@Diomedes
I had to stare at your reply for some (long) time, because it never actually disputes what I said. Though it does "insult" the idea of expressing it it and give a sample problem that you think my methodology can not solve.
I think this is my fault though, because I must have not communicated well enough my methodology. But...I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it than 2 steps but I will try restating: First make the game real, then make the game playable/fun possibly at the cost of realism, but while removing very little realism. Meaning that: I am disappointed, yet accepting of losing realism when its required or too difficult to achieve. Balance is always possible if you try to achieve it, it can either be built upon realism or it can be built upon whatever you call removing thrust from a weapon that thrusts (i call it ridiculous) .
Side Note: I did a poll 2 months ago about realism. It asked "Do you think CRPG should have more realism or more fun" 2/3 of our playerbase chose more realism. A shift is obviously due.
Here is my comments on your statements in order:
You start off by appearing to put down my statement claiming I was "taking for granted" how valuable currency is. This is in no way a notable statement because this is already done. Every item has a price set to buy it by the developers which is based on assumptions of what will control people from buying it.
You say I take for granted "the extremes which players can take their builds" -- I Have no care how people place their stats, that is irrelevant here. If you are talking about gear, any extremes with what people are equipping can be fixed by setting repair costs of items to the level that restricts them.
"limitations of in-game mechanics" -- I "take for granted" nothing of the in game mechanics. I know what many of them are all-ready but that doesn't matter. If it cant be done, it cant be done. Why even talk about it...
"Milanese plate...historically cost more than any serf could afford in their lifetime" The real world is its own separate unrelated economics system that is influenced by way more than crpg ever could be. That price does not apply in CRPG because RL price is a result of real world supply and demand. The demand for plate in Europe is much higher than that of CRPG. The only constant that gathered for use in crpg is the supply.
The solution here if you wanted to be historically accurate, would be to find at the % of soldiers in mid-evil times wearing full plate. Then, continue to adjust the cost of plate until that percent of players are using plate. Simple.
As far as the plate being in reality a "god suit"..... What is wrong with spending 98% of the time playing in regular gear so you can save up for the insane repair costs of a few rounds of "god-mode" ? . In game would occasionally be a round where an player can afford to spawn in plate and it takes several people to bring them down. I think plate should be a rarity in game as it was in RL. The repair system was a step in the right direction, but making plate even more rare/expensive but better in exchange would be a good move and would not unbalance the game.
"It's silly to say that the such contentions can be solved so easily by cost" / "It is a..complex issue" to solve------ LOL... well to argue this would be hours arguing a world view. I am a libertarian capitalist. I believe EVERYTHING can be solved with the free exchange of money. Especially complex issues.
----------------------------
Anyways, I like you diomedes, I wrote this TL;DR type response for the fun it. Saw a challenge in replying to what you wrote because I came up dumbfounded for so long at the start.
As far as the original topic of this conversation: This should be a completely one sided discussion.
There is no reason given why a weapon that was used for thrusting cant be used for thrusting. This is ridiculous. If you are going to call something a Nodachi you have to have it be a Nodachi, otherwise its just utter BS.
