Both, as the two aren't mutually exclusive.

It serves no purpose.... which is the point.

Orcish armor shouldn't logically be useable past a certain point, because it is made of objectively worse quality materials, and thus is objectively worse at deflecting hits then better armor.

It shouldn't be able to do anything close to daedric, dragon or ebony. Just like PA should be objectively better then any other armor except vs EMP effects.

You ask what good is something when it becomes obsolete, I ask, what good are stats in an RPG when all stats give the exact same effects no matter even if you double them? The answer is they aren't good at all, stats become utterly meaningless, like the armor stat in NV did, which is fundamentally counter to RPG design. What you are advocating for is a dress-up doll simulator, and not an RPG.

Becoming obsolete doesn't negate the fact there is actual progression in the system, where as the DT armor system has no real progression in it at all.

Skyrim actually does that, on top of offering a more consistent curve for armor progression then DT does. So...... by your logic its a better game.

Also, medium armor is always a "worse of both worlds" situation, which is why it was removed in TES post-Morrowind.

It's exactly, because of all the bolded things that Lonesome Road was flat and dull.

What you just described is all the worst of MMO style game design, where crabs in a level 60 zone have 100 times more HP then crabs in a level 1 zone simply because "level 60", despite the fact a crab is a god damned crab either way, and should have the same amount of health no matter where you are.

Lonesome Road, and all the DLC for Fo3 and NV for that matter, svcked because their enemies were so terribly level scaled, and offered no logical explanation for them being better, that it just became a sore thumb of "obvious artificial difficulty".

One of the best things about Skyrim's DLC is that the newly added enemies were just a little bit stronger then the ones in the base game, following the next logical stop in the scaling system, rather then jump like 4 steps ahead like Fo3 and NV did. It made the enemies fit smoothly into the gameplay, where they felt like just another rank of enemy that should be i nthe game world, rather then the obviously jarring artificial difficulty monsters from Fo3 and Nv's DLC.

And no, almost all games do not do so, its mostly only RPgs that do that, and they have been slammed for t for ages.

What I would do:

1. Armor is locational. Example: wearing a helmet will only protect you if you are shot in the head. If you are shot anywhere else, wearing a helmet makes no difference.

2. Armor pieces have DT values and DR values for different damage types (guns, energy and explosions). If an armor piece is hit but the corresponding DT is not surpassed, then no damage is sustained by the user. If the opposite happens, the corresponding DR comes into play and determines how much damage the user will finally sustain.

3. Health doesn't scale with level. Example: the difference between a low level raider and a high level raider should be better equipment and higher skill. Health should remain about the same.

I think you may have the most horrible mindset re: video games that it's possible to have, AwesomePossum.

In what way?

Nothing I said is new, its all been stuff large numbers of people have been advocating for since the days of BG era RPGs.

Wouldn't that make the endurance stat fairly useless though?

I just don't see the poiint of an armor curve which leads to tedious slugfests as opposed to a damage curve which requires actual skill development and strategy.

Because a damage curve doesn't require that. NV's had no more need for skill development and strategy then Fo3 did.

In fact, due to how terribly broken and ineffectual DT was in NV, it objectively required less skill and strategy, because everything worked equally in all situations.

Also, as stated before, an armor curve only leads to tedious slug fests if you intentionally gimp your character by not getting the best available gear.

With the best available gear in Fallout 3, the simulation Gauss Rifle, the Fat Man, the Terrible shotgun - everything was still a slugfest because enemies became more durable rather than more deadly.

Don't know what Fallout 3 you played, but the only enemies that were hard to kill were hard to kill with the best gear were feral ghoul reavers, albino radscoprions, and super mutant overlords, and that was only because they broke the scaling system's natural progression, and were like 4 times stronger then their previous rank, and not because of anything related to DR.

Skyrim fixed that problem with its DLC enemies, which is why even Falmer Warmongers, a type added in DLC, were only slightly harder to kill then Falmer shadowmasters, the vanilla game highest rank.

You could basically one/two shot anything else in Fallout 3, even hellfire troopers, with stuff like the blackwater rifle. Everything else was just massive overkill.

Don't forget about the Mothership Zeta aliens, kings of Damage Resistance, them. Tedious as it gets. There's just nothing sensible or good about a skyrocketing dps-required curvature dictating gameplay.

Then just say Fallout is poorly balanced. There should be a molerat species that were modified to have teeth that behave like drills to counter PA. Even if you take damage from molerats while in PA, they should give up after a few attempts because they'd only end up hurting themselves and getting nowhere. That's the entire point of PA and unique armor/weapons/items. To feel like they have a special purpose. It's not all about stats. You can rack up equivalent numbers without PA. Logical realism is important, otherwise why don't we all just go play a roleplaying card game and forget the progress we've come to while approaching 2016.

than than than than than than than than than

that was, again, because they broke the natural scaling curve the base game used, and not a intrinsic problem of DR.

It is.

And getting like 80% damage resistance from PA, and becoming nearly unkillable compared to all other armors, isn't feeling special? It feels more special then in NV, where PA offers zero more protection from every weapon ranging from a 10mm pistol to the AMR, compared to something like Sierra Madre Security armor. That really ruined the supposed "power" or power armor for me.

In Fallout 3, nothing but stacking lots of +DR boosts and stuff like unique combat armor could match PA, in NV, basically everything matched PA.

DR was far more effective at making PA feel stronger then anyhting else then DT was.

The point is that ridiculously high DR just feels like magic, and it shouldn't. DT to protect against trash weaponry and creatures and low-level DR to make high-level equipment actually reduce damage is the ideal.

That's why different kinds of ammo for piercing are important. That's why enemies should play a role to be more than just a model with a texture. What's the entire point of an extensive crafting system if nothing else matters than just the stats you gain from what you build? Call me old fashioned, but I believe in materials. A wooden bat shouldn't damage PA and if so maybe less than 1%, but by that point the bat should have degraded plain and simple. That won't happen. A bat with a buzz-saw attached to the end of it should be able to damage PA somewhat for sure and last longer. That also won't happen. I'm waiting for them to get it right because it's not difficult.

People just want the highest stats while ignoring what purpose items should have in the game. You should be able to stack DR/DT and become a sponge to only things that make sense. You say they should offer some sort of challenge, but molerats are hardly a challenge and if I'm wearing an awesome PA I've pieced together, I should be able to walk over them or kill them for some EXP. Many would say that they are more annoying than anything. There's a lot more challenging enemies in the game.

I agree, and I hope they add it to Fo4.

Ammo types would do far better in a system where armor actually matters compared to NV, where ammo types were basically nothing but flavor options since armor meant nothing, and thus negating armor meant equally as nothing.

Seriously, we have no idea how simple or complex the armor system is. So far we've seen separate values for energy and guns resistance, armor getting visibly blown off of enemies, and different armor ratings for each limb. Even if it is based around DR, it's ridiculous to write off the system until we actually start gearing up and killing things ourselves.

Not to mention that Fo4 is adding cryo, incendiary, and electric, damage types too many weapons via weapon mods, instead of those being restricted to a select few items like in past games.

I feel as though the entire gaming industry has abandoned this idea.

Just more dumbing down if they remove DT.

>Replacing something that doesn't work with something that does is dumbing down.

Really? I thought making the game more complex was the opposite of dumbing down.

Side note, not just for you Creeping Damp, but for anyone who has questions, here is the mathematical facts behind DR vs DT. Kindly lifted from a 4-chan copy-pasta

*edit*

I just realized that this copy-pasta doesn't take into account the effect light and heavy armors have on stealth noise levels, which only makes the DT system even more grossly imbalanced and favorable to light armor. Whereas in a DR system it simply becomes part of the balancing tradeoff.

You really don't want to listen, do you? The point is that DR should be accompanied by DT, and heavy weapons should always do more damage. They're heavy weapons.

Why should DT be tacked on to DR?

All that would do is make the system more imbalanced, as it becomes far easier to negate more damage earlier in the game, making things increasingly easy, and increasingly negating the point of power armor by making light armor ever closer to being as good as it.

Honestly, it just seems like some people want to ignore all the RPG aspects of the game, and instead want to be able to just wear whatever they want, and have it work at all points in the game equally, regardless of how much sense that makes.

I mean, they have The Sims for stuff like that...... why make an RPG play that way?

1. To make low-level enemies irrelevant once they properly should be.

2. Only if you don't create mixed enemy groups with a wide range of damage potential to make things interesting. Assault rifles backed up by marksmen, explosives, anti-armor specialists, etc. You know, like they do in real life combat.

3. No, that is the opposite of what I want. There is nothing "role-playing" about magical damage resistance that invalidates challenge with high enough levels.

4. This is a complete sham argument.

I want the game to force me to get creative or skilled to survive, not just put stimpaks on a hotkey and maintain the supply.

My point is, who cares as long as there's a legitimate reason to use any type of armor? I mean, I take that philosophy to the extremes and believe that every piece of gear should be somehow viable in the endgame if a player invests in the right skills/perks, but you don't have to go that far to notice there's something wrong with automatic weapons and most heavy or medium armors being utterly outclassed. DT isn't essential to balance, and it wouldn't ruin the balance, either.