Class restrictions

[Aukustus]

Completely agreed with the exception of the fact that people DON'T get snail-slow by using heavy armor, sure it affects movement speed to some degree but what really stands out is how quickly they get tired by wearing it.

I've heard from somewhere that medieval battles were about who got tired first, lost the battle  since armors blocked attacks.

[Endorya]

I've heard from somewhere that medieval battles were about who got tired first, lost the battle since armors blocked attacks.

It was CRUCIAL to have fully rested troops before a battle. One of the common tactics would involve attacking the invaders immediately after their arrival, before they could rest. Of course this would work best against invasions made on foot.

Many factors contributed to wining and loosing battles like terrain type, weather, unit types and tactics. Take the Aljubarrota battle for instance: 7300 Portuguese against 28500 Spanish and the Portuguese still beat the Spanish army due to heavy tactics but mainly because of the chosen terrain where the battle unfolded. It was a narrow vale where wooden obstacles and pits were placed by the defending side (the Portuguese) this forced the Spanish cavalry to break formation in order to advance up the vale. 1000 Portuguese died in this battle but the Spanish loss was far greater. The Spanish lost 2100 Spanish footmen and their whole Calvary composed by 2000 french horsemen was completely decimated. Once the Spanish army lost their Calvary they become hopeless and sounded for retreat.

PS: I'm playing your game right now (22:11 GMT +0)

[Vanguard]

Honestly, I've never complained about any of chess rules nor its game play mechanics, though I find the concept of turning a peon into a queen unsettling. So I guess your assumption is wrong (who'd have known).

It sounds like I was exactly right.

[Vanguard]

But what was your point with your question again?

I should have answered this in my last post.

Video games are in no way, shape, or form real life, and if they were they wouldn't be fun.  Realism is, in many cases, a wonderful tool for achieving the ends of a better game, but it is not a worthwhile goal unto itself if it doesn't result in a better game.

I mentioned Chess because it's a perfect game that would be worse if anything were added or taken away and because unlike, say, Go, it has a real-world theme.  The rules of Chess don't always do what would be realistic for its theme, and if they did it would be an infinitely worse game.

I am accusing you of being the type of person who would make a game much worse than it could be in the name of realism.  That was the point of my question.

[Endorya]

It sounds like I was exactly right.

Yeah, feeling unsettling about a peon turning into a queen is exactly the same thing as complaining that the queen is stronger than the knight. Feeling unsettling vs complaining. I guess we just see things the way we want them to be. I originally had the word "hilarious" but the concept of cutting off the peon's penis and turn its remains into a vagina had the world "unsettling" feeling more appropriated.

[Endorya]

I should have answered this in my last post.

Video games are in no way, shape, or form real life, and if they were they wouldn't be fun.  Realism is, in many cases, a wonderful tool for achieving the ends of a better game, but it is not a worthwhile goal unto itself if it doesn't result in a better game.

I mentioned Chess because it's a perfect game that would be worse if anything were added or taken away and because unlike, say, Go, it has a real-world theme.  The rules of Chess don't always do what would be realistic for its theme, and if they did it would be an infinitely worse game.

I am accusing you of being the type of person who would make a game much worse than it could be in the name of realism.  That was the point of my question.

I'm not implying that games should be incredibly realistic where characters should use 10 rings in total because we know as a fact that each hand has 5 fingers. I actually have been playing games since the 80's so I know quite well what realism and mechanics is all about and how one can intervene in another. I just want and will have armors as they were, with mechanics closer to reality. When I say armors I actually mean all sorts of items. This is something possible to do and it only takes a small portion of brain cells to implement it without compromising the game's final quality, assuming you know what you are doing. You know quite well that any mechanics can fail if not properly done, regardless of their level of realism.

And it seems already that you know what I mean: "Realism is, in many cases, a wonderful tool for achieving the ends of a better game, but it is not a worthwhile goal unto itself if it doesn't result in a better game".. Unfortunately, in practical terms you don't seem take this into consideration as you seem to reject the idea behind my realistic armor behavior without explaining it.

I'm definitely using the "tool" realism to recreate realistic mechanics as I see fit and I'm really glad I like to experiment new concepts and ideas instead of being stuck with old mechanics, you know the "standards" you sometimes criticize. So in sum, what did your argument added about this whole subject, nothing at all with the exception of judging the type of person I might be.

[Aukustus]

I'm not implying that games should be incredibly realistic where characters should use 10 rings in total because we know as a fact that each hand has 5 fingers.

I believe that has been addressed at least in D&D. Having magical rings too close to each other cancels each others effect.

[Endorya]

I'm not implying that games should be incredibly realistic where characters should use 10 rings in total because we know as a fact that each hand has 5 fingers.

I believe that has been addressed at least in D&D. Having magical rings too close to each other cancels each others effect.

Really!? That also happens to be the explanation I have in my game. 

[Aukustus]

I'm not implying that games should be incredibly realistic where characters should use 10 rings in total because we know as a fact that each hand has 5 fingers.

I believe that has been addressed at least in D&D. Having magical rings too close to each other cancels each others effect.

Really!? That also happens to be the explanation I have in my game. 

Apparently rings have some small magical aura which cannot overlap with other ring's aura.

[Vanguard]

And it seems already that you know what I mean: "Realism is, in many cases, a wonderful tool for achieving the ends of a better game, but it is not a worthwhile goal unto itself if it doesn't result in a better game".. Unfortunately, in practical terms you don't seem take this into consideration as you seem to reject the idea behind my realistic armor behavior without explaining it.

That's because your post about realistic armor says literally nothing about how it could lead to better gameplay.  I bet there are tons of really clever and fun mechanics a designer could make based on armor that drains your stamina.  There are also good mechanics based on the common, less realistic system.  But your post doesn't mention that at all.  All you talk about is how important it is to be realistic.

The choice between more magic power and more strength so you can wear heavier armor is interesting.  We should only replace it with a choice that is equally or more interesting.

[Endorya]

That's because your post about realistic armor says literally nothing about how it could lead to better gameplay.  I bet there are tons of really clever and fun mechanics a designer could make based on armor that drains your stamina.  There are also good mechanics based on the common, less realistic system.  But your post doesn't mention that at all.  All you talk about is how important it is to be realistic.

The choice between more magic power and more strength so you can wear heavier armor is interesting.  We should only replace it with a choice that is equally or more interesting.

My post was not about making games look worst or better game play wise but letting people know that mechanics can be done differently and closer to reality; mainly because the restrictions that exist in most games regarding armors is simply retarded. Games really make people believe that a full plate armor doesn't let you move your arms freely. It is against this nonsense I made such post. If you need to penalize a Mage for wearing heavy armor make it through stamina requirements. If you think that making realistic armor mechanics will be a bad thing then don't do it, just don't tell me that I have a problem with queens and knights in chess for posting against general nonsense present in games and for trying to lecture people in the subject.

[EDIT]
The problem is that these terribly inaccurate armor restrictions games usually have are believed to be realistic restrictions (which they aren't). So players of these games who become game developers will assume them as facts and build mechanics around these flawed restrictions.

[Vanguard]

just don't tell me that I have a problem with queens and knights in chess for posting against general nonsense present in games and for trying to lecture people in the subject.

Ok but you have a problem with promotion for equally silly reasons and that's every bit as bad.

[Endorya]

just don't tell me that I have a problem with queens and knights in chess for posting against general nonsense present in games and for trying to lecture people in the subject.

Ok but you have a problem with promotion for equally silly reasons and that's every bit as bad.

I don't have a problem with promotions in chess, I thought I had explained it really well in my last post referring to this. The reason to why I feel unsettling about having a pawn turning into a queen is a general feeling among chess players, at least with those I usually play with, we treat this issue as a parody. The pawn having a sex exchange in medieval times; it's humor; a joke... Substitute the word "unsettling" with hilarious or awesome if it helps you viewing my point.

Anyway, I'm really not sure what you mean with equally silly reasons but something tells me that once you explain it, I will repeat myself with an answer for your explanation, so never mind that. If you actually believe that all the factual information that I presented here to be silly, then simply ignore all of it and keep treating your wizard class with physical disabilities, exactly as games taught you they should be. I just presented a new concept and I don't expect everyone or anyone to follow it just because I comply with it, though I really wish people would.

[Vanguard]

Substitute the word "unsettling" with hilarious or awesome if it helps you viewing my point.

If that's all it is, then I misunderstood.  Sorry.

[Endorya]

If that's all it is, then I misunderstood.  Sorry.

No worries. I can't say my English is that great to start with and sometimes I don't choose the right words in my sentences. I guess "unsettling" wasn't the best choice for this particular case.

Just out of pure curiosity, why the nick change? I kinda liked Vanguard.