Make the weight penalties from armor affect more runnin speed.

[Siboire]

Gunpowder weapons need to be imported into Calradia, that's all 

Trolling or you're just ... ?

Mount and Blade wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the devs wanting a "realistic" medieval combat game, rather than the same pop-culture rock paper scissor BS that has come to be expected by every other halfwit out there.

Herp Derp...
A RPG needs to be balanced in order to make all classes viable.

Let's get back on topic.

[ArchonAlarion]

Trolling or you're just ... ?

I'm suggesting balance by addition of items rather than distortion of existing items

or you're just...?

Herp Derp...
A RPG needs to be balanced in order to make all classes viable.

Let's get back on topic.

So who said it was necessary for a "role-playing game" to have classes? How do you define these classes?

Should the "naked rock throwing class" be equally viable to any other "class"? What items represent a certain class and what items are universals throughout different classes?

[Vodner]

Mount and Blade wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the devs wanting a "realistic" medieval combat game, rather than the same pop-culture rock paper scissor BS that has come to be expected by every other halfwit out there.

Realistic like a stick blocking a lance thrusted from a heavy charger? Realistic like a one-handed sword blocking an overhead strike from a great axe? Realistic like player dodging arrows by zig-zagging while running? Or maybe even realistic like a player surviving being repeatedly ran over by a horse?

All these things are unrealistic, but they are all vitally important for balance. If you don't have balance, then player skill becomes meaningless - it becomes a game of equipment. Without player skill playing a vital role, the game becomes pointless to play.

Gear should play a minor role, but the primary deciding factor in every fight should be the skills of the players fighting. A mediocre player in plate should still be mediocre.

[Spa_geh_tea]

Id really like a push, since there is wse, to define weapon damage effects vrs armor type. Basically, if your fighting plate, you must use blunt or pierce. Cut will only glance, unless the "cut" weapon has a certain weight above say 4kg. Then it will deal a level of blunt damage based off the weight. If that's too complex then keep as cut. We are already seeing weapons have secondary modes based on their models. So, why not give those secondaries more purpose. As far as making cut effective, its damage would be given a bonus inversely proportonal to the level of armor. Ie, even if your a str build in light leather, you will be one shotted by most cut damage types. You might say this would favour pierce and blunt too much, but there is always damage reductions and speed reductions that can be tweaked.

[ArchonAlarion]

Realistic like a stick blocking a lance thrusted from a heavy charger? Realistic like a one-handed sword blocking an overhead strike from a great axe? Or maybe realistic like player dodging arrows by zig-zagging while running?

Those things are unrealistic (maybe less so with the last example) and I wish they didn't happen in the game. Doesn't mean M&B isn't realistic compared to other games.

All these are things are unrealistic, but they are all vitally important for balance.

I don't believe they are vitally important for balance, but I won't argue why here.

If you don't have balance, then player skill becomes meaningless - it becomes a game of equipment. Without player skill playing a vital role, the game becomes pointless to play.

If the game only consisted of 2h'd plated knights, it could be balanced. Just because there is the presence of a tool or combination of gear DOES NOT mean it has to be equally viable as the other combinations. A player's ability to choose the best tools/gear for the job is part of their skill at the game.

It only becomes a game of equipment if you are too stupid/unskilled at selecting the best gear for the job. You can argue that a game needs variety, but that is a different argument, albeit persuasive. On the other hand, variety of game play styles can be accomplished in many ways, not necessarily by distortion of existing equipment.

Gear should play a minor role, but the primary deciding factor in every fight should be the skills of the players fighting. A mediocre player in plate should still be mediocre.

To what extent does the selection of gear represent a player's skill at the game? I do agree with you though, a mediocre player in plate should be mediocre, and in most situations I have found that they are actually, with running speed having little to do with their success.

[Vodner]

Those things are unrealistic (maybe less so with the last example) and I wish they didn't happen in the game. Doesn't mean M&B isn't realistic compared to other games.

If they didn't happen, then a bad player could rack up kills simply by virtue of his build and equipment. Running a player over is easy. Overheading a player is easy.

A player's ability to choose the best tools/gear for the job is part of their skill at the game.

If all players could afford to pay the upkeep on plate, then you would see the majority of melee players using it. The only tradeoff is money.

To what extent does the selection of gear represent a player's skill at the game?

A player in heavy plate can often simply ignore blows from a decent one-handed player with a balanced build (18/18 or 18/21), and win by doing nothing more than attempting to repeatedly castor while facehugging. There is a substantial chance the one-hander will glance, and the fight will be over. Even if he doesn't glance, he's looking at well over ten hits to kill his opponent.

Plate allows a player who cannot consistently block to get kills he would not otherwise be able to get. Using gear to compensate for a lack of individual skill should not be an option - the only option should be to get better.

[Konrax]

Those tests walt did were for the previous version of athletics which imho was much better.

Before athletics only effected acceleration, everyone had the same top speed regardless

[ArchonAlarion]

Plate allows a player who cannot consistently block to get kills he would not otherwise be able to get. Using gear to compensate for a lack of individual skill should not be an option - the only option should be to get better.

Then why have plate in the game? Why have different weapons, better weapons?

Should danish greatswords be nerfed? Should bec de corbins be nerfed down to hafted blade levels for balance? Then we can get rid of gold altogether right?

I don't think you've considered your own logic very thoroughly or you are actually radical in that you want all items to be statistically balanced, to do away with gold altogether. Should players be rewarded for time spent playing in the form of gold and stat increases and does this allow for the possibility of "objectively" better armor? Where is the line for you for how much better gear can get? Sorry for questioning, I'm just trying to make a point.

[Vodner]

Then why have plate in the game? Why have different weapons, better weapons?

For variety. Once you get past the peasant gear, no item should just be a straight-up better version of another item.

Should danish greatswords be nerfed?

Pretty much all of the greatswords have different tradeoffs - aside from one or two mediocre swords, they are all fairly well balanced. They are all also accessible to pretty much any player.

Should bec de corbins be nerfed down to hafted blade levels for balance?

The bec is both shorter and slower than the hafted blade. That extra length is really important for polearms, which lose a great deal of length from their animations.

Should players be rewarded for time spent playing in the form of gold and stat increases and does this allow for the possibility of "objectively" better armor? Where is the line for you for how much better gear can get?

Top-tier armor should at best let you occasionally survive an extra hit or two over the lower tier equipment. Top-tear weapons should at best let you get a kill with one less hit.

[Wraist]

If armor weight matters more, could weapon length matter a little less for speed?

[ArchonAlarion]

For variety. Once you get past the peasant gear, no item should just be a straight-up better version of another item.
Pretty much all of the greatswords have different tradeoffs - aside from one or two mediocre swords, they are all fairly well balanced. They are all also accessible to pretty much any player.
The bec is both shorter and slower than the hafted blade. That extra length is really important for polearms, which lose a great deal of length from their animations.

Okay, would you support leveling the gold cost on these items because they are balanced as you put it? As in, decrease cost of greatswords and bec?

Top-tier armor should at best let you occasionally survive an extra hit or two over the lower tier equipment. Top-tear weapons should at best let you get a kill with one less hit.

Okay. Now, if top-tier armor allows you to survive an extra three hits and weapons let you get a kill with two less hits, wouldn't skilled/rational players simply increase the lowest level of armor/weapon they allow themselves?

I think our disagreement here may inevitably be over a subjective line in the sand: Your way having a very narrow margin for player investment (gold) to make a difference and mine having a wider one. The benefits of a narrower margin is that it divorces a singular combat situation from wider contexts (Gold gained through other battles), which is better for newer players and narrows the outcome to pure mouse moving skill (which some may find attractive). The benefits of a wider margin is that a singular combat situation is placed within a wider context (the player's gold gain history and upkeep strategies) and that may give people a sense of continuity or larger strategy (For instance, deciding that you will expend a large amount of your gold gained in a heavy cavalry stint, to turn a series of battles in your favor). There is another benefit of the wider margin version, in that it is a closer simulation of the asymmetries of medieval warfare, which some may find fun/interesting/challenging. Therefore, I do not support increasing the weight penalties of heavy armor because I am okay with a wider margin for those reasons. Also, because players aren't/shouldn't be "stuck" to any one particular class or combination of gear, I believe players basically have equal opportunity to adapt their load-outs, thus load-outs do not have to be equally viable. Whether the current gold gain/upkeep system works for either narrow or wide margin versions is another matter.

[Siboire]

ArchonAlarion, you're illogical, go polute another one's thread, or better! Go make your own!

Now, let's get back on topic plz:

How armor weight should give a bigger penalty to the running speed.

[PieParadox]

TL;DR

Archon, go play 2010 CRPG! 

[ArchonAlarion]

ArchonAlarion, you're illogical, go polute another one's thread, or better! Go make your own!

How am I being illogical? I'm explaining the idea that the desire for weightier armor is tied to a different concept of the game, which may or may not be more entertaining for a player, depending on their personal preferences.

Now, let's get back on topic plz:

How armor weight should give a bigger penalty to the running speed.

It shouldn't because (I believe) m&b's/crpg's most defining, unique, and entertaining quality is its simulation of medieval combat, including asymmetries of playstyles and load-outs. These styles are still ultimately up to the player to choose, representing different self-chosen levels of difficulty, potentially being better or worse in wider economic contexts (gold gain/upkeep/strategus), or having potential for teamwork despite individual weakness.

Is this thread only for those who support your opinion?

@Pieparadox: I'm writing an annotated bibliography for school about medieval military technology

Well, procrastinating now I guess.

[Elric_de_Melnibone]

It shouldn't because (I believe) m&b's/crpg's most defining, unique, and entertaining quality is its simulation of medieval combat, including asymmetries of playstyles and load-outs. These styles are still ultimately up to the player to choose, representing different self-chosen levels of difficulty, potentially being better or worse in wider economic contexts (gold gain/upkeep/strategus), or having potential for teamwork despite individual weakness.

Is this thread only for those who support your opinion?

I support and back that statement - because it's exactly the thing that got me into Mount & Blade.
The wide range of potential playstyles and loadouts is one of the games' unique concepts.

Balancing heavy, medium and light armour so hard, that they are almost equal ony every level, like the "plate should only allow to take 1 - 2 more blows concept, would make the gameplay become very, very stale and boring in my opinion.

Completely killing variety and differences just for the sake of balance is way too extreme, and already turned too many games into games with ONE faction, and several different looks for it.

Heavy armour doesn't give too much of an advantage in my opinion - the more skilled player will always be the victor, no matter the equipment. Look at all the tincans getting mowed down by people wearing light armour, skilled people. It's not a free ticket to a good score, it's a style, design, way to play and represent yourself on the battlefield.

If we follow the route Vodner suggests, we would end up with hundreds of items and loadouts to use, which all of almost exactly the same stats and strengths, except maybe 1 - 2 points difference in something.

Sorry, that's not what I want.