Loot from battles need some kind of rework

Currently viewing this thread:

I was going to add to my original comment that I could see there being a problem with getting better loot and the economy being messed up, but it was kind of late and didn't want my post to get too long.
I think there are several easy workarounds for that problem. Some of them have been mentioned already, like adjust the prices or even implement a repair ability in the smithy. Someone mentioned having a high Rogue skill influence the loot, I'm fine with this as long as having it on a companion will also work, current it doesn't seem to work. The armor or damage values of things could also be adjusted so they aren't as useless. For example I've gotten damaged Lamelar (sp?) shoulders and the armor is 9+1, while the non damage one is 2 or 3 times better.
I don't know if a lot of people would agree but I would rather the selling prices get hugely lowered but we get better loot than just get bunch of stuff that's only good for selling and also be the primary way of making money. That's just me though, I just like loot in games and customizing my character.
 
Price difference between Masterwork Seax/Falchion vs Bent Seax/Falchion:

https://ibb.co/D441Zm9 :roll:
That's about the same price difference as warband has and is totally fine. The only issue is getting masterworks to show up in shops more often. And with the new item prices being more reasonable they should just adjust the spawning code rather than further lower prices if they don't spawn now.
 

TimIZ

Regular
M&BWB
That's about the same price difference as warband has and is totally fine. The only issue is getting masterworks to show up in shops more often. And with the new item prices being more reasonable they should just adjust the spawning code rather than further lower prices if they don't spawn now.
I have never seen anything with a modifier in a shop and the quality of looted items is clearly depending on the price only. Seems that item_modifiers_groups.xml doesn`t have any effect in game.
 
I have never seen anything with a modifier in a shop and the quality of looted items is clearly depending on the price only. Seems that item_modifiers_groups.xml doesn`t have any effect in game.
I agree, but what I'm saying is that's what should be changed instead of the prices. The ones Mexxico just showed are fine
 
Further decimalisation of the money system e.g have a Deni that is worth 10% of a denar. Rags could be worth say 33 deni so selling one would bring in way less than one that's worth a minimum of one Denar. Personally i love RPG's with multiple coin values in a currency but well thats just me.

Absolutely, I always thought this would help to sort the thing with making heaps of gold by selling junk. Setting values for the items in game can be much more accurate and realistic.

That said, I think setting the prices as Mexxico showed us is a step on the right direction. Thanks for sharing!
 

Monkey

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I suggest adding a repair function in the smithy to repair damaged high-level loot.
The ability to repair and improve weapons and armor through smithing (removing bad prefixes and adding good prefixes) is a no brainer. I'd take the ability to do that over the possibility to create my own frankenstein weapons in a finger snap. Being able to "transmog" (create armor that's as protective as, say, Imperial Scale Armor, but looks like rough bear skin) is a necessity. Currently we need to choose between wearing the most protective gear or giving our character the looks we'd like to give them. I'd pay for a DLC that would let me repair and improve weapons and armor and, especially, transmog armor.
 
I agree. For example, I think we should get loot from our own fallen as well as the enemies'. Also, the loot should be relevant to where the player is at in the game. It makes sense that a character that uses e.g. two handed weapons would be more inclined to choose two handed weapons from the loot stockpile and not thrown daggers - given both having similar value. Loot should stay interesting into longer playthroughs - depending on the enemy fought, ofc - looters (hah!) should not drop expensive items; an army lead by a king very well should.
Only if the cost of upgrade would be equivalent to the cost of armour they wear - then I agree. Otherwise it will be just money factory (more than it already is)
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
Being able to "transmog" (create armor that's as protective as, say, Imperial Scale Armor, but looks like rough bear skin) is a necessity.
This is not Assassins Creed Odyssey where magic exists. This is a big no-no to me for bannerlord.
A weak-looking armor, that does not cover your body should under absolutely no circumstances give you a protection of high-grade multilayered set of armor.
This would be an absolutely atrocious move, and I'm strongly against this kind of shenanigans.
 

Monkey

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
This is not Assassins Creed Odyssey where magic exists. This is a big no-no to me for bannerlord.
A weak-looking armor, that does not cover your body should under absolutely no circumstances give you a protection of high-grade multilayered set of armor.
This would be an absolutely atrocious move, and I'm strongly against this kind of shenanigans.
You're right. I agree with you in regards to the possibility of making peasant clothes protect as well as Imperial scale armor. That shouldn't be possible. I wouldn't like that to be possible. What I'm talking about is more along the lines of being able to throw a rough bear skin over my Highland Warlord pauldrons for the looks without losing its stats. I might also want to use the Highland Warlord armor (to match the arms and the legs) without feeling bad for not using the more protective Imperial scale armor. Say I'm actually just crafting an as protective chest piece, but with a different design instead. If you think that's also absurd, then I can only politely disagree.
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
You're right. I agree with you in regards to the possibility of making peasant clothes protect as well as Imperial scale armor. That shouldn't be possible. I wouldn't like that to be possible. What I'm talking about is more along the lines of being able to throw a rough bear skin over my Highland Warlord pauldrons for the looks without losing its stats. I might also want to use the Highland Warlord armor (to match the arms and the legs) without feeling bad for not using the more protective Imperial scale armor. Say I'm actually just crafting an as protective chest piece, but with a different design instead. If you think that's also absurd, then I can only politely disagree.
If the two armors are similar enough in terms of defense, then I would not particularly mind swapping the looks. However, to be honest it still leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. I mean, imperial armor is the best for a reason, it is the best developed nation in Calradia. Some unwashed barbarians from Battania should not be able to have the same kind of stats with their clobbered-together shabby armor, even if it is a matter of visuals for the player.

I actually think that the choice between looks and protection is a very valuable one. I, for one, really like the look of decorated Imperial greaves and vambraces, but the plated ones have much better stats. That introduces a dilemma, which I think is a good thing. Having your cake and eating it too is not a good thing.
 
Only if the cost of upgrade would be equivalent to the cost of armour they wear - then I agree. Otherwise it will be just money factory (more than it already is)
In VC you could take a piece of equipment to an armorer in most towns and get it upgraded. The cost depended on the base value of the item and how high you wanted to take it. It wasn't really worth doing on every piece of armor or weapon and eventually it would cost somewhere around the price of the item it's self, but if you found something really powerful and rare but it had a bad modifier you could upgrade it to as high as you saw fit. It was really a nice addition to the game.
 

Monkey

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I mean, imperial armor is the best for a reason, it is the best developed nation in Calradia. Some unwashed barbarians from Battania should not be able to have the same kind of stats with their clobbered-together shabby armor, even if it is a matter of visuals for the player.
For what it's worth, the Empire currently does produce the best in slot chest piece (Imperial Scale Armor), but Battania produces the best in slot helmet (Highland Noble Helmet with Feather), gauntlets (Highland Warlord Bracers) and greaves (Highland Warlord Boots). Battania used to produce the best in slot shoulders (Highland Warlord Pauldrons) too, but that position now belongs to the Aserai (Southern Reinforced Brass Scale Shoulders). As a matter of fact, many Imperial armor pieces were nerfed in the most recent patches. Lamellar Plate Gauntlets and Boots and Imperial Lamellar Shoulders are now worse than quite many other options for their slots now.
 

Nakh

Sergeant
Currently post battle loot just irrelevant, it is just vendor crap, outside of horses and food. It is not fun and adds a chore of sorting and selling broken-rusty-torn-cracked trash. We need some chance to find diamond in this pile of goo.
 
The loot that we get from battle is terrible and very frustrating. It doesn't seem to matter how high the enemy troop level is or how many of them there are, the stuff that we get after is totally crap. If there is any high tier equipment in there its broken in some way making it useless. I know this isn't looter RPG like Diablo, but I get the same feeling here as any other RPG's that have loot where you keep farming and you never get anything good. If the level of rewards is going to be this low going forward might as well just get rid of loot completely and just give resources or money like some other threads have said.
My two cents: I agree loot value/amount should be higher, however I suggest implementing a culture/party based moral system to prevent money printing in the endgame:
1. A bandit/raider/mercenary party will loot, based on their roguery skill. No morale penalty.
2. Lords/player playing as vassal can choose to loot, but will lose morale as penalty for doing so. Explained by robbing the dead.
Additionally vlandians could be the most civilized and not loot at all, while khuzaits being the most savage ones would almost always loot and get no morale penalty.
Also a player should be able to loot prisoners too, to get all their gear in exchange for morale/renown loss.
 

Gortar

Veteran
I think they increased the chance of getting a gem in loot, because i got some pretty good equipment after battle. But the problem is with modifiers on items, like cracked, splintered, torn etc. It drastically reduces effectiveness of this items (armor gets -40%), for example tier 6 cracked bows are worse than hunting bows, and rusty woodland chainmail is worse than almost any tier 4 armor. As it is now, the only option is to sell these things and you can buy better ones(tier 3,4) with this money.

They need to add an option to repair it, they can even divide it to 2 separate groups:
- beyond repairing - broken, torn, splintered, cracked
- can be repaired - worn, rusty, scratched, bent, crude
Possibly ad new prefixes and balance existing ones.
 
More to the point, there needs to be a system. The biggest issue right now is everything feels arbitrary and share no relations with other parts of the system.

A unit costs pittance to upgrade from one tier to the next. Yet looting said upgraded unit potentially gives you more than the cost of upgrading it.

This is a result of 2 conflicting philosophies in the game, i.e. TW wants players to have access to high level troops at the start but also wants to restrict players' access to high end gear.

This leads to non relational costs and a huge unaccountable variance. Once you start to tie in the other systems, ransoming, pillaging, everything goes nuts because the values are not based on the other systems but are made up. Why 14k for pillaging when I can loot a lord for 10k and then ransom for another 5k? Or sell a javalin for 200k? Why does it only cost 200g to recruit an equite when his armour is easily worth 4000g?

There are no answers because everything is made up without consideration of other costs. If we want to introduce some sense, then we ought to start with some base figures and work our way up from there and not allow philosophies to interfere with the results.

Price of ore and wood then use the quantity of materials per the smithing system and factor in workmanship cost for tier level. That's the price of gear.
Upgrading troops should cost alot. Sacking a town should result in a lot of loot (albeit that not all of it will fall into the player's hands).


It's not just the value of gear that needs a system. Even the armour value needs a system. A big bugbear of mine is how suede affords more protection yet weighs less and costs less than plate. Both are also tier 4 rated.

Bottom line. Work out a system. Establish the rules and relational values and build it from there. Stop tweaking individual items and focus on tweaking the relational values.
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
2. Lords/player playing as vassal can choose to loot, but will lose morale as penalty for doing so. Explained by robbing the dead.
This could make sense with our modern sense of ethics, but historically robbing the dead on the battlefield was the most normal thing to do, and barely any soldier would bat an eye. Thus, It's a bad idea.

Additionally vlandians could be the most civilized and not loot at all, while khuzaits being the most savage ones would almost always loot and get no morale penalty.

This also makes no sense. Vlandians aren't any more civilized than the Sturgians, they're a bunch of self-serving mercenaries turned self-entitled lords. They would actually be first in line to loot the dead.
And calling the Khuzait "savage"... well, that is just ridiculous.
 

niekdegrijze

Sergeant at Arms
More to the point, there needs to be a system. The biggest issue right now is everything feels arbitrary and share no relations with other parts of the system.

A unit costs pittance to upgrade from one tier to the next. Yet looting said upgraded unit potentially gives you more than the cost of upgrading it.

This is a result of 2 conflicting philosophies in the game, i.e. TW wants players to have access to high level troops at the start but also wants to restrict players' access to high end gear.

This leads to non relational costs and a huge unaccountable variance. Once you start to tie in the other systems, ransoming, pillaging, everything goes nuts because the values are not based on the other systems but are made up. Why 14k for pillaging when I can loot a lord for 10k and then ransom for another 5k? Or sell a javalin for 200k? Why does it only cost 200g to recruit an equite when his armour is easily worth 4000g?

There are no answers because everything is made up without consideration of other costs. If we want to introduce some sense, then we ought to start with some base figures and work our way up from there and not allow philosophies to interfere with the results.

Price of ore and wood then use the quantity of materials per the smithing system and factor in workmanship cost for tier level. That's the price of gear.
Upgrading troops should cost alot. Sacking a town should result in a lot of loot (albeit that not all of it will fall into the player's hands).


It's not just the value of gear that needs a system. Even the armour value needs a system. A big bugbear of mine is how suede affords more protection yet weighs less and costs less than plate. Both are also tier 4 rated.

Bottom line. Work out a system. Establish the rules and relational values and build it from there. Stop tweaking individual items and focus on tweaking the relational values.
This, well said! The different systems feel not at all connected prise wise. I think it is a monumental task to change it at this stage. I hope TW will pick this up, but I am afraid that they deem this to big an effort.
 
Top Bottom