Arctic Mud

NEWS => Development News => Topic started by: Aristox on February 26, 2014, 08:45:04 AM

Title: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Aristox on February 26, 2014, 08:45:04 AM
The Goal

Make armor provide a real benefit.  Make that benefit obvious to players.

This should provide choices in equipment.  If you have a +12 con/30 armor item and then you find a +6 con/60 armor item, the difference should be somewhat obvious.


Armor broken down into 4 classes

None: 
-Cloth armor.
-It provides no protection from physical attacks.
-Mages will wear this this level of armor.
-There will probably be magical physical attack protection that mages can use, but it will not be from the equipment they wear.
-Armor multiplier: 0

Light: 
-Leather and Natural armors, some scale.
-Provides minimal protection from physical attacks.
-Druids, Shamans and Thieves will wear this level of armor.
-Armor multiplier: 1

Medium:
-Scale and higher end leather, some metal.
-Provides good protection from physical attacks.
-Clerics, Rangers and Barbarians will wear this level of armor.
-Armor multiplier: 2

Heavy:
-High end Scale and Metal armor.
-Provides excellent protection from physical attacks.
-Warriors, Paladins and Dark Knights will wear this level of armor.
-Armor multiplier: 3

** The guilds listed above may change.
** The armor multipliers above may change.

Your armor class is decided by the weakest armor you are wearing.  So if you have 4 pieces of armor on, 1 light and 3 heavy, you are considered to be wearing light armor for all calculations.  This is done to make choosing to use weaker armor for the stats have a downside, so warriors don't wear a lot of light or medium armor.  It is still possible for them to do it, but they are making a sacrifice.


Armor values range from 0 to 100 per armor-item

The higher the armor value, the more protection it provides (duh). 


8 total armor locations

Body,
Head,
Legs,
Feet,
Hands,
Arms,
Shield,
Waist

** Subject to change.


Examples

So with 8 slots, 100 max per slot, the top armor for each armor class is...

None: 8 slots * 100 armor each * 0 multiplier = 0
Light: 8 slots * 100 armor each * 1 multiplier = 800
Medium: 8 slots * 100 armor each * 2 multiplier = 1600
Heavy : 8 slots * 100 armor each * 3 multiplier = 2400


Each point of armor translate into physical resistance

We are using total armor to reduce the damage taken from physical sources (weapon swings, most skills, some specs, other stuff).

The cap we are placing on physical resistance gained from equipment is 60% (subject to change).  The 60% resistance value will only be reachable by heavy armor wearers, thus the resistance cap by armor class is..

None: 0%
Light: 20%
Medium: 40%
Heavy 60%

This breaks down to 0.025% resistance per point of armor.  All these numbers may change later, we are working from this as a starting point.

There are plans to add spells and skills to increase physical resistance for short periods of time, but the total will never go over 80% resistance.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: btown on February 26, 2014, 09:34:57 AM
Good job.  Definitely will add to the game.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Dyl on February 26, 2014, 10:59:02 AM
Rangers should be light or be taking heavy penalties to sneak/hide assuming they still have that mechanic
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: gulca on February 26, 2014, 12:17:26 PM
Solid foundation. I hope there are added layers of complexity later.

Some skills or abilities should be tied to Armor type you are wearing.

Dyl mentioned the obvious: hide/sneak.

For other examples,
Parry should have bonus on light armor, penalty on heavy armor. Shield block the opposite. Dodge would be similar to parry.

As for zone creators, to negate the innate penalties, they could add "bonus" to the heavy armors to compensate.

Tie-in to saving throws would also be welcome. A tightly clad knight should have extra bonus against dragon breathe for example.

Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Jorquin on February 26, 2014, 01:43:20 PM
only problem with armor tying into save vs breath is in some circumstances it would seem silly

i'd wager the guy in cloth would probably be better off against a blue dragon's lightning breath than the guy in full conductive steel platemail, where as against heat you'd probably think the opposite.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Nostramazos on February 26, 2014, 01:50:55 PM

 Good stuff,

 I think to add another element is to give something extra to 1 armor equipment, the shield. Maybe a skill that you can hide behind the shield (i.e fortress) can give you extra armor and/or protection from breath attacks or other spell damage related attacks (hiding behind the shield while the dragon breathes fire. I have seen it done in movies, it is true). Shields should become very important bits of equipment more so than body armor etc and helmets which are only good when skateboarding.

Nostramazos
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: fulloflife on February 26, 2014, 02:22:46 PM
what if you have an empty slot? Does that mean you have no multiplier?
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Aristox on February 26, 2014, 02:27:37 PM
what if you have an empty slot? Does that mean you have no multiplier?

No. It only counts armor slots that have gear when figuring out the multiplier.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: snax on February 26, 2014, 02:31:09 PM
cloth armor could be given some level of bonus... like .25 maybe?  that way the classes who are in the light leather tier could have an extra decision to make when choosing their gear?

that way makes it a tougher decision for thieves/druids?
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Dyl on February 26, 2014, 03:13:04 PM
Any thoughts of improving shields, or perhaps turning wrist worn shields (bucklers) into something worthwhile?  Making it a serious debate whether to choose to wield 1 weapon/shield vs dual wielding even if not bashing.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: gulca on February 26, 2014, 03:39:49 PM
Don't know if we are going off the tangent, but shield is an interesting discussion by itself.

Shield bonus recommended by Maza lord is good idea. Limit that to whether the wearer is "free" or not. Disabled char should not have this shield bonus. Bonus from armor should always be there regardless if disabled or not.

Restricting classes from wearing certain armor category might not be a good idea. Let them wear it, and lower their abilities as a penalty. But let them gain the bonuses from wearing heavy armors. Sometimes defense is the best offense.

Imagine a mage donning a heavy full platemail entering a frag fest room hiding behind a huge shield. He get bonus in surviving the frags, but cannot cast spells cos of armor. When the dust settles a bit, he remove the heavy armors, drops the shield and work his magic in retaliation.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: fulloflife on February 26, 2014, 06:02:41 PM
what if you have an empty slot? Does that mean you have no multiplier?

No. It only counts armor slots that have gear when figuring out the multiplier.

OK but if this happens then someone who wears less armor can potentially have higher armor, which is a bit awkward.

e.g. I have 4 heavy pieces, 5 empty slots- so I have 3x multiplier. But if i wear an additional non-heavy piece, I just screwed myself

Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: gulca on February 26, 2014, 06:41:30 PM
@fulloflife

Interesting observation. There is good and bad.

Good thing is we will have gears for different categories of armors. That is, DK set will mostly consist of heavy armors and they are unlikely to hog other armor categories. But if they really need that +stat or +buff from a lower piece of armor, then they will take that Armor multiplier hit. So you might have a lot of empty slots or fill those slots with shop heavy armors.

As for the bad, obviously that is not realistic. Padding on extra piece of something should always increase what you have currently unless they are curse items. I'm sure having individual armor multiplier adding to the total isn't a big change to the coding. There is probably a reason to put a global multiplier bonus as a function of the lowest worn armor.

Either way, as long as the rules are laid out clearly to the players, things look solid.

Or put the following rule:
Multiplier bonus for any categories are only valid when you have the following slots filled with same category armor
1. Body, hand, arm, leg, foot
Else if, you don't have the same category on the 5 slots, then the lowest category takes effect.
Else you don't have all 5 slots filled, multiplier is reset to 1.

So if you wear lower armor types in other slots, you don't get hit with penalty on your multiplier.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Anthony on February 26, 2014, 07:12:15 PM
Guess you won't see a lot of warriors rolling around with those light armor, high limit +dam/+hr gloves anymore.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Tajs on March 01, 2014, 02:32:54 AM
You touch very lightly on the effect on spells on armor, but I'd curious as to what kind of armor class bonus steelskin, stoneskin (would that be changed from bruising melee to extra armor points?) and globe/minor globe - can you elaborate on this?

Also, I think 80% cap is too high tbh, I know it's the very max but it *will* be attained, why was this number picked?.
Max cap at 50-60 would seem fine for me, having seen steelskinned, ghostdancing barbs with cyan armor...

Also it was interesting to see that warrior/dks/pala get much high armor than barbs, who's the traditional main tank these days.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: kanu on March 01, 2014, 02:55:03 AM
Is it too complicated to pro-rate armor based on different weights assigned to each location, rather than penalize someone completely for one spot where they are not wearing armor? I'm imagining the situation where someone has just had a slot decay, and consequently is actually naked in that one spot. According to armor as it is currently framed, that person would have their AC calculated by their remaining pieces, but then if they add armor to that spot, they'd have their overall armor value drop... which is very counterintuitive.

On the other hand, making armor more important seems really interesting to me. I can imagine that people will want to carry around a spare set of equivalent armor. Maybe we will need horses, and external carrying bags or something? :)
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Aristox on March 01, 2014, 08:45:27 AM
You touch very lightly on the effect on spells on armor, but I'd curious as to what kind of armor class bonus steelskin, stoneskin (would that be changed from bruising melee to extra armor points?) and globe/minor globe - can you elaborate on this?

Nope. We haven't gotten there yet. You are asking me what color the tile is going to be when I am still working on getting the plumbing in.  Which is to say, I have an idea what those spells will do (if they still exist, which isn't a certainty), but that may change 4 times between now and when they are implemented.

Quote from: Tajs
Also, I think 80% cap is too high tbh, I know it's the very max but it *will* be attained, why was this number picked?.
Max cap at 50-60 would seem fine for me, having seen steelskinned, ghostdancing barbs with cyan armor...

No one will be 80% all the time. It will only be attainable for very very short time periods (rounds, not ticks) when a skill or spell is active.  You won't be buying a rank bonus that gives +20% armor.

Quote from: Tajs
Also it was interesting to see that warrior/dks/pala get much high armor than barbs, who's the traditional main tank these days.

Barbs will still be tanks in the new system, they will just not be the only tank worth having.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Kragg on March 01, 2014, 12:58:57 PM
Here are my rambling thoughts on a few aspects of armor you may wish to consider:  There are 5 aspects to this multiplier that I wish to discuss:

1) How it affects being hit.  The higher the multiplier, the more likely the defender would be unable to dodge or miss incoming attacks.  (hard to avoid hits when you are in a tin can).
2) How it affects the hit being absorbed.  Not just in % of damage but in absorbing it all together (as it occurs now).  Higher multiplier means higher rate of full absorbtion chance.
3) I think the multiplier needs to be additive according to armor part (ie 35% body, 15% head, 15% hands, 10% legs etc) so that one piece doesn't set the multiplier.
4) The damage of the weapons the defender gets hit by could be affected by the defender's multiplier.  In the middle ages, bludgeons were best against the heaviest armors that blades couldn't pierce while bladed weapons work far better against lighter armors.  I don't know if all this is a good idea or just too complicated.  Probably too complicated.
5) 80% max would be too high.  66% would be my thought as an absolute max.

Great changes with lots of devils in the details.  But great changes.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: enochvey on March 01, 2014, 02:20:01 PM

Barbs will still be tanks in the new system, they will just not be the only tank worth having.

I like the idea of multiple classes being able to tank as spamming ghost dance is great, but can get old... but I'm concerned about how the balancing will play out with one of the intended tank classes not being able to wear the best class of armor.

Do the developers intend to keep dmg reduction potential equal across the board at different levels, quality of gear, ranks etc. or is there going to be a noticable discrepancy between what is a "viable" and what is the "best" tank class(es) regardless of gear/ranks/etc.

I'm asking because I've seen the "multiple tank classes" idea play out miserably in other games before and a lot of it had to do with the poor relationship between class skills/abilities and the available gear for some of the classes (think paladin tanking in WoW during the burning crusade expansion pre-mt hyjal..)

I'm hoping the relationship between class/gear for tanking classes doesn't take the same direction here.


Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: fulloflife on March 01, 2014, 02:55:18 PM
this is one of like 10 major changes. It's basically impossible to evaluate the nuances since the whole system needs to be balanced.

I support the goal of making the effects of armor being more transparent\useful. As others say, the devils are in the details and everything else that is changing.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Hoss on March 01, 2014, 03:08:48 PM
I can see a common thread in this discussion forming around wearing a lower piece of armor and having it lower your modifier. I want to dive into more detail on why we went in this direction.

It is all about choice. In the game today, armor doesn't really mean a whole lot. It has some bonuses but it isn't a major system in regards to tanking ability. Moving forward, armor will be a major system used for mitigating incoming damage. We want players to have choices, and some of those choices have consequences. Sure wearing that leather chest piece gives you some damage, but it really had a larger impact to your ability to tank. Players that want to focus more on being the best tank in the game would probably skip the leather plate and wear something a lot more durable. It is that simple. You will have the choice of using a piece of gear that is not designed for tanking (which we have none of currently) over a piece that is designed for damage output or something else. The choice is yours.


@enochvey We aren't going to discuss class design with you all yet, but rest assured any tank class will have mechanisms in place to be very effective at tanking, and again tanking will become about choice. Which tank style fits your play style... Damage reduction through armor will not be equal for every tanking class, but the overall "time to die" will be fairly consistent.

I do understand that in other games (I am assuming you are talking WOW) did a poor job at balancing multiple tanking classes. The good part is, we aren't WOW and we are completely willing and able to modify whatever is needed to make sure we have a good balance. I think Arctic Mud has a lot better dynamics for allowing balance to occur than most MMO's today.

@Kragg:
   1. No, armor will not affect being hit at all. Armor is about mitigation after a hit is received.
   2. Also no. This would give a huge advantage to heavy armor types and full absorbs will likely not happen..like ever.
   3. Why? We started down that road in our initial design phase and realized that it just became overly complex for the sake of being complex.
       We want armor and armor rating to be a really simple mechanic to understand.
   4. See above, complex for the sake of being complex <> fun
   5. Max damage reduction is going to be a moving target. It may get adjusted up or down until a sweet spot it obtained.
       Don't get hung up on the numbers too much they are all fluid and designed that way for a reason.
   
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: enochvey on March 01, 2014, 04:59:08 PM
Damage reduction through armor will not be equal for every tanking class, but the overall "time to die" will be fairly consistent.


Overall time to die sums up my concerns perfectly. Thanks for the response :)
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Gnua on March 02, 2014, 12:28:53 AM
According to armor as it is currently framed, that person would have their AC calculated by their remaining pieces, but then if they add armor to that spot, they'd have their overall armor value drop... which is very counterintuitive.

yeah, putting on a cloth belt pack resulting in the same effect as stripping naked sounds counterintuitive to me too. though I could see a lower class of armor providing neither additional armor nor buffs. (i.e. +sneak, +dex leather gear ceasing to have any benefit once you don some scale or plate sounds more intuitive)
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Jarrad on March 02, 2014, 12:35:13 PM
It looks like all equipment will be revamped for the next wipe so I wouldn't get hung up on the issue of lower piece dragging down your rating. I am assuming that the staff will be balancing the majority of items in a certain direction so everything except the few lim 1/2 items of heavy armor will be statted towards tanking, while damaging statted gear will be mainly in the medium to light tier etc

Definitely interesting to see some splitting up of physical damage resistance vs magic damage resistance. Looks like an exciting new phase is coming to arctic. Cant wait to see some info on class revamps!!!
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Chisul on March 02, 2014, 09:55:27 PM
This feels kinda like FFXII armor mechanic with heavy armor vs light armor vs mystic armor. I really like swapping out armor to tailor for the area or fight knowing I can't have it all. If I want better damage, what am I willing to sacrifice for it?

Pretty cool idea to make me more selective with the armor I choose to use.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Nasredin on March 04, 2014, 06:44:56 AM
I can see a common thread in this discussion forming around wearing a lower piece of armor and having it lower your modifier. I want to dive into more detail on why we went in this direction.

It is all about choice. In the game today, armor doesn't really mean a whole lot. It has some bonuses but it isn't a major system in regards to tanking ability. Moving forward, armor will be a major system used for mitigating incoming damage. We want players to have choices, and some of those choices have consequences. Sure wearing that leather chest piece gives you some damage, but it really had a larger impact to your ability to tank. Players that want to focus more on being the best tank in the game would probably skip the leather plate and wear something a lot more durable. It is that simple. You will have the choice of using a piece of gear that is not designed for tanking (which we have none of currently) over a piece that is designed for damage output or something else. The choice is yours.

I really like the goal of making armor important; in fact, a good design never includes anything unimportant: anything that just adds pointless complexity without providing any real value should be simply discarded right away.

I also like the goal of letting the players have choices. If various features have different effects (e.g. the armor may provide either AC or +damage or +con but not everything at once), making the right choices becomes important which adds real diversity (not just pointless complexity) to the game.


That said, we may consider different designs that achieve those goals and I really dislike the described by Aristox. Arctic is a game, not quantum mechanics; and the mechanics of the game should be as intuitive as possible.

On a related note, remember the 'mind inversion' skill of the black robes? The way it affected mem time was completely counter-intuitive and I guess there were 5 or 6 bug reports about that (including mine). Finally, you had to make a locked and pinned thread in the forums saying that the skill worked just as designed.

Certainly, it worked as designed! But just as certainly, the design was flawed and crappy.


I hope this discussion may help us shape the suggested armor design so that it still achieves the same perfectly reasonable goals but no longer violates the common sense.


Now, trying to make it constructive criticism, I'd start with pinning down the set of rules (or constraints, or (semi-)invariants) for the solution that we're looking for. Once the rules are set, it is much easier to come up with a suitable design and to test it. So, here goes the first version:

The Goal

Make armor provide a real benefit.  Make that benefit obvious to players.

This should provide choices in equipment.  If you have a +12 con/30 armor item and then you find a +6 con/60 armor item, the difference should be somewhat obvious.


The Constraints

General

The design should be as intuitive as possible. If everybody at the first glance consider some aspect of the design to be a bug, that should be fixed.

KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). Whenever possible, simplier and more obvious mechanics is better than the complicated one.


Technical

There should be several armor types, class restricted.
The more fragile classes (e.g. mages) may only use the lightest armor type.
The heaviest armor may only be used by the sturdiest classes (e.g. warriors).

Each piece of armor provides some protection from physical damage (0-100).
Heavier armor types usually provide better protection.

Armor is benefitial.
Under no circumstances wearing an additional piece of (non-cursed, i.e. non-negative) armor should lower the total defense of the char.
However, the amount of additional protection may vary and may depend on how well the new piece fits with the others.

Matched armor naturally forms a set providing much better protection:
having the heaviest armor in every slot is significantly better than a mixture of heavy and light armor.
(Design note: calculating the armor class of the char certainly is not the only way to achieve that.
And probably, not the best way.)

The formula for calculating protection should follow Abel's logic (a+b = b+a). In other words, no matter which piece of armor you put on first and which one later, the resulting protection should depend only on what you're wearing, not on the order of equipping the shinies.


??? Empty body slots
(Not sure if we need a special rule here. Currently, it is only important for calculating the armor class of the char.
If we change the design to something different, it may be no longer required.)


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

Please add your constraints to the list for discussion (or suggest the constraints to be removed). After the final set of constraints is accepted, it may be used to compare different designes to see which one fits best to our needs.
















Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Hoss on March 04, 2014, 08:34:03 AM
@Nasredin While your post is nice and long, it doesn't really state anything. You are basically just rehashing things that have already been discussed and posted. I might be missing here, but it seems like you have just reworded what Aristox and I have already posted. Tossing in "contraints" and "Abel's logic" doesn't support anything you said.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: snax on March 04, 2014, 09:08:57 AM
@Nasredin While your post is nice and long, it doesn't really state anything. You are basically just rehashing things that have already been discussed and posted. I might be missing here, but it seems like you have just reworded what Aristox and I have already posted. Tossing in "contraints" and "Abel's logic" doesn't support anything you said.

I think he's saying that if you have 7 pieces worn, and wear an eighth piece of lighter quality it shouldn't hamper your total AC, as you're adding and not removing from your gear.

On the side topic the order you wear gear shouldn't change any values.  common sense and probably will end up debugged eventually if the quirk arises.

I could be wrong.  But it makes sense, and yet screw sensible decisions.  a heavy admantite codpiece should provide more armor value than a mithril codpiece and leather ball and gag.

<Editted to remove stupid request for a pic no one wants to see>
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Hoss on March 04, 2014, 12:26:10 PM
Quote
I think he's saying that if you have 7 pieces worn, and wear an eighth piece of lighter quality it shouldn't hamper your total AC, as you're adding and not removing from your gear.
In the realism aspect, I completely agree however it just doesn't translate to a text base game very well without being overly convoluted and messy. We want the paladin to say "no man, ill pass on that shitty leather, I am a tank instead of stealing a piece of gear from the lowly (and whiney) thief. It is a trade off, one that we really think at the end of the day makes the most sense. If you wanted realistic armor methods, I dunno find a Larp group?
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Gnua on March 04, 2014, 12:51:00 PM
Quote
I think he's saying that if you have 7 pieces worn, and wear an eighth piece of lighter quality it shouldn't hamper your total AC, as you're adding and not removing from your gear.
In the realism aspect, I completely agree however it just doesn't translate to a text base game very well without being overly convoluted and messy. We want the paladin to say "no man, ill pass on that shitty leather, I am a tank instead of stealing a piece of gear from the lowly (and whiney) thief. It is a trade off, one that we really think at the end of the day makes the most sense. If you wanted realistic armor methods, I dunno find a Larp group?

I seem to recall in Dungeons and Dragons, there was a Cavalier class with an honor code that made it disdain lighter armor even if it was 'better'. Perhaps the question should be: is there a more intuitive and obvious way to get the tankier classes to disdain lighter armor and prefer an empty slot to inferior armor. I've been wearing cloth belt packs for years so that kenders couldnt steal all my recalls. If I hadnt read the posts, I might mistakenly think that armor still means nothing because no matter what extra armor I put on, I notice no benefit.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: fulloflife on March 04, 2014, 05:03:47 PM
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

Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Dyl on March 04, 2014, 06:43:42 PM
Is there a circumstance in which wearing a loincloth would be beneficial?
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: enochvey on March 04, 2014, 07:41:33 PM
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!
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Gnua on March 04, 2014, 11:22:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Nasredin on March 05, 2014, 03:24:18 AM
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.
 
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: reed23 on March 05, 2014, 08:37:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Hoss on March 05, 2014, 11:57:34 AM
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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Gnua on March 05, 2014, 12:13:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Aristox on March 05, 2014, 01:05:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: gulca on March 05, 2014, 03:36:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Hoss on March 05, 2014, 03:46:21 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: corey on March 05, 2014, 04:31:32 PM
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?
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: gulca on March 05, 2014, 07:11:20 PM
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.

 
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Aristox on March 05, 2014, 08:04:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: fulloflife on March 05, 2014, 09:41:58 PM
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

Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Nasredin on March 06, 2014, 07:02:08 AM
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.
...
We did not want want to design equipment with every possible scenario covered

Well, I guess it was all my mistake. You listed your goals and presented a game design that I didn't like. I expected that the design was open for discussion and that we could consider alternative solutions and tried to suggest a suitable framework for a constructive discussion.

However, it seems that you have already made the final choice. If you stated at the very beginning that you've already made the decision and no alternative designs were to be considered, that would save both you and me some time.

After all, it's your sandbox, you can make any decisions you like. However, I still don't like the design you suggested.


Quote
I mean more armor is always better right? RIGHT?

It's a game. Certainly, we don't need no realism here.

http://clck.ru/972yH (http://clck.ru/972yH)

Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Hoss on March 06, 2014, 08:16:18 AM
@Nasredin, I wasn't attacking your criticism of the proposed system. I was pointing out that you were kind of telling Aristox (who has over 20 years in the software development industry) how to develop things. I wanted to you stick to the topic which was armor and not "In communist Russia software develops you".
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Gnua on March 06, 2014, 02:48:03 PM
I've been wearing tarsis cloth belt packs on every character for years so that kenders wouldn't steal more than one recall. Will there be shops selling wearable belts of higher armour, or should all my characters start planning on running around ansalon wearing only a fanny pack?
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Dyl on March 06, 2014, 05:31:32 PM
What about a new flag ornamental for items that don't provide armor but fill slots like backpacks belts cloaks necklaces etc?
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Davy on March 06, 2014, 08:22:26 PM
Plated Tarsis fanny pack, ball/vag protector, comes in pink, green or yellow neon. I am looking forward to changes and am glad we have a staff that can work the interweb good. If this was reddit my gramer would be down voted but it ain't reddit and it ain't nothin but forward progress in a dynamic game I love.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Gnua on March 06, 2014, 08:33:14 PM
What about a new flag ornamental for items that don't provide armor but fill slots like backpacks belts cloaks necklaces etc?

Maybe non-magical stuff could be enchanted up a level or something
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Alecto on March 10, 2014, 05:30:23 PM
The kender in bali4 load some VERY nice leather pouches...
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: lurker on July 17, 2014, 10:19:02 AM
I'm a big nobody, but I wanted to share my $.02

Multiplying armor by the lowest piece seems to be a poor way to do things.  A couple issues.

1- As pointed out by many others, it's common to wear a cloth belt pouch or backpack or other such item, it'll feel very awkward if a metal-wearing class is basically denied the ability to wear a container, while it will also feel awkward if the shops start selling "cloth belt pack, leather belt pack, chain mail belt pack, plate belt pack"- it just seems silly and unrealistic.

2- Is this drawback really going to serve it's purpose?  I think most of the time, when a warrior wants to nab a cloth +damage + hitroll item ,he doesn't really care one bit about losing armor.  I get that you are trying to make armor more important, but when that warrior expects to tank he will just remove his cloth + damage and container it, as has always been the case, because risk of frag while tanking already works as a disincentive towards wearing cloth or leather material armor.  While serving as a DPS role, the warrior isn't going to care about losing armor, and will go ahead and wear the cloth or leather items.

3- It removes part of the benefit of being able to wear any armor.  Instead, the benefit becomes "you can wear any armor, but it's not plate you are screwing yourself". 

4- No more pirates.  You wear an eye-patch, you just threw away all your armor.  Without pirates, arctic is pointless.  Nobody is going to want to play a MUD without pirates, be realistic.  And no, you can't easily fix this by making a metal eye-patch, because then you can't wear it if you are a thief.  Either you screw warrior pirates, or you screw thief pirates, it's no bueno.

5- You can't wear a cloak over your armor anymore?  Unless it's a metal cloak?  Itemization hell, that now you have to go through all cloaks and flag them as different materials so as to give all classes options for conceal.

6- You can achieve the goal without this silly armor restriction.  How? You want to make leather gloves that a warrior won't steal?  Easy.  just give them +dex instead of +damage.  Dex classes will be gaining damage from dex anyway, and now they aren't so desirable to a Str class.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Hoss on July 17, 2014, 10:47:15 AM
The only legitimate issue I see in this thread is that of pirates and eye patches, something we will be looking into.

All the other issues (cloth belt pouch, backpack, etc..) are moot.

1. Your cloth belt pouch and cloth robe are not flagged as armor, and are not counting in the armor rating sysytem.
2. We are not "trying" to make armor important in the new system. Armor "IS" very important in the new system and ignoring it as a tank would be a very poor option.
3. You can wear whatever you want, we are not removing that from the game, we are just adding an appropriately weighted penalty to offset the huge gains armor gives.
4. See above, very serious concern of mine.
5. Cloaks don't count as armor
6. It isn't about not allowing a warrior to wear cloth items or itemization of stats. It is about making sure the system can perform the calculations correctly so that you get the appropriate bonuses when you wear armor.


Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Bunsen on July 17, 2014, 03:52:05 PM
Will there be an easy method (lore or command) to determine what your current armor multiplier is? Or will it be a case of examining each piece of equipment and then doing some mental math?
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Jorquin on July 18, 2014, 12:40:32 AM
i think personally arctic has never been entirely user friendly in regards to babying its players in the statistics and effects of equipment. its always been difficult to learn what some things do, or exactly what effect they're having. it's part of the fun, feeling clever when you work out what something does.

i think hard coding a way to "check" what your armour modifier is would go against that, it'd be better to just put either in the lores or on examine the type of armour it is, then leave it at that. players should have to work out the way they want to equip their character themselves, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: Hoss on July 18, 2014, 10:03:22 AM
You will see the type (light, medium, heavy) in the inspect message of the object.
Title: Re: Armor -- Next Wipe
Post by: reed23 on July 18, 2014, 02:38:04 PM
Any chance we can get an overall update on how lube project is coming along from Hoss/Aristox?

Thanks