Vanilla Armor vs RBM Armor

Users who are viewing this thread

If you've played RBM, you know that Armor matters. It makes a difference when an arrow hits you vs when a crossbow bolt hits your chest. Highly armored units will tramble looters to dust...

Now lets talk about Vanilla Armor. At this point its purely for cosmetic purposes only. Looters can hit you with a poop rock and practically do 25% damage to you even though you are wearing level 5 armor. TW, this must be addressed....
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
The umpteenth thread talking about armour.

The RBM guys have done ( keep on doing) a wonderful altruistic work which is improving the gameplay experience for many players; mine too and for that I have thanked them in different occasions... the last one after fixing the fallback order.


That said, like so many others who remember it on a daily basis... Bannerlord cannot permit itself to relegate to the modding community certain basic things that unquestionably must remain part of the solid game core. Yes, once again talking about the damage/protection formula and the rating of items according to what protects more than what - what does more damage than what.

At this point... and looking at the "future plans" thread... hardly will I be interested in cutscenes... new battle scenes... the sallyout... and all the other trivialities that are yet to come out of the oven if something as fundamental as the damage/protection formula doesn't at least match the one we had in Warband.
 
Last edited:

MostBlunted

Sergeant Knight
We all know that no armor system change will be coming from TW.

They are talking since weeks about the "pila legionary issue" which is just some ****ing minor stupid thing they changed for no reason but the community disliked it. WEEKS! Like if this is something important for the game balance. Nobody can dream of TW actually doing major changes of systems they think they work. Won´t happen.

They think it will make if differences within their system if armor piece X has 36 body armor or 34,5 body armor...just pathetic changes with no impact on the battles. The only difference the game makes with TWs system between units in battles is:

- has shield: yes/no
- has weapon: which is op / doesn´t suck / is useless
- is mounted: yes/no
- is archer: yes/no

But yea, thanks to the modders of the RBM, it´s just essential for the game.
 

Hans 77

Knight
WBWF&SVC
Bannerlord cannot bear to relegate to the modding community certain basic things that unquestionably must remain part of the solid game core
👏👏👏

At this point... and looking at the "future plans" thread... hardly will I be interested in cutscenes... new battle scenes... the sallyout... and all the other trivialities that are yet to come out of the oven if something as fundamental as the damage/protection formula doesn't at least match the one we had in Warband.

I imagine many players share the exact same attitude. Taleworlds, are you listening?
 

five bucks

Knight
That said, like so many others who remember it on a daily basis... Bannerlord cannot permit itself to relegate to the modding community certain basic things that unquestionably must remain part of the solid game core. Yes, once again talking about the damage/protection formula and the rating of items according to what protects more than what - what does more damage than what.
Correct.
At this point... and looking at the "future plans" thread... hardly will I be interested in cutscenes... new battle scenes... the sallyout... and all the other trivialities that are yet to come out of the oven if something as fundamental as the damage/protection formula doesn't at least match the one we had in Warband.
This.

All the tactics in the game will remain pointless and the combat will remain unfun for the player while armour remains in its current state.

There's no point in playing a slasher where a few stray arrows from an enemy archer will kill you before you can even reach melee range.

There's no point in playing a tactics game where using any tactic and army composition other than "archers with small infantry screen sitting on a hill" or "horse archers circling the enemy" will cause you to perform worse and you can use the same tactic against every enemy army. Also a game where, due to weakness of armour, every battle ends in about 3 minutes before tactics can be done anyway.


How has it taken TW two actual years - not including the 8 years pre-EA! - to figure out a way of making an armour/damage formula so that a handful of arrows fired from the worst bow in the game by the weakest archers don't unrealistically easily kill you in the best steel reinforced heavy padded luxury lamellar cataphract plate known to Calradia?

How hard was it to copy+paste Warband's very functional armour protection formulas and do minor tweaks, rather than starting from scratch and winding up with something worse?

It's like trying to reinvent the wheel and coming up with a square design.
 
Are swords still useless in RBM? If so, I understand why TW hasn't implemented such a system. RP gameplay choices are more important than realism.

That said, I also want a rework to make armor better. Right now, to compensate, I use mods that increase the HP per level of all units. So high tier units are far better.
 
Are swords still useless in RBM? If so, I understand why TW hasn't implemented such a system. RP gameplay choices are more important than realism.
The problem is this misconception of realism that I read everywhere.
Armor that has a high armor value and renders a sword useless is NOT REALISM.
If the sword passes through the gap between two plates and hits the flesh or gambeson under the plate armor, the damage would not be negligible.
In this case the sword would not be useless.

But obviously there must be this "weak point between the very high defenses".

You already know how I think and where to read what I think, so I will avoid inserting links so as not to offend anyone's sensitivity.

Seeing these threads always flocking on the same topic and seeing how a mod that only raises the armor value demonstrates that it is NOT ENOUGH to do just that (otherwise the swords become useless, in addition to many other problems) and that you should act in the sense I proposed and at the same time seeing that what I propose is not considered or hindered (without even trying to improve what I propose) makes me smile.
 

Bjorn The Upset

Grandmaster Knight
WBVCNWWF&SM&B
Are swords still useless in RBM? If so, I understand why TW hasn't implemented such a system.
Last time I played was 1.6.0. It is kind of true to say that. Slash attacks with swords against good armors feel useless although trust attacks are pretty okay imo.
Armor that has a high armor value and renders a sword useless is NOT REALISM.
Well, I am not a guy who sword fights with armor. So I wonder about a slash attack against plate armor feels like. I mean sword has weight and can be swung pretty fast. Although the mass center of a sword is vey close to the grip, it sure still must have some blunt damage like mace for example.
 

five bucks

Knight
Swords slashes should have a significant portion of blunt damage, this is how they could be useful against mail armour in real life despite their cutting damage being totally ineffectual.
 
Swords slashes should have a significant portion of blunt damage, this is how they could be useful against mail armour in real life despite their cutting damage being totally ineffectual.
Swords are also far more nimble, longer and quicker than maces and axes. And you don't need to swing to cause serious damage either- draw cuts are a thing. And thrust can be absolutely lethal. If a armoured man with a sword fought an unarmoured man with a mace, the swordman is going to win a lot more.

But yeah, you are still swinging a long bar of metal at someone- force is absolutely going to transfer.

I'd probably set sword damage, speed, reach and recovery time to be significantly better than maces.

Also, this is the ****ing dark ages- there's no plate armour. And almost everyone has an exposed face.
 

Lord Grindelvald

Sergeant at Arms
WB
How hard was it to copy+paste Warband's very functional armour protection formulas and do minor tweaks, rather than starting from scratch and winding up with something worse?

I guess they kinda forgot about Warband.
benioff.jpg


Which is really the only way I can justify anything. They just forgot they made Warband. And when they released BL and saw the forumpost titled "I wish BL was Warband with Diplomacy" they just freaked out and vowed never to get on the forums again.
 

Calabanar

Sergeant at Arms
RBM is a bit too extreme in its higher tier armor values, but the AI alone makes the game better tenfold.

Even though I find elite units too tanky, I find RBM much more enjoyable than vanilla Bannerlord by a landslide.
 

MostBlunted

Sergeant Knight
RBM isn´t perfect yet but of course much better than vanilla. RBM is also in active development unlike vanilla.
 

JunKeteer

Regular
Swords slashes should have a significant portion of blunt damage, this is how they could be useful against mail armour in real life despite their cutting damage being totally ineffectual.
Mentioned before, but something along the lines of Kenshi (though some of their calculations there are a bit buggy too) with armor coverage%, cut eff%/resistance, blunt eff%/resistance, blunt passthrough damage, etc... is closest representation without having to redo the animation/models themselves.

RBM isn´t perfect yet but of course much better than vanilla. RBM is also in active development unlike vanilla.
And listen better with their community too.
 
Top Bottom