''rant'' about realistic difficulty.

Users who are viewing this thread

Hi i just got back into playing Bannerlord again. and alot of improvements have been added. my only problem is the ''realistic'' difficulty. i thought it would count for everyone. but it only seems to count for me and my troops. im wearing heavy lamelar armour with heavy shoulder and arm protection. yet 1 looter still does over 50% of my health. and when i swing that 2handed sword at their head they are not even dead. ( i cant remember the name of the 2h sword but its the reward you get for joining Garios ) ive tried different weapons but does not seem to make much difference.

idk where else to post this so i hope this is correct.
 

Clsy

Squire
WBWF&S
probably, but no change will be made as this is taleworlds' design & vision and that means you have to live with it
 

Life_Erikson

Master Knight
M&BWBNWVC
It doesn't have anything to do with the difficulty setting. Rather this is how the combat / damage system is designed currently.
Armor is useless, ranged is OP and looters rocks are another subject entirely as they are beyond good and evil.
It's just that you didn't notice it as much on lower difficulty settings since damage on you and your troops was reduced and only the enemy suffered of this.

There have been several posts about this for quite some time now. It is now TaleWorlds turn to do something about it...
 

AndrewArt

Squire
It's just that armor isn't that effective, that's all. Other than that, the weapon you got has 86 swing damage, so you probably need a little bit of two handed skill (as you should) and perks to increase damage to one-shot even unarmored target. Other than that, it also depends what kind of swings you're doing. Try doing some overhead attacks or something. The angles you hit and the body parts you hit matters, you can't just swing randomly and expect to one-shot everyone, even if looters. They still have 100 health probably
 

sniparsexe

Knight at Arms
As the others said, this is completely about design. Armor doesn't work at all, bludge damages (hammers maces etc.) completely ignores armor (correct me if they changed this please) in easier settings the damage you and your troops takes are heavily reduced so you probably just noticed it. IIRC rocks also deal bludgeoning damage, looters' accuracy is also stupidly great so yeah.. welcome to Bannerlord
 

Blayde

Recruit
even in warband was same deal , only some mods fixed it and felt good wearing full plate with peasents doin 1 damage to u , am no expert but i think full set of arnor should protect u from weak weapons slashes
 
The problem is the word REALISTIC.
There is nothing realistic about being hit and damaged by a stone or a sword while practically in full armor.
These "difficulties" are not "difficulties", they are simple variations of trivial parameters of damage inflicted and received, something that in a game like this should put those who thought and introduced them to shame.
A game should inspire the player to improve their skills, not to increase stupid numbers to delude them that they have gotten better. At most a compromise between the two but with a preponderance of the former.
I am writing to you what in my opinion would be realistic, and it really would be, first of all in terms of gameplay and as a fortuitous but well-desired consequence, also in terms of historical accuracy:
JOINT HURTBOXES and ARMOR HURTBOXES: an armor system that provide a way to balance factions warfare and make more deep the combat system(suggestions)
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
even in warband was same deal , only some mods fixed it and felt good wearing full plate with peasents doin 1 damage to u , am no expert but i think full set of arnor should protect u from weak weapons slashes
It really wasn't though. 52 body armor would make you impervious to arrows from lower level troops, and looters couldn't scratch you. Unlike the hand grenades disguised as rocks we have in Bannerlord.
 
It's just that armor isn't that effective, that's all. Other than that, the weapon you got has 86 swing damage, so you probably need a little bit of two handed skill (as you should) and perks to increase damage to one-shot even unarmored target. Other than that, it also depends what kind of swings you're doing. Try doing some overhead attacks or something. The angles you hit and the body parts you hit matters, you can't just swing randomly and expect to one-shot everyone, even if looters. They still have 100 health probably
thats exactly what i have been trying. my 2 handed was 122 the moment i wrote this tread. so i thought that would be high enough to kill a looter with a single swing at the head. ive tried the overhead swing. the right swing. the stab ( stab doesnt do that much ) even tried it on horse combat imperal comes charging at me full speed i do a side swing hit him full in the neck area. still lives. he stabs me with his little lance while standing still and i lose a 3rd of my health xD. but glad im not the only one with this problem. anyways thanks for the answers everyone.
 

Callum

Community Lead
The problem is the word REALISTIC.

I think you might be right there. The word realistic makes me think of the real-world suits of armour that basically made people invincible on the battlefield, whereas the intention in the game is to show that it is a high difficulty level.

Now, I know some of you want heavier armour to provide a lot more protection than it currently does, but I feel that is a different debate entirely. My question here is do you think changing the word realistic to something else would be preferable?
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Now, I know some of you want heavier armour to provide a lot more protection than it currently does, but I feel that is a different debate entirely. My question here is do you think changing the word realistic to something else would be preferable?
Sure, just change it to Full or Challenging.
 

Flesson19

Not a Cookie
Knight
I think you might be right there. The word realistic makes me think of the real-world suits of armour that basically made people invincible on the battlefield, whereas the intention in the game is to show that it is a high difficulty level.

Now, I know some of you want heavier armour to provide a lot more protection than it currently does, but I feel that is a different debate entirely. My question here is do you think changing the word realistic to something else would be preferable?
I would say yes to both, we want armor to protect better and I think the wording needs to be changed as the OP makes a great point were a couple rocks can devastate you but a massive 2H to the head doesn't kill them. Both things mentioned needs work
Realistic to challenging is a good idea as realistic is making it confusing and leading people to think something it isn't
 

Bannerman Man

C# Sleuth
Knight
Armor doesn't work at all, bludge damages (hammers maces etc.) completely ignores armor (correct me if they changed this please)
This is more of a misconception. Armor does (and always has to my knowledge) block a percentage of blunt damage, but since armor is weak in general it's hard to notice. Having 50 armor on a body part would absorb 33% of raw blunt damage, for instance. Armor just protects you better against the other two damage types.
 

sniparsexe

Knight at Arms
This is more of a misconception. Armor does (and always has to my knowledge) block a percentage of blunt damage, but since armor is weak in general it's hard to notice. Having 50 armor on a body part would absorb 33% of raw blunt damage, for instance. Armor just protects you better against the other two damage types.
Well that's a bit of relief there. Thanks :smile:
 

mujadaddy

Regular
WB
This is more of a misconception. Armor does (and always has to my knowledge) block a percentage of blunt damage, but since armor is weak in general it's hard to notice. Having 50 armor on a body part would absorb 33% of raw blunt damage, for instance. Armor just protects you better against the other two damage types.
I can't find where I read it, but does that mean 100 armor is capped to block 66% blunt? I really dislike armor asymptotes...
 

geala

Sergeant at Arms
I don't know what's about that looter rant. I'm currently back (in 1.5.9) after a long pause and I don't have any problems with looters and their stones. That's with a tunica of 8 armor and a helmet of 15 armor. When do you fight looters in your endgame armor?

To "Realistic": I saw and see it as a hint that hits with weapons on the unprotected body do damage accordingly. I hate games were you have to hack or shoot 20 times on/in the unprotected head to kill an enemy because he/she is "high tier". As armor is very diverse and of very different quality and adds a lot of factors to combat, and because of the fact that video games never ever being able till now to realistically depict armor, I did not expect armor to be incorporated in the "realism".

Armor in this game has it's problems, as in all games, true. Some problems are that armor has no disadvantages (except weight on foot), like heat management, movement restriction, vision restrictions, maintenance problems, high costs, that it has an absolute protection chance (no arrow through the eye-slit ...) and that it is on the troops in an (unrealistic) over-abundance. The strange recruitment and tier system of M + B (from serf to knight in 14 days ...) adds to the armor problems, as the economic aspects of equipment are negligible.

As armor has none of it's real world disadvantages and is much too present on the battlefield, it cannot have ingame all the advantages that it had in actual combat, because that would not be "realistic", too. My wishes were, reduce armor on the units, take T5 units out of the game, make ranged weapons shoot slower and less accurate, make the better metal armor a bit better. Cause I know that that will of course not happen, I mostly did it myself in the past, to a certain degree, although it's exhausting during the EA phase. :wink:
 
Last edited:

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
I can't find where I read it, but does that mean 100 armor is capped to block 66% blunt? I really dislike armor asymptotes...
It was from here, maybe.

I don't think it is an asymptote though:
iRkY1.png

No curve to infinity, it is just that 100 armor is the most you can get (or is it?), so the scale cuts off there.
 
I think you might be right there. The word realistic makes me think of the real-world suits of armour that basically made people invincible on the battlefield, whereas the intention in the game is to show that it is a high difficulty level.

Now, I know some of you want heavier armour to provide a lot more protection than it currently does, but I feel that is a different debate entirely. My question here is do you think changing the word realistic to something else would be preferable?
What I often suggest to make the game realistic and balanced I have described in a thread of which I post the link:
JOINT HURTBOXES and ARMOR HURTBOXES: an armor system that provide a way to balance factions warfare and make more deep the combat system(suggestions)

In summary what I suggest in the thread is:
1) we increase the hurtboxes of the character models.
Suppose they are 15.
2) we impose that the armor slots are 10.
This implies that NOT ALL HURTBOXES ARE COVERABLE by a piece of armor and can be protected.
We call these hurtboxes: uncovered hurtboxes.
(obviously nothing prevents an armor slot from being uncovered and therefore there is a very low armor value even in armor slots)
3) make SMALL the uncovered hurtboxes and place them, among all the possible points of the model, in those points that are "coherent".
For example we can place them in the JOINTS, those points of the model between 2 pieces of armor that leave an uncovered space between them.
ES: A joint (uncovered hurtboxes) could be that of the elbow, which is between the arm and the forearm.
Or the armpit, which is below the shoulder.
Points that generally remain uncovered although all armor parts are worn.
4) the armor value must be increased strongly but according to the type of material and according to the type of damage that is received.

CONSEQUENCES:
Hand-to-hand combat: Although you cover all armor slots (10) with the armor with the highest armor value (assume you take 0 damage from non-bludgeoning hits), 5 uncovered hurtboxes remain.
As these hurtboxes are small and difficult to hit, more accuracy is required of the opponent.
Furthermore, if you hit a hurtbox covered by the armor, the damage is greatly reduced (given the high value of armor, in our case it would inflict 0 damage) and therefore the immersion is preserved.
The uncovered hurtboxes still make the opponent defeatable, as hitting him in those points the armor value is very low and therefore a high damage is suffered.
Also there is a good reason to reduce the lunge delay, which would become important here and should be speeded up.

combat against units with ranged weapons:
Since there are covered and uncovered hurtboxes, the relationship between the covered and the total areas of the model gives us a natural probability that the model will be hit by an arrow that hits that model.
There is no need to do calculations, just the kinematics of the arrow and where it hits will determine what happens.
Obviously from a great distance we can benefit from this system, as:
A) the probability of hitting a very unprotected point is inversely proportional to the NUMBER of protections worn by the target, not so much by the average armor value.
In fact, if we have a 95% covered model with an armor value that reduces the damage to 1 where it is covered and 20-30 where it is uncovered, this means that, from a great distance, every 20 arrows, only 1 hits. a poorly protected point and the rest hit protected points.
So if there are 20 archers, it will take 4-5 shots to take down that heavily protected unit.
It will be luck and cover, from a great distance, that will determine whether the target unit is downed or not.

B) From close range, however, it is no longer a question of "probability" but of "aim".
If you aim well at the exposed Hurtbox, you do a lot of damage to it, otherwise you go to melee.

In this way, heavily armed infantry or knights well protected will not suffer heavy losses from the forest of arrows if they do not stay hit for a long time.

let's make 4 CLEAR examples:

example 1:
- damage reduction from 1 arrow to 5 on covered hurtboxes.
-34 damage on uncovered hurtboxes (let's pretend there are no variations due to damage location for simplicity).
- 80% hurtboxes coverage and no shield.
20 archers, 20 infantry with pike and sword weapons.

The infantrymen are at 100m and move with a speed of 5 m / s towards the archers and will reach them in 20 seconds, the archers shoot their forest of arrows with a frequency of 1 forest every 5 seconds, so in total 4 forests of arrows, then 80 arrows in 20 seconds.
The number of arrows that will hit OPEN POINTS is:
80 * (1-0.:cool: = 16
therefore 16 infantry will suffer 34 damage.
Furthermore, let's assume that a part of the remaining arrows (64) hits the infantry and the others fail.
40 remaining arrows hit and therefore each soldier is hit by 2 arrows in HURTBOXES COVERED suffering:
5 * 2 = 10 damage.
So we will have in total, at the end of the 20 seconds and before the melee combat:
infantrymen:
16 soldiers with: 100-34-10 = 56 hp
4 soldiers with: 100-10 hp = 90 hp

We can interpret these numbers by saying that:
20 soldiers arrive, of which 16 with 56 hp and 4 with 90 hp, or:
12 or 13 infantrymen arrive, given that compared to the maximum hp of the entire unit, only about 60% survive.

All this always taking into account that:
1) we have not considered that the odds of hitting increase at close range, since as we have said, it becomes a matter of "aim".
2) we have not considered that an infantryman can be hit several times, in uncovered points. This could have killed some soldiers.
3) no one gets hit in the head

example 2:
With less covered units (75%) or with poor protection (for example a protection that reduces the damage from 34 to 25 or 20), the number of infantry deaths would be:
arrows hitting: 80 * (1-0.75) = 20 so 1 per soldier.
of the remaining 60, 40 hit in "protected" points, therefore 2 arrows for each infantryman.
=> 20 infantry remain with: 100-34-20 * 2 = 24 hp
24/100 corresponds to about 25%, so it means that either this infantry arrives with 24 hp on average, or that of 20 only 5 remain.

example 3 (full armor or very high protection):
- 95% coverage and 1 damage taken in covered hurtboxes
-34 damage taken in uncovered hurtboxes
20 archers and 20 infantry without shields.
arrows on covered hurboxes: (1-0.95) * 80 = 4
of the 76 remaining arrows, 16 miss and 60 hit covered hurtboxes, each soldier being hit by 2 of these.
out of 20 infantry:
4 infantrymen arrive at the goal with: 100-34-2 = 64 hp
16 infantrymen reach the goal with: 98 hp

example 4 (chainmail and gambeson)
-100% covered hurtboxes and damage reduction vs piercing from 34 to 27.
-34 damage on uncovered hurtboxes

no arrow hits hurtboxes uncovered.
of 80 arrows 60 hit the soldiers, so 3 arrows for each of them:
Hp remaining at the end of the run: 100-27 * 3 = 19
So either they all arrive with 19 HP, or only 4 soldiers arrive at the goal.

Excluding headshots and assuming the arrow deals 34 damage on a face-up hurtboxes.


The link above describes everything in a less summary way and with less generic examples than those shown here.
It also expresses other benefits regarding the balancing.
Many of my threads are written with both balance in mind and introducing innovative mechanics that act as a "degree of freedom" for balance itself.

Thank you for replying and I apologize if I wrote a lot ... but you will agree that with the twitter method you can not explain anything to anyone.
 
Top Bottom