Search button gave me no topics which had to do with the next thing I'd want to hear your opinion on.

How it was in OB:
I just played Oblivion and got out of the dungeon, found some lether armor pieces and got a protection of 5%. At the level I played, the enemies where not even hitting 15, so 5% armor was the same thing as nothing at all. Because the leather armor was just a little bit better than no armor at all, I started thinking, is this the right way of doing it? While I didn't find out a straight answer to that question, there is definitely something wrong with Oblivions armor system.

% and DT overview:
The overall idea of a % armor rating is classic and works well if done correctly, but I also found the Threshold system work equally well. In the % system, there needs to be an upper level of how much % we can protect ourselves from, which was 85% in Oblivion. No matter how hard the enemies hit or how weak their attacks are, there is always some damage inflicted to you with the % system. With the damage threshold system, your armor would absorb the damage of your opponents point all the way up to the rating you have and then it would start hurting you. I don't think that a DT system in itself could work so great in skyrim, because even if you are equiped in full deadric armor, it doesn't mean that the armor would absorb all the damage, it just protects you against lethal damage.

Different ways and locational damage:
That's just a little summary of the problem and the options that I have thought of, both of them from games I have played. Now to the real question, which of those should be used, or should a mixture of both be used or a completely new system introduced? Keep in mind that the elder scrolls has always given us a lot of different armor types and the difference between those types needs to be seen in a clear way. The weakest armor in the game should definitely feel like it is protecting you more than your skin, which it didn't in Oblivion. I read somehwere in these forums that locational damage and locational armor protection could be introduced, to which I agree, it would help us give a clearer difference between having no armor, one piece of armor and full set of armor.

Summary of my thoughts:
I myself think that a new system I haven't thought of would be better than the one that I have come up with, but for the time being I see this as the best solution:
The introduction of locational damage and armor. Protecting your legs will not give you an overall better armor protection, but it would protect your legs. Making the worst armor in the game, probably something like worn leather, should protect you so much more than having no armor that you would appreciate the armor. Adding a mixture of both damage threshold and % damage to all pieces of armor could help make unique and different armors. If the pieces of armor, such as greaves, would only protect your legs, then the worst piece of armor, worn leather, could have a damage threshold of 1 and a % armor protection rate of 8%. Moving upwards in better armors, we could have the best light armor greaves in the game protect our legs with 8 damage threshold and 45% armor rate. Likewise, the worst piece of heavy armor could protect us with 2 damage threshold and 9% armor rating and the best heavy armor with 14 damage threshold and 70% armor rate. Note that the numbers are measured on a single piece of armor, greaves and are not to be the final numbers o fthe game, only an example. Please also note that armor pieces do not stack, so having greaves and gauntlets of the best heavy armor does not vige you a DT of 30 and a armor rate of 140%, they give protection to the specific body part they are protecting.

Elemental protection:
Edit: One thing I forgot to mention, should armors have an in-built resistance towards elements, further making the armors more unique and useful? For example, fur armor would obviously have frost resistance, but to what ectent I don't know. Leather could (possibly?) give us a weak protection against fire. Just a random thought: the dwarven armor could weakly protect again shock.

So, what do my fellow forumers think about Armor, how it is measured, the difference between having no armor, one piece of armor, two pieces, full set and how and if armor should protect against the lelements of the world, or any special effects like resistance agains staggering and being knocked down?

I hope that they've changed this in some way from Oblivion. It always seemed to me that early in the game it was difficult to get a high armor rating % but later on (with a higher armor skill), it seemed like you could easily reach the 85% limit (even without a full set of armor). I think it would be cool to see some bonuses beyond just having that high armor rating (maybe like reduced chance of being staggered because your armor absorbed the strike so well or something like that).
So yeah, I'd hope that something is changed where it's made more effective throughout the game. I would love to see changes in Skyrim to the point that my high level character doesn't just plateau off and stop gaining bonuses but can continue to get effects from having quality armor and a high armor skill.

Darn one thing I forgot to add completely was the question if you want armos to have elemental resistance in addition to it's armor protection, I'll edit first post: asap poll edited.

I prefer damage threshold. In oblivion, wearing full plate armor would protect you as much from a warhammer... as it would from a punch. This is not realistic. I dont care whether im wearing armor or not, a hammer to the face will hurt! Damage threshold was more realistic. If you, for instance, had a threshold of 20... a punch would barely hurt you. However a rocket to the face would still deal an immense amount of damage. I think this is much more realistic.

One of the features I really want to see in Skyrim is locational damage, i.e. only the piece of armour covering the area being attacked is factored in. Fallout had limb damage but I don't think the armour actually protected the body part it was equipped to more than anywhere else.
Also, female armour should have a defence rating inversely related to the amount of skin covered :whistling:

Location damage would be insanely difficult but really cool I think. It would definitely push you to always want to have on a super nice helm to prevent your delicate noggin. It would make sense that only the chest piece would factor into hits to your chest. Logically, it just doesn't make sense that your boots would help protect you against a warhammer to your chest...

Lol or they could just stop the whole strippers in chainmail theme. I like this idea, it makes no sense that you will take less damage from a stab to the face if you wear Daedric Greaves instead of Iron ones. It also opens up more strategy to attacking and choosing gear. If a person is wearing dwarven gear on everything but the legs, aim for the legs. The most likely spot for you to get hit is the chest, face, and hands so maybe you wear cheaper and lighter armor on your legs and feet.

While it could work in a good way, it's hard to make it really balanced when you have so many different materials an elder scrolls has, if every piece would be better than the other, as the material is better, we'd have in a worst case scenario something like this:
Leather DT 1 per piece
Chainmail DT 2 per piece
With that rate, deadric would have a DT of 12 per piece! NPCs would have to hit enourmous amounts to even hurt you one bit by then.
If however, they would have a DT like this, which actually could work well:
Leather DT, 1 per piece
Chainmail DT 1.2 per piece etc. Then deadric wouldn't be too over powered compared to others, but it would leave leather very weak, I truly think leather should protect you more than from a small amount of damage.

Did any of you even read my post It did have a rather long rant on the locational damage thing, and I do believe that would be the best system for Skyrim.

That was the problem lol. It was rather long. I did read it but skimmed over the paragraph that started going into too many numbers and figures. But yes, I would agree in having individual ratings/DT for different body segments.

Post edited, it should be easier to read now

I like the idea of innate elemental resistance in various armor types without having to use up the armor piece's enchantment slot. It could be a weak resistance for not being enchanted but just based on the material of the armor but it'd still add an additional degree of importance in choosing what type of armor you wear.

I would like to see an effective mixture of locational damage and a damage threshold. You have a general threshold affected by all pieces of armor, but it is increased or decreased based off of where they hit. OR set the threshold affect where it goes. Helmets only boost defense for the head, gauntlets only help protect your hands (well arms, its hard to target the hands alone) That kind of idea.

Definitely all for locational damage and locational protection. I couldn't even begin to attempt any kind of balancing though without a working model.

As for your elemental examples:

Fur and leather are both insulators and should have a high resistance to shock which is however completely negated once wet. However both fur and leather would gain a boost to slashing defense when wet. Leather would have moderate defense against fire and ice. Fur would have high ice resist and low fire resist.

That is based on what I know about fur and leather and is therefor moderately realistic and somewhat balanced. I would have to think long and hard to come up with resistance levels for all other armor.

With the possibilities of todays technology, there's no need to use pen & paper-optimized armor systems. Armor should react differently depending on what hit it, where it hit, how good the hit was, the speed of the weapon, the user of the weapon and the relative speed of the target, and all kinds of armor should have completely different attributes, with gambeson-like armor being relatively useful against thrusts, good against blunt damage but easily damaged by cuts, while maille for example would be excellent against cuts, but vulnerable against blunt damage as well as thrusts. Plate should be excellent against cuts as well as good against thrusts, and also help against blunt damage, but be easily damaged by the latter to a point of limiting movement of the wearer. Leather would be not very good at either, although it would offer a little protection against all of it. Boiled leather more so, while also limiting movement a more. Combinations should of course be available, such as padded cloth + maille, countering the maille's disadvantage against thrusts and blunt damage as well as the cloth's disadvantage against cuts, resulting in overall better armor, although quite heavy.

The disadvantages of armor should also be realistically portrayed. No more swimming in plate. Maille should significantly limit swimming abilities as well, and so should heavy cloth-based armor pieces. This is where leather might be an advantage because it isn't that heavy and won't svck up all the water as fast as cloth would. Movement speed and agility should also be limited depending on the armor weight but also on the armor design, making the use of heavy arm pieces or stiff armor around the elbow region a bad choice if it comes down to speed (although perhaps a good choice if the enemies weapon indeed lands in that area).

Also, very important: Even though the weapon might not penetrate the armor, damage should still be dealt, especially with heavy weapons, according to how easily the armor bends and to where it is in contact with the body (a hit on a torso plate for example might deal damage to the shoulders, because the weight of the impact and the armor would be pushed against that part of the body more than against the chest, where the armor doesn't touch the body)

Downside to all that, it would have to run a large amount of checks on both you and whoever is hitting you. It may not seem so bad in 1 vs 1 situations, but if it has anything in common with oblivion, you could end up facing a fair amount of opponents at one time. This could result in a massive hit to FPS, and stability.

I would be very happy to see a system where instead of always taking some damage, armor works like this: First of all, a weapon trying to hit an armored opponent needs to calculate its ability to penetrate that armor. Should it fail, the blow merely bounces off. Try slashing at a platearmor with a dagger and see what happens. Maces would ofcourse have a lot higher penetration. At this stage, it is merely your armor taking durability hits, and a low durability would result in lower ability to deflect.

After the weapon has succesfully penetrated the armor, it is now calculated how much damage the armor can still absorb from the blow. This could work with the threshhold system, or just the 5% off.

And finally at this stage, it is determined where the blow was taken and if it caused any locational damage, such as breaking a leg.

Gorbad the % method is called DR or Damage Resistance.

Just so people know what your talking about.

@nipanteri
Significantly more simplified than Spec, but you guys might be over complicating stuff. If all that was added, there will have to be numeric stats for everything. Pierce variable to armor type, and individual armors would add in a lot to think about when selecting weapons. Many people don't like the complication with all the numbers because it promoted a spreadsheet style like in previous games, which is what bethesda was trying to get away from.

EDIT: Actually, now that i re-read it, yours might work out, but doesn't that give the WoW ideal that armor acts as an additional pool to your health instead of a way to preserve health?

Those bog-minded excrement filled idio-... I mean majority of fans of Bethesda Studios.

I would love everything to be more stats equals, more variety. I would love Crush, stab, and slash percentages/DT for different wepaons and armours with the addition of elemental/poison, etc. Sadly not so...

Its not that i dislike the idea. I actually prefer higher detailed things like that, but im thinking realistically. The more numbers you involve, the more you depend on it to run scrips. And Bethesda is a company first and foremost. The more you complicate things, the more difficult it can be the the average player, and the sooner they get frustrated.

i thought light and heavy armor protected you in proportion to it's weight. so damage reduction stays the same. if limb damage is introduced, light armor will protect your limbs less(vice versa with heavy). heavy armor inhibited stamina recovery in OB correct? reduced speed with heavy armor is obvious. there should be a perk for heavy armor allowing you avoid 100% damage from low damage attacks(occasionally) light armor perk recovers stamina or magicka in proprotion to the damage taken. this is crude but, it's an idea

My favourite way ( which will never be placed in TeS though. )

Is a % chance to avoid an attack based on a skill like dodge, with a variable chance depending on the NPC's weapon skill, how heavy the armour you're wearing... etc.

Then if you don't actually play as a fast speedy character capable of dodging blows.
You can equip much heavier armour to make up for it, which then absorb those blows that hit you reducing a % of the damage, like in Oblivion.

Add in parry and block, which can add to dodge and further reduce the % by another % amount based on how good a shield it is.
Then magic effects could boost either or even both dodge and armour at the same time.

Basically I think a tank / mage build should be able to whether many blows if using the right gear.
But a fast rogue / rogue mage would not be able to wear or use as strong items / magic to protect themselves.
So avoidence of getting hit in the first place is what their light armour / no armour is for.

That already existed in morrowind. You had a chance to miss based off of your weapon rank, and blindness lowered the chance to hit, while sanctuary lowered the chance to be hit

Yeah, sorry I should have said not likely to be placed in TeS again, rather than.

Thanks for the correction though.