High tier armor prices still too high

[Dabos37]

I haven't found them to be that overbearing in the late game (which is basically most of the game if you're trying to conquer the whole world) because the tradeoff is taking time to find more, even with very low losses. That isn't as good as simply taking 4-5 worse troops immediately then going onto the next siege.

In my case, they simply do not die. It is pretty common to keep missile units alive in any battle while getting tons of enemy kills at the same time. You do not need to replenish much then if they do not die.

In sieges it is harder to keep them alive, but still, missile units are the easier units to keep alive in sieges compared to infantry.

Anyway, I get your point about you are not going to travel to Battania or Khuzaits lands just for getting these OP units. In any case, this has not much to don with unit balancing. The main issue with OP fians and Khans is how easy and fast they allow the player to progress and reach the boring late game.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

In my case, they simply do not die. It is pretty common to keep missile units alive in any battle while getting tons of enemy kills at the same time. You do not need to replenish much then if they do not die.

Thats kind of their thing; they can deliver damage from relative safety.

The main issue with OP fians and Khans is how easy and fast they allow the player to progress and reach the boring late game.

Maybe worry less about what you can do with full Fian/KG parties and more about what it will take to make you satisfied with not using full Fian/KG parties.

You are not required to use them.

 

[Medivhtratos]

Idea: increase the xp cap for all troops
= you will gain less coins for looting
= by time you have enough coins to get your Armour and the troops can be upgraded to their last tier(or not, it depends on playstyle)

And I'm also in for increasing the wages by troop tier.

Occasionally this will also increase the players behavior to value his troops more. When I'm still up to date it will also break the auto battles.(stopped playing at 1.7.x)

But maybe it will help to get the late game more interesting. Tell me what you think.

 

[randomuser]

life is too cheap. An elite soldier with his warhorse only cost less than 1k. An armor worth something around 300 knights.

 

[kweassa]

People need to understand the cost of some items in a game -- in ANY game -- are not always in relative scale that matches real life.

If people are allowed to get their hands on a t6 armor with 50~60 body protection at level 2 after just 1 hour of following tournament and selling a few prize horses, what's the point of every other arms and armor in the game?

As it stands, expensive arms and armor natural become a symbol of player progression, and the player's overall status in the world. When at lower levels with lacking funds, you're forced to make do with whatever you can get your hands on at a bargain price. But if the player becomes a powerful lord with high regular income, winning large battles with tons of loot to bring in big bucks, then he's at the luxury to buy expensive armor. That's just how it is, and I don't see anything particularly wrong with this.

No matter how one tries to disguise it, in the end these complaints about item prices comes down to "I want to use the best equipment, when my character in this world has not made enough efforts to justify the ownership of such equipment."

People want bigger rewards with smaller effort, and that's really not good for the game.

If people want to throw that concept of balance out the window and just have everything easy-peasy, there's a solution called "mods." That's what such mods and cheats are for. Use them.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

People need to understand the cost of some items in a game -- in ANY game -- are not always in relative scale that matches real life.

If people are allowed to get their hands on a t6 armor with 50~60 body protection at level 2 after just 1 hour of following tournament and selling a few prize horses, what's the point of every other arms and armor in the game?

As it stands, expensive arms and armor natural become a symbol of player progression, and the player's overall status in the world. When at lower levels with lacking funds, you're forced to make do with whatever you can get your hands on at a bargain price. But if the player becomes a powerful lord with high regular income, winning large battles with tons of loot to bring in big bucks, then he's at the luxury to buy expensive armor. That's just how it is, and I don't see anything particularly wrong with this.

No matter how one tries to disguise it, in the end these complaints about item prices comes down to "I want to use the best equipment, when my character in this world has not made enough efforts to justify the ownership of such equipment."

People want bigger rewards with smaller effort, and that's really not good for the game.

If people want to throw that concept of balance out the window and just have everything easy-peasy, there's a solution called "mods." That's what such mods and cheats are for. Use them.

Yes, but no.

You talk of progression but you are viewing armor as a status symbol rather than from a utilitarian perspective. Firstly, this is not an MMO, so status symbols are pretty irrelevant. Secondly, the game already has a lategame moneysink, buying clans, so it does not need something flashy you can waste your money on.

As it is, the only thing that really make sense is to build an army(a party), as fast as you can, and go out there and beat up enemy lords. That would be how you make the kind of money needed to buy high ticket gear for you and your companions. However, once you have an army that you can use to beat up everyone around you with.. you are just going to start saving up to buy clans, because that provides a much higher utility.

What could have been interesting, from my perspective, was to price it at a level where it could reasonably be acquired early in the game. Less pressure to move out of the early game and on to lordhunting.

However, now the best source of gear is also just to make an army, as quickly as possible, and go out there and loot it from your enemies. So, the discussion is pretty irrelevant now.

 

[randomuser]

People need to understand the cost of some items in a game -- in ANY game -- are not always in relative scale that matches real life.

If people are allowed to get their hands on a t6 armor with 50~60 body protection at level 2 after just 1 hour of following tournament and selling a few prize horses, what's the point of every other arms and armor in the game?

As it stands, expensive arms and armor natural become a symbol of player progression, and the player's overall status in the world. When at lower levels with lacking funds, you're forced to make do with whatever you can get your hands on at a bargain price. But if the player becomes a powerful lord with high regular income, winning large battles with tons of loot to bring in big bucks, then he's at the luxury to buy expensive armor. That's just how it is, and I don't see anything particularly wrong with this.

No matter how one tries to disguise it, in the end these complaints about item prices comes down to "I want to use the best equipment, when my character in this world has not made enough efforts to justify the ownership of such equipment."

People want bigger rewards with smaller effort, and that's really not good for the game.

If people want to throw that concept of balance out the window and just have everything easy-peasy, there's a solution called "mods." That's what such mods and cheats are for. Use them.

There is no point of every other arms and armor really. Just like that people always use the overpowered troops instead of the crappy ones.
If you think this is okay, then everything is okay.

In my opinion, players should be able to afford a good armor for winning a few tournaments. The tournaments are hosted by lords in major cities should give good rewards. Don't you think the champion of a city deserve a good armor ? The problem is that the tournaments are too easy. I don't know why a fresh player have any chance to beat a warlord.

Yes, the symbol of player progression can be expensive arms and armor, for example, a luxury scepter or robe socketed with expensive gems look more reasonable, and they can properly show the wealth and power of the player. I don't know how you did not see anything wrong with a plate armor which cost around the price of 300 elite knights, and those knights are using the same tier of gears as you do.

The combat gears should never be too hard to get because you can always strip killed soldiers. However, a rookie should not be able to use high tier gears due to low proficiency. There are plenty of ways to balance the game. Making the overall price of gears insanely high is very irresponsible.

Edit: Economy should focus on expendable solders and their equipment, maybe consumables too, not player items. You can see that players will use the top tier equipment forever and they will make more money eventually. This is not an ideal money sink. Soldiers will die in battle and you need to hire, train and buy equipment that can be a better way to consume money. Knight need warhorse to upgrade. Every other soldier can have a new requirement for upgrading. Isn't it a better idea?

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

People need to understand the cost of some items in a game -- in ANY game -- are not always in relative scale that matches real life.

If people are allowed to get their hands on a t6 armor with 50~60 body protection at level 2 after just 1 hour of following tournament and selling a few prize horses, what's the point of every other arms and armor in the game?

I think there is a dual problem here. First of all is the conflict between the player wanting to get involved in fights for their own enjoyment (something the game should actively encourange), and the fact that getting knocked out throws the battle. Even in Warband it felt awful to be on low health and having to wait around for a siege to grind out. It's not even a good "punishment" either, since in the phase of the campaign where you're leading a party of about 80 or more, the player's ability to get kills doesn't affect the battle much, and as a result better armour is just for prolonging the player's ability to actually play the game. It doesn't really affect the pace of the campaign if the player has top tier armour at that point.

The other problem is that there simply isn't enough of a power differential to stretch out to 50 hours like most other action RPGs. It's not like Final Fantasy or whatever where you can increase thousandfold in strength over the course of a playthrough. You start as a human and end as a human, and the absolute best armour is still comparable to what grunts are wearing. So I think it's misleading to talk about Bannerlord with the same language as "traditional" action RPGs. I don't think it would be necessarily bad for the game if you got access to all the best weapons and armour by the early midgame, and then focussed on stuff other than yourself, like kingdom and army management. It would help if the mid and lategame didn't suck of course, but I definitely think confining the lootmongering to the early game would be a net positive.

 

[kweassa]

As it is, the only thing that really make sense is to build an army(a party), as fast as you can, and go out there and beat up enemy lords. That would be how you make the kind of money needed to buy high ticket gear for you and your companions. However, once you have an army that you can use to beat up everyone around you with.. you are just going to start saving up to buy clans, because that provides a much higher utility.

There is no point of every other arms and armor really. Just like that people always use the overpowered troops instead of the crappy ones. If you think this is okay, then everything is okay.

I think there is a dual problem here. First of all is the conflict between the player wanting to get involved in fights for their own enjoyment (something the game should actively encourange), and the fact that getting knocked out throws the battle. Even in Warband it felt awful to be on low health and having to wait around for a siege to grind out. It's not even a good "punishment" either, since in the phase of the campaign where you're leading a party of about 80 or more, the player's ability to get kills doesn't affect the battle much, and as a result better armour is just for prolonging the player's ability to actually play the game. It doesn't really affect the pace of the campaign if the player has top tier armour at that point.

I really have to point out arguments like above, comes from a seriously skewed view on the pacing of the game, which, originates from years of early access where the problem of smithing was not properly addressed.

Everything design-wise of this game screams of a stretched-out, slower paced gameplay.

The character has around 30~40 years of lifespan. The character has the ability to keep the legacy going through children. And the difficulty of managing the financials without abusing smithing warrants a step-by-step process of the character progressing through the world, expanding one's power, which is limited by the means to afford it, which also takes that much time. That's the pacing the devs have envisioned, I'd say.

The problem is, the existence of smithing and its regular abuse practically destroyed all of the intended game pacing above and seriously skewed the views of the players towards wanting stuff and expanding military power way too fast. Something that's in no way possibly "normal" has been "normalized" -- is what creates this problem.

Like someone said above, people began to treat all the middle-steps of character progression as "pointless" and "crappy." That's skewed view literally devalues the intended pacing of the progression in all of what the game offers.

Frankly speaking, what's there at the "end game"? There's nothing. The entire charm of the game is in the progression of the character, and people are asking to just cut out all the middle parts and let them access what should be given toward the end of the game just up front, from the beginning.

 

[Ichon]

The main issue with the cost of armour is that looting a couple of good armors in the early game gives an absolutely huge boost to player power.

I've looted armor worth over 200,000 a couple of times before my character was level 10 and even with the discount selling it with middle trade skill allows to ride around with a party full of the highest tier soldiers and replace them very easily.

Armor prices are too high while the service of good soldiers costs too little. Having to get mounts for soldiers was a good move TW did do increase the costs but because mounted cavalry are not the most efficient/best troops (as mentioned above Fians, Darkhans, etc) are the most cost effective by a wide margin- it makes troop collection trivial part of the game.

I know most people hate the time it takes to collect and train units but that is where influence and clan level should play a bigger role in attracting the highest tier troops- not just notables relationships which TW uses as a substitute.

For that having high priced equipment that gives bonus to influence/charm/clan is perfectly reasonable from a historical perspective as well. More than 50% of the income of medieval high status people went into their clothes to reflect their status. Eventually that also went into food, servants, education, etc but aside from the wealth of owning lands which produced said income, such clothes should require either a lot of money or influence to get or some roguery missions about robbing nobles if player absolutely wants the bonus in the early campaign.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

I really have to point out arguments like above, comes from a seriously skewed view on the pacing of the game, which, originates from years of early access where the problem of smithing was not properly addressed.

Everything design-wise of this game screams of a stretched-out, slower paced gameplay.

The character has around 30~40 years of lifespan. The character has the ability to keep the legacy going through children. And the difficulty of managing the financials without abusing smithing warrants a step-by-step process of the character progressing through the world, expanding one's power, which is limited by the means to afford it, which also takes that much time. That's the pacing the devs have envisioned, I'd say.

The problem is, the existence of smithing and its regular abuse practically destroyed all of the intended game pacing above and seriously skewed the views of the players towards wanting stuff and expanding military power way too fast. Something that's in no way possibly "normal" has been "normalized" -- is what creates this problem.

Like someone said above, people began to treat all the middle-steps of character progression as "pointless" and "crappy." That's skewed view literally devalues the intended pacing of the progression in all of what the game offers.

Frankly speaking, what's there at the "end game"? There's nothing. The entire charm of the game is in the progression of the character, and people are asking to just cut out all the middle parts and let them access what should be given toward the end of the game just up front, from the beginning.

It has nothing to do with smithing whatsoever. If you did focus on smithing there would be no reason why you should not be able to buy yourself some decent gear, if available.

The fact is. There is nothing worthwhile investing in, early game, other than an army(party) and the horses needed to move at the optimal speed. It has an infinitely higher return on investment than anything else you could possible invest in.

And so, there is no early game. And this is a shame. I think the game would have benefited from some other worthwhile goal to achieve prior to moving into midgame, other than simply moving into midgame being the goal of the early stage of the game.

 

[JunKeteer]

It has nothing to do with smithing whatsoever. If you did focus on smithing there would be no reason why you should not be able to buy yourself some decent gear, if available.

The fact is. There is nothing worthwhile investing in, early game, other than an army(party) and the horses needed to move at the optimal speed. It has an infinitely higher return on investment than anything else you could possible invest in.

And so, there is no early game. And this is a shame. I think the game would have benefited from some other worthwhile goal to achieve prior to moving into midgame, other than simply moving into midgame being the goal of the early stage of the game.

That's the main issue as @kweassa noted, the pacing is just all over the place with the game. IF it was designed to be dynastic and spanning multiple/couple generations, why can I achieve everything in the first ~20 years (clan T6, maxed armor for everyone, maxed workshops, maxed caravans, every castle/town is given to me, guaranteed to be next king).
Honestly, late-game should start only after the next generation at the very least, not within 10 years of your first character.

 

[SpartanBG]

That's the main issue as @kweassa noted, the pacing is just all over the place with the game. IF it was designed to be dynastic and spanning multiple/couple generations, why can I achieve everything in the first ~20 years (clan T6, maxed armor for everyone, maxed workshops, maxed caravans, every castle/town is given to me, guaranteed to be next king).
Honestly, late-game should start only after the next generation at the very least, not within 10 years of your first character.

I think a good idea to mark Mid and Late game is some in-game event that acts as the starter of those phases.
I'm currently 800 days left from finding the third part of the dragon banner and tier 4 clan and most i did is bandits and running around selling and helping villagers

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Everything design-wise of this game screams of a stretched-out, slower paced gameplay.

The character has around 30~40 years of lifespan. The character has the ability to keep the legacy going through children. And the difficulty of managing the financials without abusing smithing warrants a step-by-step process of the character progressing through the world, expanding one's power, which is limited by the means to afford it, which also takes that much time. That's the pacing the devs have envisioned, I'd say.

The problem with the generational mechanic is that even a novice can conquer the whole map long before they get to play as their children, and making money is completely trivial, i've never had to think about it, you can cover all costs by just fighting often enough, which is the whole point of the game.

The design of Bannerlord is basically just Warband with some gimmicks slapped on. I really doubt much thought was put in to a lot of them, because they're straight up broken or useless to the player most of the time. To be fair it was the same with Warband, there are some lategame mechanics that almost nobody knows about because they're so poorly implemented and don't match the pace of the rest of the game.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

That's the main issue as @kweassa noted, the pacing is just all over the place with the game. IF it was designed to be dynastic and spanning multiple/couple generations, why can I achieve everything in the first ~20 years (clan T6, maxed armor for everyone, maxed workshops, maxed caravans, every castle/town is given to me, guaranteed to be next king).
Honestly, late-game should start only after the next generation at the very least, not within 10 years of your first character.

No, the generation thing is for players who want to play in a specific way and, I assume, it involve speeding up time in some way.

There is no possible way that the game can be paced in such a way that 20 years, or even 10 years for that matter, would be anything other than an absolutely insane grind.

Leave generations in, but for the love of all things holy, dont balance around.

 

[JunKeteer]

No, the generation thing is for players who want to play in a specific way and, I assume, it involve speeding up time in some way.

There is no possible way that the game can be paced in such a way that 20 years, or even 10 years for that matter, would be anything other than an absolutely insane grind.

Leave generations in, but for the love of all things holy, dont balance around.

Yes, there are ways to make/extend the early and mid-game. They just didn't bother being creative or enough effort problem-solving around for it, or taking player feedback on some options.
Look, the generation-style playthrough is subjective (ie the no-death checkbox they added well after the EA release/back to WB style). But why did they bother wasting their resources in creating/advertising said system in the first place? Ie. AI kids/marriage (and all that related to this 'mechanic') would not be necessary, maintaining the longterm 'balance' not necessary (ie they themselves test the economy balancing based on 'years in game'), etc...other elements as related to this.

Otherwise, what are we balancing around then? Are we considering a ~40hr playthrough as the 'complete' game (ie get max armor and a couple towns)?

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Yes, there are ways to make/extend the early and mid-game. They just didn't bother being creative or enough effort problem-solving around for it, or taking player feedback on some options.
Look, the generation-style playthrough is subjective (ie the no-death checkbox they added well after the EA release/back to WB style). But why did they bother wasting their resources in creating/advertising said system in the first place? Ie. AI kids/marriage (and all that related to this 'mechanic') would not be necessary, maintaining the longterm 'balance' not necessary (ie they themselves test the economy balancing based on 'years in game'), etc...other elements as related to this.

Otherwise, what are we balancing around then? Are we considering a ~40hr playthrough as the 'complete' game (ie get max armor and a couple towns)?

Look, my last campaign I ended on day 290 after having conquered the 3 imperial factions and Battania. In my current campaign (ranged based, so faster) I am on day 98 and hold the entirety of Battania (thanks to the boundless generosity of Raganvad??).

In either case, you spend way way way too much time with pitched battles or sieges as it is. Extend the game at the front end, by making, something other than "build army and smash things as quickly as possibly" compelling.

That could have been more small scale action, spiced up with tournaments etc. If... it made the least bit of sense wasting effort on e.g. gearing and levelling you and you companions.

Make the game more interesting and diverse at the front end! Lategame is going to end up a grindy abomination no matter what you do about it.

 

[JunKeteer]

Make the game more interesting and diverse at the front end! Lategame is going to end up a grindy abomination no matter what you do about it.

100% with you on this part, I'm all for whatever can be done (won't at this release state) in order to extend that early/mid game phase. As it is, even for fairly novice players, that phase doesn't last long without intentionally handicapping yourself.
Make armor more challenging/rarer to get (ie simplest is cost factor), make higher tier troops take a bit more effort to level up (more exp or cost wage), party limit should be lower (vs that 50# bump in clan tier 1), etc...I mean, they already artificially inflated the cost to buy workshops (unintentional I'm betting) so it's not as easy to get, do that with other elements so it lines up.

I want to be stuck in that mercenary phase a bit longer so I already dumb down my playstyle/pace in order to make it as challenging/enjoyable as it can. Once I join a kingdom, I'm practically given castle after castle and it's not really rewarding. In kingdoms, almost all lords are vacuumed up in armies too so you're essentially compelled to field large parties in order to join in those large battles; there's a distinct lack of the smaller scale battles (ie ~200-400 range) that also slightly represent the 'mid-stage'.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

100% with you on this part, I'm all for whatever can be done (won't at this release state) in order to extend that early/mid game phase. As it is, even for fairly novice players, that phase doesn't last long without intentionally handicapping yourself.

Make armor more challenging/rarer to get (ie simplest is cost factor), make higher tier troops take a bit more effort to level up (more exp or cost wage), party limit should be lower (vs that 50# bump in clan tier 1), etc...I mean, they already artificially inflated the cost to buy workshops (unintentional I'm betting) so it's not as easy to get, do that with other elements so it lines up.

Well, this is probably the very last thing I want.

As I say, what I thing will benefit the game is a reasonable decent alternative to "build an army asap", not "build an army asap, but slower".

I want to be stuck in that mercenary phase a bit longer so I already dumb down my playstyle/pace in order to make it as challenging/enjoyable as it can. Once I join a kingdom, I'm practically given castle after castle and it's not really rewarding. In kingdoms, almost all lords are vacuumed up in armies too so you're essentially compelled to field large parties in order to join in those large battles; there's a distinct lack of the smaller scale battles (ie ~200-400 range) that also slightly represent the 'mid-stage'.

When I say small scale action I actually mean bandits and the like, I fight more than enough battles in the 100-500 range during the farming phase (your mech phase).

 

[JunKeteer]

Well, this is probably the very last thing I want.

As I say, what I thing will benefit the game is a reasonable decent alternative to "build an army asap", not "build an army asap, but slower".

Which is the 'etc...' portion, unrelated to the higher tier armor tangent. There's a ton of opportunities/avenues besides just the building army/stronger character aspect - whether that's better tournaments, more varied bandits, challenging quests, remove party# requirement for quests, and so on.

When I say small scale action I actually mean bandits and the like, I fight more than enough battles in the 100-500 range during the farming phase (your mech phase).

The small scale bandit fights are there already (if you mean in the ~20 or less battles), bandit hideouts offer some challenge the first one or two go arounds; though maybe a more varied mix of bandits would be nice. Tournaments, I honestly don't think they can ever make it challenging (the practice training is harder than tournaments imo).

End of the day, selling point of the game are the battles, all else is the 'build-up' to said battles (large or small). As it is, the 'build-up' is seriously lacking any impact which is why the battles all feel very grindy.