Bam bam what you want could be achieved with a robust tradeskill system that lets you hand craft "focus effects" and stats on a piece of gear in your tier that comes close to raid gear in raw stats but has the flexibility to adjust. Then keep raid gear stagnat ang class focused and locked
Give tradeskillers something to do to keep the economy of the game churning while giving you flexibility to fill in spots for your playstyle
Jothany said:disposalist said: What *doesn't* then make sense, though, is, if the distinction of sub-types is being made presumably because the differences are somehow 'meaningful' how come classes can wear a certain type and *anything* else considered 'below' them?I'm really not sure that, just because a class is trained to fight in Heavy Plate, they should automatically know how to effectively defend themselves fighting in cloth or even leather or chain. Maybe not even in Light Plate.
To me it's weird they are so specific about the weapon types that kind be used but the armor types are just a 'heirarchy'. I know that weapons are considered more of an 'active' tool, but the way the armor is treated feels like weapons shouldn't be so specific. Like, if I am fine in cloth because I'm trained in Heavy Plate, why aren't I fine with a dagger if I'm trained with a sword?
While there might be some subtle differences, the actual weight of the armor and thus how much it slows one down has always seemed to me to be the major - if not only - real restriction to armor use in real life. And that is what it has seemed to be in most games I've played. So if you are strong enough to run and jump and wrestle in Plate, having lighter armor really shouldn't interfere with you at all.
As far as the comparison to weapons use, training your skill in a weapon is pretty much like any martial art. You repeat the same move over and over again until it becomes a reflex because a reflex is faster than a thought-out movement. And even though a sword very much resembles a big knife, the actual physical movements you make when you strike and block are NOT the same movements from one to the other. So a sword-using Warrior who picks up a Dagger can certainly fight with it, but won't be at nearly the same speed or precision with it as with the weapon he trained with for 1000 hours.
I appreciate it's not quite the same, but if armor wearing ability were just down to strength, then there wouldn't be class restrictions at all, just strength limitations?
Also, your dagger training thoughts work just as well for armor, don't they?
I have to imagine that if I trained in Heavy Plate armor for 1000 hours, then it would be my subconcious reflex to rely on that armor to protect me and to not bother even trying to make (never mind master) certain combat moves and techniques that aren't possible in it.
If I then found myself in cloth or leather I think I would end up moving (relatively) slowly and awkwardly even though I have freedom of movement and I would likely get hurt somewhere I was expecting to be protected by a metal plate. Combat training in plate armor surely has to be utterly different to cloth, leather or even chain? Totally different things to think about and different physical demands and restrictions beyond just raw strength?
I suppose we could just say that paladins get trained in all armors *shrug*. But why all armors and not all weapons?
I'm just saying it seems odd to be particular and specific about weapons and about the different kind of armors, but then, because you can manage Heavy Plate, you can use anything 'below' it.
Why couldn't a monk with high strength use plate armor? Because his combat moves require more flexibility and dodging? So a warrior must have combat style that uses less movement and more absorption? So what happens when that warrior is not wearing heavy armor? They just change combat style? Why can't a monk do that?
I'm just being devil's advocate for the discussion. It's no big deal, really, but I find it interesting and I'd like to know more about how the class design works.
bigdogchris said:I doubt it will be as restrictive as some may think.
Yeah, I agree and think Wizards shouldn’t wear plate. But when it says, say a Dire Lord is Heavy Chain, I would be surprised if they couldn’t also wear plate or other heavy armors.
Maybe it's something to do with their magic needing their enemy's blood to get through to contact their bodies? They don't want big metal plates stopping the splashing claret getting in their curlies?
I would understand some class restrictions working like that.
Let's be honest, though, it's a game mechanic. If direlords had plate armor *and* their blood magic self-healing, they would be unhurtable.
I wonder what the game mechanic is behind making it so paladins are able to wear cleric armor (light plate), but clerics are not able to wear paladin armor (heavy plate).
disposalist said:bigdogchris said:I doubt it will be as restrictive as some may think.
Yeah, I agree and think Wizards shouldn’t wear plate. But when it says, say a Dire Lord is Heavy Chain, I would be surprised if they couldn’t also wear plate or other heavy armors.
Maybe it's something to do with their magic needing their enemy's blood to get through to contact their bodies? They don't want big metal plates stopping the splashing claret getting in their curlies?
I would understand some class restrictions working like that.
Let's be honest, though, it's a game mechanic. If direlords had plate armor *and* their blood magic self-healing, they would be unhurtable.
I wonder what the game mechanic is behind making it so paladins are able to wear cleric armor (light plate), but clerics are not able to wear paladin armor (heavy plate).
Unless the game has some type of underlying design mechanics that plate must always be X or better (like D&D), what the name is doesn't really matter IMO. They could call something plate armor and still make it weak.
Agreed bam, but that's the direction things have been going. Myself and others are a broken record at this point. It seems like every few threads I feel like they are over thinking it. Over complicating systems unnecessarily. Just trying to hard.
To give credit where credit is due there were some classes who had their abilities simplified/clarified with the new website update. If only that was the design direction with everything else..
Just because a class could wear a item, doesnt mean they should or would want to. Dont forget that the items will have stats and each class will want a specific set of stats over anything else. So it might be that a cloth item with Intelligence on it wouldnt really be of much initial use to a Ranger who would prefer Dexterity. Also, the higher the type of item (I am guessing) the better the AC. Cloth will have next to none, light leather will have a little, and so on. So a ranger would always want the chain over leather for the better AC (unless the other stats are a significant benefit, but this would be the exception). Same for warrior. They would take plate over anything else because of the extra AC.
Need before greed has always worked for me from day one. If a warrior wants a light chain item and so does a ranger, then the ranger (being the target class for the item) would have first call on it. If the ranger doesnt want it and the chain is better for the warrior than an item he is using, then so be it.
I dont see the issue here at all.
BamBam: Sorry, but I disagree. I dont find it complicated in the slightest. Also cannot see how not restricting something leads to less choice?
I have re-read the cleric's armour type: Available Armor: Light Plate, Shields. This used to be up to and including Light Plate. I think it needs to be clarified whether it now means only light plate or up to and including light plate.
Either way make sense to me. If it is up to, then it still should be the target class that has first chance on an item. If it is only then it clarifies who is supposed to wear what and also makes sense as the stats will automatically be tailoured for that class.
I would still say though that if it is not an upgrade, then it should be a greed roll for everyone, regardless of armour type.
I understand what Bambam is saying, its less of complication to keep in mind. Why the clutter, its like MMO version of bloatware.
I also understand what thugstomp is saying, why make simple things harder. Why the clutter, its not a mechanic, its a mental timesink.
I am also sensitive to Rokuzaki's comment on UO's plate mages because of one thing that was not overcome in UO, namely what I consider to be the newbie casters necessary learning mistake.
I think this mistake needs to be made because its intuitive, and also needs to be learned to be overcome. What would allow an easy path to gradually learn better armor but the number of armor choices available that can be worn, making the variety of armor that can be worn a good thing along with the problem solving mental gymnastics that come with it.
MY example is this, as a caster just starting out I got frustrated really fast when soloing and trying to learn my class as a newbie because I died so quickly and so often, it was frustrating and almost defeating. But I wanted a complex game and I felt this was a puzzle that the developers created that I needed to solve and there was no, one way to solve the puzzle; that was my understanding. So Immediately I took all the precious coin I earned and bought plate armor because I thought- ah ha! this will solve the dieing fast problem and it did initially and I was proud of myself. For a little while. Then when I got some more confidence I ventured out and met others and got gentle feedback and when I grouped with other casters I found what Rokuzaki pointed out and I wish I had a variety of armors to choose from that Bambam laments. in retrospect I wanted to solve the problem that thugstomp states but make it unique to me.
Yes, I probably would have evolved to all cloth eventually (I wasted my money in EQ, I bought all that plate and then found I couldnt wear it, and when I sold it back- sold it for a loss! faction! *smh*) but because I was ready for the complex nature of the game I wanted the game to make me smarter by getting me used to the complexity by living in it and learning from it.
More importantly, I would like to be able to wear all kinds of armor if I have an empty slot and I happen to loot something, especially in the beginning. To add further complexity I would not be adverse to sizes.
Theorycrafting: to make sizes easier to implement, the size could be a checksum against the wearer that would trigger a certain debuff, i.e. you wear large shoes, but loot small shoes and wear them, you get a -1 sta debuff (because your shoes are too small and they pinch!- intuitive) or you wear medium and you loot large vambraces and wear them, you get -1 to weaponskill or agi or dex maybe a +1 to hp or ac. (they are big but loose, cover alot of area but hard to maneouver while wearing- intuitive). You are a fighter and wear a robe -1 to dex and -1 to agi (you keep tripping over the robe, hood covers your eyes at the wrong time)~it could even have emotes to remind you.
They could be taken to an NPC to be fitted, or better yet crafted to fit exposing the newbie to basic crafting concepts. Like the sharpening stone making rusty weapons into tarnished in smithing- the most basic and cheapest smithing combine- and finding out the tarnished weapons sold for more!!- made fishing for rusty daggers an idea before you figured out the time involved.
The only problem/benefit I see would be with magic or stat armor. If it didn't fit you would get the stats, and also the debuff and in some cases I forsee one canceling out the other but other benefits remaining. If the armor drops were kept minimal enough this almost might be anti-mudflationary as the wearer would keep the ill-fitting armor unless she found some other character with her size that she could trade because the trade would be a faster transaction that needing to interrupt with coin. Or it might not even be a exact trade but losing the debuff would be worth getting shoes that fit, even though you are losing 1dex from the armor, but gaining 1ac from the trade and gaining 1sta from losing the debuff for example.
Counterfleche said: @disposalist, My experience as a competitive fencer and dabbler in medieval fighting is that changing weapons is vastly more impactful than changing armor/gear. Wearing less just tends to make me feel faster, but I am still aware of any added risk. Using a different weapon is much harder since I need change many variables, most of which I only have trained into muscle memory in my preferred weapon(s). Lots of variables change: attack speed, how I block, how I hold my weapon, how I attack, and distance (which is the most important of all). Thinking of musicians is a good analogy. The guitarist for GWAR can still play guitar when he's not wearing his giant foam/rubber costume, but it will be much harder for him to switch to playing a sitar.
I agree completely with all that and as a lover of using no armor and dagger and buckler for duels I know it works wonders 1v1 against most weapons... But in a group fight as a person holding a shield and effectively being the tank inviting multiple people to hit you while your 2handed friends flank the enemy, being tanky is nice.
chenzeme said:Need before greed has always worked for me from day one. If a warrior wants a light chain item and so does a ranger, then the ranger (being the target class for the item) would have first call on it. If the ranger doesnt want it and the chain is better for the warrior than an item he is using, then so be it.
You seem to be missing the point of nbg. If they can both use it and they both want it they both should have an equal roll or chance to get it.
If you are saying a ranger gets priority of a chain item that another class wants and can use that isnt need before greed. You dont get to assign your loot preference onto someone else and call it need before greed.
chenzeme said:It clarifies who is supposed to wear what and also makes sense as the stats will automatically be tailoured for that class.
You must have missed the recent discussion about how stats will do different things for different classes.
This leads to a scenario where stats can not be tailored to a specific class.
One example is that wisdom gives mana to a priest class and crit chance to an int caster class.
Tie that with the hard and soft stat caps which we have known about for years makes stats even more fluid. A character might have some stats capped and only care about others.
The covered this a bit on PP today for anyone interested - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxBjitGvbwM
BamBam said: I think Geex brings up a good point on what not to aim for. Im sure if ur class can use mail armor you can also use leather and cloth. My issue is that i think there should be more classes in each armor category, because i think it will create issues with looting and looting rules and it will also favor certain classes over others. Due to players will need an upgrade if it drops even if Its not ur main armor. Im not sure if i make it clear enough, english is not my main language sorry.
Upon some more thought, yeah it does seem like they are probably going to go with a tier system where you can wear up to your maximum. Like a Paladin could wear Heavy Chain or Light Leather if they wanted to, but a Dire Lord can't wear Light Plate or Heavy Plate. I was likely wrong about that in my previous post.
However, I disagree with your premise that it would create some sort of unbalance or favor certain classes. If a Paladin could wear Light Chain, there is a chance they could "take away" a item from a Ranger, sure. But that doesn't exclude the possibility of Ranger only Light Chain items. Additionally, that Paladin would likely be at a disadvantage from a defensive standpoint. And I do not think anyone would say that because a Enchanter can't wear Heavey Plate that he somehow is at a disadvantage to the Warrior that is wearing cloth.