Armor compatibility

Suggest crafts, talk about existing crafts, debate the finer points of your craftiness.

Moderator: Elder Staff

Post Reply
Matt
Ent Sapling
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:47 pm

Armor compatibility

Post by Matt » Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:33 pm

So with the new armor coming in I noticed it's moved from the whole gambeson thing to hauberk/leggings. But if I'm a weakling and want a metal hauberk and the rest leather I can't do that. I think all levels of armor need to be compatible when it comes to wearlocs.

So I'm proposing doing away with gambesons and adding regular leather hauberks and leggings!

Alcarin

Re: Armor compatibility

Post by Alcarin » Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:43 pm

Currently, the hauberk objects and gambeson objects cover identical locations and wearlocs.

So, you should be able to mix and match freely, once everything goes live.

Translation? We lazy sometimes. ;)

User avatar
Fulgrim
Roleplay Admin
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 7:34 pm

Re: Armor compatibility

Post by Fulgrim » Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:45 pm

The wearlocs are the same for the "four-piece" setup across the board. You can mix and match "sets" to your heart's content. I designed it to interchange.

G-quality and above (Squality we probably won't ever get to, even by open) will actually be single bodyloc pieces in each of those respective sets, to create a bit of rift on when someone can field a whole suit of whatever. But Oquality and below will have the basic four-item sets, yeah.

ETA:

The reasoning for this design decision? I want there to be more upkeep for maintaining a full suit. Also, you can't interchange more than a piece or two of G-quality gear with O-quality gear this way. It's possible, just not with every bodyloc.
(Morgoth):
I had a part in everything.
Twice I destroyed the light and twice I failed.
I left ruin behind me when I returned.
But I also carried ruin with me.
She, the mistress of her own lust.

Matt
Ent Sapling
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:47 pm

Re: Armor compatibility

Post by Matt » Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:50 pm

OK, cool, and can't argue with that. Just hauberk vs gambeson with protected locations was a bit misleading.

Post Reply