Are looters really this big a problem for people or is it just an excuse to engage in some good old fashioned pedant posting?
In a vacuum, no, but when examined with context they showcase a lot of the combat-related issues which plague Bannerlord as a whole.
Issues such as unbalanced damage calculation, the impact (or lack thereof) of armor vs. attacks, the speed and accuracy of ranged weapons, the supremacy of ranged units in general, # of missiles ranged units receive, bandit party size on campaign map vs. player character level and party size, too much parity between units of all tiers (*Important*), and troop quantity vs. quality disparities.
As
@Ananda_The_Destroyer stated above, looters served as a first test for players in Warband. They were pretty manageable, with only the most inexperienced or clueless players falling victim to them in battle. Looters served not only as a first test, but also as a clear benchmark of what constituted as "weak" within the Warband unit power-scaling. While potentially deadly for a poorly equipped player or Tier 1-2 units, they essentially became cannon fodder for anything greater. This is due to the effective and successful troop tier power scaling present in Warband -which was made possible because armor
actually worked.
Compare this with Bannerlord, where there is much more parity -honestly, too much, between the troop tiers. This means that units like looters punch well above their weight class in terms of damage output vs. enemies. This is why looters and low-tier fodder are able to significantly damage/kill elite troops with alarming success. In Warband, there was an actual distinction between high-tier units and low-tier, which incentivized the player to build a well-trained, well-equipped army. In Bannerlord however, the game is simply a matter of collecting as many archers/crossbows as possible with some tertiary infantry and cav troops to fill the role of being a distraction. Troop experience/equipment doesn't matter, only sheer numbers and ranged units do. This is why people are derogatively calling Bannerlord a grindy warfare simulator.
And lastly, this also means that looters simply aren't fun to fight. Considering how armor is useless and the sheer MLB pitcher-like accuracy looters possess with their rocks, it's nightmare to try and actively fight them in combat as a player. And that is a big deal,
active vs. passive gameplay. No one wants to fight
looters of all units with F1-F1, simply standing around and waiting as your archers shoot them down.
Standing and waiting simulator, real fun. But in many cases, it's the only safe viable option. I remember how frustrating it was doing all I could to dodge their rocks; zig-zagging, spinning, crouching -to no avail. They were able to hit me effortlessly (even from considerable range) every time. Plus, the damage those rocks did was foolishly absurd. Even mounted on horseback, the looters were deadeyes with their rocks. Taking an angle, full gallop -didn't matter, got nailed anyways.
So it's not so much the looters are bad, it's just the game is bad. The game mechanics are set up to encourage passive gameplay as opposed to active gameplay, and looters are just one example of this -other examples include how players conduct their wars, build their influence/armies, and kingdom/clan diplomacy. It's a waiting simulator. Too much passive gameplay is a problem, because with not enough active gameplay people with get bored and move on. Too much passive gameplay is not good for the longevity of your game, and Bannerlord is one of the most
passive games I have played.