-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Shall we talk about the paper armors?
- Thread starter vonbalt
- Start date
-
- Tags
- armor discussion game balance
Users who are viewing this thread
Berzerker Jay
So you think the root-cultures for the fictional cultures in the game are off-topic to discussions around historic realism and its relationship to the factions in the game...?
Players do perceive the difference, and I can't think you're being anything but hyperbolic in saying otherwise because the difference is not at all subtle even. I mean, generally we can count on hyperbolic, non-factual arguments to ultimately drag out a discussion, no?
What is your aim then, if you're not contributing any additional information to the discussion and hyperbole instead? I would expect the devs to want better reasoning than hyperbole and other manipulative rhetoric to justify their decisions on important gameplay issues to the players -- that sort of reasoning justifies mods, not really the basic game.
I mean, the whole reason this discussion has dragged on so many pages is because of excessive denial of historical facts. There are a few people here who are discussing the actual facts, and then we could probably strip away at least several pages of simple derailments like this.
Ah yes, naked I take 90 damage of my HP and die from the next hit, but now with this amazing max armor I take only 60 damage and die from the next hit.
Berzerker Jay
Okay, let's ground this rhetoric in some facts.
The highest armour ratings the player can achieve seem to be roughly around 70 for the body. The way this game works, that's 70 points of damage reduction, so to take 60 damage and die from the next hit you are basically being hit with something like an Executioner's Axe -- now, how many hits is reasonable to be able to shrug off and continue fighting after from a weapon like this? Two hits seems pretty reasonable, I'd say, even generous.
By the way, that armour rating is about the same as the max in Warband, even slightly exceeding it. Warband had better ratings for Leg and Head slots, however. The bigger difference there is that Warband had much smaller battles and so far fewer weapons on the field to deal damage to you in a single battle.
The highest armour ratings the player can achieve seem to be roughly around 70 for the body. The way this game works, that's 70 points of damage reduction, so to take 60 damage and die from the next hit you are basically being hit with something like an Executioner's Axe -- now, how many hits is reasonable to be able to shrug off and continue fighting after from a weapon like this? Two hits seems pretty reasonable, I'd say, even generous.
By the way, that armour rating is about the same as the max in Warband, even slightly exceeding it. Warband had better ratings for Leg and Head slots, however. The bigger difference there is that Warband had much smaller battles and so far fewer weapons on the field to deal damage to you in a single battle.
Pretty much this, the armor ratings may be similar to warband but the formulas aren't
The best armor in ths game will mitigate only around 40% damage and that's too freaking low, i would expect medium tier armor to mitigate around that amount, highest tier ones could go up to 75-80% mitigation to make it fun and worthwhile the cost and grind to get them in-game.
To make thigs worse we also have blunt damage ignoring 100% armor rating by formula, got hit with a mace? It's the same as being naked no matter your gear and this is awful.
This is not a historical/realism problem but a gameplay balance and itemization one.
This is exactly why I cannot even touch this game without mods.
^This reads as "I don't know
" the post, sorry but it's true.You can take 100-200+ from any weapon or projectile in the game because of it's damage calculations based on speeds
Berzerker Jay
^ this reads as a prime example of the hyperbolic BS and derailment that offers nothing productive at all to say. No, you're not taking hundreds of damage from any weapon or projectile in the game. All you're really saying is you don't like what I said and feel emotional about it.^This reads as "I don't know
You can take 100-200+ from any weapon or projectile in the game because of it's damage calculations based on speeds
In Warband you were insta-killed any time a couched lance came near you. Hundreds of damage instantly, and often without seeing it coming. That's totally eased up in Bannerlord. But I digress -- if you want to just prattle at me with mundane reactivity, you can go right ahead, but if you want it to be taken at all seriously then can you explain to me how you are obtaining a speed bonus of what must be 500% or more in some cases, presumably on foot even?
Because if you're getting speed bonuses so high, that sounds buggy and like it's the problem rather than armour. I have not seen this to be the case, however.
https://mountandblade.fandom.com/wiki/Horses
https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-12-2015/WO3NM9.mp4
Why would ever presume that? Just to be clear for you, we're talking about receiving damage. Both player and troops receive massive damage when moving towards enemies due to the speed bonus being applied to incoming attacks.
You can absolutely give or receive 200+ damage in Bannerlord from a variety of weapons, including low tier blunt ones. I'm not interested in convincing you, I'm just calling you out for being wrong. The experience of receiving massive damage is not rare and has been heavily reported all year.
This isn't true though. I don't remember the real formula but it isn't a strait absorption of damage, which is part of the problem with player experience. We would want our armor rating to be a more direct reflection of damage absorption but it isn't.
Last edited:
Bluko88
Sergeant
Higher tier armors do help (somewhat), the real question is do they help enough?
On my Battanian character I pretty much have all Tier 6 armor. If I get hit by a Militia Archer I only take like 4 Damage. Of course if I get hit by an Imperial Sergeant Crossbowman I take a good 60+ Damage. That's a pretty extreme variance. I know historically crossbows were quite deadly (as were Longbows) - but why in this game is one unit effectively firing twigs while the other is firing uranium rods?
Personally I don't think there's any armor that should make you semi-invincible where you only take 1 Damage per hit. I think how damage is dealt should really be re-examined, particularly with a lot of Archer units or Ranged Weapons in general. Getting hit with any solid object should always hurt. Like a 3/4 Damage Reduction from the very best armor is reasonable to me, particularly if said armor is fairly heavy. Obviously some two-handed weapons should be quite deadly even against the thickest armor. And we have to consider the Damage types and other factors like speed.
Due to 1.5.8 being something of a mess, I actually decided to go back all the way to 1.0.1 to see how much things have changed.
Gotta say I think 1.0 did a much better job with Damage dealt generally from my brief re-visit. (Also default movement speed was better too.)
My lowly Level 7 Character armed with a simple Spatha was only doing about 10 Damage against an Imperial Cataphract on foot with each swing. Which seems about right to me since that unit has about the best armor you can get. Granted this made the duel quite difficult in the Arena, but this issue should be resolved now by Arenas being purely Blunt Damage now.
I don't think too many will complain if armor provides better protection. Tier 5 and 6 Troops rarely seem worth the effort given how easily they perish to a few recruits or looters at times. Also won't hurt if Lords are a little more durable given their propensity to charge, etc.
Precisely.
I believe others have answered your other comments. And from the dev side, it's not a matter of opinion. They know exactly the numbers at play here, as players all we can do is report what we perceive. And I am sorry but you seem to be the minority here, and many of the people who agree on armors being unbalanced have many, many hours in the game.
Thank you, someone had to say it
My pleasure.
Berzerker Jay
Okay...so the problem is that armour is supposed to take many successive hits from mounted warriors wielding heavy weapons at high speed....
This was a thing in Warband, too. As I said, getting one-hit by a couched lance was a very real prospect. Steppe Bandits were pretty notorious for pulling this off.
I'm glad there are mods available for people who want to play as gods walking upon the Earth, but I hope the devs are smart enough not to give in. For my part, I'd appreciate if the emotionally reactive arguments just miss me entirely.
Like, bloody hell, can we discuss the facts? You disagree and can't reason a thing worth my attention about it, then don't waste your time either.
This was a thing in Warband, too. As I said, getting one-hit by a couched lance was a very real prospect. Steppe Bandits were pretty notorious for pulling this off.
I'm glad there are mods available for people who want to play as gods walking upon the Earth, but I hope the devs are smart enough not to give in. For my part, I'd appreciate if the emotionally reactive arguments just miss me entirely.
No. You're whining and expecting your ad nauseum insistence to result in me abandoning my point, even though you have no logic to speak of, let alone anything that should compel me. Your personal opinion and vendetta can both miss me entirely.
Actually it seems like a couple little protestors are just going off because they aren't very good at the game. I can assure you, I have many, many hours attributed to this and previous games -- my account doesn't even list it all, but just what my account does list is even a lot. Not sure what you had intended for that fallacious line of reasoning, anyway, but you too can miss me with your emotional reactivity.
Like, bloody hell, can we discuss the facts? You disagree and can't reason a thing worth my attention about it, then don't waste your time either.
No that's your misunderstanding of the problem, you are the one that asserted that it would take very high damage to 2-shot through heavy armor, because you mistakenly think that the damage rating is the absorption. Although incredibly high damage (100-200+)amounts occur, what I described as *naked I take 90 damage of my HP and die from the next hit, but now with this amazing max armor I take only 60 damage and die from the next hit.* is just about normal types of damage that people typically suffer in battle.
Yertyl
Veteran
I just started a new thread for this, but one of the biggest problems I see is how high ranged damage is compared to melee. I don't have a problem going down in a few melee hits even in high armor, since you can parry melee hits, not many targets can attack you at once, and you usually have a chance to kill the enemy before they kill you. Against arrows....not so much.
Compared to a thrusting sword or spear, bow damage currently seems to be about twice as high, and crossbow damage three times as high. Which is pretty insane from both a realism and gameplay perspective.
Compared to a thrusting sword or spear, bow damage currently seems to be about twice as high, and crossbow damage three times as high. Which is pretty insane from both a realism and gameplay perspective.
Last edited:
I don't see how you can consider any issue in relation to armor fixed as long as this completely retarded "blunt ignore armor" rule is in effect. It makes absolutely no sense either from a gameplay nor a realism perspective.
So saying that it "resolves an issue" when it actually IS one is not the adequate way to go with. Making a duel difficult seems to be perfectly fine, in fact.
Bluko88
Sergeant
There aren't that many Blunt weapons, and there damage isn't very good in most cases. They also (for melee) tend to have short range. So there's a trade off for their utility.
I don't think Blunt 100% ignores Armor anyways (could be wrong).
My understanding is Blunt is supposed to simulate the impact of hard objects - you know like Rocks. Really doesn't matter if you're wearing the world's finest Plate Armor, if someone drops a large basketball sized rock on your head, even with the best Steel Helm, it's going to kill you. Sure it may not cut/pierce your flesh but your brain will be scrambled and your neck would probably break.
And again if your Plate Chestpiece is hit with a large Warhammer or Mace it's going to hurt. It may not pierce your flesh in any way, but the force of the impact it still going to bruise you, may even break your ribs. Granted a lot of this depends on the actual force being exerted and just how much padding you have.
I suppose you could argue all weapons should do some "Blunt" Damage. Personally at this point in the game's development I would not expect (nor want) TW to try and implement different damage types for Weapons and especially Armor. It'd be a complete disaster. Sorry this game isn't D&D or a hardcore Medieval Simulator.
Our efforts should be focused on making sure Armor provides decent protection for the trade off of it's A) Cost and B) Weight, so that you can survive more hits, but not to the point you are an invulnerable tank that can shrug most attacks off.
The formula can be divided cleanly into two parts. The first part (100/(100+armour)) is essentially a percentage reduction, and a weak one at that. With 50 armour ( a decent amount to have by the late mid game), this is a 33% reduction. With 60 armour (close to being the best you can get), it's 37.5% reduction. These figures are very low when you compare them to other games. Early ID software games, for instance, had armour ranging from 50% to 80% protection, and even then, they didn't make you feel invulnerable.
The second part is integer damage reduction. This is the main thing that protects you from cut and pierce damage. However, for blunt damage it's completely absent! This means that no matter how much armour you've cheated onto your character, you'll never be fully protected from people flinging 3 damage pebbles.
This is the core reason why armour feels ineffectual. The damage reduction for attacks in general and blunt in particular is so low as to basically not be worth having heavy armour.
source: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...t-doesnt-work-and-how-to-make-it-work.426296/
Bluko88
Sergeant
You seem to be suggesting that's there no gain in taking only 60 Damage versus 90 Damage.
While this may not be particularly advantageous against a single opponent wielding a Falx who will basically two-hit kill you no matter what, it does have its pay offs.
Say the Falxman lands a blow that does 60 Damage, but then you land a blow on him that kills him.
But during all this an obnoxious Peasant hits you in the back with his Hoe. With Armor you only take about 15 Damage, so this means you're still alive and in turn able to fight and (probably) defeat said Peasant even though you only have 25 Health.
Now let's say you were butt-naked. So a Falxman lands a 90 Damage blow on you, but you kill him. But then that pesky Peasant hits you with his Hoe. Not only do you take more Damage this time and die (I dunno say 25 Damage) but even if Armor had been magically equipped right before he attacked you, you'd still be dead from the 15 Damage - because you didn't have any Armor while fighting the Falxman.
So yes sometimes Armor is not going to help your survivability very much, but other situations it will. That's kind of the way it is. I think some folks here are a little too hung-up on trying to recreate the "Swadian Experience" where you can just sit back as a half dozen Looters beat on you doing 0-1 Damage in your Tanky Armor. That would not be good for Bannerlord.
If the current highest tier Armors effectively make someone semi-invulnerable; then a lot of time and effort is going to have to be invested in re-equipping units and making sure then that they are balanced. Honestly what we have now isn't that bad. It definitely needs some tweaking, but "re-inventing" the wheel at this time is a bad idea. If there are folks who really want tanky Armor or specialized Armor - Mods are the way to go.
It's not possible for TW to cater to everyone's interest, and really their efforts should be entirely focused on balancing the "vanilla" game.
The vanilla experience is just bad gameplay design and armor in general protects you too little, by your own example maybe you would survive another blow or two from a peasant, wow, you are clad in padding, maille and lamellar steel plates worth 500k and it makes you survive one-two more hits at maximum than some woolen rags from the start?
armor mitigation should feel rewarding, this is a main drive in RPG games, i would be fine if low tier would mitigate 1-20, medium tier 20-45 and high tier 45-75 for example, right now the best armor in the game will only mitigate around 40% damage while medium tiers closely behind will mitigate some 30-35%, it has basically no progression and make a third of armors in the game feel completely useless and not worth the effort while making high tier units weaker than the veterans clad from the head to toe they should be (this mainly affects infantry which is in a very bad spot right now lacking the range of archers, the mobility of cavalry and the tankness that should be their main strength).
Bluko88
Sergeant
Ah thank you for sharing. I was thinking Damage Received worked more like:
Cut Damage Received=IF(((Damage*1.1)-Armor Value)<=0,,ROUND((((Damage*1.1)-Armor Value),))
or Basically
Cut Damage Received=(Damage*1.1)-Armor Value
I thought Cut was supposed to do extra damage against unarmored/low-armored opponents.
I would definitely agree Blunt should probably be more like:
Blunt Damage=magnitude* 100/(100 + armour)-0.1*armour
So if you have the very best Armor, 60 Armor Value, and get hit by a 4 Damage Rock err you get -3.5 Damage? Hmm well LOL may be that's not a good way to go afterall.
Frankly I don't think there should be any situation in-game where getting hit by a Rock (or anything) doesn't hurt at least a little bit. Again even with the best Plate Armor I don't think getting with hit 100 Tennis Ball sized Rocks would feel very good.
