I've never been a fan of tier in any way shape or form, especially when it comes to aesthetic choices, so I was thinking maybe they should remove the stats on the armor so that your effectiveness with whatever armor your wearing is completely dependent on your proficiency in the associated skill, that way you can wear your favorite looking armor, good idea, bad idea let me know what you think

Armor needs multiple stats, not none, so it pays to use different types of armor for different character builds, different missions, etc. As it stands, it's becoming more and more linear, so there's no reason NOT to upgrade to the latest and greatest, which is an unrealistic "rat race". In Morrowind, I had characters complete the Main Quest mostly wearing armor picked up at level 1 and 2. Even there, the stats really had very little rhyme or reason to them, and some were just "better" than others.

Not a fan personally. It makes sense to have stats to the armor. Why would you shell out [x] more gold just to have an aesthetically more pleasing choice?

What has been discussed elsewhere in these forums, however, is having different benefits attached to the different types of armor beyond defense rating, enchanting charge, etc. I think that is the direction to go, instead of getting rid of the inherent characteristics.

While I am not automatically dismissive of streamlining in the series (some of the streamlining I like, but not every case), IMO this would be one of the worst ways to further streamline TES.

Man, cosmetic armors and roleplay gear is the end game for so many people in MMOS. There's stuff such as simple robes going for 100k+ in the auction houses.

Really? That seems ludicrous to me. Then again, I played RuneScape way back and I remember people would pay millions of gold pieces for a stupid party hat.

Hmmm, not sure how I feel about this. For my own play style I seldom select an armor skill preferring the freedom to scavenge and wear whatever is at hand. So, I guess I would have to say that I prefer that armor pieces have their own stats. Now what I would really like is to do away with the armor skills or combine them into one and increase the number of individual pieces, similar to what you could wear in Daggerfall.

Because, and this is something I'm pretty firmly certain is true for a lot of people, I like it when my character looks good in something. If the high end armors don't "mesh" with my characters aesthetic or theme they've got going on, the armor can provide complete invulnerability and turns enemies into dust if swing a stick, I won't touch it.

I do it all the time in TES, or at least enough that I can ultimately get away with it without dying at regular intervals. Its sort of why I want to see armor segmented and layered ala Morrowind, and Fallout 4 to a lesser extent. Skyrim's sets are good across the board, but the inability to mix and match is infuriating. I don't care if my character looks ridiculous going out bare chested while only wearing pants and having their left arm armored up, if I think it looks good, its something I very much want to do.

Yes, I'm the same way. More than one of my characters over they years has worn Leather Armor for an entire game in Oblivion and Hide Armor for an entire game in Skyrim because I liked the looks or it was a better roleplaying choice for the character. I've done the same in nearly every other role playing game.

Problem is, what looks "good" is highly subjective. If someone prefers the look of leather armor, which is the most abundant and cheapest, and another person likes the look of daedric armor, which is the most rare and expensive, it creates a disparity in the gameplay. One person is going to have their "end game" armor right away for basically no cost, and another has to level up and save a lot while trying to find theirs. It'd be one thing if this was randomized, but it's not... there's a reason daedric stuff is harder to find and is highly sought after, and it's not because it looks pretty. Also, I may be alone in this but I dislike it when I'm left to use the same gear for a really long time. It makes me feel like my character's stagnant, finding little of worth or use.

Finding gear that functions better is better suited to exploration-based gameplay, because the game can control how well something functions . It can't control how much you like the look of something. So if it ends up that I like the look of leather armor the best, which I find at level 1, what other armors do I have to look forward to finding for the next 50+ levels?

Oh, I'm not arguing for ditching stats. I was just commenting on the idea that choosing armor based largely on aesthetic was odd. To be honest, I didn't even bother reading the OP when I wrote that.

I...don't think I said anything contrary to that. I mean, most people are going to naturally change their armor as they go on for most of their adventures, unless they're really into THAT particular armor, which strikes me as being very, very rare.

Rather have them have stats personally. With enchanting and smithing i'm sure any gear will be viable in future tes game. Maybe they will add multiple damage types like they did in fallout 4, that way the next tier of armor isn't just strait better.

Armor can be balanced by using different degrees of protection against different forms of attack (blunt versus blade), by using weight to reduce the effects of Agility and make some actions harder in armor, by varying repair cost and difficulty, and by making some forms of armor more or less durable than others.

You can have an armor type that's initially very protective, and is light enough not to hinder stealthy movements and acrobatics, but is brittle and breaks after a few hits, and costs quite a bit. An assassin would love it, where they're not expecting to engage in multiple combats, but need to survive one fight against a competent enemy. It won't hold up well under constant use, however, and costs a mint to keep in proper condition.

You can have another type that's quite protective, holds up well under repeated abuse, and is moderately easy to repair, but weighs a lot and tends to limit your ability to jump or sneak. The wearer is often described as a "tank".

Another type can be significantly less protective, but takes very little damage itself and is easily repaired with minimal cost and skill, making it preferable for long ventures into the wild where other "superior" armor types would fall apart without regular maintenance.

You can also have cheap armors that offer moderate protection, moderate durability, and moderate weight, but only limited repairability. When they get worn out, it may be cheaper to replace than repair.

With those distinctions or something like them, one armor "skill" is sufficient. The armor itself provides the diversity and freedom of choice, rather than relying on skills and perks to offer distinctions. Normally, I'm all for more skills and more options, but in this case, having multiple armor skills really doesn't make a lot of sense. If the heavier armors create more of a problem for agility and speed, while armor skills help negate the penalties, the character can either choose lighter and less restrictive forms of armor, or increase their armor skill to reduce the penalties at the cost of not increasing some other skill instead. Heavier armor should be a choice, and trying to do agile and fast actions in heavy armor should require a lot more training and effort, not that it can't be done. That also doesn't require dividing armor into distinct and sharply divided "heavy" and "light" classes, when there's a whole lot of "gray area" in the middle which the system won't cover. Individual armor stats can cover all of that and more.

The absolute last things I want to see are either another mindless equipment rat race where each level effectively becomes "Armor + 1", and you always have to get the next new and "better" thing, or an absurd stat-free system where it really doesn't matter what you wear, because heavy plate armor gives the same protection as a thin leather vest. Either way is an absolute killer for RP, where you would generally choose to wear whatever makes sense for your character and situation.

Armor without stats is not armor. And a donut with no hole, is a danish.

Oh, I get that people like the aesthetics of a set of armor and will use such armor accordingly. I am not disputing that (although I personally like the look of the daedric armor, so it is convenient that it is also offers the most base protection). I meant that I found it odd if that was the only thing people cared about, especially in the context of no stats for armor.

Huleed worded it far better than I could. What I was trying to get at was that if we had no stats for armor, then it would be rather arbitrary to have different costs for each different set of armor.

I also agree about the part of being left with the same gear for a long time. Of course, I don't want progressive higher sets of armor be too easy to find either.

How about instead of different classes (heavy, medium, light, clothing) there's a meter with a number unique to each armour set? Armour and other protective gear is far too diverse to just throw in any one class. And perks, upgrades or anything of the sort will benefit (or hinder) certain levels of numbers differently.

Say each piece of armour has a number from 1-100. 1 is non-armour or clothing. 100 is super heavy armour. For a rough example:

Dwarven Armour: 100

Steel Armour: 85

Scaled Armour: 60

Leather Armour: 50

Imperial Scout Armour: 30

Mages Robes: 5

Whenever i play Skyrim, i always like to make a bosmer that's very stealthy, and only use leather fur armors for role playing. The thing with Skyrim stealth mechanics is that i could go out naked and have a beast ass bow and still be viable, the perk system kind of makes armor almost useless for a stealth character depending on difficulty.

Anglo only has a small part of the idea. I'm thinking more along the lines of:

Dwarven Armor -

Blade defense 100

Blunt defense 70

Weight 100

Durability 800

Repairability 30

Restriction 80

Cost factor 180

Leather Armor -

Blade defense 20

Blunt defense 40

Weight 30

Durability 300

Repairability 90

Restriction 20

Cost factor 10

The heavy Dwarven plate will protect much better against sharp weapons, while leather will easily be cut or pierced. Leather, on the other hand, absorbs almost as much blunt force as the plate, because the latter tends to crease and leave permanent dents, while leather simply contours itself to the wearer after the attack. Leather would not hold up as long under constant attack, but would be far easier and cheaper to repair. The plate would also make acrobatic and stealth maneuvers far more difficult, while leather would only cause minor restrictions to movement. Finally, Dwarven plate would cost nearly 20 times the price.

If I'm in a stand-up fight, Dwemer plate offers much better protection, and is the obvious choice. If I'm venturing in the wild, where I may need to climb, jump, or sneak around, and access to high-end repair tools and parts is limited at best over an extended period of time, the heavy plate armor starts looking like a bad idea.

The idea is to give reasons for using each type of armor, rather than having each more expensive and protective form be simply "better". One's choice of character, and the way that character is played, should heavily influence your choice of armor.

For contrast, Witcher 1's answer was to have armor as a complete set. You started out with a "semi-decent" set, and at some point in the storyline, you were simply handed a better set, right before the enemies got a lot harder. There were other sets of armor in the game, but they were worse than what you already had, and there wasn't even a way to carry a second set in order to sell it. In short, there was essentially ZERO point to having armor stats, because there were no "valid" choices other than what was automatically handed to you. In a game series like TES, where there are almost an unlimited number of choices, and several completely different ways of playing the game, taking away that choice (or making the choice totally irrelevant) would be glaringly out of place.