[Merged] Armor mechanics thoughts

[Finglafin]

These arguments about what real armor provides are all moot.

Gameplay balance trumps realism.

 

It doesn't matter if a man in full plate custom fitted can move around easily. There needs to be a reason to choose something else over plate or everyone would use plate.

 

 

By that logic we should put some penalties on magical swords, because if we don't then no one would want to use normal swords...

 

Seriously. Plate is the best armor one can have. Period.

It should be the best armor in the game BY FAR. Period.

 

However, that doesn't mean a player will ever be able to equip a whole party with it. Plate armor has to be custom-fitted and is EXPENSIVE AS HELL.

 

No, by that logic we shouldn't put penalties on magic swords. I think what others are suggesting (using your magic sword analogy) is that there might be situations where magic swords are not the optimal choice, perhaps against enemies that are highly resistant to magic and slashing damage. In that situation a mundane but well crafted warhammer would be superior.

 

To bring it back to the armor discussion, I don't think its good design to have a hands down universal optimal with no drawbacks. Plate should certainly provide a peak attribute in regard to protection, no doubt, but it shouldn't be superior in every single instance, for every character that can wear it, in every situation hands down.

 

Because what you get then is an unecessary narrowing of player choice and visual variety that stands in stark contrast to the high fantasy setting of the game world. Instead of a variety of warrior cultures with different techniques and dress you have a single monolithic first choice that is completely arbitrary given that the world has materials and craftsmanship and beings and magic which don't exist in reality.

[Karkarov]

These arguments about what real armor provides are all moot.

Gameplay balance trumps realism.

 

It doesn't matter if a man in full plate custom fitted can move around easily. There needs to be a reason to choose something else over plate or everyone would use plate.

 

 

By that logic we should put some penalties on magical swords, because if we don't then no one would want to use normal swords...

 

Seriously. Plate is the best armor one can have. Period.

It should be the best armor in the game BY FAR. Period.

 

However, that doesn't mean a player will ever be able to equip a whole party with it. Plate armor has to be custom-fitted and is EXPENSIVE AS HELL.

 

Another good thing the Dark Eye RPG system does is that wearing metal armor interferes with spellcasting because it disrupts arcane energies or some such. End result your mage can wear armor, just not "metal" armor. There is nothing wrong with Full Plate being the best armor, so long as there is a reason for using something else. Maybe your master archer can't use it because it restricts his vision or finger movement too much? Maybe your paladin has taken a vow to only use armor embossed with his orders crest and blessed by some ritual and that bad ass full plate +5 you just looted doesn't have either so he won't use it? I don't see a Thief picking locks or disarming a trap while wearing plate gloves either for that matter.

[Mikaw]

I agree the plate will be the best armor. But I disagree even more with the the fact that it should be the armor for every fighter. It depends on your fighting style, and I'm not speaking of a realistic analysis of the notion of fighting style. I admit I know nothing of the actual advantages and disadvantages of medieval armor, but instinctively, I'd say Plate provide a far better protection than, chainmail, scale armor or leather armor. But it will also, probably, interfere much with movements. This result in more damage absorption, but less dodge. A light armored fighter will benefit more from agility/dexterity, to dodge attacks, but every hit will inflict more serious damages.

That's what I would think instinctively, and honestly I don't care if I'm right or wrong. I have no intention of studying even the slightest part of medieval history to be able to enjoy a game.

A full plate just look rigid and heavier than chainmail, and I'm thinking about a mechanic that is as intuitive as that even if it's inaccurate.

This way every armor can remain a good choice depending on your fighting style.

And things like "Seriously. Plate is the best armor one can have. Period. It should be the best armor in the game BY FAR. Period." will result in people playing a fighter for their main character, all having a clone of the same warrior, all dressed in full plate. If we extend this kind of reasoning to every aspect of the game then what's the point of giving choice by creating several option if one of them is so "the best option BY FAR"? It's like asking " I'll give you money! here's 50 $ and here's 100. Which one do you want?" I'd never tried that for real as you can imagine but I'm pretty sure that statistics would prove me that there's no point on proposing the 50 bucks...

Edited November 2, 2012 by Mikaw

[Grand_Commander13]

Where do you get the idea that just because two warriors are dressed in plate armor that they are clones? I'm pretty sure warriors are going to have more to differentiate themselves than just their gear, or else nobody would want to play them because they're boring. I'll play a character that actually has choices in combat, thank you.

 

None of the games PE is meant to emulate give you any reason to use any armor but the heaviest you were allowed to equip, why should PE do so when doing so would require nonsensical rationalizations of this behavior?

 

I will add another reason for the "why not use plate if it doesn't restrict your movement and it's the best protection?" list after pondering Arcanum and Alpha Protocol: rogues can't sneak very well in plate because it's noisy and (usually) shiny. So we're up to upfront cost, repair cost, availability, fatigue, and stealth as reasons why you'd choose something else.

[Osvir]

Where do you get the idea that just because two warriors are dressed in plate armor that they are clones? I'm pretty sure warriors are going to have more to differentiate themselves than just their gear, or else nobody would want to play them because they're boring. I'll play a character that actually has choices in combat, thank you.

 

If I have two Fighters in my group in Baldur's Gate I will make one with two handed weapons and one with sword and board. I might even make both with sword and board, or one with a two-handed weapon. The point I want to make is that they will look very different towards end-game and fulfill the function I imagine. There is only 1 set of that mystical armor that looks in that certain way.

[Grotesque]

I think people shouldn't factor reality in too much.

 

First of all you can easily crawl away from a knight in full armor. It's the type of stuff you don before battle and take off right after. In plate armor you won't be able to mount a horse without help. Of course, plate stops just about everything short of a stiletto between plates or war hammer, which simply smashes metal in and brakes the armor into pieces. But arrows from composite bows or heavy arbalests (not large necessarily, just the ones that aren't hand-loaded) pierce right through plate, mail and what have you. Not to mention bullets here. So realistically outside of heavy cavalry full plate is both useless and silly, but it rapidly jumps into ridiculous category once you introduce firearms.

 

kind sir, I shall direct you to this excellent motion picture explaining why you can in fact move quite freely in full plate and why mounting a horse does not require a crane, or any other kind of help. Arrows shot from a composite bow would not pierce plate armour, unless it was a magical bow, of course. Plate armour was also quite frequently used by infantry soldiers, no doubt very stupid ones who were not told it's useless unless you're a cavalryman. Who knew.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4

 

Some of you also seem to misunderstand what all this realistic armour discussion means. Nobody is suggesting to limit PE to historical armour only, nor is understanding of real armour irrelevant due to inclusion of fantasy elements. If we understand how the real stuff works, figuring out how these magical materials or unreal constructions would work is easier and has a feel of believability.

 

edit: the video also neatly shows how small the links of very high quality mail were and how tightly it was woven. (around 9:20) As the guy says "You can't even prick it with a needle.". Very much unlike all the crappy "replicas" one sees today, with massive rings.

 

Offtopic:

 

I really liked the movie you posted but the jousting reenacment in it was wrong. Horsemen rode having the fence on their right side and not the left.

Thats why now in England, cars ride on the left side of the street. Because horseman also used the left side to freely charge with the lance and not over the horse head.

 

Also, with mail that is so tight that a needle does not pierce it, that doen's mean that is impenetrable to arrown.

With thick padding underneath it, thats entirely another story and its the realm of energy dissipation .

But still not 100% arrow proof

[Grand_Commander13]

So you're saying you'd be fine as long as the plate armors looked different from each other?

[Mikaw]

Where do you get the idea that just because two warriors are dressed in plate armor that they are clones? I'm pretty sure warriors are going to have more to differentiate themselves than just their gear, or else nobody would want to play them because they're boring. I'll play a character that actually has choices in combat, thank you.

 

None of the games PE is meant to emulate give you any reason to use any armor but the heaviest you were allowed to equip, why should PE do so when doing so would require nonsensical rationalizations of this behavior?

 

I will add another reason for the "why not use plate if it doesn't restrict your movement and it's the best protection?" list after pondering Arcanum and Alpha Protocol: rogues can't sneak very well in plate because it's noisy and (usually) shiny. So we're up to upfront cost, repair cost, availability, fatigue, and stealth as reasons why you'd choose something else.

 

I was just highlighting the fact that if some options are made "so better than others" there's no point to take the "others" and it will result in identical characters. It's not just the plate armor, it's the reasoning leading to sentences like "Seriously. Plate is the best armor one can have. Period. It should be the best armor in the game BY FAR. Period." that make the various "other" options abandoned because they're not interesting compared to the "better(only viable?)" option.

I totally agree with the fact that wearing full plate isn't enough to make clone of two characters. But if I wear plate because it's the better option BY FAR, then choose to equip 2 vorpal spoon+5 as weapons because it's the better option BY FAR, then max strength because again it's the better option BY FAR... this leads to identical characters.

I'm conscious that optimising IS looking for the better option. Bet when the better option is better "BY FAR" it makes others options pointless. Such and option shouldn't exist in a well-balanced game mechanic.

If you have played Diablo 3 you surely remembered how imbalanced was the speed property on equipment. It increased damages so much compared to other characteristic that it was pointless to look for a magic item without the "attack speed" property and that's a real nuisance for the game especially if designers worked a lot to offer us a huge array of option to choose from.

[Grand_Commander13]

Well, making it so there was one superior weapon would be pretty unrealistic. The guys with the money to buy whatever they wanted all agreed it was best to wear plate, but they would use swords, axes, spears, hammers, and polearms for different reasons, and if we had grappling I'd include daggers too. All you need to do is put some thought into the weapon system and you'll have plenty of customization of your warrior's kit there without stepping on reality's toes.

[Osvir]

So you're saying you'd be fine as long as the plate armors looked different from each other?

 

Yes. Personally I wouldn't mind if that armor didn't give any bonuses at all, but I could strap on another belt for carrying potions or coin. Perhaps I am able to put some enchantments on parts of it, it develops as I put additions on it. I could do the same with a plate armor no? Add plating, have a leather armor under a plate armor? I like the Armor Class in this way. What kind of quality is your armor? How do you maintain it?

 

Fallout, partial damage (Legs, Hands, Head etc. etc.). Could the same be done with armor? Thought: I feel that parts should and would be permanently damaged and you need one part from another armor (from that Bandit you just slew perhaps?) to sow together that hole you've got in it.

 

This way I would be able to fine tailor it in a way I want, do I want lots of defense, avoiding more damage or more flexibility, maybe I need to climb that rope, or hide in shadows. Maybe I want to wield a two-handed hammer without armor because there is none my size, and I move faster without it anyways. Maybe I'm not a buff Fighter so holding up a tome in front of me whilst reading incantations drains more of my energy.

 

I don't possibly believe it is possible to jump over a horse in full plate armor (if you catch my drift). Is gravity going to be an element in P:E? (except those magically floating magical islands of magic and other magic fluff).

Edited November 2, 2012 by Osvir

[Mikaw]

Well, making it so there was one superior weapon would be pretty unrealistic. The guys with the money to buy whatever they wanted all agreed it was best to wear plate, but they would use swords, axes, spears, hammers, and polearms for different reasons, and if we had grappling I'd include daggers too. All you need to do is put some thought into the weapon system and you'll have plenty of customization of your warrior's kit there without stepping on reality's toes.

 

And again...

What you're saying works only if every options are balanced. Why would I consider grappling or other combat option if I have much more chance to One shot every character facing me with ONE build unless they choose the same build as me.

 

They're something you don't understand with the "BY FAR" thing. It makes all the other options you talking about useless. Then as you seems to focus on the plate. Why creating other armor if everyone will equip the plate anyway. Every other armor will just be a transition until the character get the so-unavoidable-plate-which-is-the-best-option-of-all.

 

Putting some thought in the weapon system implies that there is something to thing about. if one option reveals itself as a "no-brainer" why would I think further? I'm talking about balance here. What you said is exactly what I want in a game. A system which let me think about the different options, ponder their respective pros and cons and let me choose which one I prefer. And the reasoning I'm criticize is one that lead me to abandon all the fun build I would like to try because "yeah but this option is so much powerful BY FAR, why would I play a weak character when such power lies beneath that ultimate and unique build"

Edited November 2, 2012 by Mikaw

[Grand_Commander13]

Mikaw, the vibe I'm getting from your post is that of course we can balance the armors so they're all viable but no we could never balance the weapons so they're all viable.

 

And I've already covered why you'd wear something other than plate even if it was best. Remember getting your first suit of power armor in Fallout 2? Can I get a "heck yeah!"?

[Osvir]

Mikaw, the vibe I'm getting from your post is that of course we can balance the armors so they're all viable but no we could never balance the weapons so they're all viable.

 

And I've already covered why you'd wear something other than plate even if it was best. Remember getting your first suit of power armor in Fallout 2? Can I get a "heck yeah!"?

 

Heck yeah!

 

This is kind of my thought (Sands of the Coliseum Flash Game), but if the armor breaks it breaks (though I think in this slightly addictive Flash game). I think that armor regenerates after each battle (which it obviously wouldn't in P:E if this is the case). Armor and weapon could break in the middle of combat in Baldur's Gate. I'm just asking for more of that, with an option to repair it.

http://www.free-onli...e-coliseum.html

 

There's a ton of bandits in Baldur's Gate, I'm sure that my Thief could use some of that padding to repair her own armor. Maybe looting should be "salvaging" instead?

 

EDIT: And if Plate Mail is expensive for you and specially fitted for you, shouldn't it be for everyone else too? So even having a Plate Mail gets harder to repair (because there's less plate around). Also something to consider.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Osvir

[Mikaw]

Mikaw, the vibe I'm getting from your post is that of course we can balance the armors so they're all viable but no we could never balance the weapons so they're all viable.

 

And I've already covered why you'd wear something other than plate even if it was best. Remember getting your first suit of power armor in Fallout 2? Can I get a "heck yeah!"?

 

I get your point and sorry if my ideas are so badly expressed here, but I'l make an effort to improve my english.

I remember my first power armor in fallout 2 and as you say "hell yeah"

But honestly, the armor you equip in fallout was not a real choice. It's a good example to illustrate what I mean. In fallout there's one ultimate armor. And in the end of the game no one wear another armor than this one. I'm not saying that I hadn't fun playing fallout or I didn't feel the new armor as a reward, but ultimately I didn't choose armor because it granted me specific advanage compared to another but because it was better than others. There was no matter of " what kind of character I want to play" involved in the choice of armor.

But maybe I'm wrong, so many years have passed since I last played this awesome game that I should probably reinstall it to check if what I'm saying is really valid

 

And of course I think we can balance weapons, we must balance weapons. I was just trying to say that if there was one ultimate weapon as there can be an ultimate armor or an ultimate anything-else, it would ruin the game by making choices pointless.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Mikaw

[Grand_Commander13]

I know Fallout's armor is an example of one-true-armorism, but it's not such a bad thing. Power armor would definitely be cheapened if it was merely one equally valid choice of many. Remember how hard you had to look to outfit your entire party with power armor? It was something you spent a good portion of the end game doing, and it was the end of a long progression of improving armors. Heck, once you had the power armor you could get some of it hardened and get an even better suit from somewhere else, and I believe the very end of the game had one of the very newest models.

 

If we're using historical precedent for our armor we'd probably want a similar progression. But armor is such a passive thing; it's almost boring; it's just there to protect you. Weapons are where the action is at; they're what you build your character for. If the game models weapons much like real life weapons then swords would be a defender's weapon, most able to parry and able to cut through unarmored enemies with ease while still having a chance to stab through the weak points in plate. A character who wanted to deal pure damage might prefer an axe, able to outpace even the sword against unarmored enemies and able to at the very least ring the bell on heavily armored enemies. For dealing with armor you might specialize in techniques with maces; who needs to pierce the armor when the man inside is tenderized meat? And of course you can specialize in the two-handed version for added range and power.

[Mikaw]

What you say about weapons is very interesting and without going so far in the "realism" I think it's important ton consider offensive AND defensive properties of a weapon.

 

About armors, they are passive, indeed, but they're still a part of your equipment which define your character : light :swift and agile; heavy :more predictable moves but difficult to damage; medium :the more impredictable I would say but if the game is well balanced every armor should allow a viable an interesting build and (for me at least) this choice is almost as interesting as the choice of a weapon. But at last I must admit that, like you, I'd prior the weapon as it's indeed the "active" tool.

[Borna]

Of course that wearing different armor should grant different benefits, just not in the protection department. We all know this is a fantasy game, but it has to have its own internal logic to adherre to. If leather was a material just as hard as metal, what would that mean for the people living in that world? What of the animals? The architecture?

The truth is, if you want protection, you go for plate. And thats it.

If you want to be an agile dual rapier wielder, than leather or chain will certanily be better suited for your fighting style. I really don´t see the issue here.

Or if you want to play a bad as$ barbarian, he could have a cultural bias against wearing armor beacuse "real men don´t hide behind metal skin!" and he could have more hp than the fighter class and more stamina and what not. But it simply would make any sense to make armor just an esthetic choice, and for me, it would kill a good portion of fun in this game.

 

I think it would be aweseome if full plate armor would be a rare thing in P: E! Maybe if it was reserved only for the most elite of slodiers, nobility and the most hardy of adventurers. It really should be expensive and hard to come by. That way it will be extremly rewarding once you finaly obtain it.

Of course, this should be the case with all high level equipment.