So the combat system would have to be built out with that in mind
That's the first thing that went thru my mind. It's a shift in direction in gear-dependent games, but the test of its viability or fun factor would be in how the combat system is set up around it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I don't believe what you say is true. I'll have to look it up.
I recall reading that plate armor was the strongest protection, but the least mobile in Medieval times. It's invention brought the demise of the one handed weapons as they were not strong enough to penetrate plate armor. Most plate wearers were knights as the armor was expensive to craft and you would generally ride on a horse.
Chain mail was sometimes worn under plate armor to help protect areas that plate didn't cover. It was probably the most common armor for soldiers.
There are different types of plate as well. Some just cover the breast or parts of the arms and legs. That would be lighter.
Leather armor wasn't really much protection. It's only upside was mobility.
The crossbow eliminated plate armor as it was strong enough to penetrate it from a distance.
Armor, weapons, and their use is a constant evolution where one new technology eliminates another.
To make things more interesting in a game you generally have technology stuck at a stand still.
I feel that equipment is overused in games and is often represented poorly. There is to much of it and often it has some ridiculous design. There are also many times bonus stats attached to equipment that are unnecessary. They are just there to keep people on the equipment treadmill. I prefer armor of a far more simple design that is closer to the real thing. You would find armor like that in older games, far less of it, and with far less stats.
I believe a chain mail armor could be fairly light depending on the materials used and who crafted it.
When we delve into fantasy we also have to take into account magic which can be used to strengthen some armor beyond a realistic strength like the often portrayed elven chain mail in D&D. That was just a chain mail with no special stats other then it had a bit higher armor class and it was very light.
First of all, I own a chainmail and I have wore plate. Chainmail under plate was not common, but there were some mixing in early 14th century with certain parts of either, the thing is that chainmail is friggin heavy and putting a plate over it makes moving a pain.
Leather armor gives more protection than many thinks, we are talking about thick boiled leather and not just a leather jacket here, but it is nothing against a metal armor.
The crossbow did not eliminate plate armor, the Chinese repeating crossbow is 2000 years old and there were heavy crossbows already in the early 14th century when plate started to become popular. It was the musket that killed of plate armors.
And no-one would make a chainmail when plate existed, while plate use somewhat more material it is the work that is the real issue and making a chainmail is insane work, a plate is actually pretty easy besides certain movable parts. Soldiers who wore platemail in the 14th century did so because they had gotten it from relatives or as rewards, it was obsolete.
I recommend speaking to someone at ARMA or SCA, they can tell you all about which armors are easy to wear and not, Hollywood just hasn't got their facts right. And I know this might sound crazy after watching someone run around in a silver painted shirt and seeing someone in a tornament armor but yet it is true.
Of course you could make a mithril chain mail in a fantasy game and if mithril is really expensive the fact that it takes 10 times the work might not be an issue when it uses less material. I still feel that a plate would make more sense though. And yes you could do a magic chainmail as good as a plate and pretty light but a plate with the same spell would be better.
First thing is you need to do your research, chainmail was not a roman invention they first came across it fighting the Gauls but their are earlier example worn by the Etruscan.
Secondly we are playing a game not real life, armour in mmo's is not meant to work realistically other than the weight ratio although it can look realistic.
Fine, I admit that armors from the classical era isn't my expertise. But why can't armors be more realistic in MMOs? If it doesn't affect the fun part there is no good reason. Sovrath said:
"So for
armor classes it would make sense to set a technological level for your game
and use armors and weapons from that period."
I'm actually going to disagree with this. While there are obviously real world correlations, nothing says that you can't have all of them at the same time and then create real reasons that all of them would exist at the same time.
Even if it's something like "A lot of chain mail was made and is still in circulation because plate is very expensive at this point in time". Or maybe only a few people can make it.
Or some such thing.
Unless the game is trying to be historically accurate "game world reasons" can be created to justify each piece of armor or weapon. I think people who know a lot about early weapons and armor and who are wedded to everything being pinned to specific points in history might be the only people who would have trouble with this.
The thing is that you sure could set your game just in the breaking point between new and old technology, that works.
But there is a reason why armor and weapons look and worked like they did, they were made to counter eachother. Without plate there is little need for 2 handed swords (even if the Scots used claymores earlier). Warhammers and stillettos are typical weapons against plate users.
This is however all beside my main point that is that I think most of the hitpoints should be moved from the character to the armor.
There are/were a lot of different base armor types and don't forget that there are/were a lot of cobbled together sets throughout history. At some point, you have to winnow the field for a computer game. I do agree, however, that currently, it is usually a bit simplistic.
My current MMO is ESO, and while very basic, I do like the fact that you can skill up different types of armor for various benefits, depending on the light/med/heavy model. Also, it can take damage and be rendered useless, although it doesn't actually break. It would be nice if it did, crafting would be much more interested if it had that mechanic.
I think the idea seems quite simple but that just leaves a ton of questions. What determines the original health score of the player? Is damage to armor HP self replenishing? How will damage of type 1 compare and sustain to damage of type 2?
With mitigation you have a fairly neat control set. X damage of Type Y - armor mitigation % - resistance mitigation to type Y % = actual damage
How do you propose your damage calculation to work?
The original health of the player should be determined by the usual stuff (con score, feats or speccs and if you use it, levels).
I do think we need to let player replenish armor points between combat or you would get too much downtime. Lets assume the players repair it automatically between combat unless the armor breaks. If it actually do, we can say it loses max 20% hp until a smith have fixed it up.
As for damage with armor points VS hitpoints, lets just give each weapon 2 values, one against metal/leather and one against flesh. Certain weapons are made to penetrate armors others to cut flesh.
Once the damage hit through the armor you wont get any overflow damage from that attack but we could give you a random negative debuff for it, like running more slowly due to a hurt leg and similar things. When your HP is down to under 50% you get a second and when down to 10% you get a more serious, actually getting hurt should be bad in a MMORPG.
But this is just a basic idea and I am surely open to suggestions. And it is basically just about hitpoints and armor, the idea is that it shouldn't make things too complicated (healers will have it slightly worse since they also need to mend and cure serious effects like broken limbs if you gotten beyond 10% HP).
I don't believe what you say is true. I'll have to look it up.
I recall reading that plate armor was the strongest protection, but the least mobile in Medieval times. It's invention brought the demise of the one handed weapons as they were not strong enough to penetrate plate armor. Most plate wearers were knights as the armor was expensive to craft and you would generally ride on a horse.
Chain mail was sometimes worn under plate armor to help protect areas that plate didn't cover. It was probably the most common armor for soldiers.
There are different types of plate as well. Some just cover the breast or parts of the arms and legs. That would be lighter.
Leather armor wasn't really much protection. It's only upside was mobility.
The crossbow eliminated plate armor as it was strong enough to penetrate it from a distance.
Armor, weapons, and their use is a constant evolution where one new technology eliminates another.
To make things more interesting in a game you generally have technology stuck at a stand still.
I feel that equipment is overused in games and is often represented poorly. There is to much of it and often it has some ridiculous design. There are also many times bonus stats attached to equipment that are unnecessary. They are just there to keep people on the equipment treadmill. I prefer armor of a far more simple design that is closer to the real thing. You would find armor like that in older games, far less of it, and with far less stats.
I believe a chain mail armor could be fairly light depending on the materials used and who crafted it.
When we delve into fantasy we also have to take into account magic which can be used to strengthen some armor beyond a realistic strength like the often portrayed elven chain mail in D&D. That was just a chain mail with no special stats other then it had a bit higher armor class and it was very light.
First of all, I own a chainmail and I have wore plate. Chainmail under plate was not common, but there were some mixing in early 14th century with certain parts of either, the thing is that chainmail is friggin heavy and putting a plate over it makes moving a pain.
Leather armor gives more protection than many thinks, we are talking about thick boiled leather and not just a leather jacket here, but it is nothing against a metal armor.
The crossbow did not eliminate plate armor, the Chinese repeating crossbow is 2000 years old and there were heavy crossbows already in the early 14th century when plate started to become popular. It was the musket that killed of plate armors.
And no-one would make a chainmail when plate existed, while plate use somewhat more material it is the work that is the real issue and making a chainmail is insane work, a plate is actually pretty easy besides certain movable parts. Soldiers who wore platemail in the 14th century did so because they had gotten it from relatives or as rewards, it was obsolete.
I recommend speaking to someone at ARMA or SCA, they can tell you all about which armors are easy to wear and not, Hollywood just hasn't got their facts right. And I know this might sound crazy after watching someone run around in a silver painted shirt and seeing someone in a tornament armor but yet it is true.
Of course you could make a mithril chain mail in a fantasy game and if mithril is really expensive the fact that it takes 10 times the work might not be an issue when it uses less material. I still feel that a plate would make more sense though. And yes you could do a magic chainmail as good as a plate and pretty light but a plate with the same spell would be better.
I think I was fairly close in what I stated. I'm not a historian heh. I got most of the ideas from watching documentaries and reading wiki's. Not form hollywood.
For some reason I thought crossbows eliminated plate armor, but as you said it was guns. It does appear that crossbows eliminated lesser forms of armor then plate though. Either way it was a new technology eventually eliminating an old one. Thanks for all the information. It's always good to learn something new.
One of the things I always wished for was an original fantasy armor set, something not based on European or Asian historical models. European adapt models wouldn't always adapt well to non-temperate climates (desert or ultra-humid or rainy areas). Worlds with meager metal resources would need more focus on natural materials -- hides, reeds, fibers, shells, and maybe even something as exotic as molded lava. Since these are only games (and no real life-or-death situations would depend on this armors), why hasn't some art department has gone bonkers and given us some wild, innovative armor models?
Two comments on New Ideas in a single week. I am either on another of my altruistic give-us-something-new-in-MMORPGs binge rant, or I missed some medications.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Chain was not that hard to make in mass quantities. In the non modern era manpower was in excess. And the average man's chain was made by heating iron, coiling it, then cutting links that barely trained people could crimp a suit on a dummy or fix older armor.
Chain or plate with padded armor under was the ancient arrow and bolt proof vest.
It was not till you get to the 1600s and later that armor went away. Then more accurate guns came into creation and armor was a burden.
One of the things I always wished for was an original fantasy armor set, something not based on European or Asian historical models. European adapt models wouldn't always adapt well to non-temperate climates (desert or ultra-humid or rainy areas). Worlds with meager metal resources would need more focus on natural materials -- hides, reeds, fibers, shells, and maybe even something as exotic as molded lava. Since these are only games (and no real life-or-death situations would depend on this armors), why hasn't some art department has gone bonkers and given us some wild, innovative armor models?
Two comments on New Ideas in a single week. I am either on another of my altruistic give-us-something-new-in-MMORPGs binge rant, or I missed some medications.
Elder Scrolls does some of this but those seem to be the least popular armors to wear.
I do sort of like the gist of what you are saying.
First of all, I hate the huge power gaps that bring a player to something like 50K of hit points. Totally unrealistic and blows immersion out of the water.
I've always wanted to see an armor system that is formed on top of a Stat system. I'd like to see Stats heavily modify combat first, then have armor modify that further.
So, compare combat between unarmored characters, using dexterity, agility, constitution, and strength as the differences. Then add skills, of course. Then add modifiers from armor.
So a very agile character would naturally want to wear armors that enhance protection in agile combat, while a very stout (stamina and strength) combatant would use heavy armors that enhance what he does best.
Your idea of adding HPs via armor works well. But alternatively you could modify damage reduction. They both end up being about the same thing.
I would generally agree.
In Everquest stats meant a lot because armor didn't have stats except for minor ones at high levels. That meant a characters stat strength was mostly based on what race they chose and what skill they had with the abilities they used. Stats didn't increase per level. What you had at character creation was what you got. The only thing that sucked was HP did increase per level and that made a large gap between those of high level and those of low level.
Think how much more interesting it would be if HPs didn't increase, or only increased a little. Then the choices and development of particular armors and skill sets could be very involved. A wide range of choices from extremes and to anything in between. Even going armorless becomes a possibility. You'd have the extremes of the armorless ninja at one extreme and the heavy and slow tank warrior at the other, but these would be specialized skill sets that likely would rely on others to get them into position to be effective. And in between you have all sorts of "class" types based on personal desires and goals.
Think how much more interesting it would be if HPs didn't increase, or only increased a little. Then the choices and development of particular armors and skill sets could be very involved. A wide range of choices from extremes and to anything in between. Even going armorless becomes a possibility. You'd have the extremes of the armorless ninja at one extreme and the heavy and slow tank warrior at the other, but these would be specialized skill sets that likely would rely on others to get them into position to be effective. And in between you have all sorts of "class" types based on personal desires and goals.
The problem with that is that killing an opponent in a plate actually is hard and duels in the late 15th century could actually take an hour, to kill someone in a late plate armor usually required you to get him on the ground and put a stiletto in the hole of his armor.
Running without armor would be very dangerous and should be so in a MMO as well. You do become faster though (as I said earlier about 17%) and I think MMOs should lower both your running and attack speed depending on your armor (but you need to think about that when balancing magic).
Having a MMO with very limited hitpoints could be fun though, but you either should set that in a far earlier period or a later one. A musketeer MMO where players had a low numbers of HP for example could be really fun and realistic.Horusra said:
Chain was not that hard to make in mass quantities. In the non modern era manpower was in excess. And the average man's chain was made by heating iron, coiling it, then cutting links that barely trained people could crimp a suit on a dummy or fix older armor.
Chain or plate with padded armor under was the ancient arrow and bolt proof vest.
It was not till you get to the 1600s and later that armor went away. Then more accurate guns came into creation and armor was a burden.
Chainmail is way harder to make then plate. You can't just put any farmer on it. It is far easier then to make a sword, that is true. I started on one myself but was too lazy to finnish it, it was a huge undertaking and then I already had the coils done, making the thread isn't easy.
And yes, you need padding under, wearing a chainmail (or plate for that matter) without is firstly painful (trust me on that one) and secondly it wont absorb impact. Arrows tend to get stuck in the padding as bonus.
I actually hate the WoW style of armour where a mage's shoes add to his intelligence. I think the reason they mixed up historical periods armour for D&D was for variety. The same reason they limit classes to certain armour and weapons. People used different types of armour based on what was culturally available at the time. If you were to look at thew whole range of weapons a few are far better than any others, which is why in D&D is you used all of the attributes of the weapons not many people used khopesh and scimitars. Long swords were much better.
What I'd like to see in games is pros and cons for more types of equipment. So that based on your fighting style you benefit best by certain armour in certain situations. Where all armour does is give you more protection for the most part, not your shin guard improving your wisdom, and your shoulder guard improving your sexual prowess XD <-- clearly reserved for the cod piece.
I actually hate the WoW style of armour where a mage's shoes add to his intelligence. I think the reason they mixed up historical periods armour for D&D was for variety. The same reason they limit classes to certain armour and weapons. People used different types of armour based on what was culturally available at the time. If you were to look at thew whole range of weapons a few are far better than any others, which is why in D&D is you used all of the attributes of the weapons not many people used khopesh and scimitars. Long swords were much better.
What I'd like to see in games is pros and cons for more types of equipment. So that based on your fighting style you benefit best by certain armour in certain situations. Where all armour does is give you more protection for the most part, not your shin guard improving your wisdom, and your shoulder guard improving your sexual prowess XD <-- clearly reserved for the cod piece.
I believe in D&D the had the long sword, short sword, broad sword, bastard sword, and two handed sword for double bladed weapons. From what I've read there is actually no such classifications. There was a large variety of swords and most were grouped into either one handed swords, one and one half handed swords, and two handed swords. Scimitars are single bladed and are supposed to be inferior to the double bladed medieval swords which can also pierce like a spear. In D&D I recall long sword and scimitar doing the same damage. Long sword may have had both slashing and piercing damage. I can't recall off hand. Many armors had slashing, piercing, and crushing resistance.
One of the things I always wished for was an original fantasy armor set, something not based on European or Asian historical models. European adapt models wouldn't always adapt well to non-temperate climates (desert or ultra-humid or rainy areas). Worlds with meager metal resources would need more focus on natural materials -- hides, reeds, fibers, shells, and maybe even something as exotic as molded lava. Since these are only games (and no real life-or-death situations would depend on this armors), why hasn't some art department has gone bonkers and given us some wild, innovative armor models?
Two comments on New Ideas in a single week. I am either on another of my altruistic give-us-something-new-in-MMORPGs binge rant, or I missed some medications.
In Raymond E Fiest's Rift War Saga the people from the world of Kelewen invade Mikimea. What the defenders find out is they are there for metal which there is none on there world.
When they capture one of the enemie they realize that there armour and weapons are all made of some type of wood.
I believe in D&D the had the long sword, short sword, broad sword, bastard sword, and two handed sword for double bladed weapons. From what I've read there is actually no such classifications. There was a large variety of swords and most were grouped into either one handed swords, one and one half handed swords, and two handed swords. Scimitars are single bladed and are supposed to be inferior to the double bladed medieval swords which can also pierce like a spear. In D&D I recall long sword and scimitar doing the same damage. Long sword may have had both slashing and piercing damage. I can't recall off hand. Many armors had slashing, piercing, and crushing resistance.
Actually meant AD&D, just lazy to type the A for some reason. I think those sword classifications were all real, except perhaps short sword was just a "sword" until long sword came along Apparently the Elizabethans did use all those terms. Scimitars weren't bad, but only 1-8 vs large while long swords were 1-12 with the same speed. I don't think they dual classified many weapons . . . they were both classified as slashing weapons. Oops, armour . . . right . . . wear it!
Think how much more interesting it would be if HPs didn't increase, or only increased a little. Then the choices and development of particular armors and skill sets could be very involved. A wide range of choices from extremes and to anything in between. Even going armorless becomes a possibility. You'd have the extremes of the armorless ninja at one extreme and the heavy and slow tank warrior at the other, but these would be specialized skill sets that likely would rely on others to get them into position to be effective. And in between you have all sorts of "class" types based on personal desires and goals.
The problem with that is that killing an opponent in a plate actually is hard and duels in the late 15th century could actually take an hour, to kill someone in a late plate armor usually required you to get him on the ground and put a stiletto in the hole of his armor.
Running without armor would be very dangerous and should be so in a MMO as well. You do become faster though (as I said earlier about 17%) and I think MMOs should lower both your running and attack speed depending on your armor (but you need to think about that when balancing magic).
Having a MMO with very limited hitpoints could be fun though, but you either should set that in a far earlier period or a later one. A musketeer MMO where players had a low numbers of HP for example could be really fun and realistic.Horusra said:
As far as MMO's go, I don't think a strict adherence to realism is good. I like the general ideas set out with different armor types to allow players to go for the fantasy look they want, with advantages and disadvantages.
Going back to the idea of a player running armorless, I do like the idea that this character has the advantage of speed and the disadvantage of damage received, modified greatly by movement, agility, and dodge skills. And such a character would be very poorly suited to "standing ground" in defense in combat. This is a character that needs room to perform. I'd love to see a combat system that requires a dodge to move the character, and if said character doesn't have the room he's in big trouble. So, in a narrow hallway, such an armorless character can't move sideways or forwards when confronted. But he/she can move backwards. This "gives ground". And I like that idea for strategy, from both angles, and dependent on circumstances. On the other hand, in group battles, an armorless character has the advantage of speed and might be able to run behind an occupied enemy and do some quick damage. That depends on the enemy group not being able to stop the move, or tactically setting up to prevent it (and maybe doing some big damage to the armorless runner). Again, strategy, and I like that. And sometimes it's just better for the armorless character to make a hasty retreat. Again, this makes for strategic game play in the overall scheme of things.
This is something that should be included in AI too. MOBs should have a reasonable tactical AI dependent on armor, speed, strength vs. agility, etc.
Think how much more interesting it would be if HPs didn't increase, or only increased a little. Then the choices and development of particular armors and skill sets could be very involved. A wide range of choices from extremes and to anything in between. Even going armorless becomes a possibility. You'd have the extremes of the armorless ninja at one extreme and the heavy and slow tank warrior at the other, but these would be specialized skill sets that likely would rely on others to get them into position to be effective. And in between you have all sorts of "class" types based on personal desires and goals.
(snip)
Having a MMO with very limited hitpoints could be fun though, but you either should set that in a far earlier period or a later one. A musketeer MMO where players had a low numbers of HP for example could be really fun and realistic.
As far as HP's, I don't think of it as "limited". I think of it as
"consistent". This idea, regardless of what it's called, is important
because it can remove the standard world zoning per level of the player
base. It allows players to always be able to play meaningful game play
in the entire world. There should be some exceptions, just to a far less
degree than the typical game. And this opens up the player base to be able to play with each other without being divided by variations in the rate of skill advancement. It adds a lot more social meaning, and opens up a lot more player interactions. It adds stability to friendships and guilds that are based on the players rather than the levels.
Of course, that also depends on skill advancement not being full of power gaps too. Smaller gains are less "rewarding" in the immediate reaction to "dings", but much more rewarding in overall game play if the game world is made interesting to just play in. Add in the social aspects of civilization building, solid friendships developed, and strategic game play and I think such a game can maintain it's player base very, very well.
It's a game that was inspired by other games that was inspired by fantasy literature. It's not a reality simulator, and nobody would play it if it were. Do you have any idea how long it takes to get into or out of some suits of armor? Just ask on an SCA board, or better yet, ARMA. If it really was a reality sim, you'd have to take time to eat & drink, and not just for buffs, and let's not forget going to the bathroom. Could you imagine how what it would be like to have to take a dump when you're being stalked by griefers? The short of it is that despite armor in games being unrealistic, they are made to give a game advantage to justify their use while trying to be fun to play. Heck, if you actually wanted realism, you wouldn't be playing a fantasy game in the first place.
I believe in D&D the had the long sword, short sword, broad sword, bastard sword, and two handed sword for double bladed weapons. From what I've read there is actually no such classifications. There was a large variety of swords and most were grouped into either one handed swords, one and one half handed swords, and two handed swords. Scimitars are single bladed and are supposed to be inferior to the double bladed medieval swords which can also pierce like a spear. In D&D I recall long sword and scimitar doing the same damage. Long sword may have had both slashing and piercing damage. I can't recall off hand. Many armors had slashing, piercing, and crushing resistance.
Actually meant AD&D, just lazy to type the A for some reason. I think those sword classifications were all real, except perhaps short sword was just a "sword" until long sword came along Apparently the Elizabethans did use all those terms. Scimitars weren't bad, but only 1-8 vs large while long swords were 1-12 with the same speed. I don't think they dual classified many weapons . . . they were both classified as slashing weapons. Oops, armour . . . right . . . wear it!
From what I've read it seems that sword names often had different names and the name changed from place to place and time period to time period. A Claymore might be a one handed sword at one time and a two handed sword at another time.
I played BG1/2 and the Icewind Dale games and the long sword was always 1D8 I believe. The Scimitar was also 1D8. I think you are right that they are both slashing weapons. The BG games didn't always show all the information and attributes of an item in the description.
It's a game that was inspired by other games that was inspired by fantasy literature. It's not a reality simulator, and nobody would play it if it were. Do you have any idea how long it takes to get into or out of some suits of armor? Just ask on an SCA board, or better yet, ARMA. If it really was a reality sim, you'd have to take time to eat & drink, and not just for buffs, and let's not forget going to the bathroom. Could you imagine how what it would be like to have to take a dump when you're being stalked by griefers? The short of it is that despite armor in games being unrealistic, they are made to give a game advantage to justify their use while trying to be fun to play. Heck, if you actually wanted realism, you wouldn't be playing a fantasy game in the first place.
I believe realism has it's place. I would like to see more realistic (which would be fun to me) implementations of armor and weapons in terms of how they would actually perform in combat. I'd also like to see more out of combat realism that would simulate how things would really be if you were to go on an adventure into dangerous and unknown territory.
It's a game that was inspired by other games that was inspired by fantasy literature. It's not a reality simulator, and nobody would play it if it were. Do you have any idea how long it takes to get into or out of some suits of armor? Just ask on an SCA board, or better yet, ARMA. If it really was a reality sim, you'd have to take time to eat & drink, and not just for buffs, and let's not forget going to the bathroom. Could you imagine how what it would be like to have to take a dump when you're being stalked by griefers? The short of it is that despite armor in games being unrealistic, they are made to give a game advantage to justify their use while trying to be fun to play. Heck, if you actually wanted realism, you wouldn't be playing a fantasy game in the first place.
I believe realism has it's place. I would like to see more realistic (which would be fun to me) implementations of armor and weapons in terms of how they would actually perform in combat. I'd also like to see more out of combat realism that would simulate how things would really be if you were to go on an adventure into dangerous and unknown territory.
Me too. I think you'd agree with me that I don't want to lose the fantasy fun though. And I don't see those as incompatible. It's just one stacked on top of the other with more emphasis on "realism" than before, without losing any of the fantasy fun that comes with magic, monsters, and dungeons.
I believe in D&D the had the long sword, short sword, broad sword, bastard sword, and two handed sword for double bladed weapons. From what I've read there is actually no such classifications. There was a large variety of swords and most were grouped into either one handed swords, one and one half handed swords, and two handed swords. Scimitars are single bladed and are supposed to be inferior to the double bladed medieval swords which can also pierce like a spear. In D&D I recall long sword and scimitar doing the same damage. Long sword may have had both slashing and piercing damage. I can't recall off hand. Many armors had slashing, piercing, and crushing resistance.
Actually meant AD&D, just lazy to type the A for some reason. I think those sword classifications were all real, except perhaps short sword was just a "sword" until long sword came along Apparently the Elizabethans did use all those terms. Scimitars weren't bad, but only 1-8 vs large while long swords were 1-12 with the same speed. I don't think they dual classified many weapons . . . they were both classified as slashing weapons. Oops, armour . . . right . . . wear it!
When the transition into longer blades (hand and a half swords) became prevalent, the swords that had one been common (short swords) gained the moniker or "arming" swords or side sword to denote it's status as a secondary or backup weapon. Calling them short swords wasn't really a common thing, but the term fits them well enough to cover the variety of blades that fell into the category without denoting them simply as a companion blade.
And people calling broadswords "claymores" is largely just a Scottish thing. A claymore in the first place is just a term that referred to their iteration of the two-handed blade, so turning around and applying it as the term for their iteration of the broadsword as well mostly just makes it the Scottish slang equivalent of saying "sword".
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I'm not a fan of this idea. Mostly, its just because it wouldn't change a damn thing: a player would still have a health pool and would still have damage mitigation, its just you'd gain the health from a different place. Given that MMOs already place a lot of stats on armour, I don't think it would really make any difference in terms of importance either.
I'd rather go back to SWGs armour system. Armour provided mitigation (broken down into different types of damage) at the expense of encumberance. Not only does this stop some of the ridiculous stat inflation that modern mmos suffer from, but its also more realistic. SWG obviously had its issues (like emcumberance not mattering at all once buffed, so everyone just had comp armour) but the underlying principle was good.
2) Armour Classes
I'm with you on this one. I'm bored of light/medium/heavy. Its a very limiting design choice and doesn't really make much sense. I'm all for allowing any class to use any type of armour. Just need to ensure that you don't combine this with vertical gear progression, otherwise everyone will just end up wearing the same stuff.
3) Armour Designs
I'm with a lot of other posters on this one: I don't care (much) about realism. I find most MMOs tend to just have extremely bland armour that I couldn't give a damn about. On the other end of the spectrum, you have games like Wildstar which has more interesting and unique designs, but as soon as you move or get into combat, there is so much going on that you can't even see your armour, its just a blurry mess.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Personally I like the "Magic is technology" trope. Meaning that if someone is going to spend a king's bounty on armor it better have some form of magic on it. Considering you'll only be able to spend so much I really don't think "plate armor as good as our world's" would end up really existing in a high fantasy world, since some of that investment is going to have to go to your enchanter.
So what ends up falling below fall plate in expense and being at the same tech level. You'll probably be seeing a lot of that around.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
Actually meant AD&D, just lazy to type the A for some reason. I think those sword classifications were all real, except perhaps short sword was just a "sword" until long sword came along Apparently the Elizabethans did use all those terms. Scimitars weren't bad, but only 1-8 vs large while long swords were 1-12 with the same speed. I don't think they dual classified many weapons . . . they were both classified as slashing weapons. Oops, armour . . . right . . . wear it!
When the transition into longer blades (hand and a half swords) became prevalent, the swords that had one been common (short swords) gained the moniker or "arming" swords or side sword to denote it's status as a secondary or backup weapon. Calling them short swords wasn't really a common thing, but the term fits them well enough to cover the variety of blades that fell into the category without denoting them simply as a companion blade.
And people calling broadswords "claymores" is largely just a Scottish thing. A claymore in the first place is just a term that referred to their iteration of the two-handed blade, so turning around and applying it as the term for their iteration of the broadsword as well mostly just makes it the Scottish slang equivalent of saying "sword".
It is the term "longsword" that is being made up later, that was just called a sword back then. Shortswords weren't usually called shortswords but had other names like "Gladius" and similar, but people would have understood you if you asked for a shortsword.
Broadsword is indeed a Scottish term but not for a claymore but for a one handed thick 17th century sword. A claymore is one of the oldest versions of a 2 handed sword used by highlanders to fight people on horse when you yourself are on foot.
It's a game that was inspired by other games that was inspired by fantasy literature. It's not a reality simulator, and nobody would play it if it were. Do you have any idea how long it takes to get into or out of some suits of armor? Just ask on an SCA board, or better yet, ARMA. If it really was a reality sim, you'd have to take time to eat & drink, and not just for buffs, and let's not forget going to the bathroom. Could you imagine how what it would be like to have to take a dump when you're being stalked by griefers? The short of it is that despite armor in games being unrealistic, they are made to give a game advantage to justify their use while trying to be fun to play. Heck, if you actually wanted realism, you wouldn't be playing a fantasy game in the first place.
I am a former member of a group that used to be SCA and like I said earlier I do own a chainmail armor and many of my friends own plate.
But I wasn't actually asking for total realism, just a slight increase that I also think would make things more fun. A 100% realistic combat system would never work in a MMO, possible in a VR first person sword swinging game but not in a MMO.
Moving most HP to armor together with weapons that are better against certain types of armors (and monsters for that matter) would add more tactics to the game. Making the hitpoints fewer but actually making it bad to get physically hurt would add a slight realism but it would also add a bit of fear to actually get hurt instead of just getting your armor scratched.
And moving away things that makes you smarter or more popular with the ladies from armor to other slots makes a lot of sense, you could add more accessory slots to compensate for this.
As for the armor slots in themselves I think it could be a great idea to actually increase them to something like Daggerfall had (like extra slots for knees and elbows. Not actually for realism or for the fact that you need to grind more armor pieces (that would be a slight bonus, getting loot is rather popular after all) but you could customize your looks a lot more with that.
Comments
That's the first thing that went thru my mind. It's a shift in direction in gear-dependent games, but the test of its viability or fun factor would be in how the combat system is set up around it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Leather armor gives more protection than many thinks, we are talking about thick boiled leather and not just a leather jacket here, but it is nothing against a metal armor.
The crossbow did not eliminate plate armor, the Chinese repeating crossbow is 2000 years old and there were heavy crossbows already in the early 14th century when plate started to become popular. It was the musket that killed of plate armors.
And no-one would make a chainmail when plate existed, while plate use somewhat more material it is the work that is the real issue and making a chainmail is insane work, a plate is actually pretty easy besides certain movable parts. Soldiers who wore platemail in the 14th century did so because they had gotten it from relatives or as rewards, it was obsolete.
I recommend speaking to someone at ARMA or SCA, they can tell you all about which armors are easy to wear and not, Hollywood just hasn't got their facts right. And I know this might sound crazy after watching someone run around in a silver painted shirt and seeing someone in a tornament armor but yet it is true.
Of course you could make a mithril chain mail in a fantasy game and if mithril is really expensive the fact that it takes 10 times the work might not be an issue when it uses less material. I still feel that a plate would make more sense though. And yes you could do a magic chainmail as good as a plate and pretty light but a plate with the same spell would be better.
Fine, I admit that armors from the classical era isn't my expertise.
But why can't armors be more realistic in MMOs? If it doesn't affect the fun part there is no good reason. Sovrath said: The thing is that you sure could set your game just in the breaking point between new and old technology, that works.
But there is a reason why armor and weapons look and worked like they did, they were made to counter eachother. Without plate there is little need for 2 handed swords (even if the Scots used claymores earlier). Warhammers and stillettos are typical weapons against plate users.
This is however all beside my main point that is that I think most of the hitpoints should be moved from the character to the armor.
My current MMO is ESO, and while very basic, I do like the fact that you can skill up different types of armor for various benefits, depending on the light/med/heavy model. Also, it can take damage and be rendered useless, although it doesn't actually break. It would be nice if it did, crafting would be much more interested if it had that mechanic.
I self identify as a monkey.
I do think we need to let player replenish armor points between combat or you would get too much downtime. Lets assume the players repair it automatically between combat unless the armor breaks. If it actually do, we can say it loses max 20% hp until a smith have fixed it up.
As for damage with armor points VS hitpoints, lets just give each weapon 2 values, one against metal/leather and one against flesh. Certain weapons are made to penetrate armors others to cut flesh.
Once the damage hit through the armor you wont get any overflow damage from that attack but we could give you a random negative debuff for it, like running more slowly due to a hurt leg and similar things. When your HP is down to under 50% you get a second and when down to 10% you get a more serious, actually getting hurt should be bad in a MMORPG.
But this is just a basic idea and I am surely open to suggestions. And it is basically just about hitpoints and armor, the idea is that it shouldn't make things too complicated (healers will have it slightly worse since they also need to mend and cure serious effects like broken limbs if you gotten beyond 10% HP).
For some reason I thought crossbows eliminated plate armor, but as you said it was guns. It does appear that crossbows eliminated lesser forms of armor then plate though. Either way it was a new technology eventually eliminating an old one. Thanks for all the information. It's always good to learn something new.
Two comments on New Ideas in a single week. I am either on another of my altruistic give-us-something-new-in-MMORPGs binge rant, or I missed some medications.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
You'd have the extremes of the armorless ninja at one extreme and the heavy and slow tank warrior at the other, but these would be specialized skill sets that likely would rely on others to get them into position to be effective. And in between you have all sorts of "class" types based on personal desires and goals.
Once upon a time....
Running without armor would be very dangerous and should be so in a MMO as well. You do become faster though (as I said earlier about 17%) and I think MMOs should lower both your running and attack speed depending on your armor (but you need to think about that when balancing magic).
Having a MMO with very limited hitpoints could be fun though, but you either should set that in a far earlier period or a later one. A musketeer MMO where players had a low numbers of HP for example could be really fun and realistic.Horusra said: Chainmail is way harder to make then plate. You can't just put any farmer on it. It is far easier then to make a sword, that is true. I started on one myself but was too lazy to finnish it, it was a huge undertaking and then I already had the coils done, making the thread isn't easy.
And yes, you need padding under, wearing a chainmail (or plate for that matter) without is firstly painful (trust me on that one) and secondly it wont absorb impact. Arrows tend to get stuck in the padding as bonus.
I think the reason they mixed up historical periods armour for D&D was for variety. The same reason they limit classes to certain armour and weapons. People used different types of armour based on what was culturally available at the time. If you were to look at thew whole range of weapons a few are far better than any others, which is why in D&D is you used all of the attributes of the weapons not many people used khopesh and scimitars. Long swords were much better.
What I'd like to see in games is pros and cons for more types of equipment. So that based on your fighting style you benefit best by certain armour in certain situations. Where all armour does is give you more protection for the most part, not your shin guard improving your wisdom, and your shoulder guard improving your sexual prowess XD <-- clearly reserved for the cod piece.
When they capture one of the enemie they realize that there armour and weapons are all made of some type of wood.
Going back to the idea of a player running armorless, I do like the idea that this character has the advantage of speed and the disadvantage of damage received, modified greatly by movement, agility, and dodge skills. And such a character would be very poorly suited to "standing ground" in defense in combat. This is a character that needs room to perform. I'd love to see a combat system that requires a dodge to move the character, and if said character doesn't have the room he's in big trouble.
So, in a narrow hallway, such an armorless character can't move sideways or forwards when confronted. But he/she can move backwards. This "gives ground". And I like that idea for strategy, from both angles, and dependent on circumstances.
On the other hand, in group battles, an armorless character has the advantage of speed and might be able to run behind an occupied enemy and do some quick damage. That depends on the enemy group not being able to stop the move, or tactically setting up to prevent it (and maybe doing some big damage to the armorless runner). Again, strategy, and I like that.
And sometimes it's just better for the armorless character to make a hasty retreat. Again, this makes for strategic game play in the overall scheme of things.
This is something that should be included in AI too. MOBs should have a reasonable tactical AI dependent on armor, speed, strength vs. agility, etc.
Once upon a time....
Of course, that also depends on skill advancement not being full of power gaps too. Smaller gains are less "rewarding" in the immediate reaction to "dings", but much more rewarding in overall game play if the game world is made interesting to just play in. Add in the social aspects of civilization building, solid friendships developed, and strategic game play and I think such a game can maintain it's player base very, very well.
Once upon a time....
If it really was a reality sim, you'd have to take time to eat & drink, and not just for buffs, and let's not forget going to the bathroom. Could you imagine how what it would be like to have to take a dump when you're being stalked by griefers?
The short of it is that despite armor in games being unrealistic, they are made to give a game advantage to justify their use while trying to be fun to play.
Heck, if you actually wanted realism, you wouldn't be playing a fantasy game in the first place.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
Oakeshott
http://www.albion-swords.com/articles/oakeshott-typology.htm
Claymore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore
Longsword
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword
I played BG1/2 and the Icewind Dale games and the long sword was always 1D8 I believe. The Scimitar was also 1D8. I think you are right that they are both slashing weapons. The BG games didn't always show all the information and attributes of an item in the description.
Once upon a time....
And people calling broadswords "claymores" is largely just a Scottish thing. A claymore in the first place is just a term that referred to their iteration of the two-handed blade, so turning around and applying it as the term for their iteration of the broadsword as well mostly just makes it the Scottish slang equivalent of saying "sword".
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I'm not a fan of this idea. Mostly, its just because it wouldn't change a damn thing: a player would still have a health pool and would still have damage mitigation, its just you'd gain the health from a different place. Given that MMOs already place a lot of stats on armour, I don't think it would really make any difference in terms of importance either.
I'd rather go back to SWGs armour system. Armour provided mitigation (broken down into different types of damage) at the expense of encumberance. Not only does this stop some of the ridiculous stat inflation that modern mmos suffer from, but its also more realistic. SWG obviously had its issues (like emcumberance not mattering at all once buffed, so everyone just had comp armour) but the underlying principle was good.
2) Armour Classes
I'm with you on this one. I'm bored of light/medium/heavy. Its a very limiting design choice and doesn't really make much sense. I'm all for allowing any class to use any type of armour. Just need to ensure that you don't combine this with vertical gear progression, otherwise everyone will just end up wearing the same stuff.
3) Armour Designs
I'm with a lot of other posters on this one: I don't care (much) about realism. I find most MMOs tend to just have extremely bland armour that I couldn't give a damn about. On the other end of the spectrum, you have games like Wildstar which has more interesting and unique designs, but as soon as you move or get into combat, there is so much going on that you can't even see your armour, its just a blurry mess.
Personally I like the "Magic is technology" trope. Meaning that if someone is going to spend a king's bounty on armor it better have some form of magic on it. Considering you'll only be able to spend so much I really don't think "plate armor as good as our world's" would end up really existing in a high fantasy world, since some of that investment is going to have to go to your enchanter.
So what ends up falling below fall plate in expense and being at the same tech level. You'll probably be seeing a lot of that around.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
Broadsword is indeed a Scottish term but not for a claymore but for a one handed thick 17th century sword. A claymore is one of the oldest versions of a 2 handed sword used by highlanders to fight people on horse when you yourself are on foot.
I am a former member of a group that used to be SCA and like I said earlier I do own a chainmail armor and many of my friends own plate.
But I wasn't actually asking for total realism, just a slight increase that I also think would make things more fun. A 100% realistic combat system would never work in a MMO, possible in a VR first person sword swinging game but not in a MMO.
Moving most HP to armor together with weapons that are better against certain types of armors (and monsters for that matter) would add more tactics to the game. Making the hitpoints fewer but actually making it bad to get physically hurt would add a slight realism but it would also add a bit of fear to actually get hurt instead of just getting your armor scratched.
And moving away things that makes you smarter or more popular with the ladies from armor to other slots makes a lot of sense, you could add more accessory slots to compensate for this.
As for the armor slots in themselves I think it could be a great idea to actually increase them to something like Daggerfall had (like extra slots for knees and elbows. Not actually for realism or for the fact that you need to grind more armor pieces (that would be a slight bonus, getting loot is rather popular after all) but you could customize your looks a lot more with that.