i think arrow damage against heavy armor should be reduced,
but damage to non armored opponents is fine
but damage to non armored opponents is fine
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Just nerf ranged damage by 30%
- Thread starter Yertyl
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Dabos37
Sergeant Knight at Arms
Same here, I have the same feeling. Maybe there is some melee weapons which do too much damage but melee damage feels ok most of the time for me.
melee feels fine, but arrows feel like lasers.
an arrow should not be able to do that much damage to the heaviest armor in the game,
that is why catapracts carry no shields,
bc arrows are not supposed to hurt them
The in-game cataphracts mostly shrug it off as well. I get like 10 damage on their horses with Bow skill 200+ and a Noble Bow.
seems different in multiplayer,
arrows are deadly and playing the cataphract is just asking to be shot to death,
that said, i am completely fine with crossbows penetrating heavy armor, that is realistic,
but bows shouldnt penetrate heavy armor
BigFat
Sergeant
Stationary on an Elite Cataphract I get 20-22 for a body shot and 63 for a headshot with a light crossbow and 0 skill, I can't check what it would be with speed bonus of them traveling towards you.
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
Increase the values of all higher level armours and leave the weaker armours relative untouched. Don't go touching damage calculations or anything, just take the armour xmls and adjust values.
Nothing more to it. Just going to keep saying it.
Nothing more to it. Just going to keep saying it.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Perhaps but perhaps not, to me the morale system seems very unfinished in general and I haven't seen them saying it's working as intended to kill 2 looters and the other 20 flee. The devblogs talk about gradual routing rather than immediate.
Yes, sometimes we can wait a long time for these things, it's very questionable that it's only being debated now. But as long as armor improvement comes I'm happy.
I do agree that companions need to be more impactful. Making a bit more of a gap in armor effectiveness between "heroes" and regular troops might be an idea, yeah. Also they should give combat-focused companions better focus points/attribute allocation.
Dabos37
Sergeant Knight at Arms
This would maybe fix the issue related to players complaining because they get killed too fast, but won’t change much about the matter of this thread: Archers and xBows are OP. AI lords’ tier1-4 units will be still getting deleted with no time by archers, while their few remaining elite tier5-6 units will get overnumbered, surrounded, and killed easily too.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Gotta agree with Dabos. It needs somewhat more than just changing existing high level armor values. I really don't think it's that difficult to make armor vaguely realistic. RBM did it and Warband did it.
Or just open the monster.xml look by the id"human" and change the "absorbeddamageratio" from 1.0 to 0.5 to half the dmg. Since we know that the dmg will be multiplied with this variable(return num*absorbedDamageratio). Just for those who don't wanna work with dnspy.I'm not saying I agree that a blanket damage nerf is the best option, but it's something that can easily be tested (with dnSpy) to see how it would affect battles and different troop types in order to know for sure how it would feel.
In the method CalculateRawDamageNew there is a value you could simply change from 100 to 50 to halve damage from all sources (or to 70 for a 30% reduction, etc):
You can see how that change affects the curves for damage inflicted after armor reduction here. Or if you prefer to see it presented as a percentage of overall damage absorbed by armor, here.
Some of the results might be counter intuitive to what you would expect because of the way armor can negate some amount of cut and pierce damage that falls below a threshold. For instance, just from a quick test, 150 Elite Menavliatons absolutely murdered 150 Palatines because the Palatines couldn't dish out enough damage on the approach.
Unfortunately, I think this change also reduces the amount of XP you'll get from combat, since the damage you inflict serves as the basis for XP gains.
JOINT HURTBOXES and ARMOR HURTBOXES: an armor system that provide a way to balance factions warfare and make more deep the combat system(suggestions)
The above link takes you to a thread I wrote about the armor system.
I suggest a more realistic approach that doesn't just change the armor value.
I only tell you that:
1) solves the problems related to the balance between ranged and melee units and takes into account any type of armor, making the dynamics of events realistic.
2) the combat at great distances is more probabilistic and as the distances get shorter we pass from the dependence on "luck and protection" to that on "aim".
3) it makes the combat system much deeper and gives some more reason to the developers to remove the annoying delay in the animation of the attacks after the release of the button.
4) would make the spears and lunges much more formidable although it is necessary to modify both the blocking of the lunges and the "aim" with the attacks with the spears, which should be improved.
5) armor will count and also a lot.
6) does not make heavily armed enemies invincible, they too can die and even with a few hits, the important thing is to place them in the right places.
7) the only flaw in my idea is that it might involve a choice:
the above benefits vs cost in terms of calculation.
8 )You could adopt the system in a 1 vs 1 duel mode where you can test all this without worrying about performance issues.
The above link takes you to a thread I wrote about the armor system.
I suggest a more realistic approach that doesn't just change the armor value.
I only tell you that:
1) solves the problems related to the balance between ranged and melee units and takes into account any type of armor, making the dynamics of events realistic.
2) the combat at great distances is more probabilistic and as the distances get shorter we pass from the dependence on "luck and protection" to that on "aim".
3) it makes the combat system much deeper and gives some more reason to the developers to remove the annoying delay in the animation of the attacks after the release of the button.
4) would make the spears and lunges much more formidable although it is necessary to modify both the blocking of the lunges and the "aim" with the attacks with the spears, which should be improved.
5) armor will count and also a lot.
6) does not make heavily armed enemies invincible, they too can die and even with a few hits, the important thing is to place them in the right places.
7) the only flaw in my idea is that it might involve a choice:
the above benefits vs cost in terms of calculation.
8 )You could adopt the system in a 1 vs 1 duel mode where you can test all this without worrying about performance issues.
i think this requires a rewrite of the code and seems very complicated tbh,
i like this solution though but i just do not think the devs could program this
I'll take a swarm of Imperial Cataphracts over Horse Archers any day of the week. They also carry shields in singleplayer and more or less delete the Khuzaits. If we want realism though we should have different bows and arrow types that do different types of damage to heavy armour. A small hunting bow using arrows designed to cut flesh probably isn't going to do much damage to lamellar plate but a longbow or a recurve bow using bodkin tips will definitely go through and at this point it's not even going to take 5 arrows if they hit the right spots.
bodkin arrows are long and needle like used for penetrating the rings in mail armor so those arrows wont have as great of an effect against a solid piece of metal armor like plate,
i think armor was alot more effective then people realize
Last edited:
I tested with companions having 330 skills: it doesn't make them perform meaingfully better in live battles (I didn't test 1 on 1). You can look on the character screen to see how much impact that much weapon skills have and the answer is -- in general -- not very much. It is pretty much all equipment that contributes.
I mean there's you saying it's not effective then there's historical evidence showing they were really effective like for example the English longbowmen during the Battles of Agincourt, and Shrewsbury. If arrows and crossbows were as useless as people are claiming, they wouldn't have been used at all in the Medieval Era.
Arrows -> Padded armor -> Stronger Bows -> Mail armor -> Bodkin points -> Plate armor -> "Knight-killer" Crossbows
Plate armor is a *high* technology, and Calradia is not set in a time when 'real' Plate armor was widely available**. (You need to be able to work 6+ kg ore blooms, which requires a water hammer).
The above progression *should* be represented by the gear at tiers, but it's a little sloppy. Low tier armor should "minimize" low tier bows damage (1-10dmg or something, double for headshots, although padded headgear shouldn't help too much), mid armor:mid bows, high armor:high bows, with heavy xbow damage being enough to do most of its damage to really high armor value. But it's not really numerically 'right' yet. "BUT HE'S GOT -- HIGH HOPES"
** strictly speaking, at Agincourt in 1415, only the wealthiest men-at-arms would have had more than a cuirass, some not even that
Last edited:
I don't deny that there would be work to be done, but it would only be about increasing the number of hurtboxes and slot armors.
If there are currently 5-6, they should be increased to 15.
The work would therefore be linked to:
1) size of the hurtboxes and their model.
2) increase in the number of armor parts and balance of the latter.
Apparently it looks like a lot of work, but not that big.
Regarding the hurtboxes: The number of hurtboxes is practically a copy and paste of what has already been done with the current system, only you have to retouch some of the hurtboxes (5 of the 15 for example), make them small and place them in some particular points ( such as non-covering joints from parts of armor).
Regarding the balance and the assignment of armor value: Once you establish armor values according to the type of material and the construction structure of the armor piece, the assignment of armor values becomes automatic.
It sounds like a lot of work, but it's actually not that big.
It is less and less work than tweaking 2 parameters (armor value and damage of a given unit) indefinitely so that in modifying 1 you unbalance the approach of the latter with everything else, and the same thing in modifying only the other .
I suggest a solution where modifying one can be done without bringing total imbalance with everything else.
In fact, although in the thread I say to greatly increase the armor value, the fact that there are uncovered hurtboxes implies that even a character with an armor that reduces damage to 0 in all covered points is knockable if hit a couple of times in the uncovered points.
The point is that: from a distance, hitting covered puntis is a matter of luck linked to how much that target is covered by the armor and how exposed those points are, while up close it is a question of having good aim (in the case of bows and crossbows) or to know how to attack in the right place, at the right time (with melee weapons).
I wrote this thread a month before posting it (it takes months to write my threads) and I posted it because I knew that threads with titles like:
"papar armor", "nerf archer", "buff cavalry", "buff infantry", "nerf infantry" (yes, even contradictory) for the simple reason that with the retouching of those 2 parameters you do not go anywhere.
A year has already been wasted in changing these parameters and still after a year the same threads pop up.
The skills to do this they have, they practically have to add things that are already at stake.
They have to make a few more models (and they could use the existing models as a base, divide them into 2 and make 2 pieces of armor from a single block that includes them both), and finally assign the various parameters.
They could do it if they wanted to.
