The armor system needs work

[Zansatsu]

 

He looks incredibly cool. I wish I was that guy. Imagine walking into a mall like that, checking out the nearest Subway, and then selecting Subway Melt, with a dark, entrancing voice: "I want it all".

And then someone walks by, accidentally bumps into that 10 watermelon head. Balance is pushed off kilter. Next thing you know, he's fallen and he can't get up!

 

How's he even getting inside places to begin with!

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

He looks incredibly cool. I wish I was that guy. Imagine walking into a mall like that, checking out the nearest Subway, and then selecting Subway Melt, with a dark, entrancing voice: "I want it all".

And then someone walks by, accidentally bumps into that 10 watermelon head. Balance is pushed off kilter. Next thing you know, he's fallen and he can't get up!

 

How's he even getting inside places to begin with!

 

Oh, he's shorter than Kylie Minogue. He'll get in anywhere.

[Zansatsu]

I don't think there should be 0 penalty for wearing armor, simply that those character who are encouraged to fight in melee, like all the characters with the +20 melee accuracy, shouldn't be as penalized. They are designed to be more in harms way and it feels like punishment if ranged character are exactly the same.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Zansatsu

[Marceror]

 

Well it wouldn't be a waste for your tank character(s). And additional tweaking such as making ranged weapons more lethal and/or having the AI prioritize squishy characters could add incentive.

There are balancing issues with that. Being able to ignore a good portion of the armor speed penalty (let's say 20%) gives you a 20% increase in DPS at DT 0 (less against higher DT), which is the same as 10 Might. Now this is not as strong as 10 Might, it's probably worth 6-7 Might maybe, do you think you'll be seeing items that give +6-7 Might ?

 

I don't.

 

Not sure. D&D had items that granted 6 strength, though they were rather expensive. So it's not entirely out of the question.

 

But by your argument, all I have to do to get that 6 - 7 might affect is remove my armor anyway, so that possibility and potential balancing issue is already in the game.

 

I'd just like a way to do this where my tank character doesn't have to go nude, and more to the point, where heavy armor is actually a positive strategic choice to use.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Marceror: Some plate mails were like that. The knight fell off his horse and was done for. However, in other plates you could be surprisingly agile and fast. I'm glad this isn't a simulationist game. I'd really prefer a gamist approach that still makes sense within that fantasy setting and within or laws of physics as well (but just barely).

 

I'm not sure what you mean by gamist approach? I don't really know what you mean by gamist other than a quick google search and the term isn't clear.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Hiro: I picked it up on this forum, regarding CRPG approaches. It's like a dichotomy: simulationist vs gamist. That's all I know. If I somehow have misunderstood it, blame it on me.

 

I reckon, it means that you acknowledge that a CRPG is a game first and foremost, and needs to have great gameplay. That's what I mean by it here, anyways.

Edited September 5, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Sensuki]

I'd just like a way to do this where my tank character doesn't have to go nude, and more to the point, where heavy armor is actually a positive strategic choice to use.

So would I, I just don't think the talent system is the way to do it. It's an inherent issue with the System Design and yeah, will be a tough cookie to solve.

 

I reckon, it means that you acknowledge that a CRPG is a game first and foremost, and needs to have great gameplay. That's what I mean by it here, anyways.

I first heard Josh Sawyer mention it, but yeah gamism is like fully sacrificing realism in favor of mechanical purposes. Simulationism tries to take realism into account when designing mechanics. Josh hates half-measured simulationism for some reason.

 

I think the mid point between them works well in a lot of systems. They're all valid approaches it just depends whether the actual design is good or not.

 

PE is more on the gamist side.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Sensuki

[PrimeJunta]

@Infinitron @Sensuki Nope, please read it again before commenting. I'm removing the speed penalty and introducing a different penalty, which bites characters with low CON and who move a lot the hardest. 

 

I.e., second-row archers/casters would suffer the least because they mostly stay put (who also benefit from heavy armor the least), whereas front-line characters who rely on positioning would both benefit and suffer more, and highly mobile characters (e.g. the melee rogue) would suffer most.

 

That said, I don't really like the idea all that much myself. I just can't think of any better solutions. (Nor have I seen any ITT.)

Edited September 5, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Marceror]

 

I'd just like a way to do this where my tank character doesn't have to go nude, and more to the point, where heavy armor is actually a positive strategic choice to use.

So would I, I just don't think the talent system is the way to do it. It's an inherent issue with the System Design and yeah, will be a tough cookie to solve.

 

Agreed. But as I'm not expecting that any mechanic is going to be scrapped and totally redone at this point, I'm trying to think of things that can be done within the existing system to improve the situation. It doesn't have to be via talents.

 

Another option is that certain classes can innately ignore a certain amount of armor speed reduction. So a fighter maybe ignores 15% speed reduction. He can wear light armors with almost no speed reduction, and heavy armors with a moderate reduction.

 

Maybe a barbarian has a 10% reduction. Rogues/rangers 5%. And wizards 0%. Maybe these values can improve at higher levels. As I'm typing this, this doesn't feel like "the solution" either, but I feel it's at least heading down a better direction than we have currently.

[Sensuki]

That said, I don't really like the idea all that much myself. I just can't think of any better solutions. (Nor have I seen any ITT.)

Better encounter design ?

 

Another option is that certain classes can innately ignore a certain amount of armor speed reduction. So a fighter maybe ignores 15% speed reduction. He can wear light armors with almost no speed reduction, and heavy armors with a moderate reduction.

The Fighter can already do this with one of his class abilities AFAIK, gives him extra DT or something.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Sensuki

[IndiraLightfoot]

The more I ponder over this, I'd like to lay most of the blame on the DT stat itself. What'll happen if we scratch it? Is there something easier and more combat-flowy we can replace it with that involves the diversity of armour in the game?

Edited September 5, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Sensuki]

I don't think it's the DT system that's the issue. As Infinitron mentioned earlier, 3E kinda solved this issue by making it tied to your Dexterity score, so you'd wear Plate if you had a lower Dex and whatnot *shrug*. I'm positive Josh won't want to go in that direction though.

 

Hmm, actually ... let me note that down for my thread [Hint: Dexterity does something different in my system]

Edited September 5, 2014 by Sensuki

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The more I ponder over this, I'd like to lay most of the blame on the DT stat itself. What'll happen if we scratch it? Is there something easier and more combat-flowy we can replace it with that involves the diversity of armour in the game?

From what I can tell, DT is used as an integer to make high Damage per hit weapons appealing in some cases instead of going high dps all the time, which would happen in a % based system. In FONV(which had a DT system) using a heavy single shot weapon like the AMR or YCS was the better choice against high DT enemies while high DPS stuff was better against low DT enemies. The PoE system needs some serious tweaking though, as there is little mechanical incentive not to pack twohanders and go plate for the front line/nude for the rest.

[Valorian]

A damage reduction percentage for armor instead of a flat DT would be a cop out. Undoubtedly, everything is easier to balance with percentages (that's why there are already lots percentages for everything in PoE), but IMO that's bland design and best avoided if possible.

 

If armor had a deflection penalty instead of an action speed penalty, characters in the back would not be discouraged to wear it. Although, I know that the design goal was to link an offense penalty with a defense bonus for armor, instead of a defense bonus + defense penalty; it's just that these are vastly different types of defenses (DT vs deflection).

 

 

 

@Valorian's idea for a fatigue mechanic would help here, though. Not sure if it wouldn't make the combat feel way more RTS-y and way less IE-ey though. For example:

 

1. Characters have, in addition to Endurance and Health, a third CON-related stat, Fatigue.

2. The Fatigue meter runs down whenever you move, attack, or use special abilities, and recovers (relatively quickly) when you're standing still and not doing anything.

3. Heavier armor makes Fatigue run down faster. 

4. When Fatigue drops below certain thresholds, penalties are applied, and eventually you won't be able to run, only walk.

 

 

I'll just point out that this is something completely different (compared to the exhaustion mechanic that I suggested). Also, "Fatigue" already exists.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Hiro: I picked it up on this forum, regarding CRPG approaches. It's like a dichotomy: simulationist vs gamist. That's all I know. If I somehow have misunderstood it, blame it on me.

 

I reckon, it means that you acknowledge that a CRPG is a game first and foremost, and needs to have great gameplay. That's what I mean by it here, anyways.

 

I was thinking that could be it. At the moment, PoE feels more simulationist. eg. The heavier the armor, the more penalties you get.    Nope, that design isn't fun. My Fighter in the heaviest armor at the moment is like the Michelin Man that I roll down while the enemies are beating on him. And like the Michelin Man, his recovery time is crap and probably can't hit anything. But at least he's well armored and can take a beating. And that design is just plain wrong when you compare to the earlier IE games where the best armor was awesome and you enjoyed having your fighters, paladins and anyone else who could wear it. It was fun and mainly it was a game to have fun. No penalties for your fighter or paladin wearing it.

[Sensuki]

Actually I would say the issue is not solely tied to armor. It's also the fact that you can dump Con and Res as a ranged character. So I would say if anything, it's not really the armor system at fault but a much larger issue - probably to do with Encounter AND Creature Design.

 

Imagine if those Wood Beetles had a Ranged attack AND a Melee attack ...

Edited September 5, 2014 by Sensuki

[Valorian]

Actually I would say the issue is not solely tied to armor. It's also the fact that you can dump Con and Res as a ranged character. So I would say if anything, it's not really the armor system at fault but a much larger issue.

 

Well, of course, but this is a topic about armor.

There are simple and intuitive solutions for both resolve and con.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I reckon, it means that you acknowledge that a CRPG is a game first and foremost, and needs to have great gameplay. That's what I mean by it here, anyways.

I first heard Josh Sawyer mention it, but yeah gamism is like fully sacrificing realism in favor of mechanical purposes. Simulationism tries to take realism into account when designing mechanics. Josh hates half-measured simulationism for some reason.

 

I think the mid point between them works well in a lot of systems. They're all valid approaches it just depends whether the actual design is good or not.

 

PE is more on the gamist side.

 

 

Wat?

 

PE is more on the gamist side? Okay I really don't understand the term.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Sensuki]

Might affecting all damage (rather than damage being split up into ranged, melee and spell damage) is gamist.

 

Well, of course, but this is a topic about armor.

There are simple and intuitive solutions for both resolve and con.

No it's the same issue. The issue is that ranged characters are not being threatened in the encounter, therefore not having to opt-in to any of the defense systems in the game - CON (Health), RES (Concentration) and Armor (DT).

 

If that was fixed, then there wouldn't be as much of an issue with ranged characters and armor either.

 

I'm going to guess that armor probably will need to be worn against certain encounters that we haven't faced yet (Dragons for instance).

Edited September 5, 2014 by Sensuki

[Hiro Protagonist II]

So D&D is simulationist where the stats are broken up? Anyway, I have no idea.

 

For me, I don't really care if Plate should give you a penalty to stealth because you're clunking down a dungeon, and leather doesn't give you a penalty. I don't care if heavier armor should give you other penatlies for more AC than lighter armor or those cloth rags that you found on some villagers clothes line. There's no need to go to so much balancing just so those cloth rags can be a viable option. Once you start down that road...

 

Anyway, the penalties are the problem. If you want me to have ranged characters wear armor, get rid of the penalties. Then I'll be the first in line to put some clothes on my characters. Even if there is an encounter where I might need armor, I'll just keep a set in my stash and get it before heading off to the encounter.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Infinitron]

I believe that strictly speaking "gamism" means that the game design should focus on offering players the maximum number of viable, interesting and challenging choices at all times, even at the expense of realism and narrative cohesion (although in CRPGs the latter element is less often sacrificed in the pursuit of gamist goals)

Edited September 5, 2014 by Infinitron

[Marceror]

Another option is that certain classes can innately ignore a certain amount of armor speed reduction. So a fighter maybe ignores 15% speed reduction. He can wear light armors with almost no speed reduction, and heavy armors with a moderate reduction.

The Fighter can already do this with one of his class abilities AFAIK, gives him extra DT or something.

 

Yes, he can gain a bonus to DT, but that's still not the same thing as making heavier armors more viable for a tank character which is the problem I'm addressing here.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Hiro: I know, I know. In fact, one of the most "unfun" aspects of F:NV was those DT, blaha, blaha, values. It didn't make my gaming self feel comfy enough. Most other stuff in that game was brilliant, btw. I'd like to have all of this much more simplified. I would rework it into max three key values, and then let some of that simulationist stuff slide.

[Tartantyco]

I think this thread is a mix of people making assumptions based on insufficient information, looking at the game through a DnD lens, and simply misunderstanding the intent of the system.

 

We have only seen a small fraction of all the enemy types in the game, and even within this fraction there's plenty of reasons for your party to wear armor. The Crystal Eater Icicle of Doom, or whatever it is, comes to mind. Stone Beetles can burrow to the rear line, lions and wolves can break through the front line(Pretty basic AI behavior still, though). Thinking you can get away with a nude ranged rear line is pretty ambitious already. There are just too many variables for anyone to say this is an issue that needs a solution.

 

Tank characters already have an incentive to wear heavy armor. DT is a stat that is applied no matter how many attacks the tank receives, but the tank can only do X amount of attacks within a certain timeframe. This means that the more enemies the tank ties up, the greater the advantage of heavy armor. You're trading a fixed damage output for linearly increasing damage avoidance.

 

People also seem to be confusing 'viable' with 'equal'.

 

The numbers may be off, as with so much in this beta, but I do not see any of the systemic issues you guys are talking about. It looks more like a solution looking for a problem to me.

[Sensuki]

Yes, he can gain a bonus to DT, but that's still not the same thing as making heavier armors more viable for a tank character which is the problem I'm addressing here.

It is actually, in fact it's better IMO. Plate armor would now give 14 DT, which makes you a beast vs most low damage hits. -10% recovery would only give you +10% DPS at DT 0. The DT value is better than the IAS.