Just nerf ranged damage by 30%

Users who are viewing this thread

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
Don't worry guys a youtuber with viewers made a video showing that a party of all horsearchers can beat caravans and small lord parties with few losses.
"So can you beat bannerlord with only Horse" Yes full HA has long been established as the easiest party with absolutely no down side.
I hope somebody manipulates him (tells him) to delete his youtube again lol
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Don't worry guys a youtuber with viewers made a video showing that a party of all horsearchers can beat caravans and small lord parties with few losses.
"So can you beat bannerlord with only Horse" Yes full HA has long been established as the easiest party with absolutely no down side.
I hope somebody manipulates him (tells him) to delete his youtube again lol

Yes, I saw this video yesterday. In the video is mentioned how strong cavalry is, but it is actually related to how strong ranged units are and it has not much to do with horses being overpowered.

Melee cavalry is currently in a decent spot, and maybe still week, while Horse Archers are a completely different thing. Ranged units are simply much more effective than everything else in this game.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
Yes, I saw this video yesterday. In the video is mentioned how strong cavalry is, but it is actually related to how strong ranged units are and it has not much to do with horses being overpowered.

Melee cavalry is currently in a decent spot, and maybe still week, while Horse Archers are a completely different thing. Ranged units are simply much more effective than everything else in this game.
Yeah I found it odd too that he didn't juts call it "Horse archers" since that's what he did was all HA (well he had 4 Cav). I wonder if maybe he tried and found the Cav heavy party maybe wasn't a slam dunk, so he then tried all HA. It's still odd he introduced it that way though. He also only does 'alright' anyways, he defeats a lord party that near equal in power and still had a few losses. An experienced player could take a party twice as large with zero losses and that would be a better example of the disparity between all ranged and "standard party" AI set up.

I'll be pretty mad if TW nerf Melee Cav though.
 

Vekar

Recruit
Never punish the player for aiming for the head, that is just stupid. I always aim for the head in everything I do because it just makes sense to one shot kill someone or something. That is the whole point of aiming for the head: instant death. I do not want to see Bannerlord become "he has 5 arrows sticking out of his head and one in both eye-sockets! How is he not dead!?!"
 

KingEroc1st

Veteran
Never punish the player for aiming for the head, that is just stupid
this argument is just an excuse to be lazy. Bannerlord might not be a FPS, but using ranged weapons is the shooting aspect of the game. There are many shooters where the "critical spot" on enemies are not exclusively the head. they vary depending on the unit type to introduce a degree of freshness and challenge to the game.


currently in game, there's a built in damage multiplier for headshots, and every ranged tree has a perk increasing headshot damage. the head doesn't have to be the critical spot as long as there is a critical spot of the same size.

there is already an existing hit box under the head for neck. and with little practice, i can consistantly hit neck shots instead of headshots.
all I'm suggesting is to have 3 separate hit boxes for head, face and neck. and only apply damage multiplier to face and neck instead of head and face (currently both count as only head), this way. actual head shots will do normal damage and it's reduced by the usually high armor value of helmets. while the face portion shares a % of the head armor value and depending on the helmet used it's own face armor, despite so it will still suffer extra damage due to the multipliers. and neck having no direct armor will only have minor damage mitigation from partial head armor, but will still take increased damage due to multipliers.

basically the neck should take the most damage, the face moderately less, and head takes drastically mitigated damage.
 

Vekar

Recruit
this argument is just an excuse to be lazy. Bannerlord might not be a FPS, but using ranged weapons is the shooting aspect of the game. There are many shooters where the "critical spot" on enemies are not exclusively the head. they vary depending on the unit type to introduce a degree of freshness and challenge to the game.


currently in game, there's a built in damage multiplier for headshots, and every ranged tree has a perk increasing headshot damage. the head doesn't have to be the critical spot as long as there is a critical spot of the same size.

there is already an existing hit box under the head for neck. and with little practice, i can consistantly hit neck shots instead of headshots.
all I'm suggesting is to have 3 separate hit boxes for head, face and neck. and only apply damage multiplier to face and neck instead of head and face (currently both count as only head), this way. actual head shots will do normal damage and it's reduced by the usually high armor value of helmets. while the face portion shares a % of the head armor value and depending on the helmet used it's own face armor, despite so it will still suffer extra damage due to the multipliers. and neck having no direct armor will only have minor damage mitigation from partial head armor, but will still take increased damage due to multipliers.

basically the neck should take the most damage, the face moderately less, and head takes drastically mitigated damage.
Oh so... Your telling ME I have to play to YOUR expectations? That because I am someone who plays by aiming for the head I should be punished because you do not like how I play MY game not YOUR game? Good to know.
 

anoddhermit

Sergeant
Oh so... Your telling ME I have to play to YOUR expectations? That because I am someone who plays by aiming for the head I should be punished because you do not like how I play MY game not YOUR game? Good to know.

Isn't that what saying "never punish the player for aiming for the head" is doing lol?

You are the pot calling the kettle black here since you'd just be "punishing" them by imposing your balance preferences over theirs in a different way.

They're not going to release multiple games to please every player's particular preferences.

This has nothing to do with not liking how people play, it's just about balance/realism/fun concerns and priorities that differ between players. There's no right answer to some of these questions and the devs have to judge what's right for the game as a whole.

"Do things the way I want not the way you want!" is all complaining about people having different preferences than you is. They can make their case for a particular feature implementation, you can make yours. It's not really a punishment and has nothing to with how you play really.
 

Csatádi

Grandmaster Knight
It would also help if recruits have shields. AI parties have significant portion of recruits very soon.
 

five bucks

Squire
It would also help if recruits have shields. AI parties have significant portion of recruits very soon.
I'm against this unless it's an uncommon randomly distributed item (as it was in Warband) and the shields are very weak.

Because right now there are heaps of shields in the game. More than half of unit types carry one.

If the game has lots of shields and armor continues to not be fixed, then archers will very heavily counter the types of unit who don't have shields (all two-handed axe/sword and polearm users), because they still get shredded, making them as useless as they are now.

If the game has lots of shields and armor eventually gets fixed, then archers will be underpowered, since there will be shields everywhere countering them.

The best solution IMO is actually to reduce the total number of shields in the game and fix armor so it works properly and is worth having.
 

KingEroc1st

Veteran
The best solution IMO is actually to reduce the total number of shields in the game and fix armor so it works properly and is worth having.
there are 2 things that could help defend against ranged damage, one is shield and another is armor.
Personally i think shield are acceptable they way they are. realistically they cannot tank that many arrows so maybe nerf their durability against ranged so it breaks after enough shots instead of being able to hold a wall of arrows on it.

What is Not acceptable is how weak shield troops are, even assuming they hold shield wall and close in on the archers, their melee ability in close quarters won't allow them to completely slaughter the archers. the only people shield troops can beat in melee are weaker shield troops. they get slaughtered by 2h troops as well.
I'm not even talking about Fian champs and Khans guards that are ranged troops with 2h weapons capable of wrecking in both categories.

I think everyone is fine with some kind of unit type countering in a rock paper scissors fashion. the question is how to implement it. and right now there are just troop types that are op and troop types that are useless in terms of their effectiveness in combat based on current observations of their countering interactions.

Here's a few suggestions that might improve the situation:
Spearmen - allow them to attack normally during shield wall so they are more than a cattle prod for the horses.
Swordsmen - better close quarter capabilities
2 handers - hard code preference to stand behind shields instead of charge at front
Archers - Nerf accuracy at farther distances, but allow firing mode commands to compensate: focus area, volley or fire at will (fastest rate of fire)
- Allow ranged damage to drop off more at range. war arrows with armor piercing tips were heavier and travelled less distance with a greater energy drop off rate
- Introduce "Glancing hits", non lethal areas take reduced ranged damage such as limbs, shoulders, tip of your helm etc.
Cavalry - increase tremple damage. increase knock down time, reduce likelihood of horse rearing up based on troop tier and damage intake. (think elite cataphracts vs peasant poop fork)
- reduce requirement for couch lance so they happen more often
Horse Archers - hard code preference to stay at range when they still have ammo (instead of charge into mob of enemy footmen)
 
Last edited:

anoddhermit

Sergeant
It would also help if recruits have shields. AI parties have significant portion of recruits very soon.
I think like ~25% of recruits having makeshift shields would be neat. Would add to the ramshackleness, but also slightly improve balance without overdoing it.
 

Emax

Recruit
This thread is for complaining about how range units make the player too strong against the AI. So I suppose that the AI is the one who should “Get gud” to avoid getting easily wrecked by the player.
Wrong. This thread is basically the meme of "Drive me closer, I want to hit them with my sword!"

Ranged beats melee in open warfare. It's just how it is. Git gud.

A soldier running while wearing 30-50 pounds of armor charging straight in an archers direction is going to be an easy target. Fatigue, heat exhaustion, and time wasted stepping over fallen comrades will also hamper the effectiveness of a guy with a sword trying to get into range. All the while, the archers have time to pump off arrow after arrow without their opponent attacking back. Also, I can't imagine those who did make it to the archer line with a chest full of arrows being particularly effective at swinging their weapon.

Horses, being unarmored, have a juicy and vulnerable underside which archers were able to exploit in battle. If you counter this by armoring the lower part of your horse youre left with a horse that cant effectively gallop. Again, the guy with a ranged weapon wins when the battle begins from afar.

The only valid point I have seen in this silly thread is that armor does need to be more effective in protecting the troops wearing it. But thats really its own discussion.

If the battle starts from 10 feet away the guy with heavy armor and a sword has the advantage over an archer. But on an open battlefield from 200 meters away, ranged beats melee every time. As they say, dont bring a knife to a gun fight.

As they also say, git gud
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Wrong. This thread is basically the meme of "Drive me closer, I want to hit them with my sword!"

Ranged beats melee in open warfare. It's just how it is. Git gud.

A soldier running while wearing 30-50 pounds of armor charging straight in an archers direction is going to be an easy target. Fatigue, heat exhaustion, and time wasted stepping over fallen comrades will also hamper the effectiveness of a guy with a sword trying to get into range. All the while, the archers have time to pump off arrow after arrow without their opponent attacking back. Also, I can't imagine those who did make it to the archer line with a chest full of arrows being particularly effective at swinging their weapon.

Horses, being unarmored, have a juicy and vulnerable underside which archers were able to exploit in battle. If you counter this by armoring the lower part of your horse youre left with a horse that cant effectively gallop. Again, the guy with a ranged weapon wins when the battle begins from afar.

The only valid point I have seen in this silly thread is that armor does need to be more effective in protecting the troops wearing it. But thats really its own discussion.

If the battle starts from 10 feet away the guy with heavy armor and a sword has the advantage over an archer. But on an open battlefield from 200 meters away, ranged beats melee every time. As they say, dont bring a knife to a gun fight.

As they also say, git gud

I am complaining about how easy the game is if I recruit tons of archers. I can beat most of lords without getting casualties and it is pretty easy to defeat infinite lords in a row with archers, and get tons of money from loot. I find archers and crossbowmen OP because the AI is not able to do anything against me spamming ranged units. Can you please explain me why should I git gud? It makes no sense.

On the other hand, if you want to talk about realism, let’s talk about a realistic rate of fire for archers and crossbowmen, and then compare with rate of fire for troops in game. Let’s talk too about armor protection and how much unrealistic are arrows in Bannerlord concerning damage.

Anyway, I am really curious about how should I get gud for making my archers less OP against the AI.
 
Last edited:

Emax

Recruit
I am complaining about how easy the game is if I recruit tons of archers. I can beat most of lords without getting casualties and it is pretty easy to defeat infinite lords in a row. I find archers and crossbowmen OP because the AI is not able to do anything against me spamming ranged units. Can you please explain me why should I git gud? It makes no sense.

On the other hand, if you want to talk about realism, let’s talk about a realistic rate of fire for archers and crossbowmen, and then compare with rate of fire for troops in game. Let’s talk too about armor protection and how much unrealistic are arrows in Bannerlord concerning damage.

Anyway, I am really curious about how should I get gud for making my archers less OP against the AI.
Stop playing on easy settings then.

Git gud
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Stop playing on easy settings then.

Git gud

1- I always play at max difficulty.
2- There is not any difficulty settings for making my archers more OP at killing units from distance. I can reduce enemy damage but there is not setting for increasing my units damage or for making the enemy to receive more damage from my archers. I mean, my ranged units feeling pretty damn OP has not anything to do with difficulty settings.

So yes, please read before posting. People here are complaining because ranged units make this game feels too easy, even if we are playing with hardest settings.
 
Top Bottom