+3 armour only gives +4 but reduces in weight.

[owens]

Gaining +10 armour for no weight penalty is simply ridiculous.


I say reducing the weight of armour gives a bonus to the armours user that is more passive and less stupid than making the armour extremely good. This is also good for agility builds and archers. It encourages using better armour as an archer or sprinter. It is also more realistic in terms of the characteristics of real life superior armours over their cruder counterparts.


As for gloves I suggest a more even loom contribution to stats +1=+1      +2=+2        +3=+4

[LordRichrich]

So archers can kite more, 15/20-whatever kuyak builds can circle spam more, tin cans get more effective wpf. I vote no

[owens]

^You dot make a very good argument.

They will have a small amount less armour than before. This will probably be the equivalent of having the slightly lower ranked armour loomed but they will be paying slightly higher upkeep.


Most importantly Archers mosty wear either barely any armour (just for looks) or the highest armour value they can use with out penalizing their already pathetic accuracy. If they are wearing poor armour why would they loom it, if they are wearing good armour you should be grateful. Keep in mind that this is to hopefully moderately soften the high armour values that are so badly effecting combat dynamics.


In reference to "tincans" they are already carting around a huge weight and a drop of 2 armour is probably going to be more beneficial to you as the attacker than them being slightly heavier. Again keep in mind that this is a subtle buff to balanced builds who dont get the armour effective weight reduction that str builds get but dont have the speed of agility builds. It allows the balanced build to be quicker in slightly better armour.


 It gives and advantage in combat from your armour that you can feel even if you dont get hit.

[LordRichrich]

I didn't see the part when you mentioned LESS armour on the heirloom. My bad!
But then comes the question, why do that when you can just take a lighter armour that weighs less anyway?

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

Please don't buff kuyak boys even further with a change as horrible as this one, and raising the average armor rating even further is a horrible idea.

[owens]

^this lowers the average armour rating by 2.

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

^this lowers the average armour rating by 2.

Depends how big you want the weight decrease to be, so, how big?

[owens]

about 1. Of course it is dependent on armour tier.

[Jarold]

Please don't buff kuyak boys even further with a change as horrible as this one!

[Soldier_of_God]

Your argument is invalid simply because..

a. archers kite
b. warriors armor crutch
c. warriors armor crutch because of archers
d. therefore, archers will always kite unless warriors stop armor crutching.

Archers have no need for armor, so they wear barely any.  also, a lamellar coat has 36 body and 9 weight.
+3 would be... 40 body, 5 weight, according to your suggestion?

if anything, i think having any armors under 7 weight having more than 25 body is a mistake; they should all be weaker. i think that everything that comes after surcoat over mail should be buffed so that warriors can wear lighter gear, to chase lighter troops, or heavier gear so that they can stay away archer fire and fight right on the line.

as for heirloom changes... they should have MORE weight technically, since they are being reinforced and strengthened. i suggest that armor gains +1 armor, and +0.5 weight per loom.

[owens]

^No


That is ridiculous dropping 4 weight no, simply no.


I would suggest a decrease of 1~1.3 weight for lower tier armours and maybe 2.5 for highest tier armours.