Idea: Plate Mail

[De-Legro]

I dislike this idea.

The way we RP our knights are more similar to real medieval barons than to real medieval knights, and I'm sure that most barons can afford it. Besides that, does it actually harm the game at all if people RP having plate armor? Does it detract enough from the overall game experience to warrant the time needed to create it and balance it when there are other glaring things that need to be fixed? I would say no.

We already have a status symbol in the game; unique items. Instead of adding another superfluous system, the focus should be on fixing that area.

Depends on the age really. Early on plate armour was used only by extremely powerful land holders, Dukes and Royalty, and tended to be armour plates to supplement other forms rather then a full suit. Truly ornate and high quality armour was produced almost exclusively for royalty even in the Renaissance. Certainly by the 15th-16th century you could expect most average knights would have a full suit of plate armour of some quality. Probably important to note that given the complexity of full suit of plate, even "low" quality plate was expensive and difficult to manufacture.

And of course its also irrelevant. BM is not a medieval simulator. If Tom decides that in the game world plate armour is rare, then I guess that is the way it is.

[Perth]

I have to agree with Chénier on this one -- I don't see what this adds to the game, nor how the the time/resources spent coding/developing this change compares to time/resources spent trying to finish the already new changes to the estate and trading systems that still need polishing/finishing.

[De-Legro]

I have to agree with Chénier on this one -- I don't see what this adds to the game, nor how the the time/resources spent coding/developing this change compares to time/resources spent trying to finish the already new changes to the estate and trading systems that still need polishing/finishing.

No one said it would take priority over current coding schedules, Just because Tom talks about a feature doesn't mean it is going to be the number 1 task.

[Tom]

My main problem with the system would be it seems arbitrary. Why pick armour and not other items a noble would need?

Because the plate armour is the symbol and single most expensive item a noble would have.

[Tom]

All this feature does is allow rich nobles, which are usually dukes, to become unstabable.

Really? Where did I say that?

This is battle armour. You would not sleep in it, unless you expect a night attack. Infiltrators would bypass this armour.

[Tom]

One purpose I see in this is to give people who are already hoarding gold into family gold a place to meaningfully invest it.

As such, it would be possible to pay for your plate armour via family gold.

And yes, I do like the idea that unique items could act as armour, and should provide the same protection effects.

[vonGenf]

Because the plate armour is the symbol and single most expensive item a noble would have.

Actually, I disagree with that. The most notable symbol of wealth a noble would have is the size of his estate and the number of people who work directly for him. Outside of his lands, the most notable symbol of a noble would be the number of servants he carries around. A noble who has a nice armour but carries his own sword is not as rich as a noble who can afford to travel in silken clothes because he has two layers of bodyguards around him at all times.

In battle, sure. The armour is a battle equipment first and foremost, and only marginally a status symbol.

[Duvaille]

The ability to purchase armor is a good idea. I agree that maintenance should not play a part of it. Instead, you could have the armor degrade every time it has prevented a wound or reduced the impact of a wound. A noble would then need to choose whether to fight in a little scratched armor or buy a new one (and pay full price). The armor would have several stages of damage, all of which would reduce its effectiveness (and shininess) a little, but never below a lower tier armor. It would be assumed that the armors would be repaired between battles, but that they would never return to their original splendor.

There would be two ways to look at it. Some cultures would prefer to wear armors with marks of many battles - proudly like scars. Some would seek maximum security or shiny impressive looks and spend gold towards that end.

To sum it up, people would not be able to just purchase the top tier armor and keep it in splendid condition indefinitely (unless they avoid battle). The truly rich could maintain best protection and style, but with a rather high cost attached. Optionally people could just purchase whatever armor they can afford and forget it for quite a long time. How often you do get wounded anyway? If it took around ten wounds or prevented wounds to really hurt the armor, for most people I imagine it would be quite awhile until they felt a need to replace it.

[Alpha]

I wouldn't like to see this type of armor being made into a UI. For the reason mentioned that it is a tremendous hassle to keep UIs in a reliable state of repair. As well, an ornate, and useful, set of armor isn't going to be given to a low born adventurer to be repaired by some wandering wizard using boar feathers and dragon whistles. Nor would it have originally been taken off the body, or from the hoard, of a hulking monster.

I don't have any problem making it costly because it should be costly.

[Zakilevo]

Uh no this armour won't require any repair so you won't be contacting any adventurer.

[Alpha]

Uh no this armour won't require any repair so you won't be contacting any adventurer.

Right, that is why I was saying that I'd prefer the armor not be made into a UI.

[Indirik]

Unique item discussion split into a new thread. Sorry if it makes some of the discussion near the end a bit disjointed...

[vonGenf]

I don't have any problem making it costly because it should be costly.

Actually, I don't have a problem with the idea that you can buy a piece of armor for 1'000 pieces of gold. if that is their cost, then very few people will have them, but we are all going to assume that knights still wear armour in battle, just that their armour is not nice enough to be specifically noted on the family page (or wherever it will be noted), just like it's ok to assume everyone has a horse if they want to RP they have a horse without having to buy one, or that it's ok to assume they have a sword even though they don't have the Swordy Sword of Swording.

I dislike, however, with the idea of the game-mechanic 20-gold armour. It adds nitty-gritty detail to the game that is actually detrimental to its nature.

[egamma]

Let me ask Longmange in the background thread if he can find some actual item costs for armor and the like.

[Tom]

I dislike, however, with the idea of the game-mechanic 20-gold armour. It adds nitty-gritty detail to the game that is actually detrimental to its nature.

I kind of agree.

Maybe we should simply make the cheap plate free for all player characters, and only make them pay if they want something better.