krelm wrote:There's a quote from the Venture Brothers that goes something like: "If you throw a rock, the Guild throws a knife. If you throw a knife, the Guild kills your family."Grommit wrote:I don't see why the core protectiveness is a sacred cow.
If you start giving someone armor that has a higher AC, you're going to have to give someone else a weapon with a higher damage output to compensate-- of course, this is assuming you want a game with PvP, and want PvP to be balanced. But then, because you have a guy a sword, you have to give more guys better armor, and then, shit just escalates.
This is pretty much exactly how SoI ended up the way it was, with everyone walking around in super-steel-mithril-whatever armor with crazy weapons. Someone upped the ante on one end, so someone else had to up the ante elsewhere. Of course, another contributing factor was that there was no standardization, and no policing, but when you look at your proposal, "add more AC to a piece of armor and give it to a dwarf," that, right there, is already throwing standardization out the window. Sure, it may be standardized from a coding perspective, but the point still remains that a dwarf has the most protective piece of armor in the entire game, and no one else does, and also no one has weapons that can do any damage to it.
Ah, I see. I wasn't quite grasping what was being said about nothing better than the best earlier. Right. But that would assume that the top gear is already balanced and therefore now should be set in stone. It's not. The never-ending bump the armor, bump the weapons war is a symptom of doing "let's see how this plays out in game" style "research" for setting values. Icarus and I will be using graphs that analyze the probability of each type of wound down to the single hitpoint and will "right-size" the gear so that maintaining lore like "dwarf chain is the best chain" doesn't mean we have to keep tweaking other things to try to balance it. We'd balance it all in one go, and then, yes, after that not any anything higher since there would be no new races left who still need accommodating whose lore requires their gear be better. "But what if it's a really really pimp dwarf?" Same gear, just Master-crafted quality, but everyone can get that IC from a Master-level armorsmith. Except orcs, because dwarves are better smiths and you can't rival them in Lore. But like I said earlier, if I adjusted AC, my preference would be that the dwarven gear, either made by a Master dwarf PC or offscreen master Dwarf for new chars loading up with the BG for it, would be no more than, say 20% more protective. And that would be 20% final wounds suffered, not 20% more AC points, which can actually make a huge difference in final wounds, which is why it was so hard to set that Elf gear right absent tools for running the probabilities.
I take it I lose some people's support when I say "Sorry, team Dark, point-for-point your armorers can be as good as human armorers, but when it comes to a dwarf making metal gear, everyone else isn't going to be able to reach their level. But we won't make it crazily better, just 20%". I assume the problem isn't the 20%, but maybe it is? Would 15% sit better? 10%? 5%? Or must it be 0%?