A suggestion

[Tomas]

Sorry if this has been suggested before but why not include the heavier armour as taking up a slot.

You could have a rule where if you wear

a helmet with an armour value over 20
OR
boots/greaves with an armour value over 25
OR
gloves with an armour value over 5
OR
body armour with an armour value over 30

then that counts as taking up 1 slot.

Just designate the items breaking the rules as taking up a slot but make sure that they do not stack with each other so the max slots taken up by armour is 1.

That would balance things out and reduce the importance of upkeep which is proving to be a nightmare to balance.

[Tears of Destiny]

Why are you trying to nerf armour and make it even harder to wear?

Now if I wear heavy armour then I can't carry 4 slots of weapons only 3?

EDIT: or is this only for "breaking" purposes, them counting as one thing? Regardless, upkeep was balanced before imo, but whatever.

[Delro]

There's a board for suggestions. Its called the suggestions board

On topic, I don't think making MORE items require slots will make anyone happy...

[awesomeasaurus]

This idea could be a way to balance high end armor use and allow the developers to reduce the upkeep and initial cost of these armors. The armors would no longer be ridiculously expensive to use, just limiting on your offensive capabilities, which would make sense.. trading attack for armor.

[Baggy]

Sorry if this has been suggested before but why not include the heavier armour as taking up a slot.

You could have a rule where if you wear

a helmet with an armour value over 20
OR
boots/greaves with an armour value over 25
OR
gloves with an armour value over 5
OR
body armour with an armour value over 30

then that counts as taking up 1 slot.

Just designate the items breaking the rules as taking up a slot but make sure that they do not stack with each other so the max slots taken up by armour is 1.

That would balance things out and reduce the importance of upkeep which is proving to be a nightmare to balance.

This makes no sense at all.The average armour values are a good bit higher than what you have posted, and what if i wear full plate will that mean im -4 slots or just 1?

[Jarlek]

This makes no sense at all.The average armour values are a good bit higher than what you have posted, and what if i wear full plate will that mean im -4 slots or just 1?

Well duh. In medievel times knights who wore plate armour from head to toe never had any weapons. Learn history you dumb fool.

(click to show/hide)

xD I've actually been thinking about this myself. Give higher end armour a HUGE buff (OMFG invincible) but make them take slots. This would also have to increase the max blue slots too. Like 6 or so. Oh, and make some of the higher end WEAPONS 3 slot. So you can have full plate set (4 slots) but only medium tier or lower weapon.

[San]

This will eventually get moved anyways so whatever.

This could be a good idea if we double the amount of slots at least, but I'm not sure how people will like this limitation of armor.

[Tomas]

1st of all sorry to whoever ends up moving this that its in the wrong place. My bad

This makes no sense at all.The average armour values are a good bit higher than what you have posted, and what if i wear full plate will that mean im -4 slots or just 1?

Just the 1 slot used.  Its non stacking so your 1 slot used for body armour would not stack on top of any slots used for helms, gloves or boots.  I thought about a system that increases the number of overall slots and counts each individual piece of armour but this actually works out simpler imo.  You either decide to be heavily armoured and sacrifice a weapon slot, or you decide to be lightly armoured.

To answer other comments

I picked a value of 30 for body armour as this is where the armour suddenly jumps in weight from approx 5 to approx 10.  I see no reason to distinguish between chain and plate because plate armour, although potentially heavier, was in fact easier to wear due to it being in pieces that were individually supported by didfferent bits of the body rather than all the weight being on the shoulders.

The other stuff I just picked what seemed logical as a peasant with a full plate helmet would look a bit silly.  An alternative would be to say that if your total armour weight exceeds 10 then it costs a slot.  I think my system gives people more choice though.

As for slots, 4 is more than enough imo even with a slot taken up by heavy armour.  People still have plenty of options.  There will be no change for light armour wearers whilst heavy armour wearers still get 3 slots to use on either

Heavy Shield + 1 Hander
Normal Shield + 1.5 Hander (Bastard Sword)
Normal Shield + 1 Hander + Throwing Weapon
2 Hander + Throwing Weapon
2 Hander + 1 Hander
1 Hander + Lighter Bow/Xbow & Arrows/Bolts
Lighter Bow/Xbow & Arrows/Bolts + Normal Shield + 0 Slot Weapon (Hammer)
Heavier Bow/Xbow & Arrows/Bolts + 0 Slot Weapon (Hammer)

That's plenty to be going on with just off the top of my head

What awesomeasaurus said was exactly what I was going for.  Making people choose between attack and defense although it doesn't actually limit  peaople that much.

The only thing it stops is things like Heavy Xbow + Heavy Armour + a good Melee Weapon of some sort which is good imo as it stops people being able to have both great ranged weapons, great melee weapons and great armour.  You get 2 out of 3 instead

[dreadnok]

i think the penalty pf being slow as fuck and loss in wpf is enough?

[Jarlek]

i think the penalty pf being slow as fuck and loss in wpf is enough?

Of course. But if you ever try to suggest a buff to armour then a lot of people will come and whine to you about how that ruins their build (spammers and archers). So that's why with a nerf/restriction like this we could have a legitimat way to buff armour. Personally I would love to have heavy armour as a good option. Your paying a lot and moving a lot slower. Why should the increased protection be so low?