Light-Medium-Heavy armour. More harm than good?

[Lachdonin]

This is a discussion we've been having on the Bethesda forum, and i thought i'd branch out and get opinions from a different community base...

 

TES has traditionally maintained a scale of armour which, depending on the incarnation, ranges from Unarmoured-Light-Medium-Heavy. These have been governed by individual skills, and particular armour sets are identified in these paradigms to determine what skills govern their use. Lighter armours encumber you less, heavier ones more, as per the usual Fantasy trope.

 

But is it worth it? Or does it actually make armour kinda stupid?

 

 

Here are the problems;

 

 

 

 

1; First, it makes no sense. It isn't how armour works. ALL armour is going to encumber you to some degree, and in fact what we would generally consider 'heavy' armours encumber you LESS. Plate armours are highly mobile (if kinda hot) and relatively lightweight, whereas Mail and Leather armours tend to be more burdensome and difficult to move in. In fact, in the real world, the only reason you wouldn't wear plate armour is cost, as it could be very expensive.

 

2; There is no internal logic to the system. Oblivion's light armour contains 2 Leather, 2 Mail and 2 Plate armours, and it's Heavy consists of 4 Plate and 2 Banded. Skyrim's Light is 4 Leather, 2 Scale and 3 Plate vs Heavy; 8 Plate, 3 Banded. Morrowind's is even more nonsensical. The problem here is twofold. First, an armour's protective capabilities are primarily based on HOW the armour is made. All plate's have the same inherent advantages over Mails. Second, it lacks visual cohesion that allows you to quickly identify where an armour fits.

 

3; AC. Because of the lack of cohesion in approach to the armour types, the current system has no way to really highlight variation in techniques, damage types or resistances. So it settles for just increasing AC. And, being governed by separate skills, at Skill 100 the differences between the types is almost non existent, further marginalising any variation between armours. It creates linearity with little to no range, and makes it so you just swap out for the next in a predictable line of gear when it becomes available.

 

 

 

 

So, the question is thus... Is the scale worth it? What does it add? Would it be better to roll it all into a single Armour skill, and use Perks to differentiate types of armour with a wider range of strengths or weaknesses?

 

[saurusmaximus]

I always thought that having an armor "skill" was kind of stupid in the first place; there is no real skill to wearing armor, you put it on and you go off to battle. If there is any skill, it's more in conditioning oneself to run around with however many pounds of leather/steel/etc hanging off your back. I realize they almost have to put something about armor in the leveling system to give players something to work for, this is a game after all, but I personally feel it could be simply narrowed down to just "Armor", no need for "Heavy Armor" and "Light Armor"; and as pointed out in the above spoiler, r/l doesn't work that way any ways.

[Bloodinfested]

I see a benefit in having them it just gives more character customization witch could then be furthered by a perk tree. It is after all a game and in a fantasy setting things aren’t suppose to be 100% realistic and if that’s someones concern then they are playing the wrong game then. The way things are going with the massive streamlining they will have just a armor skill and maybe they will have just a weapon skill get rid of all the specialization in weapons then just a magic skill get rid off all the schools because somehow having less options is a better thing.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Bloodinfested

[Lachdonin]

The way things are going with the massive streamlining they will have just a armor skill and maybe they will have just a weapon skill get rid of all the specialization in weapons then just a magic skill get rid off all the schools because somehow having less options is a better thing.

That's always been an unfair asessment from a portion of the gaming base that seems to be under the impression that having more Skills instantly equates to more customization. It doesn't, and often creates disjointed and nonsensical divisions between related concepts that don't actually add anything meaningful. There's no reason a Master Swordsman should be a bumbling novice if he picks up a Mace, or a reknowned sprinter only be able to bunny hope.

 

Amalgamating skills that operate on the same fundimental base, and then diverging using Perks, allows for a more naturalistic mechanism without sacrificing any of the customization options. Skyrims difetentation between Blade, Axe and Blunt within the 1-handed Weapon tree offers more range and interaction, for considerably less work, and without creating an inane cluttered mess like Daggerfall.

[Bloodinfested]

 

The way things are going with the massive streamlining they will have just a armor skill and maybe they will have just a weapon skill get rid of all the specialization in weapons then just a magic skill get rid off all the schools because somehow having less options is a better thing.

That's always been an unfair asessment from a portion of the gaming base that seems to be under the impression that having more Skills instantly equates to more customization. It doesn't, and often creates disjointed and nonsensical divisions between related concepts that don't actually add anything meaningful. There's no reason a Master Swordsman should be a bumbling novice if he picks up a Mace, or a reknowned sprinter only be able to bunny hope.

 

Amalgamating skills that operate on the same fundimental base, and then diverging using Perks, allows for a more naturalistic mechanism without sacrificing any of the customization options. Skyrims difetentation between Blade, Axe and Blunt within the 1-handed Weapon tree offers more range and interaction, for considerably less work, and without creating an inane cluttered mess like Daggerfall.

 

Daggerfall you were locked out on some skills so Its absolutely a form of customization and specialization of your character. Even today when you can use everything its still goes though the same process of specialization/customization.

The original reason why skills are even in the game is to allow your character the notion of getting better in x skill. All you see now is a increased number on screen in the impression you assume your getting better yet game play wise your really not any better. The older games made skills function a lot better you can argue that it was maybe crude but at lest you knew your getting better in a skill. Now its purely used as an process to level up and skill doesn’t really mean how good you really are in said skill.

The perk system was suppose to take care of this but if your an battle mage and the 1^st 15 levels you choose to invest into magic perks and ignore combat perks even if you got 45 skill one hand it still doesn’t reflect that your remotely good in one hand. Witch defeats the entire purpose of what the skills were in the 1^st place.

 

Your trying to put logical thought behind a fantasy game witch isn’t logical in the process of covering up the series short comings. You use skyrim perk tree as an example and I'm fine with that further customization but its also lacking spears/polearms, medium armor, unarmored and ect witch the perks don’t confiscate for. If you wanted to put some rational thought behind a few skills a pole arm how its used is quite a bit different then say a sword. Eso did an ok job in identifying these armors skills in their perks in a fantasy setting.

[Lachdonin]

 

You use skyrim perk tree as an example and I'm fine with that further customization but its also lacking spears/polearms, medium armor, unarmored and ect witch the perks don’t confiscate for.

 

I never said Perks were perfect. The system was poorly balanced and incomplete. However, it better characterised the interaction between like-skills. There is no justifiable reason for dividing skills up like Diplomacy, Etiquette and Merchantile, because they all opperate on the same basis, it's just applying the same skill in different ways. Yes, Skyrim still lacked some of the variety we had in the past, but the mechanism it used to revive what variety it had (and it DID revive some of what was lost with Oblivion) was a far more naturalistic and functional model than the nonsensical segregation of Morrowind, or worse, Daggerfall (Critical, Backstab and Long blade are all separate skills?)

 

 

 

If you wanted to put some rational thought behind a few skills a pole arm how its used is quite a bit different then say a sword.

 

Not a 2-handed sword. And even then, i think Lindy Beige summarizes the issue of distinct weapon-skills quite well.

 

 

There are just far better, far easier ways of handling the same thing. So why keep an antiquated, failed and disjointed system?

[thompsonar]

Is this not just a matter of the categorization of skills? What i mean is do things really change all that much if all armors are included under a general "Armor" skill? You lose the progress bars for light armor, heavy armor, etc but with perks it's still basically the same thing (progression wise). You get more specialized and "better" with certain armor types as you reach higher levels and unlock more perks.

 

I think it does seem more natural to have armor as a single perk tree, and would certainly allow for the same amount of customization if the perks are implemented the right way. But to me at least it doesn't seem like a complete reworking of the system, more a reordering that is better aesthetically and functions much the same. Of course that depends on how the perks are designed within the tree.

[Bloodinfested]

 

 

The way things are going with the massive streamlining they will have just a armor skill and maybe they will have just a weapon skill get rid of all the specialization in weapons then just a magic skill get rid off all the schools because somehow having less options is a better thing.

That's always been an unfair asessment from a portion of the gaming base that seems to be under the impression that having more Skills instantly equates to more customization. It doesn't, and often creates disjointed and nonsensical divisions between related concepts that don't actually add anything meaningful. There's no reason a Master Swordsman should be a bumbling novice if he picks up a Mace, or a reknowned sprinter only be able to bunny hope.

 

Amalgamating skills that operate on the same fundimental base, and then diverging using Perks, allows for a more naturalistic mechanism without sacrificing any of the customization options. Skyrims difetentation between Blade, Axe and Blunt within the 1-handed Weapon tree offers more range and interaction, for considerably less work, and without creating an inane cluttered mess like Daggerfall.

 

Daggerfall you were locked out on some skills so Its absolutely a form of customization and specialization of your character. Even today when you can use everything its still goes though the same process of specialization/customization.

The original reason why skills are even in the game is to allow your character the notion of getting better in x skill. All you see now is a increased number on screen in the impression you assume your getting better yet game play wise your really not any better. The older games made skills function a lot better you can argue that it was maybe crude but at lest you knew your getting better in a skill. Now its purely used as an process to level up and skill doesn’t really mean how good you really are in said skill.

The perk system was suppose to take care of this but if your an battle mage and the 1^st 15 levels you choose to invest into magic perks and ignore combat perks even if you got 45 skill one hand it still doesn’t reflect that your remotely good in one hand. Witch defeats the entire purpose of what the skills were in the 1^st place.

 

Your trying to put logical thought behind a fantasy game witch isn’t logical in the process of covering up the series short comings. You use skyrim perk tree as an example and I'm fine with that further customization but its also lacking spears/polearms, medium armor, unarmored and ect witch the perks don’t confiscate for. If you wanted to put some rational thought behind a few skills a pole arm how its used is quite a bit different then say a sword. Eso did an ok job in identifying these armors skills in their perks in a fantasy setting.

 

I wouldn’t suggest going back to the old system entirely but if you were going to modernize it one would make skills in general a bit more beneficial at the same time act like the original intent. For example weapon skills use to be an modifier to hit since chance to hit is no longer thinking simple because tes isn't a complex rpg an rolling modifier on damage per 5 skill increase or whatever. If it was spells skills rolling modifier on damage/duration. When your leveling up skills what a concept they had you actually feel like your getting better theres literally 100's of ways in modernizing any element, the older games are a perfect blue print witch they choose not to use the new series would be so much more meaningful today.

I shouldn't say they never gone off the older games you gave 2 good examples critical strike and backstabbing is really in the perk system although semi fail on implementing the critical.

 

If your fine with converging skills then whether your talking about armor or magic maybe we should have just a magic skill doesn’t matter what type of armor your wearing so is shouldn’t matter what type of school the spell your casting.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Bloodinfested