This is a suggestion for better armor mechanics, which in turn, allow for better combat mechanics, more varied tactics and weapons, etc.
Currently, armor adds damage resistance, up to 80%.
I propose changing this so that armor has more than one important value:
This is the core part of the suggestion, everything else is essentially demonstration, certainly any specific numbers are just ideas and can be changed.
Coverage: if a blow hits the armored area, the chance that the armor will block some of the damage.
Armor rating: Damage dealt by an attack=Base Damage^2/(Base Damage+Armor rating IF it hits.) in other words, if Armor Rating = Base Damage, 50% of the base damage is dealt. If armor is twice Base Damage, 33% is dealt.
Weight: How heavy the armor is. Makes the player consume more Stamina to move and move somewhat slower.
Encumbrance: How difficult it is to move in the armor. Makes attacking wear the player out more and slows the player down some.
Actual numbers:
Base Encumbrance: 20 (a player's default encumbrance)
Base Stamina: 10 (a player's default stamina, more on this later)
Base weight: 100 (a player's default weight as far as armor is concerned)
Move-speed is proportional to (total weight + total encumbrance ā Base Encumbrance)/Base weight
Stamina Lost from attacking is proportional to Total Encumbrance/Base Encumbrance
Stamina lost from moving is proportional to ((total weight + total encumbrance ā 20)/Base weight)^3.
Hardened Leather is obtained by smelting soaked leather.
Soaked leather is obtained by crafting leather with a water bucket.
Leather plate is obtained by crafting Leather and Hardened Leather together.
An Iron Mesh is obtained by crafting 4 iron links together.
Iron links are obtained by crafting 5 iron ingots in a āCā shape, you get 50.
Iron plate is obtained by crafting 3 of either wool or leather below 3 iron ingots. You get 2.
Heavy iron plate is obtained by crafting 3 of either wool or leather, or chain mesh below 6 iron ingots. You get 2.
Diamond plate is obtained by crafting 3 of either wool or leather below 3 diamonds.
Heavy diamond plate is obtained by crafting 3 of either wool or leather below 6 diamonds.
Why This is Better:
The current Armor system is heavily unbalanced. Leather is useful against nothing, Diamond swords are only 75% more effective than wood against iron.
It also allows for several interesting and realistic and balancing mechanics, such as:
Armor piercing weapons: Armor is reduced by some fraction (insert fraction here, negative infinity% to 100%) against this weapon.
Example:
In vanilla, that could get really broken really fast. But here, it is perfectly valid and makes total sense.
Sword A: deals 10 base damage.
Sword B: deals 10 base damage with 50% armor piercing.
Sword C: deals 10 base damage with -100% armor piercing (what, you didn't think you could have weapons that were BAD vs. armor?)
Attacking a padded coat, armor=2: Sword A deals 100/12=8.33 damage. Sword B deals 100/11=9.09 damage. Sword C deals 100/14=7.14 damage.
Attacking a light Iron chest plate, armor=30: Sword A deals 100/40=2.5 damage. Sword B deals 100/25=4 damage. Sword C deals 100/70=1.43 damage. A noticeable difference considering that they all have the same attack vs. an unarmored player.
Leather is useful now: even the lightest and cheapest armor provides a good amount of defense vs. low damage attacks while still being torn to shreds by high-powered weaponry.
More varied weapon stats:
At the moment, the difference between a wooden sword and a diamond one is the difference between 4 and 7. This not particularly interesting, and makes them both very poor for dealing with armor.
With these armor mechanics, a system like this could be set up:
PLEASE NOTE: this is not part of the suggestion, just a demonstration of the versatility behind the armor mechanics.
Wooden sword: 10 damage. -100% armor piercing.
Wooden club: 10 damage. Armor coverage is square-rooted (increased). Knockback I
Wooden Knife: 8 damage. 1 meter shorter reach. Armor coverage is cubed (decreased a lot).
Stone Sword: 12 damage. -50% armor piercing.
Stone Axe: 12 damage. Armor coverage is square-rooted (increased).
Stone Knife: 10 damage. 1 meter shorter reach. Armor coverage is cubed (decreased a lot).
Iron broadsword: 15 damage.
Iron rapier: 13 damage. Armor coverage is squared (decreased). +25% armor piercing.
Iron axe: 15 damage. +25% armor piercing. Armor coverage is square-rooted (increased).
Iron Mace: 15 damage Armor coverage is square-rooted (increased). Knockback I
Iron Knife: 12 damage. 1 meter shorter reach. Armor coverage is cubed (decreased a lot).
Diamond Broadsword: 18 damage. +25% armor piercing
Diamond Axe: 18 damage. +50% armor piercing. Armor coverage is square-rooted (increased).
Diamond Mace: 18 damage Armor coverage is square-rooted (increased).
Diamond Knife: 15 damage. +25% armor piercing. 1 meter shorter reach. Armor coverage is cubed (decreased a lot).
The Fist: 4 damage, Armor coverage is squared (decreased).
FAQ:
PLEASE READ BEFORE COMMENTING ON DETAILS OF FEATURES:
What is this suggesting:
make armor more balanced and be good against weaker attacks and less good against stronger ones. That is primarily it.
Do I need to read your giant color-coded table to understand this?:
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Those are just my idea of what each individual piece of armor would have for stats and crafting.
Why do we need all of these new weapons?:
What weapons? Any weapons mentioned are just to demonstrate how the armor would work.
Will this make armor insanely overpowered?:
VS. your fist? It already is! vs. a diamond sword? not at all.
I know a problem with this system! It makes something terrible happen!:
That is a statement, not a question. Please post the problem here.
Minecraft isn't about combat! you are ruining it!:
Turn PvP off and stop looking at the suggestions for better combat mechanics. Also, that wasn't a question either.
Would this make something with a lot of armor be invulnerable?:
No.
Would this make something with a lot of armor be invulnerable to low-damage attacks?:
No. Low damage attacks would do only a small fraction of their damage vs. heavy armor.
Armor piercing is dumb because it negates armor:
It isn't dumb because it actually just reduces it. Also, ask questions. not statements.
I am a qualified RPG-nerd and heavy armor doesn't slow you down enough:
Questions! What would be the point of armor if it slowed you down to a stop?
I am a qualified Historian, Physicist, Politician, Philosopher or something like that and heavy armor slows you down too much!:
Questions! Are you taking into account that historical armor was never made of multiple cubic meters of iron and was not designed with such high encumbrance built in, regardless of weight?
This is WAY to complex:
If you think about it, Vanilla Minecraft armor is almost as complex, just less reasonable in design. Also, this a frequently asked QUESTIONS section.
I think that this is at the point of becoming over-elaborate. Turn it down a Notch , More armor-pieces would be nice, but more weapons really have next to none pupose in the game, but implementing this would leave place for one maybe two new ones, but the way it looks it seems overly complicated and way too elaborate to function as a few new aspects of PvP, because that is when this elaborate system will come into play.
Secondly, weighted armor is an idea of mine, actually I have already suggested it as a part of my own suggestion, but by all means, you have my support to add it to this as well, because such a feature would improve tactics in armor-choice tenfold at least.
Over all support, but please, remove the long-distant weaponry as it will be the downfall of this thread. The part least people will support if anything. Contemplate heavily whether all of these aspects are necessary.
I think that this is at the point of becoming over-elaborate. Turn it down a Notch , More armor-pieces would be nice, but more weapons really have next to none pupose in the game, but implementing this would leave place for one maybe two new ones, but the way it looks it seems overly complicated and way too elaborate to function as a few new aspects of PvP, because that is when this elaborate system will come into play.
Secondly, weighted armor is an idea of mine, actually I have already suggested it as a part of my own suggestion, but by all means, you have my support to add it to this as well, because such a feature would improve tactics in armor-choice tenfold at least.
Over all support, but please, remove the long-distant weaponry as it will be the downfall of this thread. The part least people will support if anything. Contemplate heavily whether all of these aspects are necessary.
The weapons are just to demonstrate the armor system.
I think that this is at the point of becoming over-elaborate. Turn it down a Notch , More armor-pieces would be nice, but more weapons really have next to none pupose in the game, but implementing this would leave place for one maybe two new ones, but the way it looks it seems overly complicated and way too elaborate to function as a few new aspects of PvP, because that is when this elaborate system will come into play.
Secondly, weighted armor is an idea of mine, actually I have already suggested it as a part of my own suggestion, but by all means, you have my support to add it to this as well, because such a feature would improve tactics in armor-choice tenfold at least.
Over all support, but please, remove the long-distant weaponry as it will be the downfall of this thread. The part least people will support if anything. Contemplate heavily whether all of these aspects are necessary.
Weapons are merely demonstrating versatility of the system and are by no means a binding or important part of the suggestion.
I don't think we get to call dibs on weighted armor. Someone probably thought of it before Indev.
Indeed, next to none of the ideas nowadays are unique, only how they are handled and implemented. I only brought it up as one of the reasons why I am in favor of it, seeing as I had already shown my interest in the subject.
I think that at least the aspect of weight could be implemented, from both vanilla perspective and out of pure balance.
It would first of all change the whole system of "progressing tiers" which has become something of a gimmick for this kind of games, and it would completely tear down the walls, as instead of only progressing a lined out pattern in increasing value and strength you instead have equal value shared between all armors, only different usages.
Indeed, next to none of the ideas nowadays are unique, only how they are handled and implemented. I only brought it up as one of the reasons why I am in favor of it, seeing as I had already shown my interest in the subject.
I think that at least the aspect of weight could be implemented, from both vanilla perspective and out of pure balance.
It would first of all change the whole system of "progressing tiers" which has become something of a gimmick for this kind of games, and it would completely tear down the walls, as instead of only progressing a lined out pattern in increasing value and strength you instead have equal value shared between all armors, only different usages.
Exactly. It also means that someone wouldn't want to just wear heavy armor everywhere they ever go.
For example, even modern dictators, leaders and generals don't wear army-grade bullet-proof bomb-diffusing gear everywhere they go. Kings in castles rarely had much more than gold and velvet. It isn't that they can't afford heavy armor, it is that they don't want to wear it constantly when not in combat.
What is no, stop this, complicated mechanics are not strictly for RPG games.
My ignorance won't allow me to see past the fact that guns aren't an inherently bad idea.
Wishlists are devoid of explanation and don't feature interconnected ideas.
I agree that guns aren't inherently bad, and I mentioned them previously, but took them out to avoid confusion. They were never part of the suggestion as an item recommended in the game however.
I think RPG-y would more like classes, races, base scores, leveling up, skills, etc (mouth watering....) but I am not suggesting that. That belongs elsewhere. In a well-done overhauling mod perhaps.
I don't agree with your suggestion. I think that the armor mechanics are perfectly balanced. I don't think that anything needs to be changed or modified about the mechanics of armor.
I don't agree with your suggestion. I think that the armor mechanics are perfectly balanced. I don't think that anything needs to be changed or modified about the mechanics of armor.
For starters. leather armor or essentially useless, additionally, nobody would ever not wear their heavy armor. The current armor system basically works like:
leather resists 28% of a cactus, or 28% of a TNT-cart nuclear blast.
Diamond resists 80% of a cactus, or 80% of a TNT-cart nuclear blast.
In other words, cacti are absurdly powerful vs. armor, nuclear blasts aren't powerful enough.
Additionally, weight! There is currently no drawback whatsoever to heavy armor! That is NOT what I would call perfectly balanced.
Armor could use some work, but I'm not sure if this is the solution. Hitboxes are weird enough as they are, particularly on multiplayer servers.
I'd suggest making it so that wearing higher tiers of armor causes your hunger bar to empty faster. Leather would have almost no impact, whilst diamond would roughly double the amount of food you need to eat. That'd give some incentive to wear weaker armors from time to time.
Currently, armor adds damage resistance, up to 80%.
I propose changing this so that armor has more than one important value:
This is the core part of the suggestion, everything else is essentially demonstration, certainly any specific numbers are just ideas and can be changed.
Coverage: if a blow hits the armored area, the chance that the armor will block some of the damage.
Armor rating: Damage dealt by an attack=Base Damage^2/(Base Damage+Armor rating IF it hits.) in other words, if Armor Rating = Base Damage, 50% of the base damage is dealt. If armor is twice Base Damage, 33% is dealt.
Weight: How heavy the armor is. Makes the player consume more Stamina to move and move somewhat slower.
Encumbrance: How difficult it is to move in the armor. Makes attacking wear the player out more and slows the player down some.
Actual numbers:
Base Encumbrance: 20 (a player's default encumbrance)
Base Stamina: 10 (a player's default stamina, more on this later)
Base weight: 100 (a player's default weight as far as armor is concerned)
Move-speed is proportional to (total weight + total encumbrance ā Base Encumbrance)/Base weight
Stamina Lost from attacking is proportional to Total Encumbrance/Base Encumbrance
Stamina lost from moving is proportional to ((total weight + total encumbrance ā 20)/Base weight)^3.
Unfortunately, The formatted table doesn't paste well into MCF.
https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing
Hardened Leather is obtained by smelting soaked leather.
Soaked leather is obtained by crafting leather with a water bucket.
Leather plate is obtained by crafting Leather and Hardened Leather together.
An Iron Mesh is obtained by crafting 4 iron links together.
Iron links are obtained by crafting 5 iron ingots in a āCā shape, you get 50.
Iron plate is obtained by crafting 3 of either wool or leather below 3 iron ingots. You get 2.
Heavy iron plate is obtained by crafting 3 of either wool or leather, or chain mesh below 6 iron ingots. You get 2.
Diamond plate is obtained by crafting 3 of either wool or leather below 3 diamonds.
Heavy diamond plate is obtained by crafting 3 of either wool or leather below 6 diamonds.
Why This is Better:
The current Armor system is heavily unbalanced. Leather is useful against nothing, Diamond swords are only 75% more effective than wood against iron.
It also allows for several interesting and realistic and balancing mechanics, such as:
Armor piercing weapons: Armor is reduced by some fraction (insert fraction here, negative infinity% to 100%) against this weapon.
Example:
In vanilla, that could get really broken really fast. But here, it is perfectly valid and makes total sense.
Sword A: deals 10 base damage.
Sword B: deals 10 base damage with 50% armor piercing.
Sword C: deals 10 base damage with -100% armor piercing (what, you didn't think you could have weapons that were BAD vs. armor?)
Attacking a padded coat, armor=2: Sword A deals 100/12=8.33 damage. Sword B deals 100/11=9.09 damage. Sword C deals 100/14=7.14 damage.
Attacking a light Iron chest plate, armor=30: Sword A deals 100/40=2.5 damage. Sword B deals 100/25=4 damage. Sword C deals 100/70=1.43 damage. A noticeable difference considering that they all have the same attack vs. an unarmored player.
Leather is useful now: even the lightest and cheapest armor provides a good amount of defense vs. low damage attacks while still being torn to shreds by high-powered weaponry.
More varied weapon stats:
At the moment, the difference between a wooden sword and a diamond one is the difference between 4 and 7. This not particularly interesting, and makes them both very poor for dealing with armor.
With these armor mechanics, a system like this could be set up:
PLEASE NOTE: this is not part of the suggestion, just a demonstration of the versatility behind the armor mechanics.
Wooden sword: 10 damage. -100% armor piercing.
Wooden club: 10 damage. Armor coverage is square-rooted (increased). Knockback I
Wooden Knife: 8 damage. 1 meter shorter reach. Armor coverage is cubed (decreased a lot).
Stone Sword: 12 damage. -50% armor piercing.
Stone Axe: 12 damage. Armor coverage is square-rooted (increased).
Stone Knife: 10 damage. 1 meter shorter reach. Armor coverage is cubed (decreased a lot).
Iron broadsword: 15 damage.
Iron rapier: 13 damage. Armor coverage is squared (decreased). +25% armor piercing.
Iron axe: 15 damage. +25% armor piercing. Armor coverage is square-rooted (increased).
Iron Mace: 15 damage Armor coverage is square-rooted (increased). Knockback I
Iron Knife: 12 damage. 1 meter shorter reach. Armor coverage is cubed (decreased a lot).
Diamond Broadsword: 18 damage. +25% armor piercing
Diamond Axe: 18 damage. +50% armor piercing. Armor coverage is square-rooted (increased).
Diamond Mace: 18 damage Armor coverage is square-rooted (increased).
Diamond Knife: 15 damage. +25% armor piercing. 1 meter shorter reach. Armor coverage is cubed (decreased a lot).
The Fist: 4 damage, Armor coverage is squared (decreased).
FAQ:
PLEASE READ BEFORE COMMENTING ON DETAILS OF FEATURES:
What is this suggesting:
make armor more balanced and be good against weaker attacks and less good against stronger ones. That is primarily it.
Do I need to read your giant color-coded table to understand this?:
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Those are just my idea of what each individual piece of armor would have for stats and crafting.
Why do we need all of these new weapons?:
What weapons? Any weapons mentioned are just to demonstrate how the armor would work.
Will this make armor insanely overpowered?:
VS. your fist? It already is! vs. a diamond sword? not at all.
I know a problem with this system! It makes something terrible happen!:
That is a statement, not a question. Please post the problem here.
Minecraft isn't about combat! you are ruining it!:
Turn PvP off and stop looking at the suggestions for better combat mechanics. Also, that wasn't a question either.
Would this make something with a lot of armor be invulnerable?:
No.
Would this make something with a lot of armor be invulnerable to low-damage attacks?:
No. Low damage attacks would do only a small fraction of their damage vs. heavy armor.
Armor piercing is dumb because it negates armor:
It isn't dumb because it actually just reduces it. Also, ask questions. not statements.
I am a qualified RPG-nerd and heavy armor doesn't slow you down enough:
Questions! What would be the point of armor if it slowed you down to a stop?
I am a qualified Historian, Physicist, Politician, Philosopher or something like that and heavy armor slows you down too much!:
Questions! Are you taking into account that historical armor was never made of multiple cubic meters of iron and was not designed with such high encumbrance built in, regardless of weight?
This is WAY to complex:
If you think about it, Vanilla Minecraft armor is almost as complex, just less reasonable in design. Also, this a frequently asked QUESTIONS section.
Secondly, weighted armor is an idea of mine, actually I have already suggested it as a part of my own suggestion, but by all means, you have my support to add it to this as well, because such a feature would improve tactics in armor-choice tenfold at least.
Over all support, but please, remove the long-distant weaponry as it will be the downfall of this thread. The part least people will support if anything. Contemplate heavily whether all of these aspects are necessary.
The weapons are just to demonstrate the armor system.
Rifles wasn't part of the suggestion. Just demonstrating a highly armor-piercing weapon.
More weapons was a way to demonstrate the versatility of the armor mechanics.
Ah. you are talking about the armor system, right?
Weapons are merely demonstrating versatility of the system and are by no means a binding or important part of the suggestion.
Removed long-range weapons for clarity's sake.
I don't think we get to call dibs on weighted armor. Someone probably thought of it before Indev.
What is an experience system.
What is the enchantment system.
What is no, stop this, complicated mechanics are not strictly for RPG games.
My ignorance won't allow me to see past the fact that guns aren't an inherently bad idea.
Wishlists are devoid of explanation and don't feature interconnected ideas.
I think that at least the aspect of weight could be implemented, from both vanilla perspective and out of pure balance.
It would first of all change the whole system of "progressing tiers" which has become something of a gimmick for this kind of games, and it would completely tear down the walls, as instead of only progressing a lined out pattern in increasing value and strength you instead have equal value shared between all armors, only different usages.
Exactly. It also means that someone wouldn't want to just wear heavy armor everywhere they ever go.
For example, even modern dictators, leaders and generals don't wear army-grade bullet-proof bomb-diffusing gear everywhere they go. Kings in castles rarely had much more than gold and velvet. It isn't that they can't afford heavy armor, it is that they don't want to wear it constantly when not in combat.
I agree that guns aren't inherently bad, and I mentioned them previously, but took them out to avoid confusion. They were never part of the suggestion as an item recommended in the game however.
I think RPG-y would more like classes, races, base scores, leveling up, skills, etc (mouth watering....) but I am not suggesting that. That belongs elsewhere. In a well-done overhauling mod perhaps.
For starters. leather armor or essentially useless, additionally, nobody would ever not wear their heavy armor. The current armor system basically works like:
leather resists 28% of a cactus, or 28% of a TNT-cart nuclear blast.
Diamond resists 80% of a cactus, or 80% of a TNT-cart nuclear blast.
In other words, cacti are absurdly powerful vs. armor, nuclear blasts aren't powerful enough.
Additionally, weight! There is currently no drawback whatsoever to heavy armor! That is NOT what I would call perfectly balanced.
I'd suggest making it so that wearing higher tiers of armor causes your hunger bar to empty faster. Leather would have almost no impact, whilst diamond would roughly double the amount of food you need to eat. That'd give some incentive to wear weaker armors from time to time.
...what?
How is this "RPG-y" in any way, shape, or form?