I would like a learning curve as well. That's up for discussion and brainstorming.
But, by your logic, there isn't a learning curve in battles either!!
Fighting your first big battle is like fighting your 100th one. The skillset that you have to practice is exactly the same. Block attack run - block attack run.
Maybe you should bypass that system as well...
Okay to go into more details, as you seemingly can't follow logic here.
Smithing - exactly one player input (clicking one button); more or less no enviromental variables influencing it, no timing needed. Or if you want to count blade length and such as input - Something where the most likely outcome is already predicted for you.
So neither really a task of physical or mental skill.
Battles - multiple player inputs, hundreds of variables influencing outcomes, actual timing needed. There's no prediction within battles coming from the game itself showing you the potential outcome of your attacks, so you've to rely on your own judgment on game mechanics. Which means you have to learn said mechanics. As you've got a wider variety of inputs you can actually change outcomes within a given enviromental situation.
So in that sense it required both more physical but also mental skills than smithing.
And you know the problem is, i've got nothing against trading or smithing in itself. I really like the X series.
It lies within the overal mixture.
- Sandbox games > great fun if there's enough to do in the sandbox and the sandbox is reposnive enough.
- leveling through action alone > great if the actions are fun all the way through.
- levels themselves > great fun
- Character specialization > great fun if you actually have enough gameplay loops to have characters become different.
- Skill perks > yeah can be fun; though i'm not sure it fits the 'realistic' approach WB had. But at least its existence will be a great boon to modders
But in Bannerlord we've got.
Levelling through actions, but currently very slow and a lot of quite monotonous actions (passive levelling skills are most idiotic imo), mixed with a levelling system that is based upon ALL SKILLS GAINED therefore directly as the supposed 3 point of character focus points and specialization and all that leading to perk points that really disallow a lot of actions (gain 225 point to be able to 'buy' fiefdoms in barters ?; become master in the passive low usage roguery perk to level bandits?).
And all that in a sandbox system whereas players should be able to explore systems.
So it's overall a really strange mixture. A mixture which mix of Attribute levels + focus points + skillgain rate which imo is also unnecessarily complex.
That's not speaking a strange age and death system (seemingly tripple digits of playtime before death), which sometimes the same people defend with the suggestion of kids should inherit skills/perks (in their dna or something), who claim this new XP gain system is so natural (as if an apprentice learns actual skill by repeatedly crafting the same item; which smithing so far seemingly does).
But that's all my oppinion, be all free to have your oppinion and fun with the new system. I don't blame anyone with having fun with any game (well maybe with clicker games) and i certainly don't want anyone to loose his fun with the game and the system. And don't even nessecarily would want the devs to change a thing now (as seemingly a majority dislikes it now but think it will end up great, which i don't).
Looking forward to see if they add new campaigns depending on what nationality you pick. Was a bit sad to see the Vlandian story was the same as the Empire, expected the story to change depending on your nationality.
