Armour musings

[Thereisnosaurus]

I figured this was lengthy enough to deserve a new topic to discuss the various things it brings up.

 

 

 

From the outset I'd just like to say it's quite tricky to offer thoughts this early in the process. Without having a really firm grasp on the more subtle goals of this game it's difficult to offer detailed analysis or commentary on development issues brought up for the community. I'll do my best however, and hope some of the waffling comes in handy.

 

As a second note, I like to write this sort of thing in a way that it both addresses what the devs are looking for and provides some further information and discussion points for members of the community. So, devs, if there's stuff in here that seems patently obvious to you it's probably intended for the layman observer, and vice versa there's stuff that may seem irrelevant to the casual reader that the devs might find rather interesting. I'll try and include references for further reading. A good one to start is the MDA framework which will help you figure out what I mean when I talk about mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics.

 

So, armour design. Loot and material progression in general is an interesting area in RPG design with a lot of potential for quite fancy design. Here it seems two main areas are up for discussion- making sure there's a variety of armour in the game and that that variety expresses itself (ie. All the options are legitimate choices for a player). This is where the lack of info comes in, as I'm not sure what Eternity is going to use for its equipment system- a traditional box inventory/slot equipment system, a list inventory/tier system like some JRPGs, a more realistic salvage/craft inventory like some more modern fps/rpg hybrids. This kind of matters as far as making statements about how things might play out. Still, there are a few things I can talk about

 

 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Combat Philosophy

 

The first thing is addressing armour viability. We can do this without recourse to a detailed system by examining how armour types interact in real life, and not just armour types but fighting styles. Often armour is not worn based on a warrior's actual fighting needs, but on their overall combat philosophy. Thus, light infantry do not wear heavy battle armour not because they find such things encumbering in combat, but because the role of light infantry is infiltration, manoeuvre and harassment. These disciplines forbid a light infantryman heavy protection since that would prevent him getting into the right place to do his job, even if he could do it better once he got there.

 

To develop this design vector in game, armour needs to have a significant effect on a player outside of combat through mechanics such as encumbrance. Battlefields need to be expansive enough to allow these mechanics to play out- there's no point being a nimble harasser if you can't find a good vantage point out of the way to snipe from. This is perhaps the biggest issue with traditional WRPG (games in the baldur's gate tradition) combat, and D&D to a lesser extent with the introduction of tile dungeons as a core mechanic. There's no point bringing a longbow to a fight where the battle only begins when you're 20 yards from an enemy, when the point of a longbow is to make kebabs of people ten times that far away. Even an unwashed peasant with his dad's prized bow can be a great threat at that range, true marksmen need distance to show just how good they are. The same sort of thing comes up when we talk about items like shields- tower shields were made to form a shieldwall, not for the skirmishing warrior.

 

But such kit is visually iconic, so removing it, while it might induce that lovely state of verimisilitude, does not convey epic winz. The goal for the designer, then, is to envision and specialise such kit for a combat philosophy and make sure that philosophy can express itself in the game. Tower shields could be used for tunnel fighting or in enclosed spaces where one man can be a shieldwall, a longbowman could embody the combat philosophy of the one shot that matters- a mastery of delivering devastating force with exquisite precision, rather than a more dextrous legolas-style archer

 

 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Force Application vs Evasion

 

A second design vector is the interplay between force application and force evasion. Any martial artist will tell you that these two factors are key in any physical contest, though all martial arts vary on to what extent they value the former compared to the latter. We find a brilliant example of this in WoW with the dynamic of rogue evasion tanking. Rogues had the ability to outright dodge an exceptionally high percentage of attacks for a brief period of time. Certain enemy bosses attacked rapidly for overwhelming damage, enough to absolutely annihilate even the heaviest armoured bruiser. Rogues were brought in instead since their ability to completely ignore 95% of the boss's swings allowed them to take a hit, then give their healers time to ready them for the next lucky swing. So against the most devastating of monsters, it was the lightest, most nimble melee class that excelled, since no amount of protection would do any good. This has parallels in modern warfare, we've seen armour become less and less prevalent strategically as force delivery becomes more intense and precise. It's better just not to be hit at all. Armour is just there to save you from being killed by the bits of random stuff that get thrown around when the wall next to you gets blown to kingdom come.

 

This exemplifies a sort of rock paper scissors of force that may be an excellent mechanical basis for making light armour classes (particularly melee ones) viable. Let's assume that you can allocate your power to two areas: force or evasion. Each of these areas is semi-exponential. The more you put in, the more you get out. A player who sinks all their power into force is a hulking brute but with very little accuracy or timing. He can smash anything that stands in his way, so long as it stands relatively still. On the other end, a purely evasive champ is a dancer, he can knock a fly out of the air with his sword and dodge with reliable ease. In the middle you have your average soldier, skilled at both whacking things and dodging them, but not a master of either.

 

In general terms, a brute beats a soldier, because he delivers so much force that the only way to cope is to avoid it entirely. The soldier might dodge a few hits, but he just gets pummelled into the ground eventually. On the other hand, a dancer beats a brute because, with no finesse, the brute can never touch him, so the dancer's admittedly low return damage is uncontested. You can see this mechanic play out in narratives everywhere: the blademaster or the horse archer, the infiltrators or the guerillas are all archetypes who heavily favour evasion over force delivery.

 

In more specific terms this can be used to both define playstyles and distance armour choice from class. Heavy armour tunes a warrior to the brute end- able to beat up other enemies around his own weight class. But when you come up against something like a giant or an iron golem, no amount of enchanted steel is going to save you when the guy drops a boulder on your face. Your only bet is to strip down and hope you can drop, roll and hamstring. This choice is entirely non class based- a wizard going into a battlefield melee is going to want to strap on his plate just as much as the next poor sap, but it won't save him from a battering ram upside the head any more than it will for the bruiser next to him. In his robes he might just be light enough to go flying to safety, wheezing asthmatically all the way .

 

You can add further mechanics related to which armour is most suited to defend you from chemicals (plate), heat (heavy leather), magic etc, making outfitting your party a strategic choice depending on location and encounter.

 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cultural/Aesthetic categorization of armour

 

Another vector for armour design is aesthetic. In the update we saw a discussion of various kinds of roughly similar armour type- the various early heavy armours for example (lamellar, banded armour, scale armour). While it might be tempting to examine the subtle strengths and weaknesses each of these armours had, it is fair to say that realistically they offered about the same overall protection. As a longtime devote of tabletop wargaming I have always been amazed at the intricate way armour is expressed in Warhammer Fantasy. Mechanically, it is very simple- all shields are alike and there are two varieties of armour: light and heavy. A beautifully outfitted elven host is no better protected than a shambling skeleton horde in crumbling gear.

 

While this is predominantly a simplicity thing, it has resulted in a curiously well developed visual and cultural design for the various factions of Warhammer. For example, both high elves and dark elves field spearmen phalanxes as a core infantry unit. Both are similarly armoured, but one can immediately distinguish a high elf unit from a dark elf one, no matter their insignia or colouring. High elves, you see, use a lamellar or rectangular scale mail and dark elves use a more subdued ringmail. This occurs across all branches of their forces- scale armour is a defining mark of high elf gear, ringmail of dark elf gear, while both share 'elven' hallmarks of tall kite shields, pointed helms, curved plate overarmour and robes.

 

Given enough thought and design I think that this could provide an outlet for introducing the variations of armour types into the game. I recommend looking to Jes Goodwin as an inspiration for this, he is Games Workshop's master sculptor. The necessities of tabletop design have given him a truly inspired take on cultural/aesthetic armour and weapon design. He is the primary driving force behind Warhammer's incredibly characterful and evocative visual design. Even if there is no combat difference between (the completely made up) Bachari Bloodmail, Tolounian Hauberk and Imperial Banded Mail, there is assuredly a choice for the player to make there. You can even introduce cultural mechanics- Imperials are far less likely to look favourably on a party who roll up to the capitol dressed in Bachari mail than in imperial garb.

 

This can also allow your character to evoke their cultural heritage. The refined blademaster can wear a Toulounian Hauberk, the paladin Imperial mail and the berserker bloodmail. Note I don't even have to describe these armours for them to be somewhat evocative by association and perhaps even make the reader imagine what such a suit might look like. I'll touch on more on how this might come in handy later.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Familiarity

 

Let's look at another simple mechanic, this one of my own devising, that can be used to encourage a player to stick by their character concept. I call it a 'familiarity bonus'. This is a simple mechanic that grants a character a slight bonus with an item the longer it is used, slowly growing over time. This is perhaps the most overlooked element of RPG design compared to Action RPG design. If the player directly controls the capabilities of a character, they become familiar with the limits of their character's weapons, skills and defences as physical tools to achieve objectives, becoming more efficient as they go. In a traditional RPG this is all taken care of through calculation. A character who has used the same gun for fifty levels is no more efficient with that gun as opposed to any other gun, simply by virtue of the fact that there is no proficiency class for 'Andrea's 'My First Derringer', gifted to her by her grandpapa on the advent of her father's messy assassination.' There's only a proficiency class for 'gun'. This is roughly the same as telling a fencer that they should be fiiiiiine using a broadsword, it's a one handed sword after all, right?

 

A familiarity mechanic provides an impetus for a player to stick with their choices by making change hurt. In a sense this is bad- generally a designer wants player to pick up and play with new toys, but when your fencing master switches out his trusty battered rapier for a +6 demonsmashing mace of brutality because it is simply better, things get a little iffy. I'd propose a sort of weapon/armour classing system vague enough to allow a player to transition from a familiar piece of gear to a new piece of gear of roughly the same kind while retaining some of their familiarity bonus. This would obviously require a great deal of thought and adjustment, but it could generate a system where players would stick with their primary choice through thick and thin, only switching out in desperate situations (but... Maitre Dupont, there are DEMONS to SMASH. It... kind of says it on the tin) or when they received a clear upgrade to their preferred gear style, not by virtue of necessity but by virtue of it being what the darn character is good at.

 

Without access to how the inventory/gearing system will function, this is a bit premature, but this might work well with an armour upgrade system that made the basic method of gearing up making adjustments/ minor enchantments to your kit rather than getting a fully new suit of gear every few levels. I've always disliked mechanics that has you carrying around six suits of full plate on your party leader you stripped off some guards somewhere. Encumbrance or no, it's just... you don't have enough pockets. A pauldron here, some glove linings there on the other hand, and your basic suit of armour can slowly grow into a ragged, but personalised suit. Of course this depends on what aesthetics you want to go for, whether the traditional ragamuffin adventurer or the more aesthetically unified gearing we see in modern MMO design.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Frilly hats

 

This is a little afterthought that may nevertheless be an amusing mechanic with potential strength as far as generating real depth of roleplay. Following on from the cultural armour idea above, in most games, fanciness of armour directly mirrors that armour's effectiveness. While historically this is occasionally true (more expensive, well made armour also often featured ornamentation), many cultures also have a tradition of ceremonial armour use. Such ceremonial armour (such as that worn by jousters in a tournament) differs from 'battle armour', which is stripped down to the barest necessities to be deadly utilitarian. A modern example of this is military computer systems which seem antiquated because they lack a lot of the fancy civilian graphic design that our systems carry. They are made to display exactly what you need to know and no more.

 

Ceremonial armour also served a role in battle not by making you a stronger opponent, but by psyching out the opposition and rousing the spirits of your fellows. Samurai armour was notably embellished to this end and military uniforms of all eras served this purpose in one way or another. By decoupling ornamentation from combat effectiveness and recoupling it to psychological influence, you can create some pretty awesome dynamics in my opinion. Lead your peasant followers into battle in a frilly hat and they may just carry the day for you, but will you survive the duel with the dark lord without your trusty, dented war helmet?

 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Ok so that's enough for now, hope people find these interesting and especially hope something in here clicks with the dev team. It's awesome to be able to get in here and meddle at such an early stage ^^.

[Thereisnosaurus]

As a TLDR version for those who may find the wall of text intimidating:

 

 

>light armor can be made more viable by making sure both battlefields and the ways of getting to them allow the players to take advantage of the manoeuvrability and stealth provided by light equipment. Traditional baldur's gate/dragon age size battlefields don't allow this.

 

>introducing elements of pure damage evasion vs mitigation allows light armoured, evasion based fighters to specialise in countering big, strong but clumsy enemies, while they are weaker against well rounded opponents of their own size, who are in turn weak against brute strength.

 

> you can introduce armor variety as a cultural/psychological/aesthetic mechanic rather than a pure combat effectiveness/specialisation mechanic. Different cultural groups will have different forms of similarly strong armour, but wearing the right kind around the right group will give non-combat advantages

 

> you can use a familiarity mechanic to encourage players to stick to their character choices- familiarity gives a slight incremental bonus to the effectiveness of an item the longer it is used. If a new item is equipped, this bonus is lost, though similar items (eg. upgrading from a suit of leather to another suit of leather) may retain a portion of the familiarity bonus. Familiarity with an unused item will decay over time.