My suggestion for skills system

Users who are viewing this thread

RJ_Sera

Veteran
After 1 thousand hours of playing, I feel that the skills are not evenly distributed
Vitality and Control should be the same as it involves muscles, swinging weapons, pulling bows and throwing
some perks that increase the team size that are in the battle tree should be in Steward, some of the perks that increase the hp that are in the battle tree that should be in the Atheletic and many perks that are not suitable, may I point out more... .
Having too many roles makes the perks useless, the team leader is useless to companions who don't want to lead the army but we have to take those perks as we progress trees...
Tactics have to be something that affects the battlefield like ammo, troop movement speed... And I'm thinking of a strategist, someone who can help you strategize, bonus for troops.
Smithing should be a mini game, a skill tree just for people to exploit and break the game, fitness will recover when moving
Again, I feel like the developers have created a lot of skills and perks that only make things more complicated but less efficient.
If I want 330 bows but don't want to forge, do I have to throw 10 points into control just for the bow? this is very uncomfortable
My suggestion is just my personal opinion and I hope you read it
Why not simplify things, for example:
Athletic lvl25 - 50-75 ... each level will give % movement and hp
Same for other skills
I think the skill system should be seriously overhauled from the feedback from other players, not just me.
Sorry I'm not good at English, I love this game and I really see the potential of bannerlord is huge. I hope one day it can be perfect to become a legend
 
Vitality and Control should be the same as it involves muscles, swinging weapons, pulling bows and throwing
Disagree. Don't take the words to literally, it's clearly quite a traditional divide between melee combat skills and ranged combat skills.

Sure it takes strength to pull back a bow, and the actual definition of vigor is more accurately represented by the Athletics skill, but Vigor is more representing the character's melee potential, their natural ability to parry and strike with speed and force - it's just difficult to adequately sum that up on in a single word so they probably just chose a trope RPG players are familiar with.

As for control, that's representing one's hand-eye-coordination and innate ability to accurately and reliably 'control' the path of a projectile. Sure strength is beneficial, but it's a more slow and controlled strength needed rather than the quick and unpredictable movements needed for melee fighting. Someone who is strong doesn't have equal opportunity to become an MMA fighter or an Olympic archer, for example.

Although I would be up for some attributes having minor cameos in the perks of skills governed by other attributes. For example, a one-handed or polearm perk that lets you throw any 1h axe or short polearm provided you have the requisite Control stat.
some perks that increase the team size that are in the battle tree should be in Steward, some of the perks that increase the hp that are in the battle tree that should be in the Atheletic and many perks that are not suitable, may I point out more... .
Battle tree? I'm not sure whether you mean tactics or the combat skills but either way I disagree. It's nice having small bonuses in other trees so you're not completely forced to spec into a Steward and Athletics. They also normally make reasonable sense relative to Steward granting party size and Athletics HP. Medicine means you can keep healthier and therefore less likely to die on the battlefield, sure makes sense. Athletics gives you better cardio and conditioning so you don't collapse from exhaustion in a battle? Sure. A warrior using two-handed weapons with no shield has probably gotten conditioned to taking a few blows so reasonably might be more resistant to getting hit (assuming armour holds up) than their counterpart archer who doesn't often get into the melee but does a lot of running.
Having too many roles makes the perks useless, the team leader is useless to companions who don't want to lead the army but we have to take those perks as we progress trees...
More often than not there's a corresponding 'Captain' perk if you just want them to lead a formation. There's plenty of 'governor' perks that are useless to the player as well, but that's why most perks have two effects. The perks could be cleaned up a little and improved but I don't get your point here as most of the perks only give party leader/clan leader/ army commander benefits are in the leadership tree, which makes complete and utter sense.
Tactics have to be something that affects the battlefield like ammo, troop movement speed... And I'm thinking of a strategist, someone who can help you strategize, bonus for troops.
I actually agree with this that tactics could help more than just auto-resolve and some captain benefits. For example there's a perk in there that is Engineer/governor, who are the last roles I would focus on a high tactics skill for. Ammo sounds more in steward's domain, unless we're talking about simulating using different arrowheads, poisoning or barbing arrows etc. Could be represented by small damage increases against particular targets etc. Would be nice if tactics perks could make you specialise against specific enemies, like the first perk that forces you to prioritise dealing with enemy cav or enemy archers, and then next desert or forest terrain. Would really lend to master tactician roleplay, helping you exploit the terrain better if you can pick the battle location (e.g. a damage reduction for elevated infantry troops or a damage increase for elevated ranged troops).

As for the strategist, that is partially simulated when performing tactics actions, as it'll use the highest tactics skills of all the heroes in the army.

Smithing should be a mini game, a skill tree just for people to exploit and break the game, fitness will recover when moving

Nah, there's nothing more suitable to replace it - especially this late into development - and some people like to do smithing playthroughs and also then there's the dedicated smithing companions. I would however like to see parts unlocked being more directly tied to smithing skill and also being not being shared amongst all heroes. I don't want to bother with the smithing mini-game but I still want my custom weapons dammit. If I hire a blacksmith companion then they should be able to make more than my warrior who smelted a few weapons one time. Like a lot of the perks in the smithing tree are single effect - you easily add in perks which unlock a load of crafting pieces, or at least increase your rate of discovering new pieces.
If I want 330 bows but don't want to forge, do I have to throw 10 points into control just for the bow? this is very uncomfortable
Eh? Smithing is in Endurance, not Control? But also why is that so uncomfortable? If you want to have the best archery skill in the game, it'd make sense that you'd have to be the best in the governing attribute as well. If you wanted to have the highest trade skill but don't want leadership or charm then you'd still need the high social stat as trade still involves communicating well with other human beings. Same with intelligence: if you wanted to be the best engineer then you'd need to have a very good ability to study and learn information, which is the same attribute you'd need to become the best surgeon.

Athletic lvl25 - 50-75 ... each level will give % movement and hp
It already gives movement speed and knockback resistance, which is fine and doesn't need the extra HP to make the skill OP. The perks are there to boost HP but they're very clearly an alternate to further increasing movement speed (take the first perk choice in Ath for example). You can choose to be tough or to be fast, which is honestly a nice touch.


The perks are still not perfect but they're so much better now than they were before. The skill system is clearly not meant to be like power-fantasy RPG's where the aim is to min-max but rather a reflection of playstyle becoming semi-realistic specialisms which subtly lend towards that playstyle. Sure it needs some tweaking to make perks more meaningful, correct points assigned in character creation to make more sense, give more attribute points, normalise skill gains etc. but a drastic overhaul at this stage of development that'd probably have just as many issues? No, thank you good sir
 

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
Personally, I think that each perk level should give some kind of personal benefit alongside the role-specific benefits, even its as simple as a +1 damage or something. There's nothing more disappointing than hitting a perk milestone only to have to choose between 2 irrelevant perks.

I still think the easiest change to the skill system that would make it a million times more enjoyable would be to get rid of the damned learning limit. Put a 0.25 or even 0.10 minimum learning rate so that you can still slowly improve skills after you hit the limit. Its absurd that you could kill 10 million dudes with your bow, but if you didn't assign enough focus you won't get a single skill point.
 
Top Bottom