Luridis Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) I'm going to agree with some others here that have essentially said, "I'm not much interested in mages wearing plate." I remember the OP madness that was the Sorcerer in Diablo 1. That said, you could say metal close to the body interferes with the channeling of magical energies. But, I would like to see something besides robes. Maybe heavier armor up to medium protection that is made from special materials that don't interfere with magical energies: hydra scales, basilisk hide, or any other "magical" creature. I'd really like to see a "tailor" profession that is about more than shirts, shoes and robes. Certain materials could also have enhancement or handicap properties for some schools of magic. This could also be used to balance the heavier types of caster armor. Some schools of magic contain most of the ranged spells, others have melee range spells or PBAOE effects. Medium protection mage armors could weaken or disable magical energies used in hard hitting ranged schools and enhance melee range schools, and vice-verse for the light and cloth armors. This would make the player choose between a kiting + glass cannon play style and a survivable down and dirty melee play style for casters. Wizardry in heavy protection armor was everything that was wrong with the class in Diablo 1. The player had huge range and AoE damage but when monsters actually caught up to you the hits hardly counted, because you were in plate mail. Edited October 31, 2012 by Luridis Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. - Julius Caesar #define TRUE (!FALSE) I ran across an article where the above statement was found in a release tarball. LOL! Who does something like this? Predictably, this oddity was found when the article's author tried to build said tarball and the compiler promptly went into cardiac arrest. If you're not a developer, imagine telling someone the literal meaning of up is "not down". Such nonsense makes computers, and developers... angry.
Landak Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 One thing I'd love to say is that, when you talk about having relatively realistic armour, please, please, please make sure that your "Armour for Women", shall we say, ends up being more than this. This is a pet peeve of mine -- otherwise, keep up the fantastic-looking work! 1
nathanlonghair Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Great update A lot of things to think about for sure. One thing bugged me though: 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. I get what you're thinking with this, but I really do not want to end up with World of Warcraft, where I have to run around with 4 full armor sets in my backpack for specific situations. Please do not go this route -- when you've found the best armor your character has access to and can currently use, let that type be the best for all situations. If you must have this concept of swapping armor for specific situations, then support it. Don't have us lugging around 800 pieces of situational gear in a big mess along with spider eyes, vendor trash and that quest item you're not sure if you're ever going to use. Instead make alternate loadouts (for example), such as two tabs in your inventory/character UI that you can swap between by the press of a button - and if you really feel that situational gearing should be a feature of your game, don't penalise people for it. Either balance weight allowance around it (if you have that in your game), or make only the heaviest set count. Just my thoughts on it of course, others may not agree. All the rest of what you wrote sounds good, and personally it doesn't really bother me how you choose to name upgrades. Whether it says "+2", "Exquisite" or "Adamantium" matters little to me. It doesn't change gameplay, only perception of it (which is more important to some than others). As a rule I'd say that "+2" breaks immersion, but we're so used to it by now that most of us don't really notice it I think. In our brains it largely computes as UI information now, rather than something on an actual name tag in a store. With regards to wizards wearing plate, that is GREAT in my oppinion - if you don't allow multiclassing. If you allow classes to mix so that you have a "fighter wizard" then there is little reason to have pure wizards wearing plate. But if you're not going to do class mixing, then it would be awesome to be able to make a type of wizard focused on close combat with heavy armor; A battlemage spec, basically. I'm totally into that In arcanum I almost always end up playing a battlemage with sword, spells and big ass armor. Edited October 31, 2012 by nathanlonghair
Urist_McDorf Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I'd prefer if all the general armour types (cloth, leather, hide, chain, scale, plate, for example; you can guess where I got that from ) were available from the beginning, and upgrades to them were "fluffy" - material or craftsmanship as suggested in the OP. Getting an upgrade from basic leather to something like dire rabbit leather would be more immersive than to leather +1 or hide. That said, there should also be an option to have cosmetic armour, like what some MMOs have - wearing plate mechanically, but putting cloth in the "vanity" slot so that you can look nice while still getting the mechanics bonus. I'm an avid supporter of refluffing in PnPs, and that extends here - you shouldn't be punished mechanically just because taking the more optimal choice doesn't fit your idea of the character.
Darkpriest Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I like the idea of progression in various armor types. I would say that it looks good, but there are two things that HAVE TO be considered: 1) Obviously the balancing factor - fatigue? stamina drain? mobility? attack speed? damage resistance? 2) Complexity - While I'd like the system to be more fleshed out, it is an easy trap to go way into a tedious job for a player in the end result. Some of the ideas presented here would be more in line with armored combat simulator than a medieval based fantasy GAME. I know we have on the forums different preferences to many things, but the people playing these kinds of games are not always hardcore PnP RPG players. That should be taken into account when designing armor properties. Remember that it was not the complex mechanics that made the IE games great, so lets not burden the game with overly complicated mechanic systems. On the enchantments side - definitely for base armor value I'd rather have different descriptions, while all other magical properties can be included in whatever adjective or custom name you want to put if the only bonus is a +1 to armor class, then I'd rather see it as a different material name.
Draco Argentum Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I like this update. Its the sort of thing that someone who actually has a clue about RPG design would write.
Monte Carlo Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I think there was a discussion on this. I liked the idea of a hybrid of the old (i.e. damage avoidance) and the new (i.e. damage reduction) to allow for a sliding scale of both efficacy and choice. As the poster who referenced WoW said, I don't want to be carrying lots of suits of armour around like golf clubs (the '4' iron please, Jeeves). As for naming conventions, I don't see why you couldn't use a variety of descriptors, without the numeric values (+1 / +2 etc). So a suit of mail might be 'superior' or 'meisterwerk' etc. When it comes to magical / unique sets then other naming conventions could be used (I dunno 'ensorcelled plate' or 'Gladfanthan Wolfhide' or whatever). I agree that +1 / +2 has had it's day and should be left on the tabletop. As long as they item descriptor (not name, but the in-game description) is clear and easy-to-understand then it's all good. Lastly, what about shields? One of the most potentially cool pieces of armour and equipment, traditionally given a minor role in most gaming systems. 1
Sacred_Path Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I have a simple wish: make armor the better the heavier it gets (not all kinds should be equal) and then put a minimum strength requirement on those armors. Wizards in plate should only be feasible if they have the required strength and maybe stamina.
Monte Carlo Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I have a simple wish: make armor the better the heavier it gets (not all kinds should be equal) and then put a minimum strength requirement on those armors. Wizards in plate should only be feasible if they have the required strength and maybe stamina. Sure, but what about the fact that some plate armour was easier to wear and move in than a mail hauberk? What about magically light armours? Can we not imagine 'mage-plate' whereby military sorcerers would invest heavily in designing optimal armours for their profession? Obviously an element of balancing is required, as opposed to punishment.
A. Elevatore Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I'm just copying my Kickstarter comment, I have no idea what is read more: Forum or Kickstarter. You all do know how "real medievil combat" worked right. One or two direct hits aaaaaand you're gone. Not real fun for a 2D-Isometric-Party-RPG so no matter what the guys at Obsidian will design it will never be "realistic" or some fights could end real quick. PE is a game which is supposed to be fun first, and not a real medieval + some fantasy simulator. And it is fun to get progressively better. In your stats and your equipment. If they mess this one up not many ppl who haven't pledged will buy this game or any follow-up games. 1
Nevrose Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Maybe can you make significant battle tricks upgrades more available for light armors, and abilities range that depends on armor type. How does the character manage his special coup on the field with light and heavy armor ? On the field, I think a low armored character should be more aggressive, and a heavy armored character should be more defensive. This way, balanced medium armored character could be appealing. By the way, I like the idea of a heavy armored spell throwing warpriest fighting along a no armored barbarian :] Edited October 31, 2012 by Nevrose
Sacred_Path Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Sure, but what about the fact that some plate armour was easier to wear and move in than a mail hauberk? That's one case where I'd put ease of use above realism. What about magically light armours? Can we not imagine 'mage-plate' whereby military sorcerers would invest heavily in designing optimal armours for their profession? Obviously an element of balancing is required, as opposed to punishment. It always makes me cringe when a game features magic heavy armor that is magically 'light' as that ridicules the entire point of making armor class/ attribute specific. Still I could live with it if it's balanced in such a way that normal magic plate has other, more powerful enchantments than the light variety.
Monte Carlo Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) What if the highest tiers of armour needn't necessarily be magical, but bespoke? Many CRPGs have the "Come back in two weeks" thing where the armourer agrees to forge a suit of special plate or whatever. I like that a lot and hope to see something similar in this game, it just needn't be magical. Like how the armourers of Milan became famous for the quality and craftsmanship of their armour and a suit of Milanese plate was especially coveted. A re-enactor wears Milanese plate.... Edited October 31, 2012 by Monte Carlo 1
Diotisalvi Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Hello, I ask forgiveness in advance if I'm repeating someone, I can't read the whole thread right now. Couldn't the whole concept of "leather armour" be left aside? As far as I know, there isn't a lot of historical instances of "leather armour" (beside maybe cuir bouilli), and i'm pretty sure it wasn't used in medieval time. In particular, the whole concept of "studded leather" is a fantasy misinterpretation of the rivets that kept the defensive plates on cloth or leather in armors like a wisby coat of plates. I know we're talking about fantasy, but couldn't a game be fantasy but without being derivative from D&D and dispense with some of the more blatant misinterpretations of historical equipment?
Monte Carlo Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Hello, I ask forgiveness in advance if I'm repeating someone, I can't read the whole thread right now. Couldn't the whole concept of "leather armour" be left aside? As far as I know, there isn't a lot of historical instances of "leather armour" (beside maybe cuir bouilli), and i'm pretty sure it wasn't used in medieval time. Most 'leather armour' in fantasy games is explained as an abstract compromise between a doublet, cuir boilli and, in extremis, the armour made of metal rings sewn to a leather hauberk not uncommon in the early medieval era. Lamellar armour: Of course, 'lamellar' also included metalled variants (I love this suit, which is Eastern European).
Honn Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) I really liked the idea that the user Arkeus posted on the first page, that different types of armor is better for different types of enchantment. I do see some problems with it however, if not done very carefully it would just be another limitation to your character. E.g. you want to play a mage in full plate, but nope, you need to use leather instead because leather allows you to use the X-enchantment and plate does not. But if a suitable division of enchantments could be found, it could be a good system. Oh, and I like that you are thinking about these things and not just copy-pasting from D&D! This is a new world, lets not get dragged down by old luggage from other systems just because they are familiar. Edited October 31, 2012 by Honn
Diotisalvi Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Leather only armor in roman times is a somewhat disputed topic, but, in mantaining a somewhat coherent view, there were light armors in post-roman times, but no leather armor. So, what I think is that, when (for example) a Milanese type armor becomes available, there should be better and more economical types of light armor. If the loom was invented, a gambeson would offer better protection be more mantainable and probably be more economical to produce than a leather lorica segmentata.
aratuk Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 If the updates continue to be this thorough and interesting, I'll feel like I'm getting my money's worth just from hearing about the process. It feel like it will be quite an experience to play a game after learning so much about the work and decisions that went into making it. Hard to believe I was worried I was being impulsive when I donated to the Kickstarter. Increasingly glad I did. And congratulations on having a baby.
judeobscure Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 great update, josh. already read through 5 pages of responses. awesome. regarding 'armor being tied to class' and the 'mage in plate' problem, i was thinking maybe something like this.. (following numbers used as examples) 1. allow us to make a class-free/'tabula rasa' build at character creation 2. introduce the 'age' characteristic to our builds (obsidian chooses max life-spans for each race or makes them all the same, could even generalize them like young, middle-age and wise) 3. anchor 'health & stamina' and 'mastery' (number of attributes we can max out, from 1-3) to the age we choose for our characters. but make them inversely proportional to age. ex: if you choose a young barbarian, the most attributes you could max-out in your young life is 1 (maybe 'heavy armor' or '2H weapon'). you would still get other points to spend but you wouldn't be allowed to max-out any other category. the idea being that a young character simply would not have had time in their life to master more than 1 area (skill/characteristic, etc.) or if you chose a middle-age dwarf you would ultimately be able to master (max-out) two different aspects of your character but not a 3rd. and if you chose a wise (old) mage, you would eventually gain enough points to master 3 different aspects of your character. the underlying balancing mechanic would be that your health and stamina would be highest for young characters and lowest for old characters. so, in regards to a problem like the 'mage in plate', you would be able to play that way but your health and stamina would start very low which would require you to put points into them in order to be viable in battle, thus balancing the 'mage in plate'. or you could try a 'glass cannon' build and put all your points into offensive categories at the expense of your health and stamina. on the other hand, if you chose a young mage you would start with extremely high health and stamina which would free you up to reach your one mastery and to diversify the rest of your build. what do you guys think?
wsjudd Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 One comment I have - how will female armor be depicted? In many games it is an incredibly cut down affair that favours showing off flesh over actual protection. I'd very much like to see less difference in armor between male and female wearers, as was the case historically - a suit of armor for a given woman might be smaller than that of a given male and be fitted slightly differently, but it would have very much the same shape.
Juneau Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Hope the birth goes nice and smoothly for the mother and congratulations the news of becoming a Dad! I don't have anything useful to add to the post on Armour but I would like to thank you for the update, it's hugely appreciated. Juneau & Alphecca Daley currently tearing up Tyria.
WildcatMik Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Lots of interesting discussion here. I wish I'd found out about the kickstarter before it closed Chucking 2p worth in: I like the idea of having multiple sets of armour to change depending on circumstance... BUT it should be implemented realistically. Putting on a plate mail suit takes lots of time so you couldn't change on a whim. How about being able to set up a camp for your party where you sleep/change/repair/make arrows/etc. Obviously your char would start out with 1 set of basic armour (if that) and go on to build up a stock of items. Carrying them is the challenge here maybe ponies/horses to carry extra weight Camps might also be interesting in terms of being attacked while sleeping. No-one would sleep in a full plate set (ouch!) but might choose to sleep in a chain vest. being surprised in the night would mean you were not wearing your full plate +20 and so be more vulnerable. Also leaving gear in a camp might lead to being robbed by bandits... having a ranger or mage to track down the hideout and exact revenge becomes useful. Two other things, I really like the idea of customising your own gear to some extent - archers make their own arrows and get better as they practice, you repair tears in hide/cloth fabric yourself. But once you get to chain/plate you need to go to a blacksmith (cheap not very good) or armourer (expensive excellent work) for repairs. Lastly, I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but PLEASE put some serious thoughts into helmets. Full face helmets restrict vision, open helmets offer less protection. The one thing that bugged me most about BG was the helmets protect against critical hits thing. Being hit on your head, whether you are wearing a helmet or not, is going to seriously damage you and your ability to fight! 2
DocDoomII Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) One comment I have - how will female armor be depicted? In many games it is an incredibly cut down affair that favours showing off flesh over actual protection. I'd very much like to see less difference in armor between male and female wearers, as was the case historically - a suit of armor for a given woman might be smaller than that of a given male and be fitted slightly differently, but it would have very much the same shape. You are new to the forum, aren't you? Edited October 31, 2012 by DocDoomII 1 Do you think Pillars of Eternity doesn't have enough Portraits? Submit your vote in this Poll!
wsjudd Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 One comment I have - how will female armor be depicted? In many games it is an incredibly cut down affair that favours showing off flesh over actual protection. I'd very much like to see less difference in armor between male and female wearers, as was the case historically - a suit of armor for a given woman might be smaller than that of a given male and be fitted slightly differently, but it would have very much the same shape. You are new to the forum, aren't you? Yup, I surely am. Has the topic been discussed before? If you point me in the right direction I'd be grateful.
Darkpriest Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 One comment I have - how will female armor be depicted? In many games it is an incredibly cut down affair that favours showing off flesh over actual protection. I'd very much like to see less difference in armor between male and female wearers, as was the case historically - a suit of armor for a given woman might be smaller than that of a given male and be fitted slightly differently, but it would have very much the same shape. You are new to the forum, aren't you? Yup, I surely am. Has the topic been discussed before? If you point me in the right direction I'd be grateful. Discussed is a light word... it's been hammered to death and then some... just in case...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now