BattleMaster Community

In the real middle ages, plate mail was prohibitively expensive.

A roleplay posted by a player today gave me an idea. What if new characters started out with only, basic armour, and you had to acquire better armour over time? It would mean players need to split their money between troops and personal armour, and a full set of plate mail would be a symbol of prestige. It could have various "levels", as in cheap, regular, well-crafted and excellent or whatever.

It shouldn't be a major money drain, and it should be visible to others on inspection of your character. It would have an in-game effect, namely affecting your chance of getting wounded in battle.

Sounds kinda like unique items, don't we already have unique items called plate mail of such and such that give prestige that you can buy.

.... hope there's no repair/upkeep. bit of a pain.

It sounds like it would function more like the adventurer equipment code than the unique item code.

Why not just make unique items rarer so they become prohibitively expensive?

I like it a lot. Unique items are way too much of a drag and this way I get to brag about my fancy armour without having to deal with advies. :)

I like the idea. As has been said though, there are already armours that can be got as unique items.

Would there be a way to incorporate the two together? Reduce degradation time more (armour only degrades if hit in battle or by an infiltrator, weapons only degrade if used in battle for example)

Also, having unique items repairable by any item (or value of items) through a sage would make them more appealing to try to keep long term.

Love the idea, Tom.

Though my question is, will it affect non-warrior classes any?  Such as priests.  I mean, if we still own the armor, could we wear it?

I like the idea.

How do you "inspect" a character? Are you saying the armour of each character would display on the Character page?

Perhaps there should be a set of armour for each class. I can't imagine an infiltrator would wear full plate while sneaking into an enemy camp, nor a priest wear platemail when preaching to the masses. Priests could have robes that get progressively finer and more elaborate as you go up the scale, for example. Highest level? Pope hat.

I want a Pope mitre.  >.>

I'm not a big fan of the idea. Parts of what I like about BM is that the game mechanics only takes care of the big picture. For example, you can't just send a RP that your army is bigger than the other one, or you can't RP that you've won a duel when you have not. The details, however, are left to imagination. You can roleplay that you have a shining armour if you want to. There is no need to make a game mechanic for that.

If you want to have a new type of paraphernalia to protect from wounds, however, that would all right. However, I propose that this paraphernalia be called "bodyguards" rather than "armour".

Quote from: vonGenf on February 21, 2012, 01:24:45 PM
If you want to have a new type of paraphernalia to protect from wounds, however, that would all right. However, I propose that this paraphernalia be called "bodyguards" rather than "armour".

We already have those--they're called soldiers. I'm almost positive that unit size affects the chance of the infiltrator getting caught on his way to/from the tent.

I like the armor idea, I know there are plenty of people with older characters (such as myself) who HATE the 10+ days it takes them to heal. I would definitely love to give some of my characters extra protection.

heh... it might well be injury rate will be up to compensate for the potential increased protection

Quote from: egamma on February 21, 2012, 02:44:38 PM
We already have those--they're called soldiers. I'm almost positive that unit size affects the chance of the infiltrator getting caught on his way to/from the tent.

Yeah, of course, also in battle usually you only get wounded after your unit retreats from the field or is decimated.

I would think this new paraphernalia would work differently.

So long as it doesn't degrade overly quickly and can be repaired by a normal smithy this sounds brilliant.

I don't like this on the basis that I do not think it would be implemented in a way that would keep "plate mail prohibitively expensive." Given a few months of play, it seems like every character will have at least close to a full set of plate mail.

Also, I'm not a fan of the game moving towards any kind of "Hey check out my avatar" thing.

I would be fine with it...

If you don't call it plate mail.

It's plate armor. Plate mail is something very different.

Scale mail, chainmail, splint mail/armor... lets get our terms clear.

I like the idea. Perhaps add a chance to lose it, if captured.

Quote from: LGMAlpha on February 21, 2012, 05:07:35 PM
I like the idea. Perhaps add a chance to lose it, if captured.

You mean like unique items? Then is there a need for a new mechanic, given that unique items already exist?

Quote from: LGMAlpha on February 21, 2012, 05:07:35 PM
I like the idea. Perhaps add a chance to lose it, if captured.

Or, maybe, a chance to have it destroyed/broken if you're wounded.

That way, not everyone accumulates plate armor.

I do not like this idea at all. Unless this will prevent being wounded, it sounds pretty lame.

To me it sounds like another micro-management being added to the game. We are trying to make the game simple right? No need to add unnecessary idea.

Or you could lose it in a tournament and then the other guy has an option to ransom it back.

It sounds interesting, but let's not make it too complicated. I don't think it's very crucial to the game, but it might be a nice extra thing you can work on.

Quote from: Marlboro on February 21, 2012, 08:19:53 PM
Or you could lose it in a tournament and then the other guy has an option to ransom it back.

Both delightfully cruel and also definitely historically accurate,  nice  8)

Mind you I suppose something like that might only be possible in exceptional circumstances, insomuch as those taking part took it as read they were risking it happening, like for instance if a version of the Melee part of tournaments was ever brought in.

Quote from: Vellos on February 21, 2012, 05:04:28 PM
I would be fine with it...

If you don't call it plate mail.

It's plate armor. Plate mail is something very different.

Scale mail, chainmail, splint mail/armor... lets get our terms clear.

There are Plate and Splint Armors and are Plated/Splinted Mail. Lamellar and Laminar armors too, and we could even have Mirror armors. And they can be made from different metals, leathers (both in types and in how they were processed) or bones, and each armor is usually good for something specific, so it's very hard to say that one is "better" than the other.

I very much like the idea of being able to lose it, but not at tournaments.

This might be the answer for my problem with prison: I've always wanted to make prison hurt more, but be less boring. With the enemy ruler being able to take away your expensive armour, that would be.


To clear out some of the confusions:

   
• yes, it is Plate Armour
• it should not be a micro-management issue. As such, it would not need repairs or upkeep, simply because the hassle doesn't add to the game, and it doesn't get damage or anything. Again, not realistic, but it keeps things simple
• it would have the in-game effect of reducing wounds - reducing the chance you get wounded, and reducing the severity of the wounds you do get
• there would be various options and I would make sure that at least one really is prohibitively expensive. I'm thinking > 1000 gold.

Basically, the concept I have in mind is this:

   
• You have several "quality" settings. You can have a cheap, a standard, a quality and an ornate armour.
• You buy it in pieces, starting with the breastplate, then a half suit and then a full suit. Pieces must all be of the same quality.

Half suite is twice as expensive as breastplate, full suit twice as expensive as half suit.
A standard armour is twice as expensive as a cheap armour. A quality armour is three times as expensive as a standard armour. An ornate armour is four times as expensive as a quality armour.
That means an ornate full suit is almost 100 times as expensive as a cheap breastplate. That means I can start the breastplate out at 20 gold or so. If people max it out, I can add a 5th quality, at x5 of ornate, which would come to almost 10,000 gold. There will definitely be very few of those around.

what? 10 000 gold? That is freaking insane? The whole piece should be under 1000. What kind of maniac spends that much gold into just an armour when you can raise an entire army? I do not think armours were that expensive during the era.

Not being wounded as badly will help greatly for those who want to duel other people. Higher chance of survival. How about adding small background history for Ornate armours like family history?

I would rather see unique items being developed in this direction, with armour that reduces chances of getting wounded and weapons increases the chance of wounding someone in battle etc.

I feel that having plate armour that is more expensive than unique items would devalue those even more. Right now many players ignore them as they involve more cost and effort than you get in return.

Quote from: Zakilevo on February 21, 2012, 11:10:41 PM
what? 10 000 gold? That is freaking insane? The whole piece should be under 1000. What kind of maniac spends that much gold into just an armour when you can raise an entire army? I do not think armours were that expensive during the era.

Not being wounded as badly will help greatly for those who want to duel other people. Higher chance of survival. How about adding small background history for Ornate armours like family history?

Exactly an insane cost will ensure that very few characters have the full set, which is EXACTLY what is wanted. If every knight can run around in a full set of ornate armour, what is the point? There was a good reason that only the wealthiest of nobles could afford early plate armour. Even when plate breastplates became more common place in the rank and file of the army, they were of a seriously lower quality.

Better to restrict it by other means then. Instead of having ridiculous cost. Why don't you restrict it through prestige or position? Maybe only kings and dukes should be able to buy Ornate armor?

I dislike this idea. Our nobles represent the top of the top.

I hate dealing with unique items, and I'd have a hard time seeing myself enjoying this.

To me, it all just sounds like the possibility of a nice big e-peen for characters once they capped their family gold.

What exactly does this money dump add to gameplay?

All I see is another incentive for people to pursue peace so that they may hoard gold to satisfy their personal vanity.

Quote from: Zakilevo on February 21, 2012, 11:36:26 PM
Better to restrict it by other means then. Instead of having ridiculous cost. Why don't you restrict it through prestige or position? Maybe only kings and dukes should be able to buy Ornate armor?

Why? What advantage does that provide? This is accurate, anyone with the wealth could afford the armour. If a knight somehow has the income to afford better armour don't you think they would avail themselves of it? Mind you the 10,000 gold cost is for a proposed 5th level

Quote from: Tom on February 21, 2012, 11:02:40 PM
If people max it out, I can add a 5th quality, at x5 of ornate, which would come to almost 10,000 gold. There will definitely be very few of those around.

Armour	Cheap	Standard	Quality	Ornate
Full Plate	80	160	480	1920
Half Plate	40	80	240	960
Breastplate	20	40	120	480

To me this doesn't add anything to the game. I'd rather rp what armor I wear than have it represented by game mechanics. This is a role-play game after all

Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on February 22, 2012, 12:23:44 AM
To me this doesn't add anything to the game. I'd rather rp what armor I wear than have it represented by game mechanics. This is a role-play game after all

So is D&D Skyrim etc. Just because a game is a RP game doesn't mean everything is left to the player. Part of the reason to implement this would be for atmosphere. When people do RP their armour, in my experience 80% of them RP having some ornate full plate, even when they are a dirt poor knight of a few weeks in game.

Quote from: De-Legro on February 22, 2012, 12:28:33 AM
So is D&D Skyrim etc. Just because a game is a RP game doesn't mean everything is left to the player. Part of the reason to implement this would be for atmosphere. When people do RP their armour, in my experience 80% of them RP having some ornate full plate, even when they are a dirt poor knight of a few weeks in game.

LOL. True and that doesn't make any sense when your income is 25 gold per week. I don't think you can even afford a full plate armour with so little gold.

Quote from: De-Legro on February 22, 2012, 12:28:33 AM
So is D&D Skyrim etc. Just because a game is a RP game doesn't mean everything is left to the player. Part of the reason to implement this would be for atmosphere. When people do RP their armour, in my experience 80% of them RP having some ornate full plate, even when they are a dirt poor knight of a few weeks in game.

Because their parents are important people, and probably made sure to scrounge up enough gold to properly equip their children before sending them out.

I personally never roleplayed as wearing full armor, nor have I seen many people roleplay such things either.

Quote from: Chénier on February 22, 2012, 12:34:58 AM
Because their parents are important people, and probably made sure to scrounge up enough gold to properly equip their children before sending them out.

I personally never roleplayed as wearing full armor, nor have I seen many people roleplay such things either.

They are knights yes? No matter how important the parents the idea of every noble having full plate armour is appropriate only to late medieval period. If you go down that route, why did they not scrounge enough gold to get a better starting unit for them? Or hirer some damn healers and scouts. We can PLAINLY see how much family gold is given to a new noble, and that doesn't cover the expense of full plate armour.

My main problem with the system would be it seems arbitrary. Why pick armour and not other items a noble would need? Also the fixed cost, while expensive doesn't really end up being that prohibitive. I could easily see realms dedicate themselves in peace time to fitting out as many nobles as possible with the armour, or knights just hoarding gold for it. Would the cost be met by family gold or would it need to be gold on hand? Without some form of recurring cost the only real factor to getting top level armour is time.

Quote from: De-Legro on February 22, 2012, 12:38:51 AM
They are knights yes? No matter how important the parents the idea of every noble having full plate armour is appropriate only to late medieval period. If you go down that route, why did they not scrounge enough gold to get a better starting unit for them? Or hirer some damn healers and scouts. We can PLAINLY see how much family gold is given to a new noble, and that doesn't cover the expense of full plate armour.

Because units die quickly and you can easily go recruit more?

Armor was already owned by the family, or bought with saving specifically for that purpose. Easy reason why nobles would start with armor without seeing any deductions anywhere.

But who cares what kind of armor it is? Most people have never roleplayed their armor. Then, of those I have seen, I've never been inclined to believe that most who do RP having armor RP it as being full plate.

What is the point of this feature? To make the wealthy bastards who hogg dukeships without ever doing anything invincible? As if wounding them seriously enough to make them lose their position wasn't hard enough already.

This feature adds nothing to the game, it just gives incentives to whore gold and makes stronger those who do.

Quote from: Chénier on February 22, 2012, 12:47:52 AM
Because units die quickly and you can easily go recruit more?

Armor was already owned by the family, or bought with saving specifically for that purpose. Easy reason why nobles would start with armor without seeing any deductions anywhere.

But who cares what kind of armor it is? Most people have never roleplayed their armor. Then, of those I have seen, I've never been inclined to believe that most who do RP having armor RP it as being full plate.

What is the point of this feature? To make the wealthy bastards who hogg dukeships without ever doing anything invincible? As if wounding them seriously enough to make them lose their position wasn't hard enough already.

This feature adds nothing to the game, it just gives incentives to whore gold and makes stronger those who do.

Nobles do start with armour, they simply don't start with high quality full plate armour. Chain mail would be a common armour even for relatively rich knights over much of the medieval period, or something like plate mail. But besides adding some sort of armour scarcity to the game, I'm not sure I see much benefit either.

Quote from: De-Legro on February 22, 2012, 01:02:05 AM
Nobles do start with armour, they simply don't start with high quality full plate armour. Chain mail would be a common armour even for relatively rich knights over much of the medieval period, or something like plate mail. But besides adding some sort of armour scarcity to the game, I'm not sure I see much benefit either.

People can RP whatever armor they want, as it is, it doesn't change anything. So who cares if a very tiny minority of new characters RP as having full plate?

All this feature does is allow rich nobles, which are usually dukes, to become unstabable. And since dukes are hard enough to get rid of as it is, I don't see why we'd want that.

Unless full plate just gives current defense, and everyone's defenses are lowered. But then again: being wounded isn't much fun, why would we want to make people become wounded more often?

Quote from: Chénier on February 22, 2012, 01:33:58 AM
People can RP whatever armor they want, as it is, it doesn't change anything. So who cares if a very tiny minority of new characters RP as having full plate?

All this feature does is allow rich nobles, which are usually dukes, to become unstabable. And since dukes are hard enough to get rid of as it is, I don't see why we'd want that.

Unless full plate just gives current defense, and everyone's defenses are lowered. But then again: being wounded isn't much fun, why would we want to make people become wounded more often?

That is an assumption, we have no idea just how effective armour would be in reducing wounds, and even if it IS effective, how many nobles run around in full armour all the time? It is likely it would affect combat wounding not infiltration wounding. You really need to stop proclaiming doom and gloom about features that don't even exist.

Quote from: De-Legro on February 22, 2012, 01:37:43 AM
That is an assumption, we have no idea just how effective armour would be in reducing wounds, and even if it IS effective, how many nobles run around in full armour all the time? It is likely it would affect combat wounding not infiltration wounding. You really need to stop proclaiming doom and gloom about features that don't even exist.

Armor will necessarily create people who will get wounded easier and/or people who will be harder to wound.

All I'm saying is that it's hard enough to get dukes out of their positions. Even if the uber armor only gives 1% chance of avoiding a wound, that's a 1% step in the wrong direction. Regardless of what wounds it applies to or not.

And that's ignoring how this would encourage unfun behavior from those with the financial power.

Quote from: Chénier on February 22, 2012, 01:44:43 AM
Armor will necessarily create people who will get wounded easier and/or people who will be harder to wound.

All I'm saying is that it's hard enough to get dukes out of their positions. Even if the uber armor only gives 1% chance of avoiding a wound, that's a 1% step in the wrong direction. Regardless of what wounds it applies to or not.

And that's ignoring how this would encourage unfun behavior from those with the financial power.

Then learn to state things without hyperbole. There is a big difference between saying someone is unstabable (which mind you in my experience is rubbish) and saying I think is already hard enough to stab people. You are also coming at things assuming that one of the intents of wounding is to generate a reasonable chance of someone losing their position. As the occurrence is not that common, it would be more logical to assume that losing ones position is supposed to be rare, and that the point of wounding is to take players out of action for a while. Obviously that effect would be reduced by the armour, but then I've not had that much trouble stabbing rulers and dukes in the middle of their armies, so unless the effect is quite pronounced I don't see the issue. Its not like it makes a whole lot of sense that infiltrators can reliably penetrate enemy camps and stab the highest ranked nobles in the land anyway.

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.

Quote from: Thunthorn on February 21, 2012, 11:28:16 PMI would rather see unique items being developed in this direction, with armour that reduces chances of getting wounded and weapons increases the chance of wounding someone in battle etc.

I agree with this. We already have unique weapons and armor. Rather than create a whole new system that is essentially a massive gold sink, why not use unique items? We have advies to find and repair them. We can add a few more varieties to broaden out the armor aspect of it with things like helms, shields, greaves, breastplates, chain hauberks, etc. Add a new "protection" stat, or just base it off the prestige bonus.

This will also breath life back into the stale, and mostly ignored, unique item aspect of the game. It makes advies more useful, make judges stealing unique items more tempting, make losing them hurt more, increase the value of existing items, ...etc. I would much rather we extended and repurposed an already existing and neglected feature than create another one from scratch.

Quote from: Slapsticks on February 22, 2012, 02:35:09 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: Perth on February 22, 2012, 05:56:22 AM
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.

Quote from: De-Legro on February 22, 2012, 12:38:51 AM
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.

Quote from: Chénier on February 22, 2012, 01:33:58 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: Tom on February 22, 2012, 10:06:30 AM
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.

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.

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.

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

Quote from: Zakilevo on February 22, 2012, 05:35:10 PM
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.

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

Quote from: LGMAlpha on February 22, 2012, 05:32:09 PM
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.

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

Quote from: vonGenf on February 22, 2012, 07:26:19 PM
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.

Quote from: Tom on February 22, 2012, 10:32:23 PM
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.

Assume and provide "default" armour level to all new characters. This level could provide the current baseline chance for wounding and wound severity. Then yeah, if people want to have better the "average" armour they can pay for it.

Quote from: Tom on February 22, 2012, 10:32:23 PM
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.

Or...And this is something I've been wanting for a while...You get one set of good (not ornate or whatever, but good) armor with your family.  When you create a character, you can choose whether they get the family heirloom armor (if not already bestowed), and if not, you get the cheap armor.  So then you have the fun of, say, wars not only being fought because Duke Fancypants lost his ornate 10K gold armor, but because Sir Awful Good the Kind's family armor was stolen by Judge Cackle and Snatch.

Hmm...and perhaps there could be some sort of list somewhere that displays all the suits of family armour that a realm or noble has that belongs to someone else. That'd be pretty cool, actually. "Those Evilstan bastards have taken the family armour of eight of our nobles! Let's get 'em back!"

Uh. Now we have to fight over armours? Cmon we can find a better region to fight than that.

Quote from: Zakilevo on February 23, 2012, 08:04:41 AM
Uh. Now we have to fight over armours? Cmon we can find a better region to fight than that.

Considering how peaceful a lot of the game is...

No we can't?

No one has to. It just provides another reason to if people want. And as Slapsticks says, many realms can't find any reason to, currently.

Quote from: Bedwyr on February 23, 2012, 05:58:20 AM
Or...And this is something I've been wanting for a while...You get one set of good (not ornate or whatever, but good) armor with your family.  When you create a character, you can choose whether they get the family heirloom armor (if not already bestowed), and if not, you get the cheap armor.  So then you have the fun of, say, wars not only being fought because Duke Fancypants lost his ornate 10K gold armor, but because Sir Awful Good the Kind's family armor was stolen by Judge Cackle and Snatch.

This could actually be accomplished with the unique items system. Allow players to create a family armour for lots and lots of gold.

Quote from: Tom on February 23, 2012, 08:48:05 AM
This could actually be accomplished with the unique items system. Allow players to create a family armour for lots and lots of gold.

I think he's saying that one set of good armor would come from the family, but it can only be given out once, for free. Not that someone would use family gold to buy the armor.

Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on February 23, 2012, 12:19:30 PM
I think he's saying that one set of good armor would come from the family, but it can only be given out once, for free. Not that someone would use family gold to buy the armor.

That was my idea, yes.  My objection to unique items is, well, decay and loss.  I'm just not interested in RPing into non-permanent items.  Tried it for a while, managed to keep one or two items around with great significance for a while, and then they just...Are gone.

I like the idea of the Armor having a small in game effect.  I would like to see this incorporated into the Unique Items.  The system is already in place and I feel the UI's could use a little tweaking.  As I understand it, UI's have already gotten a little tweaking recently for longevity.  Why not revamp the system a little bit to include armor?  Maybe having armor that can be found by advies but doesn't decay or give prestige bonuses.  So it wouldn't be a "Unique Item"  since it doesn't have a name, but it would still be an item found by an Advy.  The items could be lost or destroyed in battles or in tournaments.   Advies wouldn't need to worry about repairing the armor you could control the turnover of armor pieces by making them easier or harder to lose or destroy. 

I think if an Advy found an ornate plate helmet he could fetch a good price for such a thing.  I think it would add another fun aspect to commoners since they already find stuff to sell to nobles this would just be 1 more thing they could find.   Then, when you fight champions that don't have unique items you might find pieces of armor instead. 

I am not sure it makes sense to have advies finding Armour that is not unique.  Would a lord really put on Armour that some peasant found?  They would instead find a famous armoury to make the armour.  You could have instead, a "Weaponsmith" (a "Sage" type of character) could roam around visiting weapon/armour smiths and nobles would be able to buy weapons/armour from them, as well as have them repaired. 
I think needing to have an item repaired would be good.  Perhaps instead of it disappearing when it drops to 0%, it could instead just stop doing anything for the character.  The character would just have it packed away until he/she found the weaponsmith again.

+1 Charles.

Quote from: Bedwyr on February 23, 2012, 05:58:20 AM
Or...And this is something I've been wanting for a while...You get one set of good (not ornate or whatever, but good) armor with your family.  When you create a character, you can choose whether they get the family heirloom armor (if not already bestowed), and if not, you get the cheap armor.  So then you have the fun of, say, wars not only being fought because Duke Fancypants lost his ornate 10K gold armor, but because Sir Awful Good the Kind's family armor was stolen by Judge Cackle and Snatch.

It could indeed, but I have yet to see a war be declared because of a unique item. Which makes me question the ability of this feature to do as much.

Theft would likely only grief the one that's robbed, with no one willing to commit to the risks of a war for him.

Indeed, I'd say there'd be much less of a chance of people willing to go to great lengths for something of Sir Nobody than for something of Duke Almighty.

Yeah, despite what I said before, I kinda agree. The real reason there are so few wars? Because it takes so much diplomatic wrangling to actually get a war that doesn't involve the one who started it getting gangbanged because the other rulers take exception to the war. Being a "warmonger" is a bad thing IC, whereas it's what people should be, OOC. I don't know about other islands, but on FEI you have realms that specifically throw their weight around to prevent wars from starting. Cathay did it more than once.

That's a different topic.

And I agree, we need more war.

Once the Doctrine conversion is complete, I have on my TODO list a revamping of the character stats (prestige, honour) to bring this back to what it originally was - including one stat important for character development that you can ONLY improve in battle - and I would exclude battles against undead and monsters from that.

Quote from: Tom on March 04, 2012, 11:01:14 PM
That's a different topic.

And I agree, we need more war.

Once the Doctrine conversion is complete, I have on my TODO list a revamping of the character stats (prestige, honour) to bring this back to what it originally was - including one stat important for character development that you can ONLY improve in battle - and I would exclude battles against undead and monsters from that.

Maybe there should be some kind of bonus for wounding and killing enemy commanders?

Quote from: Zakilevo on March 04, 2012, 11:02:36 PM
Maybe there should be some kind of bonus for wounding and killing enemy commanders?

Too random

Tom,
I do not want to suggest that you overreacted on the other similarily titled thread, but I notice that you did not jump on my suggestion to have the items remain at 0% without disintigrating into dust.  Is this because you did not notice it or because there would be different rules regarding unique items and armour? 
If it is the former, I would suggest that perhaps you should be able to choose whether to use/wear the armour or to have it in storage.  With the armour in storage not accumulating any damage but obviously not bestowing any of its benefits.

Quote from: Tom on March 05, 2012, 12:46:38 AM
Too random

Would you like this new stat to be important or necessary?

If it is merely important, than having it being random is not a bad thing. Some characters will have more of it than others, which will create diversity; and those who absolutely want it will have an obvious way to gain it: get a large unit with strong weapons rating and set it to murderous.

If it is necessary, however, then I understand why you would want to make it more predictable, however please do think of the priests, infiltrators and other assorted characters when you design it. They are important too, and sending everyone to the warrior class will not in itself lead to more wars.

Quote from: Charles on March 05, 2012, 02:15:24 PM
Tom,
I do not want to suggest that you overreacted on the other similarily titled thread, but I notice that you did not jump on my suggestion to have the items remain at 0% without disintigrating into dust.  Is this because you did not notice it or because there would be different rules regarding unique items and armour? 
If it is the former, I would suggest that perhaps you should be able to choose whether to use/wear the armour or to have it in storage.  With the armour in storage not accumulating any damage but obviously not bestowing any of its benefits.

When a thread has been locked, please do not attempt to bring issues from that thread into another ongoing thread. This thread was split for a reason, and that thread was locked for a reason.

If you believe a question of yours was not resolved, then either start a new thread, or send Tom a personal message.

Quote from: Anaris on March 05, 2012, 03:18:13 PM
When a thread has been locked, please do not attempt to bring issues from that thread into another ongoing thread. This thread was split for a reason, and that thread was locked for a reason.

If you believe a question of yours was not resolved, then either start a new thread, or send Tom a personal message.

The other thread was about unique items, while this thread is about the eventual "Plate Armour" new feature. I think Charles' question is related to plate armours specifically.

I am mostly curious about what the difference between the armour and unique items will be.  I wanted to know whether armour would also be kept as non-permanant.  Similar suggestions were made on both threads and one recieved a reply whereas the other did not.  My question was an attempt to discover the reason for Tom's silence on the issue in this thread as opposed to the other. 
I am sorry if this has caused confusion.

Quote from: Charles on March 05, 2012, 02:15:24 PM
I do not want to suggest that you overreacted on the other similarily titled thread, but I notice that you did not jump on my suggestion to have the items remain at 0% without disintigrating into dust.  Is this because you did not notice it or because there would be different rules regarding unique items and armour? 

For unique items: Think it through and you'll find the flaw in it.
For armour: Where did I say that armour would even have a damage value? Nowhere, that's right.

I think we can close this thread.

The idea has successfully been killed by overcomplicating it, bringing in personal pet issues, branching off to completely unrelated topics and other crap like that. I seriously question the wisdom of ever opening a forum, the productivity of the mailing list was ten times higher.