How is everyone's morale these days?

[Akka]

I can't see how is this less generic than the usual stonewalling: "we have read your unwelcome rants, but we won't say anything specific and if you are smart, you won't wait for something to happen, because this is not a commitment to do anything". It's just a nice way of saying nothing.
They also inserted anti-Semitic subliminal messaging for ****s and giggles, which definitely shows they are trolling.

Well, it spells out their stance on the subject ("we know about the issue, but we haven't made up our mind about it yet"). I agree it's pretty baffling that they still haven't fixed it (the formula used is really pointlessly complex for a subpar result, it took me maybe ten minutes to decide about, and thirty minutes to implement, one which is not perfect but definitely much better), but at least we know it's not a final design and that's the important part.

 

[MostBlunted]

I agree it's pretty baffling that they still haven't fixed it

You´re already one step ahead, they didn´t say they´ll "fix" it but they will think about fixing it....

 

[Akka]

You´re already one step ahead, they didn´t say they´ll "fix" it but they will think about fixing it....

I know, I didn't mean I expect them to fix it, that's my personal opinion (the math is so weird, wrong and the results so absurd it SHOULD be fixed, but that doesn't mean it WILL, because TW might have a different take on it).

Again, I'm satisfied that I got an answer on the current status of the situation, even if I'm liable to disagree with the as-yet final outcome.

 

[Mad Vader]

Again, I'm satisfied that I got an answer on the current status of the situation, even if I'm liable to disagree with the as-yet final outcome.

I'd bet they won't change anything significant. They are simply not interested in redoing the armor formulas and don't see it as a problem. Doing nothing will be entirely consistent with Dejan's statements, which is my interpretation.

 

[MostBlunted]

I'd bet they won't change anything significant. They are simply not interested in redoing the armor formulas and don't see it as a problem. Doing nothing will be entirely consistent with Dejan's statements, which is my interpretation.

Mine too.

Like most of the times, we´ll never hear anything about it again, same about a lot of other topics too. ("I´ll forward this and that to devs and you´ll never hear about this ever again")

But in this case there is at least a very good mod which fixes the broken vanilla system.

 

[five bucks]

Well, it spells out their stance on the subject ("we know about the issue, but we haven't made up our mind about it yet"). I agree it's pretty baffling that they still haven't fixed it (the formula used is really pointlessly complex for a subpar result, it took me maybe ten minutes to decide about, and thirty minutes to implement, one which is not perfect but definitely much better), but at least we know it's not a final design and that's the important part.

Yeah, I don't think it needs to be super complicated. The thread "armour doesn't work and how to make it work" has been out for ages now, and TW is legally in the clear to just take that idea the guy is offering freely and implement it into the game.

Warband got it right, other than some attacks doing 0 damage (I'm of the opinion it should always be at least 1 damage no matter what). It's confusing how it could be so hard to replicate that.

 

[Honved]

Warband got it right, other than some attacks doing 0 damage (I'm of the opinion it should always be at least 1 damage no matter what). It's confusing how it could be so hard to replicate that.

I see no problem with some attacks doing 0 damage, particularly with weak hits against strong armor. It takes a certain amount of force to do damage or even be felt through the armor, regardless of whether it's cutting, piercing, or blunt force. On the other hand, I sort-of agree with you that any hit that would normally do at least 10 damage should still do 1 point, regardless of the armor value. Consider it like being body-slammed: it doesn't necessarily injure any particular spot, but still shakes you up a bit from the overall force. Having swords or spears bounce off without even shaking up the target seems as extreme and unrealistic as having thrown stones kill through heavy armor. Some happy medium needs to be found, where heavier armor is highly protective against most weak hits, but weak weapons don't become entirely pointless.

A possibility would be to have armor outright block any hit up to 25% of its rated value, then reduce anything beyond that amount up to its full rating by a percentage equal to the armor value. Any damage remaining above the armor value would pass through to the wearer. Extremely weak hits would simply bounce off, powerful hits would penetrate the armor and still do most of their rated damage, and medium-strength hits would be substantially reduced. Only the weakest weapons in the hands of an unskilled fighter would be unable to damage a wearer of heavy armor, but the damage those weapons would inflict would still be minimal. Most weapons would still be quite usable against even the heaviest armor, but it would take significantly more hits with some than with others.

While I think that Blunt and Piercing weapons should be preferable against heavy armor, they shouldn't be overwhelmingly more effective. Their lower base damage values compensate for this already to some degree. Whether that's enough is debatable, if it makes swords uncompetitive.

 

[Ningauble]

Gaming Dark Age weapons vs armour :

Swords - quickest to strike, block. Cuts best damage against unarmoured ( re clothing ) and light - armoured ( leather light armour can be graded relatively ) opponents ; drawing blade cutting edge just skates across mail itself, but as this is not Hellish Quart style we can allow some " general " damage simulated against various weak points, necks, axillae, groins, wrists, etc. Sword thrust ( piercing ) more effective damage against mail.
No two handed swords in this era.

Axes - good damage ( piercing ) against mail ( and break shields ....... ). One handed axes quick to strike, block. Dane axes biggest damage, slower to hit and block.

Spears, lances, Eastern pole arms - long reach, best simulated as thrust only ( certainly no swing mounted, at least ), for piercing damage ( less values than axes hitting through mail ). Quicker strike and block than Dane axes. Lances obviously great damage with a charging hit, but high chance ( arbitrarily, 50 % ? ) to break / be lost out of grip, each charge impact. Likewise, great damage with a braced spear impact against a charged - in horse or rider.

" Maces " - various blunt weapons. One handed, two handed ( eg lutat ). Slower than axe counterparts. " Blunt " damage is a bit of a conundrum but the model is that even against mail concussion, fractures, winding, etc, are effective, but not quite as effective as axes " piercing ". Give a generous " knockdown of foe " animation chance ; you can follow up with good hits on them while they are down, rising .........

Thrown rocks ineffective against mail. Slings, better blunt damage.

Arrows and crossbow bolts - generally, piercing damage, but with some arrowhead choice nuances. The military value of crossbows was probably more to do with less skill / training required to be effective missile troops en masse rather than some mechanical advantage over good bows - long bows, composite bows - in skilled hands. In this game era, early crossbows were not powerful cf their subsequent late Medieval through Renaissance " cranked " apotheosis ( and even then, look at Crecy ........ ). What is currently going on in BL sounds about right with bows producing better results from mid - game on, and higher rate of shooting of course. Personal use of crossbows should give an experience of good aim / accuracy and of course being able to store a loaded bolt for a quick shot, but then a slower and vulnerable reload cf a bow ......

In terms of morale, re " Make BL Great For The First Time ", I think mods will be the answer ( 2023 ) .........

 

[five bucks]

Swords - quickest to strike, block. Cuts best damage against unarmoured ( re clothing ) and light - armoured ( leather light armour can be graded relatively ) opponents ; drawing blade edge ineffective against mail itself, but as this is not Hellish Quart style we can allow some " general " damage simulated against various weak points, necks, axillae, groins, wrists, etc.

Being that a sword is a solid chunk of metal, a good strong hit would also transfer some blunt force through the mail, too. Padded mail would lessen the force of the blow but it could be enough to break a bone.

Axes - good damage ( piercing )

Would it be pierce type, though? Axes aren't pointy. Seems to me more like a mix of cutting and blunt damage, with more blunt force than a sword.

" Maces " - various blunt weapons. One handed, two handed ( eg lutat ). Slower than axe counterparts. " Blunt " damage is a bit of a conundrum but the model is that even against mail concussion, fractures, winding, etc, are effective, but say not quite as effective as axes " piercing "

Maces should do more damage against opponents wearing lamellar/mail than axes do.

 

[Ningauble]

Being that a sword is a solid chunk of metal, a good strong hit would also transfer some blunt force through the mail, too. Padded mail would lessen the force of the blow but it could be enough to break a bone.

Would it be pierce type, though? Axes aren't pointy. Seems to me more like a mix of cutting and blunt damage, with more blunt force than a sword.

Maces should do more damage against opponents wearing lamellar/mail than axes do.

Swords draw the cutting edge, it is not a " hit " ( or a " whack " ), like with an axe.

Of course, there is the great historical art of swordsmanship and cut and thrust blade - work, from tachis and katanas through shamshirs, sabres, broadswords and claymores, to zweihanders, to small swords, and duelling and fencing sport styles ........

Axes have a chisel - like heavy blade transferring energy through the narrow edge to break through and " bite ", hence splitting wood ( shields ) and mail. You " plant " the axe head in the target.

Sure, some of my interpretations are schematic, re game mechanics eg to enjoy differences between weapons.

Anyone interested and thoughtful re military history and martial arts can muse on such facets of game system logic over a scant few minutes ....... why are Taleworlds professionals so evidently challenged ?

And, of course, why are they still struggling so to land their whole BL game ? The million dollar question ..........

 

[five bucks]

Swords draw the cutting edge, it is not a " whack ", like with an axe

Axes have a chisel - like heavy blade transferring energy through the narrow edge to break through, hence splitting wood ( and mail ).

Nobody uses a sword like a kitchen knife to draw and slice though, they use it to hack away at the enemy.

Both a 1H sword and a 1H axe are a whack. You swing them in the same way, they are both metal edged blades which impart force over a dispersed area. Axes aren't a 2cm blade like a chisel, they're closer to 10cm wide most of the time.

Most of the words you are using, such as "whack," "heavy", "split" and "transferring energy" seem to me to imply blunt damage rather than pierce damage. Pierce damage is more for a narrow point - like a military pick, a spearhead, or an arrowhead - that can slip through or push aside the links of mail or lamellar, without needing to break them.

To abstract things, swords are, say, 75% cutting 25% blunt, while axes are 50% cutting 50% blunt, maces are 100% blunt, and arrows are 75% pierce and 25% blunt.

Anyone interested and thoughtful re military history and martial arts can muse on such facets of game system logic over a scant few minutes ....... why are Taleworlds professionals so evidently challenged ?

It is indeed strange why it's taken 2 years of early access (not to mention the 9 years of development) to work out how to get armour and weapon damage working in a sensible way. Warband mostly got it right well over a decade ago.

 

[Horked]

 

[Akka]

It is indeed strange why it's taken 2 years of early access (not to mention the 9 years of development) to work out how to get armour and weapon damage working in a sensible way. Warband mostly got it right well over a decade ago.

Well, they even haven't actually, it's still in the air.

In fact, and that's what I really don't get, nearly everything that is annoying in the game and that hasn't been fixed yet is due to actually very quickly and easily fixed adjustment issues. I'm actually having FUN playing the game, and I just had to build a few mod for altering a handful of points (xp gains, damage formula, leadership/roguery helping with training troops). It was literally a few hours of work (and I had to learn how to mod the game and spend time to understand how the classes are organized).

I don't claim it fixes the entire game (there is still a lot of deeper design problems) and it's obviously tailored to my tastes so not up to everyone's, but it still is a trivial amount of work for a single out-of-the-company person, so I don't get how comes it hasn't yet been adjusted. I'm still, two years later, in the deepest confusion about what is happening.
I'm not even talking about making the final balance decision in one day. I'm just saying that in one day, it's possible to quickfix the game to make it tremendously more fun, even if it's not the final state. Just a bandaid that could be done during an noon lunch, while other more difficult matters are busying the dev, but which would in the end massively improve the overall experience.

As a striking example : something like the extremely annoying and unpopular main quest (when you get spammed by "conspiracy quests" all over the map) are just two variables away (increase the "ConspiracyStrengthDecreaseAmount" to maybe 100 or 200 rather than 30, and pass "10f" instead of "3f" in CampaignTime.WeeksFromNow(3f) when creating the quest) from being engaging rather than infuriating. It's literally a 30 seconds change to make the campaign go from "reviled" to "accepted". It's like the golden mine of effort to effect ratio.
WHY hasn't it been done yet ? WHY ?

@Dejan, I know you probably already regret saying you would answer questions, but how about this one ?

 

[Meshkinas]

Just waiting for release, still keeping hope (probably delusional at this point), that somehow this game will become good by the time it releases.

 

[Ogagon]

A wise man once said(it was in someone's signature):
"The beating shall continue until morale improves".
Man, I haven't played for half a year or longer, just gonna wait this one out until it's truly finished. Don't even feel excited about playing the game right now.
Just need time, and patches to bring myself back to playing the game.

I did enjoy some Perisno last week, though.

 

[TheJumboman]

In fact, and that's what I really don't get, nearly everything that is annoying in the game and that hasn't been fixed yet is due to actually very quickly and easily fixed adjustment issues. [...] WHY hasn't it been done yet ? WHY ?

This is such a great summary of how I feel. Entire mechanics are just *right there*, waiting to become fun. The whole smithing system is there, but it's basically disabled by no more than 5 variables. in 2 minutes you could increase stamina, stamina regen, xp gain and parts discovery, and tadaa! you would have a fun game mechanic. Horse riding is so good in this game, but it's disabled by the fact that the riding skill doesn't increase. Robbing caravans is disabled by their movement speed, workshops and caravans are disabled by their low profits, companions are disabled by their ****ty stats, everything is disabled by 1 to 5 numbers that could be changed in one minute. even battles would be so much better if they simply changed the distance that troops have to keep to each other. It's baffling that they would do 98% of the work and then flat out REFUSE to do the last 2% for 2 years.

 

[Honved]

Nobody uses a sword like a kitchen knife to draw and slice though, they use it to hack away at the enemy.

There are different types of swords. Some, such as sabers and cutlasses, are designed for slicing and slashing (purely cut damage). Others are designed mainly tor hacking and whacking (blunt). Still others are primarily for stabbing (piercing). They affect, and are affected by, armor in different ways. A one-attack-fits-all solution for swords isn't realistic, and most swords are able to do more than one of those types of attack.

That was one of the features I liked about the old game "Morrowind": it allowed different types of attack with most weapons (slash, chop, stab), each attack with its own damage formula. Sadly, it didn't distinguish between slicing, blunt trauma, and piercing damage against armor, just giving different raw damage numbers, as well as differences between rapid strikes for minimum damage versus full swings for maximum damage. There's a lot more that could have been done, but wasn't, such as different speeds for different attacks, and other variables.

 

[vito397]

Well, they even haven't actually, it's still in the air.

In fact, and that's what I really don't get, nearly everything that is annoying in the game and that hasn't been fixed yet is due to actually very quickly and easily fixed adjustment issues. I'm actually having FUN playing the game, and I just had to build a few mod for altering a handful of points (xp gains, damage formula, leadership/roguery helping with training troops). It was literally a few hours of work (and I had to learn how to mod the game and spend time to understand how the classes are organized).

I don't claim it fixes the entire game (there is still a lot of deeper design problems) and it's obviously tailored to my tastes so not up to everyone's, but it still is a trivial amount of work for a single out-of-the-company person, so I don't get how comes it hasn't yet been adjusted. I'm still, two years later, in the deepest confusion about what is happening.
I'm not even talking about making the final balance decision in one day. I'm just saying that in one day, it's possible to quickfix the game to make it tremendously more fun, even if it's not the final state. Just a bandaid that could be done during an noon lunch, while other more difficult matters are busying the dev, but which would in the end massively improve the overall experience.

As a striking example : something like the extremely annoying and unpopular main quest (when you get spammed by "conspiracy quests" all over the map) are just two variables away (increase the "ConspiracyStrengthDecreaseAmount" to maybe 100 or 200 rather than 30, and pass "10f" instead of "3f" in CampaignTime.WeeksFromNow(3f) when creating the quest) from being engaging rather than infuriating. It's literally a 30 seconds change to make the campaign go from "reviled" to "accepted". It's like the golden mine of effort to effect ratio.
WHY hasn't it been done yet ? WHY ?

@Dejan, I know you probably already regret saying you would answer questions, but how about this one ?

This is very true. The entire game feels like the proto-concepts were implemented in like 2017 and then sat on for 3 years, before being hastily "polished" for release in like two weeks. I suspect the main cause of the problem you're pointing out is that there is some aversion to revisiting already "decided upon" code simply because the endless bureaucracy TW is by now infamous for. Another reason is maybe complete lack of communication either in the vertical (from the decision-makers to the programmers) or horizontal sense (between different departments). I mean, they haven't even properly distributed various added armours (like crowns, helmets etc.) among the units.

To put it into perspective, the classic MB was released in 2008. Warband was released in 2010/11. In those two years, the whole map was redesigned, and entirely new faction added, plenty of previously unseen content added (Kingdom creation, hideouts, new quests, marriage, etc.). The next big feature intake was in 2015 through the reforged edition of VC. So, from the start of the WB engine, thats 5 years. Religions, monasteries, naval warfare/trade/travel, pets, building settlements, hunting, new siege mechanics, companions turning into their own adventurers, ambush mechanics, diplomacy options, dueling, courting, spreading rumors/scheming/etc. But in these 2 years of EA, or 10 years of development, WHILE HAVING THEIR OWN EXAMPLE, Bannerlord has not managed to fix it's basic fundamental problems, let alone tried to achieve features of the previous titles.

So there is something rotten in TW, definitely rotten.

 

[Nalgasucia507]

This is very true. The entire game feels like the proto-concepts were implemented in like 2017 and then sat on for 3 years, before being hastily "polished" for release in like two weeks. I suspect the main cause of the problem you're pointing out is that there is some aversion to revisiting already "decided upon" code simply because the endless bureaucracy TW is by now infamous for. Another reason is maybe complete lack of communication either in the vertical (from the decision-makers to the programmers) or horizontal sense (between different departments). I mean, they haven't even properly distributed various added armours (like crowns, helmets etc.) among the units.

To put it into perspective, the classic MB was released in 2008. Warband was released in 2010/11. In those two years, the whole map was redesigned, and entirely new faction added, plenty of previously unseen content added (Kingdom creation, hideouts, new quests, marriage, etc.). The next big feature intake was in 2015 through the reforged edition of VC. So, from the start of the WB engine, thats 5 years. Religions, monasteries, naval warfare/trade/travel, pets, building settlements, hunting, new siege mechanics, companions turning into their own adventurers, ambush mechanics, diplomacy options, dueling, courting, spreading rumors/scheming/etc. But in these 2 years of EA, or 10 years of development, WHILE HAVING THEIR OWN EXAMPLE, Bannerlord has not managed to fix it's basic fundamental problems, let alone tried to achieve features of the previous titles.

So there is something rotten in TW, definitely rotten.

+1

 

[five bucks]

There are different types of swords. Some, such as sabers and cutlasses, are designed for slicing and slashing (purely cut damage). Others are designed mainly tor hacking and whacking (blunt).

Cutlasses evolved from the machete and falchion. Their name actually comes from the French word for "machete". They were heavy weapons, with a single edge, and could even be used for hacking through thick naval ropes and wood when necessary.

As for sabres. Let's look at The Duellists, which is considered a reasonably realistic depiction of dueling techniques. Skip to 2:00:

and

Here they use their sabres in a hacking motion with weight behind it.

I would agree that some historical swords, such as the cut-and-thrust swords and spadroons of the 17th-19th century, were lighter with long, thin blades and only capable of "slices" with comparatively little force put into the blow, but the swords in Bannerlord are almost all far heavier than that.

So if we mean "slice" in the sense of "slashing attack with no transference of blunt force behind it" then that barely applies to any swords from the 600-1100 time period. Just daggers and knives, which I agree should have no blunt damage on their swing, and maybe some very short spatha-like swords that were optimised for stabbing and would lack weight also.

Still others are primarily for stabbing (piercing). They affect, and are affected by, armor in different ways. A one-attack-fits-all solution for swords isn't realistic, and most swords are able to do more than one of those types of attack.

Yes, of course most swords should have pierce damage type stab attacks also, I don't disagree but simply forgot to mention it.

That was one of the features I liked about the old game "Morrowind": it allowed different types of attack with most weapons (slash, chop, stab), each attack with its own damage formula. Sadly, it didn't distinguish between slicing, blunt trauma, and piercing damage against armor, just giving different raw damage numbers, as well as differences between rapid strikes for minimum damage versus full swings for maximum damage. There's a lot more that could have been done, but wasn't, such as different speeds for different attacks, and other variables.

They then improved on Morrowind in Skyrim by making it so every melee weapon is a foam sword with no weight behind it or attack options, and spears are gone isn't it nice when game series move forwards?