At this time, the advantage to armor is that it effectively ups your HP by reducing the damage you take. It *does* tire you out to walk around wearing it, which means that armor isn't something people generally would go walking around wearing. Rather, they'd probably put it on when they know they're going to be in a fight.
Tribal's description of a tactic to take down someone in armor is exactly correct right now with no modifications. Two people smacking someone with armor doubles the damage the smacked person receives. Three people triples it. Eventually, armor doesn't mean much other than prolonging your chances to flee.
Speaking from the point of view of realism, the fact is that armor did provide effective protection, which is why it evolved and was around for so long instead of people going to war without it. What we see in movies with the lithe little guy going around and beating up the guy in armor who got tired, etc, is actually proven fallacy. Studies have shown that as armor was close to people's center of balance, it didn't really inhibit or tire them, especially in the short term, and in the long term, people wearing it became adjusted to the fitness required to prevent tiredness. Rather, after a long day of wearing it, a person would have expended more energy - but that may or may not have actually made them tired.
Realistic or not, however, as a game, armor requires investment, it's equally available to anyone, and therefore should be an advantage. It does have some disadvantages, such as being expensive and requiring repair when damaged, but as a game system, we won't be countering the value of armor so that people without it are equally or better viable - that just means it's a zero sum system and no one will bother with armor at all. Rather, if you expect to be in a fight, and can afford it, you're going to want it. If you figure you're not likely to be in a fight or are too broke, you probably won't have it. That seems just about right, so at this time I'm pretty content where that stands.
Feedback on new combat system
The decision on how to treat armor shouldn't particularly revolve around historical studies I don't think. What is more compelling and exciting should probably be the question asked.
I like armor being powerful. Armored men should rule the battlefield. It takes lands and money to put men in armor. If you want to kill a knight, bring your friends. Or kill him in his sleep. Or shoot him with a crossbow. Fighting a guy wearing armor would probably rank number one way not to go about killing him.
As far as universal availability, that's fine, but if someone who's not connected to the knights or a noble is wearing armor around it might raise a few pointed questions. Same goes for a guy trying to buy poison or a crossbow.
I like armor being powerful. Armored men should rule the battlefield. It takes lands and money to put men in armor. If you want to kill a knight, bring your friends. Or kill him in his sleep. Or shoot him with a crossbow. Fighting a guy wearing armor would probably rank number one way not to go about killing him.
As far as universal availability, that's fine, but if someone who's not connected to the knights or a noble is wearing armor around it might raise a few pointed questions. Same goes for a guy trying to buy poison or a crossbow.
I agree with Tribalware, Jei, and Enix - from what I've seen and heard, armor is far too huge an advantage to give someone. Granted, it costs several thousand silver... but a full set of maxed out combat skills costs maybe 100k xp. With maxed out combat stats, perhaps 150k xp. For someone to spend that sort of xp and have someone else have double, triple the combat viability that he has simply because his character concept does not mesh with the idea of having tons of money or wearing armor, is not very balanced.
Think about it this way - when you create a game, you want to promote variety. Currently the only viable combat concept is a character whose concept revolves around him realistically wearing armor. Thus, if someone were to want to make a combat-type, what would he make?
Assassins are not supposed to need armor to win a fight. From what I've seen of the backstab technique, it isn't nearly sufficient to offset the armor advantage. IRL you can murder someone in his sleep, sneak into his room and wait for him to come in and undress. Ingame people don't really sleep while logged in, they don't often return home and they almost never RP changing clothes or undressing.
Ganking him with a friend... c'mon, far easier said than done. Have you actually tried coordinating such an attempt before? Tried having you and your friends all on at the same time as your target is available, RPable, and not in an xblock or 1 on 1 RP? In my time here, I've planned many group assassination attempts, but few actually manage to fall through, mainly because it takes so long to wait for everyone to be RP available that things have moved along by then.
Not to mention that now we have an enforced 5 minute wait time in between cemotes, in a game where everything else happens in real time - messengers take 5 minutes, and movement is near instant. While waiting for your opponent's response, help can arrive and completely turn the tide of the battle - quite unrealistic, I must say. Far too easy for a target to just sit around and say he/she does not know combat until the timer times out. This may or may not be intentional on the target's behalf, but it does make assassinations nigh impossible in this current system.
Think about it this way - when you create a game, you want to promote variety. Currently the only viable combat concept is a character whose concept revolves around him realistically wearing armor. Thus, if someone were to want to make a combat-type, what would he make?
Assassins are not supposed to need armor to win a fight. From what I've seen of the backstab technique, it isn't nearly sufficient to offset the armor advantage. IRL you can murder someone in his sleep, sneak into his room and wait for him to come in and undress. Ingame people don't really sleep while logged in, they don't often return home and they almost never RP changing clothes or undressing.
Ganking him with a friend... c'mon, far easier said than done. Have you actually tried coordinating such an attempt before? Tried having you and your friends all on at the same time as your target is available, RPable, and not in an xblock or 1 on 1 RP? In my time here, I've planned many group assassination attempts, but few actually manage to fall through, mainly because it takes so long to wait for everyone to be RP available that things have moved along by then.
Not to mention that now we have an enforced 5 minute wait time in between cemotes, in a game where everything else happens in real time - messengers take 5 minutes, and movement is near instant. While waiting for your opponent's response, help can arrive and completely turn the tide of the battle - quite unrealistic, I must say. Far too easy for a target to just sit around and say he/she does not know combat until the timer times out. This may or may not be intentional on the target's behalf, but it does make assassinations nigh impossible in this current system.
I have to admit, this is the first time I've seen concerns raised that touch on things that I find valid about armor - Specifically, multi-combat is hard to arrange. That's true and something that probably wasn't well considered, so I'll think on that.
However, a lot of the above post is invalid as well.
With regards to needing armor to win a fight - I think that's not true, nor is it true that armor doubles, triples, etc, efficiency. It reduces damage taken, by a %, based on the type of armor. However, it has no affect on effective damage - a higher skill will increase your character's damage output against any opponent (armored or not), as will a quality weapon.
It is true that a full set of armor is expensive. Also, people who go around always wearing armor are sinking a lot into recovery of moves, which is part of what one needs for effective defense in combat.
There is no enforced 5 minute wait time between emotes; rather there's an enforced wait for your opponent to take a turn, which must occur before five minutes or you get a free hit until your lazy RP partner gets back. The way that's said above implies some sort of disadvantage in waiting, and there just isn't. Rather, if you're saying a person might wait for others to get on before responding, I think that's a big twinkage flash that all players would agree is remarkably bad behavior and, under the twinkage laws, against the rules.
Also, there's no reason an assassin can't or wouldn't wear armor. Theoretically, they're being paid, and historically, the amounts they're paid far exceed what even most nobles have on hand. A bit of that can certainly go to getting their hands on the tools of the trade. Armor is not illegal to wear, so there's no reason that I can think of that anyone who is considering getting into a fight would avoid armor ICly or anyone at all would avoid it other than wanting to save coin and being a peacable person. Am I wrong in thinking I'm seeing a love of the idea of playing Jackie Chan like characters...? Theme is medieval European-style stuff, and combatants wore armor when they could.
In short, other than it costing money to get armor, why do people not want to wear it? Is it that everyone's caught up in wearing full plate as opposed to leather jerkins and the like? I'm just not really understanding the crux of this, I suppose.
However, a lot of the above post is invalid as well.
With regards to needing armor to win a fight - I think that's not true, nor is it true that armor doubles, triples, etc, efficiency. It reduces damage taken, by a %, based on the type of armor. However, it has no affect on effective damage - a higher skill will increase your character's damage output against any opponent (armored or not), as will a quality weapon.
It is true that a full set of armor is expensive. Also, people who go around always wearing armor are sinking a lot into recovery of moves, which is part of what one needs for effective defense in combat.
There is no enforced 5 minute wait time between emotes; rather there's an enforced wait for your opponent to take a turn, which must occur before five minutes or you get a free hit until your lazy RP partner gets back. The way that's said above implies some sort of disadvantage in waiting, and there just isn't. Rather, if you're saying a person might wait for others to get on before responding, I think that's a big twinkage flash that all players would agree is remarkably bad behavior and, under the twinkage laws, against the rules.
Also, there's no reason an assassin can't or wouldn't wear armor. Theoretically, they're being paid, and historically, the amounts they're paid far exceed what even most nobles have on hand. A bit of that can certainly go to getting their hands on the tools of the trade. Armor is not illegal to wear, so there's no reason that I can think of that anyone who is considering getting into a fight would avoid armor ICly or anyone at all would avoid it other than wanting to save coin and being a peacable person. Am I wrong in thinking I'm seeing a love of the idea of playing Jackie Chan like characters...? Theme is medieval European-style stuff, and combatants wore armor when they could.
In short, other than it costing money to get armor, why do people not want to wear it? Is it that everyone's caught up in wearing full plate as opposed to leather jerkins and the like? I'm just not really understanding the crux of this, I suppose.
Besides the fact that I rarely see Jackie Chan wear armor... :D
There is probably the appeal of the quiet, sneaky, lethal assassin type (think Hitman or the guy in Assassin's Creed) who doesn't wear armor - the sneak in, get the job done quickly and sneak out type. It is a perfectly valid character archetype, I would think. Not all fighters are intended to prance around fully armored. Leather is a valid point, though - does it drain less MV than iron? If it doesn't, what motivation would someone have to wear leather over iron?
I am not speaking of literal efficiency per se - let's say armor reduces 50% of damage. Does that not effectively double the odds of the person wearing armor, against an opponent of equal skills and stats?
There -is- a disadvantage in waiting, if you are the assassin who wants to get the job done quickly before anyone drops by or responds to someone running off to get help, etc. it did happen, the last time someone was forced to wait 5 minutes before his next cemote, while help came around. The target claimed lack of knowledge about combat, and I am pretty sure myself that she did not do it intentionally for the sake of twinking... but the result was the same. In a game where people can move near instantly, if you are trying to perform a quick and unlawful assassination, waiting 5 minutes to take your next cemote WILL screw you over.
There is probably the appeal of the quiet, sneaky, lethal assassin type (think Hitman or the guy in Assassin's Creed) who doesn't wear armor - the sneak in, get the job done quickly and sneak out type. It is a perfectly valid character archetype, I would think. Not all fighters are intended to prance around fully armored. Leather is a valid point, though - does it drain less MV than iron? If it doesn't, what motivation would someone have to wear leather over iron?
I am not speaking of literal efficiency per se - let's say armor reduces 50% of damage. Does that not effectively double the odds of the person wearing armor, against an opponent of equal skills and stats?
There -is- a disadvantage in waiting, if you are the assassin who wants to get the job done quickly before anyone drops by or responds to someone running off to get help, etc. it did happen, the last time someone was forced to wait 5 minutes before his next cemote, while help came around. The target claimed lack of knowledge about combat, and I am pretty sure myself that she did not do it intentionally for the sake of twinking... but the result was the same. In a game where people can move near instantly, if you are trying to perform a quick and unlawful assassination, waiting 5 minutes to take your next cemote WILL screw you over.
I know of at least one assassin that wore a collection of steel and leather armor. This was the same guy that claimed to be "nothing more than a simple hunter," and whose defense to those that asked about the abundance of protection was, in essence, "Bears."
Not to say that the lithe fencer Jet Li characters don't have a place. But please remember that there is more than just full plate armor. Pull out your D&D books, if you need to, and go down the list. There's half plate, chainmail, scale mail, ring mail, studded leather - and that's just to name a few. Who's to say that your assassin can't be wearing a blackened steel breastplate with cloth sound-dampening while they creep after their mark?
Wearing armor when you know that your enemy will be wearing armor is just good sense. By the same token, if you want to assassinate someone you know will be wearing full plate, why wouldn't you plan for that?
Coming from someone who *does* wander around in full plate most of the time, trust me when I say that it is freaking exhausting. Tobin gets tired. His horse gets tired. I carry around like 6 waterskins these days, and if you caught me at the right time, you'd have a pretty good advantage. In fact, if armor gets even more penalties tacked on (right now, there is the weight itself - it's heavy, and unless you have very high STR, severely limits your carry; there is the high price of the armor (which poorer characters could offset by barter with a smith, or securing a patron); there is the encumbrance when you walk around (which leads to lower defense in combat), and there is the cost of repair.) Plus, there's the stigma of walking into a tavern in full plate. Armor-wearing characters balance all of this for the benefit of having a bit of longevity in combat. Make armor have more penalties in combat, as well, and armor will quickly go the way of the dodo.
Moral: Armor's just fine the way it is, right now. Buy some and see.
Second moral: Even Ezio Auditore wears armor. Are you implying he's less of an assassin than Steve the Charali Cutpurse?
(Badassier than Steve the Charali Cutpurse.)
Not to say that the lithe fencer Jet Li characters don't have a place. But please remember that there is more than just full plate armor. Pull out your D&D books, if you need to, and go down the list. There's half plate, chainmail, scale mail, ring mail, studded leather - and that's just to name a few. Who's to say that your assassin can't be wearing a blackened steel breastplate with cloth sound-dampening while they creep after their mark?
Wearing armor when you know that your enemy will be wearing armor is just good sense. By the same token, if you want to assassinate someone you know will be wearing full plate, why wouldn't you plan for that?
Coming from someone who *does* wander around in full plate most of the time, trust me when I say that it is freaking exhausting. Tobin gets tired. His horse gets tired. I carry around like 6 waterskins these days, and if you caught me at the right time, you'd have a pretty good advantage. In fact, if armor gets even more penalties tacked on (right now, there is the weight itself - it's heavy, and unless you have very high STR, severely limits your carry; there is the high price of the armor (which poorer characters could offset by barter with a smith, or securing a patron); there is the encumbrance when you walk around (which leads to lower defense in combat), and there is the cost of repair.) Plus, there's the stigma of walking into a tavern in full plate. Armor-wearing characters balance all of this for the benefit of having a bit of longevity in combat. Make armor have more penalties in combat, as well, and armor will quickly go the way of the dodo.
Moral: Armor's just fine the way it is, right now. Buy some and see.
Second moral: Even Ezio Auditore wears armor. Are you implying he's less of an assassin than Steve the Charali Cutpurse?
(Badassier than Steve the Charali Cutpurse.)
Frankly, Clockwork, I don't see how 'some assassins wear armor' is a valid rebuttal to the 'don't make it such that everyone -must- wear armor to be combat viable' argument. Sure, some assassins wear armor. Sure, there's no reason everyone can't wear armor. But does that mean it is a good idea to force everyone who wants to fight, to create characters that will wear armor and have the means to do so?
Think of it this way - should we make it such that a certain weapon, say, swords, deal 50% more damage but cost 5000 silver each? Don't you think everyone who wanted to be serious about combat would get swords, then? Nobody would even bother about trying to use other weapons. That is not the way games are supposed to work.
Think of it this way - should we make it such that a certain weapon, say, swords, deal 50% more damage but cost 5000 silver each? Don't you think everyone who wanted to be serious about combat would get swords, then? Nobody would even bother about trying to use other weapons. That is not the way games are supposed to work.
Leather has a reduced movement cost in comparison to plate.
Anyone here actually wearing or use platemail to comment on what it costs them to go running around in it? How easy is it to recover moves at the moment?
Sleeping and resting are two ways to recover moves now, whereas sleep had been depreciated before because there was no energy regain except logging out and food. You shouldn't regain energy from logging out right now. Is this correct, or am I wrong?
No, I wouldn't agree with the math that a 50% damage reduction makes someone doubly likely to win a fight with someone specifically because there's other variables that calculate damage taken. Eg, if person A fights B, they are not doubly more likely to beat B because of their armor as they would be if person A fights person C. The output of damage from B and C is based on the quality of their weapons and their skill as well as the efficiency of person B's defense, which is based on a number of things.
The fact is that no one is safe. The only way to get safe is to practice and learn what weapons counter which defenses, which defenses counter which weapons, and to use strategies like protecting yourself with armor and retainers. From the perspective of offense, it takes planning. Maybe the planning is too much with regards to getting multiple people together? Thinking on that still.
EDIT (I think I was formulating this while Tobin and Estelle were posting theirs, oops). This said - have those who don't want to wear armor actually tested this stuff first hand, or are they arguing an ideal?
Anyone here actually wearing or use platemail to comment on what it costs them to go running around in it? How easy is it to recover moves at the moment?
Sleeping and resting are two ways to recover moves now, whereas sleep had been depreciated before because there was no energy regain except logging out and food. You shouldn't regain energy from logging out right now. Is this correct, or am I wrong?
No, I wouldn't agree with the math that a 50% damage reduction makes someone doubly likely to win a fight with someone specifically because there's other variables that calculate damage taken. Eg, if person A fights B, they are not doubly more likely to beat B because of their armor as they would be if person A fights person C. The output of damage from B and C is based on the quality of their weapons and their skill as well as the efficiency of person B's defense, which is based on a number of things.
The fact is that no one is safe. The only way to get safe is to practice and learn what weapons counter which defenses, which defenses counter which weapons, and to use strategies like protecting yourself with armor and retainers. From the perspective of offense, it takes planning. Maybe the planning is too much with regards to getting multiple people together? Thinking on that still.
EDIT (I think I was formulating this while Tobin and Estelle were posting theirs, oops). This said - have those who don't want to wear armor actually tested this stuff first hand, or are they arguing an ideal?
Don't misread my brevity here - I need to dash in about a minute. I respect your opinion on this more than most, Estelle.
No one is saying that every assassin needs to wear armor. But if you want to play the sneaky, tricky type, then you'll need to do things to put the target at a disadvantage. Like steal all my water and convince me to take a walk with you. (or summon me somewhere, etc.) Not wearing armor means that you're trying to be the sneaky sort. So why expect to win in a straight fight?
That said, I'm the first to agree that poison code (imbibed and weapons) needs to come in ASAP. That should help balance this.
No one is saying that every assassin needs to wear armor. But if you want to play the sneaky, tricky type, then you'll need to do things to put the target at a disadvantage. Like steal all my water and convince me to take a walk with you. (or summon me somewhere, etc.) Not wearing armor means that you're trying to be the sneaky sort. So why expect to win in a straight fight?
That said, I'm the first to agree that poison code (imbibed and weapons) needs to come in ASAP. That should help balance this.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 127 guests