Armorsmith Archive
Thread: You serious AS guys should keep your eyes on this:
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=GCW&message.id=136396
I may be wrong, but it walks like an armor nerf, and quacks like an armor nerf....
AntiM767 wrote:
Check Jester's big idea here:
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=GCW&message.id=136396
I may be wrong, but it walks like an armor nerf, and quacks like an armor nerf....
Its a good idea. Personally I don't think the HAM costs are enough of a sting. Having reduction in movement and bonuses would really deter the constant mantra of "Composite this, Composite that!" and open up interest in some of the other armors.
Furthermore you would also divide the total action encumbrance by 10 and apply it to defensive skill mods:
Ranged Defense, Melee Defense, block/dodge/counter attack
SO at 665 action encumbrance I would suffer -66 ranged defense, -66 melee defense, -66 to block
What would be the point of armor if it hurts your def mods. That one makes no sense at all. It's freaken armor, it should boost those stats, not decrease them.
UmmonPrime wrote:
Furthermore you would also divide the total action encumbrance by 10 and apply it to defensive skill mods:
Ranged Defense, Melee Defense, block/dodge/counter attack
SO at 665 action encumbrance I would suffer -66 ranged defense, -66 melee defense, -66 to block
What would be the point of armor if it hurts your def mods. That one makes no sense at all. It's freaken armor, it should boost those stats, not decrease them.
This would be an armor nerf. People would just stop wearing it if it hurt them. You decrease def mods, then % becomes pointless. You're getting hit all the time andwill always take the dmg.
I for one would never wear armor if you go by the specs he suggested. Decerase all my def mods by 60 and i'm just as good as dead, no matter how good your buff is.
Armor protects, it should never kill you. I can see a slight mod decrease, but not what he's talking about.
While I agree with the idea that armor weighs you down and should detract from your movement abilities, I would have to also argue that there would be technology improvements that could allow you to be stronger, faster, have compter systems that actually increase your combat reaction times, ...
This smacks more like curing a symptom than making a complete/finely tunedsystem. I think if credits held value and you had to make choices with your money, then you would probably demand more. Perhaps then they could open up more choices by allowing greater maximum/minimums on HAM, Condition, Resists (though I think resists are fine the way they are implemented now).
But what if you could sacrifice half or more of your resists for only having half the HAM cost. or Double the condition and significantly less resists or encumbrance. Perhaps other choices where you either have one skill or another but not both to affect these type of changes. Or make the expense prohibitive enough as to only be usefu lto people who really need it. Why affect one attribute without looking ta making other options. Granted it would make things more complicated, but it would open up different market segments and different strategies.
I'm all for choices, not somethign where everything falls into one bucket.
But... to counter the arguement of those who think, get massive doc buffs and then what do you need with armor since you have massive pools and regen it fast anyway because of the boosts... 1) there should be more damage taken if one is not wearing armor (but -only- if they fix wookies) 2) Hits of medium or heavy (armor piercing) should be somewhat mitigated (but at a greatly reduced resist percentage, perhaps a percent of the resist percent) by armor but simply devasting if not wearing armor (relates to #1, too). Right now, if you are fighting something that does medium or heavy damage, being unarmored takes -less- damage than being armored, the armor you wear adds to your damage taken.
I also think this would provide more usefulness for the other armor lines, you know, anything not Composite or Ubese and would even get people seeking armor earlier in their careers and step up their armor as they progress (other than just bank-rolling a set of Ubese or Composite as their first armor purchase). Yes, it would require more armorsmiths to have a more extensive line of armor or even give some business to the up-and-coming armorsmith. Heck, it might even be a way to "train" that up-and-coming smith in the necessity of quality resources and good experimentation as he/she steps through the profession other than just and only those, like me, who get obsessive with seeing what he/she can do with stuff to make it "better" (and based on what I have been able to do as a non-master, 1.5 boxes left, I should make some rather nice armor at master *grin*).
-Tess Ainwyn
Ainwyn Armory
Temenos Island, Naboo
Kettemoor
currently to compete/win in pvp, armor is essential. Why? Well because everybody wears it (cept the poor **edit** wookies - i know i know). You get protection and suffer no loss in skills.
Under the proposed idea the more you are armored, the more you suffer in the skill department.
Is this a fair summary of Jesters idea?
Assuming it is, you will have protection but will start to suffer in skills. You may be able to eat 2X the damage but is that a good trade off if you hit 1/2 as often and move 1/2 as fast? I have weapons for about every vulnerability there is in armor. So, while you're staggering around at a reduced speed and missing with your reduced accuracy, I (and plenty of other folks) will be unencumbered, a psg, belly full of synthsteak, vasarian, and muon drilling you with a damage type you have little/no resistance to. Guess who wins? The armored guy won't stand a chance. Still don't think that'll hurt armor sales?
I'm not saying it isn't logical. It is. But there need to be some careful give n take. The armored BH in the movies (i can't believe im making film comparisons - so weak) seemed like they moved around pretty well. If something like this were to go in I think you'd have to completely revamp armor and the way it works, otherwise I think its value is greatly diminished.
Message Edited by AntiM767 on 03-05-2004 02:56 PM
AntiM767 wrote:
Under the proposed idea the more you are armored, the more you suffer in the skill department.
Is this a fair summary of Jesters idea?
Assuming it is, you will have protection but will start to suffer in skills. You may be able to eat 2X the damage but is that a good trade off if you hit 1/2 as often and move 1/2 as fast? I have weapons for about every vulnerability there is in armor. So, while you're staggering around at a reduced speed and missing with your reduced accuracy, I (and plenty of other folks) will be unencumbered, a psg, belly full of synthsteak, vasarian, and muon drilling you with a damage type you have little/no resistance to. Guess who wins? The armored guy won't stand a chance. Still don't think that'll hurt armor sales?
Message Edited by AntiM767 on 03-05-2004 02:56 PM
Well, yes. Using Jester's idea,a poorly made piece of junk armor would have that kind of effect. If a player decides to put a lead suit, let them move slowly.
What the idea talks about is the concept of diminishing gains. Pluses and minuses. Armor protects, but it slows down.With his idea, youcan have low protection armor with light penalties, or high protection armor with hefty penalties. But not both.
It would certainly make people begin to look at the encumbrance again, rather than just resists. And that's the point. A doctor, Dancer, and Musician can make the current armor "minus" irrelevant with their enhancements. Therefore the encumbrance stat is being mostly ignored in the face of resists.
This means that all that really matters is getting 90% composite. Every other armor, every other stat falls by the wayside.
Making one schematic all the time isn't a whole heck of a lot of fun.