The new armor system and armor system ideas

[elminster]

Armor.

 

In the latest update, update 36 (http://forums.obsidi...omes-but-first/), the armor system was announced. It consists of three types of damage: slashing, piercing and crushing weapons. Slashing works best against unarmored enemies, crushing is best against heavy armor. Piercing weapons can be used as a trade-off of both.

 

In the past I asked in a poll what you think of wizards wearing armor (http://forums.obsidi...-wearing-armor/)

 

The question now is: What do you think about the new armor system? Do you like it or do you fear that it doesnt work „in the long run“? Please take part in the poll to help PE earlily to make progress in this regard.

[Lephys]

I'd just like to point out up-front that we don't really know all there is to know about the "armor" system, per se. We just know how the "damage" system works, specifically, and how it relates to armor. So, even though higher armor always limits the damage or, at the very least, restricts the threatening weapons list, it may not be that wearing heavier armor is necessarily better.

 

But, honestly, I think, so far so good.

[SunBroSolaire]

I liked DT in New Vegas, so I think it's a good inclusion here. Slashing - piercing - crushing is a good division, I don't think it needs to be any more granular than that. I hope that there are some real benefits to light armor, such as quicker movement, increased chance to evade, etc... I'm sure they will implement some balancing mechanics. Overall, it sounds better than the old AC system in IE games.

[Odglok]

I like it much better than D&D's armor system so far. I would like it if they restricted Piercing damage to ranged weapons only, as I kinda feel like spears and daggers would realistically function more like Slashing weapons in terms of damage type. And I don't think it's unrealistic for bows and crossbolts to function as Piercing weapons when you consider the extremely close range that combat takes place in. Makes me wonder if javelins will be useable weapons in PE...

[Diagoras]

We have firearms in the game as well, though, and they aren't piercing weapons. More like bludgeoning than anything, although the wounds made by shot were uniquely horrifying, even for the period.

[Karkarov]

I'd just like to point out up-front that we don't really know all there is to know about the "armor" system, per se. We just know how the "damage" system works, specifically, and how it relates to armor. So, even though higher armor always limits the damage or, at the very least, restricts the threatening weapons list, it may not be that wearing heavier armor is necessarily better.

 

But, honestly, I think, so far so good.

Yeah really, I saw this thread and did a double take looking for some update I missed. We just don't have enough info right now to discuss this stuff in detail. Which is probably a large part of the reasons why the forums are getting more inactive every day.

[Lephys]

Yeah really, I saw this thread and did a double take looking for some update I missed. We just don't have enough info right now to discuss this stuff in detail. Which is probably a large part of the reasons why the forums are getting more inactive every day.

 

Crap... we're gonna hafta form... Forum Speculation Voltron! Everybody remember to turn your Cadillac keys at the exact same time. I don't want Voltron's head to be a thigh, like that one time... *sigh*

[Helm]

This will be a good combo for example: An estoc sword (piercing), long sword (slashing) and a morning star (blunt).

 

I'm looking for the option: "Great work. I like the armor system and only have a few minor reservations." Because I have some reservations about arrows.

 

How are they supposed to work? Bodkin (piercing) and broadhead (vs. lightly armored enemies, slashing) makes sense. But what about heavily armored foes? Would you use fire arrows or something against them?

[Odglok]

I suppose they could make it so that normal bows deal slashing, crossbows deal piercing, and firearms deal blunt.

[AGX-17]

It's not new. It's Damage Threshold, just like in New Vegas and Fallout 1 & 2 (although it was coupled with Damage Resistance in F1&2.) The crushing, piercing or slashing thing isn't new, either. It was a staple of the old IE games, I've even seen it done in JRPGs.

 

This will be a good combo for example: An estoc sword (piercing), long sword (slashing) and a morning star (blunt).

 

I'm looking for the option: "Great work. I like the armor system and only have a few minor reservations." Because I have some reservations about arrows.

 

How are they supposed to work? Bodkin (piercing) and broadhead (vs. lightly armored enemies, slashing) makes sense. But what about heavily armored foes? Would you use fire arrows or something against them?

 

A longsword was designed to do both piercing and slashing damage. That's why the end with a tapered point, not a flat box. Which isn't really relevant, anyway, because even weapons typically accepted as "just a slashing weapon" could do piercing damage just as well. e.g.

 

I suppose they could make it so that normal bows deal slashing, crossbows deal piercing, and firearms deal blunt.

 

....That makes no sense whatsoever. An arrow shot by a bow does piercing damage. That's the entire point of it, no pun intended. Slashing damage might be done by certain types of arrowheads when they're extracted. If you went into battle in the middle ages with steel chainmail on, you'd still carry a shield for fear of archers. And there were many types of arrow heads designed for different uses. A broadhead with sharp/serrated edges would be used for hunting or unarmored/lightly (leather,) armored enemies. They had arrowheads that were simply metal cones or points designed specifically for piercing armor.

 

A crossbow is an improvement over a bow in some areas, (but not all,) in that it takes much less training and practice to use well and it strains the wielder less. And crossbow bolts typically didn't have broad heads. Original ancient-medieval crossbow bolts were fatter, heavier and less accurate than a contemporary arrow. Crossbows were ultimately best used as defensive, short-to-mid range weapons. The modern crossbows you see firing arrow-like bolts are sporting weapons made with modern technology, not representative of what would have been available circa the 16th century.

 

And with firearms it depends on the type of projectile being fired. The real difference between stringed weapons and firearms is that firearms have orders of magnitude more power. Regardless of what "type" of damage is being done, firearms simply do many, many times more damage than a bow or crossbow (or any melee weapon, for that matter,) can.

Edited January 6, 2013 by AGX-17

[Odglok]

While I don't disagree with anyhing you're saying, AGX-17, I think you're focusing on realism more than Obsidian is. The 3 damage type mechanic that's been described is very gamey, and the hit-and-miss system (or rather the hit-and-glance system) is utterly unrealistic. I think they're aiming for a rock-paper-scissor model of weapon & armor, not anything truly realistic. So I think it stands to reason that there would be a ranged weapon of each different damage type, or that piercing would be relegated to ranged weapons only.

 

Having said that, I've got nothing against realism in an RPG, but I think it's clear at this point that Obsidian isn't focusing on it.

[SunBroSolaire]

On Formspring, Josh detailed some of the tradeoff mechanics they'll be using for light/heavy armor:

 

What are some of the incentives to using a lighter armor type in PE? Is it just an encumbrance thing? Is will your movement speed be affected even if you have the strength to carry heavy armor?

 

You will attack, cast spells, and perform most other actions (not including standard movement) more quickly. A character in the heaviest armor will likely have somewhere in the range of a 30% speed (again, not movement) penalty to his or her actions. In the time it takes an unarmored character to complete a given action 10 times, a character in the heaviest armor will have completed the same action 7 times (roughly).

 

We are using this trade-off because it seems to pose a more interesting problem for players than a combat vs. non-combat trade (e.g. protection vs. carry weight or non-combat skill use) and it's not as mathematically straightforward as a damage avoidance vs. damage reduction model (i.e. dodging vs. absorbing hits).

 

Characters that stay away from the front lines (e.g. traditional long-range wizards and archery-focused rangers) may tend to wear less armor because they are not subjected to as many attacks. Some front-line combatants may wear light armor with the strategy that dealing damage more quickly will make up for their relative lack of protection.

Sounds pretty good to me. I was a little surprised they aren't increasing chance to dodge, but then I guess "dodging" still isn't really confirmed. I can see his point about damage avoidance vs. damage mitigation being equivalent benefits. Using attack speed as the incentive to wear light armor makes it more of an interesting choice. The one suggestion I would make here is that maybe instead of basing speed completely on armor type, why not base it on total equip load?

 

He didn't answer whether strength would affect a characters ability to use heavy armor. My instincts say that it should, but I'm not sure what the gameplay benefit would be beyond "realism".

Edited January 9, 2013 by SunBroSolaire

[Lephys]

Sounds pretty good to me. I was a little surprised they aren't increasing chance to dodge, but then I guess "dodging" still isn't really confirmed. I can see his point about damage avoidance vs. damage mitigation being equivalent benefits. Using attack speed as the incentive to wear light armor makes it more of an interesting choice. The one suggestion I would make here is that maybe instead of basing speed completely on armor type, why not base it on total equip load?

 

It might be based on total equip load. Weapon weight, etc. He's just saying that armor will effect it. So, other things still could, easily.

 

Also, this reminds me of how Mass Effect 3 did things. You could carry up to 4 weapons I think (if you were a Soldier class?), maybe only 3 if you weren't a Soldier... But, anywho, the more firepower you carried, the greater your ability cooldowns were. They got pretty extreme, but it was really a pretty good trade-off system. If you had a heavy shotgun, an assault rifle, and a sniper rifle, your abilities might take 12 seconds instead of 6 to replenish, but the usefulness of the weapons was plenty to make up for that. And if you wanted to be a full "mage" (biotic would be the closest in ME, I suppose), you could just equip a pistol, and all your abilities came back in like 3 or 4 seconds, instead of the standard 6 (arbitrary numbers to show relative changes). So, the fact that you didn't have as much weapon firepower was made up for with the fact that you could create biotic combo-detonations every 5 or 6 seconds.

 

The weapons and abilities obviously don't do the exact same things (without a sniper rifle, you couldn't easily take down some distant, potent threats with extremely-damaging headshots, etc.), but they were equally as useful. You were just as capable at taking down enemies with pretty much any equipment loadout.

[SunBroSolaire]

Dark Souls also slowed you down based on equipment. Additionally, stamina regenerated slower for more encumbered loadouts. The major difference I see is that in Dark Souls and Mass Effect, even with light equipment you can avoid taking damage. Here, since you can't avoid damage in melee, I think the tradeoff is going to enforce combat roles a little more strictly.

[Lephys]

^ True. Although, most of the armor and shield-boosting was worked into abilities in Mass Effect, sort of like buffs, sort of... Except it was like if you cast a buff, and you gained plate armor, or your plate armor could be destroyed, and you restored it with a buff, or boosted it temporarily. So, interestingly enough, in their system, your weapons loadout directly effected the frequency of your damage mitigation, too. Just an interesting tidbit I thought of.

[Hormalakh]

Honestly, there is way too much unknown about the armor mechanics to make reasoned judgements on it. Many of these game mechanics play very differently in theory than they do in the game, because they are components of a larger system. Without knowing a lot about everything else, I don't think it's fair to judge the systems.

 

As an example, we only recently learned about dodges, misses, when armor can be equipped (not during combat), and the attack mechanics that manage the other end of the armor question.

[Jarmo]

A longsword was designed to do both piercing and slashing damage. That's why the end with a tapered point, not a flat box. Which isn't really relevant, anyway, because even weapons typically accepted as "just a slashing weapon" could do piercing damage just as well. e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo

 

While this only tells the difference between replica vs replica, not actual period katana vs longsword, it does show there can be a pretty decisive difference between well made sharp and less well made dull sword. Easy +2 to damage for the better one without any magic involved.

 

I can definitely see how well off folks would be ready to spend a fortune for a Damascus or Toledo steel swords.

 

 

As for the subject, historically nobody would go to fight lightly armored or wearing no armor if they had the opportunity to wear one. Light armor doesn't need to be equal, but it's nice if there are some benefits to being less encumbered.

 

On the other hand, in games it's usually beneficial to wear the heaviest, most protective armor available. In history, it'd have been trivial to make double thick plate armor, bulletproof all the way. Encumbrance does start to have a major effect somewhere down the line.

[Atreides]

Deciding on armour won't be complete without considering its drawbacks. Otherwise everyone would wear plate for the best protection without its considerable weight and limited flexibility.

 

For example, the dwarves in the Hobbit obviously preferred the protection of plate in a pitched battle, but opted for something lighter when they anticipated long distance hiking, running away, climbing and tumbling.

[Merlkir]

I won't vote in the poll, because I don't want to select any options in the 2nd and 3rd part, yet it requires me to do so.

 

About weapons not accurately representing one type of damage - why not give them values from all three types?

 

I suggested this before and I think it's still valid, though it was dismissed as too complicated. But!

 

1) a warhammer (a proper one, not the giant fantasy mauls) or a poleaxe deal both piercing and blunt trauma.

2) weapons could allow for different attacks with their parts - a sword blade deals slashing and piercing damage, while the pommel deals blunt. If you face a skeleton, you'd rather bash it with a pommel, or even hold the sword by the blade and use it as a hammer. Didn't Fallout have something like this?

 

3*) Missiles or ranged weapons being limited to piercing is also not true. You can have blunt arrows, slingshots and a boomerang could be a slashing one (or some kind of rotating thrown blade, whatever). While we're at it, if you wanted to deal with heavy armour, why not use heavy bodkin arrows? You'd get a bit of blunt, a bit of piercing.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Merlkir

[Lephys]

3*) Missiles or ranged weapons being limited to piercing is also not true. You can have blunt arrows, slingshots and a boomerang could be a slashing one (or some kind of rotating thrown blade, whatever).

 

True, and firearms could easily fire various types of ammo. Perhaps certain rounds are comprised of material to cause them to flatten on impact in an effort to transfer force rather than pierce, and certain ones could behave much like flachette shells for shotguns, with small fragments designed to shred (or "slash") flesh on unarmored or lightly armored targets. Some could specifically pierce, like slugs and piercing rounds.

 

I know they're modeling firearms and other technology after a specific historical era, but I think a fantasy world is plenty of excuse to take some artistic license here, especially considering all these types of firearm ammunitions are 100% realistically possible.

[Malevolent]

Easy, archer/ranged types can bring mini-canons to battle to solve the crushing requirements needed to get through heavy armor. ;D

[Merlkir]

Lloyd's new video actually shows all kinds of interesting arrow types, a heavy bodkin for plate (apparently) among them.

 

It also discusses a very interesting effect of cutting vs. piercing type damage on quilted/layered cloth armour like gambesons!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWCN7HId-b8

Edited January 12, 2013 by Merlkir

[Jarmo]

It also discusses a very interesting effect of cutting vs. piercing type damage on quilted/layered cloth armour like gambesons!

 

I once saw a tv show that supports this.

They tested a (heavy modern) crossbow with a broad hunting tip and a ... I think it was a .38cal revolver against a bulletproof vest.

While the vest stopped the bullet. the bolt went through.

 

I guess kevlar and padded cloth have sort of the same principle, flexible fibers being resistant to piercing, but weaker against cutting.

[keiichimorisato98]

i've never been fond of the whole "blunt, smashing, piercing" i'm mostly interested in one thing the pointy end goes into the orc and the orc dies. granted im used to playing JRPG's where this really doesn't matter period. though that is part of why i play them they are simply to figure out, i hate being forced to put in stat thingies into things like mag. physical. constitution. etc. because to me it makes things more complicated than what they need to be, i prefer they each do their jobs and character stats and weapon/armor damage types.

[Merlkir]

Urrhmm...why were you attracted to PE again? Not saying you can't, but...dang, if such a simple concept seems too much of a bother to you, dang..