actual 10/10 right there
Edit: Removed image from quoted post that contains an inappropriate content
由板主最后编辑:
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
is it fixed yet?
- 主题发起人 DLW khan
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Edit: Removed image from quoted post that contains an inappropriate content
Yeah, the damage/combat calculations have to be adjusted; armor really doesn't do anything in comparison to the exponential costs attributed. Maybe it might let you survive one more hit but there should be a point where certain weapons should do next to no damage against certain armors. Ie. 2 looters with sickles shouldn't be able to kill a plated knight so easily; maybe if there's a swarm of them and he dies from a thousand cuts sort of deal.
Kenshi had a pretty interesting system with how they treated the damages/calculations against armor if any of you are familiar with it; understand the core gameplay is quite different but I would assume something similar could be done?
Kenshi had a pretty interesting system with how they treated the damages/calculations against armor if any of you are familiar with it; understand the core gameplay is quite different but I would assume something similar could be done?
Something similar can be done, it's called 'apply successful Warband procedures to Bannerlord'.
EDIT: This is only in theory, as I haven't actually seen Taleworlds transfer anything successful/fun/exciting from Warband (i.e. proper armor function, damage calc, consistent chambering, battle mode, equipment customization, belligerent drunk/assassin encounters, village management, memorable companions with unique personalities and traits) over to Bannerlord.
最后编辑:
five bucks
Knight at Arms
When personal preference is the question (considering that's your whole argument), the most popular option is indeed the best one. Plus, popularity wasn't my only argument, I used game design and realism too.
最后编辑:
Antaeus
Squire
I chose to ignore the other parts mainly because they didn't fit in with my quip, and because unlike the "all my friends agree with me" argument, realism and good game design are entirely subjective, so I considered them subservient to the popularity argument.
Either way.. I get you. I understand your perspective. It is entirely valid. I don't agree with it, but you have justification for holding it.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Realism isn't entirely subjective. We have plenty of modern and historical evidence showing us how effective armour was.
Easy.
Antaeus
Squire
But your only examples were that Richard the Lionheart survived a whole lot of battles because his armour was good, when it was also because he had veteran retainers and training and experience and all that other stuff, but he still got one-hit in the face by a chef and died shortly after. And that French knights made it to melee at Agincourt, which is an irrelevant comparison because we don't have a late medieval setting with plate. We have an early to mid medieval setting with mail and lamellar. Both of which can be pierced by arrows and crossbows under the right circumstances. Neither of which would protect the wearer from a dozen looters boots if the super-lord was pulled form their horse and stomped - which is what would happen in realism world. But because our looters are stupid and can't puzzle out how to get a noble off horse, I'm happy with mega-stones being the trade-off.
Although to be fair to you... our crossbows and war bows are probably too advanced for the game's setting, and if we did start getting plate 200 years into the future in Warband land... I'll back you all the way on nobles turning into seriously scary looter scything machines.
But we've had this debate on this forum over and over, which is why I was resorting to quips and ultimately an agree-to-disagree approach.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
I didn't post all the evidence because it's been posted many times before including threads you were in, but here you go:
Mail: Unchained
A resource for historic arms and armor collectors with photo galleries, reviews, reference materials, discussion forums, a bookstore and a comparison tool.
myarmoury.com
(the second part of the video shows lamellar).
Yes they can be pierced in the right circumstances, no they do not provide protection anywhere near as weak as how they are portrayed in Bannerlord.
In realism world a small crowd of poo eating beggars, without pikes, actually getting an elite fighter in elite gear on an armoured horse (charging at 40km/h) to the ground, without getting impaled, trampled or having their outreaching arms cut open by a sword is highly unlikely.
You are proposing that because an aspect of the game is potentially mildly unrealistic, that is the reason to justify another aspect of the game being made definitely seriously unrealistic. Where's the logic in that?
I will gladly agree with you that you personally like armour being unrealistic and underpowered. But you keep coming to every Bannerlord thread about armour and saying other arguments/reasons too that are either wrong, self contradictory, or irrelevant compared to the many problems armour being so bad causes! That's why I keep replying, because you keep interjecting this other bad information into the discussions.
Like I've already said that if they fix armour you can just wear light armour to get the same effect as now if you like the feeling of dying easily.
最后编辑:
To be fair, the same exact thing would happen in Warband (granted you were playing on the appropriate difficulty settings). If you found yourself surrounded by enemies -even if they were low-tier scrubs, there was the potential for them to quickly gank you. The only difference was Warband's game mechanics actually worked and gave you the chance to be successful in combat -provided you weren't stupid and were skilled enough to survive. You didn't have to worry about a T1 Swadian Recruit blasting you for 60% of your health because one of his haphazard swings hit you in the elbow in melee. Or three looters standing 20m away lasering rocks at you with pinpoint accuracy, taking you to 1/4 health in a matter of seconds.
In Bannerlord, no matter how skilled or careful you are, you get absolutely punished for trying to participate. Unless you're doing some horse archer cheese or simply sitting behind your troops doing nothing except waiting for the battle to finish, you get wrecked. 'Oh, a battle? I guess I'll go make some coffee...' The player participates the same amount as if they were playing TABS.
It may sound like I'm making a generalization here, but I take it most players do not want to play eating simulator/crafting simulator/recruitment simulator -which is what vanilla Bannerlord is. It's not Mount&Blade, that's for sure.
The early and mid-game stages of Warband were the parts where the player actively participated the most. Small-scale battles as an adventurer/mercenary/minor lord, bandit hunts, hideout raids, kidnapped girl quests, prison breaks, these were the most enjoyable parts of the game for me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who shares that sentiment. A game like Mount&Blade is much more immersive and engrossing when you take an active role in it, as opposed to a passive one.
The way Bannerlord handles armor and damage calc encourages player passivity, and that's not a winning formula for an action-adventure RPG. Vanilla Warband functioned properly and was playable, and its mods simply added convenient UI changes and new content. In Bannerlord it's the opposite; mods are needed just to make it operate properly. Which is sad, because I'd like vanilla Bannerlord to be able to stand on its own. I don't want to have to use mods that drastically alter the base game of Bannerlord just to make it playable.
guiskj
Squire
I don't mind the damage so much, but AI projectile accuracy (specially looters and those damn rocks) is way off the charts. I have the same problem with low level mountain bandits and their javelins. Makes me avoid those bandits like the plague when I am farming bandits.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
The man speaks truth.
Bluko88
Sergeant
No armor is not implemented well at all. Lower level armors provide such a minuscule damage reduction, you may as well be wearing regular clothes. Granted they usually don't weigh too much so this is somewhat reasonable. The real problem is mid-tier armor like 20-40. It obviously helps, but it at best maybe lets you survive one more hit by having 5 HP left instead of 0 HP. That's not really right and usually doesn't justify the 10-20 kg of extra weight that slows you down considerably.
High tier armor (50+) is kind of good in that it will greatly reduce low tier weapons to often 1-2 damage (that includes looter stones). But it really doesn't do much against most other weapons, which is really baffling.
Now if say a Horseman hit you with a warhammer on their mount at full speed, I'd expect that to kill you even in full plate just by the sheer force. Bit with a Footman I would expect it to hurt a lot in full plate, probably knock you down for instance (granted head strike would probably KO/kill). But you would probably survive a torso strike albeit bruised or winded.
Now yes there really is no "full plate" in the game. But even still I'd expect the high end lamellar and brigadine sets to make you very damage resilient, in other words "tanky" save to the very largest of weapons. Unless you're throwing baseball or larger size rocks, plate and lamellar armor would keep you alive quite well - even from most arrow and sword strikes. Heck chainmail is pretty good (was used for like 1000+ years for a reason). I believe during the crusades Muslims are noted for saying European Knights would look like porcupines from the amount of arrows they could take in their chainmail.
The way damage protection scales is just not good. The protection is either completely minuscule such that it doesn't really help, or it effectively makes you immune to everything but Blunt damage. It's very dumb a Cataphract rider may only take like 2 damage from a one hand sword strike, but a two handed sword strike is basically going to do full damage.
Honestly I think TW needs to use a straight percentage reduction i.e 40% damage reduction. Best would be say 20% Blunt Reduction, 40% Slashing Reduction, and 30% Pierce Reduction on a given armor piece. Whatever formula(s) is currently used is not very good.
Realistic Battle Mod basically ups the armor protection (highly recommend). Battles go on a little longer, but it's not like they go from 5 minutes to 30 minutes. They are usually still over in a few minutes, and you have less pointless battles where all the infantrymen kill each other in less then 30 seconds. Looters and peasants die real fast, but better armored (higher tier) troops will survive a fair bit. i.e. you can actually watch/manage a battle beyond F1 + F3
And that's the biggest problem, even ignoring the player character. High tier troops are effing expensive. Sure 12 denars doesn't sound like much, but when you got 30 Legionaries that adds up to 360 denars a day. Now if it was say just 5 denars upkeep, okay that's balanced. The problem is for 360 denars could have 180 Recruits or 120 Infantryman. As is 30 Legionaries will be absolutely crushed, probably even defending a chokepoint. The sad truth is upgrading beyond Tier 3 is usually a waste of money, yes they are better due to skill, but they just don't justify the expense other then that your party size is limited.
Either equipment/upkeep needs to be dramatically reduced in price OR survivability from high tier gear needs a serious bump. It may not seem broken, but it really is taking into account actual game balance.
Bluko88
Sergeant
I'll be honest that's what bugs me the most. I don't expect to be able to lead the charge unscathed, but when you have the best high end gear (200K +) and still get taken down by a stray scythe swing or arrow - it's kind of frustrating to be that squishy. It's why I loathe playing on Realistic Damage for the player. You basically have to sit back and carry a shield at all times, so you can F1 + F3 appropriately
If anyone needs a clear example of the imbalance try these matches in Custom Battle (where upkeep is effectively equal)
100 Imperial Recruits vs. 16 Imperial Legionaries (Recruits will always win, unless it's a siege assault)
100 Imperial Infantryman vs 25 Imperial Legionaries (The infantryman do even better because of shields...)
100 Imperial Trained Infantryman vs 42 Imperial Legionaries (This is the worse because trained having throwing weapons)
100 Imperial Veteran Infantryman vs 67 Imperial Legionaries (Only scenario where the veteran unit beats the less experienced one)
Now you can make the argument: 100 Legionaries will always beat 100 Recruits, and that's what you're paying extra for. But again when you consider the time, money, and experience to get a Legionary or any Tier 5+ troop; is this really reasonable?
This is the thing. If I send 100 Recruits to fight 16 Legionaries, I might win, but I should be losing 80-90% of my Recruits if I do. But really in all these scenarios the Legionaries should be winning, at least most times, due to their veteran status.
Edit: Even better indicator of the "armor issue", if you changed upkeep to more sensible progression like:
- Tier 1, 2 denars upkeep
- Tier 2, 3 denars upkeep
- Tier 3, 4 denars upkeep
- Tier 4, 5 denars upkeep
- Tier 5, 6 denars upkeep
Also this is a video game, so you do generally expect the higher level unit to be vastly superior to the lower level - disregarding "realism". So we have neither "Realism" or "Fantasy", instead all we got is "Broken".
2nd Edit: LOL even in Siege with only Ladders 16 Legionaries still get overwhelmed by 100 Recruits, and with 34 Legionaries still only barely win (might be the map to blame). Yeah really balanced... oh well awkward death postures for the win at least.
Just musing on this theme of armour and troop levels ........
Re low tiers vs elite types, is there a morale algorithm so that low tiers lose " confidence " and break earlier anyway ( say when 20 percent casualties, scaling up with level ) ?
Elite types should confidently " face down " lower level, inexperienced, troops, make a stand, in the process maybe " accept " ( at least resign themselves to ) even 100 percent casualties at the highest " Royal Guards " level.
To achieve this they would need commensurately stronger armour ie that could " go the distance ".
Evidently " fighting to the last man " was indeed a thing, over and over through history, in certain circumstances ........ but in a typical battle " normal morale " units really should rout after receiving what are modest losses by " game standards ".
Could the battle AI / algorithms see rout pathways as opposed to " no pathway " ( ie surrounded ), so if surrounded low to mid tier units will not rout but surrender early ( larger prisoners haul to sell / ransom, or recruit ), and only high morale / high tier units " fight to the death " ( like the tercio at Rocroi )?
This would allow more tactical nuance, to capture vs annihilate the enemy.
Plenty of historical " Dread " commanders preferred to allow a respected enemy rout pathway options and then cut them down, rather than trap them and have to reduce them in a desperately fought last stand.
The BL morale system really is as crucial as weapon vs armour mechanics and needs to be carefully thought through ( probably vastly improved, like everything else ), for more interesting battles, immersion, etc .......
Early to High Middle Ages armour could be very effective vs most threats of the day, and Muslim types could be just as heavily armoured as Western crusaders. When longbow and crossbow technology produced enhanced armour penetration the deflecting plate " glacis " evolved through the 14th century, proving very effective until bullets started punching through ............
But " full plate " may have proved even a liability in a close melee " scrum ", and many heavily equipped men at arms and nobles might have struggled to effectively counter lighter, more agile, swordsmen with shorter, handier, quicker, blades getting in somewhere eg neck, axillae, groin ......... ( " tank " fan flame bait ? )
Anyway, BL is a game, not a realism simulator, and players need the immersive incentive to spend their riches on, among other things, high tier armour ( and tough high tier troops ).
So high tier lamellar and mail ( versions with plenty of padding / quilting ) armour should protect well against the period composite and short / self bow, " early model " crossbow, javelins, and rocks, missile " incomings ". Angons could be the AP missiles commanding respect.
Really there should not be OP ( AP ) longbows in the c 11th century ( ? ) BL game world, at least not ones comparable to the later English longbows ( with bodkin - head arrows ), which perfected 13th century Welsh R and D.
Two handed " Dane " axes and lutat maces should perform effectively against decent armour ( and shields ). But there shouldn't be two handed swords ( 15th century blade smithing ) doing the rounds in the 11th century.
No, it is certainly not fixed yet - still in testing !
Re low tiers vs elite types, is there a morale algorithm so that low tiers lose " confidence " and break earlier anyway ( say when 20 percent casualties, scaling up with level ) ?
Elite types should confidently " face down " lower level, inexperienced, troops, make a stand, in the process maybe " accept " ( at least resign themselves to ) even 100 percent casualties at the highest " Royal Guards " level.
To achieve this they would need commensurately stronger armour ie that could " go the distance ".
Evidently " fighting to the last man " was indeed a thing, over and over through history, in certain circumstances ........ but in a typical battle " normal morale " units really should rout after receiving what are modest losses by " game standards ".
Could the battle AI / algorithms see rout pathways as opposed to " no pathway " ( ie surrounded ), so if surrounded low to mid tier units will not rout but surrender early ( larger prisoners haul to sell / ransom, or recruit ), and only high morale / high tier units " fight to the death " ( like the tercio at Rocroi )?
This would allow more tactical nuance, to capture vs annihilate the enemy.
Plenty of historical " Dread " commanders preferred to allow a respected enemy rout pathway options and then cut them down, rather than trap them and have to reduce them in a desperately fought last stand.
The BL morale system really is as crucial as weapon vs armour mechanics and needs to be carefully thought through ( probably vastly improved, like everything else ), for more interesting battles, immersion, etc .......
Early to High Middle Ages armour could be very effective vs most threats of the day, and Muslim types could be just as heavily armoured as Western crusaders. When longbow and crossbow technology produced enhanced armour penetration the deflecting plate " glacis " evolved through the 14th century, proving very effective until bullets started punching through ............
But " full plate " may have proved even a liability in a close melee " scrum ", and many heavily equipped men at arms and nobles might have struggled to effectively counter lighter, more agile, swordsmen with shorter, handier, quicker, blades getting in somewhere eg neck, axillae, groin ......... ( " tank " fan flame bait ? )
Anyway, BL is a game, not a realism simulator, and players need the immersive incentive to spend their riches on, among other things, high tier armour ( and tough high tier troops ).
So high tier lamellar and mail ( versions with plenty of padding / quilting ) armour should protect well against the period composite and short / self bow, " early model " crossbow, javelins, and rocks, missile " incomings ". Angons could be the AP missiles commanding respect.
Really there should not be OP ( AP ) longbows in the c 11th century ( ? ) BL game world, at least not ones comparable to the later English longbows ( with bodkin - head arrows ), which perfected 13th century Welsh R and D.
Two handed " Dane " axes and lutat maces should perform effectively against decent armour ( and shields ). But there shouldn't be two handed swords ( 15th century blade smithing ) doing the rounds in the 11th century.
No, it is certainly not fixed yet - still in testing !
最后编辑:
Have to agree with all this. Realism takes a back seat to certain gaming conventions and expecations. Armour was generally fine the way it worked in Warband and made high-end units to be feared (or at least respected). Killing enemies such as Elite Cataphracts is way too easy, you literally ride alongside them and swing any random half-decent two-handed sword, and they're dead in one or two hits. It's not like they're a threat anyway, since melee cav misses a lot of their attacks anyway, and your archers will mow them down if they charge you.
This definitely is a problem, and Bannerlord's bigger and more confusing battles only add to it. You're fighting and suddenly you get whacked by some random out-of-position enemy and that's your participation over with, as you now need to cower behind your units unless you want to risk getting knocked out and have the AI command your troops badly.
Higher armour values would lead to longer fights and more intense melee situations. It would probably do a better job of masking the constant wave of newly spawned units having to run the entire length of the battlefield to join the fight. Because once you get the upper hand, a local fight gets won really quickly... then you're back to waiting for more units to spawn in at once, rather than little by little, which doesn't go quite as unnoticed.
最后编辑:
In custom battle is where such failure becomes much more evident. A comparative video of Warband vs Bannerlord in a controlled custom battle environment showing the damage/protection ratio in the respective installation formulas. In my eyes it's a joke what we currently have in Bannerlord...
Despite tons of feedback from players both here and on other platforms throughout this EA period pointing out the problem; Taleworlds is unable to address the issue.
Summary:
In Warband >12 accurate hits needed by the AI to practically deplete the health bar with a higher tier gear.
In Bannerlord 3 hits and then goodbye despite having higher tier gear equipped.
This in no way should have been spanned over time as it has been through these >1.5 years of EA. It can't be that something SO BASIC has to be delegated to mods. Many of you have already commented about it and I'm one of the many who can't play (what little I play because of the little Native offers) without RBM. RBM guys have done a great job not only in terms of the damage/protection formula but also in terms of AI behaviour where they have polished how the formations work without losing cohesion (doing them best by adjusting the capsule colliders and other stuff), the battle logics where f.e. skirmishers really skirmish not like in Native does and many other formation stuff that you can see in the videos of this thread.
Again, I don't deny the importance of features such as diplomacy, management, skills and other immersive rpg features such as fests, tournaments and so on; I want them too. However, the problems with the combat system (damage/protection formula calculation + animations (issues with arcs of swing on foot or mounted) + physics (colliders, body-weapon capsules issues, etc) + logic/pathfinding AI) in both SP and MP mode are fundamentally more pressing than the aforementioned.
Despite tons of feedback from players both here and on other platforms throughout this EA period pointing out the problem; Taleworlds is unable to address the issue.
Summary:
In Warband >12 accurate hits needed by the AI to practically deplete the health bar with a higher tier gear.
In Bannerlord 3 hits and then goodbye despite having higher tier gear equipped.
This in no way should have been spanned over time as it has been through these >1.5 years of EA. It can't be that something SO BASIC has to be delegated to mods. Many of you have already commented about it and I'm one of the many who can't play (what little I play because of the little Native offers) without RBM. RBM guys have done a great job not only in terms of the damage/protection formula but also in terms of AI behaviour where they have polished how the formations work without losing cohesion (doing them best by adjusting the capsule colliders and other stuff), the battle logics where f.e. skirmishers really skirmish not like in Native does and many other formation stuff that you can see in the videos of this thread.
Again, I don't deny the importance of features such as diplomacy, management, skills and other immersive rpg features such as fests, tournaments and so on; I want them too. However, the problems with the combat system (damage/protection formula calculation + animations (issues with arcs of swing on foot or mounted) + physics (colliders, body-weapon capsules issues, etc) + logic/pathfinding AI) in both SP and MP mode are fundamentally more pressing than the aforementioned.
最后编辑:
Still a sensible choice to upgrade as battle size is limited. Even early on you don't want recruits on a hideout raid. However, I agree that it could be better balanced.
This comparison video makes it so obvious that something is very wrong, I can't even understand how anyone could deny this
