Talk:Armor

The official GemStone IV encyclopedia.
Revision as of 20:13, 10 April 2021 by WINTERDAWN (talk | contribs) (Sonic Armor)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Z- Do you think it would be beneficial to put the images in the chart with the AsG, CvAs, etc? Also, did you use the bulk upload? VANKRASN39 (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2017 (CST)

I was concerned about potentially adding 400kb to the download every time the table is transcluded, and it may not be as easy to read. I did use the batch upload for the images. ZHOUY1 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2017 (CST)
Sounds like a good reason to me. Any objection to adding the AsG after the name under the picture? VANKRASN39 (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2017 (CST)

Full Leather Has an Action Penalty of -1

So LostRanger and I discovered that full leather has an action penalty of -1. It being listed as 0 goes back an extremely long time (to the days of the premier Amerlise Guide).

Here's the research behind how it was discovered...

Action penalty is factored into the evade part of the DS formula. If you're not fully trained for your armor then your DS will suffer. To be able to see these situations you first have to be able to accurately predict your DS via the DS formulas. When you can do that then all you need to do is toss on a set of armor that you're not trained for (as an aside the training for action penalty is "Skill = ((20 * RT) - 10)" but that's a separate topic) and you'll see a below normal DS result.

Armor training is also factored into SMR2 results (specifically in this situation the spell 309).

While wearing light leather, with 0 ranks in armor use, DS and 309 results were as expected given that it has a 0 action penalty. The results were the same as wearing robes and no armor at all.

However, while wearing full leather with 0 ranks in armor use, DS and 309 results were not as expected. DS was lower, and the 309 penalty was higher.

The reason why there is no change in DS going from light leather to full leather, when properly trained, is because a -1 penalty is not strong enough to change DS (whereas a -2 penalty is, and thus the reason we settled on -1).

The reason this has lasted so long is because this is not something that can be discovered naturally while playing and wondering why your DS may be low. 2 ranks of armor use is all it takes to be fully trained, and it's very unlikely a character with a few levels under their belt will be at 0/1 ranks for long. Further, experienced players will not be low level long enough where an abnormal DS may be noticed. WINTERDAWN (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2019 (CST)

Actual Code for RT Penalty Training Formula

Per Naijin... -- https://discord.com/channels/226045346399256576/532373273816858636/736977737222324304

TRUNC(Base RT - ((Armor Skill + 10) / 20))

This is the official code, but an alternative way of writing it is the standard ((Roundtime Penalty * 20) - 10)

WINTERDAWN (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2020 (CST)

Maneuver Penalty Skill Training is ((Roundtime Penalty * 20) - 10)

TLDR: http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/Combat,%20Magic,%20and%20Character%20Mechanics/Armor%20and%20Shields/view/126

.

For as long as can be remembered, this is how you trained for armor...

To train off the RT penalty you needed ((Roundtime Penalty * 20) - 10) skill bonus. This was correct.

To train off the maneuver penalty you needed (Roundtime Penalty * 20) skill bonus. This was wrong.

Basically, way back in the day, at least as far back as the late 90s or early 00s, somehow, a "maneuver penalty" was created when it came to armor. Whether this was improper information from a GM, or us creating it from rudimentary testing, it appeared and stuck around. There's always been an action penalty on armor to represent it hindering your actions, and I believe this is where the maneuver penalty was formed from as armor training was discussed, and continued discussion caused it to become a permanent, and separate penalty.

The issue at the time was that there was no way to see the math behind armor training with regards to maneuvers. There was no way to know how the system worked. For various reasons, some of which was curiousity, I investigated this. The only method I could come up with, that didn't involve standing in front of a creature and recording thousands of maneuver results, was through the evade portion of the DS formula.

For this explanation I'll use hauberk as the armor. To be fully trained in it was either 70 ranks (reduction of the RT penalty to base) or 80 ranks (reduction of the maneuver penalty to base). Incidentally, over time, the ranks needed for this armor became a common debate as there was no way to really know. You ended up training 80 ranks "just to be sure."

Evade DS involves the armor action penalty, and through my research, I discovered that hauberk DS changed going from 69 to 70 ranks but did not change after that even up to 80 ranks. This showed that, at least with regards to evade DS, you were fully trained in hauberk at 70 ranks. Unfortunately, there was no way to prove all maneuver systems operated the same as evade DS. The path of least resistance to designing a system wouldn't be to create all these various methods of calculating your penalty, but to create one penalty and do modifications to that penalty in each system as you saw fit. A roa'ter burrow could function off your full penalty, while standing up could function off half of it. The penalty itself, though, would be calculated separately and through a single formula.

Ultimately, I believed that to be fully trained in hauberk was 70 ranks and not 80 as many thought. My defense though was limited to me saying, "There is no system that you can use to prove to me, beyond doubt, that it's 80 ranks to be fully trained, while I have a system that I can use to prove to you it's 70." Still, there was doubt as until you can look at the code, or see the numbers, there just isn't any way to know for sure.

Years passed and I continued to add my thoughts to the armor training debates. New systems were released, and little snippets by GMs occurred. Some things didn't make sense completely, such as over training armor (every 50 ranks over "fully trained" reduced your action penalty) being based on the RT penalty formula. Your action penalty would go down at 120 ranks with hauberk.

Eventually, SMRv2 came about. Discussion started to occur again with armor training, and I decided to investigate with a new tool: the spell 309 (Condemn) which uses an SMRv2 attack.

Through the use of 309 I was able to again see changes in the maneuver roll result at 69 to 70, but nothing after that (until 120). Another method to prove 70 ranks, but still no method to prove 80.

I started to ask questions of the GMs, but could barely get any responses. I was convinced that the maneuver penalty was being confused for the action penalty, or the terms were being interchanged. Eventually, GM Contemplar had his interest picqued and he looked at code which created this comment...

"As I said before, I did look into the code and the Maneuver and Action penalty appears to be the same thing. Just used different terms, which could be anything. So to appease your concern I would say they are the same until proven otherwise." -- https://discord.com/channels/226045346399256576/532373273816858636/603612908072468534

This didn't necessarily disprove that various maneuver systems operated differently, but it at least showed that the action penalty and maneuver penalty were the same thing.

Another year passed, with more armor debates as it did, and I encountered another system that might lead to promising results: Light Armor Mastery. There was a snag though, as it seemed to indicate that proper training for hauberk was 80 ranks. Ultimately, what this led to, was a discrepancy between SMRv2 and LAM.

I was able to get GM Naijin, who designed LAM, involved in the discussion. The bulk of it came down to being, "Why does SMRv2 and evade DS say you're fully trained at 70 ranks, but LAM is 80?" He went investigating the code, and came up with this...

"From what I see, systems use the action penalty and then any non-trained RT as an additional penalty." -- https://discord.com/channels/226045346399256576/532373273816858636/736982697729065060
"Making those ranks in that column [the old maneuver column listing the ranks needed to train it off] completely useless and confusing!" -- https://discord.com/channels/226045346399256576/532373273816858636/736982764666093688
"No, I'm saying I couldn't find a system (except LAM) that uses the Man column." -- https://discord.com/channels/226045346399256576/532373273816858636/736986864006987790

Ultimately, this led to Naijin discussing things with the development team and coming to the consensus and conclusion that the "maneuver penalty" did not exist, as a penalty separate from the action penalty, and that being fully trained for armor was based on the RT penalty formula: http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/Combat,%20Magic,%20and%20Character%20Mechanics/Armor%20and%20Shields/view/126

Lastly, I had this clarifying question: "Is the intention to be that all systems, current and future, are based on using the value in the RT column to consider yourself fully trained (physically) in that armor?" -- https://discord.com/channels/226045346399256576/532373273816858636/737354166720004207

Naijin replied: "Yes." -- https://discord.com/channels/226045346399256576/532373273816858636/737354753553727539
Though he quickly added: "Well, at least current. Who knows what the future holds." -- https://discord.com/channels/226045346399256576/532373273816858636/737354857823862839

So there we have it. To be fully trained in armor you need ((Roundtime Penalty * 20) - 10) skill bonus.

WINTERDAWN (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2020 (CST)

Sonic Armor

I would like to see a link/mention of Sonic Armor (1014) in the Armor article or in its Resources section. Any thoughts has to whether this type of link would be appropriate and/or useful? I would find it useful if I were a new player. Thanks. -Soliere FIRENSIA (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2021 (CDT)

I think a section on Sonic Armor would be very useful! WINTERDAWN (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2021 (CDT)