try reading and understanding my previous posts in this thread again.
I did, and they're short on reasons why you adhere to your particular platform, and heavy on
dangerous misinformation, such as:
in the mount & blade games, blunt weapons ignore armor.
This is unequivocally false!
Blunt damage in
Bannerlord may completely ignore armor, but not all Mount & Blade games. Warband had a very well thought-out and intuitive formula for damage calculation, which I shared a few posts prior, and this formula was used for Native Warband and all of its many mods (unless a modder decided they wanted to change the values -can't think of any examples though).
I think the older M&B titles handled the damage type vs. armor issue with pragmatism and balance, which is why Bannerlord's blanket formula of "blunt ignores armor completely" is drawing so much heat right now. There was never such a firestorm of controversy over blunt damage in Warband because the system was a fair compromise. I hate always having to go back to the Warband well, but it's the only example we have to go off of that was proven effective.
One of the reasons people want armor to be fixed in Bannerlord is because right now it's promoting passive and avoidant gameplay. Why take active part in a battle when even the feeblest of units can seriously injure you? Considering how long it takes to heal in the current patch (days and days of sitting in a settlement even with high medicine skill), why even take the risk? Just sit back f1 f3. The player is discouraged from taking an active role. That's passive, avoidant gameplay.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who considers the best part of a Mount & Blade campaign to be the early-mid game. This is before all the fiefs, the kingdom management, the politicking, the juggling of vassals and their happiness, before the endless sieges and watching wave after wave of troops head up the ladder. When you are just a lone adventurer starting off, you have a much more active role in your affairs.
Sure, the time where you and 3 companions fought off 12 sea raiders probably isn't that important of a battle on a macro level, but it was probably more fun than watching your 120 Crossbowmen sit atop a hill and mow down hundreds of Emir Atis' troops. Which event will you remember more fondly? The one where you personally cut down a few guys trying to drink from your skull? Or when you told your AI army to hold position here and sat back while their op bows did the rest?
I feel the core M&B experience is centered around those small-scale battles; the bandit hideout raids, rescue or ransom a lord (fighting your way out of the castle/town was the best), capturing the spy quest, assassinate the merchant, train peasant how to defend themselves. No surprise, all of these experiences revolve around active gameplay, where the player is personally engaged. The active engagement creates a positive feedback loop with chemicals in your brain, which make you want to do more of it.
On the other hand, the late game isn't as fun because it's more
passive. The player does more delegating and giving orders than actual hands-on stuff. The more you conduct larger and larger scale battles and wars, the more you are severed from that visceral link to the core gameplay. You're just organizing armies, sending them up the ladder in sieges, decided who gets who fiefs, and making sure you have a steady supply of money and troops for your grind of a campaign. You are suddenly finding yourself compelled to go on not because you are having fun, but only because you want to see things through to the end and conquer all of Calradia.
Thus, which game would you like to play more, an active or a passive one?
This brings me back to armor. It's much easier to take part in
active gameplay when you have functional armor. You spend less time getting knocked out, and/or less time recovering in a settlement and more time actually playing and enjoying the game. Armor that actually does its job and a damage system that is understandable and fair should be a win-win for both devs and the players. This starts with fixing armor values and how it responds to different damage types, particularly blunt damage.
as i said, they ignore armor completely
this is how the blunt weapon damage modifier works since the original mount & blade
Again, this is dangerous misinformation. A near-decade of Warband proves these assertions false.
With statements like these, you're re-writing the Mount & Blade franchise's history in order to push your own personal agenda, which is a fraudulent and deceitful thing to do.
jk but sure if it is that much as they claim it to be (of which im gonna try out later but i cant recall it is from my last playthru with medium armor) then sure it needs to be reduced but not nullified
