The
advantage of this system is basically that it works. There are however plenty
of disadvantages and the system is clearly made by someone with close to zero
clues how armors actually works.
There is absolutely nothing realistic about a guy in leather armor being
able to fight a guy in plate armor on the same level. The plate armor
guy would be in a very, very high advantage. Thats why people bothered
to wear plate armor in the first place. Or BUY that armor, since its
extremely much more expensive than the leather armor. But its totally
worth it.
There is also usually no chance in hell the guy in leather
armor will be even remotely near the skill of the guy in plate armor,
because the guy in plate armor will be a knight that has trained for
combat during all his life, while the guy in leather armor is probably a
peasant who might have gotten some basic training at some point, but
not much else.
What you complain about here is lack of realism.
But realism is not the goal of game design. The goal of game design is
exactly to create a system that works, and "working" here includes game
balance. Thus the guy in leather armor actually gets a very good chance
against the guy in plate armor, and plate armor is actually quite close
in price to leather armor - in fact, as quest rewards, the price is
usually absolutely equal.
I utterly fail to see the relevance of your suggested changes. Why would the vast majority of hitpoints be from armor ? That just doesnt make any sense whatsoever, and serves no realism or gameplay purpose.
There is a balance of sorts. In EQ most people saved and brought cloth or leather armor. Every class used this until they could afford an upgrade to chain. Plate was very expensive and you generally did see it on people until high level. There were also different ingredients like copper, bronze, iron, and steel. I would imagine steel to be very rare in the middle ages, but I've heard there were some items made out of it. I prefer that to the item treadmill and every class only using a specific type of armor. I also believe in PvE balance can be achieved in other ways then just balanced combat. You can have a thief who can contribute to DPS, but is mostly for performing other thief related tasks.
The
advantage of this system is basically that it works. There are however plenty
of disadvantages and the system is clearly made by someone with close to zero
clues how armors actually works.
There is absolutely nothing realistic about a guy in leather armor being
able to fight a guy in plate armor on the same level. The plate armor
guy would be in a very, very high advantage. Thats why people bothered
to wear plate armor in the first place. Or BUY that armor, since its
extremely much more expensive than the leather armor. But its totally
worth it.
There is also usually no chance in hell the guy in leather
armor will be even remotely near the skill of the guy in plate armor,
because the guy in plate armor will be a knight that has trained for
combat during all his life, while the guy in leather armor is probably a
peasant who might have gotten some basic training at some point, but
not much else.
What you complain about here is lack of realism.
But realism is not the goal of game design. The goal of game design is
exactly to create a system that works, and "working" here includes game
balance. Thus the guy in leather armor actually gets a very good chance
against the guy in plate armor, and plate armor is actually quite close
in price to leather armor - in fact, as quest rewards, the price is
usually absolutely equal.
I utterly fail to see the relevance of your suggested changes. Why would the vast majority of hitpoints be from armor ? That just doesnt make any sense whatsoever, and serves no realism or gameplay purpose.
Ever hear the term..."The bigger they are......." You make it sound like there are no disadvantages to wearing metal plates all over your body, Both offence and defense are going to be restricted by maneuverability. Plate has weight and momentum......but that can very easily be turned to a disadvantage.
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.
Actually the use of the term "claymore" was applied to broadswords by scottish military. It was originally a term applied to the two-hander in particular, largely because it was their predominant type of sword. Later on when they transitioned to the basket-hilt (broadsword), the moniker of "claymore" moved with that transition to then apply to the broadsowrd as well.
Also little backwards on the long/short thing. "Shortswords" were the common weapons previously, largely due to the constraints of construction. The term shortsword itself didn't exist, first because regional dialect all had their own language/terms and second because the swords were not considered "short" as they were functionally the standard. This changed as more refined metals and new combat tactics developed, enabling and mandating the use of longer blades. It's only in the later centuries that "small swords" and "short swords" became a term because it's only at this point when their size was considerate of such.
"Longswords" as a thing also didn't exist, that is, like "shortswords" a term made to define a category of what weapons are generally considered to fall into the hand and a half range. More particularly it refers to bastard swords, but ambiguously has defined some random swords as well. Where things occasionally break down is when weapons get arbitrarily attributed a moniker. Like no one called an apa or a sogel a "longsword". That is wholly a term that's been somewhat flippantly bandied about in modern times without a proper regard to the weapon shape, size, or use.
"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
The
advantage of this system is basically that it works. There are however plenty
of disadvantages and the system is clearly made by someone with close to zero
clues how armors actually works.
There is absolutely nothing realistic about a guy in leather armor being
able to fight a guy in plate armor on the same level. The plate armor
guy would be in a very, very high advantage. Thats why people bothered
to wear plate armor in the first place. Or BUY that armor, since its
extremely much more expensive than the leather armor. But its totally
worth it.
There is also usually no chance in hell the guy in leather
armor will be even remotely near the skill of the guy in plate armor,
because the guy in plate armor will be a knight that has trained for
combat during all his life, while the guy in leather armor is probably a
peasant who might have gotten some basic training at some point, but
not much else.
What you complain about here is lack of realism.
But realism is not the goal of game design. The goal of game design is
exactly to create a system that works, and "working" here includes game
balance. Thus the guy in leather armor actually gets a very good chance
against the guy in plate armor, and plate armor is actually quite close
in price to leather armor - in fact, as quest rewards, the price is
usually absolutely equal.
I utterly fail to see the relevance of your suggested changes. Why would the vast majority of hitpoints be from armor ? That just doesnt make any sense whatsoever, and serves no realism or gameplay purpose.
Ever hear the term..."The bigger they are......." You make it sound like there are no disadvantages to wearing metal plates all over your body, Both offence and defense are going to be restricted by maneuverability. Plate has weight and momentum......but that can very easily be turned to a disadvantage.
mostly people wearing lighter armor would aim for the joints, using smaller and easy to aim weapons, kinda like the thief class in rpgs, but that never did happen in a warfield, all soldiers would be fit with the best they could normally chain when the army was well funded, plate was always too costly to fit a whole army, tehre was people who looted teh dead knights for they plate armor so tehy could use, sure they ahd to be with the same body type weight and height to be able to use it. btw a leather armor would prevent cuts, and maybe some piercing with not much strenght, but remember even if a sword can't cut they can still smash so you would end with a broken bone here and there, and depending on the medicine lvl of the time would be your dead anyway.
also for the one saying xbow made plate armor obsolete, not quite, the use of xbows was baned from war for some time as being a dishonored weapon, they couldn't concede the idea of a peasant who trained a week with it could kill a knight who spend his whole life training, I don't remember the exactly time frame for it and the reason they started to use again.
also the chinese repeating xbow was a good thing but only used on chinese wars there was never really a war btw the west and east(at least not I ever read about and I read a lot about west and east wars), fun fact too the mongolian short bow could pierce full plated steel plates like it was cloth, and since the mongolinas had a thing like 5 horses per mounted archer, they could stop a western knighted army with ease, another one, what made people stop using armor during combat and the use of firearm, since they could pierce plate too and if not the hit comming from it could let a knight out of combat, plus the less mobility part also helped
The
advantage of this system is basically that it works. There are however plenty
of disadvantages and the system is clearly made by someone with close to zero
clues how armors actually works.
There is absolutely nothing realistic about a guy in leather armor being
able to fight a guy in plate armor on the same level. The plate armor
guy would be in a very, very high advantage. Thats why people bothered
to wear plate armor in the first place. Or BUY that armor, since its
extremely much more expensive than the leather armor. But its totally
worth it.
There is also usually no chance in hell the guy in leather
armor will be even remotely near the skill of the guy in plate armor,
because the guy in plate armor will be a knight that has trained for
combat during all his life, while the guy in leather armor is probably a
peasant who might have gotten some basic training at some point, but
not much else.
What you complain about here is lack of realism.
But realism is not the goal of game design. The goal of game design is
exactly to create a system that works, and "working" here includes game
balance. Thus the guy in leather armor actually gets a very good chance
against the guy in plate armor, and plate armor is actually quite close
in price to leather armor - in fact, as quest rewards, the price is
usually absolutely equal.
I utterly fail to see the relevance of your suggested changes. Why would the vast majority of hitpoints be from armor ? That just doesnt make any sense whatsoever, and serves no realism or gameplay purpose.
Actually, there is a chanse at least. Not a huge chanse though but Talhoffer show you hows it's done (ARMA have tried it, works): You basically hit the guy in the helmet with your hilt, this will give the guy a concussion making fighting close to impossible.
And what i wanted was just a small dash more of realism together with something different from the mechanics every game have been used since Meridian 59.
That your armor is a lot tougher than you makes sense at least to me, and it does serve certain gameplay advantages. First of all breaking an armor is a big thing to do, and once an armor is broken you will get critical damage giving different debuffs. Secondly, this makes it far easier to make weapons that works better against certain armors (and certain monsters).
But of course you might have a better idea. However that every single MMO uses the exact same mechanics is not a great idea, it makes people tire of the game faster since basically the games feel all the same. Just armor mechanics ain't enough for that but it is something.
Pen and paper RPGs uses a variety of different mechanics for that reason, why bother play anything besides D&D if all P&P mechanics would be the same? but that goes for MMOs as well.alkarionlog said:
mostly people wearing lighter armor would aim for the joints, using smaller and easy to aim weapons, kinda like the thief class in rpgs, but that never did happen in a warfield, all soldiers would be fit with the best they could normally chain when the army was well funded, plate was always too costly to fit a whole army, tehre was people who looted teh dead knights for they plate armor so tehy could use, sure they ahd to be with the same body type weight and height to be able to use it. btw a leather armor would prevent cuts, and maybe some piercing with not much strenght, but remember even if a sword can't cut they can still smash so you would end with a broken bone here and there, and depending on the medicine lvl of the time would be your dead anyway.
also for the one saying xbow made plate armor obsolete, not quite, the use of xbows was baned from war for some time as being a dishonored weapon, they couldn't concede the idea of a peasant who trained a week with it could kill a knight who spend his whole life training, I don't remember the exactly time frame for it and the reason they started to use again.
also the chinese repeating xbow was a good thing but only used on chinese wars there was never really a war btw the west and east(at least not I ever read about and I read a lot about west and east wars), fun fact too the mongolian short bow could pierce full plated steel plates like it was cloth, and since the mongolinas had a thing like 5 horses per mounted archer, they could stop a western knighted army with ease, another one, what made people stop using armor during combat and the use of firearm, since they could pierce plate too and if not the hit comming from it could let a knight out of combat, plus the less mobility part also helped
The crossbows and longbows were considered "cheating" but they were still very popular with common people. Certain nobles even cut of certain fingers from longbow archers.
But still, you need a clean hit to get through a plate and plates were designed with angles to make penetration hard (a bit like modern tanks). It wasn't until muskets became commonplace that plates became obsolete. You could teach any moron to pierce a plate with a musket in a day, a good longbowman took 10 years to train. Xbows were easier than longbows but still took far more training then muskets.
As for the mongolian bow it was a great invention using a mix of bone and wood to get a lot of power using similar mechanics to a compound bow (not exactly and less powerfull), Sami bows from Scandinavia used similar mechanics. However were the knights the mongols faced using early armor, a 16th century plate is far harder to pierce and needs a perfect hit.
I think realism vs gameplay is a consideration here.
While in RL armors have distinct disadvantages I think allowing exceptions for the sake of gameplay makes sense.
Also there are games that have foregone the AC system completely in their armors - as damage mitigation is something inherit to each class and not the armor itself.
This makes other stats on armor more meaningful since ac creep is not a factor for end game.
I agree with this. However, I'd also love to see a game developed where armor is just that. Armor. Its job is to protect. Stat bonuses should come from abilities and skills.
Comments
There is also usually no chance in hell the guy in leather armor will be even remotely near the skill of the guy in plate armor, because the guy in plate armor will be a knight that has trained for combat during all his life, while the guy in leather armor is probably a peasant who might have gotten some basic training at some point, but not much else.
What you complain about here is lack of realism. But realism is not the goal of game design. The goal of game design is exactly to create a system that works, and "working" here includes game balance. Thus the guy in leather armor actually gets a very good chance against the guy in plate armor, and plate armor is actually quite close in price to leather armor - in fact, as quest rewards, the price is usually absolutely equal.
I utterly fail to see the relevance of your suggested changes. Why would the vast majority of hitpoints be from armor ? That just doesnt make any sense whatsoever, and serves no realism or gameplay purpose.
You make it sound like there are no disadvantages to wearing metal plates all over your body, Both offence and defense are going to be restricted by maneuverability. Plate has weight and momentum......but that can very easily be turned to a disadvantage.
Also little backwards on the long/short thing. "Shortswords" were the common weapons previously, largely due to the constraints of construction. The term shortsword itself didn't exist, first because regional dialect all had their own language/terms and second because the swords were not considered "short" as they were functionally the standard. This changed as more refined metals and new combat tactics developed, enabling and mandating the use of longer blades. It's only in the later centuries that "small swords" and "short swords" became a term because it's only at this point when their size was considerate of such.
"Longswords" as a thing also didn't exist, that is, like "shortswords" a term made to define a category of what weapons are generally considered to fall into the hand and a half range. More particularly it refers to bastard swords, but ambiguously has defined some random swords as well. Where things occasionally break down is when weapons get arbitrarily attributed a moniker. Like no one called an apa or a sogel a "longsword". That is wholly a term that's been somewhat flippantly bandied about in modern times without a proper regard to the weapon shape, size, or use.
"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
also for the one saying xbow made plate armor obsolete, not quite, the use of xbows was baned from war for some time as being a dishonored weapon, they couldn't concede the idea of a peasant who trained a week with it could kill a knight who spend his whole life training, I don't remember the exactly time frame for it and the reason they started to use again.
also the chinese repeating xbow was a good thing but only used on chinese wars there was never really a war btw the west and east(at least not I ever read about and I read a lot about west and east wars), fun fact too the mongolian short bow could pierce full plated steel plates like it was cloth, and since the mongolinas had a thing like 5 horses per mounted archer, they could stop a western knighted army with ease, another one, what made people stop using armor during combat and the use of firearm, since they could pierce plate too and if not the hit comming from it could let a knight out of combat, plus the less mobility part also helped
You basically hit the guy in the helmet with your hilt, this will give the guy a concussion making fighting close to impossible.
And what i wanted was just a small dash more of realism together with something different from the mechanics every game have been used since Meridian 59.
That your armor is a lot tougher than you makes sense at least to me, and it does serve certain gameplay advantages. First of all breaking an armor is a big thing to do, and once an armor is broken you will get critical damage giving different debuffs. Secondly, this makes it far easier to make weapons that works better against certain armors (and certain monsters).
But of course you might have a better idea. However that every single MMO uses the exact same mechanics is not a great idea, it makes people tire of the game faster since basically the games feel all the same. Just armor mechanics ain't enough for that but it is something.
Pen and paper RPGs uses a variety of different mechanics for that reason, why bother play anything besides D&D if all P&P mechanics would be the same? but that goes for MMOs as well.alkarionlog said: The crossbows and longbows were considered "cheating" but they were still very popular with common people. Certain nobles even cut of certain fingers from longbow archers.
But still, you need a clean hit to get through a plate and plates were designed with angles to make penetration hard (a bit like modern tanks). It wasn't until muskets became commonplace that plates became obsolete. You could teach any moron to pierce a plate with a musket in a day, a good longbowman took 10 years to train. Xbows were easier than longbows but still took far more training then muskets.
As for the mongolian bow it was a great invention using a mix of bone and wood to get a lot of power using similar mechanics to a compound bow (not exactly and less powerfull), Sami bows from Scandinavia used similar mechanics. However were the knights the mongols faced using early armor, a 16th century plate is far harder to pierce and needs a perfect hit.