Encumbrance & Fighting

[Sephiroto]

Want your city elf to run around with the Byn?  Can't do it.  The necessary tent can't be carried by yourself, and if you ever get separated from your unit, you're screwed.

Should a rail-thin city elf really be able to carry around a tent and be self-sufficient outside in the desert?

I wouldn't want a tall, gangly, puny, racially weak and untrustworthy person in my fighting clan anyway.  Well, maybe a puny elf wouldn't be bad as an archer assassin as long as they don't shoot me in the back or backstab me for practice.  Also, the idea of running through the desert with a tent strapped over one's back is ridiculous.

I don't see why playing guilds/races the way they ought to be played is a bad thing.  Roleplaying menial work isn't a bad thing...unless you're one of those Byn players who logs in for sparring and logs out right before latrine duty.

[Desertman]

In my long years of experience I've seen how armor absorbs blows.  I like the current scheme of damage absorption.  Armor does absorb some blows and lessen damage from heavy blows.  I am 100% positive about this.  Armor also helps deflect blows depending on how good you are at moving around in armor i.e., the defense skill.  Contrary to what most people claim, armor does a huge job at reducing damage and, more importantly, stun damage.

Zalanthas is a desert.  Unless you are a sorc (with some circumstances), a half-giant, or some sort of hardass martial fighter, heavy armor should not be used.  I should, perhaps, take this moment to mention a fight between Bronn the mercenary and a certain champion knight clad in heavy armor.  Although most armor in the game isn't as cumbersome as plate mail, it can be just as heavy.  Bone on Zalanthas is extra dense, obsidian is very heavy, and silt-horror is ungodly heavy.

I feel strongly that this code change adds reality to a game and will bring change to the dynamic of fighting while armored.  In reality, one either dodges/blocks/parries every blow or stands a high chance to be severely injured.

Lastly, one general note on encumberance:  Stop carrying around 3 skins of water, 10 days of food, 4 swords, 12 daggers, a shield, 1000 obsidian coins, a bow, a quiver, 20 obsidian-tipped arrows and a backpack full of crafting gear.  Unless they have the strength to support it, a fighter should be packed as lightly as possible.

I agree with you, fighters should be packing as light as possible for realistic purposes. I am a fan of the new code change to encumberance.

I am suggesting an additional code change to make armor more effective at blocking blows. I know it DOES block blows, but I dont think it blocks them enough, or negates damage enough, to be realistic in my eyes.

I dont want to get IC, but rest assured, I never noticed a need for armor, and when I finally did put some on, I saw zero difference. And that was going from fighting completely naked, to fully heavily armored.  

I would think I would see an enormous difference, but the fact is, it was so small I didnt even notice.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I am suggesting an additional code change to make armor more effective at blocking blows. I know it DOES block blows, but I dont think it blocks them enough, or negates damage enough, to be realistic in my eyes.

Precisely. I have no issue with the new change, I just want to see a real change to armor.

[NoteworthyFellow]

I'm actually rather in-favor of armor skills, to be honest.  It doesn't matter how strong you are, if you're not used to it, you're going to have a hell of a time fighting in plate mail, or even heavy leathers.  They don't necessarily need to take forever to increase, but it'd work just fine, I think.

[Sephiroto]

I'm actually rather in-favor of armor skills, to be honest.  It doesn't matter how strong you are, if you're not used to it, you're going to have a hell of a time fighting in plate mail, or even heavy leathers.  They don't necessarily need to take forever to increase, but it'd work just fine, I think.

This is one aspect of the defense skill.

[Delstro]

1010/1010_346/420_627/627>
Defense                                                            (Combat)

   A character's defense is his/her ability to avoid getting hit. It can be
thought of as an ability to dodge, coupled with the ability to make the
most out of whatever meager armor one might be wearing.
   Even a fully-developed defense doesn't guarantee against blows landing.
One's defense is figured into the combat calculations, and it's sufficient
to say that the higher one's defense, the less likely one is to get hit.
   This is not the same as armor (q.v.).

See also:
   armor, combat, offense, skill parry, skill shi


Armor                                                             (Combat)

   Armor is any piece of equipment in the game that can be worn on your
character's body as a defensive measure. You will notice that an
item is considered armor if its condition used, worn out, etc.) is
shown with the item's name (e.g., a used pair of studded sleeves).

   Good armor is relatively scarce, and much armor is scavenged from
various places, so a piecemeal armor system is used in Armageddon.
This means that if your character wears some armor on their arms,
only their arms will be protected. This system allows you to manage
the weight of armor your character is carrying fairly well. Note
that such ideas as Armor Class are not present in Armageddon.

   During combat, specific hit locations are determined, and if there
is armor on that body part, some protection may be afforded. The
armor may block none, some, or all of the damage, but in any case,
be aware that the character will still probably take stun damage.

   Some races have naturally tough skin which can absorb the damage of
some blows done to them. Several spells exist which can augment a
character's natural armor, thickening the skin or forging a hard
shell around the target of the spell.

   Armor's ability to shield you from blows will degrade with use; its
condition will be reflected in its short description as it changes.

See also:
   combat, offense, defense, stun

[Dalmeth]

I'm actually rather in-favor of armor skills, to be honest.  It doesn't matter how strong you are, if you're not used to it, you're going to have a hell of a time fighting in plate mail, or even heavy leathers.  They don't necessarily need to take forever to increase, but it'd work just fine, I think.

I'm honestly not.  I'd rack up any defensive advantage attributed to the skill with weapons to the ability to maneuver and use armor correctly.  Call it a day after that.  Attaching class specific bonuses to basic tools such as armor pigeonholes the current classes into more narrowly defined roles.  I like how it currently is where there's a significant gap between the straight combat skills of starting warriors and heavily trained rangers and assassins.  Without maintaining that gap, you make it harder for those classes to operate in basic professions, such as regular soldiers.

[IntuitiveApathy]

I'm actually rather in-favor of armor skills, to be honest.  It doesn't matter how strong you are, if you're not used to it, you're going to have a hell of a time fighting in plate mail, or even heavy leathers.  They don't necessarily need to take forever to increase, but it'd work just fine, I think.

I'm honestly not.  I'd rack up any defensive advantage attributed to the skill with weapons to the ability to maneuver and use armor correctly.  Call it a day after that.  Attaching class specific bonuses to basic tools such as armor pigeonholes the current classes into more narrowly defined roles.  I like how it currently is where there's a significant gap between the straight combat skills of starting warriors and heavily trained rangers and assassins.  Without maintaining that gap, you make it harder for those classes to operate in basic professions, such as regular soldiers.

I'm not sure I understand your argument.  I don't think the introduction of armour skills would necessarily have to pigeonhole any guild.

Maybe it's just the way I think of how armour skills could work with the guilds and operate once obtained.

Here's an example:

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)

This way your initial 'combat gap' is still maintained between warriors and the other pseudo-combat guilds.  It's only later in their careers would the guilds have the ability to specialize and further, only warriors are able to obtain extra skill in every armour type and reach the maximum cap.  You could also make it harder for the non-warriors to obtain any (or all) of the armour use skills, having them branch from another later skill in the guild skilltree.

How much you want those armour skills to actually affect characters and combat is another question.

[Lakota]

I am suggesting an additional code change to make armor more effective at blocking blows. I know it DOES block blows, but I dont think it blocks them enough, or negates damage enough, to be realistic in my eyes.

Precisely. I have no issue with the new change, I just want to see a real change to armor.

Exactly. We are not arguing that armor does not block blows, or lessen hp loss. We just feel that currently, it could, and should, do more. Especially after the recent change. I also think that creating armor skills is a terrific idea. We already have weapon skills, so why not armor? It makes sense to me..

[Good Gortok]

(did not read most of this thread)

I read the replies in the other thread in general discussion and there was a lot of complaints about warriors getting nerfed by this. why would it be warriors only? in fact, it seems they tend to have the highest strength of any combat-oriented guild, considering the others' need for agility in order to boost a lot of their skills. I'd say this nerfs rangers and assassins more than warriors

it's great to see a code change that makes combat more realistic. however, as much as this achieves that end, it also further enhances the already vast advantage of strength over other stats in combat. unless the staff truly wants strength to be the end all, be all of combat, I think that's worth looking into as well. the only saving grace for low-strength characters before was that they could still wear the good armor and not suffer gigantic penalties, but now they're probably restricted to leather armor, or none at all in the case of unlucky elves

also, this opens up a window for abuse in that it might allow highly skilled warriors to just get themselves encumbered in order to train against opponents who are otherwise too weak for them to learn anything from. that has always been one of the main obstacles for long-lived warriors, particularly ones who mainly fought npcs (such as rinthers and desert-elves), and it did keep those characters from being able to achieve legendary skills without proper training. I think that was a good thing but opinions may vary

finally I'd like to say that this change should definitely work the other way around as well - give those who sacrifice protection in order to fight completely unencumbered a noticeable bonus to their defensive prowess. seemed to me that there used to be none. while fighting unarmored shouldn't generally be as good as fighting with strong armor, there should be something to gain from doing it

[Armaddict]

I've never been of the opinion that rangers are supposed to be just as good of soldiers as warriors anyway.

A different kind of soldier, perhaps, but not 'equal'.  I don't even know what the sense of having a bunch of classes where everyone can do everything equally well would be.

Edit:  Had a typo.

[Qzzrbl]

also, this opens up a window for abuse in that it might allow highly skilled warriors to just get themselves encumbered in order to train against opponents who are otherwise too weak for them to learn anything from.

How is this considered abuse?

[NoteworthyFellow]

also, this opens up a window for abuse in that it might allow highly skilled warriors to just get themselves encumbered in order to train against opponents who are otherwise too weak for them to learn anything from.

How is this considered abuse?

I wouldn't call that abuse at all.  In fact, I'd call it a valid strength-training method: load yourself down with extra weight, then do your normal exercises.  It could also allow very skilled fighters to spar against less experienced, beginning fighters without summarily wrecking them.

[staggerlee]

Just out of curiosity, has this change gone through yet?

[Good Gortok]

How is this considered abuse?

I would consider it abuse when it's done with the intention of making yourself weak enough to artificially "train" against opponents that otherwise couldn't touch you or avoid a single one of your attacks. profesionally sparring with weighted pads is one thing, going out to look for raptors or muggers with a bag full of rocks in your inventory is another, and from my experience the latter has more often been the case when I've witnessed it. I believe if the staff wanted us to be able to lower our fighting prowess in order to match less skilled clan-mates and such, there would be a coded function and not some dubious self-inflicted penalties that are a bit of a stretch to justify. I wouldn't mind if sergeant Joe runs his recruits through drills where they have to wear combat gear and a pack full of survival equipment, but show me anyone who can put up any kind of fight and learn from it while so overloaded they can barely walk and I'll go looking for flying livestock

[staggerlee]

How is this considered abuse?

I would consider it abuse when it's done with the intention of making yourself weak enough to artificially "train" against opponents that otherwise couldn't touch you or avoid a single one of your attacks. profesionally sparring with weighted pads is one thing, going out to look for raptors or muggers with a bag full of rocks in your inventory is another, and from my experience the latter has more often been the case when I've witnessed it. I believe if the staff wanted us to be able to lower our fighting prowess in order to match less skilled clan-mates and such, there would be a coded function and not some dubious self-inflicted penalties that are a bit of a stretch to justify. I wouldn't mind if sergeant Joe runs his recruits through drills where they have to wear combat gear and a pack full of survival equipment, but show me anyone who can put up any kind of fight and learn from it while so overloaded they can barely walk and I'll go looking for flying livestock

There are currently many ways in game already to lower your fighting prowess through coded functions.  You just have to be creative and use your head, or find the right teacher ic.

And there are many ways to max out your skills without risking filling your inventory with rocks!

I don't think that should be a major concern. 

Edit:

Sorry I forgot the mandatory: "Find out IC!" 

[Dalmeth]

I've never been of the opinion that rangers are supposed to be just as good of soldiers as warriors anyway.

A different kind of soldier, perhaps, but not 'equal'.  I don't even know what the sense of having a bunch of classes where everyone can do everything equally well would be.

I never suggested that the other classes should be equal to warriors in a straight fight.  I'm saying they should at least be able to act like they could be.  You see, classes are not supposed to determine roles.  We're supposed to do that.  Classes are supposed to determine aptitudes in specific areas.

Let's face it, armor is dummy-proofing.  The more armor a person is wearing, the less they have to worry about.  That option should be available equally to all classes.  Warriors, of course, will always be able to utilize heavy armor better with equal training time.  That exists with the current system.  How, you ask?  Because warriors stand out in the open.  They're the ones who work best in a group.  Further limiting other classes from approaching a warrior's functionality will prohibit them from ever acting as regular fighters.

I honestly don't want this to become like other class-based games because they are entirely unrealistic in terms of the roles everyone serves.

[Morgenes]

I have already noticed severe encumbrance changes in the past regarding combat before this new code, I can only imagine how much worse it will be. 

Having seen the code, I can say, any 'severe' changes you saw to your combat ability had nothing to do with encumbrance.

[Jenred]

Not sure if its been suggested yet, because I didn't want to read through over 100 posts in this topic.

But other MUDs, with the same encumbrance issue have added a command called "nogive", which makes you unwilling to accept items from people.

Basically triggering to the "Your hands are full" code, but with a different message to the would be giver.

Because, like people have already jested about, the minute you can debilitate someone by giving them something you will find Assassins, sneaking around with a bag of glass, planting it on someone, and then backstabbing them for an instant death.

Im not in favor of this change, without an equally real command to counter the PK-twink side effects, that even if rare, should be avoided.

[Sokotra]

Also, the idea of running through the desert with a tent strapped over one's back is ridiculous.

Actually, in real life, tents really aren't that heavy... especially one designed just to fit a couple of people.  I know the materials would be different, but I'm not sure the weight and space taken up by a rolled up tent is accurately reflected in the game.  *shrug* 

I would say that it would be perfectly viable for someone to run around through the desert with a tent strapped across their back or rolled up and tied to the bottom/top of their pack or whatever.

[Is Friday]

Not sure what material this tent was made out of, but I hiked with the added weight of some stakes, rope, and tent. This material was thick and sort of coarse to touch, almost like a treated polyester. Anyway, it was a tent that barely fit two people and didn't secure you from getting sand in your face if there was a windstorm. A tent that would protect against Zalanthan winds not be "really heavy", but it would be on top of whatever gear you're also wearing.

[Dalmeth]

Also, the idea of running through the desert with a tent strapped over one's back is ridiculous.

It really isn't, but running around with the desert with a tent strapped to your back and carrying another significant load?  Yeah, that might be stretching it.  The fact is, waiting a half an hour to replenish your movement points just because there's sand in the air (not even all that much) is ridiculous as well.

I worry about this change because the world is still unrealistic.  I worry that it will encourage more unrealistic behavior.  That's all.

[Lizzie]

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.

[some guy]

So let me get this straight, to get your armor's weight adjusted according to its size, you need to have it tailored? Even if you've bought it after this change goes live?

[BlackMagic0]

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!