High level armor feels so worthless.

Users who are viewing this thread

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
[...]

The "Veterans" on this forum are a joke, Masturbatory banners of how dissatisfied they are, whiny posts all over the place. The forums are toxic as hell, meanwhile they think they speak for the rest of the playerbase because of how much time they've spent on the forum.
Honestly you need to look no further than to look at Blood Gryphon and Tercio_Viejo's banners to see this self important attitude.
By allusion,

I speak for myself. If you think I'm a "veteran", you haven't been on the forum long enough to have a global vision of everything that happens and happened here. Evidently you are just equal to me regardless of the online spent time difference between the two of us or the type of badge we have.

I've only been on the forum for a few years, but I could mention hundreds of names of people more veteran than me who have given honest feedback, before and during my time here. If you go into MP mode you will see a wasteland and it is nothing more than the product of inaction and bad decisions made by Taleworlds not because brilliant people and true veterans and competitive players didn't tell them what was best for Bannerlord from the full knowledge of every nook and cranny of mechanics, dynamics, gameplay, play, mode or any other part of the M&B saga.

Same in this thread and others with the same theme that have been repeated since the game was released over two years ago... the damage/protection formula or the way armour and weapons work in Bannerlord in SP is far from functional, carry over from previous releases and fun. The game seems to be structured by Taleworlds towards the more accessible experience of a new casual audience; that's fine and I respect that. But on the other hand, where is the fun playable experience for the established fan base of previous games? this is the dilemma of many.

That's what we've been trying to do here... pure honest feedback trying to do our bit and also showing dissatisfaction (that new badge of mine symbolises that, but it's nothing more than a marketing campaign - you don't get respect from a badge on your signature, but that you'll see that in time).

Is true that some feedback Taleworlds took from community, but a lot of this feedback has been ignored and that's an irrefutable fact, but as a newcomer you may be totally unaware of that. It is true that there are tons of threads to start with and certainly the first step to being a veteran on this forum is to do your research and use the search button.

Then when you have all the pieces of this puzzle called Bannerlord development or as I "affectionately" call it, the Bannerlord experience™ you can use either of these two patches at will as so many other users have done at will

... or not because it be late then.
 

JunKeteer

Regular
I don't really understand why you're singling out this poster. His post is actually rather matter-of-fact and not insulting. There were a lot of much more aggressive and insulting posts that would have deserved your comment, but not really this one.
Consider me puzzled :?:
Agree, brand new account, and seemingly just excerpts this new post which is tame compared to others out there (that get banned in the end). A bit of hypocrisy if that is what is considered disrespectful and reason devs don't listen to input, then going off on us in the same manner and expect us to listen to them?

Besides that, we've been patient, the constructive feedback loop at the start of EA (Feb/Mar '20) was healthy; there were adjustments/fixes made relatively quickly and more responses on the changes/adjustments. Understandably, global pandemic screwed things up for sure and the pace of the updates slowed (ie that first refactoring); but seemingly the communication also worsened around then to what it's become now.

From what Duh_Taleworlds recently updated, it's nice to finally know it's acknowledged the damage/armor calcs are being looked into (after +2 years) but what exactly is the discussion on it? I know we shouldn't expect full meeting notes or anything of that sort but at least some info regarding? Does TW agree there's an issue with the formula (hit-to-kill), that it effects the speed of battles (and if they want it to), effect on the economy (ie price is disproportionate), etc... or is this just a 'we looked into it and found no issues' platitude?
 

Helerek

Recruit
I agree more or less with thread title. Bannerlord is meant to be played with deaths enabled. To not destroy the immersion we have to enable death for us and our companions. Now here is the problem. We are too weak. The highest tier armor doesn't provide enough survivability. Even with 400k armor at end game, we can get 1 shot by a spear/arrow/bolt to the head and same for our family/companions. I understand it has to be realistic, but the game is also meant to be fun and immersive. The fact I have to spend around 400k gold (which is equal to recruiting about 4000 troops), just to survive 1 more arrow (not even to the head) compared to 30k gear. The high end armor is either too expensive or too weak. In warband this was fixed by introducing a 1 tier higher armor called Noble set. This provided us with 1 tier higher than highest tier troops, giving heroes/nobles a slight edge over other units and distinguishing us from those cheap units.
I think introducing 1 more tier of better armor for a fair price would fix the issue above. Players do complain about armor prices/effectivness on reddit.

Another problem is armor is too weak for troops aswell. How come I can 1 shot most of enemy units with a glaive or other polearm as lvl 1? Main issue I see here is comparison of Warband and Bannerlord. If we compare T1 and T6 units in Warband and Bannerlord, both have similar weapons and armor, aswell as weapon proficiency. Only big difference is in Warband we had Power Strike ability, which increased our troops damage. This made a huge difference between low tier troops and high tier troops aswell as their weapon effectivness. Even if we gave recruit a 56 cut sword and Nord Huskarl 56 cut sword. However our nord huskarl would hit for 56% more damage, because of Power strike. This difference in power between units was taken away in Bannerlord and only one left is gear. Now difference in Bannerlord between units gear is really too shallow!! Yesterday on my Ironman Mode I had 13 Tier 2/3 Battanian units loosing to 10 Looters! How is that even possible I don't know(not auto-resolve), but it is a cry for help with units balance. If you are keen on keeping the skill tree we have now, we need to make difference in gear/armor wider between units, due to the fact you took away the Skills from units.
Widen the difference in gear between unit tiers to compensate for weak armor and lack of units personal skills.

Lastly headshots. No matter how much armor we get from a helmet fact that a 1 shot to the head can literally kill us on spot is devastating. How about we first apply helmet armor and then we double rest of the damage through headshot formula? Problem is it might end up with less damage to the head than to body armor, but I think it's fair when we invest in a good helmet.

Anyway thank for reading and I hope you finish your game soon. Even if you don't give in to our suggestions, we can always mod the game for our needs. However I really think there's those 2 issues that need fixing above.

tl;dr:
1. Add 1 more tier of better armor for heroes/nobles/companions FOR A FAIR PRICE.
2. Make armor differences bigger between unit tiers, to compensate lack of Power Strike and other personal skills, so units don't feel like Quantity over Quality.
 

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
That kind of invalidates what you're saying.
I don't feel that way.

We are still looking at the armor calculation (and the recent discussions didn't go terrible). I don't think we have ever said that we won't make any changes.
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.

A bit more cautious than me maybe, but hardly invalidating.

you haven't been on the forum long enough to have a global vision of everything that happens and happened here.
Indeed, only people that registered alongside or before this user have an understanding of the turth. Certainly not October 8th, 2018 casuals. :iamamoron:

it's nice to finally know it's acknowledged the damage/armor calcs are being looked into (after +2 years)
It's been acknowledged before

but what exactly is the discussion on it?
The current inclination is more effective armor (which I presume aligns with sentiments here). The discussion is how and how much.

Changing the model or variables within it. The extent of the armor impact shift and what consequences it has for different encounters (sieges, field battles, etc.), troops and weapons (of different damage types).
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Bannerlord is meant to be played with deaths enabled
Abso-fricken-lutely. Death enabled but we need a good decent chance to survive. Armor fixtures, possible wounding (many many mods have done that), and an End Screen that gives a satisfying recap of the overall game and id re-install
 

black_bulldog

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
I don't feel that way.
I can read between the lines and when someone makes statements like Callum it's pretty much saying tough luck. But hey if you guys do make some changes to armor protection/damage calculations that would be great. Either way, I do appreciate you responding.
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
[...] Indeed, only people that registered alongside or before this user have an understanding of the turth. Certainly not October 8th, 2018 casuals. :iamamoron: [...]
Of course this user knows the real truth in all its expression... compared to him I'm a ****ing noob who still sees the shadows projected on the wall :lol:

bYUGP.jpg

Terco_Viejo circa 2018

big hug... still embers
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
That kinda language serves no purpose, there's no need to disrespect the devs to this degree, no wonder they don't give a **** about your input.
I understand getting frustrated after not being listened to, but you have no authority over them, get off your high horse.
I would prefer you didn't post if you're gonna speak like that, you certainly don't represent the interest of the rest of the playerbase with that ****ty attitude
I have lots of admiration for TW devs, it's only the decision makers above them that i kinda don't agree with in many topics but no disrespect intended from my part dude, my comment was directed to other users here just pointing out "we had this talk about armor among others for years and nothing came of it so far, i've nearly lost all hope and think mods are going to be the only salvation left".

I don't have any delusions of having "authority" over anybody, it's my opinion that the game simply isn't as fun as it could be with these problems and it's frustrating indeed to have waited more than a decade for a game for it to turn out introducing problems in areas the previous games already had covered rather well (warband's armor formula and it's many immersive features that are completely missing in BL for example)
 
Last edited:

0tto

Regular
The current inclination is more effective armor (which I presume aligns with sentiments here). The discussion is how and how much.
simply matching warband would be a good start.

the unit weapons should also be looked at, looters and peasants use too much blunt and pierce.


after armour will you guys be looking at other aspects of combat? like the 3m box shield and FTL block speed?
 
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.

You're right, it doesn't.
SP and MP already have different balance, different damage calculation etc.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
You're implying that these features NEED to be added for this game to be good
It's more we want SOMETHING that's good, so if they crap the bed on certain features (or drop them) we'd rather JUST ADD WHAT WARBAND HAD.
Got something different then skill books? Cool, if not, just add skill books! You gonna fix the election system so vassals aren't making peace and stopping their own progress? Cool, if not just make it like warband where player is in charge. It was fine, what's in current Bannerlord is NOT OKAY.
It's an early access game, YOU choose to support a beta product.
Don't bring soy burgers to the barbecue bro 🤡
whiny posts all over the place.
Many important fixes come from big over the top posts. You would 100% be stuck with garrisons throwing your troops away constantly if not for big whiney posts about them and many other such things that are not bugs, but bad design choices that can only be called out in such away.
meanwhile they think they speak for the rest of the playerbase because of how much time they've spent on the forum.
I answer peoples gameplay questions everyday for two years, all over the Internet world. I have a very clear idea of what parts of the game people have problems with and what they think about it.
Ontopic - We are still looking at the armor calculation (and the recent discussions didn't go terrible). I don't think we have ever said that we won't make any changes.
That's good to hear! I feel being told to turn the difficulty down was bad a response because it only addresses one aspect of damage/armor. I can just move out of the way, but the troops struggle. I guess I mostly want a bigger difference in survivability between high and low tier troops, AI enemy Included. 1hko on an Elite Cataphract just doesn't seem right .
I'm glad you company is still open to discussion but maybe you all should get on the same page because when Callum make statements like this:

or this:

That kind of invalidates what you're saying.
Agreed. I felt those comments were kinda inflammatory and if somebody wanted to troll me, telling me to turn the difficulty down would be about the best way to do it.
 

five bucks

Knight
The current inclination is more effective armor (which I presume aligns with sentiments here). The discussion is how and how much.
Excellent.
Some feedback I'd really love to see relayed to the roundtable of decision makers if that's ok:

* For real-life context, please pass on this http://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html and this video of lamellar and gambeson defeating a crossbow at close range
(skip the breastplate part obviously) with the caveat that while gameplay should take precedence over realism, if you are looking for a balanced game, real life is a good place to start because every weapon was useful in real life (sometimes due to cost or ease of use, things which Bannerlord covers). I don't think most players need hyper-realism or super deep simulations but we do want something that superficially resembles reality, as opposed to a peasant with a scythe murdering a fully lamellared charging cataphract in one or two hits.

* Arrow damage is the most important thing that needs to be fixed about armour. Everything else needs tweaks, but arrow damage to armour needs the BIGGEST changes. To avoid confusion with TW, this is the main thing we are talking about when we say "armour is not good enough." The way it stands, the game's tactics will always be a joke when archers can kill enemies in roughly the same amount of hits as melee fighters but from a distance. Shields aren't enough to balance that out, as a very small infantry screen in front of your archers forces attacking infantry to drop their shields, allowing the stack of archers to shoot them with impunity. HTK against arrows should increase by nearly double.

* Two handed swinging polearms either need to do less damage or swing slower. As it stands, they have every benefit of other weapons and almost no downside. Despite being cut damage they just dump so much damage they may as well be maces for the purposes of killing armoured units.

* Blunt damage penetrates too much armour. Obviously it should be the strongest damage type against armour, but the way it is now indicates someone at TW has fallen for the meme that blunt trauma makes padded armour functionally irrelevant. It should be dialed back a little bit.

* Swords are in an alright place at the moment. If armour gets made stronger across the board they will become weaker, but perhaps there are ways of compensating for this, such as making a higher proportion of their damage blunt.

* Helmets should be relevant and perks increasing headshot damage should have a reason to exist. If you can often oneshot headshot someone whether or not they're wearing a helmet and whether or not you have increased headshot damage perks, there is probably an issue there.

* As @0tto said, recruits/peasants/looters use too much blunt damage, I would love to see fewer giant Looney Tunes mallets on Battanian Volunteer loadouts that make them look like a croquet team. Blacksmith Hammers should be less common too.

* It seems like Callum was implying that there won't be a "dramatic" shift in armour because of the impact on campaign length - more effective armour makes battles longer, something which the playerbase definitely wants so they can actually enjoy a battle and use tactics, but I can see how longer battles would have a multiplicative effect on the duration of a campaign, which is already quite long.

This can be compensated for in many ways. Nobles and garrisons currently pretty much never surrender, fixing this and making them willing to give up a siege where they obviously can't win (so you don't have to sit out the whole siege camp construction) would cut a lot of wasted campaign time down. Also, making Engineering skill speed up siege camp construction more would reduce a lot of pointless unfun waiting in the game in addition to helping balance that weak skill. Giving the player some way of remotely contacting people, which you have discussed before, would also speed up campaigns. Changing morale to be more effective so you can force the enemy to flee more before being fully defeated, changing autocalc so high tier units are less likely to randomly die and therefore players are more willing to use it to skip curbstomp battles, making companions finish quests in a reasonable period of time so it's something worth doing, etc; any or all of these will have a reductive effect on excessive campaign length.

In addition, depending on what he means by "dramatic", I don't think copying Warband's core damage model of ~7HTK for armour against same tier archers, and just reducing the extremes a bit, would be too dramatic. If that's what Callum means by "not a dramatic shift", in the sense that armour changes won't be RBM level but will be Warband level, then I'm actually happy with that.

Thank you for the more positive discussion.
 
Last edited:

YouMoMCallME

Sergeant
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.

I don't understand how Taleworlds screwed up something that worked fine before.
RBM almost completely solves the problem.
 

black_bulldog

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
I don't understand how Taleworlds screwed up something that worked fine before.
RBM almost completely solves the problem.
I'm pretty sure this is intentional and not a screw up. They don't want battles to last too long. They've said multiple times they want a "fast paced" game. My assumption is that it Taleworlds thinks everyone has the attention span of a hamster and if they had 20+ minute battles then a large percent of the audience wouldn't want to play or in other words it wouldn't appeal the console kids. Honestly with as many battles that have to be fought to win a game it's no wonder they don't want battles to last more than 5 minutes otherwise a complete play through could litterally take years. :iamamoron:
 

Helerek

Recruit
* Arrow damage is the most important thing that needs to be fixed about armour. Everything else needs tweaks, but arrow damage to armour needs the BIGGEST changes. To avoid confusion with TW, this is the main thing we are talking about when we say "armour is not good enough." The way it stands, the game's tactics will always be a joke when archers can kill enemies in roughly the same amount of hits as melee fighters but from a distance. Shields aren't enough to balance that out, as a very small infantry screen in front of your archers forces attacking infantry to drop their shields, allowing the stack of archers to shoot them with impunity. HTK against arrows should increase by nearly double.
Shields are a big problem and a lot of people already complain about them. My 100 manned army of Battanian Fian Champions facing 40 enemy imperial T2/3 units, couldn't break a single shield, before enemy got in melee. This is a big problem, so please let's not belittle shields. They need to be tweaked too.

I agree that high tier units need better protection against arrows. Especially shock troop units (no shield 2 handers aka Line breakers). I already said in post above, that all units should have a wider armor difference between each tier, for players to actually see a difference between a tier 2 and tier 5 infantry unit. Which is hard to see in Bannerlord, due to lack of skills and only relaying on gear.

Swords are in an alright place at the moment. If armour gets made stronger across the board they will become weaker, but perhaps there are ways of compensating for this, such as making a higher proportion of their damage blunt.
Main advantage of swords is possibility to stab, however it's not even needed in current game, since cutting is just easier and as effective (due to low stab damage and not enough armor on enemy). In Warband only tume you used stab was when enemy had too much armor, so normal swings were just deflected by their armor.

* It seems like Callum was implying that there won't be a "dramatic" shift in armour because of the impact on campaign length - more effective armour makes battles longer, something which the playerbase definitely wants so they can actually enjoy a battle and use tactics, but I can see how longer battles would have a multiplicative effect on the duration of a campaign, which is already quite long.
Let's not forget that better armor = better units die less, meaning we spend less time on recruiting and more on what we actually want to do, fight. I really hate how I have to go from village to village, after every army x army fight and recruit all the infantry I lost. Archers survive fine and I don't even need to level them, but infantry? Only 20-30% of it survives thanks to medicine (multiple fights), lately I stopped even caring about which units I recruit as long as they are infantry, because I know they will die in melee anywya no matter the tier or enemy.

This can be compensated for in many ways. Nobles and garrisons currently pretty much never surrender, fixing this and making them willing to give up a siege where they obviously can't win (so you don't have to sit out the whole siege camp construction) would cut a lot of wasted campaign time down. Also, making Engineering skill speed up siege camp construction more would reduce a lot of pointless unfun waiting in the game in addition to helping balance that weak skill. Giving the player some way of remotely contacting people, which you have discussed before, would also speed up campaigns. Changing morale to be more effective so you can force the enemy to flee more before being fully defeated, changing autocalc so high tier units are less likely to randomly die and therefore players are more willing to use it to skip curbstomp battles, making companions finish quests in a reasonable period of time so it's something worth doing, etc; any or all of these will have a reductive effect on excessive campaign length.
The calculation for auto-resolve should be fixed in some way, to minimalize the casualties if we have a crushing advantage, by making enemy surrender if we deal enough damage in 1 tick (compared to them). This would promote tactics more and give players an actual choice of going auto-resolve or manual combat. Right now I just start manual combat and F1>F3, because enemy was spawned 400 meters away and has 30 units. If I auto-resolve it, somehow I loose my highest tier archer or infantry.

As much as I would love to see reduced time for building a siege camp, this might make taking castles too fast (like in Warband a 6 hour siege).
I agree there's lot of ways to reduce the game duration, but. Does anyone even want a quick gamethrough? I would rather see more dynamic pace in same world, where kids/family members actually play a role, instead of finishing/conquering whole Calradia in span of few days.
 
I'm pretty sure this is intentional and not a screw up. They don't want battles to last too long. They've said multiple times they want a "fast paced" game. My assumption is that it Taleworlds thinks everyone has the attention span of a hamster and if they had 20+ minute battles then a large percent of the audience wouldn't want to play or in other words it wouldn't appeal the console kids. Honestly with as many battles that have to be fought to win a game it's no wonder they don't want battles to last more than 5 minutes otherwise a complete play through could litterally take years. :iamamoron:
Which is most likely why they refuse to do any role playing, or late-game mechanics like diplomacy/alliances/trade agreements/feasts/etc. and village/castle customization. Either it's "too complex", or it would slow the game down, and make it more like a medieval life sim. They don't want that, they want it fast paced for the XBox kids.

They need to just release it, so that the modders can finish the game. They clearly don't plan on adding too much more.
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
I don't understand how Taleworlds screwed up something that worked fine before.
RBM almost completely solves the problem.

I understand that there are players who prefer a gentler and more relaxed experience as opposed to others who need the constant challenge to enjoy it. That's what difficulty levels are for.

It's a personal appreciation, but one that I see is shared by many and is the thinking behind the idea of Talewordls "balancing" the game on easy mode. Not everyone wants or needs stabiliser wheels on the bicycle (no offence, everyone is free to enjoy it as they please when they can).

This is noticeable in the damage/protection formula but also in how the AI is tuned and how it adapts to the former. In RBM apart from modifying these damage/protection values I want to underline the importance of the tuned parameters and logics for the AI. Here is a clear example. Unlike native, in rbm bots have better combat skills, fight and move in groups formation better, maintain a proper living space and many other attitudes which make this mod an enriching experience.

In short, and back to the topic at hand; it is necessary for the health of the native game itself that Taleworlds finds a middle ground between the experience we had in warband and the one offered by RBM, Armour Does something or other similar mods.

This is a task to salvage a critical part of a very important part of Bannerlord's foundation. Although many of us use mods to solve this problem, Talewords cannot afford to delegate this, something so basic, to the modding community. It must necessarily be suitable for Native without regard.
 

JunKeteer

Regular
It's been acknowledged before


The current inclination is more effective armor (which I presume aligns with sentiments here). The discussion is how and how much.

Changing the model or variables within it. The extent of the armor impact shift and what consequences it has for different encounters (sieges, field battles, etc.), troops and weapons (of different damage types).
Ok, I stand corrected on that, can't recall all discussion points from a ~year ago; but if it takes over a year to discuss, what exactly is the hesitancy to make a few 'drastic' adjustments for now? Given this is EA and a few of us play on the 'beta' of the EA version, is it not the best time to test it with the wider audience to get at quickly where the imbalances are with the changes?

Or can we know what other system elements the armor value/damage calcs are tied to so we can maybe better understand TW's position on maybe why they are holding back on these changes? The only possibly 'by product' affects I could assume if any:
  • Armor/damage 'values' affect the 'power level' assigned to the individual troops, thereby completely messing the field simulations? Would've assumed those were under a different formula
  • Assuming weapon/armor values are tied directly to its cost; would have to mess around with the economy (ie party/lords selling loot in towns). The rest, as a single-player, is almost inconsequential (ie dichotomy in cost between buying personal armor and upgrading troops of same 'armor') or the smithing exploits (player decision - though smithing needs some fixes too)
I would think the only changes adjusting it would make would be in the field battles themselves for the betterment which is the whole point of the post. Unless TW does indeed staunchly believe field battles should only be very short in duration (ie less than 5min) for some reason; though I haven't really seen it said otherwise on that, just speculations from us re 'fast-paced' terminology applied to it.
IMO, better to put all planned & proposed changes/features in first (crashes notwithstanding), then make the balances at the end; 'cart before the horse'.
 
Top Bottom