High level armor feels so worthless.

Users who are viewing this thread

qimuwoco

Recruit
I'm trying to play as a Battanian with no mounts, only melee.
And the thing that I noticed by playing a bunch of tournaments is, if just get hit once by one of these high level proficiency nobles with a 2-handed sword, my health goes from max to zero.

I'm not lightly armored, I'm wearing:

-Warlord helmet: 53 head armor
-Heavy warlord pauldrons: 20 body | 10 arm armor
-Highborn mail armor: 48 body | 22 leg armor | 12 arm armor
-Scale warlord braces: 25 arm armor
-Scaled boots: 26 leg armor

I also have the perk that gives me slightly more HP. I know this is not Warband plate, but you would think it should be able to tank more than one hit.
It feels like melee builds are at such a disadvantage compared to cavalry or archer builds, where they can dish out so much damage at minimal risk.
For example, my last campaign was an Aserai melee cav lord and I was able to
just press F1+F3 every battle and win with no losses (highest difficulty).
 

nereid

Sergeant
You have to keep in mind that the damage type in tourneys is blunt, meaning that especially heavy armor will offer less protection in this case.
 
With blunt as dmg it doesn't really matter what you wear.

A tipp: naked or civil armour are just fine. You are faster and have nearly the same protection like your badass Armour.

If you doesn't want that, you can mod or change their dmg Formular.


BTW I think that not only Armour doesn't work but also the dmg of some weapons is just to high when connected with the speed formular.
 

five bucks

Knight
Blunt damage actually ignores 100% of armour. https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...t-doesnt-work-and-how-to-make-it-work.426296/

Which is stupid when you watch something like this, and see guys get hit pretty hard with heavy weapons over and over and not be seriously injured. Clearly their armour is helping protect them.

IRL, armour had padding underneath to reduce the impact of blunt force hits. But in Bannerlord you can be wearing layers of metal with padding underneath and still get hurt equally as much as if you were naked.

Blunt should only ignore 50% of armour (and pierce should ignore 25%).
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
Max body armor is only useful against ranged damage at VERY LONG RANGE when standing still, when hit in the body, there you will notice a significant effect in terms of how many arrows you can take. Of course this situation only occurs doing irregular things like sneaking into the siege map and sniping down the enemies solo. And of course no matter what getting shot in the head ruins it because of the magical double damage. WTF why even were a helmet TW?
The damage calculation are just silly, especially the blunt effect and especially the amount of +damage from speed.
TW needs to really tone down the damage and put a cap on speed boosted damage. Like you get 10% more damage, THAT'S ALL, no more 500+ damage cuz Sanic. In combat you are ALWAYS moving towards the AI (AI now usually camps) so you are always a disadvantage to riding (or even walking into) ranged damage or blow to the foot.
The problem I think is that the person (I assume) looking at the damage/protection is just looking on paper and seeing "Oh this armor is 10% more numbers then this one it's better" and not understanding that in the game dying in 2.5 hits or 2.75 hit isn't a noticeable or useful difference cuz you still get l killed in 3 hits.
I blame their attempt at "fats paced action" for the scuffed MP modes. Oh wow I want to die in 2 seconds and respawn over and over don't you? It feel like hardcore gamer game. Call of poopy, fart night, loads of loosers here I come E sport mania! DO I want to die in 2 seconds in a protracted, long term strategy sandbox action RPG? Hell no.
 

Ask

Sergeant
The problem I think is that the person (I assume) looking at the damage/protection is just looking on paper and seeing "Oh this armor is 10% more numbers then this one it's better" and not understanding that in the game dying in 2.5 hits or 2.75 hit isn't a noticeable or useful difference cuz you still get l killed in 3 hits.
This is it in a nutshell. Looters die from 2 arrows to the chest, Fian Champions die from 3 arrows to the chest, and we're talking one guy is wearing rags and the other some of the most expensive armors in the game.

If one of the biggest gaps in armor strength makes a difference of literally one arrow, what can you even expect from all the other armors in between.
 

Hans 77

Knight
WBWF&SVC
The useless armor not only makes things frustrating for the player ("Oh wow, I just grinded for 500k worth of armor only to be killed in the same amount of hits as a naked man!"), but it also messes up unit balance. I routinely see T5 and T6 troops get killed by recruit-level units in pretty much one-on-one scenarios on the battlefield.

Again, I have to reiterate, these elite units aren't getting ganked in huge mosh pits of enemy recruits, but rather falling to recruits/volunteers/nomads fighting across from them on a linear plain. The simple hatchets, sickles, iron sabres, and clubs of the trash units just blast through their armor like it's nothing.
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
When I get the time I'll do a comparison between HTK of various tiers of armour in Bannerlord and Warband.
That video would be quite interesting.

Here's one I posted back in January with a small sample of how badly the damage/protection formula works in Bannerlord... but no one can be surprised by that anymore.

 
Blunt damage actually ignores 100% of armour. https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...t-doesnt-work-and-how-to-make-it-work.426296/

Which is stupid when you watch something like this, and see guys get hit pretty hard with heavy weapons over and over and not be seriously injured. Clearly their armour is helping protect them.

IRL, armour had padding underneath to reduce the impact of blunt force hits. But in Bannerlord you can be wearing layers of metal with padding underneath and still get hurt equally as much as if you were naked.

Blunt should only ignore 50% of armour (and pierce should ignore 25%).
>Blunt damage actually ignores 100% of armour
What the ****
 

five bucks

Knight
So this is the amount of protection armour gives against arrows or rocks currently, from a distance of 30m (roughly a third of an American football field) when taking shots to the torso.
0URDbj0.png

Later I'll get into Warband and do a comparison.
 
Last edited:

0tto

Regular
fight a looter with nothing then with the best you can find
the rocks do 10 in both cases

same but to a lesser extent peirce, a 0 skill bow ignores as much as a 90, the base damage is just lower
 

0tto

Regular
you don't need to get super technical making graphs and publishing a thesis...

just fight with damage display on, militia, peasants, and elites all take similar damage. their gear difference barely adds 1 hit vs 1 handed weapons


the bows are worse, straight up 2-4 hit across the board.
shooting a cata is the same as a peasant; the only variable is your base damage
 
Top Bottom