Heavy armor and encumbrance

[yabooer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by yabooer
I see where your going at but i DO have a compromise how about this?

Because YES you do have to get used to the armor the first couple of levels until you reach 50 out of 100 skill points IN heavy armor attribute you are encumbered by it or at 50-99 you get a loss to the speed till finally at 100 you are completely used to it. making you able to walk like your in normal armor but IF sprinting youll of course lose more endurance then someone in say leather.

Thaeric writes:

I think, and this is a huge assumption based on what I have seen regarding skill trees (which isn't much since they haven't released a whole lot), since you will have to learn primary skills, to reach secondary, and then likely have to learn another skill to get to the highest point in the tree, it is pretty logical to assume in order to even wear plate, you're character will have to be strong, and well versed in the skill tree prior to gaining access to plate.
This would account for the "experience" you are speaking of.

I don't think they will just let everyone throw plate armor on because they can afford it. I believe the character will need to meet both stat and skill requirements.

[BonecrusherX]

I like your reasoning, but at the same time, I think anybody could throw some plate on. But they'd have a major major malfunction on transportaion. I.e. walking, getting on a horse. And by automatically throwing on the plate, they would eventually get used to it. But, w/e happens, happens.

[Kuutti]

Armors have str requiments and shouldnt need skill. Putting metal pot on your head shouldnt be too hard.

[yabooer]

Yes but we are not all born with capabilities of those that are on the worlds strongest men, Imagine walking around with a 60 pound backpack sure your able to carry it and what not BUT you wont be able to run fast with it and you would get tired after a while of carrying it.

But after a couple months of carrying it it becomes just like another part of your body you got used to the weight and of course got even stronger BUT again you will not be able to run a good distance and you WILL get tired from wearing it after long periods of time.

Now of course if you have worn it for a couple years now and now you can do things anyone could do without it.

[Thaeric]

Originally Posted by yabooer

Yes but we are not all born with capabilities of those that are on the worlds strongest men, Imagine walking around with a 60 pound backpack sure your able to carry it and what not BUT you wont be able to run fast with it and you would get tired after a while of carrying it.

But after a couple months of carrying it it becomes just like another part of your body you got used to the weight and of course got even stronger BUT again you will not be able to run a good distance and you WILL get tired from wearing it after long periods of time.

Now of course if you have worn it for a couple years now and now you can do things anyone could do without it.

This is all very true, but I still believe and HOPE that the trees involved in gaining access to wearing plate would account for the experience of wearing armor of this type so that it wouldn't really effect speed.
I just would hate to see people suffering through the first stages of trying to get used to their plate armor starting from a skill of 0.

I would however support the idea of the lower your skill is with the armor, the more fatigue you suffer. IE: person with 100% skill swings a longsword and uses 5 points of stamina, where as a person with no skill in plate swings it and uses 10.
This could be accounted for by the "being used to it" factor.

[yabooer]

Ehh i can kind of agree but i disagree i would rather have them take up some stamina while walking or at least slow them down when they are at that stage. and im saying this mostly because I am an archer haha.

BUT I do want to be fair and have it balanced and not completely in favor of the kiting that would take place in a fight between an archer/warrior i think less stam he has slower the sword goes, slower he goes etc... everything that WOULD happen if you were fatigued.

[Thaeric]

Originally Posted by yabooer

Ehh i can kind of agree but i disagree i would rather have them take up some stamina while walking or at least slow them down when they are at that stage. and im saying this mostly because I am an archer haha.

BUT I do want to be fair and have it balanced and not completely in favor of the kiting that would take place in a fight between an archer/warrior i think less stam he has slower the sword goes, slower he goes etc... everything that WOULD happen if you were fatigued.

you are forgetting how tiring it is to draw a 80-100lb draw, bow.

If you go realistic on fatigue for one playstyle you have to do it for them all. Its a LOT less tiring swinging a 5-8lb long sword than dealing with the above mentioned bow...

I too am a archer in most games, especially in mmo's (if the option is there and well designed), and it is because of that I do not WANT things tipped in favor of archers. I would rather be the underdog, or ideally, balanced.
I do not want people to see my character and go "oh great, another fotm archer, run!"
I want them to say "oh shit, that's Thaeric! he's a badass archer! we need to either charge him now or run our asses off" -trips friend then runs-

Its hard to stand out from the crowd when everyone is given the ability to be badass without any skill. Removes a lot of the fun and challenge.



Beyond all that, I think most people will try to advance on archers as quickly as possible. This will usually entail running, or at least a quick jog. This will likely use some stamina. As I said, wearing heavier armor should increase the drain of stamina, but not to the point that it is complete BS and no one in full plate can charge without screwing themselves out of the ability to fight in the process.
Full plate armor is a defensive measure, since it is designed to protect. thus someone in full plate should find that it benefits them most to play defensively, letting their lighter armored targets come to them and then cut them down as they will have the stamina to attack, and still retain their great defensive abilities.
Meanwhile, someone who is lightly armored, such as banded leather, or piece-meal armor would likely be able to play more offensively, charging more often and striking quicker as they would suffer a lower stamina drain.

[yabooer]

but thats the average bear, Fuck that lol,
Rogue/scout = wood
Heavy armor wearer = Table saw
Wood rushing towards table saw = split in half wood lol

I don't like being an overpowered class as well i just like being at a range while attacking and well magic is for wimps =)

[Xieurs-srueiX]

Originally Posted by Thaeric

This is all very true, but I still believe and HOPE that the trees involved in gaining access to wearing plate

I am 99% sure they've already said anyone can use anything but they won't be a good as someone who's being using it and has "fully trained" (2-3 weeks)

I'm too lazy to look it up but I have faith in my memory

[Thaeric]

Originally Posted by Xieurs-srueiX

I am 99% sure they've already said anyone can use anything but they won't be a good as someone who's being using it and has "fully trained" (2-3 weeks)

I'm too lazy to look it up but I have faith in my memory

Thats good enough for me.


The question is though... how will they "penalize" someone who wears full plate, or any heavy armor, if they are not proficient with it? Or in another approach... how is one character "better" than another?

That is what I am curious to see.

[mattah]

I just want to be able to wear leathers and run away from someone wearing some huge suit of armour and not have them catch me.

[MavsWorld]

An archer at range should have pretty much no chance of hurting someone in full plate. At a range of 50 metres an archer won't be causing more than bruising on someone in full plate. At this short a distance the guy in full plate could rush the archer. As distances in MO are scaled down this should mean that the guy in full plate is practically on the archer. As such an archer trying to Kite someone in full plate is just a waste of stamina. If you want to defeat someone in full plate use a blunt weapon.

[Thaeric]

Originally Posted by MavsWorld

An archer at range should have pretty much no chance of hurting someone in full plate. At a range of 50 metres an archer won't be causing more than bruising on someone in full plate. At this short a distance the guy in full plate could rush the archer. As distances in MO are scaled down this should mean that the guy in full plate is practically on the archer. As such an archer trying to Kite someone in full plate is just a waste of stamina. If you want to defeat someone in full plate use a blunt weapon.

The term archer is pretty vague..... I am assuming you are not talking about crossbows here. because if you are including them, there is no reason why a crossbow bolt wouldn't penetrate and do good damage vs plate...

I do agree with you to an extent. At long range arrows (fired from bows, not bolts from crossbows) would basically be worthless against someone in full plate.
However, once that plate wearer charges, the archer, especially a longbow user, has a good chance of penetrating the armor completely with a near point blank shot.
This would mean the archer is going to get 1, MAYBE 2 effective shots on a plate wearer, whether they would hit depends on aim, shield/no shield, and skills of the melee'er.

Most realistic plate armor designed for combat ranges in thickness from 16-20gauge depending on the body part that the armor covers.
Point blank, a long bow would penetrate 20 and 18 gauge as if it were not even there. 16 gauge would likely absorb some of the penetrating power, but it would likely still penetrate.
Of course, this is speaking of non-heat treated, steel armor. I can not speak for other metals thats might be used, or any "magical" enhancements.

Anyway, my point is that while someone in plate might be all but invincible to arrows at range, they should still take damage in close quarters.
That's not asking a lot, since the archer will not ever get more than 1 or possibly 2 (if he is very fast) before the target is actually in melee range.



Also, plate armor is realistically weak against piercing weapons, such as rapiers, crossbow bolts, spiked mace/flails and military picks. The idea being to put the most force on the smallest surface as possible.
Granted, slamming someone in full plate with a great maul is going to hurt, and potentially send them flying, but unless it actually crushes the plate armor, they will not be severely injured, just suffer the jarring from the impact.

[MavsWorld]

Sorry, to clarify I wasn't including crossbows. An archer would need to be at pointblank, as in 30 metres to penetrate, and if he made that sort of shot he would most likely end up in combat after firing it. As to what you said about piercing weapons, I've been looking around the net, but could only find one mention of rapiers removing heavy armour from the battlefield. However I don't believe that a rapier would easily pierce full plate, I think you would need to find a crack in the armour. The force needed to create more than a dent in full plate is high, even when put into a point. I do not think that you could easily create this sort of force with a Rapier especially if the other person is fighting back. Maces and Mauls were used against plate to cause internal wounding from bruising, and unconciousness. This effectively ignored the armour to a degree which was why it was effective.

[LockBlade]

Even knights, who speant their lives on the battle feild with pretty much TANKS on their backs could move mediocer I think. Nothing special, they where not fast. They could hit fast because of the momentum of the blade that they where using. (Sort-of like a mini-claymore I guess?) Heavy armor = Slow, automaticly. Tank = slow. Better get a mount, and treat it good to keep up with your friends bro !

[MavsWorld]

Incorrect, people think Plate was a lot more encumbering that it is. A top of the range full plate could be lighter than the gear carried by a normal member of the army. It would slow them a bit yes, but it was possible to run, jump on to horses and sprint in full plate. As stated by someone else, plate made it difficult to turn, but to run no. Stamina is the main thing it was detrimental to.

[citric]

[quote=MavsWorld;300515]An archer at range should have pretty much no chance of hurting someone in full plate. At a range of 50 metres an archer won't be causing more than bruising on someone in full plate. [quote]

I was going to 100% disagree and prove you wrong, but just noticed you are in the same alliance, so... i agree 100%

(stupid quotes :P)

[Thaeric]

Originally Posted by MavsWorld

Sorry, to clarify I wasn't including crossbows. An archer would need to be at pointblank, as in 30 metres to penetrate, and if he made that sort of shot he would most likely end up in combat after firing it. As to what you said about piercing weapons, I've been looking around the net, but could only find one mention of rapiers removing heavy armour from the battlefield. However I don't believe that a rapier would easily pierce full plate, I think you would need to find a crack in the armour. The force needed to create more than a dent in full plate is high, even when put into a point. I do not think that you could easily create this sort of force with a Rapier especially if the other person is fighting back. Maces and Mauls were used against plate to cause internal wounding from bruising, and unconciousness. This effectively ignored the armour to a degree which was why it was effective.

Allow me to clarify...
I was not specifically speaking of a rapier penetrating a plate, but rather, penetrating the weak points... joints, throat guards, and other openings. Almost all plate armor had openings that could be exploited by someone with a rapier.
It is fairly easy to strike a point where plates simply hang over an opening with an upward thrust, and thus bypassing the armor entirely.

So yes, a rapier would have difficult time penetrating the breastplate or other solid plate. But it is very likely the rapier will glance off the rounded or fluted plate and end up "finding" a weak point such as an arm pit.

[Thaeric]

Originally Posted by LockBlade

Even knights, who speant their lives on the battle feild with pretty much TANKS on their backs could move mediocer I think. Nothing special, they where not fast. They could hit fast because of the momentum of the blade that they where using. (Sort-of like a mini-claymore I guess?) Heavy armor = Slow, automaticly. Tank = slow. Better get a mount, and treat it good to keep up with your friends bro !

This is a common misconception. People see depictions of cartoonish characters in this enormous plate armor that looks like it weighs 500lbs.
In reality, most suits of plate armor weighed in around 40-60lbs. If designed for the wearer by a competent smith, and the wearer was accustomed to wearing it, he could easily run just as fast with the armor as he could without it. He can jump, do hand stands and mount horses. As well, he could climb ladders, dance, or any number of other displays of maneuverability.
The downside to plate was that it caused a lot of heat to be retained, especially in direct sunlight. It also added to how quickly someone became fatigued. And, it also added to the mass of the person, so turning while running was more difficult, just as it is more difficult for someone who weighs 300lbs to turn while running vs someone who is 150lbs.

I did some reading, and I have found a couple sources that suggest most modern day soldiers carry 60-90 pounds of gear. Could anyone who is active military confirm this? Could you also add your experiences regarding the effect of the weight?

Also, they could strike just as fast as someone not wearing armor, in the beginning of the fight. Because they are used to wearing the armor, and its as if the weight is not even there. Also, the mass of the armor added to the power behind the strike, which would actually increase the force at impact.
However, again, the armor would increase the rate of fatigue. Someone who wears full plate would tired faster swinging a 6lb sword, vs not wearing any armor at all and swinging the same sword. So as the fight carried on, he would gradually slow down from fatigue, not because of the armor itself.



I find myself saying the same things over and over again in this post, yet people keep repeating these misconceptions...

[Findariel]

What I dislike about the plate or armour "skill" is that if I haven't `trained` it (didn't invest skillpoints in it) I may not be able to wear a plate helmet that I like either, just because it's plate and not because it's heavy ..

I hope it will be that you realistically have to invest in strength to be able to carry around heavy armour without penalty but that it will be dependent on weight, not armour type or trained proficiency.

(I just don´t want to miss out on that pretty winged helmet because it´s plate)

[Travie]

Personally I hope there's a Mule skill. Just something to judge how much junk you can haul around .

[MavsWorld]

Originally Posted by Thaeric

Allow me to clarify...
I was not specifically speaking of a rapier penetrating a plate, but rather, penetrating the weak points... joints, throat guards, and other openings. Almost all plate armor had openings that could be exploited by someone with a rapier.
It is fairly easy to strike a point where plates simply hang over an opening with an upward thrust, and thus bypassing the armor entirely.

So yes, a rapier would have difficult time penetrating the breastplate or other solid plate. But it is very likely the rapier will glance off the rounded or fluted plate and end up "finding" a weak point such as an arm pit.

Ok, cool as that's what I thought you probably meant. That's what I meant by crack. Citric have a check on the net. A non-mechanised bow will have great difficulty wounding a guy in full plate at 50 metres. Someone posted a video of this being tested, and they found you'd need to be 10-20 metres away or something to cause a wound.

[Ralpf]

I did some reading, and I have found a couple sources that suggest most modern day soldiers carry 60-90 pounds of gear. Could anyone who is active military confirm this? Could you also add your experiences regarding the effect of the weight?

While I am not, nor have ever been in the military, I can vouch that an untrained and relatively out of shape person could care around that much weigh on their back and retain a good portion of their mobility, I have done it (11 miles through the wood in 2 days).

It is more of a fatigue issue then a speed issue (though I doubt I could have ran full speed, if it was more evenly distributed, like armor, maybe I could), and it would have been better if I ever figured out how to get that thing on right....

Plate armor, made by a good blacksmith, fitted to the wearer, was probably a minor hindrance, but plate armor, made by a mediocre smith not fitted to the wearer (as probably happened in emergencies) could probably lower someones mobility drastically, not to say that it wouldn't still be useful, you just wouldn't want to meet guy with the good plate armor.

[LockBlade]

Originally Posted by Thaeric

This is a common misconception. People see depictions of cartoonish characters in this enormous plate armor that looks like it weighs 500lbs.
In reality, most suits of plate armor weighed in around 40-60lbs. If designed for the wearer by a competent smith, and the wearer was accustomed to wearing it, he could easily run just as fast with the armor as he could without it. He can jump, do hand stands and mount horses. As well, he could climb ladders, dance, or any number of other displays of maneuverability.
The downside to plate was that it caused a lot of heat to be retained, especially in direct sunlight. It also added to how quickly someone became fatigued. And, it also added to the mass of the person, so turning while running was more difficult, just as it is more difficult for someone who weighs 300lbs to turn while running vs someone who is 150lbs.

I did some reading, and I have found a couple sources that suggest most modern day soldiers carry 60-90 pounds of gear. Could anyone who is active military confirm this? Could you also add your experiences regarding the effect of the weight?

Also, they could strike just as fast as someone not wearing armor, in the beginning of the fight. Because they are used to wearing the armor, and its as if the weight is not even there. Also, the mass of the armor added to the power behind the strike, which would actually increase the force at impact.
However, again, the armor would increase the rate of fatigue. Someone who wears full plate would tired faster swinging a 6lb sword, vs not wearing any armor at all and swinging the same sword. So as the fight carried on, he would gradually slow down from fatigue, not because of the armor itself.



I find myself saying the same things over and over again in this post, yet people keep repeating these misconceptions...

Oh, I see. Thank you for setting things straight.

[citric]

Against plate armour
Tests at the Royal Military College of Science Testing Ground at Shrivenham investigated longbow performance in both range and against plate armour. It was discovered that the arrow can lose velocity rapidly after leaving the bow and that accuracy and damage were more easily achieved at shorter distances.
In tests against a steel breastplate, a bodkin-tipped arrow would dent the armour at 80m (260ft), puncture it at 30m (98ft) and penetrate right through plate and underlying doublet coat to the flesh at 20m (65ft).

[Ralpf]

Yeah, and that lines up with what Mavs said. Denting plate armor would probably be equivalent to being shot with a bullet proof vest on (if the vest is rate for the bullet), it will hurt, probably bruise, but that's not gonna stop them for long, if at all.

[LockBlade]

Wow, that is interesting. I guess we're going to have .. shit what are those bows called... anyways they're REALLY thick bows that are meant to take down calvary I think? However, I would have to say, you would fail at using these at a say "Skill level 0" at learning how to use bows because of how enourmously thick it is. Maybe you could hardly draw it back? D: But yea, I wonder if that changes distance for penetration?

[citric]

Originally Posted by Ralpf

Yeah, and that lines up with what Mavs said. Denting plate armor would probably be equivalent to being shot with a bullet proof vest on (if the vest is rate for the bullet), it will hurt, probably bruise, but that's not gonna stop them for long, if at all.

hes right about wounding / penetrating, i meant the "50m", being 80m, which is big difference. One thing however is the height of the archer to the target, which i suppose would add more force

[Ralpf]

Meant to take down a horse? I longbow should have no problem killing/crippling a horse.

I think you are talking about composite bows when you say thick though?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_bow

[LockBlade]

Yea! But this one was made out of horn and stuff. I don't remember why... oh well. Still, that's what it described.

[Travie]

Originally Posted by Ralpf

While I am not, nor have ever been in the military, I can vouch that an untrained and relatively out of shape person could care around that much weigh on their back and retain a good portion of their mobility, I have done it (11 miles through the wood in 2 days).

It is more of a fatigue issue then a speed issue (though I doubt I could have ran full speed, if it was more evenly distributed, like armor, maybe I could), and it would have been better if I ever figured out how to get that thing on right....

Plate armor, made by a good blacksmith, fitted to the wearer, was probably a minor hindrance, but plate armor, made by a mediocre smith not fitted to the wearer (as probably happened in emergencies) could probably lower someones mobility drastically, not to say that it wouldn't still be useful, you just wouldn't want to meet guy with the good plate armor.

You dont wanna run with a 90 pound pack on your back, trust me. It would throw off your balance and you'd probably break an ankle :P (I go camping alot)

Your right about plate armor being different tho, although I've never done it, since its distributed over your whole body I could see someone running at a pretty good clip with it.

/shrug.

[LockBlade]

I know what to do! Heavy CHEST armor + medium leg armor + heavy helmet + medium sheild + light metal-like spear. /tankspartan

[Ralpf]

hes right about wounding / penetrating, i meant the "50m", being 80m, which is big difference. One thing however is the height of the archer to the target, which i suppose would add more force

The page was a little vague (and the link seems broken now), but I think it said penetrate the plate at 50M and penetrate the plate and underlying padding at 20M. The second number is the important one, that would allow a kill if properly aimed, at 50M you might be able to kill with some luck, it seems.

[LockBlade]

<< go for the head, and the crotch.

[Thaeric]

Originally Posted by LockBlade

<< go for the head, and the crotch.

personally, I hope that as an archer, I have to aim for weak spots in the armor.... like the throat, groin, back of the legs. I just hope that the returns on hitting those spots are worth the difficulty of the shot.

[yabooer]

Originally Posted by Thaeric

Allow me to clarify...
I was not specifically speaking of a rapier penetrating a plate, but rather, penetrating the weak points... joints, throat guards, and other openings. Almost all plate armor had openings that could be exploited by someone with a rapier.
It is fairly easy to strike a point where plates simply hang over an opening with an upward thrust, and thus bypassing the armor entirely.

So yes, a rapier would have difficult time penetrating the breastplate or other solid plate. But it is very likely the rapier will glance off the rounded or fluted plate and end up "finding" a weak point such as an arm pit.

Well i am back from playing a gig with my band,

Very true thaeric but you already know about the hit boxes and they probably wont have "weak" spots on the armor unless hit multiple times from what I'm assuming about the hit boxes.

#1 Was also reading and came up upon someone stating magically enhanced etc blah blah blah.

Well for that I can safely say, how about us archers will we be able to get quivers enchanted for armor piercing? Will we be able to poison our arrows? some sort of DoT another one for Slowing?

#2 Face it archers will not have ANY sort of upper hand against a full plate 2 handed using knight here UNLESS we have the proper arrows etc

I play strategically and if I do get what i want you can bet your ass you full plate wearers i WILL have a good couple of stacks of arrows waiting ONLY for you, Mages, Scouts you get the poison =)

#3 Goes to Ralpf first off no the armor is more constricting you would rather carry a back pack full armor isn't as loose as our shirts/jeans leather belts are tied around a portion of your body to keep some parts up.

#4 Just a comment from what i read earlier ALL FULL ARMOR WEARERS DO NOT i repeat DO NOT use horses. We will shoot that horse down leaving you on the ground looking like a turtle on his back.

Sheesh Edit:

Originally Posted by Thaeric

If designed for the wearer by a competent smith

Okay well there was a metal I'M pretty sure not entirely sure that was very very light yet did have the same strength as steel.

Correct me if I am wrong, Also I hope I am wrong lol.

There is my little rant and wow can't believe the replies on this thread

[Ralpf]

#3 Goes to Ralpf first off no the armor is more constricting you would rather carry a back pack full armor isn't as loose as our shirts/jeans leather belts are tied around a portion of your body to keep some parts up.

True, but it will not mess with your center of gravity as much, so it would be easier to run in armor then carrying a backpack, assuming the weight is the same, not to imply that either are as easy as wearing cloth and carrying nothing.

Very true thaeric but you already know about the hit boxes and they probably wont have "weak" spots on the armor unless hit multiple times from what I'm assuming about the hit boxes.

From what I understand, armor will have a certain percentage of weak points, and your (characters) skill will determine the percentage of hitting those points, depending on which hitbox you hit, I'll see if I can drag up a quote.

Originally Posted by Mats Persson

Yes. Your best option is to go with a very sharp arrow dealing a lot of piercing damage. Or a heavy arrow with a lot of blunt damage (that doesn't fly very far due to its weight). And aim for unprotected body parts. Still, it will be pretty ineffective against a good full plate armor, unless you are very close, or if you are firing a heavy longbow or crossbow.

But with piercing damage, you may hit a gousset. This is one of the few things in combat that are "simulated" or "random", as we simply can't have 20 hitboxes. Your skill as a player will let you aim and shoot at specific body parts. Your character's skill, your bow and your arrow will modify the chance to hit a gousset on that body part, meaning it will ignore most of the armor defense if it does.

Still, the best thing to do if you're an archer and spot someone in heavy full plate coming towards you, is run.

The more damage an arrow does, the more durability is subtracted from the shield. Depending on the material of the shield, it may be better or worse against different types of damage.

Yes, you can definitely block arrows with your shield, but it does require a bit of skill. It is also possible to block arrows with your sword (as it's a mesh that is included in the calculations of the arrow) but you have to be very lucky. Or extremely skilled, and lucky

[yabooer]

hmm nice quote pulling and that sucks no skilled involved =\ but oh well so what will be the percentage do you know? if your a capped out archer

[Ralpf]

There is not much else known, unless I have missed something.

Most skill is removed in that detail anyway, but knowledge of the game is still probably beneficial to the archer, knowing their armors and what pieces to fire at for certain "sets", I assume anyway (and, of course, being able to hit the particular pieces).

[Thaeric]

Originally Posted by yabooer

Very true thaeric but you already know about the hit boxes and they probably wont have "weak" spots on the armor unless hit multiple times from what I'm assuming about the hit boxes.

We don't know how many hit boxes there will be definately. They may not add extra hitboxes for armor, but certain armors may have inherent weaknesses in certain areas, meaning less damage absorbtion/deflection. We just won't know until we see it.

Originally Posted by yabooer

Well for that I can safely say, how about us archers will we be able to get quivers enchanted for armor piercing? Will we be able to poison our arrows? some sort of DoT another one for Slowing?

I hope and pray on a daily basis that we will not see a slowing effect "poison". At the very very most, I would support a leg shot standing a small chance to lowering speed slightly. By small chance, I mean, beyond the chance of missing, an added % chance of it not effecting the speed.
Why? Because I dont want to see archers kiting everyone in every single fight. Its a sad thing to watch, and utterly annoying.
This would make archers weigh the options... risk taking a shot for their legs that may not do much damage, and has only a small chance to snare slightly, or aim for the chest or head for a higher damage shot.
Snares should not be a given, people should have to work for their kills, not use an ability to insta-win.
As for poison, I really don't know how I feel about that... I'd have to see it implemented, but as of right now, I'd have to say no thanks. Player skill should define a win, not a mechanic that involves hitting someone once and outrunning them till they die from poison....

Originally Posted by yabooer

#2 Face it archers will not have ANY sort of upper hand against a full plate 2 handed using knight here UNLESS we have the proper arrows etc

I never said anything about having the upperhand. In fact I often say I want to be the underdog. Its more challenging, and in my opinion, more fun. HOWEVER, just because someone dons plate, should not mean they are invincible to a certain type of attack. Especially when we can see in real life, that arrows ARE capable of penetrating the armor under the right conditions.
Granted, it shouldn't be EASY to do, but again, I am not asking for it to be.

Originally Posted by yabooer

#4 Just a comment from what i read earlier ALL FULL ARMOR WEARERS DO NOT i repeat DO NOT use horses. We will shoot that horse down leaving you on the ground looking like a turtle on his back.

I can assure you, regardless of the characters armor, I will always consider killing the horse as an opening attack. The fact that it will disorient them as their character struggles to get back on their feet will give me plenty of time to take shots at him, or get away.

Originally Posted by yabooer

Okay well there was a metal I'M pretty sure not entirely sure that was very very light yet did have the same strength as steel.

Correct me if I am wrong, Also I hope I am wrong lol.

Are we talking realistically, virtually, legends, or what?

In the real world, there are tons of alloys that are stronger than plain steel.

In games, mithiril and adamantine are both said to be stronger and lighter than steel (I believe), though we have no details whether such metals will exist in MO.

Some folk lore/legends/stories talk of weapons and armor crafted from "fallen stars" or other untraditional sources. In those stories, they often displayed better-than-steel qualities. How much truth is in those stories? Who knows.