High level armor feels so worthless.

Users who are viewing this thread

Ananda_The_Destroyer

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.
NO, I'll never turn.... down the difficulty options.
You need to improve armor and damage calculation to protect the AI enemy from being butchered by the player too. High tier armored units dying in 2-3 exchanges just like low tier ones feels silly.
The people playing and enjoying the game.
I just want to say, I have absorbed a constant supply of questions from players about the "weakness of high tier armor, why doesn't the armor work more gooder, why doesn't x troops not die so easily, why do t2 archer murder my t6 units so easily, is armor fixed yes, what mod fixes armor" and on and on and on, over the last 2 years. Please, do not underestimate the importance of this subject to the bulk of players. It an extremely common concern shared by nearly everyone I encounter and it's very rare to meet a player who thinks the armor/damage calc is good/fair/improved and such.
And I get that you have your own vision of what the game should be... but so do we.
But why is it appropriate for high tier units to die so easily in a long term strategy RPG where the player invests resources and time to customize thier forces? I get that it works for captain mode multiplayer matches for "fact paced action" where you get fresh troops every match, but why is this style part of the vision for long, grindy, protracted single player campaigns? Why was a much more useful and rewarding unit progression and armor power appropriate for Mount and Blade Warband but not for Bannerlord?
 

Ask

Sergeant
Ah, shoot. This thread made me facepalm all the way back to stone age.

I'm just gonna join all the players that simply quit the game, and I might return if it's ever released to play in a more stable version with mods.

But honestly, what's the point of engaging in an early access game to give feedback if the biggest and most requested changes are rarely ever taken into consideration? We get that TaleWorlds has a vision, but is the game programmed for the higher ups to play or for the players that purchased the game? If we are the ones quitting, was it really worthwhile sticking to it at the cost of losing a big chunk of the playerbase?

No hard feelings with anyone, I understand that some people simply have to take orders and carry them out. But what is me, I'll just end up leaving a negative review, be salty that I can't refund the game, and move on from this. It simply just isn't worth it anymore.
 

murtega

Sergeant Knight at Arms
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.
How about adding an option as All Troops Received Damage to in-game options so if we choose Reduced, it'd not affect only friendly troops but all troops in battles, regardless which side they're on.
 

Makaveli23

Sergeant Knight at Arms
And I get that you have your own vision of what the game should be... but so do we.
4elcV.png
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
The people playing and enjoying the game.

Man just another cop-out. This answer is disingenuous and you know it. obviously the amount of hype built over the years from this games diehard fanbase and mega-mods like PoP and TLD etc is a VERY large part of what created the hype necessary for you guys to get such sales. Obviously again, casual players who dont really know any better will then buy it, play it and drop it.

So you guys spent good faith capital from the longterm fanbase to quickly release something far different and frankly underwhelming than what we expected and say you had another vision.

Then i ask you point blank - What is this vision you speak of? What exactly is your vision versus the longterm fan who believed you would continue and advance the many beloved features? Because quite honestly it reeks of a sellout for a simpler and less complex game - appealing again to the casual. So was that your plan? Make the game "more accessible" while foregoing the longterm fanbase?

I dont expect you to answer with any detail or substance as quick little snarky quips seems to be more your thing. You do you community manager.
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
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.
I think most understand that feedback =/= implementation necessarily but at least some reasoning why something is or isn't implemented in the end? So far, the only reasons we hear back are 'too complicated' with no further elaboration;
you're essentially saying: we hear you, but nah.
What 'open for adjustments and balancing' as we haven't seen a single adjustment since the first day?
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
They're just balancing it for the sake of PvP I think, so the less equipped player has a better chance.
Even that doesn't make sense because there's plenty of differences between singleplayer and multiplayer already, e.g. archers move slower in multiplayer, so it would be incredibly easy for them to implement separate SP and MP balance.
If that's not the reason I don't know anymore because it doesn't make any sense.
You're right, it doesn't.
 
The people playing and enjoying the game.
Rbm Unique Downloads: 143,689
Armor Does Something Unique Downloads: 59,608

These are two mods that modify armor/damage ratio I know of. Although Armor Does Something is abandoned, RBM is still supported by @Philozoraptor . I do really wonder what do these unique downloads numbers tells you.
 

Hans 77

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
But little Jimmy will love the battles on his x-box.... It's fast paced action...

"Little Jimmy has severe life-crippling ADHD and needs to take over 1,000 mg of Ritalin a day just to be able to barely function. Oh, I know! Let's tailor our super-niche medieval combat game to appeal to his capricious whims! He'll love the blitzkrieg pace the battles and campaign map operate at! Plus, there will be plenty of handholding so he'll never feel lost or have to figure anything out. And menus, there will be LOTS of menus. Additionally, if little Jimmy finds his way to multiplayer, there will be loot, skins, and a really cool 6v6 game mode with multiple spawns and a class system (you know, like that Overwatch game that we hear is really popular :grin:). I'm sure little Jimmy will appreciate the direction we took the game in, and will certainly play Bannerlord for more than a single day before forgetting about it completely!"
 
I think I'm just about ready to give up on TW developing Bannerlord into the sequel it could've been, a sequel that Warband deserved. Callums snarky, disingenuous response tells me nothing is going to change in terms of how much depth the decision makers at TW want for the vanilla game. It's disappointing, but that's their choice. So with a deep sigh I'm ready to accept that I'll just have to wait & hope that modders can do the game justice once it's out of EA with a stable release version.

I do get the "we have our own vision" thing. I've worked professionally for game studios myself, I know what development is like. Decisions need to be made and inevitably some ideas get rejected. But dev visions are not divine, they can have bad design decisions, be lackluster or unambitious, and being so dismissive of other ideas or views outside of the "vision" can ultimately hamper a game from becoming a better experience. TW can technically say they've listened to player feedback, but ultimately the vast majority of community desires that have made it into the game have been relatively minor things, QoL etc, things that TW would likely have eventually done themselves anyway. There's been very little noteworthy in terms community impact on the big things that really matter, the "direction" or "vision" of the game. This can be broadly broken into two categories of disagreement that there's clear contention over, and TW have completely ignore community desires for:-

The battle phase
-TW's vision is fast & arcadey, while there's a signicant call from players for battles that last longer, are more tactical and have better use of formations. People want this to different degrees, but the general trend is clearly there.

Non-war stuff
-Essentially related to what the game offers when NOT at war, or near total lack of as of this post. The main things which TW currently offers (managing fiefs, workshops & caravans, recruiting troops, repititive fetch quest missions & clearing the same bandit hideouts over and over), most of this can be done in a few minutes max and is just straight up objectively lackluster. Since day 1 there's been a clear desire from players for deeper diplomacy, alliances, feasts, character/NPC relations, greater RPG & "immersive" features that warband mods introduced like freelancer, going hunting etc. All of this has been rejected by TW in preference of a simple war-war-war experience.

I don't work at TW so I cant say exactly why they would reject these aspects, when that side of the game is very clearly lacking. I can only guess. With an eye on consoles, maybe they think players would be put off by any additional depth. Maybe they just want Bannerlord to be an arcadey battle game. Maybe they have less experienced or young devs who don't grasp why Warband became so popular, sustained by its great mod scene that added depth to the base game. I don't know. Ultimately the reason doesn't matter, a poor decision is still a poor decision no matter the reason behind it.

Bannerlord will of course be a great financial success after EA. It already is. It got great positive feedback from people that played the game for 5 - 10 hours, left a review, played another 10 hours and then dropped it for other games. It'll get more of those after EA, and more again after the console release. Great for TW, and I'm sure those M&B first timers will have a fun 20 - 30 hours before they move onto their next game. For those of us that name Mount&blade among their favorite franchises, that got into the series when it was doing alpha releases in the mid 2000s, it's just such a disappointment to see what TW's "vision" for Bannerlord has ended up being. It's a 7/10 that could've been a 10 with some ambition.

For now, I will quiety wait for post EA Bannerlord and hope that modders have the tools & freedom/code access to make the game what it could've been.
 

MostBlunted

Banned
TW can technically say they've listened to player feedback, but ultimately the vast majority of community desires that have made it into the game have been relatively minor things, QoL etc, things that TW would likely have eventually done themselves anyway.
Like Settlement Icons and Party Screen Overhaul just in a worse version.
 

CrazyElf

Sergeant
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.

In the long run, I think armor needs to be buffed big time. It's very immersion breaking for the player to die or to kill an opponent with weapons that really, should do minor damage (ex: slashing). Blunt damage should do a lot more than slashing, but I think it is way too powerful against armor as well. Arrows need a really big nerf (I'm talking on the order of 75% or more) against armor.

The other part of the equation is armor works both ways. We also want the enemy higher tier units to be hard to kill.

This is not about lowering the difficulty of the game as much as it is making armor, well, mean something. Being able to kill the enemy lord with a slashing sword should not happen in 1 hit. It should take quite a few hits.




I just want to say, I have absorbed a constant supply of questions from players about the "weakness of high tier armor, why doesn't the armor work more gooder, why doesn't x troops not die so easily, why do t2 archer murder my t6 units so easily, is armor fixed yes, what mod fixes armor" and on and on and on, over the last 2 years. Please, do not underestimate the importance of this subject to the bulk of players. It an extremely common concern shared by nearly everyone I encounter and it's very rare to meet a player who thinks the armor/damage calc is good/fair/improved and such.

But why is it appropriate for high tier units to die so easily in a long term strategy RPG where the player invests resources and time to customize thier forces? I get that it works for captain mode multiplayer matches for "fact paced action" where you get fresh troops every match, but why is this style part of the vision for long, grindy, protracted single player campaigns? Why was a much more useful and rewarding unit progression and armor power appropriate for Mount and Blade Warband but not for Bannerlord?

This.

Among the immersion breaking things, this should be one of the top priorities. The frequency of threads suggests that this is not something that only a handful of people feel breaks the game.

Multiplayer already has separate stats from single player - I think the developers could very much leverage that.


I can only hope that this is like the situation with the siege ladders not working where the developers eventually do have a fix, although the modders have been trying to address for a long time.
 
Last edited:

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
I think I'm just about ready to give up on TW developing Bannerlord into the sequel it could've been, a sequel that Warband deserved. Callums snarky, disingenuous response tells me nothing is going to change in terms of how much depth the decision makers at TW want for the vanilla game. It's disappointing, but that's their choice. So with a deep sigh I'm ready to accept that I'll just have to wait & hope that modders can do the game justice once it's out of EA with a stable release version.

I do get the "we have our own vision" thing. I've worked professionally for game studios myself, I know what development is like. Decisions need to be made and inevitably some ideas get rejected. But dev visions are not divine, they can have bad design decisions, be lackluster or unambitious, and being so dismissive of other ideas or views outside of the "vision" can ultimately hamper a game from becoming a better experience. TW can technically say they've listened to player feedback, but ultimately the vast majority of community desires that have made it into the game have been relatively minor things, QoL etc, things that TW would likely have eventually done themselves anyway. There's been very little noteworthy in terms community impact on the big things that really matter, the "direction" or "vision" of the game. This can be broadly broken into two categories of disagreement that there's clear contention over, and TW have completely ignore community desires for:-

The battle phase
-TW's vision is fast & arcadey, while there's a signicant call from players for battles that last longer, are more tactical and have better use of formations. People want this to different degrees, but the general trend is clearly there.

Non-war stuff
-Essentially related to what the game offers when NOT at war, or near total lack of as of this post. The main things which TW currently offers (managing fiefs, workshops & caravans, recruiting troops, repititive fetch quest missions & clearing the same bandit hideouts over and over), most of this can be done in a few minutes max and is just straight up objectively lackluster. Since day 1 there's been a clear desire from players for deeper diplomacy, alliances, feasts, character/NPC relations, greater RPG & "immersive" features that warband mods introduced like freelancer, going hunting etc. All of this has been rejected by TW in preference of a simple war-war-war experience.

I don't work at TW so I cant say exactly why they would reject these aspects, when that side of the game is very clearly lacking. I can only guess. With an eye on consoles, maybe they think players would be put off by any additional depth. Maybe they just want Bannerlord to be an arcadey battle game. Maybe they have less experienced or young devs who don't grasp why Warband became so popular, sustained by its great mod scene that added depth to the base game. I don't know. Ultimately the reason doesn't matter, a poor decision is still a poor decision no matter the reason behind it.

Bannerlord will of course be a great financial success after EA. It already is. It got great positive feedback from people that played the game for 5 - 10 hours, left a review, played another 10 hours and then dropped it for other games. It'll get more of those after EA, and more again after the console release. Great for TW, and I'm sure those M&B first timers will have a fun 20 - 30 hours before they move onto their next game. For those of us that name Mount&blade among their favorite franchises, that got into the series when it was doing alpha releases in the mid 2000s, it's just such a disappointment to see what TW's "vision" for Bannerlord has ended up being. It's a 7/10 that could've been a 10 with some ambition.

For now, I will quiety wait for post EA Bannerlord and hope that modders have the tools & freedom/code access to make the game what it could've been.
Well said ?

---
To whom it may concern:
If you are also an upset subset player, here is your badge

AivGK.png
 

0tto

Regular
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.
the current damage/armor balance is soo bad something dramatic is nessesary
it's also flawed to core mechanics (100 armor and 30 being functionally the same)


dude your letting your game turn into a joke, guys are using looter armies to own everyone for the lulz
 
Top Bottom