Encumbrance & Fighting

[Morgenes]

Posting this here as well so you guys can discuss the changes as you see them:

http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,31465.0.html

Please read the post before discussing it here.

[Qzzrbl]

Gooood.... With an extra two 'o's even.

[Is Friday]

I have a question. If it effects people negatively to be on the heavy side of the spectrum, will it be more positive to be extremely light in the same regard? Or will the "extremely light" emcumbrance remain the same as it is now, with no real penalty. (If I'm understanding how it works right now.)

To clarify: Will lighter loads be given a boost, or just no negative?

[brytta.leofa]

Now I can has a coded, as well as IC reason to emote throwing a bag of glass and obsidian slag to someone before wailing on them. 

So, I assume that this is a viable method of twinkery (and an easy way to offload excess karma).

What about causing people to drop heavy items in inventory during combat?

[Is Friday]

If it's not already at the moment, (I've never looked into it...) it would be best to change the code so that you cannot accept items while in combat. Easy fix, if it doesn't completely eliminate the twinky example provided.

[Qzzrbl]

If it's not already at the moment, (I've never looked into it...) it would be best to change the code so that you cannot accept items while in combat. Easy fix, if it doesn't completely eliminate the twinky example provided.

Give 'em the heavy bag before wailing on them. ^^

[Gimfalisette]

I would formally complain to the imms so hard if someone twinked out like that on me. There is no option to refuse the "give" command. Please don't do this.

[Is Friday]

If it's not already at the moment, (I've never looked into it...) it would be best to change the code so that you cannot accept items while in combat. Easy fix, if it doesn't completely eliminate the twinky example provided.

Give 'em the heavy bag before wailing on them. ^^

I really hope there is some fix before idiots start doing this. Someone is going to.

[X-D]

As was brought up in the other thread.

Morg, will armor be re-balanced along with this change?

[staggerlee]

I'm in total agreement with 7DV.

As it stands now we have a good balance in how much encumbrance affects combat compared to how much armor affects combat. IE, Armor does not take very much off damage right now so encumbrance should not and does not have a huge affect on combat (though it does have some affect, same as armor has some).

In summery. I am all for the change as long as armor is balanced right along with it. Otherwise I say leave it the way it is since a balance already exists by having it so neither of them have a massive affect.

I am of a mixed mind. On one side, I don't mind that this is happening. But I think that there should be aspects to it. So you are faster and dodge more in light armor, but in heavy armor you should be slower and absorb WAY more damage. If you are wearing heavy armor, whether you are at manageable or not, that armor should be able to take more blows than the light armor, and -that- is a fix that should looked into.

I think heavy armor versus light armor should balance out, but in different ways. Because I have played a character that wore heavy armor, and this is going to suddenly make that character invalid, because he'll have lost those fights in armor that was manageable.

If the rate for armor-blocking goes up drastically for heavy armor, then I'll be down for it. If it does not, then I have to say that I wish that it hadn't gone in, because heavy armor doesn't absorb enough to make this change balanced. But what do I know? Maybe that character was the reason that Morg saw reason to change it.

Actually I think X-D and 7DV have an extremely good point.  Depending on where the penalties begin for weight, and I believe they already started fairly low, the changes may just end up nerfing those that wear armor as opposed to the unarmored high agility types.

Due in part to the extreme cost and rarity of heavy armor, I'd hate to see this negatively impact it.  I very much hope that the weight or damage absorption of armor was considered with regard to the changes and that any necessary adjustments have been made.

I don't think it would be a very good situation at all if there was a requirement of excellent or better strength to make silt horror plate worth wearing, that kind of change just leads to dissatisfaction with stats and makes certain roles in the game extremely difficult to play.


Edit: Trying to consolidate the discussion a bit.

[Morgenes]

Re: Twinkery & giving items to someone to 'weigh them down'

This will not be tolerated, if you see this happen, complain, please include logs.  We will review the logs and then take appropriate removal of karma or banning (in extreme cases).

Re: Light encumbrance

The 'boost' you get for staying at light encumbrance is not getting a penalty.  There's no other benefit.

Re: Armor balancing

There is a separate issue regarding the damage absorption of heavy armor vs. it's weight that may or may not be addressed.

[flurry]

I think I like the change, but my one concern would be that it seems to only increase the importance of strength.  But other than that, I think moving toward more realistic penalties is probably a change for the better.

I would formally complain to the imms so hard if someone twinked out like that on me. There is no option to refuse the "give" command. Please don't do this.

I completely agree.  I would consider that to be an extreme form of code abuse.  I would hope anyone who made a practice of that would be restricted from playing combat characters.

edit: whoops, didn't see Morg's post

[Panda]

I'd actually already (wrongly?) assumed that encumbrance would effect fighting and such.  I like how much sense it makes.  Overall, this game seems to make a lot of sense mechanically, and as a new player, I really appreciate that.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

It effected fighting before. It will do so much more now.

[Twilight]

Questions in  my mind:

What weight do mounts max out at?  I am hoping that it is at the modifier level, so that killing a person's heavily weighted down mount might be a more viable strategy in some cases than attacking the rider.

I've never been clear if the combat mods for group combat affected the chance to hit someone via throw or archery use.  I would assume that if I can attack them and get great combat bonus's because of their weight, I can get sitting duck bonus's to my throw and archery chances vs them.

And...I want to see what getting a group combat bonus to a hidden backstab is going to look like.  Ick.  So its definately going to be an issue for everyone, not necessary just people ready to fight. heh.

[Lakota]

It effected fighting before. It will do so much more now.

I want to like this change, but I'm afraid it might unbalance things for the time being. I'll post my thoughts in the other thread.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

Looks like it's going to suck harder than ever to play a warrior with 'below average' or 'poor' strength.
Heh. I'm glad I stored that guy. It was real pain, sometimes. "Erm, I'd love to wear another wrist-wrap, Sarge, but my back is killing me...?"

[jstorrie]

This change is very reasonable in terms of realism, but even further enhances the value of strength, which I think is a slightly over-favored stat.

As a possible work-around, in 2.Arm or otherwise–a 'heavy armor' skill which reduces your armor encumbrance by x% based on skill level might be useful, allowing warrior-types to train in the use of heavy armor and wear it better than inexperienced characters. Or well-crafted armor could have 'reduced encumbrance' properties–historical plate, for example, was very heavy but less encumbering than it could have been thanks to well-designed straps and such which distributed weight across the body. Or maybe high agility or endurance could reduce encumbrance to some degree.

To be clear, I'm still in favour of strength being the 'prime attribute' for toe-to-toe melee fighting. I don't want it to get to the point where it's the only stat that really matters, though.

[Morgenes]

Just a note, I assume everyone has done the math to realize this, but holding something in your inventory and wearing it provides two different encumbrance penalties.  Because armor is designed to be worn, it is less encumbering to wear it than to carry it.

[Ender]

Now I can has a coded, as well as IC reason to emote throwing a bag of glass and obsidian slag to someone before wailing on them. 

So, I assume that this is a viable method of twinkery (and an easy way to offload excess karma).

What about causing people to drop heavy items in inventory during combat?

What about adding a notake toggleable flag to PCs? It'd work like this

"Rowdy" Roddy Piper tells you in English:
"Put on the glasses!"

>notake on
You are no longer accepting gives

>tell roddy
"No!"

"Rowdy" Roddy Piper tries to give you a pair of 80's sunglasses but you refuse.


It's always seemed kinda ridiculous to me that you will always take anything given to you.  With the notake flag on, people could still give you things with the plant skill though.

[Zalanthan]

Some people seem to be worried that heavy armor is now too ineffective while others seem to be worried that even more fighters will be favoring strength in the future.  If heavy armor doesn't absorb enough damage to make it that worthwhile why would more people start picking strength as their highest priority to be able to wear it? 

I like the change; I think it will encourage hunters, lumberjacks, miners, etc. to wear more realistic gear so they can appropriately deal with their haul.

[Tisiphone]

Why don't we give it a good test-run?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Why don't we give it a good test-run?

We will. I am only speaking from experience about the lack of damage heavy armor absorbs. If heavy armor took as much damage as light armor, it would grow used and so forth at the same ratio, and probably faster. But it doesn't, and despite what Morg says, I am tempted to say that it's because it doesn't offer protection-for-weight on the same level that lighter armors do. Light armor always gets the used tag before heavy armor, exponentially.

[staggerlee]

Some people seem to be worried that heavy armor is now too ineffective while others seem to be worried that even more fighters will be favoring strength in the future.  If heavy armor doesn't absorb enough damage to make it that worthwhile why would more people start picking strength as their highest priority to be able to wear it? 

I like the change; I think it will encourage hunters, lumberjacks, miners, etc. to wear more realistic gear so they can appropriately deal with their haul.

I think the concern is that the change could create a situation where heavy armor is effective on high strength warriors, but worse than being naked for anyone else.  Which would all but require that warriors have extremely high strength, especially in military clans where you may not be able to choose your armor according to your ooc min maxing of the combat code.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Honestly, I think the concern is that it makes heavy armor obsolete, frankly. You might be able to wear a suit of heavy armor as long as you have no pack, belts or anything else, not to mention the lack of protection-for-weight. And most characters do carry shit with them, so ...