The Armor Quandary

[CrazyBernie]

So.... I've seen a fair amount of... discussion about the usefulness (or apparent lack thereof) of Heavy Armor (in Book II anyway). Personally, I am in mild disagreement to the claims that HA is useless... if you want the ultimate protection with the highest MTBR (mean-time between repairs ), Heavy is the only way to go. But for the sake of discussion.... I shall discuss some opportunities to address the situation. 0_o

During early (-ish) aplha testing of Book II, it was discovered that HA was waaaaay overpowered. I personally was testing out a pure Fighter, and probably less than halfway through the game I was a walking fortress. By the time I reached the first Taurax, he was lucky if he scored a single point of damage (they only had a 1% chance to hit me). Keep in mind that this was with zero exploitation of things like re-rolling chests to get the best loot/most money. It was also my first run through the majority of the game. To avoid some serious balance issues, BW was forced to nerf a lot of the armor values. This shifted a lot of the HA pieces into the same range as much of the LA, creating a much smaller gap between the two types. This in turn has created a situation where people look only at the weight vs armor values and write off HA has being useful, ignoring durability, damage resistance, and extreme AR amounts. Instead, I must listen to the sissy-whining about HA being too heavy.

After much (not really) deliberation on the issue, I have come up with some possible solutions. While I'll agree that the damage resistance formula needs revisiting, I've focused on a few other ideas since I don't think that reworking the DR system alone will solve the "issue."

Solution 1: Revert to the early-alpha formula, and make the enemies tougher, no matter how much more difficult it becomes for non-HA users.
This is the brute-force method, but I believe it would be plenty effective (and easy). Ranged users generally wear light armor, and they're already at an advantage with ranged attacks. Classes like the Rogue will just be forced to be more creative and invest more points into skills like stealth and alchemy.

Solution 2: Introduce new physical damage types/resistances.
A far more elegant (and sophisticated, thus likely harder to implement) suggestion, this would allow for some major differences between HA and LA. For example: Light armor might take less damage from bludgeoning weapons, but more from slashing. Heavy armor on the other hand, would take little damage from slashing, but be vulnerable to piercing weapons. It'd look something like this:
Tempered Steel Plate Armor:
Base Armor: 7
Piercing Damage Multiplier: 1.5
Bludgeoning Damage Multiplier: 1.0
Slashing Damage Multiplier: 0.5

The multipliers wouldn't be displayed, but they'd be referenced to somewhere, be it in game or in the manual... or perhaps only the non 1.0 multiplier components would be displayed in case different HA/LA types had different resistances.

Solution 3: A revised list of armor weights and values.
Easier than Solution 2, but more time consuming than Solution 1 (and maybe 2 as well). I would propose a staggered, reverse Tiered system of armor/weight values. Rather than explain first, it'll be eaiser to show the example first:

Copper Chest: 5lbs, 2 AR
Bronze Chest: 4.5lbs, 2 AR
Iron Chest: 4.0lbs, 3 AR

Steel Chest: 5.5lbs, 4 AR
Tempered Steel Chest: 5.0lbs, 5 AR
Dwarven Steel Chest: 4.5lbs, 5 AR

It's very simplified, but as you can see the weights go down (and up) as the quality of the metal increases, but it isn't a straight decline (or rise), and the armor values don't steadily increase either. Obviously there's things like full and half plate to consider, but as I said, it's simplified. There's plenty of tweaks that can be used for balancing as well, such as rarity, durability, and damage resistance (assuming DR is re-evaluated).

Obviously the best solution would be (S1 + S2 + S3)^2 but sacrifices must be made....

[Antigrav]

The problem that I see with option 2 is that players can mix armor types. In fact, any heavy armor should automatically incorporate "light" armor types in its construction, as a good amount of padding underneath your brigandine or any protective metal layer being practically required, for example.

I propose a 4th option:

Rather than armor affecting "to-hit," it would only be damage reduction. It could be as simple as "armor of 4 means your hit of 10 points is now reduced to 6." Heavy armor would have more of this damage reduction than light armor. If your armor is protective enough, you would see weaker attacks simply glance off, as I get in Book II sometimes

The flip side is that light armor would allow better hit avoidance. This would include any old-fashioned, speed/agility-based getting out of the way.

[CrazyBernie]

The problem that I see with option 2 is that players can mix armor types. In fact, any heavy armor should automatically incorporate "light" armor types in its construction, plate mail necessitating a padded coat underneath, for example).

Not necessarily. If BW is determining where a blow lands (in calculating item wear, for instance), then mixing and matching wouldn't give you a certain victory in regards to damage avoidance.

The damage reduction you propose is what most people expected the damage resistance stat to be in Book II to begin with, I think.

[Antigrav]

The problem that I see with option 2 is that players can mix armor types. In fact, any heavy armor should automatically incorporate "light" armor types in its construction, plate mail necessitating a padded coat underneath, for example).

Not necessarily. If BW is determining where a blow lands (in calculating item wear, for instance), then mixing and matching wouldn't give you a certain victory in regards to damage avoidance.

The damage reduction you propose is what most people expected the damage resistance stat to be in Book II to begin with, I think.

Armor composition aside, I think a setup wherein armor rating doesn't make enemies miss but reduces the impact of their hits would do a lot to resolve the light armor-heavy armor cost-benefit pro-con warrior-rogue absorption-avoidance conundrum.

And then we can talk shields!

[Kreador Freeaxe]

And then we can talk shields!

What, you have a problem with shields making you almost untouchable in Book II if you actually take the time to level up the skill?

[IJBall]

I'm glad you finally started this as a separate topic, Bernie.

Currently, from a Player's perspective, I see two main problems with Armor as it currently operates in the Eschalon games:

1. There is virtually no advantage to using Heavy Armor over Light Armor.
2. There is virtually no tangible benefit to getting either Armor Skill at more than Level 1.

Now various people among us (e.g. Kreador, SpottedShroom) have come up with some suggestions (and I hope those people see this thread and contribute their earlier armor suggestions so we can discuss them). But I don't think any consensus has been reached.

FWIW, here's my take on this (warning: this looks to be long-ish!...):

ISSUE #1: HEAVY VS. LIGHT ARMOR

This is definitely an issue that's been discussed before.

My personal opinion is that a piece of Heavy Armor should be worth 2x, or at least 1.5x, the Armor Rating (AR) of an equivalent piece of Light Armor. So, for example, the lowest level of Lt. Armor footwear or belt should be worth only AR=1, while the equivalent lowest level piece of Hv. Armor footwear or belt should be worth AR=2 or AR=1.5 (where, in the latter case perhaps, any cumulative AR that sums out to a #.5 value could always be rounded down...).

In thinking over Bernie's early Alpha experience, I'm wondering if it's maybe not as big an issue as it appears. As long as Heavy Armor is also significantly heavier (in weight) that Lt. Armor (perhaps generally twice as heavy?...), that in and of itself would place significant limitations on being able to "tank" as players who wanted to 'max out' Heavy Armor would need substantial investments in Strength (STR) just to be able to pull that off (something that is already pretty true in Book II...).

(A related secondary issue to all of this is the 'Parry' combat mode, which I feel is currently too powerful in Book II - a circumstance that is magnified in primarily Heavy Armor-using and also Shield-wielding characters. So, perhaps, part of the mechanism to 'nerf' Heavy Armor usage is perhaps to 'nerf' Parry combat mode somewhat (esp. with Heavy Armor?...).)

Anyway, IMO, Heavy Armor should have a greater AR 'differential' vs. Light Armor than it currently has in Book II - currently, in Book II, it seems like Heavy Armor gets you only a very nominal AR boost, combined with a significant weight disadvantage, which pretty much negates its usefulness. Ultimately, it seems like the only real advantage to Heavy Armor in Book II is its increased durability (less Repairing needed!) over Light Armor.

So put me in the camp that thinks Hv. Armor pieces generally should be 2x or 1.5x the AR of Lt. Armor pieces, in Book III, as a general rule. (Just 'up' the weight of Hv. Armor pieces, and possibly 'nerf' Parry, if needed, to compensate for the 'tanking' capacity of Hv. Armor...)

ISSUE #2: THE "USELESSNESS" OF THE ARMOR SKILLS

This is a perennial issue going back to Book I. As Randomizer and others have pointed out since then, the "benefit" gained from any Level in an Armor Skill above Level 1 is dwarfed by the benefit of spending those same Skill Points elsewhere - a slightly increased chance of a 50% Damage Reduction in a single turn for every Skill Point in an Armor Skill just ain't enough to justify spending those Skill Points!

And, if anything, this becomes even more true in Book II where Skill Points put into offensive Skills will now yield you Feats as well.

To my thinking there would seem to be two or three obvious ways to improve the 'usefulness' of Armor Skills to the player, so it's worth spending Skill Points on them beyond Level 1:

1. Every [some #] of Levels in an Armor Skill would raise a Player's Armor rating by AR+1 (or AR+2 or AR+1.5, for Heavy Armor?...) - i.e. this would be a way to raise one's AR quite aside from the usual way of improving AR by improving one's pieces of armor.
2. In place of #1, perhaps something akin to Armor 'Feats' could be established - say, every 10 Levels in an Armor Skill would gain a Player some kind of Defensive 'Feat' (maybe a guaranteed zero damage hit by a mob on their next turn attack?; etc.)
3. In place of #1 or #2(?), then perhaps increasing Levels in Armor could reduce the time need for a Player to 'Repair' their Armor while camping.

Of these, I was originally in favor of Idea #1 above, but I think I may be moving in the direction of Idea #2.

But I've always thought that Armor Skills were "broken" in the Eschalon game - a Skill that really only grants a tangible benefit with Level 1 in that Skill doesn't seem right, IMHO.

In any case, these are just some ideas to toss around to make Armor Skills actually useful, past Level 1.

[CrazyBernie]

You are aware that increasing your armor skill reduces the degredation rate on that armor.... aren't you? I'd hardly call spending less time/money repairing your gear a non-tangible benefit.

Also, knowing how to employ your armor properly lessens the rate at which it wears out.

I think the Optional Rules really de-values some of the player's skills.

Also:

This is a perennial issue going back to Book I. As Randomizer and others have pointed out since then, the "benefit" gained from any Level in an Armor Skill above Level 1 is dwarfed by the benefit of spending those same Skill Points elsewhere - a slightly increased chance of a 50% Damage Reduction in a single turn for every Skill Point in an Armor Skill just ain't enough to justify spending those Skill Points!

In any skill based RPG, there's always an argument for spending your skill points elsewhere. What it really boils down to is playing style. Could I spend the points elsewhere for a larger benefit? Sure. Is it going to break my game if I don't? Probably not. I won't argue that there's some balancing issues, but to some extent they will always exist; that's what happens when you give someone a lot of choices! The short version: who are you do decide where *I* need to spend my skill points?

[IJBall]

You are aware that increasing your armor skill reduces the degredation rate on that armor.... aren't you? I'd hardly call spending less time/money repairing your gear a non-tangible benefit.

It's, at best, a minor benefit, though I'll note that this pre-existing benefit is similar to my Idea #3 above (so this "benefit" probably renders my Idea #3 moot... ).

Also:

This is a perennial issue going back to Book I. As Randomizer and others have pointed out since then, the "benefit" gained from any Level in an Armor Skill above Level 1 is dwarfed by the benefit of spending those same Skill Points elsewhere - a slightly increased chance of a 50% Damage Reduction in a single turn for every Skill Point in an Armor Skill just ain't enough to justify spending those Skill Points!

In any skill based RPG, there's always an argument for spending your skill points elsewhere. What it really boils down to is playing style. Could I spend the points elsewhere for a larger benefit? Sure. Is it going to break my game if I don't? Probably not. I won't argue that there's some balancing issues, but to some extent they will always exist; that's what happens when you give someone a lot of choices! The short version: who are you do decide where *I* need to spend my skill points?

It's not just me - I haven't seen anyone argue that getting to more than Level 1 in an Armor Skill makes any kind of sense. It's basically unanimous on this point, from what I've seen on these forums.

If everyone is saying that there's no real point in going beyond Level 1 in an Armor Skill, I'd say that's a problem!...

Having widely established that there is an issue here, I think at this point it's best to focus on what the best solution is, which is why I threw in some ideas along with yours...

[BasiliskWrangler]

Let me chime in. The two most important aspects to raising your Armor skill are:

- more skill means less wear-n-tear on your armor.
- more skill should lower your noise level (specifically in Heavy Armor) which makes Move Silent work better.

The main differences between Heavy and Light armor are:

- Heavy Armor grants higher AR piece-for-piece compared to Light Armor.
- Heavy Armor grants more Damage Reduction than Light Armor.
- Light Armor generates less noise than Heavy Armor.

Although, much of this probably needs to be balanced better for Book III. As always I am open to all suggestions for Book III.

[BasiliskWrangler]

One suggestion that I did not implement for Book II, but I think would be more appropriate for Book III, is skills rating requirements for armor based on material and armor type, so a copper chainmail jerkin may only have a minimum requirement of Heavy Armor 5 to wear, but a Dwarven Steel Chest Plate might require a Heavy Armor skill of 18 to wear.

I didn't implement this rule before because I'm not really fond of the idea of requiring certain stats in order to wear or use items, but with armor it seems to make the most sense. As armor pieces become heavier and more exotic, your skill (knowledge) needs to be equally high for you to fully understand how to properly wear and utilize the armor, not to mention caring for it so that it lasts longer.

[MyGameCompany]

One suggestion that I did not implement for Book II, but I think would be more appropriate for Book III, is skills rating requirements for armor based on material and armor type, so a copper chainmail jerkin may only have a minimum requirement of Heavy Armor 5 to wear, but a Dwarven Steel Chest Plate might require a Heavy Armor skill of 18 to wear.

I didn't implement this rule before because I'm not really fond of the idea of requiring certain stats in order to wear or use items, but with armor it seems to make the most sense. As armor pieces become heavier and more exotic, your skill (knowledge) needs to be equally high for you to fully understand how to properly wear and utilize the armor, not to mention caring for it so that it lasts longer.

I don't care for this suggestion. In reality, anybody should be able to put on any armor, but the effectiveness of the armor should depend on skill. The higher the skill, the better its protection, the less wear-and-tear it takes, etc. And I like that a higher armor skill helps the Move Silent skill. I think as armor pieces become heavier and more exotic, as you put it, you can allow the player to put them on, but if he doesn't have a decent armor skill, the armor won't be that much more effective and they may take a greater beating than a lesser piece of armor.

[SpottedShroom]

I think heavy/light armor balance is fine as-is. Light armor is cheaper and has better AR/weight ratio, and heavy armor has the best maximum AR. There are legitimate reasons to use both. My only concern with armor is how the armor skills aren't currently very useful after the first point.

One suggestion... is skills rating requirements for armor based on material and armor type, so a copper chainmail jerkin may only have a minimum requirement of Heavy Armor 5 to wear, but a Dwarven Steel Chest Plate might require a Heavy Armor skill of 18 to wear.

That's certainly one way to make the armor skills useful! It would also make the game much more difficult, and make good armor super hard to wear - you'd have to find it, be able to afford it, AND have the skill for it. If you did this, I think you should do the same for weapons, too, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

That said, I think I'm against the idea. I've seen it implemented in other games and it seemed to make things less fun.

You've all read it before, but I'll put in another plug for my plan to fix the armor skills - make them provide more AR at higher levels. So maybe at Heavy Armor level 1, all heavy armor provides 25% of listed AR. Then at level 10, it provides 100%, and at very high levels provides more than 100%. It would have to use a nonlinear formula, so most of the benefit is at lower levels without breaking the game if people take very high levels. I think there's precedent for that in other skills, like cartography.

[CrazyBernie]

How about we mix a bunch of stuff together...

Heavy Armor Skill...
0 points = -50% AR (Unskilled: You are unfamiliar with wearing this type of armor; it is unweildy and difficult for you to move freely in.)
1 Points = -20% AR
2 Points = -15% AR
3 Points = -10% AR
4 Points = -5% AR
5 Points = No AR Penalty (Novice: While you've worn this armor or something similar, it is still a fresh experience.)
6 Points = +1% Durability
7 Points = +1% Durability
8 Points = +1% Durability
9 Points = +1% Durability
10 Points = +1% Durability, +1% Total AR (Initiate: You're getting better; moving around isn't so hard, and you've better learned to defend yourself)
11 Points = +1% Durability
....
20 Points = +1% Durability, +4% Total AR (Experienced: You are perfectly comfortable wearing heavier armor, and are versed in its proper care)
....
30 Points = +1% Durability, +5% Total AR, +5% Chance to deflect missle attacks, (Seasoned: Advanced training has enabled you to sometimes avoid damage from long range attacks.)
....
40 Points= +1% Durability, +5% Total AR, +5% Chance to deflect missle attacks, -5% weight on equipped pieces (Veteran: There are few out there as experienced with you are while wearing such sturdy metals.)
....
50 Points= +1% Durability, +5% Total AR, -10% Weight on equipped pieces, Total Defense Feat: For the next 5 turns, any physical attack will be 100% deflected. (Master: Heavy armor is like a second skin. You barely notice its presence.)
....
Stuff like that. But by the time you've hit 50 points, you'll have armor that lasts 45% longer, have a 20% increase in your total AR, a 10% chance to deflect missle attacks, a -15% weight bonus to equipped armor, and a Feat. Would that make the skill more valuable to develop? 0_o

[IJBall]

How about we mix a bunch of stuff together...
{snip table}
Stuff like that. But by the time you've hit 50 points, you'll have armor that lasts 45% longer, have a 20% increase in your total AR, a 10% chance to deflect missile attacks, a -15% weight bonus to equipped armor, and a Feat. Would that make the skill more valuable to develop? 0_o

On my end, I kind of like this general idea - it's the best suggestion I've seen so far, I think. Maybe not everything you outline needs to go into it (with all the other stuff, I'm not sure an Armor 'feat' is needed ); also, maybe the benefit 'bumps' should come every 5 Levels in an Armor Skill rather than every 10 Levels. And it might be a little hard to code for on BW's end. But what you've outlined would definitely make getting Levels in Armor useful.

I guess my follow-up question would be - would your system work exactly the same for Light and Heavy Armor? Or would there be differences between how the two operate?

[Randomizer]

My gripe with Crazy Bernie's latest idea is that rogues that need lots of skill points for thief skills won't have any to spare for armor. They would need 5 more levels to get skills that fighters and priests could easily afford.

Still having an advantage to higher armor skill besides damage reduction chance has merit. Something equivalent to the shield feat of deflecting missiles.