Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Update #29: Fulfillment and the Pros and Cons of Nostalgia and Realism

project eternity update 29 armor fulfillment josh sawyer darren monahan

  • Please log in to reply
333 replies to this topic

#41
chisled2bone

chisled2bone

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 160 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
i like the idea of different names for different qualities of armor, rather than the +1, etc...
  • Joukehainen likes this

#42
Shadenuat

Shadenuat

    (7) Enchanter

  • Members
  • 900 posts
  • Location:Russia
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
No sleep for me today.

Make wearing different types of armor a real choice for the player based on both character build and circumstance.

This is good stuff. I always search for circusmtantial bonuses or penalties for characters wearing specific equipment in my games. I know we won't have Josh DMing us online when we'll send our fighters clad in full plate to fight few ice trolls on a ice lake, but maybe some maps or dungeons would reward player for choosing more appropriate armor, even if it does't suit his/her aesthetic or roleplaying taste.

. E.g. a wizard can wear heavy armor and be a different type of wizard instead of just "a wizard who is bad".

I like wizards in robes, because I like the concept of having badly defended artillery unit in tactical games. A unit which is inexchangeable in terms of firepower and/or utility but has to be defended brings tactical depth.

Allow a character to maintain a character concept throughout the game without suffering extreme mechanical penalties.

I also like when you have to scrap every gold piece to finally afford Full Plate and feel good about it. But, anyway, I'm sure there should be ways to create different fighters, but what I really do not want to see is balancing this stuff out using just AC/Armour and DPS values. I don't think about XTREME, but I'm pretty sure that lightly armored fighter should take other role than heavely armoured, maybe he would have higher speed and could use skirmising tactics, maybe he'll be better at avoiding area spells.

Character concept should be challenged. What was effective at one encounter, should't be effective all game. Maybe our guy with rapier wearing gambeson would switch to bow later in game when he'd find enemies who make too many strong attacks. Or maybe he'd have to dabble a bit into sneak attacking. But he'd still be cool when you need to instantly stab someone lightly armored and fast.

Now, to step away from update a little

Yes, but... better materials used for the armor should mean harder experience in repairing it.

I agree. Also, it could be about traveling speed, encumbrance and stamina. In Fallout New Vegas, I liked that add-on where I had to exchange my power armour for light leather armour to travel into addon. And, I often liked to travel just in leather armor to run faster and to spend less money. The same reason I often used simple hunting rifle as a backup weapon instead of Anti Material rifle. But, how do you implement that survival spirit into party rpg?

kay let's get back to update

Should something like hide armor be supplanted/made obsolete by leather as an "improved version"

That's how it is. You slap more leather or lighter materials, and it becomes better. You could still probably increase weight, add repair cost and make character move slower in it, even if it's padded tunic vs. gambeson stuffed with oakum which is heavy like ****.

does that effectively kill the visual concept of the rough-hewn rawhide-wearing ranger or barbarian?

Yes, but it does't have to completely. Even full plate could be made looking barbaric. Every culture had it's own way of making things look distinct. A barbarian still could wear a wolf pelt atop his mail, a scary steel mask instead of regular helmet, he could add amulets and trinckets, ect. I'm not talking about Diablo 2 here, where everything miracuosly suits any character, be it large barbarian or gentle sorceress, but armor looks and customisation should not affect design decisions in that way, imo.

Functional descriptors like "fine scale", "superior hide", etc.? Cultural or material descriptors like "Vailian doublet", "iron feather scale"? Olde tyme numerical descriptors like "scale armor +1", "half-plate +2"?

Everything could work. Cultural-like could be used to great effect to enhance lore of the game. I once had a "Imperial Leather" in game which was based on those fancy larpy roman leather armors with muscular features and golden trinckets and such, and that armor was mostly worn by elite battle group from that empire. So when players saw somebody in it or got their hands on it their were like "Oohh it's imperial ****, and we know everything made in there is good, ooh that guy must be tough son of a bitch".

Now, +1 or +2, I always prefer to avoid it in item descriptions if stuff is magical. Why? Because it's magical stuff. Magical stuff should live a bit more mysterius life than career ladder from +1 to +5. It's okay to hint a rule about it in technical discription ("This sword concidered +3 on wounding immune to non magical weapons creatures"), but just "This is Magical sword +1... noone knows where it was made, just +1", it just does't work.

Is it okay for an upgrade from a visual type of armor to maintain its relative position to other armor types even if "realistically" that upgraded armor is now probably superior in protection to other armor types?

It should be avoided, but you can't avoid it completely, because magical leather armor would still probably be better than non-magical mail.
The way to avoid it as I see it would probably to introduce different types of damage. Say, doublet would give 2 AC against slashing, Gambeson 3, Armored Doublet 4, but Scale Vest would still be better at protecting against piercing... or whatever.
  • Hertzila likes this

#43
Hormalakh

Hormalakh

    Lone Locust of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1981 posts

Damn, for some reason only part of my post was saved.

To sum up the first half briefly: I dislike the "+1" system since it felt arbitrary. Having a more nuanced material system and various sub-categories therein makes a lot more sense. So, for example, you have deer hide, bear hide, dire wolf hide etc. Each hide type is different in some way - you could have some that are slightly heavier, others that are more pliant, and so on. Armor should also be modifable - if I want to add a light sheet of chain links beneath my hide, I should be able to do that with the requisite skill or at the appropriate shop.

- snip-


I kind of like this idea. Your armor grows with you as you adventure in it. You can add enchantments to it. It's like making your armor "level up" as if it were another party member. The more you enchant or improve your armor (by adding mail or it or plates to it, changing the stitching, using new materials, dying it different colors, etc), the less likely you are in completely going for another new set of armor. Of course, it might be worthwhile to change into that new shiny mithril plate mail for your fighter and try to begin enchanting that, but the heavy gambeson with dexterity enchantments and plate add-ons still comes in handy when the fighter needs it.

#44
Guest_omnilicious1_*

Guest_omnilicious1_*
  • Guests
I find that balancing and trying to make everything viable almost always ruins a game for me. The last thing I want to see is tiers of armor that replace others. It's consolitis at its worst sneaking into a PC only game (PC generally involves a more OPEN platform for choice), not to mention things like that would be more indicative of a tech increase that I don't think will be present in the project eternity game at the points each tier would become available. Not to mention that having 3-4 viable armors that upgrade in tiers would be a lot worse than having 12-30 (D&D expansions added a ton of armors including exotic armors and optimizations, not all good, but interesting) gave you the option to have a lot more than 2 upgrades and on top of that a lot of different aesthetic choices.

In 3e a lot of armor specializations made lighter/heavier/medium armors more fun to use. Different materials for armors (Adamanetine/Mithral/etc), expenses (1,500g for full plate, 200g for breast plate), armor check penalties (-6 full plate, -3 breast plate), weight (which also affects check penalties), movement speed, class abilities (granted I didn't care if my barbarian had armor or not... HP tank! Armor's a crutch), class roles/meta-game character roles (Cleric in robes - priest or cleric in fullplate - holy warrior), spellsword (wizard in chainmail!!!! awesome no?).

etc. etc.

Granted your game will be different, but the last thing I would want is to be hammered by the same issues that are designed to make console RPG's easy for developers.

In summation: I would rather have a bunch of armor choices, good and bad than a few.

#45
pintoyac

pintoyac

    (0) Nub

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • Steam:kabuk5
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

If armor types like hide (or scale, or mail) should remain viable on their own, how should that "upgrade" be expressed to the player? Functional descriptors like "fine scale", "superior hide", etc.? Cultural or material descriptors like "Vailian doublet", "iron feather scale"? Olde tyme numerical descriptors like "scale armor +1", "half-plate +2"?

I expect you guys to create something a little bit more ambiotious than mere system of adding 'ones to ones in order to get twos' if you know what I mean ;) .

At the risk of sounding like Captain Obvious, I would love the initial types to remain viable. Please, no silly +1 modifiers. I liked the 'Quality Longsword' etc. from IWD. Besides quality of craftmanship, make material a factor? I.e. if my barbarian starts out wearing elf-hide armour, he might later be able to upgrade/replace it with troll-hide armour which has some self-repairing qualities (or whatever, just making up silly examples). It's still visually and functionally a hide armour.

In this case I suggest a bonus of some type, as the character is already profficient in fighting when wearing this armor, maybe not improving it per se, but rather the character knows the limits of the armor and how to use its strengths or weaknesses to his advantage. If a character wasn't trained to fight with a certain kind of armor, maybe he should receive a penalty for the first x fights until he is comfortable wearing it?
  • judeobscure likes this

#46
mediocrepoet

mediocrepoet

    (0) Nub

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
One thing I'd like to see that I haven't seen mentioned yet is a difference in how different types of armour protects against different types of attacks. This can be found in various editions of (A)D&D's optional rules but also in other games. So for instance, chain mail may be particularly effective at stopping slashing attacks but susceptible to piercing and perhaps bludgeoning attacks while plate is good at stopping slashing attacks but less so at stopping piercing and bludgeoning attacks. Perhaps certain styles of armour are more flammable or conductive to electricity, etc.

Beyond that, I would like to see different materials of various effectiveness - whether or not that's a linear system where one material is simply better than another or whether there are tradeoffs. I think that another poster's idea about technological differences is interesting and may come up if you're approaching a tomb with advanced or archaic forms of armour, but otherwise might be a bit strange assuming the game doesn't take place over generations. There might be ultra rare or unique armours gained through questing whether through an ultraskilled craftsman or lost legendary armour of some sort.

You might also consider having equipment not have to be traded out all that often. There may well be weapons and armour that are of better quality than others with other considerations being trade offs between pieces that are more or less equal with advancement primarily coming through your characters becoming more skilled as opposed to primarily gathering ever more powerful loot.

I'm not generally a fan of just seeing a cultural name attached to equipment to make it better or worse like in KotOR or Dragon Age because for it to have meaning you'd have to be familiar with the culture in question and it might seem strange that a given culture's stuff is simply better than everyone else's. I much prefer differing materials and possibly technological differences as appropriate.
  • Uwon de Toster, pintoyac, Nidrolok and 1 other like this

#47
Hormalakh

Hormalakh

    Lone Locust of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1981 posts

My friends and I back in the day did lots of armor based on what race made it and often what material it was made from.

Elves were able to make very "tough" armors from hides and special plants and such for example while dwarves made heavy tank like stuff.
It was a little more complex then we intended but we are not game designers either ;)
But maybe that will give you guys a new idea on breaking armor types up both in terms of playability and artistic looks. Ranger wants to be one with nature? Go heavy elven "plate" made from living vines and bark. Or a gnome in his lightweight gear driven techngnome armor.

Just an idea.


I was thinking along the same lines. Maybe certain races or cultures (Vailians vs Glanfanthan Elves perhaps?) are rally good at workign with a certain type of armor, but there are types of materials they wouldn't touch.

As an example, perhaps the Vailians are quite good at making doublets, and make the best doublets in the game world. However, they do not work (except that one rare armorer) with a certain animal hide because of the cultural significance of that animal. Thus while making armor from that animal would be quite the effective armor, you cannot get the best armorers to work with that hide because of cultural reasons. Perhaps the Glanfanthan elves make leather armors in that hide, but glanfanthans aren't renowned for their leather work.
  • 80Maxwell08, Gorik, judeobscure and 1 other like this

#48
baktubak

baktubak

    (0) Nub

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
For the topic of armors, I would humbly suggest a solution from one of the greatest games of all time: Phantasy Star IV.

In PSIV, you would progress through the game completing quests and moving to new areas, mainly cities. In the new cities there were usually new types of armor available, but only for a couple of classes.

In Example:
  • There might be 4 characters in your party, but only 1 or 2 of them would be able to use the new equipment in a new city, as certain characters are unable to use specific types.
  • This allowed for steady, linear progression, and felt very rewarding.
Here is a link to a page with more info:http://shrines.rpgcl...ps4/armor.shtml

As you can see, not every character is able to equip every armor type.
  • Certain heavy armor type are restricted to heavy characters
  • Certain light armor types, restricted to light characters
  • A couple of lower tech suits usable by all characters.
11 Characters total. Gryz is my personal favorite.

#49
The Nexus

The Nexus

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 17 posts
Remember that you could make armor types that are combinations of other armor types. An example would be the Champion Mage armor from Dragon Age 2, in that set the chest is leather while the shoulders, gloves and kneecaps etc are made of plate. I feel like if you made a system where you could upgrade your armor in this way would be cool. Let's say I'm a mage who thinks robes are for sissies, since there are no logical reasons for wearing them. Let's say that I choose to wear something like a magyfied* leather armor. It would be cool if I could go to a smith with my [Seer's Cuirass(Leather)] and attach some plate to it, perhaps some neat shoulders. Maybe it could then become a [Reinforced Seer's Cuirass(Leather+Plate)], the appropriate dexterity values and stuff could be altered accordingly, since the mage is now not wearing full plate, just small pieces. Just my two cents.



* = made to look like it's for mages. Lots of strips of cloth and stuff everywhere.

#50
Gauldar

Gauldar

    (0) Nub

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
What about a movement bonus for crafted armour over found dropped armour. You may be making a suit of armour specific to your character's physique are you not? Doing so may improve it's effectiveness being snug and bendable in the correct places. Perhaps even the skill of the crafter will come into play as well. If you aren't as experienced with crafting a type of armour, you may not get that bonus.

Edited by Gauldar, 30 October 2012 - 06:03 PM.

  • Uwon de Toster, judeobscure, Wasabi and 1 other like this

#51
Jory

Jory

    (0) Nub

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
I won't be too specific because I'm no game designer, you guys are better at specifics than I could be.

I feel that it is vital that you don't fall into this "everything equal" trap. For example, robes would give you some magical shield bonus, leather would give you some dodge bonus and plate would give you damage reduction and overall it'd be balanced to all offer the same protection, please don't do that, one of the benefits of playing a group of characters is that they can have weaknesses that they cannot overcome by themselves.

I can't wait to find out how you want to make every kind of armor viable for classes in a way that different class specs would desire different pieces of armor, but the basic archetype should be clear:

Plate offers the best survivability period. A heavy fighter covered in shining plate from head to toe should feel heavy and durable.
Leather is all about quickness and stealth; leather is fragile, a thief in leather should not walk in the open and it should feel dangerous to do so.
Robes confer power and offer no protection whatsoever. Wizards are above the rabble that needs to wear unwieldy protection to fight.

The important part is that this concept does not change depending on the stage of the game, so many games make everyone powerhouses at some point, robe users should always need special protection, a heavy fighter should always feel awkward to fight with without backup, and someone in light armor should always be alarmed if an arrow flies his way.

Concerning the stats, I'm actually fine with a somewhat simplistic system, the next tier all things equal should be better than the previous tier and there's nothing wrong with having some generic modifiers (I don't care how that is communicated). I don't know how much depth the system should have, too much depth would probably detract from the experience rather than add to it, to me it is more important how the armor is aquired and how its value is communicated. A +3 item in Baldur's gate, while plain, was more exciting than a shiny yellow rare item in Diablo for instance and that felt good.
  • Shadenuat likes this

#52
Joukehainen

Joukehainen

    Astrophysicist of the Obsidian Order

  • Initiates
  • 124 posts
Yes! I love this update. I really like the idea of improving armour ie through crafting or the like rather than just a certain kind of armour becoming completely obsolete.

If armor types like hide (or scale, or mail) should remain viable on their own, how should that "upgrade" be expressed to the player? Functional descriptors like "fine scale", "superior hide", etc.? Cultural or material descriptors like "Vailian doublet", "iron feather scale"? Olde tyme numerical descriptors like "scale armor +1", "half-plate +2"?


I say it's fine if they upgrade via crafting etc, and I think the upgrade should be expressed by cultural or material descriptors - numerical descriptors are too immersion-breaking - besides, we'll figure out the stats by unequipping/re-equipping anyhow.

Should something like hide armor be supplanted/made obsolete by leather as an "improved version" or does that effectively kill the visual concept of the rough-hewn rawhide-wearing ranger or barbarian?

Hmm not necessarily, the hide armour could just upgrade into a superior version of hide armour with some sort of a badass name and look. :)

Is it okay for an upgrade from a visual type of armor to maintain its relative position to other armor types even if "realistically" that upgraded armor is now probably superior in protection to other armor types? E.g. an armored jack or brigandine armor is probably more protective than even nice suit of leather armor... but mechanically, we're presenting it as an upgrade of a padded (doublet) armor type.


Yup this is a-ok by me, since it's indicating the armour's "type."

Edited by Joukehainen, 30 October 2012 - 06:05 PM.

  • Elerond and Kindo like this

#53
Elerond

Elerond

    One of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 2649 posts
  • Location:Finland
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

  • Make wearing different types of armor a real choice for the player based on both character build and circumstance. E.g. a swashbuckling lightly-armored fighter will tend to wear one of a variety of light armor types (maybe a gambeson or leather cuirass), but in a circumstance where protection is of utmost importance, the player may still choose to wear heavy armor with a loss in build optimization.


One situation which I can think where this should happen is when party goes against enemies who have numerous ammount of gunpowder weapons as light armours don't give nearly any protection against them, so it would probably be better if most of the character in party have armour that can withstand punishment from oppening volley.

This also means that I think that characters should not be able to dodge (at least very weakly) bullets. So best options against gunpowder weapons are heavy armours and invisibility. But as gunpowder weapons are rare, so players should be able to get infromation before hand where they probably will meet many enemies with them and so they can prepare their party accordingly against such threat.
  • lolaldanee, Joukehainen, judeobscure and 1 other like this

#54
Halsy

Halsy

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 80 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
No wizzies in plate, please. That's why protection spells exist. That's the trade off.
  • kaeroku likes this

#55
Joukehainen

Joukehainen

    Astrophysicist of the Obsidian Order

  • Initiates
  • 124 posts

No wizzies in plate, please. That's why protection spells exist. That's the trade off.


They've been saying before the project even got funded that we'd have wizards in plate. :p

#56
Aeristal

Aeristal

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
First Comment, removing or equipping armor during combat should provoke an attack of opportunity or should take multiple action rounds....or at least gets a funny look from the NPC as to how his lightly armor opponent turned into a heavily armored opponent.

Now to bring out a list in reply to Original Post:

2nd Edition AD&D
-Yes to a wide variety of armor types
-No to class or race restricts unless some race is allergic to certain materials in an armor or some other reasonable explanation.

3rd Edition AD&D
-Negative to purely maximum dexterity bonus penalties.
-Yes, to variety of penalties and benefits of different armors

Outside the box
-Armor Efficiency increases with usage and familiarity in combat rather than as a feat or skill
-Armor as defined by three variables:

by Material Type: (Region) Copper, (Region) Iron, (Animal Type) Leather, (Animal Type)Scale, and random other materials

By Tensile/Compressive Strength: +1, +2 or if you want to be more historical, instead of putting a plus one or plus two, put the maker or producer of the weapon, like a Torchmark that has the same/similar definition of describing the strength of the weapon.

By Composition Density: Super light, Light (Chain / padded) , Medium (Splint / Leather), Heavy (Studded leather / Plate), Super Heavy

--Rarer material type, better quality, higher composition densities equals higher prices and generally an increase or change in bonuses received.
- Increase Complexity of Armor transitions: Most of your gamers have a bit of critical think skills under their belts add more trade-offs to armors whether it means going between two types of armor, tiers of armor, or weights of armors. Familiarity with combat in your particular armor should come into play i.e. First outside the box remark. Different armors should fend off different weapons / attacks differently. Whether it means that a heavy armor in a higher classified tier become more susceptible to bash attacks than its previously tiered heavy armor but has impeccable piercing resistance …or that a light armor in a higher classified tier has no piercing resistance, causes you to asphyxiate every X rounds in combat, gives excellent blunt damage absorption and gives 10% camouflage compared to its lower classified tier.
- In response to, “the more dissimilar the armor relationships are to those found in A/D&D, the more they will be re-evaluated for verisimilitude (i.e. "realism").” Just remember realism can be created through game history and story.
-Armors that warp wizard spells are your friend. …Dyslexic wizard spells anyone? JourneyQuest anyone?
- Game of Thrones, 6th episode of Season 1, In the Eyrie, Bronn does battle with Lysa's champion, Ser Vardis Egen. Bronn fights defensively, waiting for Vardis to start to tire, and then cuts and kills him, sending his body rolling out of the 'Moon Door' that leads to a thousand-foot drop

Responses to Questions

1. Should something like hide armor be supplanted/made obsolete by leather as an "improved version" or does that effectively kill the visual concept of the rough-hewn rawhide-wearing ranger or barbarian?

It doesn’t need to as long as there is a rawhide type that can communicate the same benefits as wearing leather.
-Benefit examples, Rawhide: Beast skills that improve reflexes, improve initiative, sense aggression, improve move speed, intimidate NPCs, or something similar that doesn’t mean an increase in armor rating so much as an increase in overall combat / social skills and abilities.

2. If armor types like hide (or scale, or mail) should remain viable on their own, how should that "upgrade" be expressed to the player? Functional descriptors like "fine scale", "superior hide", etc.? Cultural or material descriptors like "Vailian doublet", "iron feather scale"? Olde tyme numerical descriptors like "scale armor +1", "half-plate +2"?

Prefer a Cultural and material descriptor or if the culture has a numerical description system already in place for the quality of an item then also good.

3. Is it okay for an upgrade from a visual type of armor to maintain its relative position to other armor types even if "realistically" that upgraded armor is now probably superior in protection to other armor types? E.g. an armored jack or brigandine armor is probably more protective than even nice suit of leather armor... but mechanically, we're presenting it as an upgrade of a padded (doublet) armor type.

Why? Just be creative. Immersion is good. If thinking about it from a fantasy world view or a real world view causes people to break immersion then try to improve upon the design or description to indicate otherwise.

Edited by Aeristal, 30 October 2012 - 06:21 PM.

  • Gorik likes this

#57
Shadenuat

Shadenuat

    (7) Enchanter

  • Members
  • 900 posts
  • Location:Russia
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

One situation which I can think where this should happen is when party goes against enemies who have numerous ammount of gunpowder weapons as light armours don't give nearly any protection against them


Actually, most often it happens when dodge-type faces such a numerous amount of attacks with low damage that it's better to equip something which blocks them than to rely on dodge.

Edited by Shadenuat, 30 October 2012 - 06:07 PM.


#58
fortuntek

fortuntek

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 350 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
Here are a few (briefly stated) types of the armor progression systems that are being mentioned:

"Maximization system"
Players aim to maximize (or minimize) a single armor stat. (A/D&D)
Problems: Too many to list.

"Two-option Maximization system"
Players aim to maximize a stat by taking one of two viable routes, such as Str vs Dex (3rd Ed D&D)
Problems: Armors in the middle of those best for either route are fairly useless; at most two armor builds per class
Possible solution: Introduce "perks" of some kind for middle-tier armors that add functionality equal to that gained by the maximizing route

"Tier progression system"
Have a set number of tiers with various armor types per tier where one type is functionally replaced by the one in the next tier (Sawyer's update)
Problems: Forces players to upgrade to the next tier to maintain maximum effectiveness, even if it conflicts with their character concept (there's a second potential problem mentioned but I think that it is not necessarily a problem with the armor system, per se).
Potential Solution: Introduce "perks" of some kind for lower tiers of armor that grant players the option of sticking with that tier instead of moving to the next.


There's also a problem with the "perks" solution, no matter how it's implemented. At best, what that perk is really accomplishing is allowing for other options of customizing characters. For example, say you have a two-option system, Str and Dex, and a Barbarian class whose abilities rely heavily on a third stat, Speed. Str and Dex do not affect Speed; the Barbarian can choose to maximize one or the other. However if you introduce middle-tier armors that increase the characters Speed stat, this becomes a third viable option for Barbarian characters. Then of course you need to provide similar middle-tier benefits for all classes. This addition essentially keeps the two-options but allows the utility of items to fill the gap in between. The point is, no matter how many times you do this, you're still only allowing for "somewhere in between two polar extremes," and the system is still overall fairly shallow as a result.

On the other hand, a system where you can mix and match from a broader array of variables provides more depth but is far more difficult to balance. So what do you choose? I'd say, choose the system with the greatest number of viable player options that can practically be balanced within the development time frame. Which option is that? I'm not sure, but I'm liking the "Tier system" with however many "perk" options might be afforded players.

Edited by fortuntek, 30 October 2012 - 06:14 PM.


#59
AstralWanderer

AstralWanderer

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 151 posts
  • Location:North West, United Kingdom
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
Lots of interesting discussion here, but one factor that's not been raised - surprisingly - is fatigue.

Combat is tiring and wearing 100+ kgs of armour should make it several times more so. Having a fatigue system (where reaching 0 results in your character being disabled or severely restricted in actions) means those using heavy armour either have to limit themselves to being "one hit wonders" in combat (only being able to attack for the first few rounds) or commit to constantly improving their fatigue levels (via options chosen on level-up, perks, etc).

While this would limit sustained combat in heavy armour to higher-level characters, it would still allow heavily-arnoured low-level characters a role as tanks in combat - being able to absorb enemy attacks while other more lightly armoured party members do the damage.

Fatigue doesn't make an appearance in most tabletop games because of the extra record keeping it requires. However a computer RPG doesn't have any such constraint, so this option should be well worth considering.

Edited by AstralWanderer, 30 October 2012 - 06:22 PM.

  • Gorik likes this

#60
Aradinsc

Aradinsc

    (0) Nub

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
I'm new to the forums but really enjoying reading all the thought and ideas that people have on the subject some of which I think are really interesting and some of which I honestly think would be a detriment but that is the reality of game design you aren't going to make everyone happy. As for myself I think gameplay and enjoyment should take presidence over any other mechanic or attempt to be realistic. I know many people have suggested that wearing Heavy Armor should confer a movement penalty which would be more realistic and make a decision to wear it more tricky however I think that is a bit of a tricky question as movement has a large impact on the game as a whole. This is also going to be effected by other systems in the game for example what is going to be the main mode of travel if it is going to be walking and if you say you walk 10% slower in Heavy Armor then what is probably going to happen is that people who want to use Heavy Armor either have to just put up with being slow (which isn't fun and could get really annoying) or keep another set of armor they have to change into in order to move at a normal rate (which again isn't fun as having to change armor just to get around annoyances like that is more likely to make me annoyed with the game then make me want to keep playing). However if the main mode of travel is going to be via horseback (as an example) and type of armor doesn't effect your movement speed while mounted on a horse then it is alot less of an issue. Another idea might be to have the movement penalities only apply when you are in combat which solves the general movement problem at a loss for realism which may annoy other people.

In regards to tiers and upgrades for armor I would be much more in favor of something like Iron -> Steel -> Mithril -> Ebony -> Crystal (or something similar I would just using random heavy armor types) then have Plate Armor -> Plate Armor +1 -> Plate Armor +2

In regards to descriptors such as a Fine Iron Helm or a Superior Iron Helm that really depends on how you want to treat them. I like the way Skyrim handled it where the base materials were the tiers (Iron, Steel, etc) and then the prefixes denoted levels of improvement upon that tier so that a Steel Helm would be better then an Iron Helm but a Superior Iron Helm (with Superior indicating 2 levels of refinement) might be better then a Steel Helm.

I like the idea of having a wide range of armors available but each with different benefits and drawbacks some of which might not have anything to do directly with damage avoidance or mitigation. It is definitely going to be very tough to get a system that feels and works well that a majority of people like





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: project eternity, update 29, armor, fulfillment, josh sawyer, darren monahan

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users