I agree. The proposal makes sense in a game where tactical combat is such a central feature of the game that this is much more important than other features you could add. TES games aren't that sort of game. They're about character development and unfolding stories.

The format of videogames has no "basic rules." While for many people the point is "be fun," many other people somehow fail to understand that those who suggest increased realism do so because for them it makes the game more fun. However, that's not really even relevant in this case; the current system has flaws from gameplay standpoints too. Customization, for example, is a big deal in the games, yet almost all characters wind up being shoved into glass or daedric armor because nothing else compares. Armor choices that have various stats instead of a single sliding defense scale allow for a great deal more personal choice in equipment. It also allows for dramatically more strategy, which is another important element of gameplay fun.

First, Rhekarid probably already covered all of my points, but second:
Why is something always too much? Should we not expect developers to do more? The proposed armors system (by some) is taking 1 hard armor value and making it 3 instead. Hell, weapons in Morrowind already worked off of 3 damage types (Although that itself needed work, but combined with Oblivion's combat system would work WONDERS), what is it to make armor work off of 3?

The more options we have, the easier it is to customize out characters, and the more fun we have in that aspect. As for myself, I find more realism (tasteful realism, however) to make the game more fun, because it lets me think of interesting possibilities that can only happen in a game world (where my choices don't affect myself).

Besides, I really, really don't want to end up wearing glass armor for the third game in a row.

combat is a very important mechanic in the game. so it only makes sense that the weapons and armor follow some logical system. there are three distinct skills for close combat and one for ranged and two different armor skills. so combat does make up a good chunk of the ingame skills. other games have done the pierce, blunt, slash system for years and it adds to the game in lots of little ways. for instance in kings field skeletons were extremely resistant to slash and pierce damage but weak against blunt damage. the great thing about that is that it makes complete sense. try cutting or stabbing bone some time, now try smacking it with a hammer. which one did more damage to the bone.

it also works for amor types. chain was good against slashing but weak against blunt and piercing. plate is strong against slashing and piercing (up to a point) and more resistant to blunt than chain. leather would be weak against all of them but is cheap and less noisy. the irony is that oblivion had a good start by seperating weapon types. if only they had gone that little bit further and given them different types of damage as well.

Boarderlands had a system that could be applied to this.

Basic weight, protection, and cost in a smallish display.

I agree with some points:
1) Combined armor skill, whose sole purpose is to eliminate the penalties associated with moving around in armor.
2) Rather than having armors go in a clear upward line of usefulness in all regards, create a balance among several competing factors -- price/rarity (should generally be linked), weight, movement penalty, enchantment capacity, block rate, damage threshold(s) [for different damage types], damage resistance(s) [likewise]. Skills with lower movement penalty would be less useful as armor skill increased, of course, just like lower-power spells.

That said, I would combine slashing/piercing and keep it separate from blunt. Cutting attacks would cause bleeding and piercing attacks would cause more critical hits, but both would be the same damage class and would typically be more easily blocked by armor. Blunt would cause knockback and would generally have lower damage and no criticals, but armor would do very little to block that damage. Organic armors would be much weaker against cutting attacks, but would provide more insulation against energy and blunt damage.

General damage formula would be: (Block Rate - Atttacker's Critical Rate) = chance for armor to provide any protection at all. Generally, armor that is in good condition and without weak spots will have block rates in the 80 to 100% range. Chainmail bikinis or armor that's had bits knocked off through a succession of hard battles, not so much.

If armor works, damage taken would be = Max(Base Damage - Damage Threshold [for the damage type], 0) * Damage Resistance [for the damage type].
Armor condition would be lowered as well, in such a case. The reduction to armor HP would be = Min(Base Damage, Damage Threshold) * (1 - Damage Resistance).

I don't know why some people think that a better armor system detracts from the game.

The idea with the anti-penalty armor skill sounds great! With such a system a full suit of heavy armor is a bad option for most people. Still it is a good option for a trained and skilled warrior character. Just two things that I hope won't be included in such a system if it is used: Improving armor protection, because that just doesn't make sense and removing all penalties at mastery, there should still be a reason to use lighter armor, it shouldn't become totally useless.

I like the idea of replacing the armour skills with a single skill, perhaps called Manouvere, that just offsets armour penalties.
If specialisations were kept (which I'd prefer not) it would be a combat skill. Only toe-to-toe fighter occupations like Guards, Knights, Crusaders, Warriors, perhaps Barbarians and Spellswords would start with it. Some warriors like Archers and Scouts wouldn't start with it, and almost all non-warrior occupations wouldn't start with it, but of course it could be learnt.

Armour should give penalties to speed, agility, fatigue, athletics (especially swimming), acrobatics and sneak ranging from fairly hefty for say full plate to minor for stuff like leather and fur. With improved manouvere some penalties especially fatigue and agility would be reduced greatly but sprinting, swimming, acrobatics, sneaking etc should always be harder in heavier armours.

I also like the idea of different damage types for different weapons and different armours having different ratings against them. In PnP this could be a pain as it meant extra work for the referee but in a CRPG we've got a computer to do the bookkeeping for us, lets use it. It isn't a lot for the player to remember, all they need know is the basic principles - eg warhammers great vs. plate.


edit: The ideal for me would be to give players reasons to use different armours as appropriate. It should make sense to wear leather or fur when hunting, not wear full plate when travelling, not walk around town in full armour with a strung bow and a drawn sword etc.

Sounds great!

Most of that is pretty close to what I've been pushing for.

I could see going with 2 rather than three damage types: sharp and blunt. Most weapons could do a combination of the two, but hammers would basically be all Blunt damage, while daggers and rapiers would be sharp. Heavier swords and axes should be a balance. I don't particularly see a need to distinguish slashing from piercing damage in 95% of the cases, so it's probably not worth the programming effort or the extra confusion for the casual player.

Having various forms of armor that are equally vaiable, but for different purposes, beats the mindless linear progression of "worse to better" that we got in OB, and in MW to a lesser extent.

But distingishing between piercing and cutting damage is important in armor resistance, mail for example does protect very little against blunt damage, but cutting trough it with a sword is very difficult, piercing it with a spear is a much better option. (Rounded) plate armor protects well against piercing and cutting, but can be destroyed with a heavy blunt weapon.

I disagree that there are no "basic rules" to video games. There are plenty of conventions that we not merely readily accept in video games but that we actually expect. Hit-points of some sort, for example. They make zero sense from a real-world perspective but they allow for a recognized mechanic when we play the game.

But this really hits to an important point: does increased realism equate to increased enjoyment? I am skeptical of that thesis.

As for expectations from developers, we have to remember that games (even very large ones) do have a fixed budget, a finite team-size, and a schedule. While not strictly zero-sum, increased effort in one area does correlate to decreased effort in others. So when thinking about any feature we'd like to see implemented, we have to ask ourselves, "Is the juice worth the squeeze?" Is the silly armor system present in any of the TES games, and indeed most PC-style RPGs, a big enough problem that it needs to be revamped in a substantial way? I'm not unconvinced that it represents such a facet.

As for being pushed towards glass or daedric, I do wish there was more of a trade-off between different armors. But the level-up system is pretty familiar, so I can't really complain. Plus, it isn't like your character doesn't quickly out-pace the environment. So, aside from raw power-gaming there is no reason why you need to follow the level-up system of the armor. For example, I think bonemold armor looks freakin' sweet. Because of that, my characters in Morrowind tend to continue to wear bonemold armor well after I've found better alternatives. I tend to choose my armor based on aesthetics anyway. In Morrowind, bonemold features heavily. In Oblivion, I love the look of the daedric armor. We'll see what happens in the next installment.

1 factor to remember is that metal armours were usually worn with some type of cloth or leather padding. This was standard enough for me to feel it should be assumed so chain would still provide some protection against blunt and piercing, if only equal to leather or cloth.

On the other hand I don't like the idea of characters being allowed to wear multiple layers of armour except when they were designed for it. A chain coif was designed to be worn beneath a helm, no problem, but you couldn't wear any old chain shirt beneath any brestplate.

I have to disagree with that there are rules for how things are in video-games. Hit points are not used because they are familiar, but because it's really difficult to make a realistic damage system. Hit poits are no complicated and easy to read. Of course a realistic damage system would be great, but it's difficult to make and can be frustrating to play with(imagine getting chopped in the leg and being unable to run for a long time.) I don't think the armor system is the same thing, it's not that different from the one that is used now.

Of course it doesn't equate to more enjoyment. In the form of suggestions, however, many people don't seem to realize that nobody would suggest any given piece of realism if they didn't think it would improve the game. There's a large contingent of people who embrace the equally ridiculous thesis of "realism = reduced fun", going as far as to counter arguments by actually saying "no, because it's not fun" as if the other person were literally hoping for a boring game. Which is why I made a point of mentioning the gameplay factors as well.

It doesn't seem like a lot of juice to squeeze, to me. Such an armor system wouldn't require additional models, or a new graphics engine, or complex animations, or a tedious mountain of programming, or anything like that. Being just a set of number values, it would be almost entirely a matter of balancing, and it's hard to judge the effort and resource requirements involved.

other games already have incorporated the slash, pierce, blunt system and it works nicely. realism can certainly be overdone. but thats mostly a personal perspective. the sims is a game about going to work, cleaning your house, buying new things, meeting people, having kids, trying to get two chicks to sleep with eachother etc. :huh: seriously........your playing a game about....life. i personally dont get it but its one of the most popular games ever.

realism does not necessarily mean less fun. by that logic we should get rid of armor.........i mean really its a silly idea which wastes your money and since its a video game and we can make up anything will want will just say that your skin grows thicker as you character reaches higher levels. its completely unrealistic but this way you can wear whatever clothes you want in game. if you show up at a fight with shorts and a tanktop on, it doesnt matter cause your skin protects you.

as for hitpoints.......i hate the concept. in all the games that i can i try and make hitpoints static and equal among all npcs and the player character. it never gets any bigger. that way only your gear and skills with that gear make a difference. just like in real life. it sure makes the game alot more fun too.

one game that seriously should have had multiple damage types was fallout 3. they had it in the first fallout games if i recall but for some weird reason they took it out. you could kill someone in a power suit with a pistol. those rounds should bounce off of that suit like my pick up lines at a bar. that really detracted from the game in a big way. one of the best weapons in the game was an old hunting rifle........seriously. you could take out BoS in one shot with that thing. adding realism, adding multiple damage types would have fixed that. power armor should have resisted low to medium level kinetic damage, but vulnerable to energy damage or explosives or high level kinetic weapons like armor piercing 50 calibre rounds or something.

in oblivion terms that would mean that if you want to take on a warrior wearing full plate armor you had better have a weapon that does piercing or blunt damage or your not going to even scratch him. so a scimitar would be useless but a longsword would work (since you can thrust with them) also spears, halberds, axes and maces. later models of full plate where pretty much impervious to everything except for halberds, and weapons with crushing power like heavy axes, morning stars, flails etc. hell they were even bullet proof.

Do the devs check anywhere outside the suggestion thread, if anyone knows?

Yep the armor system is a bit strange, and there should also be more armor to choose between, not just one thing that is always the best.
Perhaps they should just have one skill for armors, and add medium armors too and more diffrences between light, medium and heavy armor so you could choose more freely if you want to change playingstyle, without having to rely on the heavy and light armor skills. I would also like to see the unarmored skill again.

What i also missed in Oblivion is a better choice of not using armor, as a spellcaster. There should be some more bonus effects of not using armor so that it becomes a realistic alternative for spellcaster and thiefs etc. who dont want to use armor and still be able to survive. Could be a small health and mana regen or some bonus to attacks, or a passive 'dodge/avoid' skill that makes some attacks at you miss.

I agree with the separation of slash, blunt, and pierce. It would be nice for different types of damage so that I can outfit my character accordingly. I don't mind fantasy materials being the strongest materials in the game, however I would like to see the ones that do appear IRL to have their corresponding strengths (copper, iron, steel, etc.).

However, I think there is something that should be brought up. Say you get into a fight with a very high level guy with a giant warhammer, and you are wearing light armor. This essentially means one smack and you're dead. This I'm fine with, but I would like to see an extra way to avoid this, in the form of a dodge. For shields, I would like to see the ability to shield slam your opponent. And someone punching you with a steel encased fist should do more damage than one wrapped in linen. And the corresponding skills (light armor, heavy armor, block) would determine the effectiveness of these extra abilities. Lastly, while a leather helmet would do very little to mitigate the damage of a warhammer to the skull, a heavily armored head could survive, but get a blurry, sort of concussion sensation. I think these could be implemented without taking realism too far and add more depth to the armor system overall.

Someone mentioned that armor often indicated a person's social status. This is true, and it would be great if people acknowledged you when you wore very expensive armor, based on the fame and infamy of your character, and gave you discounts, special information, etc., based on that as well (to give infamy and fame some use). And when you obtain artifacts like Goldbrand, people recognize them and are amazed by the sight.

I agree that in real life full-plate was a sign of status and cost quite a bit. Understandably you might expect that it should then cost quite a bit, but this does not necessarily apply to a fantasy setting, especially TES. As someone else pointed out, in the past material was the main expense of goods, not labor. However, this is not the case today, with technology as it is. However, with a fantasy setting the world has access to magical means of producing various products, in effect replacing technology at least to a degree. This drives up labor, and down material acquisition. Then you have to take into account that better alternatives DO exist to steel full=plate in TES, where as they didn't in real life. This would drive down demand for steel full-plate because almost all of the magical materials are better. Since the demand for iron armor goes down, there's excess supply, excess supply means cheaper prices. So steel should be cheap, not because it was the TES equivalent of steel armor from real life, but because it was not. In real life steel was the most beneficial substance to make armor out of. In TES it isn't so the same cost does not apply in the least.

I disagree withe second paragraph, at least in part. Having an armor skill makes a lot of sense, in real life there were all sorts of armor masters, it was a discipline that Samurai often worked into. It was more than just trying to move out of the way. The idea was to learn how the armor takes the impact and how to learn to stand against a blow and move with it in order to provide the maximum protection to yourself, while preventing the most damage possible to the armor itself. It was quite a difficult discipline, and since you had to get hit to learn you could imagine few people survived to master it. So I'd have to disagree, because there is training/discipline component to armor mastery.

All this being said, I'm not sure I have a problem with changing the armor system or leaving it the same. I don't mind change but since I don't have a problem with it as is, I'd probably stick to a more "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach. However, I would like to see armor slots and enchantment abilities more like those found in Morrowind. I don't like how they made gauntlets a single item, combined "greaves" with the cuirass, and combined pauldrons into one item attached to the cuirass. In Morrowind I often liked the Aethestics of off-balanced armor. Plus enchantment in Oblivion was not worth it unless you used sigil stones, because there was no customization to effects and enchantments were too weak when non-sigil enchanted.

I would like to be shown this. Are there historic training manuals?

I'm not saying I didn't add my own commentary and embelish a little. However, yeah it was a training discipline, Miyamoto Musashi's, japan's most renowned and celebrated samurai of all time, father was one specific individual who was well reputed for his mastery of heavy armor. I'll try to find you a link or a page, but you'll have to give me a few minutes or so, so just bare with me.

I can't filter through all the search results which are actually related to gaming. However I know one recent documentary about Musashi where they briefly mention armor mastery and training was in "Samurai" on the history channel with Mark Dacascos. However, that is one such source I can note. There is more to wearing armor than just putting it on like clothes though.

Instead of guessing what TES economy is like, you should ask yourself if you know that. I would price steel at its availability, because it has more uses than armor. And because there are many fantasy materials in TES it is not the best material, but does that make it cheaper? Does the fact that the nobility can afford ebony armor make steel armor cheap enough that every peasant can buy one? In the late middle ages, mail became more expensive than plate armor because it required more labor to make. So it makes sense and armor price should be balanced after TES's economy(which only the devs know/can make up), but that does not justify the rest of the unbalanced prices. It would make more sense to make those better armor types more expensive than to make everything cheaper.

On the armor skill, if you look at it that way, right. You have a point, I don't see anything wrong with an armor skill as long as it isn't divided between light, heavy and medium, but is just a general armor skill instead. But that wasn't my point, it was about the division between heavy and light armor being stupid. A better armor skill still does still not add so much to defense as it does in TES, though. An improvement with the armor skill would be something like a suggestion on the previous page and I'm almost falling asleep :snoring: .

In the middle ages labor was cheap. Armor cost so much because steel was hard to procure, because of low supply and high demand. It was mostly from the cost of material that armor was so expensive, because so much metal was needed. If in the middle ages armor was more easy to provide (via magic) and people didn't want it as much (Ebony and Glass are better) then in the middle ages STEEL armor would've been cheaper. However, daedric, ebony, and glass armor would cost a LOT because people would want them so much.

I'm not postulating about the Elderscroll's economy, I'm noting on the economy of the middle ages and how the availability of armor material alternatives present would likely have driven down the cost of STEEL armor. The reason the devs have the value of armor set at what it is, is a decision entirely all their own to make. I'm just providing a reasonable explanation.

Additionally, there's no reason that armor shouldn't be within the price range of a peasant. Most peasants in TES could probably afford a suit of 150 gold armor, but that would be like a person now a day buying a suit of armor about. Considering the cost of other in game items it'd be worth about two-four weeks of food, just like a suit of shoddy armor might cost online in real life, yet how many people do you know who own a suit of armor? Most people would rather eat.