Shall we talk about the paper armors?

[Berzerker Jay]

As a third party to all this, why is a post lamenting emotion starting by accusing someone of being emotional? I do not bring it up to project attributes to you, but only to state contrasted to vonbalt's post of:


which I feel is a very detailed explanation using figures to illustrate a point, yours just leaves me confused.

I genuinely want to understand your point. However the only way i can do so is if you illustrate your point with examples.

I really would be happy to clarify anything, and I have given plenty of examples around all the arguments I've made here -- this is just going on ad nauseum with a certain individual who has basically responded with this reactivity to probably every point I've made here, just because they don't like to be contradicted, I suppose.

The formula and explanation is there for all to see. The ad nauseum arguments beside the point are as confusing for me -- seemingly pointless, except for that someone feels emotionally reactive to my points. It has yet to be made clear what more I need to say about the armour rating, and how substantial an armour rating getting up or over 70 happens to be. For the purpose of my points, I thought I said enough and still wait for a specific request about them.

If you have specific requests, I invite them, but as this has gotten unreasonably emotional with that other individual, I don't think it's of value to anyone to delve deeper with open-ended requests for more ad nauseum discussion. Hope you can understand that -- I'm happy to respond to anything specific as best as I'm able.

It's been weeks of unreasonable and disrespectful communication with that Ananda person, anyway, so keep that context in mind.

 

[Mad Vader]

It's been weeks of unreasonable and disrespectful communication with that Ananda person, anyway, so keep that context in mind.

You are picking arguments with everyone and not conceding when proven wrong, that's the problem here. You must have noticed that other people don't have much problems debating each other, so it's not them.
Or in other words...

He seems to be someone who did not play a lot and pretend to know more than he actually knows about the game. Worse still, he likes to make every argument personal. From my experience, this is the worst type of people to argue with on the internet.

 

[ratschbumm]

Or in other words...

there is a short story about one woman who was complaining to her mother that her fourth husband is again a bad guy and that he is threatening to punch her in the phiz after two weeks of marriage, the same as previous ones did. Mother answered "Did you ever think that it might be about the phiz and not about the husbands?"

 

[wurmo]

Regarding bardiche, the blunt part of damage will be greater due to increased velocity, which is, in its turn, depends on shaft length.

i will dig up my poleaxe

2. deduct part of the impulse have gone to the hands of attacker. the more the distance between mass center and hitting part, more deduction. It was promised to us by the Devs, to the point.

unless developers discover the sweet spots

Weapons designed to deep penetration have no cut.

I think for thrust most weapons would be between cut and pierce.
For example, cut could have a damage-bonus of +0,3 on all locaions
and full damage treshold is applied.
Pierce gets +0,1 for limbs, +0,3 body and +0,5 for head,
with only half treshold.
So a sword would do 50/50 cut/pierce on a thrust.
Just calculate both damages and then take the average.
A Falchion may be at 70/30 cut/pierce.
An Arrow maybe at 20/80.

100 damage at 50 treshold at head :
-Sword (100-50)*0,3*0,5+(100-(50/2))*0,5*0,5 = (15+37,5)/2 = 26,5
-Falchion 50*0,3*0,7+75*0,5*0,3 = 10,5+11,25 = 21,75
-Arrow 3+30 = 33

 

[ratschbumm]

i will dig up my poleaxe

unless developers discover the sweet spots

I think for thrust most weapons would be between cut and pierce.
For example, cut could have a damage-bonus of +0,3 on all locaions
and full damage treshold is applied.
Pierce gets +0,1 for limbs, +0,3 body and +0,5 for head,
with only half treshold.
So a sword would do 50/50 cut/pierce on a thrust.
Just calculate both damages and then take the average.
A Falchion may be at 70/30 cut/pierce.
An Arrow maybe at 20/80.

100 damage at 50 treshold at head :
-Sword (100-50)*0,3*0,5+(100-(50/2))*0,5*0,5 = (15+37,5)/2 = 26,5
-Falchion 50*0,3*0,7+75*0,5*0,3 = 10,5+11,25 = 21,75
-Arrow 3+30 = 33

If it didn't hard for you to find some time, please read one of my drafts about damage.

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/about-damage-in-general-and-axes-specifically.389046/

this explains why even broad wound still be pierced one. It's all about vectors. We have three dimensions, which are fully translating to three types of damage - stab, hack and cut. It's very hard to add secondary vector to already deepened spearhead. This is why it was rotated in the wound to add damage, but not moved perpendicularly to initial vector.

 

[wurmo]

@ratschbumm :

If an axe would do more raw damage than a comparable sword,
and there would be a damage treshold specially for cut,
then this would represent the "pierce" of an axe also.
Now one wants a log that isn't cut/split by a sword, but by an axe.
So the log gets a damage treshold,
and the sword just not enough damage to develope it's cutting bonus.

This wouldn't solve all problems,
but it could lead to a more haptic feel.
First there is Raw damage, wich is blunt.
Some weapons add cut or pierce if damage is high and armor is low enough.
So this initial blunt damage could be used for calculating bash, interruption, stun.
Wich could be modified due to hit location.
The cut-damage-bonus could be substracted from this, for calculating bash.

Not completely realistic, but already more haptic.
Symbolic realsim.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

You are picking arguments with everyone and not conceding when proven wrong, that's the problem here....

The problem here is you don't know what proof is. Enough with the useless drama. Respond to my points or understand I think you're foolish for resorting to these fallacies.

Enough's enough. It's beyond ridiculous now, and yes, I do stand by my points for which I have provided evidence, even if some people who have no clue about history and haven't provided a shred of evidence or countered any of mine happen to think I'm wrong. Learn what proof is if you're going to talk about what's proven.

We've had a guy even come into the conversation who practices HEMA and experiences the force of weapons through heavier armour than what was available in the game period. I'm honestly tired of the trite fallacies some children are offering under the presumption these carry the same weight as actual evidence and testimony from people who know what they're talking about.

Honestly, the character attacks are pathetic, and I'm going to start calling them for what they are. Bite my ankles if you need, but it's pathetic that you can't argue against evidence and insist you are right in spite of it. Absolutely pathetic.

You may have a personal opinion, but that doesn't make plate armour exist centuries earlier, and that doesn't make chain mail and banded armour impervious to any strikes. lol

 

[Piconi]

If we could stick to the subject, provide proof, admit when wrong and not continue to dig deeper and respect the opposing side, it would be great mmkay.

Further derailing, baiting and pointless flaming with no substance whatsoever will not be taken as leniently.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

If we could stick to the subject, provide proof, admit when wrong and not continue to dig deeper and respect the opposing side, it would be great

Agreed. For the record, I've supported all my arguments with enough evidence to satisfy a history thesis, and the refusal to acknowledge evidence is at the heart of the little drama going on here. These same individuals haven't supplied any evidence of their own -- the root of the conflict is obvious.

 

[Mad Vader]

Agreed. For the record, I've supported all my arguments with enough evidence to satisfy a history thesis, and the refusal to acknowledge evidence is at the heart of the little drama going on here. These same individuals haven't supplied any evidence of their own -- the root of the conflict is obvious.

Well, that settles it. Now everyone apologize to this upstanding gentleman scientist.

 

[ratschbumm]

@ratschbumm :

If an axe would do more raw damage than a comparable sword,
and there would be a damage treshold specially for cut,
then this would represent the "pierce" of an axe also.
Now one wants a log that isn't cut/split by a sword, but by an axe.
So the log gets a damage treshold,
and the sword just not enough damage to develope it's cutting bonus.

This wouldn't solve all problems,
but it could lead to a more haptic feel.
First there is Raw damage, wich is blunt.
Some weapons add cut or pierce if damage is high and armor is low enough.
So this initial blunt damage could be used for calculating bash, interruption, stun.
Wich could be modified due to hit location.
The cut-damage-bonus could be substracted from this, for calculating bash.

Not completely realistic, but already more haptic.
Symbolic realsim.

I'm not against trade-off, so the model broadly described as Kenshi-like is good enough. Apply blunt, then cut or pierce which could be negated. And yeah, an axe is much more pierce than cut. Can't find any standardizing documents in English, seems they were not developed, as well as classification in the whole, but here in Russia we have state-level standards which classify, categorize and give definitions to all about cold weapon. Particularly, the point is defined as blade or plane less than 3 mm in size.
if somebody interested, here it is:
http://docs.cntd.ru/document/gost-r-51215-98

P.S. Devs never will do that way, because of "i wanna my sword cut through aaaarmor"

 

[Greedalicious]

If we could stick to the subject, provide proof, admit when wrong and not continue to dig deeper and respect the opposing side, it would be great mmkay.

Further derailing, baiting and pointless flaming with no substance whatsoever will not be taken as leniently.

Which reminds me I think I was wrong, and Blunt "only" does 90% armor penetration, not 100%.
Theres some armor absorb even when using blunt weapons, although its incredibly little.

 

[vota dc]

i will dig up my poleaxe

unless developers discover the sweet spots

I think for thrust most weapons would be between cut and pierce.
For example, cut could have a damage-bonus of +0,3 on all locaions
and full damage treshold is applied.
Pierce gets +0,1 for limbs, +0,3 body and +0,5 for head,
with only half treshold.
So a sword would do 50/50 cut/pierce on a thrust.
Just calculate both damages and then take the average.
A Falchion may be at 70/30 cut/pierce.
An Arrow maybe at 20/80.

100 damage at 50 treshold at head :
-Sword (100-50)*0,3*0,5+(100-(50/2))*0,5*0,5 = (15+37,5)/2 = 26,5
-Falchion 50*0,3*0,7+75*0,5*0,3 = 10,5+11,25 = 21,75
-Arrow 3+30 = 33

I think that armor should have 3 values and weapons only one value, some weapon could have both cut and pierce like sword depending if it is a stab or a slash but the attack should be 100% cut or 100% pierce.

 

[GrasSclammPferd]

it doesn't pass the "can a 5y old handle it?" check so maybe modders will save the day but armor really needs a rework anyway.

Oh man, I hate this argument since my game dev student years.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Agreed. For the record, I've supported all my arguments with enough evidence to satisfy a history thesis, and the refusal to acknowledge evidence is at the heart of the little drama going on here. These same individuals haven't supplied any evidence of their own -- the root of the conflict is obvious.

You haven't though. The only comment that you made that relates to the game was that the armor ratings are similar to Warband, which means nothing since we don't know that the damage model is the same (in fact I would bet money that it is not). Apart from that you went on with rants on history which, while fascinating, have nothing to do with game balance.

Talking about damage model makes me wonder what the code says though. @Apocal I think I have seen you posting code in some other thread, am I imagining that? Maybe you or someone else can shed light on it.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

You haven't though. The only comment that you made that relates to the game was that the armor ratings are similar to Warband, which means nothing since we don't know that the damage model is the same (in fact I would bet money that it is not). Apart from that you went on with rants on history which, while fascinating, have nothing to do with game balance.

Talking about damage model makes me wonder what the code says though. @Apocal I think I have seen you posting code in some other thread, am I imagining that? Maybe you or someone else can shed light on it.

Similar is not equivalent to the same. I never said it's the same, and the fact alone that we have extra armour slots and locations for damage to take place changes a lot. I honestly think a lot of the complaints are around people taking hits to the Arm slot where they maybe have a 30-40 armour rating.

Anyway, I don't know what to say to your accusation I've not supplied evidence. You obviously haven't followed the whole conversation, because I've cited historic military texts, archaeological finds, as well as experiments performed by HEMA practitioners. If that isn't enough evidence for you, or if all that's valid is some misperception that I drew a false equivalency between Warband and Bannerlord's system even though I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time I've acknowledged differences between them, then I really can't help you.

Honestly, this is frustrating that my points are being argued against with this nonsense. If you need evidence for any specific claim I've made, I've never expressed any discontent with pointing to my evidence again. Of course, that's not what it's about, and it's just about rhetorically invalidating my claims, and that just is what it is.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Similar is not equivalent to the same. I never said it's the same, and the fact alone that we have extra armour slots and locations for damage to take place changes a lot. I honestly think a lot of the complaints are around people taking hits to the Arm slot where they maybe have a 30-40 armour rating.

Anyway, I don't know what to say to your accusation I've not supplied evidence. You obviously haven't followed the whole conversation, because I've cited historic military texts, archaeological finds, as well as experiments performed by HEMA practitioners. If that isn't enough evidence for you, or if all that's valid is some misperception that I drew a false equivalency between Warband and Bannerlord's system even though I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time I've acknowledged differences between them, then I really can't help you.

Honestly, this is frustrating that my points are being argued against with this nonsense. If you need evidence for any specific claim I've made, I've never expressed any discontent with pointing to my evidence again. Of course, that's not what it's about, and it's just about rhetorically invalidating my claims, and that just is what it is.

History is irrelevant to game balance. Realism takes a back seat to actually making the game fun. This has been brought up several times not just for Bannerlord, but also for past discussions on Warband (not necessarily about armors). I am not saying that there is no place for realism, but if realism dictates that you should get one-two hitted no matter what armor you are wearing, well that should not fly because that is simply not good game design.

Now your observation about different slots makes more sense and it's something worth looking into, that is the kind of argument you should be making imo. And you really should try to not come across as being so aggressive towards people who are trying to talk to you, even if you disagree with them. There's nothing to be gained from being confrontational, it's not like it's going to make people go "ah you know what, this guy is right I agree with him now". It actually does the exact opposite.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

History is irrelevant to game balance. Realism takes a back seat to actually making the game fun. This has been brought up several times not just for Bannerlord, but also for past discussions on Warband (not necessarily about armors). I am not saying that there is no place for realism, but if realism dictates that you should get one-two hitted no matter what armor you are wearing, well that should not fly because that is simply not good game design.

Now your observation about different slots makes more sense and it's something worth looking into, that is the kind of argument you should be making imo. And you really should try to not come across as being so aggressive towards people who are trying to talk to you, even if you disagree with them. There's nothing to be gained from being confrontational, it's not like it's going to make people go "ah you know what, this guy is right I agree with him now". It actually does the exact opposite.

Okay, a second ago you were accusing me of not backing up my claims, and now you're just going into your subjective opinion on how this game should be developed. Honestly, the game's difficulty setting says, "Realistic," for a reason and if you are setting it to, "Realistic," then you really have no valid argument against it being realistic.

This thread has gone on ten pages since I joined it, and I have been personally attacked over and over by several individuals who are likely just children, or at least have the rhetorical abilities of children. Yes, I am absolutely frustrated with them and the fact that all the evidence I've supplied is ignored in favour of this weird emo trolling BS.

The game is set in a specific historic time-period, a time-period relevant to that of Warband. In this time-period, certain types of armour people are expecting for some strange reason to be wearing -- even though graphically even, they are not -- did not even exist yet. There is no plate armour, only plates applied to armour in the fashion of the Reinforced Fian armour, for example. Chainmail and the other types of armour available in this period did not in the slightest turn you invincible.

And like I said in my very first comment in this thread -- I am glad that we have more realistic armour, and that it's not like Warband where you get your Lordly Plate and go on into battle ignoring all damage except for direct hits from couched lances. I also don't want this game to end up tedious like Viking Conquest where the higher-grade armour was impervious to damage and the result is that you play the game by min-maxing everything. That honestly sucks and was my biggest complaint about Viking Conquest, why I'd frequently just put it down even though I otherwise loved it. It would be tragic if the same were inflicted on Bannerlord.

Again, I think this comes down to a pride thing where people just need to accept turning down their difficulty settings so the rest of us can enjoy the available challenge.

 

[ratschbumm]

Realism takes a back seat to actually making the game fun.

A minute of jokes. Some people actually get fun from mud cakes backing in the sandbox. They call it "not cooking game, but cooking-inspired".

 

[Hans 77]

Again, I think this comes down to a pride thing where people just need to accept turning down their difficulty settings so the rest of us can enjoy the available challenge.

There's a difference between a "challenge" and being arbitrarily one-shotted by half the troops/weapons in the game -regardless of the fact I'm a king/lord and have the equipment befitting of my station.

In fact, Bannerlord -even on max difficulty, doesn't even provide the challenge Native Warband did. I can dominate the braindead AI with alarming ease. I can min/max my finances (not even using the crafting exploit) to field endless doomstacks of top tier archers/xbows/HAs. I can F1 F1 with said doomstacks and watch a Youtube video while my army massacres the enemy waves.

No, if you wanted a real challenge, you would campaign against things like easy mode money systems, laughably bad campaign (and battle) AI, OP units standing head and shoulders above all others, and the endless little cheeses and exploits available to the player.

At least by fixing armors, there's an incentive for the player to actually take an active role in the battles, thus making the game slightly less boring.