (to a certain extent) ride over infantry. Overall, I've never found archers to be too much of a problem in SP (even before I get my hands on heavy armor), and even when they start affecting me, it's not too much of a problem to ride around them/get out of the way. I think it makes usage of shield troops more effective (advancing behind them), and lessens the ability of the player to win battles singlehandedly, which is not a bad thing in my opinion. One of my favorite things in M&B is that the player doesn't get special treatment, but rather is on a relatively equal playing field with everyone they face. Allowing armor to ignore missiles would, in my opinion, make fights less interesting, especially the getting ambushed in town missions, and that would be a shame as far as I'm concerned. But, like I said, I'm not sure how it will effect MP gameplay, as I've only played SP. Perhaps there could be slightly different rules?

 

[Hoshiqua]

I don't think there should be real differences between MP and SP equipment and damage system. It would just be more work for the developpers.

SP isn't really the same in terms of how you can handle archers, though. In SP archers aren't that good at shooting moving targets, especially on horseback. You can get super high stats which means you're very fast both on horseback and foot. You can get better armor than what is available in MP. You have loads of troops that can draw the fire to them (in MP there aren't as many players as there are troops on SP battlefields, and players are less reliable at taking the shots for you than bots, because players don't like getting shots, while bots will stand right where you want them to stand no matter what).

Besides, you don't get heavy armor for a long time in SP (usually). The same logic applies here : getting heavy armor in SP should be really rewarding instead of just making you that much more resistant to slashing weapons.

 

[lolbash]

getting heavy armor is costly in MP or SP, you earn it. This system works for making heavy armor scarce both in MP and SP (only skilled players in MP and rich lords / rich players for troops in SP), so I am confident it will also work in Bannerlord.

Things have changed

In Bannerlord multiplayer, picking between heavy slow troops that can tank more damage vs light infantry that are fast but die quickly is not a matter of cost anymore.

Think like in Overwatch, where you can pick between a genji who has 200 health, or Reinhardt, who has 500 health.

I can already hear you telling me : "But Hoshi ! If we make heavy armor resistant to projectiles and piercing damage in general, archers / crossbowmen will not be fun to play as !"

Because this is what I always heard when I made similar, altough less argumented complaints about it when I played a lot of Warband. Yet, because of what I explained about scarcity, making heavy armor resistant to piercing damage really won't change much for ranged players. They'll simply not have the option of shooting ANYBODY that doesn't have a shield pointed straight at them anymore. They'll need to choose their targets a bit more. Is that really a fun-killing thing ? Considering they can already click on people that are not actively raising their shield at them and damage them sometimes more than is possible with one handed melee weapons, I'd say not.

Yes this is a problem.

Archers would be useless against harder enemies. That is a problem for all the ranged focused players and there needs to be some sort of leeway for all players, bad and good.

Also because FUN>REALISM

 

[kalashnjkov]

Yup, make the plate armor great again!  A plate armor is supposed to be impervious to all low, mid tier ranged weapon attacks and a high draw weight bow which can penetrate plate armor at close range with heavy arrow should have a long arrow nocking time.
The heavy weight of plate armor is already a cons so it wont be a balance issue here. Besides, the lamellar armor should be the second best for anti ranged weapon purpose and lighter than plate armor but it should be weaker to melee thrust damage.. that will makes the khuzait happy enough.

 

[Orion]

I've briefly mentionned it earlier, but I will do it more clearly here : heavy armor not being sufficient replacement for a shield against arrows and bolts pretty much eliminates a whole lot of two handed weapons from being used in ranged-heavy game modes (siege and battles mostly as I can recall). This is bad, because this means a big part of the game's content is not being used where a lot of players are !

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

I don't need to explain why this is a problem.

Yes, actually, you do. You're the one making the claim, so you have to provide evidence for why it's legitimate.

I contend that anything beyond the archetypal gear for any class is and should be situational. Core infantry equipment (aside from armor) is a sword or axe, a spear, and a shield. Cavalry are pretty much the same, swapping out the spear for a lance and adding a horse. Ranged classes--with few exceptions--have little choice in using one-handed melee weapons and a bow or crossbow. With these general loadouts, one can accomplish any of their class' primary responsibilities in a fight. Another thing worth noting here is that none of these loadouts require all 4 of your weapon slots. So, if you want to take a situational weapon then you're free to do so without sacrificing any of your core capabilities. You even get a little more flexibility with polearms, as infantry and cavalry can replace their core polearm with something else without sacrificing all of its advantages (e.g. cav often pick up long awl-pikes for even more thrusting damage at the cost of losing their couch capability, but they still have the high damage and good reach characteristic of polearms). This still leaves infantry and cavalry with the freedom to pick up a two-handed weapon or throwing weapon.

Something we've seen in competitive play throughout the years is that infantry and cavalry will almost always take a special weapon of some kind, and they'll usually coordinate their extra weapons with their teammates. For instance, you can watch scrims of any match with Rhodoks and you typically won't see more than two Rhodok infantry with pikes. I haven't been following the scene super-close lately but I would guess that having no pike on the team at all is also uncommon, especially with shield stunning being a well-known mechanic for years now. Swadians have been known to occasionally take a two-handed sword, though that's perhaps the least useful two-handed weapon in battle because it doesn't offer much more reach, speed, or any special characteristic like bonus shield damage or block crush-through. You might catch a Nord with a two-handed axe, but they're not long enough to justify the lack of a shield while using them (not for fear of archers, but of multiple melee opponents) and one-handed axes also get bonus shield damage so the two-handers don't offer anything unique for them. The same goes for Sarranids. This is why Swadians, Nords, and Sarranids typically stack throwing weapons on their infantry instead, as it gives them the versatility that their other extra weapon choices don't. Vaegirs get some interesting polearm options, and the long-hafted spiked mace is actually a devastating swinging polearm with its decent damage and high knockdown potential. That said, you won't see more than one on a coordinated team because Vaegirs also get access to javelins.

I think I've successfully made the case for how potentially versatile infantry and cavalry loadouts are, mainly because your core capabilities require at most 3 slots and you have 4 available to you. This versatility means that you can take your two-handed weapon or polearm and not give up your shield in doing so.

If you still think there's a problem here, then it comes down to how you're playing the game and not the game's content itself. If you opt not to bring a shield or neglect to use it when you expect to be exposed to ranged fire then you're asking to get shot. Don't talk about nerfing archers when it was your choice to paint a bullseye on your back. As discussed previously, you can work a shield into your loadout quite easily (and IMO it's assumed you will have one as infantry or cavalry anyway). You can even choose not to bring a one-handed weapon at all and just pull your shield out with an empty main-hand, or use a two-handed/one-handed weapon like the Rhodok's spiked staff. Another thing to keep in mind is that archers (except for Zero) will try not to shoot their teammates, so your best defense against an archer while you're in melee with his teammate is to put his teammate between him and you. This is an acquired skill but it is certainly attainable, and it's also important when engaging more than one person in melee at a time, so it's translatable. If you can manage this (and most players can with varying levels of success) then you can put your shield away and whack your opponent with your two-handed weapon all you want. More of your teammates around you also makes it more difficult for archers to hit you specifically. Here we see where the big weapons shine, and why I consider them situational. You stick with your pals and get engaged in a melee with opposing infantry, so you have teammates to take advantage of the utility you bring to the team with your special weapon--either through shield destruction, shield stun, block crush-through, or reach--and they in turn provide you with cover against ranged opponents. This is also why you don't overload your team with special melee weapons, because your group's exposure to ranged attack increases as more of you put away your shields to use them. When the melee is over you pull your shield back out because you're no longer fighting, you're moving, and people who are moving are people who can expect to be shot at.

This seems to me to be the core of your issue: you want to keep your two-handed weapon out even when you don't have meatshields around you or when you're moving through the open. Is it too much of an inconvenience to swap your weapons instantaneously with a single keystroke? Do you not like the aesthetic of a shield slung on your back while you bash someone's face in with a sledgehammer? Do you actually, in earnest, want the ability to waddle across an open field, towards an archer, taking fire from him the entire time, and reliably not die before you get in range to smack him with your sword? What is the archer going to do when all the king's horses and all the king's men are decked out head to toe in heavy armor and the only people he can reliably damage are other archers, and vice versa for the opposing archers? Do archers just exist to shoot each other, then?

 

[Hoshiqua]

Rainbow dash answer

Don't throw the "fun>realism" non-argument at me, it doesn't add any value. I for one think fun and realism can go together.

Question I asked myself reading your reply : why would archers / crossbowmen being a lot less useful / useless against a few well armored players be a problem ? It's already quite easy to deal damage as an archer, why should we expect the ability to hurt ANYONE that doesn't actively protect himself with a shield if he happens to have one, shield which you can break by shooting at it enough times.

I thought that skirmish mode would involve choosing between light and heavy troops with no additional cost. However, if they are supposed to be balanced, there are other ways to do it than making them die against anything ranged. Heavy infantry is slow, which means it can hardly be used for tactical maneuvers, and can easily be flanked / ran down by lighter troops. If there are fewer of them per unit (which I assume is the case), then that also means they'll be more easily overwhelmed and picked off by cavalry. And unless they have REALLY tough armor, I doubt light infantry would be any kind of helpless against them, especially with players in the fray.

Even if archers / crossbows couldn't efficiently damage heavy infantry, they're already effective enough, and heavy infantry already has enough weaknesses as it is.

Yes, actually, you do. You're the one making the claim, so you have to provide evidence for why it's legitimate.

Alright, why not.
Content not being used means less diversity in the game, and means that the work that has gone into this content has less value. It also feels bad for the player as you don't feel like you're playing the whole game. This is why people on competitive games complain when something is weaker than the rest even if they have the option of not using it : it sucks when you can't do something because it's not balanced with the rest of the game's content, plain and simple. Especially when you like using that content specifically.

I contend that anything beyond the archetypal gear for any class is and should be situational. Core infantry equipment (aside from armor) is a sword or axe, a spear, and a shield. Cavalry are pretty much the same, swapping out the spear for a lance and adding a horse. Ranged classes--with few exceptions--have little choice in using one-handed melee weapons and a bow or crossbow. With these general loadouts, one can accomplish any of their class' primary responsibilities in a fight. Another thing worth noting here is that none of these loadouts require all 4 of your weapon slots. So, if you want to take a situational weapon then you're free to do so without sacrificing any of your core capabilities. You even get a little more flexibility with polearms, as infantry and cavalry can replace their core polearm with something else without sacrificing all of its advantages (e.g. cav often pick up long awl-pikes for even more thrusting damage at the cost of losing their couch capability, but they still have the high damage and good reach characteristic of polearms). This still leaves infantry and cavalry with the freedom to pick up a two-handed weapon or throwing weapon.

Something we've seen in competitive play throughout the years is that infantry and cavalry will almost always take a special weapon of some kind, and they'll usually coordinate their extra weapons with their teammates. For instance, you can watch scrims of any match with Rhodoks and you typically won't see more than two Rhodok infantry with pikes. I haven't been following the scene super-close lately but I would guess that having no pike on the team at all is also uncommon, especially with shield stunning being a well-known mechanic for years now. Swadians have been known to occasionally take a two-handed sword, though that's perhaps the least useful two-handed weapon in battle because it doesn't offer much more reach, speed, or any special characteristic like bonus shield damage or block crush-through. You might catch a Nord with a two-handed axe, but they're not long enough to justify the lack of a shield while using them (not for fear of archers, but of multiple melee opponents) and one-handed axes also get bonus shield damage so the two-handers don't offer anything unique for them. The same goes for Sarranids. This is why Swadians, Nords, and Sarranids typically stack throwing weapons on their infantry instead, as it gives them the versatility that their other extra weapon choices don't. Vaegirs get some interesting polearm options, and the long-hafted spiked mace is actually a devastating swinging polearm with its decent damage and high knockdown potential.

I think I've successfully made the case for how potentially versatile infantry and cavalry loadouts are, mainly because your core capabilities require at most 3 slots and you have 4 available to you. This versatility means that you can take your two-handed weapon or polearm and not give up your shield in doing so. [...]

First off, I'd like to say that I played warband for like 1.5k hours. It's not as much as many of the veterans out there but still enough for me to have figured out how to mitigate the archer problem. But it doesn't mean it feels right that something I've earned should make me actually weaker to a usually fairly large part of the players I play against. I'd also like to say I've played archer a bit too, I haven't been on only one side of this.

Yes, you can just take a shield AND a two handed weapon. But that's not really a solution. I agree it is possible to use your shield for approach, get engaged in a melee and pull out your two hander then, but how often does that happen ? Melees usually aren't that thick that skilled archers (because most of them are at this point) can't shoot at you specifically, and archers can quite easily learn how not to take chances when helping their ally from a distance. I can guarantee that even in the midst of a melee you'll get shot a lot more if you don't have your shield out, because archers know you're a much easier picking.

And it is even more the case for cavalry, altough not taking a shield as cavalry is asking to get couch lanced too, so it's rarely done.

Also, I do believe having a shield in your back slows you down, and no, I do not find it aestetically pleasing x)

I haven't really ever followed competitive play, but I did take part in a few clan war in my early years of playing the game. It is true that team play is where two handed, long weapons like the pike shine. But they only shine because you can rely on your teammates to shoot the enemy archers, draw their fire and shield you from it. This is not the case in most cases on regular MP play when you play with random people. Designing  the game too much around teamplay without giving a solid voice based communication option, or at least a key based VOIP is suicide.

If you still think there's a problem here, then it comes down to how you're playing the game and not the game's content itself.

No, you don't get to pin the problem on me. God I hate when people do that. Can't you stick to good points about the game itself and its design and where you think two handed weapons have their place like you did in the rest of your answer ?

This seems to me to be the core of your issue: you want to keep your two-handed weapon out even when you don't have meatshields around you or when you're moving through the open. [...]

If my equipment was hard to get and required me to outskill multiple players per lives, then YES. I don't see why this would be considered so unbalanced. As long as players with such equipment are a relatively rare occurence it is fine. Besides, you know as well as I do that being completely alone and unprotected as an archer is a mistake. Not only do you get exposed to infantry charges, you also expose yourself to other ranged players and throwing weapons. And it also means you have to kite your opponent somehow, with less athletic skill which means you're probably slower.

However, I'm dead against being able to have this protective gear too easily. Not having to worry about most projectiles should be a reward, not a class you can easily choose like the "regular" classes we know about.

 

[Orion]

First off, I'd like to say that I played warband for like 1.5k hours.

Cool, but you don't want to kick off that particular contest.

It's not as much as many of the veterans out there but still enough for me to have figured out how to mitigate the archer problem. But it doesn't mean it feels right that something I've earned should make me actually weaker to a usually fairly large part of the players I play against. I'd also like to say I've played archer a bit too, I haven't been on only one side of this.

Does it make you weaker? That's something you've said, but other than "it makes me slower so I can't dodge as well" you haven't really given any evidence as to how it makes you weaker. In my experience, yes you move slower but not so much slower that the average archer is going to have a significantly easier time shooting you as opposed to someone in lighter armor. Furthermore, you have significantly more damage reduction than people in lighter armor. A fine example here is helmets. People without a helmet can be one-shot killed with a headshot from across a map, whereas almost any helmet will protect you from those shots. The heaviest helmets will save you from headshots at point blank range from all but heavy & siege crossbows. The weight difference between helmets isn't that large, so you get a lot of bang for your buck with practically no loss in movement speed.

Yes, you can just take a shield AND a two handed weapon. But that's not really a solution. I agree it is possible to use your shield for approach, get engaged in a melee and pull out your two hander then, but how often does that happen ?

Quite often in Siege, actually. I would say it's a cold day in hell when a round of siege goes by without that happening.

Melees usually aren't that thick that skilled archers (because most of them are at this point) can't shoot at you specifically, and archers can quite easily learn how not to take chances when helping their ally from a distance. I can guarantee that even in the midst of a melee you'll get shot a lot more if you don't have your shield out, because archers know you're a much easier picking.

And it is even more the case for cavalry, altough not taking a shield as cavalry is asking to get couch lanced too, so it's rarely done.

Shooting into melees is more a calculated risk than anything. Some people are quite good at minimizing that risk, but you can't eliminate it entirely. As more people get involved in the melee, that baseline risk level goes up. If it's 2v2 then you probably shouldn't be swapping to a two-hander, but I'd say any melee involving 6 or more people is sufficiently safe for whipping out two-handers. Don't shoot back at me with "that doesn't happen often enough" because it most certainly does in pub and competitive play on closed maps. Also, any infantryman that doesn't bring a shield isn't just asking to get couched, he's yelling for it at the top of his lungs.

Also, I do believe having a shield in your back slows you down, and no, I do not find it aestetically pleasing x)

I haven't really ever followed competitive play, but I did take part in a few clan war in my early years of playing the game. It is true that team play is where two handed, long weapons like the pike shine. But they only shine because you can rely on your teammates to shoot the enemy archers, draw their fire and shield you from it. This is not the case in most cases on regular MP play when you play with random people. Designing  the game too much around teamplay without giving a solid voice based communication option, or at least a key based VOIP is suicide.

While the argument for VOIP is a good one, I don't really think this is the place for it. Warband's player base has been at a position for years now where cooperation in pub battle is sufficient to make special weapons viable in their situational role. I recognize that this is a result of years of dedicated play and not anything inherent to the game, but it is a relevant anecdote in that it shows cooperation is not entirely dependent on voice comms. This is less the case in siege, which attracts a different kind of player and encourages a different kind of playstyle, but your opponents are probably just as uncoordinated as your teammates. Take a second to see if any archers are looking at you before pulling out your two-hander and you should be fine in siege.

If you still think there's a problem here, then it comes down to how you're playing the game and not the game's content itself.

No, you don't get to pin the problem on me. God I hate when people do that. Can't you stick to good points about the game itself and its design and where you think two handed weapons have their place like you did in the rest of your answer ?

I'm sorry, but no. I know it's frustrating, and I specifically avoided the classic "git gud" and tried to give examples and explanations for what I specifically meant. Just having the right equipment doesn't make you tactically astute. Don't take this as an attack on your personal capabilities, it's not. I'm speaking generally, and sometimes people who are quite technically skilled are unaware of any tactical errors they might be making, and what we're talking about here is tactics. The funny thing about tactics is there's no one-size-fits-all solution to any situation, and there's no perfect solution either. You just have to minimize risk without jeopardizing your ability to complete your objective.

This seems to me to be the core of your issue: you want to keep your two-handed weapon out even when you don't have meatshields around you or when you're moving through the open. [...]

If my equipment was hard to get and required me to outskill multiple players per lives, then YES. I don't see why this would be considered so unbalanced. As long as players with such equipment are a relatively rare occurence it is fine. Besides, you know as well as I do that being completely alone and unprotected as an archer is a mistake. Not only do you get exposed to infantry charges, you also expose yourself to other ranged players and throwing weapons. And it also means you have to kite your opponent somehow, with less athletic skill which means you're probably slower.

However, I'm dead against being able to have this protective gear too easily. Not having to worry about most projectiles should be a reward, not a class you can easily choose like the "regular" classes we know about.

Again, sorry but no. You earn your armor, but that doesn't mean you earn the privilege to stop playing intelligently once you get it. What you really receive from the best armor is a tip of the risk vs. reward scale in your favor. You can take more shots than anyone else, so you can take greater risks and receive potentially greater rewards. If you want to know definitively how resilient someone is in full armor against an archer, you can ask Lagstro. He's done some extensive testing on exactly that, and he's undeniably the best archer from the North American competitive scene.

One last thing, and I saved this for last because it's less topical.

Alright, why not.
Content not being used means less diversity in the game, and means that the work that has gone into this content has less value. It also feels bad for the player as you don't feel like you're playing the whole game. This is why people on competitive games complain when something is weaker than the rest even if they have the option of not using it : it sucks when you can't do something because it's not balanced with the rest of the game's content, plain and simple. Especially when you like using that content specifically.

This isn't quite what I meant when I said it was up to you to support your claim. The way I see it, most of your argument is built on the assumptions that 1: heavy armor does not make shields redundant but it should, and 2: two-handed weapons are underutilized to the point where they are practically never used in any given scenario. The italicized bits are what I think you implied throughout your post, and what I quoted last here seems to me to be a repetition of your conclusion that is dependent on the two assumptions I want you to support. The funny thing about conclusions which are dependent on assumptions is that, if any of the assumptions are vacuous, then the conclusion is true but has no validity. Logically, anyway. Sometimes I even bore myself.

 

[Hoshiqua]

I see, glad to hear you didn't mean to attack me personally. Happens to me frequently where people I debate with start saying I'm wrong because they're better and play more and stuff. I feared we were going down that path. Also, I specified the amount I played because I knew someone would ask later on. I think it's a sufficient amount to be able to debate the design of the game, but I figure lotsa people here have at least twice this amount.

Does it make you weaker?

You make a fair point. It doesn't necessarily make you weaker per se, altough I've always felt it a lot easier to dodge arrows when lightly equipped. But it could be due to me stressing out when playing in that expensive shiny armor I just spawned with :p

Quite often in Siege, actually. I would say it's a cold day in hell when a round of siege goes by without that happening.

Shooting into melees is more a calculated risk than anything. Some people are quite good at minimizing that risk, but you can't eliminate it entirely. As more people get involved in the melee, that baseline risk level goes up. If it's 2v2 then you probably shouldn't be swapping to a two-hander, but I'd say any melee involving 6 or more people is sufficiently safe for whipping out two-handers. Don't shoot back at me with "that doesn't happen often enough" because it most certainly does in pub and competitive play on closed maps. Also, any infantryman that doesn't bring a shield isn't just asking to get couched, he's yelling for it at the top of his lungs.

From what I remember (haven't played in a while) it only really happened at the ladders and siege towers in the beginning of the round. But then any other crowd fights can't be used as shielding from arrows, at least not nearly as much, because by then enemy archers will usually have higher positions on siege maps. Unless you're in a corridor or something.

As for getting couched as infantry, I see it as less of an issue because unless your two handed weapon is not a polearm and can't one shot the opponent horse, you're essentially safe from it if you watch your back (and front).

While the argument for VOIP is a good one, I don't really think this is the place for it. [...]

Yes, I do believe Warband's community is mostly made up of pretty decent players that understand the importance of minimum teamwork. It's been built over the years by waves of newbies coming in and only those able to progress fast enough staying.

[...]

Those are, simply put, the assumptions I make. Especially the first one : seeing someone in super heavy plate armor using a shield just looks off to me. Why would you need what is basically a piece of painted wood when you have steel ?

As for allowing players to stop acting intelligently once they get armor... I wouldn't exactly put it this way. Sure, it might seem like it allows for dumber gameplay, but with proper balance to armor price, weight, and strength / frequency of usage of blunt weapons, it's more a shift of focus in gameplay than a simplification of the gameplay.

See, since you'd probably be the only guy with that equipment in the immediate vicinity, you'll be seen as a higher threat by your enemies. This means people will make sure you stay on the defense, and if you forgot to buy that one piece of protective gear and archers notice it... let's just say, I wouldn't want to be your feet.

This leads to a change in how you must play : you must no longer pick your engagement so carefully, because archers can't do much against you. It becomes more focused on fighting off people in melee who are going to be on you the whole time. It benefits the one who is more melee oriented, because it allows them to play only to their strength : parrying, counter attacking, chambering, footwork and such.

Simply put, you'll no longer be killable / easily killable at a distance, but you'll be a target for being overwhelmed like you've never been overwhelmed before. Oh, and you'll also have your allies there trying to hide behind you, probably.

See, this may be something only me likes to see in games, but I really like when there is some sort of "knights and peasants" implementation of progression in games. What do I mean by that ? I mean that skilled players get even more bonuses as a reward, and can use these to truly dominate less skilled foes. In return, they become the primary focus of the enemy team, they're more commited, and should they die, it will be a way bigger blow to their team than when the regular guy dies.

With such a design, I have fun in two ways : Most of the time, I'll be trying to reach the "knight" status for a while, and the possibility of reaching it gives me a hell of a lot of motivation. And then I can enjoy it the increased power, but also the increased risk it gives when I reach it.

However I think most players would rather have a constant balance between all players with very little divergence because of past successes of successful players. Who knows ? I may be wrong. I hope I am.

As for the assumption, well the first one comes from me wanting to find more than "pure fun" in a game : I want to feel immerged. Seeing the psychological effects of this and that (in this case, the existence of very protective, very expensive gear), compare it to what we know of history, and so forth. I don't know if this is well explained x)

As such, IMO more realism = better game so long as they don't implement boring realism that brings nothing better in the game (Having to take a dump regularily during battle is not the kind of immersion I seek). Hence the other reason why I want heavy armor to stave off projectiles.

As for the second assumption, it comes from the simple deduction that because projectiles are so deadly no matter the situation, two handers are a no go unless you're in very specific situations (disciplined teamplay with people to cover you, a huge melee where it's too crowded for archers to aim at you, or a fight in some confined space).

 

[Scarf Ace]

Yes this is a problem.

Archers would be useless against harder enemies. That is a problem for all the ranged focused players and there needs to be some sort of leeway for all players, bad and good.

Also because

In a system where armour could potentially negate arrow damage, archers could still stun enemies to make them vulnerable, hit weak points (provided the hitboxes are adequately detailed), engage at extreme close range (high risk, high reward, historically it appears this did sometimes work to pierce even some pretty heavy armour), try something called "teamwork", pick up an AP melee weapon, and so on and so forth.
If designed properly, a system which lets certain types of armour render you nigh-impervious to missiles would not only work, it would even be pretty fun and balanced.

FUN>REALISM

Stop saying this. They're not opposing concepts and your idea of fun is not everyone's idea of fun.

 

[lolbash]

See, this may be something only me likes to see in games, but I really like when there is some sort of "knights and peasants" implementation of progression in games. What do I mean by that ? I mean that skilled players get even more bonuses as a reward, and can use these to truly dominate less skilled foes. In return, they become the primary focus of the enemy team, they're more commited, and should they die, it will be a way bigger blow to their team than when the regular guy dies.

So what in your opinion should decide who is a knight and who is a peasant?

Why exactly should the peasants get the ****tier end of the stick?

I want you to think from the perspective from the peasant. You have a shirt, a crappy wood shield, a wood club and a basic spear. You see a guy in 60 point plate armor coming after you and spawn kills you and your entire team. What do you do? Wait for a knight from your side to take him out? What if your knight sucks at the game?

To remove the element of skill in Bannerlord with this suggestion would make the game terrible unfair

In a system where archers could still stun enemies to make them vulnerable, hit weak points (provided the hitboxes are adequately detailed), engage at extreme close range (high risk, high reward, historically it appears this did sometimes work to pierce even heavy armour), try something called "teamwork", pick up an AP melee weapon, and so on and so forth.
If designed properly, a system which lets certain types of armour render you nigh-impervious to missiles would not only work, it would even be pretty fun and balanced.

Making 1/3rds of an entire team useless because one guy is able to counter the entire class by wearing a set of overpowered armor is "balanced"?

FUN>REALISM

Stop saying this. They're not opposing concepts and your idea of fun is not everyone's idea of fun.

While yes, this quote is not the one true and all powering law of video games, it does stop people from making useless threads and encourages people to think twice before they post stupid ideas that hurt the core gameplay in Bannerlord.

Like for example, this thread.

 

[Caps]

for honor got some prestige system aswell, where you get exp by playin but it doesnt affect gameplay just cosmetics

faster bows should get some damage nerf against heavy armor, so archers can actually make a choice which bow to take

getting shot is rly unsatisfying and probably a reason why people quit the game

 

[Scarf Ace]

In a system where archers could still stun enemies to make them vulnerable, hit weak points (provided the hitboxes are adequately detailed), engage at extreme close range (high risk, high reward, historically it appears this did sometimes work to pierce even heavy armour), try something called "teamwork", pick up an AP melee weapon, and so on and so forth.
If designed properly, a system which lets certain types of armour render you nigh-impervious to missiles would not only work, it would even be pretty fun and balanced.

Making 1/3rds of an entire team useless because one guy is able to counter the entire class by wearing a set of overpowered armor is "balanced"?

I literally just described a number of ways how they'd not be useless, and how it would make things more interesting to everybody. Hell, some of the aspects I mentioned are already in Warband to some extent, especially in some mods.
Not my problem that you can't grasp that.

While yes, this quote is not the one true and all powering law of video games, it does stop people from making useless threads and encourages people to think twice before they post stupid ideas that hurt the core gameplay in Bannerlord.

Like for example, this thread.

I think enough people disagree with the notion that it's a stupid idea not worth discussing. The only stupidity I see here is the MINDLESS repetition of "FUN>REALISM"

 

[lolbash]

I literally just described a number of ways how they'd not be useless, and how it would make things more interesting to everybody. Hell, some of the aspects I mentioned are already in Warband to some extent, especially in some mods.
Not my problem that you can't grasp that.

Yes you did. The OP suggested overpowered armor that ignores all of that. Are you defending OP or me? Im not sure what you're arguing against.

In a system where archers could still stun enemies to make them vulnerable, hit weak points (provided the hitboxes are adequately detailed), engage at extreme close range (high risk, high reward, historically it appears this did sometimes work to pierce even heavy armour

So whats the point of going archer if infantry can literally do all this, but then actually do damage to the armored knight?

 

[Hoshiqua]

So what in your opinion should decide who is a knight and who is a peasant?

Why exactly should the peasants get the ****tier end of the stick?

I want you to think from the perspective from the peasant. You have a shirt, a crappy wood shield, a wood club and a basic spear. You see a guy in 60 point plate armor coming after you and spawn kills you and your entire team. What do you do? Wait for a knight from your side to take him out? What if your knight sucks at the game?

To remove the element of skill in Bannerlord with this suggestion would make the game terrible unfair

What would decide would be skill. If you're a peasant (peasant being a metaphore here. In warband's case you wouldn't literally have peasant gear. You'd have what you get right now for 1k gold, for example), and are better than most other peasants, then you get to accumulate gold without too much risk (if you die, you don't lose much because your equipment isn't too expensive). You upgrade your equipment that way, just like it works now, and you slowly reach what I metaphorically call "knight" status.

It would by no means completely remove the element of skill in Bannerlord. It would emphasize players to improve in order to reach that status, status which would make them stronger but also more focused on.

While yes, this quote is not the one true and all powering law of video games, it does stop people from making useless threads and encourages people to think twice before they post stupid ideas that hurt the core gameplay in Bannerlord.

Like for example, this thread.

Aaaaaaand that's where I'm gonna stop bother answering your "statements".

for honor got some prestige system aswell, where you get exp by playin but it doesnt affect gameplay just cosmetics

I'm not talking about some system where you accumulate XP on your character and get stronger / moar beautiful that way. It's a per match thing, just like gold is right now in warband.

 

[lolbash]

What would decide would be skill. If you're a peasant (peasant being a metaphore here. In warband's case you wouldn't literally have peasant gear. You'd have what you get right now for 1k gold, for example), and are better than most other peasants, then you get to accumulate gold without too much risk (if you die, you don't lose much because your equipment isn't too expensive). You upgrade your equipment that way, just like it works now, and you slowly reach what I metaphorically call "knight" status.

Okay understood.

So from what im getting, you are arguing that the high armored players are too weak against arrows and want to buff them so that knights can dominate against arrows.

Is that correct?


If so, then I have to side with Orion here. Just because you got the best armor in the game, does not mean you are allowed to click the attack button until you win every fight.

If Taleworlds allowed this then once again I repeat, that just removes the skill ceiling, and makes this unfun for everyone, including archer players.

 

[kalashnjkov]

What is the point to use a slow and heavy bow when u can still penetrate knight 's shining armor with a fast bow and higher dps? And furthermore ,  low tier archer is fairly cheap and knight is a top tier unit, if knight can die by low cost bowman so easily, then it's not really fun at all.

 

[Roccoflipside]

Rather than making heavy armor impervious to all bows, why not make bows upgrade at a similar rate to the armor? I.E. if you want to play an archer you start out with a weaker bow that can't penetrate heavy armor, but if you get enough kills you can purchase a stronger bow that will, meaning that some archers will be able to take out a "knight" unit, but not all, and only the ones who earned the ability, just like you're saying for heavy armor.

 

[Honved]

Rather than making heavy armor impervious to all bows, why not make bows upgrade at a similar rate to the armor? I.E. if you want to play an archer you start out with a weaker bow that can't penetrate heavy armor, but if you get enough kills you can purchase a stronger bow that will, meaning that some archers will be able to take out a "knight" unit, but not all, and only the ones who earned the ability, just like you're saying for heavy armor.

It's not too far from that in original M&B.  A basic bow and a marginally skillful archer will typically only do a couple of points of damage to an armored target, and 0-3 points seems about the norm.  Once your character can use a more powerful bow (Strong Bow, Longbow), the numbers get into the double digit range.  It takes about 10-15 levels until you can start taking out armored targets in only 2-3 hits, and archery chews up enough character points that you're going to have to make sacrifices on other aspects.  That's 700+ Denars for the bow, another 500-1000 for the more exotic arrows, and at least 5-10 levels of focused buildup before you can even start to use the bow; not up to the cost of heavy armor, but still significant for a character who will likely get crushed by a single hit in melee.

 

[Hoshiqua]

I'm more interested in the multiplayer part of the game so I didn't really take the whole 'leveling up' thing into account. Interesting to see you guys discussing it though

For SP I really think that balance isn't nearly as easy to design because the player character and his companions can just get so bloody powerful with their stats, and money isn't really a limiting factor, and I don't even think there even should be a big limiting factor in the regard. I guess it depends more on troop balance ?