notice how that in oblivion a pair of daedric greaves protected your head?


armour should have lots of pieces, and this motion supports that. i think that wearing a pair of greaves should not pretect your head. wearing a helmet should protect your head and not your feet. a stab to the chest will be lessened by a cuirass. layered armour would be nice, an attack to the legs would be effected by the pants,greaves and skirt the character is wearing.

secondly, if we had CERTAIN enchantments do this it would be nice. some enchantments should stack (such as feather) but others should be for a single part or alternatively- not stack ( 10 chameleon and 30 chameleon = 30 chameleon )

This requires locational damage. I don't think we've heard anything about locational damage in Skyrim. (I suspect it won't be in, but :shrug:)

That is a really cool idea but I don't think that they are going to that, that is what I liked about fallout but you never know. They are experimenting with a lot of things right now.

Locational damage and armor would be amazing and was discussed/wished for in TES series general frequently before we even knew TES V would be Skyrim, but sadly I doubt it'll make the cut as they're already overhauling a lot.

As for enchanting, I don't think it will function as in previous games and I don't think we'll have the same spell effects as in previous games so stacking effects may not be something we even need to worry about.

As for individual armor pieces, I honestly would be fine with them being full suits - with helm and gauntlets optional. That way they don't have to worry about clipping issues and such, and they can focus on making each set look great. Plus I imagine a set of armor should protect better than random pieces as it's all designed to fit together. I really don't think having individual gauntlets or pauldrons is important at all.

You are a brave man making such a suggestion around here.

I think I'd prefer having more armour slots just because it gives me more options in the tradeoff between wearing armour and not wearing armour. For example, I might want the protection of a cuirass, but not want the noise of boots. Or I might want the extra enchantment ability of greaves, but not the encumbrance of pauldrons + gauntlets. And so on.

How far this needs to go, I'm not sure. Do we need separate left and right pauldrons, left and right gauntlets? Or are pairs enough? I dunno. I guess I agree with the view that more customisation here the better. I'm not sure what the downside is? You suggest that it might be clipping issues. I guess I'm willing to live with that, if the upshot is more armour customisation. :shrug:

So far the developers speak of an overhauled and engaging combat system to remove the "button mashing" element of the elder scrolls series. I cannot imagine how they want to pull that off without locational damage.

If you don't need to think about where you're placing your hits then you have little choice but to button mash.

On the issue of separate pauldrons/gauntlets, I never really gave it much thought, but then something occurred to me. Let's say I'm playing a spellsword, walking around with a longsword in my right hand and casting spells with my left hand. If armor affects spell efficacy*, I might want to leave off the left pauldron and gauntlet to get 100% spell efficacy, but have a pauldron and gauntlet on the right to protect my sword arm/hand.

That would make sense to me, at least.

_____
*I'm pretty sure "spell efficacy" is not the right term, but I can't think of what it is right now. "Spell efficiency?" Is that it?

also note- having a heavy gauntlet would realistically effect punching

It would seem that the two things would go hand in hand, as the game would need to be able to detect where an attack hits and take this into account when calculating damage. While I suppose that doesn't mean location damage HAS to be in, the game just has to know the difference between an attack that hits your head or your torso, it's kind of a waste not to make each one do different damage.

But I think the bigger problem with this is that it would limit character customization, you're character would essentially be forced to wear a full suit of armor to make it worthwhile, because otherwise, you're leaving large part of you're character character vulnerable. In past games, my characters would often not wear helmets, because after I spend a long time creating the character I want to play, i don't want to render it all irrelevant by covering the character's face, but if wearing no helmet left my character's head vulnerable, that would become a terrible idea as a hit to the head would do the same damage as if I was not wearing any armor at all, in Morrowind and Oblivion, not wearing a helmet means sacrificing one enchantment slot and a bit of defense, but it's not like helmets contribute that much to the overall defense of a character anyway, now if the amout of damage done when a specific body part is hit is dependent on what armor you wear there, wearing no helmet basically translates to writing "Hit me here!" on you're head, if the game also has location damage, that's going to make you pretty vulnerable, assuming NPCs are smart enough to aim for vulnerable areas of the body. It could also make killing heavily armored enemies easy for the player if they happened to leave one part of their body unarmored, which was pretty common in past games.




Probably not an opinion that will be very well recieved here. Myself, I'd be pretty dissappointed if Bethesda did that to the Elder Scrolls.



That's actually something I've thought should be in the series, in part because it would add a way for unarmed characters to increase the effectiveness of their attacks beyond improving their skill. After all, characters who use weapons can get better weapons, characters who use magic can get better skills, it seems a little unfair that unarmed characters are left out, especially since in past games, hand to hand really wasn't able to do enough damage to properly compete with other combat skills. While the fatigue damage was useful, since it took so long to kill enemies it just didn't seem worth it.

Of course, there's also been speculation that unarmed combat will be removed, at least as a skill.

I dont know, i liked the idea of it but not if were able to have are limbs crippled, it was good in the fallout series, but i wouldnt like it in TES, though locational damage would be nice.

I want more armor pieces and slots, but I'm not sure I want locational damage.

I don't want to sacrifice a limb to have my character look cool.
I often don't use a helm, and if there are more armor pieces, there would surely be a lot of cool combinations to try out containing unarmored limbs.

If they can do that without making its characters look like ass like in Fallout3 than I am all for it but I am fine with a washed down version.......give me more slots and I think I can be happy.

I doubt they'll make spells affected by only gauntlets and pauldrons specifically on the hand(s) you cast with, but if they did then it would make sense to make them individual.

My main point is simply that if making sets allows for better looking armor, I don't mind the lack of individual piece customization. I'm not particularly opposed to individual pieces otherwise. Although I do think realistically armor sets would provide more protection/maneuverability than mix and match.

I really like the idea too, making the armor realistic would add a little more strategy to the game

I have always been a fan of locational damage and I have thought of this myself, I'm totally for this as I have been since Fo3, it just seemed stupid that even when Fo3 had locational damage, it didn't have locational armor. Fix it Bethesda, I'm counting on you!

I don't think this is right. There is more to combat tactics than just where you aim your strikes. What about timing your swings and your blocks/parries? What about using spells and potions? What about how you move?

This is not to say that locational damage wouldn't add more tactical elements - it would. But its absence doesn't necessarily mean that combat will just involve facing your character towards the enemy, and mashing the swing button.



Well, the obvious response to that is that of course you'll be more vulnerable if you don't wear armour - but that's exactly the way it should be! Or so the "realists" will argue. This would be an acceptable way to go provided that there are adequate tradeoffs for not wearing armour.

Now, I can see there being such tradeoffs for things like boots and pauldrons and cuirasses - how much noise your character makes, how fast your character runs, how fast your character swings her weapon, how much your character can carry, and so on. But the big problem, I think, is with helmets/helms. Because the big disadvantage to a helmet/helm is that it reduces your vision. But I can't see Bethesda wanting to reduce your FOV if you put a helm on - I'm sure there are people who would like this feature, but I predict (I might be wrong!) that the vast majority of Skyrim-ers would not like their FOV reducing just because they put a helmet on their character.

But if you have locational damage at all, then surely you'd want to make the head the vulnerable point. But if you've already ruled out, for other reasons, making the head a vulnerable point, then you're probably going to wonder if locational damage is worth putting in at all.

Agreed and they could probably do this I mean they do have the limb damage system from Fallout which I am sure they are going to do

Acid in my eyes. :yuck:

I expect this time there is no set number of armor slots or clothing slots but that wearing enchanted items and enchanting more protective items has its issues for warriors and thieves and that wearing alot of protective armor has issues for casters and thieves.

Maybe there are more armor slots then most characters will comfortably use and thus we will pick what we wear as we choose.