The Importance Of Loot

[DraQ]

The thing that should make textile armour useful is the lesser weight, higher maximum dexterity bonus and lesser skills penalty.
Also, you'll probably wear it under mail or plate anyway.

thats what padded shirts are for originally, to keep you from chafing.

kinda strange they made it into an armor on its own.

RPG devs can't into layered armour.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Well, actually, textile armour is usually ignored in favour of the leather armour which was very rarely used in the West.
Multi-layered textile armour can be surprisingly effective on it's own, though.

 

[JarlFrank]

The thing that should make textile armour useful is the lesser weight, higher maximum dexterity bonus and lesser skills penalty.
Also, you'll probably wear it under mail or plate anyway.

thats what padded shirts are for originally, to keep you from chafing.

kinda strange they made it into an armor on its own.

RPG devs can't into layered armour.

Yeah, this is a thing that annoys me. Morrowind and Daggerfall had a good thing going with being able to wear a layer of clothing and a layer of armor above it. It could've been expanded to multiple layers of armor - like putting a gambeson under chainmail and plate over the chain.

It never happened though because with Oblivion Beth decided to go the dumbing down route. And since almost all mainstream devs are going that route, good luck finding such a system in the near future...

 

[Luzur]

The thing that should make textile armour useful is the lesser weight, higher maximum dexterity bonus and lesser skills penalty.
Also, you'll probably wear it under mail or plate anyway.

thats what padded shirts are for originally, to keep you from chafing.

kinda strange they made it into an armor on its own.

RPG devs can't into layered armour.

Yeah, this is a thing that annoys me. Morrowind and Daggerfall had a good thing going with being able to wear a layer of clothing and a layer of armor above it. It could've been expanded to multiple layers of armor - like putting a gambeson under chainmail and plate over the chain.

It never happened though because with Oblivion Beth decided to go the dumbing down route. And since almost all mainstream devs are going that route, good luck finding such a system in the near future...

yeah i remember the first time i equipped a leather armor in Oblivion, and found that my shirt went into inventory.

you are forced to be naked under your armor in Oblivion.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

you are forced to be naked under your armor in Oblivion.

It seems the armors already come with clothes underneath them.

 

[DraQ]

you are forced to be naked under your armor in Oblivion.

The armors already come with clothes underneath them.

In b4 Slof's mods.

 

[mondblut]

I don't say it's particularly realistic design there, but at least the game tried to give every armor a different use.

But every armor does not need to have a different use. A plate is always better than a chain, and a chain is always better than leather. People wore the less effective armors than full plate and fought with something else than a quality sword because a full plate and a quality sword cost a metric fuckton of gold and only a very wealthy feudal could afford himself the luxury. It's that simple. Every peasant would be fucking happy to trade his polearm and padded vest for real armor and weapon if he only had the funds.

 

[deus101]

This is were Infinity Engine SHINES DAMNIT!

The loot is jjUUUUUUST right....and tons of special loot to boot not, generic magic weapon with fancy name nr 2345.


SCROUNGE REPRESENT!!!


(yeah im serious)

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I don't say it's particularly realistic design there, but at least the game tried to give every armor a different use.

But every armor does not need to have a different use. A plate is always better than a chain, and a chain is always better than leather. People wore the less effective armors than full plate and fought with something else than a quality sword because a full plate and a quality sword cost a metric fuckton of gold and only a very wealthy feudal could afford himself the luxury. It's that simple. Every peasant would be fucking happy to trade his polearm and padded vest for real armor and weapon if he only had the funds.

Main weapon of the warrior was always a pole arm. Sword is pretty good and versatile but a spear has longer reach.

 

[DraQ]

Polearms are awesome.




And manly.

 

[mondblut]

Main weapon of the warrior was always a pole arm. Sword is pretty good and versatile but a spear has longer reach.

Polearm was main weapon because it's fucking cheap, easily massed, and the only training a guy with a sharpened stick in a large crowd of guys with sharpened sticks needs is to hold it tightly and stand still.

Massed polearms in defensive formations = cheap, easy and effective. Bringing a polearm into a small-scale skirmish of dozen men = retarded and suicidal.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

And you base that opinion on?

 

[PorkaMorka]

I don't say it's particularly realistic design there, but at least the game tried to give every armor a different use.

But every armor does not need to have a different use. A plate is always better than a chain, and a chain is always better than leather. People wore the less effective armors than full plate and fought with something else than a quality sword because a full plate and a quality sword cost a metric fuckton of gold and only a very wealthy feudal could afford himself the luxury. It's that simple. Every peasant would be fucking happy to trade his polearm and padded vest for real armor and weapon if he only had the funds.

There is an element of truth to what you say, but you go too far and overstate your case.

People who could afford swords still used other weapons, and with good reason.

 

[Zomg]

Why will no game make a poleaxe the broken weapon... truly, a weapon to kill other rich people with

At least warhammers have Darklands

 

[bloodlover]

Imo it all comes down to the player's expectations. I don;t think Diablo, Titan Quest, Sacred and other games in this area should be included in the discussion since loot is the main part of the game. I want gameplay, story, feeling in a game and really don't give a shit if my hero is wearing two-three armors through the entire game. Also, I would rather find a useful sword once every five hours of gameplay, than find a useless one every 10 minutes...

Another important thing to mention is the game itself. Morrowind for ex. didn't have the "omfg get the 1337 armor and save the world" feeling and you started out with nothing in your inventory. Gothic games are also like this. Don't you think it's more fun to start a game like this and work your ass off in order to get some decent starting gear? Imo the harder you work for an item the more rewarding it is.

 

[mondblut]

And you base that opinion on?

Common sense and knowledge of pre-firearms warfare.

There is an element of truth to what you say, but you go too far and overstate your case.

People who could afford swords still used other weapons, and with good reason.

Surely you don't imply a padded vest or a barkskin armor would be a more suitable protection against warhammer?

Yes, sidearms specialized for armor piercing were employed against heavily armored opposition, while swords remained a main general purpose weapon. Don't forget 90% of a medieval army were unarmored peasants with sharpened sticks.

 

[obediah]

Sign me up for the modest amount of significant loot camp. It makes for 100,000,000% better gameplay than the ueberlewt action-rpgs or the deck-building rpgs where there is no room for found magical items in the carefully selected feat-crafted item combo you spent 20 hours dreaming up ( and its invariably dull clicky combat).

 

[Panthera]

And you base that opinion on?

Common sense and knowledge of pre-firearms warfare.

There is an element of truth to what you say, but you go too far and overstate your case.

People who could afford swords still used other weapons, and with good reason.

Surely you don't imply a padded vest or a barkskin armor would be a more suitable protection against warhammer?

Yes, sidearms specialized for armor piercing were employed against heavily armored opposition, while swords remained a main general purpose weapon. Don't forget 90% of a medieval army were unarmored peasants with sharpened sticks.

Read a history book sometime. Please.

 

[mondblut]

Read a history book sometime. Please.

No, u.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

And you base that opinion on?

Common sense and knowledge of pre-firearms warfare.

Successful use of spear in skirmish combat isn't uncommon in Viking sagas.

 

[Hobo Elf]

I hate games where everything is magical - so much so that even all the peasants have magically enchanted kitchen ware.
Good loot should be unique and make you feel very when you get it. Aquiring an enchanted piece of equipment should feel like pulling the sword from the stone.

 

[Zomg]

Eh, at least common magic is a way to bring in lots of minor game mechanics. RPG gameplay is always so shit you hate to force a designer to try to do anything without giving him every chance to throw gimmicks and lateral thinking in there.

Then he gives you weapons that do damage and also also also spells that do damage and you hit him with a rolled-up newspaper.

 

[laclongquan]

In that case, Silent Storm series will fall right on to your lap. The loot is very special: either an extremely good gun with no ammo and you have to scrounge for ages before you can use it (original S2) or it degrade upon use and you have to repair it after every fight (hammer sickle).

 

[Azrael the cat]

Re: the picture of battle with varied weaponry. You forget that the era of 'lots of folk with different weapons' was a by-product of the lack of professional armies. Prior to the 30-years war, the norm in Europe was that landholders (knights) would as a condition of their status have to give a fixed number of days military service per year if called upon (it was relatively small - around a month as I recall, though many would negotiate longer services in return for money/favour). They would be responsible for providing and maintaining their own weapons and men-at-arms (usually a handful of assistants with cheap weaponry/armour). The weapons and armour used would be a combination of personal preference and money - armour-wise, being able to afford plate and having a blacksmith available who could make a good set was a major limiting factor. In terms of weaponry, they weren't novices so they knew that you'd want a blunt weapon against plate, at least until the armour-piercing weapons became available, but they weren't necessarily 'in' on the latest military science - nor would they ditch their preferred weapon just because it was no longer the 'optimum' style.

Don't assume that the weapons/armour used were entirely rational choices until after the advent of standing professional armies (started appearing during the 30 years war due to the difficulty of keeping together an army for long periods under the feudal-obligations system), who would be expected to retrain in new weapons as they became available.

As for tactics, keep in mind that current military schools teach the tactics of great Roman and Greek commanders, but don't usually view the dark/middle ages as anything worth bothering with.

 

[mondblut]

Successful use of spear in skirmish combat isn't uncommon in Viking sagas.

So is successful use of bone club in primitive myths. All it says is that good swords were in relative scarcity in there, and some people had to use whatever is available. And since said sagas deal with larger than life heroes, it easily fits into the context of "he was so epic, he managed to defeat a swordsman with a fucking spear".

A spear is unwieldy and limits the user's mobility; has only one direction of attack (you can only thrust forward); is nearly useless in parrying and vulnerable even in attack when met with a cutting weapon. Longer reach is a small consolation, an opponent with a sword has to dodge your thrust but once to cut you in half.