Forums » The Dire Lord

The correct way - let people specialize

    • 133 posts
    September 24, 2018 7:15 PM PDT

    What the game really needs is a way to specialize - through some sort of AAs, talent points, call them whatever - into one out of 2-3 paths a class can take.

    Let people specialize into a classic Shadowknight (plate, feign death etc) or into a blood-spell-tanking chain class.

    I'm not talking about an absolute mix-and-match everything, but there should be viable paths, pre-set but different enough.
    One can be what Dire Lord is now.
    Another can be closer to a classic Shadowknight - plate, more mitigation, less spell-damage-tanking.

    Add plate, remove something. Add Feign Death, lose something else. etc etc.

    Add a 3rd path later if you have ideas.

     

    Of course, each specialization path must be viable - if any is too powerful, everyone will play it, if any is too weak, no one will.
    Then see what people really want, based on the only real measure - what they really spec into.

     

    Me, personally, I want something as close to EQ SK as possible. But that's just me. I can't claim to know what most people want or don't want.

    But, somehow, I never heard many people saying they want the Dire Lord to be... what it is shaping up to be.
    Some might accept it, if not given a choice. But if given a choice, what would people take?

     

    • 2060 posts
    September 24, 2018 8:00 PM PDT

    I'd prefer to keep each class whole and with their fully fleshed out identities.

    • 421 posts
    September 25, 2018 6:39 AM PDT

    Aethor said: What the game really needs is a way to specialize - through some sort of AAs, talent points, call them whatever - into one out of 2-3 paths a class can take ... But if given a choice, what would people take?

    Since VR has repeatedly explained that there will be no 'specialization' or 'talent' based system in Pantheon, I do not see any point in speculating on how each person might choose to create a specializiation system for the classes in Pantheon.

    Aethor said: Me, personally, I want something as close to EQ SK as possible. But that's just me. I can't claim to know what most people want or don't want. But, somehow, I never heard many people saying they want the Dire Lord to be... what it is shaping up to be.

    VR is not trying to replicate classes from previous games. Just because they have a similar idea as the SK's from EQ1 does not mean they are meant to be anything like the SK's from EQ1. If you are not very interested in the Dire Lord class that Pantheon has created, that's perfectly ok. But there doesn't seem to be any plan to create a class that are like the SK's in EQ1.

    If you do find the Dire Lord interesting and just would like to suggest a spell or ability that you'd like to see them have, feel free to make some suggestions. Maybe VR will like your idea and find a way to incorporate it into the Dire Lords kit of abilities.

    I would though point out that trying to get them to fundamentally change the entire way classes are designed in Pantheon is not really going to get anywhere. Besides, you are not the first person to argue the idea of specializations, and none of the people before you have made VR change their view on it.

    • 1194 posts
    September 25, 2018 7:05 AM PDT

    Specialization will be trought spells you unlocked and which ones you choose to be on your active bar at once.

     

    No hard specs, and especially no role change.

    • 114 posts
    September 25, 2018 9:39 AM PDT

    One idea could be - Once level cap is reached you can acquire something like merit points that can be spent in various ways. I.e. a Dire Lord could possibly spend a merit point on upping melee attack, but it will reduce melee defence equally. The key thing would be that the difference wouldn't be dramatic... so a Dire Lord would still be a tank.

    I would only like a system like this is the merit points took a really long time to get and they could not be redistributed if you dont like your selections. In order to get back to where you were you would have to earn another merit point and spend it in the opposite way, ie. spend it to make melee defence higher and melee attack lower. ( you will be back where you started)

     

    • 380 posts
    September 25, 2018 10:58 AM PDT

    Instead redesigning the system so that a class or classes is capable of being personalized, maybe wait and see if they make a shadow knight class later. That would easier.

    • 317 posts
    September 25, 2018 7:29 PM PDT

    Although the SK would be amazing, there is no chance that they will allow the Dire Lord to be similar to that.  As some others have said, perhaps there will be a SK type of class created later.  What I have said is that they should make the DL an offtank/DPS and add a SK class as a tank... just call it an Anti-Paladin.  We are missing the "Evil Knight" role that so many people love;  It's like having an MMO without a rogue class.  :(

    • 2060 posts
    September 26, 2018 10:01 AM PDT

    Darch said:

     We are missing the "Evil Knight" role that so many people love;  It's like having an MMO without a rogue class.  :(

    I mean, Dire Lord more or less fulfill being evil knights just without plate armor. 

     

    • 133 posts
    September 26, 2018 11:44 AM PDT

    Iksar said:

    I mean, Dire Lord more or less fulfill being evil knights just without plate armor. 

     

    Blergh. That's more like an evil ranger.

    Who asked for an evil ranger?

     

    • 1194 posts
    September 26, 2018 12:56 PM PDT

    Aethor said:

    Iksar said:

    I mean, Dire Lord more or less fulfill being evil knights just without plate armor. 

     

    Blergh. That's more like an evil ranger.

    Who asked for an evil ranger?

     

     

    That's just the mail or the weapon choice ? Clearly not an evil ranger imho, but I can understand it can create a void for players used to play plate & shield evil tanks.

     

    However, is it just me or 2018 is the era of "I can't pick a choice in a game if it does not fit what I wanted at first" ? We were used to pick races, classes and combos in what a game offer and now it's all "The game shouldn't be like that because I don't want to play that".  Since when did player loose all flexibility to adapt to a game instead of asking for the game to fill their specific niche wishes ?

    • 133 posts
    September 26, 2018 6:59 PM PDT

    MauvaisOeil said:

     Since when did player loose all flexibility to adapt to a game instead of asking for the game to fill their specific niche wishes ?

     

    Well...

    1) This game is made by a team/company led by the same man who was behind EQ and Vanguard.
        Is it so weird that people who liked those games came here for more of that?

    2) Both of those games had an evil tank class, Shadowknight / Dread Knight.
        So, people who played those sort of want to play something of a similar sort.

    3) Flexibility? Not the point here. We can adapt. The question is, do we want to? We play a game because it's fun for us.
        People played monks because it was fun for them, people played wizards or druids because it was fun for them.
        People played paladins because it was fun for them.
        You can adapt, but if it stops being fun, then it becomes a job, not a hobby.
        And I already have a job, and I'm being paid for it.

     

    • 1194 posts
    September 27, 2018 1:57 AM PDT

    @Aethor

     

    1) I get your point... but ? The game comes from the same frontpage as EQ and Vanguard, yet EQ and Vanguard's Shadowknight were different. It wasn't even Called "Shadowknight" but "Dread Knight". It was built toward using Two handed weapons over anything else, featured siphonning magic of statistics and life, with an in built aura system making active gameplay group rewarding, while having no feign death.

    Here the Direlord is a tank featuring siphonning magic of life with a specific synergy with debuffs, with a dark tone to spells and skills.

     

    The only big difference between EQ and VG's iterations, is the lack of Plate armor in favor of Heavy Mail, performing similar defense with a distinct look. I think thoses against the Direlord are simply making makeshift arguments for that sole reason. Because they wanted plate, and I did to, but I will do withouth it and not claim the game is bad not in the right spirit for something I don't even know if it will be a problem, even on a cosmetic side.

    2) Well here your problem is solved. The Direlord is an Evil Tank class.

    3) How did you adapt when you played EQ or VG for the first time ? I personally never played a setup with Ogres, trolls or lizardmens as player races and I loved it. Back then Ad&d not even had a monk because it was added in a specific add-on (and used weapons, including swords), and only the third edition made it as a base class. In fact, back in 1999 (or 2000 for lizardmens), the punching monks weren't really much of a thing in RPG and pop culture. Back then, evil classes weren't really playable in Tabletop setups, especially things like Ante-paladin (or later Blackguard, or later Paladin of Tyranny) because they were mostly designed for mobs and encounters, as Evil was considered a monster alignement unable to perform with other players. The same goes for the mage class divided into fully specialised counterparts (Wizard, Magician, Enchanter and Necromancer), or the Shaman class that was to me very odd at start, beeing an Ad&d addict. But I adapted, WE adapted, to a specific game setup we loved. And we adapt everytime a new game comes out with a different matrix, universe and such.

    And here we go, Pantheon is a different universe and setup, it's not meant to be an EQ refreshed, but a complete game that will please old nostalgious gamer as much as newer ones looking for that type of game.

    I think, if the game stop beeing fun withouth even beeing out, and withouth you having the chance to be in your hands for making your own opinion gamewise and not on text content, there isn't a job versus game reality. You're stuck in a desire to play a refreshed EQ game, withouth taking into consideration 19 years passed and only one developper coming from the same team, but maybe you should open your mind and accept change as a whole.

    • 473 posts
    September 27, 2018 3:26 AM PDT

    I refuse to make a decision about this class untill I actually play it.  All of the woes I have seen about the class seem to come from folks who played "a similar" class in other games - EQ, EQ2, WoW, etc.  The thing is, this is not those games.  This is something else.  I think we should give the Devs a chance, test HARD, and provide decent feedback.  We are still a long ways from launch.  I don't see ANY woes with this class right now.  All I see is the opportunity to take the basic design we have now and turn it into something truly diabolical.  My only wish is to have some sort of Brigandine Armor.  Instead of full plate, Brigandine is plate sections held together by cloth or leather.  I prefer small plate sections held together by thick leather sewn together over the plate sections.  Imagine football pants and pads with the same type of snug fit.  It has less protection than plate, but also allows for more movement.  Plate armor is designed to take a beating - sit there and get hit.  Maybe the Dire Lord is more designed to be less defensive and more offensive.  No matter what I will be playing.

    • 1194 posts
    September 27, 2018 4:41 AM PDT

    @nephreti 

     

    On a cosmetic side, I want the witcher's mail armor.

    • 340 posts
    September 27, 2018 5:48 AM PDT

    This is just common growing pains. In 10 years people will be saying "Ugh, why did you design your evil tank to be that way? Can't you just make it like the Pantheon Dire Lord that I love so much?"

    MauvaisOeil hit the nail on the head with his comments. Some people see new things as bad because they want the old, some people see the old ways as bad because they want something new. Let's all just try whatever Pantheon is and see what we like in it, rather than going in with specific expectations.

    • 223 posts
    October 2, 2018 10:52 AM PDT
    What the game really need is for people to get rid of the past, and accept the new ideas and inputs the devs are bringing. They got this ok. You are being served a well cooked meal, and you complain about the taste. That Sir is just rude.. :)
    • 40 posts
    October 4, 2018 2:26 AM PDT

    I understand the wish for flexibility, but in a group oriented game I really like to see what i get when organizing a group. I dont want to aks the Dire Lord for the specialisation. Sure, this can be handled via in game tools but most specializations in MMOs are going towards one specialization per class, since that one kind of specialization is seen as the most efficient ... Making specialization pretty useless. 

    I am not sure if i could make my point, so please let me know if i wrote complete nonsense :D 

     

    Oh, and lets not forget that the strategy of VR (as i understand it) is to give a home to Oldschool MMO players, and add cool new features like the progeny system. At least for me, specialization does not really fit into that strategy. But thats just my opinion, man.


    This post was edited by Matrulak at October 4, 2018 2:31 AM PDT
    • 317 posts
    October 15, 2018 9:00 AM PDT

    Nephretiti said:

    I refuse to make a decision about this class untill I actually play it.  All of the woes I have seen about the class seem to come from folks who played "a similar" class in other games - EQ, EQ2, WoW, etc.  The thing is, this is not those games.  This is something else.  I think we should give the Devs a chance, test HARD, and provide decent feedback.  We are still a long ways from launch.  I don't see ANY woes with this class right now.  All I see is the opportunity to take the basic design we have now and turn it into something truly diabolical.  My only wish is to have some sort of Brigandine Armor.  Instead of full plate, Brigandine is plate sections held together by cloth or leather.  I prefer small plate sections held together by thick leather sewn together over the plate sections.  Imagine football pants and pads with the same type of snug fit.  It has less protection than plate, but also allows for more movement.  Plate armor is designed to take a beating - sit there and get hit.  Maybe the Dire Lord is more designed to be less defensive and more offensive.  No matter what I will be playing.

    I could get on board with the brigadine armor idea.  Or perhaps field plate or breast plate.  Those of us that read "chainmail" think of ranger and shaman... neither of which can take a hit.  If they changed the armor description from chain to light plate (brigadine, field plate, breast plate - classic midevil/Dungeons and Dragons plate but not “full plate”) those of us that understand how armor works in an MMO would not be as concerned for the class.

    Some of us like to role play a tank as someone that stands on the front lines protecting their allies by drawing enemy fire and being able to deal damage themselves (like an actual tank IRL does).  You don't see "armored" HMMWVs "tanking".  If you get hit with a greatsword while wearing gambison and chainmail you are still going down in one hit likely with broken bones and possibly severed limbs... let alone a couple of arrows or an explosion (fireball).  Little room for imagination RP.  https://youtu.be/eXjzSv2q_LY?t=562


    This post was edited by Darch at October 15, 2018 9:23 AM PDT
    • 2060 posts
    October 15, 2018 10:04 AM PDT

    In real life mail armor wasn't nearly as far behind plate armor protection wise as games/media portray. Swords/spears/daggers/arrows were all pretty ineffective vs mail. 

    • 317 posts
    October 15, 2018 10:29 AM PDT

    Not really @Iksar.  All of those weapons were effective against chainmail compared to full plate where all of those weapons (aside from a dagger that knights would often carry for that very purpose) were nearly useless against full plate.  (Unless the half-sword technique was used to effectively weild a sword like a dagger).

    • 2060 posts
    October 15, 2018 12:23 PM PDT

    General:

    There are also many misconceptions about mail armour, leading scholars to disregard its effectiveness on the battlefield: it was heavy and cumbersome; it was highly susceptible to piercing attacks—especially arrows; it was cheap and relatively simple to produce; and mail was superseded by "superior" plate as soon as it was technically possible. All of the preceding statements are demonstrably false. One should keep in mind that mail saw continuous use in virtually every iron-using culture in the world for the best part of two thousand years. It is, without a doubt, the most successful and versatile type of armour ever devised.

    Mail consisted of a two-part composite defense. The first part was the mail itself—a flexible metal "fabric" made from interlocked rings that form a mesh. The second part was the padding worn underneath. When worn in this fashion, mail offered very good resistance to cuts and punctures and helped to reduce the effects of blunt trauma. For mail to have been used for such a long period and remain virtually unchanged during that time suggests that it was an extremely effective form of protection. If a weapon had been devised during that period that could reliably penetrate mail, one of two things would occur—either the armour would have been augmented until it protected against the new threat, or it would have been discarded because the reduced protection no longer justified its weight and expense. Since unaugmented mail remained the armour of choice in Europe for those who could afford it one must conclude that it offered good protection against all contemporary weapons.

    ...

    Most assume that plate armour was developed to counter weapons such as the couched lance, crossbow, and longbow—that it evolved because of an "arms race" between weapons and armour. This is a very modern viewpoint heavily biased because of the rapid development and counter development of military technology during the 20th century. This rapid technological advancement is unprecedented in history, and although it occurred in the Middle Ages, it may not have been the main driving force for change. During these earlier times, it is likely that warfare was driven by changes in society as much as technological advances. To begin with, the weapons that were supposed to have been responsible for the development of plate, namely the longbow, crossbow, and couched lance, had been used on the battlefield at least a century before the transition from mail to plate began. If the primary reason for this augmentation was because of these weapons, one would expect the process to have begun soon after the weapons in question appeared on the battlefield. Despite the slower rate of change during this time, it is unreasonable to expect a delay of many generations before developing adequate armour—especially since armourers were perfectly capable of fashioning plate protection during this time.

    Other factors that need to be considered include technological innovations in mass production, namely the water-powered trip hammer and the blast furnace. These technologies enabled iron plate to be manufactured in much larger quantities and much more cheaply than previously. In addition, labour costs dramatically increased after the Black Death (14th century), and the technologies previously mentioned meant that mail actually cost more to produce than all but the finest of plate armour. Williams compares the cost of 12 oxen for a 9th century helmet, mail and leggings with the cost of only 2 oxen for horseman's plate armour at the end of the 16th century. At Iserlohn in the 15th century, a mail haubergeon cost 4.6 gulden while plate armour only cost 4.3 gulden. Kassa's archives (Hungary 1633) record a mail shirt costing six times that of a "double breastplate." These records also indicate the huge difference in labour involved. The mail required 2 months to be completed while the breastplate, only 2 days. If plate armour was cheaper, quicker to produce, and offered better protection than mail, one could argue that it would have become popular even if weapons such as longbows, crossbows, and lances never existed.

    ...

    the use of mail was extremely widespread and prolonged—being used by more cultures and for a greater period of time than any other type of body armour. One can also see that mail was not as susceptible to damage as many assume, proving resistance even to the bodkin arrowhead—a design allegedly developed specifically to punch through mail.

    It is evident that there were many different types of mail, some more protective than others, but if even the lightest mail did not provide good protection the knight would not have bothered with the weight and expense of it. One must keep in mind that the interlinked metal mesh was only one half of this armour. Mail becomes far more effective when worn in conjunction with some sort of padded defense.

     

    Arrows:

    Anna Comnena wrote that during the Battle of Duazzo (1108 AD), the Byzantines resorted to shooting the Frankish horses because their arrows were ineffective against Frankish mail. Joinville describes his servants donning him in his jousting hauberk as he lay ill on the deck of a ship to protect him from incoming Saracen arrows. Joinville later recounts an incident involving Walter of Châtillon in which Saracen missiles were ineffective:

    "...and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they (who shoot as well backwards as forwards) would cover him with darts. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the darts that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat-of-arms again... Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described."

     

    Odo of Deuil wrote about King Louis VII in an engagement during the 2nd Crusade. After losing his bodyguard he was forced to flee the enemy by scaling a rock face:

    "The enemy climbed after, in order to capture him, and the more distant rabble shot arrows at him. But by the will of God his armour protected him from the arrows."

     

    During the 3rd Crusade, Bahā'al-Dīn, Saladin's biographer, wrote that the Norman crusaders were:

    "...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks."

     

    The above passage demonstrates the increased effectiveness of mail when worn in conjunction with a padded defense. It is unclear whether the felt was worn underneath or over the top of mail in the above example. What is clear is that the combination is very effective at resisting arrows. Russ Mitchell believes that felt is especially effective against bodkins because it has no woven structure for the point to open up and slide through. The felt deforms around the bodkin and pushes it back out of the target. Broadhead typologies, on the other hand, have cutting edges that can allow them to slice through felt. So felt would be less protective against these arrowheads. However, mail is extremely effective against cutting edges. The combination of mail and felt provide good protection against both bodkins and broadheads.

    Here are some more brief examples: at the Battle of Byland (1322), Scrymgeour, Robert the Bruce's standard bearer, took a longbow arrow in the arm that did no harm because of his mail hauberk. During the Battles of Dupplin Moor (1332) and Halidon Hill (1333), the English longbowmen inflicted few casualties because of Scottish armour but caused great disorder by attacking the faces and heads of their foes, many of whom were either not wearing helmets or did not have visors.

     

    Finally, the following passage written by Galbert of Bruges describes a formidable archer named Benkin and demonstrates that while mail might protect the wearer from being pierced with arrows, it did not necessarily save him from blunt trauma:

    "And when he [Benkin] was aiming at the besiegers, his drawing on the bow was identified by everyone because he would either cause grave injury to the unarmed or put to flight those who were armed, whom his shots stupefied and stunned, even if they did not wound."

     

    It can be seen from the above examples that mail provided a good defense against arrows. Although there were occasions when arrows penetrated the mail itself, the arrow was often halted by the padding. One should also note the effects of blunt trauma—even if an arrow failed to compromise the mail, it was still possible to cause discomfort to the wearer underneath.

     

    Based on modern experimental results and contemporary accounts one must conclude that, while not impervious, mail and its associated padding offered good protection against arrows. It is evident, though, that some types of mail offered better protection than others and that it was possible to make mail that was arrow-proof, yet these variants may have been too heavy or not flexible enough for prolonged wear on the battlefield. Even the much-vaunted bodkin did not guarantee penetration. It seems that bodkins are more capable than other arrowheads of punching through the mail links but have difficulty penetrating the layer of padding underneath. Bodkin-type arrowheads have been used since the Bronze Age and were common during the Roman period and right through the so-called "Age of Mail." Considering the frequency with which knights faced arrows on the battlefield, if mail was highly susceptible to them, then it would not have remained the preferred type of body armour for so long. One might argue that a type of armour more resistant to arrows, such as plate or lamellar, would have been more extensively used in Western Europe during this time. It has also been demonstrated that some types of mail (such as "double mail") were considered proof against arrows. If one was concerned about arrow fire, this sort of mail was available to those who could afford it. Therefore, one must conclude that plate armour did not become widespread in the 14th century simply because of the susceptibility of mail to arrows.

    Swords:

    Regarding mail's vulnerability to other weapons, it is generally acknowledged that sword cuts are largely ineffective against mail. Modern experiments indicate that it is extremely difficult to shear through mail with any sort of sword—especially if combined with padding. Despite its apparent ineffectiveness against mail, there are plenty of reasons for the widespread use of the knightly sword during the so-called "Age of Mail" (ignoring the fact that the sword was never the knight's primary weapon). The sword was a status symbol, a demonstration of one's knightly position in society. The sword was a symbolic depiction of the cross and representative of the knight's Christian faith. The sword was also extremely effective against poorly armoured troops (the majority of any host on a medieval battlefield). Even against mail-clad opponents the sword could inflict injury by striking at areas that were not covered with mail (such as the face) or through the infliction of blunt trauma. Because mail is flexible, it does not stop the impact of a blow. Some of the force of an attack is carried through the mail and padding to the wearer underneath. The wearer is especially vulnerable to attacks against hard, exposed body parts including the shin, knee, elbow, shoulder, clavicle, and skull. Many recreationists today attest to the ability of a blow to one of these areas breaking the bone and incapacitating the wearer even when the mail and padding is not compromised. It is for this reason that concussion weapons were used such as maces, axes, and hammers. Edge and Paddock wrote:

    "Such weapons of percussion were especially effective against mail armour; repeated blows could shatter bones and kill the victim without even breaking a single riveted link of his hauberk. In this situation the flexibility of mail, an advantage in other respects, was a positive disadvantage."

     

    Regarding sword and knife stabs, Dr. Williams presents a convincing argument that it was far more difficult to thrust a blade through mail than many assume. He tested two samples of mail (placed over padding) and found that the energy required to compromise either sample exceeded the maximum amount of energy that a person can generate with a one-handed thrust—even over-handed. He tested the amount of energy required to penetrate his samples with a simulated halberd blade, a lance head, and a bodkin arrowhead. The halberd and lance required more than 200J to penetrate the first sample; the bodkin required only 120J to penetrate. Against the second sample, the halberd required 170J, the lance 140J, and the bodkin 120J. From this, it would seem that a bodkin-shaped spike is the most efficient design to compromise mail, which is consistent with other experiments.

    Williams also cited an experiment by Horsfall et al., who concluded that the maximum energy a person could deliver in an over-arm stab was 115J and an under-arm stab only 63J. If the data from the two experiments are combined, it seems that it was not possible for a person to punch through mail (at least the two samples tested by Williams) with a single-handed thrust—even with a spike that was optimized for the task. A lighter variant of mail or an extremely strong person may result in the armour being compromised with an over-arm stab since there is only 5J between the two sets of data, but from the available evidence it seems to be virtually impossible to penetrate mail with an under-arm thrust. Those who believe that certain blades were designed to punch through mail with an under-arm thrust are clearly mistaken. One weapon that immediately comes to mind is the Indian katar, which is optimized for an under-am thrust. Some have speculated that those blades with reinforced points were so modified in order to help them punch through armour. Reinforcing the point makes it less capable of punching through armour, not more, since there is more material to push through. Since even a spike, specifically optimized for compromising mail, would have no chance with an underarm thrust, one must conclude that a reinforced point has another purpose. The most likely reason would have been to prevent the blade from breaking when it failed to penetrate armour or bone.

    Spear:

    Regarding the protective qualities of field mail against lances, there are a few contemporary sources. The memoirs of Usamah ibn Munquidh (1095-1188) recount an anecdote in which he jumped his horse over a hedge and solidly struck a Frankish knight with his lance such that:

    "He bent sideways so much that his head reached his stirrup, his shield and lance fell off his hand, and his helmet off his head...he then resumed his position, erect in the saddle. Having had linked mail under his tunic, my lance did not wound him."

     

    Over the page, Usamah describes how he charged at what he perceived to be an enemy and hit the man in the armpit with his lance, knocking him off his horse. It was fortunate that the man's mail saved him from injury because he turned out to be a friend.

    In another battle, Usamah's cousin named Khitam was attacked by Frankish lancers and unhorsed. They then reversed their lances and began to thrust into him while he lay on the ground. However, Khitam was wearing "a coat of mail the links of which were so strong that their lances could have no effect on it."

    In case a reader might doubt the martial prowess of Usamah, an earlier anecdote involved him thrusting his lance through the back of a knight named Philip, such that it went through his armoured body and projected about "a cubit" in front of him. Apparently Philip survived the injury since later a companion of the wounded knight made a special trip to the Moslem camp to see...

    "...the horseman who struck Philip the knight, for verily the Franks have all been astounded on account of that blow which pierced two layers of links [back and front] in the knight's coat of mail and did not kill him."

    It is unclear whether the Franks were astounded because the lance penetrated two layers of mail or because the wound was not mortal

     

    Michael Psellos' Chronographia talks about an attack on Isaac Komnenos (1057 AD) in which his armour protected him from two lances striking simultaneously:

    "Some of our men saw him (they were Scyths from the Taurus district, and not more than four at that) and attacked him with lances, driving in on both flanks, but the iron shafts proved ineffective... Meanwhile he budged in neither direction, for as they pushed him with equal force this way and that, he remained poised and balanced in the middle. To Isaac this seemed a favourable omen, when attacks from right and left both failed to dislodge him..."

     

    Can read the full breakdown: https://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

    • 223 posts
    October 16, 2018 8:21 AM PDT
    Impressive Iksar thanks a lot for your clarification very cool read!

    Maybe we will see 80-90% as high defensive ratings on full mail compared to full plate. And maybe the stats on mail armor could provide more dex and agi compared to plate.

    I would not mind that the two armor types are close to eachother, if we think of weight this could also be a factor to play around. Maybe a full set of heavey plate armor will reduce your movement speed or limit your ability to carry other stuff compares to mail armor.

    Mithril armor is still to this day my favorite, light as a fether and strong as a dragon scale.
    • 1194 posts
    October 16, 2018 2:50 PM PDT

    @Iksar I'm not going to counter argue, I'm not versed in medieval facts and armor specificity. I just think it's hitting the wall aspect of game design between realism and fun here, and if they design Heavy mail to be very close to plate because it's made of metal and thicker than thin mail, I don't think history or physics should really bar the path.

     

    I'm still hoping for "the witcher's classy mail style" but for now, ingame mail does look like a thick pullover :P.

    • 317 posts
    October 18, 2018 9:42 AM PDT

    MauvaisOeil said:

    @Iksar I'm not going to counter argue, I'm not versed in medieval facts and armor specificity. I just think it's hitting the wall aspect of game design between realism and fun here, and if they design Heavy mail to be very close to plate because it's made of metal and thicker than thin mail, I don't think history or physics should really bar the path.

     

    I'm still hoping for "the witcher's classy mail style" but for now, ingame mail does look like a thick pullover :P.



    Agreed. There are counter arguements made against and for the effectiveness of armors depending on the period of time and the source.  Butted Mail vs riveted being a huge determining factor alone.  I hope you will be able to differentiate between a shaman, ranger and DL without having to look at their equiped weapons because they all wear chain.


    This post was edited by Darch at October 18, 2018 9:49 AM PDT
    • 235 posts
    October 18, 2018 7:41 PM PDT
    Would be nice if race/class combo in regards to specific armor ie chain/plate/leather/cloth had a variation of the particular armor item... not the OP topic but since it was brought up that’s my two bits