restricts movement more and is a lot heavier than this
Yeah, if you take a chainmail that leaves the legs free and most of the arms against a full plate suit. But that is about as fair as me wearing a helmet and nothing more while you were a full covering chainmail...
A chainmail that covers the entire arms and legs as well are a very different matter.
i am surprised you are not ashamed in posting a reply to my facts when almost EVERYTHING in your reply is WRONG!
"The French were still using brass helmets during the Napoleonic wars.for no aparent reason,"
ref1 A VERY few calvary wore flamboyant helmets presumably to offer some protection against enemy calvary sabres.
The huge majority of French troops equipped with bi & tricorn hats, cloth Shako or bearskin caps.
"and their promary weapon was still the sword"
ref2 The primary weapon of Napoleonic troops was the .69 cal Musket with afixed bayonet that should fire a round every 20 seconds capable of hitting targets past 80 yards.
"Crossbows didn't make plate armor obsolete. They co-existed for centuries."
The use of crossbows in European warfare is again evident from the Battle of Hastings until about the year 1500. They almost completely superseded hand bows in many European armies in the twelfth century. Longbows and crossbows could pierce plate armour up to ranges of 200 meters.
Can. 29 of the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 tried to have banned the use of crossbows against Christians. Mounted knights armed with lances proved ineffective against formations of pikemen combined with crossbowmen whose weapons could penetrate most knights' armor.
Plate armor was becoming passe by the end of the 15th century.
After 1650, plate armour was mostly reduced to the simple breastplate (cuirass) worn by dragoons. This was due to the development of the flintlock musket which could penetrate armour at a considerable distance, severely reducing the payoff from the investment in full plate armour.
ref3 Combat crossbows preceded steel plate armor by 400yrs and xbows were largely replaced by muskets by the 1600s. Steel plate armor was effective for only about 200yrs by the 1700s most troops were in cloth armor.
"If anything it was the mercenary infantries adoption of the pike that doomed the armored knight"
If romans had the technology of armor that they did in the medeaval times they would have been ridiculously OP, because plate+ a light chain is the best way to block most sword slashes simply because the plate will protect your skin, and the chain will break under the blade effectively taking the impact, so in that time you could just cut their head off and rofl.
If romans had the technology of armor that they did in the medeaval times they would have been ridiculously OP, because plate+ a light chain is the best way to block most sword slashes simply because the plate will protect your skin, and the chain will break under the blade effectively taking the impact, so in that time you could just cut their head off and rofl.
The padding you wear under both a chainmail and a platearmor is surprisingly good on taking impacts so I don't think so.
You rarely penetrates a good plate armor anyways, the most common way to kill a full plated knight was to stun him (pulling him down from his horse with a polearm was one way, using a morningstar another) and while he is seeing white and blue you stick a special blade call a stiletto into the holes the armor have so you can move in it or into the eye slids of the helmet.
The crafters were aware of how Roman armor looked.
I am amazed that so many ignore actual facts, and write post after post with no other facts to support them than Google Pictures. And Ivanhoe...
It is useless to even talk here, it started with a slightly flawed thread of logic and turned into a complete garbage fest. Fine, either people used 16th century full plate with chain underneath and leather and cloth padding, like the nobles of 16th century playjousting.... Or they wore a chain bikini... There has never been anything between those two and there... you have your conclusion. Solid facts... solid. You make this forum proud, all of you.
"This is not a game to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force"
Point out where I said ALL french wore brass helmets. It's an example of the type of anachronism that's quite common throughout history.
Napoleonic cavalry, you know the people that used brass helmets, used swords not muskets with few exceptions.
Crossbows were used at Hastings in 1066 and were quite common in Europe at 1000 A.D.and I'm pretty sure five hundred years qualifies as "centuries" You can't even get your own cites right. The use of hand held crossbows dates back to the Romans.
The chances of piercing plate armor with a crossbow or long bow at 200 meters is slim to none. Hence people continued to wear plate armor for centuries.
Plate armor was passe by the time the matchlock became common but was already on it's way out of widespread use due to the adoption of professional militaries to fight wars. Primitive handgonnes and plate armor coexisted for nearly two centuries before that.
The Grand armee didn't have armored knights either. Pikemen eliminated the usefullness of knights three hundred years before that. Your lack of reading comprehension is appalling. Oddly curiassuers still wore plate armor chest pieces.
The point was and is that you can't say with any certainty when any type of armor or weapon was obsolete solely due to technology because they all coexisted for centuries.
And for God's sake get a better history resource than Wikipaedia. But if you must use it at least learn something about the rise of professional armies nad the end of the armored knight Here
I would prefer to call the standard Napoleonic bladed weapon a "sabre" and not a sword. But it was not uncommon, particularly with marines and officers. Muskets were more common though.
Crossbows were earlier than the Romans, Alexanders troops already had them and the Chinese had a interesting version with a magazine for over 2000 years ago. It wasn't until the 13th century though that newer winches increased the power a lot of it while cutting the loading times a lot. I read that X-bows are from around 400BC in one of my Osprey books but it is possible that they were invented even earlier.
The last large armies having plate armor were besides the Polish who had them until 1655 probably the Landsknechts of the 16th century. Pikemen and halbardiers did hurt the usefullness of the knights a lot but it was really the blackpowder weapons that are considered the final straw for them.
There have always been a war between weapons and armors. When chainmails became more common again in the 10th century the swords were made so you also could pierce with them. Two handed swords became common to counter better amors. But there are plenty of weird exceptions, Scottish Claymores are made for footsoldiers fighting mounted troops and are earlier then zweihanders and so on.
Attila had a steel blade made from metorite steel called the blade of Mars that were far superior to ther blades at the time, history are full of weird weapons that doesn't follow any logical rules.
And no new weapon just take out an old one since many blades and armors were passed on from father to son, and particularly armors were repaired and could last 3 generations.
Originally posted by Loke666 Originally posted by lennpell If romans had the technology of armor that they did in the medeaval times they would have been ridiculously OP, because plate+ a light chain is the best way to block most sword slashes simply because the plate will protect your skin, and the chain will break under the blade effectively taking the impact, so in that time you could just cut their head off and rofl.
The padding you wear under both a chainmail and a platearmor is surprisingly good on taking impacts so I don't think so. You rarely penetrates a good plate armor anyways, the most common way to kill a full plated knight was to stun him (pulling him down from his horse with a polearm was one way, using a morningstar another) and while he is seeing white and blue you stick a special blade call a stiletto into the holes the armor have so you can move in it or into the eye slids of the helmet. The crafters were aware of how Roman armor looked.
You forgot the hammers with spikes on them.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Warhammers.. Yeah and there are plenty of other weapons as well, but warhammers are really hard to get in killing blows with, flails are great for dismounting knights, there are a variety of weapons against plates.
Originally posted by Loke666 Originally posted by lizardbones
You forgot the hammers with spikes on them.
Warhammers.. Yeah and there are plenty of other weapons as well, but warhammers are really hard to get in killing blows with, flails are great for dismounting knights, there are a variety of weapons against plates.
So after reading all of this, do you have sufficient information to understand why developers don't really bother with trying to come up with a 'realistic' armor system?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't play MMORPG's for things to make sense. I just spoke a fireball into existance, held it in my hand and tossed it 40 yards at my opponents and it exploded burning all of their asses, does that make sense?
I understand your point that armors draw real life comparisons, and magic doesn't, but you have to consider the fantasy setting.
Now if you are just upset that your Rogue or Ranger doesn't get to wear heavy armor, I don't know that logic will change anything. Regardless of your opinion on what makes send for game balance, it's the way devs see things, and often tims the way many other gamers see things and in the end that is going to win argument.
We tend to overanalyze things to the point that something isn't fun anymore.
They also need to realize that all female armor should be super skimpy. Yes, should be.
You see Sir Scan Tallyclad did tests that proved, the more skin a female fighter exsposes to the air around her, the more powerful she becomes and the more resistance she has against attacks.
I agree that having a coherent setting helps with the immersion of a game. I like medieval weaponry, I don't own any but its a topic that always has fascinated me.
A game with realistic combat would be interesting. Where by example wizards didn't use spells but some sort of grenades like in the 300 movie, having greek fire, toxics or hallucinogens inside, and melee skills were like 'piercing sword thrust' 'shield bash' 'wide slash', etc.
I have a question for Loke666...
Why did the longbow was replaced by the crossbow if the crossbow has way greater recharge cooldown?
Originally posted by mizanyx Nice thread. I agree that having a coherent setting helps with the immersion of a game. I like medieval weaponry, I don't own any but its a topic that always has fascinated me. A game with realistic combat would be interesting. Where by example wizards didn't use spells but some sort of grenades like in the 300 movie, having greek fire, toxics or hallucinogens inside, and melee skills were like 'piercing sword thrust' 'shield bash' 'wide slash', etc. I have a question for Loke666... Why did the longbow was replaced by the crossbow if the crossbow has way greater recharge cooldown?
Here's my uneducated guess. Once armies stopped just standing across fields from each other, the longbows became much less effective in military situations. You were walking into a situation and you had to hit a specific target. Xbows could pack a lot of power in a small package, and didn't take a lifetime of training to get really good at hitting that guy sitting about 10 yards from you. Plus a longbow probably wouldn't punch through decent armor, where an xbow bolt would.
Longbows were great for raining down a bunch of arrows on people, but you've got to have a bunch of the enemy all clustered together in one spot. I'm pretty it wasn't anything like Robin Hood.
But that's just my guess.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I figure the OP knows his stuff. Most of what he says makes good sense. I personally have no idea having never tried any of this stuff on myself.
Just more misconceptions. Im hardly surprised. But thanks for the education. I would have assumed chain would be lighter than plate myself having never really considered it any other way. So thanks.
Sorry cant take the OP as knowing his stuff as he uses Deadliest Warrior as his basis for expertise. Thats like me quoting Dora The Explorer as a master of the Spanish Culture.
Here is some pages on ACTUAL armour, and some great pictures.
This page in itself has enough pictures to break the concept of the 1 inch thick armour weighing in excess of 200lbs. The fact is, IF YOU CANT MOVE IN IT, YOU CANT FIGHT IN IT!!!!
A set of Maximilian Plate armour, weighed close to 80 to 90lbs, at most. A set of gendarme armour, worn by the French during the late 1400s, weighed around 60-80lbs.
No doubt that plate is noisy, but so is chainmail. I know I wear it when I fight in the SCA, and in WMA. But I have also worn some italian milianise plate, that weighed no more than 80lbs. It wasnt a exact fit but it was REAL close.
I could do cart wheels in plate, pushups, run, sprint, jump, get up from falling down, front rolls, and move mostly unimpeded. The only problem I had was sitting up from flat on my back, I had no flexibility in my torso thanks to the breast plate.
Sorry cant take the OP as knowing his stuff as he uses Deadliest Warrior as his basis for expertise. Thats like me quoting Dora The Explorer as a master of the Spanish Culture.
Here is some pages on ACTUAL armour, and some great pictures.
This page in itself has enough pictures to break the concept of the 1 inch thick armour weighing in excess of 200lbs. The fact is, IF YOU CANT MOVE IN IT, YOU CANT FIGHT IN IT!!!!
A set of Maximilian Plate armour, weighed close to 80 to 90lbs, at most. A set of gendarme armour, worn by the French during the late 1400s, weighed around 60-80lbs.
No doubt that plate is noisy, but so is chainmail. I know I wear it when I fight in the SCA, and in WMA. But I have also worn some italian milianise plate, that weighed no more than 80lbs. It wasnt a exact fit but it was REAL close.
I could do cart wheels in plate, pushups, run, sprint, jump, get up from falling down, front rolls, and move mostly unimpeded. The only problem I had was sitting up from flat on my back, I had no flexibility in my torso thanks to the breast plate.
Yeah, ignore the part where I said that I actually own an armor and were talking out of personal experience. You ain't the only member of SCA around here.
Still, DW is just like Mythbusters not scientific but slightly amusing, and even they are not so incompetent that they would mess this up. At least I didn't refer to Wikipedia.
I fail to see the point in this thread, since if MMO armors should make sense, why do they have magic, floppyeared honkers, horned monsters and dragons?
You want imaginary armor to be comparable to real world statistics, but you're ok with hurling fireballs and lightning from your hands / wooden sticks etc. while wearing this real world historically accurate armor?
I fail to see the point in this thread, since if MMO armors should make sense, why do they have magic, floppyeared honkers, horned monsters and dragons?
You want imaginary armor to be comparable to real world statistics, but you're ok with hurling fireballs and lightning from your hands / wooden sticks etc. while wearing this real world historically accurate armor?
I don't think anyone is asking for mmo armor to match up to actual physics, but they usually try to keep as real as a fantasy world can be expected to be. There at least should be some real-world basis for how things work.
I fail to see the point in this thread, since if MMO armors should make sense, why do they have magic, floppyeared honkers, horned monsters and dragons?
You want imaginary armor to be comparable to real world statistics, but you're ok with hurling fireballs and lightning from your hands / wooden sticks etc. while wearing this real world historically accurate armor?
I don't think anyone is asking for mmo armor to match up to actual physics, but they usually try to keep as real as a fantasy world can be expected to be. There at least should be some real-world basis for how things work.
Something like that, yes.
I think MMOs can learn a lot from HBOs "Game of thrones", the reason that series is so good is because they mix fantasy with some logic and knowledge on basic physics even if there are dragons and magic in it as well.
Compared that to Xena Warrior princess or Legend of the seeker, they just don't feel real.
MMO worlds have that problem and adding a few realistic parts on the stuff that really exist would make the entire game to feel more real. I don't have a problem with dragons or magic, but I do have a problem with chainmail bikinis and Final fantasy swords.
I think the root of the problem lies with the first round of fantasy mmorpgs. Since game were more of a simple affair, they needed destinct tiers of armor than fit the lore of what is typically a midevial fanasy. The common sense route was to take cloth, leather, chain, and plate, which seems to fit its own progression as to what is heavier and what offers more protection.
Not really an issue, however, since this was done first, and developers rarely think outside the box, it was sort of set in stone. Gamers also help this progression, as they came to expect these armors from previous games,and expected them to fit a familiar role.
See somewhere along the line, they deemed mmorpg players, and new to the genere players, as retarded sub-humans. Were unable and dislike things that are not familiar, we dont want to think we just want magic explosions,blood, and action. Therefore in fear of turning players who felt uncomforatble with something familair that was in fact diffrent, they simply decided to keep the ball rolling.
Then there if role fufillment. What armor would you give to a healer/melee secondary? How to seperate roles properly and easily since as i stated above, we all have a single diget IQ to developers (typically proven through subscription numbers might i add, as most extremely complicated mmorpgs are passed up by new shiny easy mmorpgs....TYPICALLY (i see even and anarchy as outliers though more may exist as populair in their respective hey-day) we need the distinct roles, distinct armor, distinct tiers. Wouldnt want somone confused and wouldnt want everyone with the ability to run around in plate.
Mind you this is just my analysis, as even in sandbox games, it seems the chain is lower protection/ higher mobility above leather. In sandboxes however you seem to have a dilema with certain types of armors being useless, in the current sandbox im playing, chain (which is actually high encumberance for what protection it offers) is considerd noob junk, since there is better protection to encumberance sets and if your not going to roll with high protection, you might as well mismatch a low encumberance set or just use a robe.
Bottom line is, in leiu or a truly out the box gear system, were stuck with a grandfatherd armor tier system for the most part. Mostly due to fitting a midevial fantasy setting that doesnt leave a whole lot of room for out of the box thinking (heaven forbid someone develops a new IP that isnt a mix and match from previous midevial lore)
Its a thread of yarn in the sweater of suck that currently is suffocating the genere. Were going to need actual new IP's if were ever going to get out of this holy trinity / tierd armor set / standard issue weapons / same old thing with a new skin merry go round that weve been stuck in since the first game went online.
Comments
Yeah, if you take a chainmail that leaves the legs free and most of the arms against a full plate suit. But that is about as fair as me wearing a helmet and nothing more while you were a full covering chainmail...
A chainmail that covers the entire arms and legs as well are a very different matter.
You really need to have a look on how the plate looks from up close, it is a very well made system that is surprisingly easy to move in.
It is easiest to see on a pair of gauntlets (I own a very similar pair BTW):
If romans had the technology of armor that they did in the medeaval times they would have been ridiculously OP, because plate+ a light chain is the best way to block most sword slashes simply because the plate will protect your skin, and the chain will break under the blade effectively taking the impact, so in that time you could just cut their head off and rofl.
The padding you wear under both a chainmail and a platearmor is surprisingly good on taking impacts so I don't think so.
You rarely penetrates a good plate armor anyways, the most common way to kill a full plated knight was to stun him (pulling him down from his horse with a polearm was one way, using a morningstar another) and while he is seeing white and blue you stick a special blade call a stiletto into the holes the armor have so you can move in it or into the eye slids of the helmet.
The crafters were aware of how Roman armor looked.
I am amazed that so many ignore actual facts, and write post after post with no other facts to support them than Google Pictures. And Ivanhoe...
It is useless to even talk here, it started with a slightly flawed thread of logic and turned into a complete garbage fest. Fine, either people used 16th century full plate with chain underneath and leather and cloth padding, like the nobles of 16th century playjousting.... Or they wore a chain bikini... There has never been anything between those two and there... you have your conclusion. Solid facts... solid. You make this forum proud, all of you.
"This is not a game to be tossed aside lightly.
It should be thrown with great force"
Ho no, you just asked for it
http://www.travelblog.org/Photos/366341
I would prefer to call the standard Napoleonic bladed weapon a "sabre" and not a sword. But it was not uncommon, particularly with marines and officers. Muskets were more common though.
Crossbows were earlier than the Romans, Alexanders troops already had them and the Chinese had a interesting version with a magazine for over 2000 years ago. It wasn't until the 13th century though that newer winches increased the power a lot of it while cutting the loading times a lot. I read that X-bows are from around 400BC in one of my Osprey books but it is possible that they were invented even earlier.
The last large armies having plate armor were besides the Polish who had them until 1655 probably the Landsknechts of the 16th century. Pikemen and halbardiers did hurt the usefullness of the knights a lot but it was really the blackpowder weapons that are considered the final straw for them.
There have always been a war between weapons and armors. When chainmails became more common again in the 10th century the swords were made so you also could pierce with them. Two handed swords became common to counter better amors. But there are plenty of weird exceptions, Scottish Claymores are made for footsoldiers fighting mounted troops and are earlier then zweihanders and so on.
Attila had a steel blade made from metorite steel called the blade of Mars that were far superior to ther blades at the time, history are full of weird weapons that doesn't follow any logical rules.
And no new weapon just take out an old one since many blades and armors were passed on from father to son, and particularly armors were repaired and could last 3 generations.
You rarely penetrates a good plate armor anyways, the most common way to kill a full plated knight was to stun him (pulling him down from his horse with a polearm was one way, using a morningstar another) and while he is seeing white and blue you stick a special blade call a stiletto into the holes the armor have so you can move in it or into the eye slids of the helmet.
The crafters were aware of how Roman armor looked.
You forgot the hammers with spikes on them.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Warhammers.. Yeah and there are plenty of other weapons as well, but warhammers are really hard to get in killing blows with, flails are great for dismounting knights, there are a variety of weapons against plates.
So after reading all of this, do you have sufficient information to understand why developers don't really bother with trying to come up with a 'realistic' armor system?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't play MMORPG's for things to make sense. I just spoke a fireball into existance, held it in my hand and tossed it 40 yards at my opponents and it exploded burning all of their asses, does that make sense?
I understand your point that armors draw real life comparisons, and magic doesn't, but you have to consider the fantasy setting.
Now if you are just upset that your Rogue or Ranger doesn't get to wear heavy armor, I don't know that logic will change anything. Regardless of your opinion on what makes send for game balance, it's the way devs see things, and often tims the way many other gamers see things and in the end that is going to win argument.
We tend to overanalyze things to the point that something isn't fun anymore.
So true
Nice thread.
I agree that having a coherent setting helps with the immersion of a game. I like medieval weaponry, I don't own any but its a topic that always has fascinated me.
A game with realistic combat would be interesting. Where by example wizards didn't use spells but some sort of grenades like in the 300 movie, having greek fire, toxics or hallucinogens inside, and melee skills were like 'piercing sword thrust' 'shield bash' 'wide slash', etc.
I have a question for Loke666...
Why did the longbow was replaced by the crossbow if the crossbow has way greater recharge cooldown?
Here's my uneducated guess. Once armies stopped just standing across fields from each other, the longbows became much less effective in military situations. You were walking into a situation and you had to hit a specific target. Xbows could pack a lot of power in a small package, and didn't take a lifetime of training to get really good at hitting that guy sitting about 10 yards from you. Plus a longbow probably wouldn't punch through decent armor, where an xbow bolt would.
Longbows were great for raining down a bunch of arrows on people, but you've got to have a bunch of the enemy all clustered together in one spot. I'm pretty it wasn't anything like Robin Hood.
But that's just my guess.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Sorry cant take the OP as knowing his stuff as he uses Deadliest Warrior as his basis for expertise. Thats like me quoting Dora The Explorer as a master of the Spanish Culture.
Here is some pages on ACTUAL armour, and some great pictures.
http://www.armourarchive.org/armour_dukes_burgundy/
This page in itself has enough pictures to break the concept of the 1 inch thick armour weighing in excess of 200lbs. The fact is, IF YOU CANT MOVE IN IT, YOU CANT FIGHT IN IT!!!!
A set of Maximilian Plate armour, weighed close to 80 to 90lbs, at most. A set of gendarme armour, worn by the French during the late 1400s, weighed around 60-80lbs.
No doubt that plate is noisy, but so is chainmail. I know I wear it when I fight in the SCA, and in WMA. But I have also worn some italian milianise plate, that weighed no more than 80lbs. It wasnt a exact fit but it was REAL close.
I could do cart wheels in plate, pushups, run, sprint, jump, get up from falling down, front rolls, and move mostly unimpeded. The only problem I had was sitting up from flat on my back, I had no flexibility in my torso thanks to the breast plate.
So much crap, so little quality.
I agree with OP! but we cant do anything!
Yeah, ignore the part where I said that I actually own an armor and were talking out of personal experience. You ain't the only member of SCA around here.
Still, DW is just like Mythbusters not scientific but slightly amusing, and even they are not so incompetent that they would mess this up. At least I didn't refer to Wikipedia.
I fail to see the point in this thread, since if MMO armors should make sense, why do they have magic, floppyeared honkers, horned monsters and dragons?
You want imaginary armor to be comparable to real world statistics, but you're ok with hurling fireballs and lightning from your hands / wooden sticks etc. while wearing this real world historically accurate armor?
Hey loke, I always enjoy reading your posts!
Thanks for pointing this out, I had no idea
Have a pleasant day everyone!
"You resist. You cling to your life as if it actually matters. You will learn."
I don't think anyone is asking for mmo armor to match up to actual physics, but they usually try to keep as real as a fantasy world can be expected to be. There at least should be some real-world basis for how things work.
Something like that, yes.
I think MMOs can learn a lot from HBOs "Game of thrones", the reason that series is so good is because they mix fantasy with some logic and knowledge on basic physics even if there are dragons and magic in it as well.
Compared that to Xena Warrior princess or Legend of the seeker, they just don't feel real.
MMO worlds have that problem and adding a few realistic parts on the stuff that really exist would make the entire game to feel more real. I don't have a problem with dragons or magic, but I do have a problem with chainmail bikinis and Final fantasy swords.
Thanks.
I think the root of the problem lies with the first round of fantasy mmorpgs. Since game were more of a simple affair, they needed destinct tiers of armor than fit the lore of what is typically a midevial fanasy. The common sense route was to take cloth, leather, chain, and plate, which seems to fit its own progression as to what is heavier and what offers more protection.
Not really an issue, however, since this was done first, and developers rarely think outside the box, it was sort of set in stone. Gamers also help this progression, as they came to expect these armors from previous games,and expected them to fit a familiar role.
See somewhere along the line, they deemed mmorpg players, and new to the genere players, as retarded sub-humans. Were unable and dislike things that are not familiar, we dont want to think we just want magic explosions,blood, and action. Therefore in fear of turning players who felt uncomforatble with something familair that was in fact diffrent, they simply decided to keep the ball rolling.
Then there if role fufillment. What armor would you give to a healer/melee secondary? How to seperate roles properly and easily since as i stated above, we all have a single diget IQ to developers (typically proven through subscription numbers might i add, as most extremely complicated mmorpgs are passed up by new shiny easy mmorpgs....TYPICALLY (i see even and anarchy as outliers though more may exist as populair in their respective hey-day) we need the distinct roles, distinct armor, distinct tiers. Wouldnt want somone confused and wouldnt want everyone with the ability to run around in plate.
Mind you this is just my analysis, as even in sandbox games, it seems the chain is lower protection/ higher mobility above leather. In sandboxes however you seem to have a dilema with certain types of armors being useless, in the current sandbox im playing, chain (which is actually high encumberance for what protection it offers) is considerd noob junk, since there is better protection to encumberance sets and if your not going to roll with high protection, you might as well mismatch a low encumberance set or just use a robe.
Bottom line is, in leiu or a truly out the box gear system, were stuck with a grandfatherd armor tier system for the most part. Mostly due to fitting a midevial fantasy setting that doesnt leave a whole lot of room for out of the box thinking (heaven forbid someone develops a new IP that isnt a mix and match from previous midevial lore)
Its a thread of yarn in the sweater of suck that currently is suffocating the genere. Were going to need actual new IP's if were ever going to get out of this holy trinity / tierd armor set / standard issue weapons / same old thing with a new skin merry go round that weve been stuck in since the first game went online.
Stand back! Google Masters at work people.
Anyway.. Who the heck cares? I mean I dont remember seeing in any history books with health bars and negative numbers over people heads.
Take it for what games are.. Entertainment.