is it fixed yet?

Users who are viewing this thread

DLW khan

Regular
does the armour make any differnece yet?
do looter still 1 shot you?
do huge battles still only last 5 mins max?


can be bothered to download to find out..... could someone be kind enough to let me know?

thanks,
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
-Nope
-Yep, but not so exaggerated like back then
-And less than 5
-As long as you complement it with the Realistic Battle Mod.

Taleworlds needs to tidy up priorities; the issue that triggers the weapon damage vs armour protection relation should be in their top 5 of urgent TODO things.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
does the armour make any differnece yet?
Heavy armor makes looter stones do 7 damage instead of 10. The only time it feels useful is it you're at near max distance and low tier ranged shoots you in the tum tum, but if you get hit in head or you happen to be moving the wrong direction GOTCHA MF'r take 300%^10X****You damage, might as well give that armor back to your husband, you gonna die!

Some insightful person on reddit pointed out how stupid we all are complaining that "armor doesn't do nothing" because as they pointed out, it shows you on the damage feed how much damage it reduces, so it's obviously doing something. SO just want to make it crystal clear, when people say "armor don't do nuthin" they mean it doesn't reduce damage enough to be useful, doesn't make combat last longer, it's disappointing, warband armor was better, it's sucky and we want it changed by TW. We don't mean it literally does nothing, just that it sucks and we want it changed.

Oh oh oh I almost forgot, armor also make you run slower, it does that too.
 

guiskj

Squire
...

Taleworlds needs to tidy up priorities; the issue that triggers the weapon damage vs armour protection relation should be in their top 5 of urgent TODO things.
I respectfully disagree. As annoying as it may be that this unbalance continues to be the case, I rather TW spend their time with new things or broken things. I am quite satisfied to wait for balance changes once we are closer to release.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
it's sucky and we want it changed by TW.

I quite like the armour how it is. I certainly don't want to lose the fear of being hit, even by looters. Although most of the time I feel like a tank in it around them. I only get taken down by looters when I'm doing stupid Rambo stuff.

Looters should be able to gang bash the best armed mounted warrior, if they isolate or catch them.

I'm sure a looter with a falchion could break a few fingers or legs or arms if there's 5 others holding the lord still. Lords aren't supermen. We don't in game have the ability to replicate the lack of mobility a crush injury will cause. A limp, knocked to the ground and crawling, being unable to grip your sword or shield etc. An injury that takes half your health should also render you barely mobile, and less able to defend yourself from swarming looters. Until this can be replicated, I feel like we have a good balance - with looters able to take us down if we do stupid things.

But I'm with guiskj. There are bigger fish to fry.

Although battles do still only last 5 minutes. But I prefer them that way. I'm only here because the game is exciting and I have a short attention span. And there are sooooo many battles that all function exactly the same. If we slowed them down I'd never get past day 50.
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Knight at Arms
I respectfully disagree. As annoying as it may be that this unbalance continues to be the case, I rather TW spend their time with new things or broken things. I am quite satisfied to wait for balance changes once we are closer to release.
Armour is broken
It isn't worth buying squillion dollar armor because it barely changes your level of hits to kill at all
Because it's so weak battles end in like 3 minutes on average, the first line of troops dies or breaks in less than a minute of fighting
Because it provides such poor protection against ranged attacks that makes ranged cavalry and ranged infantry overpowered compared to melee cav and inf, completely destroying troop type balance
These two things combined strip almost all tactical value out of the game, boiling all tactics down to "sit token force of infantry in front of body of archers on hill" or "just watch Khan's Guards kill every other unit in the game effortlessly"
It's blatantly unrealistic and immersion-destroying
It's not satisfying to see your elite cataphracts you ground your way up for die to a ****ty low tier unit using rocks and farming tools
It's not satisfying that enemy lords or elite troops who are supposed to be a threat to the player, die in a single mounted swing
It means that players cannot spend much time participating in the FUNDAMENTAL CORE OF THE GAME - mounted combat - in any medium or large field battle or siege, because just a few stray ranged attacks are enough to kill you

The fact it doesn't work as intended, the vast list of problems that armour's weakness causes for itself as a feature, and gameplay in general, means that "broken" is entirely appropriate, because until it is fixed, we can't give accurate feedback on the wide variety of gameplay mechanics that it has an effect on.
I quite like the armour how it is. I certainly don't want to lose the fear of being hit, even by looters.
Then go fight more challenging targets instead of the lowest tier enemies in the game.
Looters should be able to gang bash the best armed mounted warrior, if they isolate or catch them.
Provide a reason for this because there is no realistic reason here.
I'm sure a looter with a falchion could break a few fingers or legs or arms if there's 5 others holding the lord still.
They aren't holding the lord still, not that an untrained unarmoured looter would ever manage to hold someone swinging a sword still in real life anyway without getting their entrails spilled all over the floor, so that's irrelevant
Lords aren't supermen
Richard the Lionheart and also multiple Byzantine monarchs spent their lives in the thick of combat, and the reason they could do this despite being a high value target was their high quality armor
We don't in game have the ability to replicate the lack of mobility a crush injury will cause. A limp, knocked to the ground and crawling, being unable to grip your sword or shield etc. An injury that takes half your health should also render you barely mobile, and less able to defend yourself from swarming looters. Until this can be replicated, I feel like we have a good balance - with looters able to take us down if we do stupid things.
That debatable perception of realism is irrelevant in relation to the massive list of gameplay problems that weak armor causes (see top of this post)
 

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
The fact it doesn't work as intended, the vast list of problems that armour's weakness causes for itself as a feature, and gameplay in general, means that "broken" is entirely appropriate, because until it is fixed, we can't give accurate feedback on the wide variety of gameplay mechanics that it has an effect on.

Then go fight more challenging targets instead of the lowest tier enemies in the game.

Provide a reason for this because there is no realistic reason here.

They aren't holding the lord still, not that an untrained unarmoured looter would ever manage to hold someone swinging a sword still in real life anyway without getting their entrails spilled all over the floor, so that's irrelevant

Richard the Lionheart and also multiple Byzantine monarchs spent their lives in the thick of combat, and the reason they could do this despite being a high value target was their high quality armor

That debatable perception of realism is irrelevant in relation to the massive list of gameplay problems that weak armor causes (see top of this post)

Provide a reason: Opinion.

I can see you want more armour. You're welcome to feel that way. Make a suggestion in the appropriate forum?
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
Inappropriate content
Looters should be able to gang bash the best armed mounted warrior, if they isolate or catch them.
No because they're looters, they're not warriors, they **** around and find out, just like looters IRL!

Edit: Removed image containing an inappropriate content
 
Last edited by a moderator:

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Provide a reason: Opinion.

I can see you want more armour. You're welcome to feel that way. Make a suggestion in the appropriate forum?
Opinion vs. the opinion of nearly everyone else + what is realistic + good game design.

And your opinion is based on flawed reasoning anyway, no offense. You say that armour should be kept weak so that even the weakest enemies in the game pose a challenge to a player wearing good armour.

But the thing about that is: you could still achieve that in a game where armour worked correctly, by simply not wearing armour, or sticking to mid tier armour. You have options without even needing to mod the game, unlike everyone else.
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
I respectfully disagree. As annoying as it may be that this unbalance continues to be the case, I rather TW spend their time with new things or broken things. I am quite satisfied to wait for balance changes once we are closer to release.
As Fivebucks rightly says that in my eyes is a flaw that has been broken since the release and let me underline the importance of consolidating the foundation of combat system (animations + combat AI such as formation logics, strategies, etc + aspect ratio balance between weapon damage/armour protection). That balance you are talking about in direct comparison with Warband, is an inferior product in my eyes and should be corrected asap (>1.5 years of EA...and still not fixed ).... and I'm not saying has to be better (note my scepticism) just at least level it up like Warband did for me...

I know that many think that other issues such as diplomacy, skills, etc. are of greater urgency and I do not really reject their importance. However what has characterised M&B is its combat system, unique to both the SP and MP niche. That this is still a thing that is beyond my understanding, I can't understand it... years of development + >1 year of closed/open alpha-beta feedback + >1.5 years of EA. I respectfully add that not even in the top 5 but in the top 3 should be the combat system in all its expression and extension... but that's my opinion, I can't change Taleworlds mind/vision and spin faster the wheel.
 

lukkyb

Sergeant
on the point of getting ganged up on by looters IRL this is how they beat a heavy armoured tagret like a knight the example being againcourt where a longbowmen and like 7 of his mates would all at the same time (not one by one) tackle a kight to the ground and stab him in the weak points
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
bold of you to assume they have such things.
True, my good sir, I exceeded in my boldness :lol: .
giphy.gif
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
on the point of getting ganged up on by looters IRL this is how they beat a heavy armoured tagret like a knight the example being againcourt where a longbowmen and like 7 of his mates would all at the same time (not one by one) tackle a kight to the ground and stab him in the weak points
The important thing to note about Agincourt is that the knights had just had their horses shot down and then had to run for a kilometre in sticky mud, into an English position that was fortified with stakes. Not normal conditions, and not representative of a normal fight.
And in addition, the English troops were mostly trained combatants wearing some kind of armour and using military-grade weapons, unlike untrained, unarmoured looters.

Finally, a lesson for Antaeus to learn about that battle is that the French knights managed to reach the English lines to fight in melee, after running for a kilometre under heavy arrow fire from some of the best longbowmen in Europe, because their armour was effective.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
Opinion vs. the opinion of nearly everyone else + what is realistic + good game design.

And your opinion is based on flawed reasoning anyway, no offense. You say that armour should be kept weak so that even the weakest enemies in the game pose a challenge to a player wearing good armour.

But the thing about that is: you could still achieve that in a game where armour worked correctly, by simply not wearing armour, or sticking to mid tier armour. You have options without even needing to mod the game, unlike everyone else.

Ahhh the old Argumentum ad populum
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
Here´s a leaked picture of their list:

608jto.jpg
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?forums/singleplayer.658/&prefix_id[0]=61 would be more accurate

and https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?forums/bug-crash-reports.784/&prefix_id[0]=61

not forgetting mulyiplayer https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?forums/multiplayer.659/&prefix_id[0]=61

47 + 5 + 9 = 61 pages of in-progress issues (approx. 20 issues per page so slightly below 1,220 issues in progress).

plus outstanding promises from announced future plans.
 
Last edited:

Hans 77

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
Taleworlds needs to tidy up priorities; the issue that triggers the weapon damage vs armour protection relation should be in their top 5 of urgent TODO things.

+1

Emphasis on priority.

Game is boring if the combat doesn't even work right.
 
Top Bottom