Armor -- Next Wipe

[fulloflife]

the awkwardness comes from your default rule ignoring missing slots for modifier calculations.
 
If you count missing slots as wearing the worst armor for modifier purposes, then we don't have this problem.

So to obtain the 3x multiplier, you need to wear all 8 or 9 heavy pieces.

so now maybe we can debate what the default rule for missing slots should be

[Dyl]

Is there a circumstance in which wearing a loincloth would be beneficial?

[enochvey]

Is there a circumstance in which wearing a loincloth would be beneficial?

Yes, if you roll a barb and accompany that loincloth with the best available 2handed weapon in the game, as well as a dwarven stein. Automatically gives best armor protection in the game!

[gnua]

the awkwardness comes from your default rule ignoring missing slots for modifier calculations.
If you count missing slots as wearing the worst armor for modifier purposes, then we don't have this problem.

That would still accomplish the original goal of having tankier classes reject armor from lower tiers and yet avoid the counterintuitive putting something on that actually hindered defense.

[Nasredin]

I might be missing here, but it seems like you have just reworded what Aristox and I have already posted.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you and Aristox posted, but here is briefly how I got it:

Arixtox:
If a warrior wears 7 pieces of heavy metal armor and adds one more piece of light leather armor (not a +con, not a +dam, just some light protection), the total protection of the warrior becomes worse, not slightly better.

Q:
But that is completely counter-intuitive and contrary to common sense?

A:
Yes, but we don't care about common sense neither about looking for an alternative design to achieve the same goals while being more inline with human logic.

------------------

Now, from my experience, such problems often result from skipping the steps in the common (software) development cycle. Just 'having requirements in my head' is not enough, once you write it down, you suddenly notice that certain parts are missing and some others contradict one another.

HLV, High Level Vision (goals) ->
Functional Spec (Rules and Constraints) ->
Requirements Spec (detailed check-list to be used against any suggested design) ->
Design (suggested Design and Architecture) ->
Technical Project (detailed description of the suggested implementation) ->
etc. etc.

If you jump directly from HLV to Design, chances are some of the requirements are neglected. In that case, it is important to come back and explicitely write down the list of requirements.

You are basically just rehashing things that have already been discussed and posted.

That's exactly what I do. Rehashing things in an orderly manner is often the difference between a successfull, well organized project and a chaotic, failed one.
 

[reed23]

Maybe the immortals are thinking like the Achilles Heel mentality.  If you have 7 nice armor pieces, but your arm only has a cloth on it, then a good opponent would just cut your arm off, therefore, making your 7 pieces of good armor worthless.  That's my best shot at it.

[Hoss]

Thank you for the software development lifecycle 101 from your 1989 college textbook. It didn't add anything to the discussion but at least you listed out 2 points you wanted addressed. Btw, I will need your sign off on that new TPS report by COB. We know that by using human logic that when a player wearing 7 plate items adds a leather item the overall affect on armor rating should be positive. I don't think anyone is argueing against that point. Wearing something to cover up your nipples in combat should be better than having them flapping in the wind. In whatever real life scenario this is, that would be the case and it would be intuitive. I mean more armor is always better right? RIGHT? In our armor design there were 2 main driving factors that lead us here. We did not want want to design equipment with every possible scenario covered, because we cannot cover them all and it would only be a matter of time until someone found out that if a paladin wears the leather armor they can triple oblit and tank like a pro. We want players wearing gear that is designed for their class and not "stealing" it from others use. When the paladin wears leather, some poor thief isn't going to tank as well. Equipment in lube is going to bring around a lot more options for players, armor rating is only one of them. We understand that wearing nothing in a slot will give better overall armor rating than wearing a lesser something. We are okay with that as the price you pay for that choice. Missing slots will not be counted toward the overall armor rating.

[gnua]

We understand that wearing nothing in a slot will give better overall armor rating than wearing a lesser something. We are okay with that as the price you pay for that choice.

If wearing nothing were to count as wearing cloth in that slot, how would that take away from your goal of classes staying within their own tier of gear? As far as I can tell, fulloflife's suggestion fits your requirements and remains intuitive.

[Aristox]

If wearing nothing were to count as wearing cloth in that slot, how would that take away from your goal of classes staying within their own tier of gear? As far as I can tell, fulloflife's suggestion fits your requirements and remains intuitive.

The reason for not counting an empty slot as cloth is gameplay specific.

We are trying to fight a few situations:

1. Tank has his helmet decay mid fight and goes from absorbing 50% of melee damage to 0%.  Pretty crappy situation for all involved.
2. Newbie being required to assemble a full set of equipment before they see any bonus from armor.
3. Tank dies with no CR (or is looted) and has to go be a damage-doer for a while until they can reassemble a full set of gear. Assuming the player loves tanking and doesn't want to be a damage doer.

Those are the major reasons for the decision to not count an empty slot against your multiplier.  We want the game to be playable, even if we have to do something unintuitive every now and then.

This decision just makes life easier for everyone in the long run.

[gulca]

Just want a clarification, the armor rating is going to show up in score with this new change right?

I don't see a problem if that is the case. If I am a newbie, I wear a piece of eq, check my Armor in my score, and see if it goes up or down. Sooner or later, I'll find a good combination that gives me max Armor based on the items available to me. (It's a perk rummaging loots and wearing them to see if something is better, something I loved in the original Diablo.)

If I really want to know how the mechanics work, then hopefully the "help armor" will explain the intricate details.

Now, if my Armor is a hidden stat like the current system, it will just cause a lot of confusion. I don't even want to think of how you would test the effectiveness of the hidden Armor values.

[Hoss]

Just want a clarification, the armor rating is going to show up in score with this new change right?

Yes, we are hoping to show the raw armor amount as well as the reduction percentage to players. You will be able to see how that new codpiece affects your overall tanking ability.

[corey]

How is the decay / item destruction going to be handled in this new system?

I'm assuming the decay system will remain pretty similar to today's, but will item destruction / durability on being hit be affected by its armour type?

[gulca]

I re-read the first post, and it seems to imply 60% (or whatever you have) damage reduction is a fix multiplier.

It would make more sense if it is "up to 60%" on each blow taken, and scaled to the level of char.

For example,
A ogre smash a full-plate paladin for 80 dam.
Full-plate paladin gets damage of 80*(1 - 0.60) = 32 dam. (Always as proposed)

In my version, it would be 80 * (1 - Armor_reduction) * (1d70 + level) / 100.
Armor reduced range for different char levels:
a. level 1 : 80 * (1 - 0.60) * (1+1)/100 and 80*(1 - 0.60) * (70 + 1)/100
    ie 0.6 to 22.72
b. level 30:  80 * (1 - 0.60) * (1+30)/100 and 80*(1 - 0.60) * (70 + 30)/100
    ie 9.92 to 32

So, even if you are armed to the teeth, you might get hurt more in certain rounds, and being higher levels give you advantage as far as damage reduction is concern.

 

[Aristox]

How is the decay / item destruction going to be handled in this new system?

I'm assuming the decay system will remain pretty similar to today's, but will item destruction / durability on being hit be affected by its armour type?

There will be a post later about both.

But, don't expect too many changes to decay. Durability and frag are changing quite a bit though.

[fulloflife]

I re-read the first post, and it seems to imply 60% (or whatever you have) damage reduction is a fix multiplier.

It would make more sense if it is "up to 60%" on each blow taken, and scaled to the level of char.

For example,
A ogre smash a full-plate paladin for 80 dam.
Full-plate paladin gets damage of 80*(1 - 0.60) = 32 dam. (Always as proposed)

In my version, it would be 80 * (1 - Armor_reduction) * (1d70 + level) / 100.
Armor reduced range for different char levels:
a. level 1 : 80 * (1 - 0.60) * (1+1)/100 and 80*(1 - 0.60) * (70 + 1)/100
    ie 0.6 to 22.72
b. level 30:  80 * (1 - 0.60) * (1+30)/100 and 80*(1 - 0.60) * (70 + 30)/100
    ie 9.92 to 32

So, even if you are armed to the teeth, you might get hurt more in certain rounds, and being higher levels give you advantage as far as damage reduction is concern.

the damage is already stochastic already. If you want more variation , just increase in the variance in the attack dmg. no need to tweak a new parameter