Skip to main content

Topic: Why do we punish more expensive amour? (Read 1196 times) previous topic - next topic

Re: Why do we punish more expensive amour?
Reply #15
This is how it is.

.Full metal has always been situational. Full metal is mostly good in large scale and siege.
.If you wish to go pvp solo or lower scale, i always thought it was better to make sure you get no archery penalties. So you become light: which means, semi heavy with 60 encumbrance max.
.In full bone or below 20 encumbrance, you are a mage. So don't trade in melee if you don't currently have more HP than your opponent or attack him that way when he is off-guard which mean, sticky back mostly or just pull a whilrwind and go pick a staff right after.

that does not mean a super heavy warrior can't play solo. Look at Itwas luck. IT's just not for everyone. If you go full heavy solo, that's usually because you are rich.

But i like the idea that expensive full armor are mostly made for large scale fights.

I still wish that Feathered enchant was removed because there's no point in wearing a robe and i also hope there was more noticeable encumbrance penalties from 0 to 100+, not just from 20 to 100+ and no damage reduction below 20. I always thought that was pretty dumb and the main reason robes are seen as naked basically.

With that said, Robe, full bone, studded are not expensive at all.
What we need is a none expensive viable full heavy armored set. This mean, banded and scale armor must truly become viable. Maybe chain armor too.



  • Last Edit: August 26, 2016, 05:37:12 am by Bloodymurderer

Re: Why do we punish more expensive amour?
Reply #16
This is how it is.

.Full metal has always been situational. Full metal is mostly good in large scale and siege.
.If you wish to go pvp solo or lower scale, i always thought it was better to make sure you get no archery penalties. So you become light: which means, semi heavy with 60 encumbrance max.
.In full bone or below 20 encumbrance, you are a mage. So don't trade in melee if you don't currently have more HP than your opponent or attack him that way when he is off-guard which mean, sticky back mostly or just pull a whilrwind and go pick a staff right after.

that does not mean a super heavy warrior can't play solo. Look at Itwas luck. IT's just not for everyone. If you go full heavy solo, that's usually because you are rich.

But i like the idea that expensive full armor are mostly made for large scale fights.

I still wish that Feathered enchant was removed because there's no point in wearing a robe and i also hope there was more noticeable encumbrance penalties from 0 to 100+, not just from 20 to 100+ and no damage reduction below 20. I always thought that was pretty dumb and the main reason robes are seen as naked basically.

With that said, Robe, full bone, studded are not expensive at all.
What we need is a none expensive viable full heavy armored set. This mean, banded and scale armor must truly become viable. Maybe chain armor too.





There is no damage reduction to magic under 20 encumberance? I havent really tested it that much and damage varies enough its hard to see small changes. Or did I misread you?

Robes have a use when fighting certain magic mobs because they have protections armors dont and can also we used as suicide gear since they are so cheap. I think newer toond could still get value from robes because their armored casting is low, but like you say once someone id more developed feathered armor is way better than robes

Re: Why do we punish more expensive amour?
Reply #17
Metal armors as a whole will be buffed.
We will give them extra protections equivalent to the base protection that was removed with rigor, ignore pain and defense.
Encumbrance will also reduce displacement effects, which means heavier equipment will reduce the impact of knock backs and knock ups.

We'll also introduce leather and robes alternatives that should cost an equivalent amount, which will balance gear bag costs down the line.


i hope that you know what u are doing here, buffing armors with knock up resistance ( and not buffing non-knock up spells ) can be a dangerouse thing

Re: Why do we punish more expensive amour?
Reply #18
@gilonn
It comes with a built in drawback: You cannot be knocked around all that much, but you will also have a harder time to knock yourself around.

And with viable alternatives in other types of gear, there is also an opportunity cost.
The Darkfall: New Dawn Dev Team.

  • gosti
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Why do we punish more expensive amour?
Reply #19
DFUW tried it. Didn't go well.

Re: Why do we punish more expensive amour?
Reply #20
DFUW tried it. Didn't go well.

pretty much this
Gil Ian - Avaris

Re: Why do we punish more expensive amour?
Reply #21
This is how it is.

.Full metal has always been situational. Full metal is mostly good in large scale and siege.
.If you wish to go pvp solo or lower scale, i always thought it was better to make sure you get no archery penalties. So you become light: which means, semi heavy with 60 encumbrance max.
.In full bone or below 20 encumbrance, you are a mage. So don't trade in melee if you don't currently have more HP than your opponent or attack him that way when he is off-guard which mean, sticky back mostly or just pull a whilrwind and go pick a staff right after.

that does not mean a super heavy warrior can't play solo. Look at Itwas luck. IT's just not for everyone. If you go full heavy solo, that's usually because you are rich.

But i like the idea that expensive full armor are mostly made for large scale fights.

I still wish that Feathered enchant was removed because there's no point in wearing a robe and i also hope there was more noticeable encumbrance penalties from 0 to 100+, not just from 20 to 100+ and no damage reduction below 20. I always thought that was pretty dumb and the main reason robes are seen as naked basically.

With that said, Robe, full bone, studded are not expensive at all.
What we need is a none expensive viable full heavy armored set. This mean, banded and scale armor must truly become viable. Maybe chain armor too.





There is no damage reduction to magic under 20 encumberance? I havent really tested it that much and damage varies enough its hard to see small changes. Or did I misread you?

Robes have a use when fighting certain magic mobs because they have protections armors dont and can also we used as suicide gear since they are so cheap. I think newer toond could still get value from robes because their armored casting is low, but like you say once someone id more developed feathered armor is way better than robes

I never tested it. If you open status window and you look under encumbrance, take a look at magic when you are at 19 encumbrance. It stays at 00.00 which means, no damage reduction.

The only benefit of taking robes is less fizzle which has been removed and faster casting. That's not enough to leave aside more protection you get from a full bone set.

Edit: Robes are totally useless. They give like 4 magic protection only. Even a full chain armor which is not even a complete set do it better for 30 encumbrance. Both the sudded and bone do it better and you stay below 20 ENC.
So like i said, the encumbrance penalty on everything has to be perfectly linear from 0 to 100, not just from above 20 for mages and above 60 for archers.

Robes right now are only useful if you wish to raid a city and you have no arcane ring. Extravagant robe give + 4 arcane protection which is good enough to fight under tower.

DFUW tried it. Didn't go well.
What do you mean by that? I remember it was good enough to make you get out of Waterygrave sooner. Other than that, it was't so OP.

The only thing that didnt go well was the fact that it was inferior to the unique effect you get from robe which was damage i think and priest robe which added more stamina if i recall and light armor which added more speed.
Why the hell would you pick knock-back reduction when there's better options?
  • Last Edit: August 26, 2016, 02:58:30 pm by Bloodymurderer

Re: Why do we punish more expensive amour?
Reply #22
This is how it is.

.Full metal has always been situational. Full metal is mostly good in large scale and siege.
.If you wish to go pvp solo or lower scale, i always thought it was better to make sure you get no archery penalties. So you become light: which means, semi heavy with 60 encumbrance max.
.In full bone or below 20 encumbrance, you are a mage. So don't trade in melee if you don't currently have more HP than your opponent or attack him that way when he is off-guard which mean, sticky back mostly or just pull a whilrwind and go pick a staff right after.

that does not mean a super heavy warrior can't play solo. Look at Itwas luck. IT's just not for everyone. If you go full heavy solo, that's usually because you are rich.

But i like the idea that expensive full armor are mostly made for large scale fights.

I still wish that Feathered enchant was removed because there's no point in wearing a robe and i also hope there was more noticeable encumbrance penalties from 0 to 100+, not just from 20 to 100+ and no damage reduction below 20. I always thought that was pretty dumb and the main reason robes are seen as naked basically.

With that said, Robe, full bone, studded are not expensive at all.
What we need is a none expensive viable full heavy armored set. This mean, banded and scale armor must truly become viable. Maybe chain armor too.





There is no damage reduction to magic under 20 encumberance? I havent really tested it that much and damage varies enough its hard to see small changes. Or did I misread you?

Robes have a use when fighting certain magic mobs because they have protections armors dont and can also we used as suicide gear since they are so cheap. I think newer toond could still get value from robes because their armored casting is low, but like you say once someone id more developed feathered armor is way better than robes

I never tested it. If you open status window and you look under encumbrance, take a look at magic when you are at 19 encumbrance. It stays at 00.00 which means, no damage reduction.

The only benefit of taking robes is less fizzle which has been removed and faster casting. That's not enough to leave aside more protection you get from a full bone set.


That depends on your armored casting and that 00.00 is your modified encumbrance after armor casting and feather, but how that modified encumbrance translate to reduced damage is supposed to be linear so 1 is 1/20th the effect of 20, but there should be some reduced damage even at 1.

Re: Why do we punish more expensive amour?
Reply #23
I think I did a really bad job of explaining my reasoning in this thread.
My point is that if something costs more gold, it should be better.  In Darkfall's case, more expensive is not always better.  Heavy armours have penalties to magic and archery that rival their respective buffs.  It can be argued that the protections given by rare armours outweigh the penalties, but to be honest, it doesn't enough to justify their extraordinary cost.  It's true that heavy armour mages would be broken, but something has to be done to account for this cost-effect disparity. @Fnights
  • Last Edit: October 15, 2016, 12:43:31 am by _SeeD_

Re: Why do we punish more expensive amour?
Reply #24
You will find the next patch very interesting. ;)
The Darkfall: New Dawn Dev Team.

  • Fnights
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Why do we punish more expensive amour?
Reply #25
You will find the next patch very interesting. ;)

Spoil us something, sound very interesting. :)

ps: Hope the new mount system is still planned for this new patch too.
DnD full roadmap
***
Darkfall Online (Eu-1)
2009~2012
DF1 broken issues

Re: Why do we punish more expensive amour?
Reply #26
You will find the next patch very interesting. ;)

Spoil us something, sound very interesting. :)

ps: Hope the new mount system is still planned for this new patch too.

Well given the name of the thread, im guessing they will be introducing changes to metal armors, most likely uping the protections on the lower tier ones to give more value  to the extra encumbrance over light armors.