Heavy Armor thoughts

[BlindGuy]

Quoted from another thread

I'd rather it wasn't random to keep it as player skill based as possible. Damage should come from the way you play rather than random number generators behind the scenes. Its not like its a realism thing either imo, hits would either penetrate and severally wound/kill someone or not penetrate and do zero damage (maybe some blunt damage,bruises,stunned for a sec etc). So we're dealing with a system that is inherently unrealistic anyway, adding random damage doesn't change that

You contradict yourself.


Anyway: This is whine thread from armour crutcher. The random factor ADDS to realism, and adds to game ejoyablity. Im sorry that you feel you should be immune to 1handed swords, but the randomness attemps to simulate that weapons vs armour is not a scientific test: stabbing at the joints on plate armour, maybe first few times I bruise you and make you lose balance (low dmg, whiffs, stuns), but then luckily I manage to stab RIGHT into the joint and mess you up (Very low soak roll, with good stab in sweetspot) and you are dead. Equally, lightly armoured guys will die 90% of the time to 1hit from a maul. One time in 10 they will get lucky by postioning, and JUST survive the maul. Maybe IRL the mauler's hand slipped, he misjudged the distanace or speed and didnt land a very heavy hit on his enemy, but it was still a maul so it did a lot of damage, but the enemy might just be able to walk away, with only a crushed shoulder.

[Grumbs]

Not sure where I contradicted myself. For 1 handers you might do 1-30 damage now on a hit, I would propose bringing the range closer together which I expect would actually be a buff for 1 handers. So instead of 1-30, 15-20 or something like that. Its just the large randomness I don't like from a principle point of view. If you have 2 virtually equally skilled players I would hope the player who made the fewest mistakes would win, rather than the guy who rolled the highest dice scores

Just bringing the soak values from 45%-100% of armour to 75-100 might be a good change. Or making the minimum damage generally higher somehow

[BlindGuy]

Not sure where I contradicted myself. For 1 handers you might do 1-30 damage now on a hit, I would propose bringing the range closer together which I expect would actually be a buff for 1 handers. So instead of 1-30, 15-20 or something like that. Its just the large randomness I don't like from a principle point of view. If you have 2 virtually equally skilled players I would hope the player who made the fewest mistakes would win, rather than the guy who rolled the highest dice scores

Just bringing the soak values from 45%-100% of armour to 75-100 might be a good change. Or making the minimum damage generally higher somehow

Hmm, again contradict, if you increase soak then 1hander will do 1-20, instead of 1-30.

Decide what you want, think what that means, then post.

[Grumbs]

I also said on the previous page I would suggest a general reduction in armour amount. Rather than your armour being between 45-100% of its value, I would put it more like 80-100% but reduce the max armour amount at the same time. So range of damage would be less random

All I care about is that for any hit the outcome is less random than now, more predictable based on the variables presented to the player. The way its done i'm not that bothered about, but I don't want to nerf 1 h or buff heavy armour directly, just more uniform damage

[Bjord]

Only use armour has is against teammates.

[BlindGuy]

Only use armour has is against teammates.

Thats why I wear it.

[Matey]

all metal armour is heavy and you should be ashamed of wearing it. Real men fight in rags or pajamas and die in 1-2 hits.

[Idzo]

Save us!
My armor feels so useless, so many times !

[Tristan]

Keep randomness at a minimum.

[Tzar]

Only use armour has is against teammates.

Yeah you should try gettin one trolololool   

[MadeForFighting]

The random factor (...) adds to game ejoyablity

I'd enjoy the overall experience more if I'd have a say in the case of me failing or not. The game gives me excuses for being dead, instead putting all the blame on me. Again, more randomness means less skill factor, and thats the strongest argument I can ever come up with I guess. Not saying randomness is something that has to go - its how the developers want it to be and im gonna dance to their music, but i'd prefer it to be gone, or minimalised.

[Idzo]

I also said on the previous page I would suggest a general reduction in armour amount. Rather than your armour being between 45-100% of its value, I would put it more like 80-100% but reduce the max armour amount at the same time. So range of damage would be less random

All I care about is that for any hit the outcome is less random than now, more predictable based on the variables presented to the player. The way its done i'm not that bothered about, but I don't want to nerf 1 h or buff heavy armour directly, just more uniform damage

THIS.

[Kajia]

Randomness is the closest this engine can do to real combat. Plus the last time I checked only shit players relied on "luck" i.e random spam, to actually hit their opponents.

so you're saying that most of cRPGs more successful players are actually 'shit players'?
if yes, then i like your way of thinking. we should get rid of that randomness, right?

if not, then i have to tell you that in actual medieval combat randomness was no deciding factor unless fighters of equal skill and equipment were fighting, but as far as i know the ruling class, the wealthy people, had the means to get the best armor there was and were save with it, while everyone else was fucked. unless they were too stupid to retreat if odds are bad, but that is also not random and is not the topic.

if you want this game to be skill-based, then you should make it as anti-gambling as possible.

[v/onMega]

if you want this game to be skill-based, then you should make it as anti-gambling as possible.

Which obviously is wanted since OP, unbalanced stuff is getting a revision...