Discussion: Attack speed negative modifiers inherent to armour types?

"

Zakaluka wrote:

I think if anything, to answer charan's question, items should be equippable if you don't meet the stat requirements. For every point under requirement you are overall on your equipped gear, you should take a speed penalty.

I concur with this idea, but not without increasing overall stat requirement, since its no big deal doubling the required stat of the highest lvl item in that attribute.

The bottom attack speed in this game is slow enough. Probably too slow if anything, but I can't see any positive in making it slower just for some faux realism. Maybe positive attack speed increases from wearing the lightest armor?

I also think it would be a too big disadvantage (balancewise), if it ends up in a wide penalty range - and it would be useless if the effect is not noticeable enough.

An interesting range of responses. A few still seemed like they couldn't approach it as though seeing the game for the first time -- I understand that, it's a very difficult thing to do, that level of remove and objectivity. I'm sure the GGGang have more trouble with it than any of us, too. There's a reason a lot of writers will get a manuscript to a certain point and then leave it alone for a good few months -- to create that distance necessary to work on it with fresh eyes unclouded by certain concerns and obsessions.

Game developers, especially those in beta phase, aren't really afforded that sort of luxury. In a way, they're relying on the newcomers to provide such a perspective.

I didn't really like the weapon speed idea and it's certainly not something I'd push for -- clearly, or I'd have worded my original post a little differently. :) It was just a thought I had and wanted the superior input of the PoE locals. What is it Anonymous like to say? None of us are as cruel as all of us? Well, the same holds for the adjective 'smart' too.

I DO like Zakaluka's tangential suggestion regarding being able to equip things even if you don't meet the requirements, but I think it'd add a layer of complexity best left out of an already complex ARPG.

I concur with the concept of swinging a weapon is a full body thing: not even staves, but swords as well. It might not be as obvious, but anyone who tries to swing a sword with just, say, the arms or the shoulders will lose, and quickly. Even a knight in full get-up needs the entire upper body working to pull off a swing.

And yes, the base weapon speed is slow enough already. Maybe if GGG increased it across the board and then incorporated the 'movement speed penalty' on armour to include attack speed?

Then again, I tend to play characters that brab IAS nodes, and there are quite a few of those. You can also get IAS on gloves, the weapons, rings, amulets...while the base attack speed is kinda crap, the potential is ridiculously high. -10% to attack speed in a 4-5 attack a second build isn't really much at all.

I disagree that it would remove heavy armour -- I think people would have made the same argument if GGG were to suddenly 'ask' if they should introduce run speed penalties based on the item type instead of just dumping it on us from the start. Heck, that stat is so buried in the C screen most newcomers don't even know about it.

So again, I'll ask people to be imaginative and pretend that the run speed penalty didn't exist, and I've just proposed we implement it, for realism's sake. Nothing drastic, maybe 4% for str/dex gear, 8% for all-str gear.

How many of you would genuinely say 'yes, that's a good idea', and how many of you would say 'that's a terrible idea' -- and by extension, how many of you would say that this change would make you quit?

If you say 'yes' to the last one, why are you still here?

...Because you didn't have a choice, perhaps?

I tend to prefer bonuses over penalties. Nonetheless, I'd probably be against attack speed penalties based on armor type.
After all, there are already stat requirements. I also feel like if it meant the keystone that removes armor penalties for movement also removes it for attack speed, it'd become a required keystone for most builds.

Based around games in general, I absolutely love realism. But, too much of a good thing isn't necessarily a good thing!

Based on both modern and past realistic combat, the armor is usually formed around the combatant based around the weaponry that they're using and not the other way around.

An example of this - though I know it's not well represented by Holywood - is that of a Medieval knight and sword. Usually their swinging arm would have less armor for mobility, as they could block an attack with a weapon itself, while the non-swinging hand would have protection due to not being able to counter attacks from the opposite side of the body with ease.

In knowing this, realistically they wouldn't have the sort of draw backs weapon wise as they would wearing full-plate, etc.

Then you have the weapon itself, which in most games is already calculated by the weapon speed based on the physical difficulty to use the weapon.

(An in-game example of this is the long bow compared to the composite bow, which if you've ever tried shooting both in real life, you'd understand why the long bow's speed is slower than that of composite.)

Also, it's good to take into account that a good majority of the current population still plays this solo. - or so it seems. That being said, they would only be getting penalized with this sort of change without having the opposing advantage that isn't already there. If the game were to turn more towards multiplayer dungeons/maps/bosses - and a tank became more viable as a requirement for the party - Then this sort of penalty may work towards a healthier, equally dispersed team.

"

Charan wrote:

I disagree that it would remove heavy armour -- I think people would have made the same argument if GGG were to suddenly 'ask' if they should introduce run speed penalties based on the item type instead of just dumping it on us from the start. Heck, that stat is so buried in the C screen most newcomers don't even know about it.

Sure it would. Look at any other game that puts penalties on heavy armor. I used D2 and D&D as my examples but there are many more.

-8% move in PoE is only not so bad because the heavy armor class passes right by movement mastery anyways. Add attack speed onto it though or assume you cannot negate it for one point and you have Archon or Mithril Chain Shirt/Breastplate all over again... where heavy armor simply is not worth the cost. Just like in systems where it means substantially less life (D2) or a third less movement and likely the same or less defense anyways (D&D).

So what happens if everyone uses lighter armor?

Whole subsets of drops are useless.
The actual light armor types have a ton of competition.
Everyone ends up more sameish.

"

SpectralSlice wrote:

-8% move in PoE is only not so bad because the heavy armor class passes right by movement mastery anyways.

You're sort of shooting yourself in the foot here, given that you're talking about the consequences of sameishness (a fair call) -- I should think that implying you need to be a certain class to wear a type of armour would be very much encouraging homogeneity.

There is no telling what Skilldrasil changes could be made (or might have been made) had the attack speed change already been in effect.

Again, I think some people are having trouble viewing this idea not as a change to the game they know but as a factor to a game they are about to discover. This is evident in the 'justification' for the movement speed penalty because there it is. It exists, let's justify it.

I call for an imagining of if the attack speed penalty per heavier armour types already existed when you got here. Would it or would it not make you quit -- or rather, not even start.

"

Charan wrote:

"

SpectralSlice wrote:

-8% move in PoE is only not so bad because the heavy armor class passes right by movement mastery anyways.

You're sort of shooting yourself in the foot here, given that you're talking about the consequences of sameishness (a fair call) -- I should think that implying you need to be a certain class to wear a type of armour would be very much encouraging homogeneity.

The game already has armor loosely class based. Pure armor is mara, pure evasion is ranger, pure es is witch, then there's armor/evade, armor/es, and evade/es for the three hybrids. Nothing really stops you from using a different type... but homogeneity would be everyone avoiding heavy armor and using light armor. As opposed to different classes leaning towards, but not forced to use different types.

And it isn't about making people quit, it's about removing options that'd otherwise be valid. You can say well what if it was always this way... then people would have always disregarded heavy armor.

Would be an interesting idea if the longer you wear a certain armour, the less penalty you'll suffer. You need to break that armour in, right?

As I understand it, armour is easy to move around in, provided it fits correctly. It's only awkward when the armour is sized wrongly, or, like the exile you are, you've been wearing mis-matched armour.

In this vain of thought, maybe if you are wearing armour from different sets, there is a penalty. But if you are wearing all the armour pieces from the same set, then no problem. Maybe even a bonus.

By same set, I mean things like
Plated Greaves
Plated Gauntlets
Plate Vest
Ect

Meaning, armour from the same tier.