Sorry if this post seems somewhat incoherent or confused. I'm not feeling great right now.
Well, it's not like we don't have multiple armors already (half-hidden as 'on demand' items), is it?
Not really, since the real armory page that's actually used is the wiki page, and it lists everything. Even the stuff nobody buys, and nobody is likely to ever buy.
And the primary difference between the two could as well be 'thickness' of the armor, for example - or even material composition (the chestplate doesn't even have to be cutting-edge sharkarmor, it could be something less advanced).
Uh, yes, this is all true, why does it matter? I also fail to see why we'd use something else aside from sharkplate, considering it was deliberately developed to be cheaper and more effective than older light armors.
Also, isn't it up to GM in the end as to what is acceptable and what is not? I'm just slowly growing weary of the remarks on the council's all-encompassing judgement.
Sorry. It doesn't seem like something PW would intentionally allow either, but he's much more likely to simply miss it. That's supposed to be the purpose of the council, as I understand it- watching stuff to make sure PW isn't tricked.
Although, come to think of it, I guess they do more than that now. At this point, they
are the ones who price and stat things.
As Piecewise would be the one to do the initial pricing, we'd see from the start whether such approach would be deemed acceptable or not.
Okay, I just don't see the logic in what you're saying. You're suggesting we manufacture two entirely seperate types of armor, which are mutually exclusive. A chestplate, and a full suit
I'm suggesting we just manufacture one type only, the full suit, but which you can buy just the chestplate for.
Why would one be viable but the other wouldn't be? Mechanically, they're the same thing. At most, I could see an argument that for my idea, the whole suit can't be one piece. Is that really such a big thing that it would cost more?
Worst come to worst, we might have to make the second armor slightly more complex (say, add helmet protection or additional layer or something) and slightly more expensive in order to make the difference between the two more clear.
...I'm sorry if I'm confused, but are you suggesting we make the basic suit of armor more complex and expensive, just to justify having a weaker version? At this point, shouldn't the basic armor be
downgraded, so that it is actually the basic armor?
Moreover, as I just understood, unless we manage to fit the whole (single-item) armor into two-token price range, the Civic Defender's longcoat will still be a viable competitor. On the other hand, however, if we do, it would be more acceptable to have no 1-token armor.
...I was figuring we'd aim for three tokens for the full suit, and just not use the civic defender's longcoat ever. The whole point of the armor project was to replace our previous armor. If there's a reason to use the old stuff (which isn't even military armor!) instead, the project was a failure.
Also, I have to question your insistence on having the armor cost one token. It's a valid desire, but your argument seems to revolve around it being 'throwaway'. Are you saying that it needs to be cheap so that we can actually convince newbies to use armor?
A better argument, in my opinion, would be that it fits into a five token equipment 'set' better. I.E. a medic could buy a hand laser along with an emergency kit and armor. A con user could buy a Testament, and still have a little armor. On the other hand, if it cost two tokens, that's slightly better protection for a space magic user, who really doesn't care about any one-token items to any great degree.