Sure, as long as everyone gets a movement penalty no matter what armor type you are wearing due to you carrying 37 different armor and weapon sets and 8,000 pounds of other materials in your backpack.

Hey, you said you wanted realism....No? Didn't think so. Complaints about heavy armor are coming from light armor wearers who will no longer have steel reinforced impenetrable bathrobes come 1.6

I have worn chain mail too, once. And talked with people who wear plate for medieval events.
The chain alone I found pretty heavy, true, though I espect someone who trains for it... maybe ask some soldiers if they can run with their backbags and other assorted gear, all together probably weights as much as a set of medieval chainmail; I expect they can, and unfit, nerdy me couldn't, much.
The plate would be worse (since it usually includes the chain, with added plates where they don't inhibit movement). But the general plate&chain style that seems to be the model for most ESO heavy armor, while heavy, doesn't really inhibit most movement... you are encumbered, yes, and you loose a little arm mobility (especially with big bauldrons). But running is definitely possible. If rather exhausting.

Jousting plate... that is a different matter, granted. Yes, from what I know about it, that one would really limit ones movement, as it was designed for maximum protection against horse-driven lances... with little thought of anything else. And once you do fall off your horse in it, you better have a couple squires ready to lift you on your feet again...

Also, I have characters with every armor class. So whatever happens, some characters of mine will benefit, thus it makes little sense to argue... what am I saying, make my main characters medium armor invincible, now!

Orchish wrote: »

Using the realistic argument is hilarious when we have sorcs shooting bolts from their arse, DKs breathing fire from their mouths and very large hairy Nords riding around Cyrodiil on a Guar with a bright white wedding dress on.

It's a game. It gets better if its a bit realistic, or rather, realistic within its lore presetting. As long as the added realism doesn't mess up the players enjoyment beyond what game balance requires... (thus we don't have one-blow kills on all robe-wearers, frequent snack and toilet breaks in our characters questing time, siege weapons adding their actual weight to encumbrance, etc.)

Also, if something requires some drawbacks, the first thing one ought to look for is what logical drawbacks stuff might have would be a good fit to add. Not imagining something completely out of the blue unless there really, truly is no other way.

They could of course go the AD&D route, making an arbitrary state saying "only those trained in it can wear heavy armors" and restricting it to fighters and clerics... oh, sorry, dragonknights and templars only. But they started ESO with a very strong statement against hat kind of game mechanic.

They could also go with the "metal inhibits magic" some settings have and make the armors spell resistence not only defend against enemy spells, but also lower your own spell effect. And any healing or other beneficial spells you might recieve. Not the best choice either I would think...

And finally, in a world where magic is presumed to exist, sorcerors can shoot lighting, dragonknights can breathe fire. The hairy nords in wedding dresses on guar... well... I suppose that is not as easy to explain, even with magic. But who are we to judge someones chices on how to live their (virtual) lives?

RedTalon wrote: »

Even though this video is in another lang, its mostly showcasing simple things about heavy armor with images and movements in heavy armor, its worth a watch for this thread.

Yay for visual proof of heavy armorness!
Those are suits I have seen in action too, as well as earlier armors (which basically just had less plates over their chainmail, though I recall those plates being a bit thicker, I presume advances in metallurgy...).
Still heavy, and very clanking... but not that bad on the movement impediment.

Hmmm... a big penalty to sneaking around in clanky heavy armor might be a good idea as well...

Brittany_Joy wrote: »

The turtle knight, were knights have been said to be unable to get back up once they fell is actually a myth. A knight's armor is custom made to fit the wearer's body, the custom fit ensures they can wear it and move efficiently. Knights can do cartwheels, backflips, and etc.

Agreed, and I was thinking of the jousting armor when I wrote that one. Which isn't the battlefield heavy armor ESO Depicts.

Brittany_Joy wrote: »

The only penalty heavy armor has is it makes the wearer more susceptible to heatstroke and blunt trauma.

...that and the weight. So penalty to stamina costs for sprinting would be a good way to add drawbacks to heavy armor.

As would huge penalties to swimming. As in, sinking. Because that one heavy armor really won't help unless magic is involved to make it float...

Brittany_Joy wrote: »

Dull senses and reduced vision is also a myth. Even though the eye slits seem small the wearer still has adequate field of view.

Having worn heavy armor helmets, I cannot agree with that one. Your field of vision IS impeded, though you still see enough for fighting (duh ). Often not good enough to notice the guy creeping up on you from the side in time...
And sounds are a bit duller thanks to the padded cap and chainmail coif you wear under it... not enough that you can miss a shouted command, or another knight clanking, but enough that you might not hear the footfall of a sneaking person...
So a stealth detection penalty would be logical. Though possibly too much trouble to code into just the helmet...

Just funny how people will claim that heavy armor should protect you more because it's thicker, but then when someone says it should also slow you down, their only argument is that they don't care about realism. My point wasn't even about realism in the first place. It was about having a balanced trade between protection and mobility.

Valencer wrote: »

There's a different trade-off in place. Resource management AND damage vs protection.

Please explain better.

I_killed_Vivec wrote: »

Realism? First person view only please, and no red puddles showing you where your enemies are aiming...

The game is not realistic. The decision has been made to give magica benefits to LA, stamina to MA and health/survivability to HA. This might not be "realistic", but I don't have a problem with the thought process.

But maybe restrict actives to people who are actually wearing the armour - yes, that means no Immovable unless you are wearing heavy armour

Well, if we are going to base this arguement on how realism doesn't matter, why exactly should heavy armor give 400% more protection than light? Please don't say light gives magic and forget that heavy gives health passives.