Encumbrance & Fighting

[Lizzie]

I'm not all that big on class restrictions, but then again, I'm not all that big on classes. But this game -does- have classes, and so it needs to have benefits and limitations for each. That's just the nature of the code. If they all could do the same things, there wouldn't be classes at all. So to me, the classes are more "potentials" or "capacities."

A warrior class character has the *potential* through a certain combination of strength, agility, wisdom, endurance, and desire (the player's goals) to be really good at THOSE skills.

A ranger class character has the *potential* through a _different_ combination of code and RP'ed desire to be good at THESE skills.

And so on and so forth. It's just the things the player has determined that his character is *most likely* to be any good at.

[Is Friday]

It would be neat if rangers were better at lugging desert gear than warriors. i.e. get less encumbered by light leathers and tent, rope, etc when out in the wilds. Whereas a warrior would be less encumbered than the same ranger lugging around in heavier armor and a few weapons.

[IntuitiveApathy]

Intuitive Apathy posted:

Warriors
Defense > 60    Branch: light armour use, medium armour use, heavy armour use (all caps 100)

Rangers
Defense > 60    Branch: light armour use, medium armour use (all caps 60)

Assassins
Defense > 60    Branch: light armour use (all caps 40)

I like the skills, but I'd do it a little differntly..

Warriors
Defense > 60    Branch: light armour use, medium armour use, heavy armour use (all caps 100), longer delay in getting back up when falling as a result of failed bash, charge, etc.

Rangers
Defense > 60    Branch: light armour use - 60, medium armor 80, heavy armor 40 with all stealth skills netted down to 0 (possible succeed, likely fail)

Assassins
Defense > 60    Branch: light armour use 80, medium armor 60, heavy armor, shifts ALL stealth skills to a net of -10 (no way in hell will you succeed), and provides 40 to all other defense.

Edited to turn =10 to -10 which is negative ten, not just a dash.

If we did somethign like this. I would have to say Liz's idea is best. Why?

Because then I can still wear all the damn armor types and not be like fricken a MMO where I see red letters if I can't use something because guild.
Guild really has nothing to do with RP. Hell! I did Warriors as merchants, merchants as hunters, assassins as medics, etc..

I WOULD UTTERLY HATE TO SEE CLASS RESTRICTED ARMORS!!

I have said my peace. Good day. I said GOOD DAY!

I'd hate to see guild restrictions on armour too.

Going with my example, just because you don't have the advanced skill in that armour type doesn't mean you can't strap it on.  It just means that warrior next to you probably knows how to get around/fight in/whatever better in it. 

For instance, a skill of 100 in 'heavy armour use' might grant your character a reduction of 15% in the encumbrance penalty applied beyond 'heavy, but manageable'.  Your assassin might strap that obsidian breastplate on too, but you'd get hit with the full encumbrance penalty.

Anyway, just an example.. there's plenty of ways armour skills could be put in.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'm starting to come around to armor skills - I get the point. It even makes sense. But as long as I would never see 'You do not know how to use that armor' when I try to strap a silt-horror nut-cup on my bare-fist champion merchant, I'm ok with it.

[NoteworthyFellow]

I'm starting to come around to armor skills - I get the point. It even makes sense. But as long as I would never see 'You do not know how to use that armor' when I try to strap a silt-horror nut-cup on my bare-fist champion merchant, I'm ok with it.

Yeah, I'm not even close to arguing for certain guilds being completely unable to wear certain types of armor.  It's not about being able or unable to use armor, it's just about varying degrees of proficiency with moving in those armors.  Like I said before, I don't care how strong you are, plate mail will take some getting-used-to before you can fight in it really effectively.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Dig.

Err, that's trademarked.

Underdug.

[mansa]

I'm starting to come around to armor skills - I get the point. It even makes sense. But as long as I would never see 'You do not know how to use that armor' when I try to strap a silt-horror nut-cup on my bare-fist champion merchant, I'm ok with it.

I don't want to see that either.  All I want to see is a potential "Less Restrictive" skill to armours.  So, if you're wearing plate armour, you get -30% or whatnot.  If you got plate armour skill, you get 0%.  Or potentially +10%.

You understand what I'm thinking?

[Delstro]

I understand Mansa, and I'm Lovin' it.

[Synthesis]

All this armor skill/less restrictive/bonus-giving/penalty-inducing/yadda yadda fucking nonsense is making my head spin. I love picking apart code and all that shit, but the last couple of pages here have gone off the deep end.

Just keep it simple, like it is.

[some guy]

I don't really see a need for armor skills. Has it ever been asked for before this encumbrance change went in? Many characters are already limited in what armor they can favorably use anyway, seeing as certain skills become much less effective in heavy armor. While one could argue that the amount of protection that armor provides is at times insufficient, I never felt it should be guild-related in any way.

[roughneck]

I don't think an armour skill is necessary because:

1.  Rogue classes + rangers lose stealth skills by wearing heavy armour anyways.  This is a big enough incentive not to wear it.  This leaves merchants and magickers who suck so bad anyways it doesn't matter.

2.  There's already a big enough gap between beginning and experienced characters, why make it wider?

3.  With the new encumberance code it covers it well just by taking into account how physically capable your character is walking around with heavy shit.  Turning it into a skill would just lead to elves and humans with silt horror armor and HG's with nothing because they can't learn anything.

[Jenred]

Not really the encumbrance topic... but since were talking about armor skills...

Im definetely opposed to restrictions... but bonuses work great.

Like you can wear whatever you want, but certain guilds can utilize armors better then others.

[Morgenes]

Just a note, the changes to encumbrance have still not gone live.  We should do a weekly maintenance this Wednesday and bring it in.

[Lakota]

People have expressed worry at possible twinking once these changes go into effect, with players burdening their adversaries with items before attacking.

Someone may have already suggested it, but how about we have a toggle where one can explicitly note in the code whether they are accepting/not accepting items?

[some guy]

> plant boulder man



But yeah, why not.

[Tisiphone]

A toggle is fine, but it shouldn't get rid of the main problem, which is 'planting' items on people. If you 'give' me something, I can just drop it and proceed to kick your ass with a minor inconvenience.

However, the toggle shouldn't take 'plant' into account purely BECAUSE 'plant' is giving something to someone without knowledge or consent.

[Qzzrbl]

I would think plant goes through the same checks and saves as steal, right?

And just as it is MUCH harder to steal large objects from someone than it is to steal light things, then it should be MUCH harder to plant large objects than small ones....

Now if someone is content with weighing you down with baby tregil kneecaps, then I suppose there is a small problem there. But it's a problem I don't really even see being much of a problem because there's a big chance of getting caught.

[Tisiphone]

Qzzrbl, I believe you're correct, but a direct 'accepting/not accepting items' toggle would have unrealistic behaviour with regard to plant.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I really, really think that you guys might be just a tad paranoid. I have never seen abuse like this. S'not to say it couldn't happen or even doesn't. It's to say, it's not that likely.

[Tisiphone]

In a slightly tangential discussion, I'd prefer not to be able to give something over a certain weight (or bulk) to someone in a fight. That wouldn't solve these proposed problems, though.

7DV, I agree that these eventualities are very unlikely to happen, but I find that paranoia in coding is a good thing.

[Morgenes]

My main concern with a flag to say 'don't accept gives' is you'll have to remember to toggle it on and off when you do want someone to give you something.  And even then, you will have to toggle it off, let someone give to you, then toggle it back on, leaving yourself open to gives for awhile.

I'm not sure what the best answer is.  I certainly understand the concern/fear involved, and I'm more than happy to try and work something, but I want it to not cause more problems.

[brytta.leofa]

I'm not sure what the best answer is.  I certainly understand the concern/fear involved, and I'm more than happy to try and work something, but I want it to not cause more problems.

Suggestion: drop heavy stuff in your inventory when attacked.

Suggestion 2: heavy containers containing liquid should spill.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Suggestion: drop heavy stuff in your inventory when attacked.

I actually think this is the best idea.

[Sokotra]

After thinking about this for a while, I'd say that it should probably just be left alone.  There's really nothing that unrealistic about someone shoving something in your arms and then bashing your face in.  Heh.  Let them do it if they can.  Just like anything else, you have to be ready for stuff like that.  Think fast and drop the object and regain your senses/balance.  Like if you are resting or sleeping or whatever, you can't toggle on a "wait-until-i-get-up-first" thing.  Just hurry up and stand up yourself and draw your weapons to defend yourself or run.  Yeah, it sucks if it happens, but that's Arm.  

I can visualize someone slamming a large object into the chest of their victim and then drawing a weapon and laying it on them... so I would actually have to say it would be dumb for someone to get in trouble if that happened unless they were going around and handing heavy bags of junk to NPC's and slaying them over and over again or something equally silly.   On the other hand, I would probably expect that an emote would be required to do something like that...  emote hefting it violently against your chest, handing you the object, and then drawing weapons... I wouldn't complain if it happened to me.  I'd be ticked off, but it wouldn't be the first time... heh.  

[Furious George]

Why not have the person giving something heavy over, considering they would be doing so quickly, end up -so- off balanced that they are a sitting duck for any retaliation, have it triggered by giving the object and then engaging in combat, or while being in combat.  Sort of like if you're brained and you get sent reeling, you're stuck there for a moment getting pummeled.  After that initial moment off balance, you can recover, but potentially with some abuse on you.

Just a thought.