High level armor feels so worthless.

Users who are viewing this thread

Saxonation

Recruit
I'm wearing chainmail and chain helmet and I'm getting knocked out cold by looters with rocks in 2 hits. This is a serious mental malfunction. I came back to the game after almost 2 years, I guess I'll come back in another year and see if they've programmed the stupid out of the game.
 

Callum

Community Lead
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.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
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.
Callum, we already know you can turn the damage down, that doesn't fix the whole problem though.

Armour being as weak as it is (against arrows and certain sources of blunt damage) makes battles last for too short a period of time, it heavily skews troop balance in favour of archers and horse archers which removes all meaningful tactics from the game, it makes it pointless to buy highly expensive armour when it barely makes a difference of one or two hits to kill, it makes it unsatisfying to fight enemies when they are so easy to kill from a single hit from a glaive, and so on. Turning down damage to the player does not solve any of these things. Also, turning down damage to the player makes damage you take from swords and spears too low, because those actually have sensible damage against armour.

We want armour to work roughly like it worked in Warband. Please pass on this feedback.
 
Last edited:

JunKeteer

Veteran
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.
This right here is exactly the issue and very telling that they will not be adjusting/tweaking the armor values at all.
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
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.

I'm glad you're more active lately but man... that last comment is as useful as the first slice of sliced bread :???:.

giphy.gif


One laughs instead of crying when reading such informative pearls...?:roll:

Fivebucks has expressed it excellently, myself and many players endorse every letter of this paragraph.

Callum, we already know you can turn the damage down, that doesn't fix the whole problem though.

Armour being as weak as it is makes battles last for too short a period of time, it heavily skews troop balance in favour of archers and horse archers which removes all meaningful tactics from the game, it makes it pointless to buy highly expensive armour when it barely makes a difference of one or two hits to kill, it makes it unsatisfying to fight enemies when they are so easy to kill from a single hit from a glaive, and so on. Turning down damage to the player does not solve any of these things.

We want armour to work roughly like it worked in Warband. Please pass on this feedback.

#Fixarmor&damagecalculationonceandforall!
 

Hans 77

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
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 actually very disheartening to hear responses like this. ^ Armor and damage values affect much more than the player. They dictate the combat interactions between the AI as well -which includes both the player/allied army and the opposing forces.

If armor is ineffective, then it diminishes the impact of well-armored troops, as having higher quality equipment should be a significant strength of those units. Since armor does not fulfill its role from a functionality standpoint, those armored units suffer from a system which does not allow their battlefield impact to scale in proportion with their equipment, troop tier, and the sheer amount of resources invested into them (time, experience, and denars).

Recommending that players adapt to the problem by simply adjusting the general campaign settings suggests Taleworlds holds a flippant attitude toward this issue, an issue which many of us (judging by the multitude of related threads across 2+ years) take very seriously.
 

Callum

Community Lead
I'm glad you're more active lately but man... that last comment is as useful as the first slice of sliced bread :???:.

And I get that you have your own vision of what the game should be... but so do we. And while we do use player feedback to help us inform our decisions and shape the game, it doesn't necessarily mean that we will just implement everything suggested.

To be straight with you, I know that a lot of people would enjoy more realistic armour that deflects and absorbs attacks. I'm aware of the perceived benefits that it could bring for this subset of players, such as battles that play out over longer periods of time allowing for more manoeuvring and such, as well as that additional sense of personal progression when you finally can afford that badass armour and become a tank on the battlefield (among other things). And look, we could sit here and debate about how that would impact the length of battles, which in turn impacts the pace of the campaign itself, and I'm sure you would have reasonable ideas and responses to whatever I said, but ultimately the outcome is going to be the same.

Armour values are still open for adjustments and balancing, but I wouldn't expect a dramatic shift from what is present in-game right now.
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
And I get that you have your own vision of what the game should be... but so do we. And while we do use player feedback to help us inform our decisions and shape the game, it doesn't necessarily mean that we will just implement everything suggested.

To be straight with you, I know that a lot of people would enjoy more realistic armour that deflects and absorbs attacks. I'm aware of the perceived benefits that it could bring for this subset of players, such as battles that play out over longer periods of time allowing for more manoeuvring and such, as well as that additional sense of personal progression when you finally can afford that badass armour and become a tank on the battlefield (among other things). And look, we could sit here and debate about how that would impact the length of battles, which in turn impacts the pace of the campaign itself, and I'm sure you would have reasonable ideas and responses to whatever I said, but ultimately the outcome is going to be the same.

Armour values are still open for adjustments and balancing, but I wouldn't expect a dramatic shift from what is present in-game right now.
Message understood, nothing more to add.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
And I get that you have your own vision of what the game should be... but so do we. And while we do use player feedback to help us inform our decisions and shape the game, it doesn't necessarily mean that we will just implement everything suggested.
Well ultimately the most important thing is player enjoyment. Warband has provided the example already of a damage model that works in gameplay and is enjoyable.
To be straight with you, I know that a lot of people would enjoy more realistic armour that deflects and absorbs attacks. I'm aware of the perceived benefits that it could bring for this subset of players, such as battles that play out over longer periods of time allowing for more manoeuvring and such, as well as that additional sense of personal progression when you finally can afford that badass armour and become a tank on the battlefield (among other things).
Yep.
Armour values are still open for adjustments and balancing, but I wouldn't expect a dramatic shift from what is present in-game right now.
In the face of all the very good reasons you gave for improving armour... why not?

At any rate, just to provide some context to the discussion, here is what Bannerlord's hit-to-kill is like right now:
v2G3VMy.png


And here's what Warband's hit-to-kill is like (didn't finish tidying it up, may have some inaccuracies but gives you an idea):

vpi3RMH.png


When you look at the difference between the two, the average hits-to-kill against a same-tier archer is 6 or 7 in Warband, and about 4 in Bannerlord.

I think that Warband got that right. It's the right amount of hits for a melee fighter to close into range against an archer and engage him in melee combat without dying before he even reaches melee.

As an aside, I personally think no attacks should ever do 0 damage and therefore it should never take more than 100 hits to kill.
And look, we could sit here and debate about how that would impact the length of battles, which in turn impacts the pace of the campaign itself
Are you implying this is a reason armour might not be changed much? Because I should also point out that common feedback is there should be less doomstack battles, and that outnumbered enemy lords or garrisons should be willing to surrender/negotiate more often.

Therefore, if making armour work properly increases campaign length, reducing the number of doomstack battles slightly and making lords/garrisons more willing to surrender/negotiate should shorten campaign length to compensate; and make the game more fun.

Fewer, yet longer, battles which give the player more time to actually enjoy them.
 
Last edited:

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
I'm aware of the perceived benefits that it could bring for this subset of players,

...as opposed to who else? What other "subset of player" philosophy are we competing against? Consolers and casuals who want quick ADHD like experiences and then move on to the next game? I dont think anyone on these forums has ever expressed a liking to this current system -so who exactly are you talking about?

Ill await the incoming silence..
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
The people playing and enjoying the game.
Does simply playing Bannerlord mean a tacit endorsement of its highly flawed armour damage model?

@froggyluv makes a good point too. You can find plenty of people on Steam who buy and put 9 hours into a game because a streamer played it, get bored, leave a positive review saying "lol", and quit. They'll never notice the difference in hits to kill in armour, not that there's anything wrong with that, but the changes on mechanics should be aimed at people who will actually stick around to play the game and notice these things. The sort who are interested enough in the game to engage in the community.

When I look at people talking about armour in Bannerlord on the forums, Reddit, Steam, Youtube etc., it is almost universally negative, often with positive comparisons to Warband's armour. In two years I have only ever seen a few people on these forums actually say they like Bannerlord's treatment of armour and about 50+ say they don't.

One example being https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...t-doesnt-work-and-how-to-make-it-work.426296/
 
Last edited:
They're just balancing it for the sake of PvP I think, so the less equipped player has a better chance.

If that's not the reason I don't know anymore because it doesn't make any sense.
 
I guess it doesn't matter if there are 50 people that dislike the armor/damage model vs 1 that like ratio, if it's already been decided...
The problem is: how are we supposed to know what to give feedback and what to not?
I share the feeling that feedback are ignored because things are mostly been decided already. So why bother?
 

Callum

Community Lead
I share the feeling that feedback are ignored because things are mostly been decided already. So why bother?
We compile and discuss player feedback and suggestions and there have been many changes to the game on the back of those meetings over the past 2 years.
 

Kunshiro

Banned
We compile and discuss player feedback and suggestions and there have been many changes to the game on the back of those meetings over the past 2 years.
Like what? 2 hander crush through for example? Class system? xDDDDDDDDDD
 

MostBlunted

Banned
Does simply playing Bannerlord mean a tacit endorsement of its highly flawed armour damage model?
He means the ~90% of people who bought the game, don´t complain and gave it a positive review on Steam. If they´ve moved on to the next game after 6 hours doesn´t matter. Guess those people are also the ones who received those questionaries for feedback.

I even understand their POV now. I mean I thought about it sometime ago but now I´m even more sure. Their mindset is "Why should we care about those ~5% people that are "complaining", everything is running more than good for TW. And with this mindset you have time to think about changes like making the pila unthrowable even if nobody ever asked for it, because why not? Everything is working better than expected (sales, game magazine hype coverage after EA release, Steam reviews).

From a business POV, it makes sense. There is nothing wrong outside our small "Warband fanboy" bubble and they have decided that this small bubble isn´t important anymore after the huge success. And that´s why they have stopped giving any ****s about this forum and just still come here for some good trolling moves. I´m not even mad!

But I like to talk to all those guys who said "But they´re a small indie company" years ago from this POV :grin:
 
Last edited:

Askorti

Master Knight
WB
Armour values are still open for adjustments and balancing, but I wouldn't expect a dramatic shift from what is present in-game right now.
I understand that TW has no intention of going as far as for example RBM does. But can we at least get a little bit closer to it? I'm not expecting walking tanks, but can we at least move into a place where top tier armor is not essentially tissue paper, as it currently stands?
 
Top Bottom