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:
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):
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.