SP - General Weapons being able to break

[Dr-Shinobi]

If maintaining one's equipment is added to the game, it will not be optional. You must maintain your equipment to get it at optimal performance. A small penalty is still a penalty.

That's why I am against it. My thoughts are that if people want it, they can mod it in. Skyrim for example has a mod where food is mandatory for survival.

can understand that but if they made it really slow so you had to repair em due time but you also could choose the perks for reducing it could be an viable thing to sink your money in and use your smiting skills with to Breaking weapons on field and slowing their stats down would be a cool thing for sure...Perhaps going in to the modding bin then

 

[Fïshe]

I love the logic here

I have boots. They have 10 armour.
(If I oil the leather it's possible they will have 12 armour.)
Dont want the oil, give me that 12 armour.

Buffs are not penalties.

I'd download this mod, someone make it happen lol

 

[CrazyElf]

I love the logic here

I have boots. They have 10 armour.
(If I oil the leather it's possible they will have 12 armour.)
Dont want the oil, give me that 12 armour.

Buffs are not penalties.

I'd download this mod, someone make it happen lol

This contradicts what you said earlier.

If you just don't purchase the maintenance I don't think you should be heavily punished either. Something like a -2 to -5 reduction in armour/damage makes sense.

If there was no penalty and only buffs, that's a different conversation. But you said small penalty - that's still a penalty no matter what and pretty much forces the player to repair and manage this.

In that case, we would end up like the Witcher's potions and oils. I'd rather not have those either, unless they were permanent (ex: like the gems) so that they don't have to be constantly refreshed.

But this thread is about weapons being able to break, due to lack of repairs, not about buffs. Yes, in the case of the Witcher, you do have to repair, but the big difference is that the player is not managing an empire in the Witcher, nor a bunch of companions. It is focused on Geralt and not running a kingdom.

 

[Fïshe]

Ideas may have been modified thru external input oops.

In the case of the witcher, you are correct in saying it's a more personal look into geralt's life and threfore makes more sense.
In the case of bannerlord, buying an extra item to give your army a damage and armour boost for the week [I think we can agree] sounds like a pretty sweet deal with minimal effort and is quite the abstraction from what the witcher implies.

 

[WhiteEyedSh4rk]

No, that would be just as annoying as stamina and distracts from what the game really is about.

 

[Jarl Reamald]

If maintaining one's equipment is added to the game, it will not be optional. You must maintain your equipment to get it at optimal performance. A small penalty is still a penalty.

That's why I am against it. My thoughts are that if people want it, they can mod it in. Skyrim for example has a mod where food is mandatory for survival. It's something that is abstracted out (it is used for stat buffs) or in other games (like the Witcher 3) for healing.

I see that you're one of those "if you want it, then mod it" type of people and that's bad. that what leads to the developers relying on the modders to make the game fun for them.

 

[Jarl Reamald]

Like the Durabilty? In the common RPGs?

Just for Weapons or Armors? I imagine you're proposing this only for the main hero, player controlled

If only for player, you have my vote

Yeah, I want it only for the player.

 

[CrazyElf]

I see that you're one of those "if you want it, then mod it" type of people and that's bad. that what leads to the developers relying on the modders to make the game fun for them.

Quite the contrary, I want the game to be fairly full on launch and to stand on its own without mods. However, I don't consider this feature to be fun - if anything it's quite controversial even in this thread.

I want the developers to add features, but I want them to features that add to the game, not detract by introducing what I consider to be pointless micro, which this feature does.

 

[Fïshe]

pointless micro

If weapons broke in ways that opened up other options, and only in battle scenes, I think we'd feel a bit differently

Just like shields, if pole arms snapped in half when crushed through on, and became one-handed temporarily, It would indeed be a cool feature.

Then after the battle you'd have that weapon again just like your shield comes back to you after breaking.

 

[KnuckleChildren]

I agree. it would also validate the "thamaskene steel" swords which are currently not the best ones. pointed falchion blade is currently the strongest sword blade and its made of wrought iron, the rest of the weapons dont even have thamaskene steel options

 

[KnuckleChildren]

If weapons broke in ways that opened up other options, and only in battle scenes, I think we'd feel a bit differently

Just like shields, if pole arms snapped in half when crushed through on, and became one-handed temporarily, It would indeed be a cool feature.

Then after the battle you'd have that weapon again just like your shield comes back to you after breaking.

yes and then make it so the ones you crafted out of stronger materials take much longer to do that

 

[ScarryHarry]

Please not like BotW lol...if anything, it should be a very rare chance and maybe only after certain criteria like if you were chambered so many times or something. Only probably is the price to replace might ruin the game and experience if it was too frequently, especially if you consider people having 2-3 weapons on characters plus companions.

 

[CrazyElf]

If weapons broke in ways that opened up other options, and only in battle scenes, I think we'd feel a bit differently

Just like shields, if pole arms snapped in half when crushed through on, and became one-handed temporarily, It would indeed be a cool feature.

Then after the battle you'd have that weapon again just like your shield comes back to you after breaking.

That does not sound very fun to me. I don't think we are going to come to a consensus on that.

It would also create a balancing nightmare where some weapons that could snap other weapons would be overpowered. There is already backlash on this forum due to the "crush through" mechanic being seen as overpowered. IF these weapons could disarm the enemy or significantly weaken the weapon, that backlash would grow significantly.

 

[Fïshe]

Not disarm or significantly weaken, but change. Here are my logical conditions;

1. In a polearm vs 2-handed weapon scenario, you need to be faster than the 2-handed weapon to land strikes.
2. Weapons that are able to crush through must be top-heavy and therefore slower than most 1-handers.
3. To be blocking up vs a 2-hander you must be within range of the 2-hander and therefore do not have time to switch to a faster weapon or shield.
4. A polearm is classified as any shafted weapon in which the shaft is made of wood.

Given the above are true, crushing through can have a number of outcomes:
a) hurt you - potentially kill you, rewarding the attacker. This was gonna happen anyway.
b) hurt you - potentially break into a 1-handed weapon, rewarding the defender with speed.
c) hurt you and not break. Most likely outcome.

Given that spears are generally useless, snapping a spear in two to use as a 1-handed slashing weapon or javelin seems like an upgrade.
Menalvions and voulges and such would become 1-handed slashing weapons of average stats, so no penalties anywhere.
I am of the opinion that crush through against METAL weapons is a stupid idea, and should not happen.
As the game is right now condition 2 is not always true, making outcome b) not always true. This needs to be always true for this idea to work.

 

[KnuckleChildren]

I think weapons failing in the middle of a siege is too rage inducing. it would have to be after a battle if you get wounded or something a random piece of your gear gets some kind of debuffed affix like it gets "chipped" or "dented" or "bent" and smithing should be able to fix that with one button. if you get downed you're going to be waiting in a settlement anyways, its not really that inconvenient for you to pop into the smithy, most people do that to smelt all their loot anyways. this would make a use for all those "thamaskene steel" weapon parts etc. because those could be given a 95% chance to avoid damage and fine steel 80%, regular steel 50% Iron 25% wrought iron 5% crude iron 0%.

there's a tonne of things they need to rework in smithing though, because right now its a money printer

 

[Lord Ferdinand]

yeah been playing with the idea to as you can repair em with your smiting skills or in towns. Slow degrades during time and combat that can be adjusted with perks to like in one hand tree saying that youre now being more preparing like with your swords oiling em in and stuff.

I totally agree with you: Slow degrades during time would be much more interesting.

 

[Adryl]

I totally agree with you: Slow degrades during time would be much more interesting.

No way, I think slow degrades over time is the worst option that's been mentioned. You know what this is going to result in? People just carrying stacks of duplicate weapons in case theirs breaks. It's not going to be fun, it's going to be boring and tedious. You'll end up just carrying a duplicate of whatever your main weapon is. But on top of that you'll be stressing about how your weapon durability is constantly decreasing and making sure you have one that's durable enough to survive the next battle. It's pointless micromanagement counterproductive to fun.

Having weapons become dented or chipped when you're downed is also going to be annoying af, especially during protracted sieges in mid-late game where you might go down several times over the course of the siege and pull out from the battle to heal up and build more siege equipment. As per above, people will solve this by just carrying duplicates of weapons and it'll be a pointless addition to inventory weight.

Sorry to the OP for being so harsh about this, suggesting things for the game is great, but really, this is not going to be good. At least, I have yet to hear a suggestion in this thread of how to implement weapon durability that actually sounds fun and not lame.

 

[Adryl]

If weapons broke in ways that opened up other options, and only in battle scenes, I think we'd feel a bit differently

Just like shields, if pole arms snapped in half when crushed through on, and became one-handed temporarily, It would indeed be a cool feature.

Then after the battle you'd have that weapon again just like your shield comes back to you after breaking.

So here's the problem. You can see your shield durability during battle. So you can adjust your combat strategy so that your shield doesn't break, as it gets low on durability (if it does - I've never had one break in SP after 250 hours of gameplay). Are you suggesting that weapons have durability in combat that degrades as you block with it? That's going to be absolutely horrendous. The whole joy of M&B is that there aren't stupid crappy systems like "stamina" or attacks that hit you through blocks like so many other games (that have crappy combat). Let's please not violate that paradigm here. It's one of the things that makes M&B great. A successful weapon block takes skill but costs nothing and negates all damage. That's what the game needs and that's why it rocks.

And if you're suggesting that they don't have durability that drops, you're looking at a weapon suddenly breaking during combat with no warning. That's going to be really, really annoying. A shield is totally different - you can function just fine without a shield. You can't fight without a weapon.

 

[black_bulldog]

It all sounds great until you have to deal with it in the middle of a battle. Remember how great an idea the stamina system sounded in VC but in the end it was a giant pain in the ass and I couldn't turn it off fast enough, so no thanks.

 

[Fïshe]

stupid crappy systems like "stamina" or attacks that hit you through blocks like so many other games (that have crappy combat)

Guessing this is why crush through is controversial.
And I agree stamina is stupid in real life too, very annoying. Not fun.

Either y'all don't read posts thoroughly or you don't grasp what I'm saying.
I'm NOT suggesting weapons vanish into thin air after X amount of time
I'm NOT suggesting there be no warning
I'm NOT suggesting that all weapons have a durability bar

I'm talking about weapons you are unlikely to be blocking with in the first place. ie: Long, unweildly, blades/points on wooden shafts. Specifically and exclusively. This is actually an advantage for the spear wielder who is now holding a one-handed slashing/stabbing weapon.

As for fun, it's very subjective. Not that I play dark souls, but some find it fun. Stamina is in 99% of first person shooters and people find those games fun.