Armor Points suggestion.

I've considered simplifying the armor system for awhile now, and I'm on board with some of these revisions.  In particular, I like the idea of an armor cap.  Some of the values may need to be tweaked, though.  For example, the chest value for leather here is more than double its current value.
 
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about stacking rules?  I've always felt that this was something that could stand to be removed for the sake of simplicity, and I don't see it mentioned in your proposal.
 
Nick and I have also discussed a different kind of nerf for armor, namely, to make Armored Combat have additional ranks.  In this case, each rank would allow you to use 15 more points of armor, rather than being able to wear an unlimited amount at three ranks.  The heaviest armor wearers, then, would face a higher skill point investment, but most characters would be unaffected.  This gives it better parity with other defensive skills like Fortitude.
 
These are just some ideas, but I'm on board with rewriting the armor rules a bit.  I'd love to hear other folks weigh in on the subject.

For the leather I should of explained a little better, sorry, the full chest is a hardened Leather Curaiss, not the soft leather.  The soft leather would still be under the lower value of 15 points.  As far as stacking this takes away the stacking of armor, you would only take the highest value one. 
 
As for the extension of the skill points, that sounds very fair.  I would recommend a simple 5 tier set up with each tier giving you 20 armor and the second tier giving you the capability of a shield.
 
for example
Rank 1) 20 armor max
Rank 2) 40 armor max and shield
Rank 3) 60 armor
Rank 4) 80 armor
Rank 5)100 armor
 
This would keep it simple even numbers.

I would say that anyone willing to wear all that armor should not have to be concerned with a top cap.
 
In reality if a knight chose to wear more and more armor he would improve his defenses with no limit, but if he did choose to wear a ton of armor he nerfs himself in other ways like the reduction in agility as a result of all that clutter and weight.
 
This still happens in the game as well. When a armor wearer dons his gear he is automatically taking a hit to his/her fluidity and quickness that non armor wearing classes do not have to suffer. I feel too much armor nerfs itself.
 
Also by limiting the armor you also discourage high levels of costuming.
 
You also take away some of the luster of picking up cool treasure armor.
 
If it would be nerfed via limit system then you have to go through the time consuming task of adjusting skill points on you character to make it work. Not to mention skill points represent money, which the skill points are devalued due to armored combat costing more. less buying power.
 
Yes I am biased to my character, but I think you could better nerf the armor by a reduction in the values of the armor rather than being over complicated with a limit system.
 
I like the system as is. Simple.

Actually Frosty this would free up skill points for your character.  Since you wear only a chest plate you would only need rank 2 in armored combat cause it would still be under the 40 point limit.  I on the other hand would have to spend 4 more skill points in it to get my full value of all my armor.  Plus the ranks you need would only count for the base armor points not the magical enhancements given by the upgraded armor.  For instaance say my chatacter with plate Guantlets, bracers, greaves, and full chest (80 armor points = rank 4 armored combat) gets a mithral breast plate that increases its value to 54 points my base would still be 80 so I would not have to have rank 5 in order to wear. 
 
Also you can still mix and match armor, but if you add up all the pieces, a set of full plate would give 125 armor total, if Steve would want that high of a cap then that would be fine also.  That would allow for the full set. 
 
My main reason for bringing this up was the fact that some items were giving 2.5 armor points and such which just got confusing, this would make all numbers even and would give a easy to go by guide to the armor inspector.

I don't disagree, Jeff.  Armor does limit the wearer's movement.  This is why is provides a disproportional benefit compared to other forms of defense.  Consider that you could purchase a rank of Fortitude and get 5 health or purchase a rank of Armored Combat and get 20 armor.  Comparable cost for a defensive benefit that's statistically four times greater, but hinders your movement.
 
I also don't disagree about the point on costuming.  Instituting a cap would discourage folks from walking into the game decked out in full plate (which is rare, but I've seen it once).  Then again, this may not be such a bad thing.  Too much armor can pose potential health and safety hazards all on its own.  I remember something on the History channel about knights in the Crusades basically cooking in their own armor from the heat, for example.  This isn't to say I don't want the game to look fantastic, but safety's an even higher priority.  Just a thought.
 
As far as adjusting skill points go, the system can accommodate the change with a minimum of hassle.  A few database queries and everyone's up to date.  Easy peasy.  One of the many benefits of doing all of our logistics online.  I wouldn't consider revisions like this otherwise. ;)
 
Everything aside, an armor cap is less important in my mind than the other two changes on the table, namely, removing the stacking rules and giving Armored Combat more than three ranks.  This makes the armor system simpler and gives it better parity and balance.  Adding a cap on top of all that may be a moot point.
 
At any rate, please keep the debate going.  All this feedback is really helpful.
 
P.S. I've said it before, but it bears repeating.  You don't pay for skill points; you pay to play.  Skill points are just a consequence of playing the game.

The only thing I would like to add Steve is if/when you would change the armor point system, allow those that would need to the ability to increase their ranks in armored combat.  After all it would only be fair that instead of having to wait until they get more skill points to wear the same amount of armor the could transition to the new system without loseing their armor.

Already taken into account.  A skill update such as this would warrant a limited respend for those it affects.  At any rate, I don't plan on making a final decision on this so close to an event, so you guys can count on the current system being as is for the moment.

 I know this is a game and it is not real, but in reality if you stack armor you are better protected. In all cultruals worth there snuff the soldiers stacked armor. Plate with chain mail= medieval knights.
rows of lacquered leather strung together with metal scales=Samurai.
layers of soft hide under taned harder hide=Vikings.
Meatal strips lashed together over crisscrossing leather straps=Romans.
thick goose down tunics  under bronze chest plate=Celts.
used a small metal plate straped to the torso under there gi=Ninja.
Leather body protection and a thick tunic=Mongols.
Even the Aztecs wore a tough, Quilted cotton tunic then had animal skins over that and they sucked as a nation.
I would like stacked armor to have it's place in this game. If no one wants to be the check in guy then I will do it.

Revised original post to reflect the ideas of all others.

I've gone ahead and made the changes to the Armored Combat skill official. To recap, Armored Combat now has five ranks, with each rank increasing the amount of armor you can benefit from by 20 points. As before, rank two also allows you to use a shield.

This shouldn't adversely affect most characters. In fact, most folks will see an increase to their original armor cap. For those who will now be wearing more armor than they can benefit from, a partial skill respend will be allowed so that you can dump other skills and buy more ranks in Armored Combat if you so choose. Just drop me a message and let me know.

What I'm still wrestling with are the proposed changes to the armor values themselves. Tom, I like you recommendations, but I feel a strong desire to simplify them. Here's what I came up with:

In most cases, this pretty closely matches the above proposals. The only thing that needs to be taken into account are variant coverage on torso armor. What I'd like to do here is award additional appendage values for torso armor that covers more than just the torso. For example, a sleeveless chain shirt would be 20, a haubergeon would be 28 (torso plus two appendages), and a full hauberk would be 32 (torso plus three appendages). It's not that the armor is necessarily better; it just covers more of the body. This just makes more intuitive sense to me.

Note on my revised version that I've also increased the appendage values on heavier armor. My thinking here is simple; if we're concluding that a chainmail coif is one fifth as effective as a chain shirt, we should likewise conclude that a plate helm is one fifth as effective as a breastplate. What can I say? I like parity.

Thoughts? I'd like to make a final ruling on this within a week or two, so speak now or forever hold your peace.

I like it, keeps it simple round numbers.  This also will allow any dummy to just look at it, look at their armor, and know exactly what they have.

Does it double the torso value if it covers front and back?
It's early I might have just missed it.

Generally speaking, torso armor must cover both front and back.  The only exception is plate, which can cover just the front for 30 or both front and back for 40.  That's where the "Partial Plate" entry comes in on the chart.

well I really don't know what to say so please take this with a grain of salt.
If there is no more stacking of armor I only assume this because there is no info on it then I lost 30 points of armor.
Fat joe lost 10 points of armor.
Jeff gained 7 points of armor.
and as simple goes, as soon as you start calling a odd number of damage these round numbers are no longer simple.

of course this is a OOP forum, so this info is out of play.  Because armor levels have been lowered me plus my armor equals 75 points of life. Monsters at my level are calling plus40 to there damage. They could call 55 damage for a 3 hit combo. nuff said... nuff said. The fighters might very well gain because of this new armor system but all other classes trying to stick to there character concept will be hurt badly.
Druid would wear leather.=10 / 20 points
Rogue would wear leather or chain.=10 / 20 / 30 points at best.
Now I know that with the system we have and the freedom we have a Druid could wear full plate but the thought process I am moving forward with is sticking with the class armor.
Lets not forget that to wear back plate the way this system shows is no longer worth it. Some plate armor suites that are in the game now will not work with just a chest piece.
If we were to just make limb armor better with out lowering chest or removing the stack armor system this would in my mind be great, but to lower armor... Boooo Booo
Like I said before if no one wants to check in armor I will do it and if it takes me 10 seconds longer to figure out what someone is wearing that is fine I will take the hit.

Not to derail you, BJ, but I didn't drop armor stacking, and the only armor value that got gimped was plate, which dropped from 50 to 40.  Everything else stayed the same or went up.  Leather chest armor is, and always has been, worth 10.  Pray explain where the rant is coming from...

Yeah but to everybody who wears a backpiece a piece of studded leather is worth the same as a plate backpiece?
So I should just be wearing a front piece and a chainmail shirt would give me more armor but it would look ridiculous.
So why would a non-vital extremity get more armor points and a vital organ get less. Chest versus hand, I would rather be struck in the hand.
Regardless of how you count each piece of armor the math will always be complex depending on the damage the monsters call. It will always be an guestimate.

I took a big hit on armor value.
10 soft leather
4 wrists
4 hands
4 feet
22 total
"OUCH"
For the record thats half of what I had.
But it's all good.
 
I'm in for the haul.
 
 

I love the GAME and I believe you guys are doing what you think is good for it.
 

I discussed this with Nick, and I believe we've uncovered the root problem. Here, for everyone's review, is the original armor chart that's been official since the game started:

For those of you taking a hit to your armor, I'd like you to calculate how much it should be worth given these values (please remember to halve stacked armor). I think you'll find that it's lower than you thought without any rules being changed.  The only conclusion we can draw is that, whether or not the miscalculation was intentional, the person who told you your armor was worth what you thought was wrong.

Ashley, leather armor on your chest and six appendages is supposed to be worth 28 under the current rules, not 44. Under my proposed revision, it would be worth 22, which is a 6-point reduction, but a far cry from being halved. You were being given 16 more armor points than the rules called for.

BJ, I know Nick spoke to you about your armor total, and I know he reached a similar conclusion. Whatever value you were told was significantly inflated from what it should have been.  My guess is that is probably true for everyone who joined the game last season.

What we'd like everyone to understand is that the pain here is not from a rules change. The pain is that the rules were being misrepresented. Whether or not we change the values themselves, some of you are going to take a hit because we have to correct those inflated values.

For what it's worth, Nick and I are sorry we didn't notice the problem sooner, and we promise to be more vigilant about giving proper armor totals in the future.

I'll chime in on this one. We all agree that 3 ranks in armored combat for unlimited armor is a little broken. To that end we will be going forward with the proposed rules change on the armored combat skill. Furthermore it has been brought up that to encourage armor use and consequently the wearing of armor we need to make it worth while. Worn armor is good from an esthetic standpoint and helps a lot with emersion.
 
My proposal is this. Instead of armor starting at 10 let leather start from 20, and work up to the original 50. Perhaps cloth is 10 just to make it simple. Making armor worth more is a good thing and at high levels 10 points isn?t a lot. Lower levels will be more survivable and higher levels really will not see that much of a gain at this point. In my proposal everything goes back to it?s original values for appendages and cloth has no appendage armor values.
 
Think it over. I would like to find a way to make this work and not be over powered. If armor is too good in our game that?s ok. More players will wear it.
 
That section was more for Thad to mull over, this question is for the players: Do you feel A) Not challenged. B) Challenged enough. C) Stop Killing me!

Can I take a D)all the above?
 
 

No, I'm not at all on board with a global 10-point increase to the value of armor, Nick.  The fact is, armor is already very good.  Having free bonus health every single fight is a big advantage.  And considering all of the other ways to improve your character's defense (shields, the Fortitude skill, Guard effects, special materials that grant material points), I believe such a change to be unnecessary and overpowered.

Nick and I have discussed a possible compromise.  What if we went with his global 10-point increase to the value of chest armor but at the same time ditched the armor stacking rules?  I think it's a balanced way to address all of the varying concerns here.  How does everyone else feel about it?  BJ, I'm curious to hear what you think in particular, since you seem to be the most adamantly opposed to eliminating the stacking rules.

"I like it, but I don't stack so my vote really doesn?t count.
 
What I like best is that we are having this conversation.
 
 
"What if the Hoky Poky "IS" what it's all about?"

Ok here it comes.
It is my belief that if someone has to take a hit and we are trying to make the armor system less complicated that the dude with the most complicated armor should bow-out. Everyone in the game will benefit with the new system except me, that is kew with me. In truth I have been benefiting from a miscalculation for a year now anyway, so I am not going to sour grapes all over the inter web trying to bend something my way. If the people defending me will have more armor because of this then that is wonderful. that is my statement and I will stick by it..  IN and Out of Play = You fighters better start really defending me, I don't want so much as a scratch on me from now on. If you have to run across the field and throw yourself in front of me then do it. Corvax/ B.J.

It sounds like we have an accord, then. I've pushed the new rules to the armor section of the game guide. For reference sake, here is what was changed:

• Armor is now qualified by tier.
  • Tier I armor includes padded or light leather armor and grants 20 armor points when worn on the torso or 2 armor points when worn on an appendage.
  • Tier II armor includes heavy (e.g., boiled, hardened, studded, etc.) leather or chainmail and grants 30 armor points when worn on the torso or 4 armor points when worn on an appendage.
  • Tier III armor includes brigandine or partial plate and grants 40 armor points when worn on the torso or 6 armor points when worn on an appendage.
  • Tier IV armor includes full plate and grants 50 armor points when worn on the torso or 8 armor points when worn on an appendage.
• For questionable pieces of armor, the appropriate tier will be determined by comparison to established pieces of armor on factors such as weight, rigidity, and real-life protective value.
• Stacking will no longer be possible in the way we were doing it before. However, I've added in a note that additional layers of protection may qualify your armor as a higher tier. BJ, for example, is wearing multiple layers of tier II chest armor, which, when worn together, will qualify as tier III.

I feel like this lays to rest a lot of my concerns. It's simpler and less open to abuse, and I think it continues our proud tradition of making armor incredibly well worth the expense and discomfort. Any thoughts? I threw in a few things at the end, there, but all in all, this is pretty much what we already discussed.

Thanks for your patients and diligence.
 
We appreciate you Code Master.
 
 

I'll come straight out and admit I only read the first three or so posts, so if this has been said, ignore me.  I've never understood the no stacking rule.  If a person wears chainmail AND platemail, they are better protected from swords, plain and simple.  They would have to pay for that protection with less movement and more weight.  As far as the numbers go, I'll leave that to you guys.  This is my two cents. 

We had a more traditional stacking rule where you received full points for the highest hit point, thus most protective, piece of armor and half points for the lesser of he two stacked. This was simply found to be more complicated and ultimately too antiquated for this cutting edge game. So now you receive an armor upgrade if it warrants more armor. It looks much simpler.
Thanks for adding to the discussion, thus giving us the ability to explain better what this new rule entails.

BJ, If paladins had provoke I might just come to your aide, but look at it this way if you fall I can pick you back up :-)