Things in Your Inventory Slowing You Down

[Tranquil]

Everyone's familiar with the typical high strength PC carrying a ludicrous amount of large containers in their inventory, like for example, 3 chests and 2 nets in their inventory to game past the coded restriction of low agility = small inventory.

It would be terribly hard to maneuver with a bunch of nets and chests and bags in your arms and hands, and doesn't really make sense from an RP perspective - especially when you're out and about in the desert or a dangerous environment. I've not seen anyone RP or even regard the fact that a half-giant could be somehow lugging four (full) crates in their arms yet still be able to two-hand a club with no problems or conflicts with combat.

My proposal is that carrying things in your direct 'inventory', especially if they're heavy, provides you a small combat or general roll malus with each item. Larger or more cumbersome things would give an even larger malus, dependant on weight.

Even Herculamos, the strongest man on Zalanthas, would not be able to fight like a legend if he's got five nets full of glass chunks in his hands.

Thoughts?

[creeper386]

Most of this is usually covered by the encumbrance system already. Stuff in your inventory already "weighs" more. It impacts your encumbrance more then if it's worn. Encumbrance already impacts various things.


Inventory I consider "on person" easily accessible. Not necessarily carried in hands or arms.

So I think the system already handles this just fine as is.

[LXXXVIII]

+1 to the items are lighter when worn, heavier in your inventory point. So the five bags full of glass example is partially accounted for. Maybe a combination of weight and the percentage of your inventory slots which are full will obtain the effect you're looking for?

I know there is no sexism in Zalanthas but this meme does allow me to see your point:

[Tranquil]

Encumbrance does account for it normally, yes, but when it comes to the high strength races, encumbrance is basically irrelevant. The trade-off to this is having a small agility, which means a small inventory.

However - a small inventory doesn't matter when you have 3 pocket inventories (both able to carry 300+ things each) in your main inventory. There's a reason why you can't wear chests, crates, etc. Because they are impossible to have 'easily accessible' on your person without going through the pointed effort of carrying it in your arms. This also enables the behaviour of hoovering up everything since, again, encumbrance doesn't matter and it's not like you have to worry about backpacks or your inventory.

This can apply to any large container, hence my point.

[creeper386]

I'm not sure, a high strength race carrying stuff within their carry limit ... Is game breaking.

Tell me how an elf is easily carrying 12 branches in  his inventory and still being just fine in combat. If it's meant to be carrying it in his arms. They may not even impact his encumbrance enough. Or just some how juggling 12 stones while also fighting in combat  flawlessly.

There are some not super realistic things about the inventory system. It's not perfect. Heck, maybe we should just go to, when you pick something up you have to have a free hand for it. It goes into off ahnd or primary. No inventory slots regardless of your dexterity. That'd be pretty nice. Maybe depending ont he size of hte items you can hold multiple things in your hands? This more solves the problem without specifically targeting races for using one of the few things they have, which is strength.

[creeper386]

In regards to, containers avoiding inventory limits ....

A big one is, you can't wield something from a crate. You can't craft from a crate. You can't wear from a crate. You can't drop something from a crate.


There is all sorts of things that a crate limits or slows you down that high agility low strength characters well never have to worry about.

[Tranquil]

I'm not sure, a high strength race carrying stuff within their carry limit ... Is game breaking.

Never claimed it was game breaking! But I do think it needs a bit of balance. A high strength character could just.. set down their massive stockpile of things on their person onto the ground or onto their mount, if they plan to get into a fight.

It would also make encounters more complex and interesting. Attacking someone whilst their arms are full of logs (encumbered or not) would be a great advantage for the attacker, for example.

Tell me how an elf is easily carrying 12 branches in  his inventory and still being just fine in combat. If it's meant to be carrying it in his arms. They may not even impact his encumbrance enough. Or just some how juggling 12 stones while also fighting in combat  flawlessly.

I think this is weird too, and this change would also affect even the high agility races. Granted, to a lesser amount, because a branch is far less of a burden then a chest.

There are some not super realistic things about the inventory system. It's not perfect. Heck, maybe we should just go to, when you pick something up you have to have a free hand for it. It goes into off ahnd or primary. No inventory slots regardless of your dexterity. That'd be pretty nice. Maybe depending ont he size of hte items you can hold multiple things in your hands? This more solves the problem without specifically targeting races for using one of the few things they have, which is strength.

Indeed, the inventory system is not perfect, which is why I suggested such a thing. Picking stuff up into your hands would be excessive, and remove the large inventories that high agility characters get.

A big one is, you can't wield something from a crate. You can't craft from a crate. You can't wear from a crate. You can't drop something from a crate.

This goes for all containers. It doesn't invalidate the point that a crate can hold 50x more then the biggest backpack, with no malus to the (high-strength) character.

[creeper386]

Because the high strength character can handle the weight.


Anyone can carry a big crate and set it down when they don't want to be encumbered.


But also, something that might be unwieldy to a human, because of it's size, is not unwieldy to something two to three times larger then a human. Like the scales on a giant are insane.

also if it's not actually breaking the game. There isn't really a reason to fix it. The code already takes it into account. If carrying a crate full of anything is so light to be the same as you carrying your cell phone. There shouldn't be a penalty.

[mansa]

...My proposal is that carrying things in your direct 'inventory', especially if they're heavy, provides you a small combat or general roll malus with each item. Larger or more cumbersome things would give an even larger malus, dependant on weight.

...Thoughts?

It is already coded into the encumbrance stat.

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,31465.0.html

Note to all of you who have been going around at 'heavy, but manageable' or higher encumbrance and fighting.

In reviewing how encumbrance affects fighting, we realized that it provided a practically non-existent modifier to combat.  This is going to change with our next push.

Being encumbered while fighting will now have a DRASTIC impedance on combat ability.  On the same order as being attacked by multiple enemies.

This is fair warning (and a similar message will be posted on the MOTD) that if you are running around encumbered, you will be at very poor odds of winning a fight.

[Night Queen]

The system doesn't work. A giant can be carrying a crate (or even 3+) full of things in imaginary third and fourth arms they do not have, while wielding a weapon with their first and second arm (sixth and seventh?) I always figured since it was obvious bad roleplay to be carrying around things so big that it's noticeable while looking at the character, while also holding a weapon, and that these characters  ignoring roleplay in pursuit of playing it like a kill and loot game would be dealt with, since giant characters are meant to have higher roleplay standards - not less, but:

A few things changed recently have come down to code, because of it being too much work for staff to police every time people do stuff like that (like with the people using contact to see if someone was a Someone, I reported even a sponsored role doing that) - the problem is that some people just can't help themselves and if something is possible in code, they'll do it, even if it's obviously not realistic.

So I would support making it so that characters can't hold items in hands while also having something in "inventory" over 30 stones that would be impossible to hold without using hands.

Smaller items you can RP with pockets and such, but it's definitely poor RP to just run around with bags with no carry straps or pieces of furniture while also cleaving things in two with imaginary third and fourth hands.

It brings everyone else down to a lower level of RP, and makes it a harder sell to newer people that karma means better roleplayer, when people doing obviously stupid things obviously have karma and are NOT BEHAVING WELL AS A ROLE MODEL Seeing stuff like that felt like a "The facade cracks" moment. Lets just make it impossible.

[Filthy_Grey_Rat]

IF!! IF something had to be done, I would suggest the code somehow being to changed to:

If you have nothing in your hands 3/3 inventory slots are open for your agility.

One thing in your hand, 2/3 inventory slots open

Both hands occupied, 1/3 inventory slots.


But I don't feel anything needs to be changed. To 'carry on your person' is not necessarily to carry in your arms or hands. I often emote that I'm strapping things to rope and throwing them over my shoulder or tying them loosely to my belt, or gathering them all with one rope. (like how I can carry ten branches IRL by binding them with rope and slinging them over my shoulder, tying that to my belt. I have legit done this. I've also had two backpacks on me at once in RL but I am a hoarding hobo mfer. idk if my life is realistic)

[Tranquil]

-snip-

I don't often agree with you, Night Queen, but this is definitely one of those times I agree with you completely.

[mansa]

...
So I would support making it so that characters can't hold items in hands while also having something in "inventory" over 30 stones that would be impossible to hold without using hands.
...

I like this.  I would only limit it to combat, though.

I would have the code do something like:

If the character is in combat.
-> If the character is "two-handing" or "dual_wielding"
-> -> If they have an item in their inventory that is a weight greater than X
-> -> -> Drop item

[creeper386]

So character weight is in ten stones.

According to a post by Mansa, half giants are 75-90 ten stones... So I assume that's 750 - 900 stones.

So, half giants are 1650-1980lbs. They top out upwards of a ton.

So if they can't carry 30 stones unencumbered. Can we also make sure that weight for humans is 3 stones? If a human carries 3 stones they drop it if they are dual wielding or two handing?

Half giants are massive compared to a human. They are twice the height and TEN times the weight. What seems insane to carry to a human is like a human carrying a block of stone.

[mansa]

So character weight is in ten stones.

According to a post by Mansa, half giants are 75-90 ten stones... So I assume that's 750 - 900 stones.

So, half giants are 1650-1980lbs. They top out upwards of a ton.

So if they can't carry 30 stones unencumbered. Can we also make sure that weight for humans is 3 stones? If a human carries 3 stones they drop it if they are dual wielding or two handing?

Half giants are massive compared to a human. They are twice the height and TEN times the weight. What seems insane to carry to a human is like a human carrying a block of stone.

The idea isn't about strength, or even about agility.  The idea is the nebulous concept of your "general inventory". 
I have played another MUD where you only had an inventory of 2, and each item would immediately go into your hand.  It didn't have this "general inventory" system that we currently have.  The game was a pain in the ass to play, because you couldn't pick up a bunch of objects to manipulate them, and you constantly had to drop or put items into containers in order to interact with them.  It was worst than playing a half-giant with poor inventory, and every single character was like that.

The idea is that you have a sword in one hand, a shield in another hand, and in your inventory you have:
24 obsidian coins
a wooden torch
a large wooden chest
a desert-camouflaged tent
a wooden wagon wheel
a blocky stone of basalt

It would make sense to have the "large" objects be dropped if you engaged in combat, for the sake of realism.
For playability, it would cause players to potentially forget objects that automatically dropped, and be annoying to have to pick them up again.  I think it might even be a coded protection in combat against the concept of people giving you heavy objects during a fight to increase your encumbrance to make you go past the threshold of "manageable".  (Currently, "Nosave" has an option for characters to reject being given objects)

[LindseyBalboa]

I am personally very much in favor of anyone attacking me also being allowed - or even required, shoot - to have an inventory completely full of unrealistically heavy items.

[Tranquil]

...
So I would support making it so that characters can't hold items in hands while also having something in "inventory" over 30 stones that would be impossible to hold without using hands.
...

I like this.  I would only limit it to combat, though.

I would have the code do something like:

If the character is in combat.
-> If the character is "two-handing" or "dual_wielding"
-> -> If they have an item in their inventory that is a weight greater than X
-> -> -> Drop item

This would also be good, perhaps even better then my suggested change.

I'm not solely suggesting this to nerf giants/muls/whatever, but also because it would be an interesting dynamic for wilderness PVP in general.

A pack of elves would definitely want to target someone with five logs stacked in their arms instead of some person who's got nothing cumbersome in their arms, two-handing a greatsword.

[Patuk]

Bro it's a game. A game. Nobody wants to spend more time juggling about inventory space when they could be cutting people down with bone swords. Let's just not.

[Night Queen]

Got enough people that "just want to play the game" already, it's roleplayers that are harder to retain and easily distracted by other venues... Seeing stupid, ridiculous behavior makes it harder to keep people invested, and it's especially a bad impression for newer players seeing this kind of stuff, since everything relies on trust of equal treatment, when it's obviously karma-required characters disregarding sensible RP for the sake of running around abusing bags with no handles or several pieces of literal furniture in imaginary hands.

[creeper386]

The idea isn't about strength, or even about agility.  The idea is the nebulous concept of your "general inventory". 

But it really is.

Say the five log example. Whats to say that's not bundled up and tied to a pack. Probably not for a human, but certainly possible for a half giant.

The inventory space isn't carried in the arms in my opinion. Sure it CAN be roleplayed that way and just as often it isn't.

Just because someone doesn't have the coded tools to always tell you how they are carrying something doesn't make them an awful roleplayer or a twink.

And I highly doubt it's an issue that is driving players away.

[Brisket]

Bags are one thing - let people have bags.  Those are, to me, sort of attached at random within easy reach.  But chests and crates need to take up an entire inventory if you carry one, or maybe two for half-giants.  I absolutely don't mind a giant obviously carrying a huge sack of stuff strapped lazily to their side, but seeing them with a whole ass crate is always jarring.

It's somewhat nebulous yes, but a chest or a crate aren't flexible in the way a bag is, and they can't be as easily strapped to your side. 

There is an element of playability in terms of agi inventory limits and races like half-giants, but it can get silly.  Not that there isn't often quite a bit of silliness involved in half-giant rp.

[FantasyWriter]

Just curious if the ones pushing for this change have addressed it in game when you see this sort of thing going on.  You might be surprised with two of the possible reasonable explanations:
1) The player simply hasn't thought about this from your point of view and adjusts their play.
2) The character had a reasonable explanation for what you think of as exploitative from your POV and you adjust your expectations around other people's roleplay styles.

I'd really like to comment further, but I don't see a way to get my point across without breaking GDB rules.

A good rule of thumb when you see something you think is bad RP, handle it IC first.  Don't try to take other people's options/playability crutches away just because you, the player are incapable of ignoring something that bothers you on an OOC level.

[creeper386]

And if a giant can't carry a crate easily that holds less then a quarter is weight. Then I want to make sure that small chests or boxes just devastate humans.

[creeper386]

In my opinion. Have faith the encumbrance code has things handled and perhaps remember it's a game.

[mansa]

The idea isn't about strength, or even about agility.  The idea is the nebulous concept of your "general inventory". 

But it really is.

Say the five log example. Whats to say that's not bundled up and tied to a pack. Probably not for a human, but certainly possible for a half giant.

The inventory space isn't carried in the arms in my opinion. Sure it CAN be roleplayed that way and just as often it isn't....

https://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Inventory
This command will display all items which you are currently carrying 'in your hands.' It does not display items which are worn on your body....

[Night Queen]

And if a giant can't carry a crate easily that holds less then a quarter is weight. Then I want to make sure that small chests or boxes just devastate humans.

They already do, because of the weight - the issue is it just doesn't work to go by weight to work out what can be reasonably held when one item can be an actual chest of drawers with no handles, held with invisible hands while also fighting

A good rule of thumb when you see something you think is bad RP, handle it IC first.  Don't try to take other people's options/playability crutches away just becauseyou, the player are incapable of ignoring something that bothers you on an OOC level

Sure, anyone can ignore stuff like this, easy, if we just give up caring. But:

1. It gives new people a terrible impression of karma players that should be setting a good example.

2. When there are consistently low standards on behavior in some ways like this, it's hard to encourage everyone else to be better, it's the effect of "Well, they're getting away with that, why can't I do <stupid-borderline-thing here>?"

3. Stuff like this detracts from the atmosphere for everyone else, and makes it harder to argue to potential new players from other forms of RP (which is the best way to invite new people) that it's not "just another MUD". Other games in similar situations went down the drain because of becoming increasingly focused on mechanics, and it doesn't kill the game, people can ignore it, sure... But keep ignoring stuff and you end up with the people that run around mindlessly hitting stuff being the only ones that are left.

Edited by Hestia: added the rest of the sentence for context, removed a line implying the other poster had an agenda/negative motive

[creeper386]

That chest of drawers ... That is a small box to a giant, could be virtual nets or any number of thing tied to a backpack or something, but it's not something that the code supports.


What items are available to further this sort of roleplay is incredibly limited.

But the problem is, you are trying to solve it by ONLY weight. That 30 stone object could be a hunk of rock or a big dresser. Nothing about weight indicated anything about it's volume or ability to be carried.

What fi it's a 30 stone box that Does have straps and handles, but doesn't have wear locations. Should it just be unusable until a bug fix comes through.


If this fix  that's been proposed was scaled at all based on character sizes, it'd make just about anything not carriable.

[creeper386]

Edited by Hestia: removed because it was a criticism of a removed line from another post

[dumbstruck]

I don't play half-giants, I don't have a personal horse in that race. But, for the people who this is so upsetting to, would it satisfy you to see it being put in a line in their tdesc or something about having the thing strapped to a hip like a saddlebag? I feel like realistically, if we want to argue about realism, in this instance, there should absolutely be larger container items that half-giants can wear and use that have a lot more space in/on them than when a human does.

Wanna bet that the 3 stones that the pockets of those pants hold when a dwarf wears them don't scale up to 30 with size though. Realism, am I right? If we want to argue for that, you should make chests and crates wearable on belt and see if we don't see HGs start doing that. I am willing to bet at least a couple would. And a belt sized for a half-giant? Probably gonna need to be stout enough to hold 'em up, too. Or maybe we make pouched belts that are sized for half giants where they can fit the same amount as a crate? How do we do that with code?

[creeper386]

Last post.


This sort of change would make inventory management a nightmare.

It's pretty easy to forget to repack a box or a bag, especially when it doesn't even impact your encumbrace, but this sort of change would cause massive penalties or say dropping an object.

It's then easy to miss that the object was dropped especially in the spam of combat. And now you don't have an impact on your encumbrance. It hasn't gotten lighter. You start leaving chests and boxes and bags all over the known. It's an nightmare.


I say either go to the two hand only inventory after ramping up all sorts of neat ways to carry stuff. Or realize it's a game, and that the crates in game, when full up, not impacting encumbrace, isn't actually causing any issues, and give other players the benefit of the doubt that something reasonable is happening.

[Tranquil]

At the moment, there are alot of things that are meant to be a thing in game, but aren't, because people have found ways to abuse and go around the implemented penalty via code.

Low agility is supposed to give you a small inventory to clumsily hold a few things at best, if your character hasn't gotten access to the many wearable containers in-game, or simply put it on their mount. This is gone around by carrying a few massive chests in your hands.

Side-note: Your mount doesn't receive any encumbrance penalties from whatever size or weight the rider is, only from the things that are strapped to the mount itself.

Low agility is supposed to make you slow in combat, and generally, make it hard to hit things. This is gone around by simply raising two-hand, and even better, raising ride + charge.

Low agility is supposed to make you very easy to hit, via ranged or in melee. This is true for the first month or so, but then the defense score rises high enough (due to getting hit so much) that, ironically, a giant is harder to hit with an arrow/blowdart then the average trained human.

I think there should be efforts made to start balancing things to the way they should be, and this thread could perhaps drive such an effort to fix atleast one thing.

This sort of change would make inventory management a nightmare.

It's pretty easy to forget to repack a box or a bag, especially when it doesn't even impact your encumbrace, but this sort of change would cause massive penalties or say dropping an object.

It's then easy to miss that the object was dropped especially in the spam of combat. And now you don't have an impact on your encumbrance. It hasn't gotten lighter. You start leaving chests and boxes and bags all over the known. It's an nightmare.

I don't see this as a bad thing. It makes such encounters more complex, and the fall-outs more interesting, in contrast to the path of simply 'winning' and keeping everything on you. Someone could find all these crates and chests all over the Known, loot them, tell stories about them, etc. Armageddon is a game, but it's a game that focuses on conflict, and scenarios that arise from conflict. Why not make the conflict richer and more interesting, not only with RP, but with code to help push along appropriate RP?

Inventory management is supposed to be a nightmare for a race that is too clumsy to hold on to more then a few things unless they're strapped onto them. Not to mention, half-giants are meant to be forgetful. Especially if the things they're holding are.. not able to be even felt by them, by your claim.

[creeper386]

Side-note: Your mount doesn't receive any encumbrance penalties from whatever size or weight the rider is, only from the things that are strapped to the mount itself.

Almost 100% sure this is very wrong. Mounts without riders lose encumbrance way slower.

[Agent_137]

 I was never bothered by half giants carrying around chests.  Seemed like a must because  sizing a backpack for a half giant doesn't increase it's carrying capacity.  Making code changes to nerf this behavior seems like an unfun solution. What should be done is give HGs more reasonable ways to carry all their crap.

[dumbstruck]

I was never bothered by half giants carrying around chests.  Seemed like a must because  sizing a backpack for a half giant doesn't increase it's carrying capacity.  Making code changes to nerf this behavior seems like an unfun solution. What should be done is give HGs more reasonable ways to carry all their crap.

This was kind of exactly my thing with it, like a crate/chest is probably equivalent to a backpack that's properly sized for a HG but because we don't have those, everything is nanners, and you just know that if we did and they were still somehow wearable by smaller people (which they probably would be, unless there is like a race_only flag) because container items don't hold a 'size' the way that normal items do, this seems like a perfectly logical workaround, though it would be rad to see something just absolutely stupid like a crate and ropes you could craft together into a wearable crate that you could wear on your back. bet hgs would wear 'em and humans wouldn't, because crates are so heavy, without even putting anything into them.

[betweenford]

Several clans have gigantic/giant-intended-use backpacks that themselves are about the size of a trunk or a crate. Most giants do not know about or use these items.

It really is just kind of ridiculous to see giants manipulating 3-4 filled chests/crates while also wielding a megasword.

[FantasyWriter]

1. It gives new people a terrible impression of karma players that should be setting a good example.

2. When there are consistently low standards on behavior in some ways like this, it's hard to encourage everyone else to be better, it's the effect of "Well, they're getting away with that, why can't I do <stupid-borderline-thing here>?"

3. Stuff like this detracts from the atmosphere for everyone else, and makes it harder to argue to potential new players from other forms of RP (which is the best way to invite new people) that it's not "just another MUD". Other games in similar situations went down the drain because of becoming increasingly focused on mechanics, and it doesn't kill the game, people can ignore it, sure... But keep ignoring stuff and you end up with the people that run around mindlessly hitting stuff being the only ones that are left.

A. I just suggested talking to the players IG about it to resolve the issue there.

1. There you are again saying that if people don't play like you want them to, they are bad roleplayers and undeserving of high-karma roles.

2. Again, you are saying that this is BAD behavior without addressing it in game

3. "Stuff like this distracts from the atmosphere" that is why specifically  I said "incapable of ignoring things you don't like OOC"  I see people do stupid shit all the time, my personal [least] favorite is sparring roleplay. Things like master fighers not being able to hold back 50% of their offensive skill so they can actually swing at a friendly with a blunted weapon without taking their head of.  I just roll with it.

For the record I don't think anyone should ever be carrying around two chests either, I wonder if making more high-capacity backpacks more available in game would alleviate this problem. The bags... meh, I have brought in 10+ grocery bags before and still managed to unlock the door and turn the handle.

Edited by Hestia: removed references to previously deleted lines in a post

[Hestia]

I'm gonna remind everyone here to please re-read https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51856.0.html - our forum rules.

If you're not a moderator, don't try to police this forum yourself. If you feel a post is against our rules, then report it to the moderator. If it isn't against our rules, then they have the right to their opinion. If you're unsure, report to moderator.

Don't criticize other people or accuse them of doing so to others. You can criticize the content of their post - but not the poster.  We /try/ to be civil here.  That is not a request, it's an expectation. Thanks.

[LXXXVIII]

Agreed that making mechanics changes would make the game miserable, but also that walking in on a character loaded down like an inix is immersion breaking.

My two cents, stop blaming groups of players because I've seen every sort of concept guilty of the behavior described, and examples of good roleplay among the most despised/blamed concept in this thread, half-giants. Not to toot my own horn, but my most recent half-giant was so stupid she would leave crates all over the place, including non save rooms, because I also found the idea of fighting while loaded down immersion breaking. Do I get a prize for roleplaying in a believably stupid and clumsy way? Well, I guess I got a couple of kudoses... including for a time I let an elf completely rip off my HG by letting the elf pick "anything" she wanted out of my HG's crate--thousands of sids worth of goods--in exchange for an elven craft worth about 200 coins. Because shockingly, some players of HGs can roleplay.

Solution: critique bad roleplayers with sick burns in game or targeted complaints rather than vaguebooking about how certain roleplayers or character concepts are bad and punishing everyone with mechanics.

Encumbrance code updates, including showing heavy items carried in ldescs, already empowers you to be the change! Is someone breaking immersion? Point it out and they might change!

The Aide to a Noble Lady carrying 5 bags of master crafted equipment (some immersion breaking shit I've seen in game): Great Lady! Are you fond of developing your muscles through labor or might I lighten your burden for you? Perhaps I can fetch another servant to help carry all of your, uhm, large bags?

The Red Stormer to a mul starting a bar fight while carrying 3 chests: Oi! Wot're ye doing swinging at me with three feckin' chests t'ye chest? Did'ye escape slavery t'become a feckin' pack animal?!

The Byn Recruit to a Half-Giant Trooper jogging with 4 humongous crates on them: I wish I 'ad massive rolls of lard to tuck crates under whilst we run around, seems handy!

If anyone thinks in-game critiques are immersion breaking themselves, then you are also at liberty to complain via private OOC mechanisms. And if you see a half-giant like one of my characters who is leaving shit all over the place and not quitting out with shelves and bags stacked on them like a dragon's hoard, maybe kudos them, they'll appreciate it

[Night Queen]

Accusing people of being "incapable of ignoring" is pretty rude, when the reply saying it's insulting gets edited but not the insult in the first place, it doesn't seem right.


Isn't it not for players to argue with or give criticism to other players for the behaviour of specific characters ingame, I would've thought that'd probably be considered an abuse of OOC? It'd seem obnoxious if someone started saying stuff like that OOC.

And passive-aggressive IC comments about it would be even worse. Responding IC to something that should obviously be impossible is a terrible idea because it just legitimises what happened as if it is real, and godmodes other people into replying to your words/actions that are referring to something that should be impossible.

My reply wasn't about any particular character, and I don't appreciate the vague accusation that it was vaguebooking. Discussing this kind of stuff in general is the whole point of threads like these, it's something that a few people noticed happens over many different characters.

[LXXXVIII]

Alright, sure, apologies. I didn't see the original content before staff edited it. I just saw from notes that people were being mean and assumed it was that.

To emphasize in terms you might find less objectionable: we probably don't need game breaking mechanics, can chill, and if someone is doing something stupid in game you can say it's stupid.

Case in point, this guy: https://youtu.be/Y3i2xbaxcRE

This man practically IS the Armageddon trope. How many times have you seen Amos carrying a couch and running around like it's nothing? How many times have you seen that and thought, "That breaks my immersion?" Well, great news is (1) Armageddon physics / biomechanics are fairly realistic and (2) when people do such things such as the man in the posted video, people make fun of them. And you can do the same thing in game, it's realistic! Be the change.

Last note is I think a lot of people complaining aren't used to encountering very strong people IRL. My girlfriend has myostatin related muscle hypertrophy (or at least all the symptoms of it including the bad ones) and I once saw her carrying 10 heavy shopping bags with one hand. It looked insane because it was indeed superhuman but normal to her. You might just need more exposure to conceptualize that some behaviors IG are actually realistic so far as these fantasy "races" are conceptualized.

[Night Queen]

No one has been talking about strength though, we already know it's possible to carry heavy things in one hand, the issue is like some slide puzzle thing where if you move the hand to hold one thing, you can't also be holding other things at the same time, due to the shape and size. With the sheer hugeness of stuff, even if it was stuck into pockets it'd make moving impossible, let alone holding other things, no matter how strong, because of everything being so big and bumping and blocking. This is sometimes about two hundred things per crate, some of them bigger than any human-shaped thing's head.

The game breaking mechanics are already there, it's the thing that allows this to happen, and no matter how it's become normalised for some, newer people seeing that happen are just going to be wondering why they are allowed to do this obviously unrealistic thing, so it drags everyone else down and makes it hard to encourage people that it's not just a hack and slash, and people do in fact care about trying to make it seem believable

[creeper386]

This this would require a whole overall of how items work and editing all items in the game. Because if it's not strength related, weight has nothing to do with it.

But also, inventory still doesn't mean in arms or in hands. I don't think it ever has. That whole mindset in my opinion is the problem.


There are probably a hundred other things that are more conducive to getting new players then having a limited mindset on the inventory system and deciding other players aren't playing realistically.

[FantasyWriter]

But strength IS part of the issue, when you are a half giant, four "large bags" is the equivalent of four plastic shopping bags.  Three chests (I'm thinking the ones you can carve different panels for) would be the equivalent of a human carrying around three large college textbooks or a stack of three banker boxes.  The inaccessibility of many areas to mounts or the inability to stable mounts with things packed on them is also an issue.

Historically, you rode into town on horseback, you could reasonably park your loaded mount in a public stable and and leave your things there under watch, or if you were the paranoid sort, load all that shit up on your shoulders and march into the bar or public house carrying the shit the way some characters do in game.  Not everyone has a "base" or apartment. I tend to avoid them like the plague because I prefer interacting with other characters as opposed to hiding in a apartment and spam crafting/gickering/kanking all the time.

Edit to add: Sometimes you come in from hunting/grebbing, and all that stuff WAS on your mount, but the shops are closed and or not buying what you have, so you have no choice but to lug it around or junk your hard-days work, something insane on an IC level.

[Night Queen]

It's not the same, because it's about shape, not weight, a crate is not the same size as a book, even to a giant. It's impossible to hold several crates - and even be holding other things or even fighting(!), it's just silly, as a few people have said

And sure, there's lots of issues, but fixing none because there's too many is self-defeating, it'd be good to start going through this kind of stuff, to make it less of a hard sell to convince people to come here when there's people saying only code matters!

[mansa]

To clarify my position on this topic:

I really don't care if characters have large items in their inventory for every instance in the game, with the sole exception of combat.  My suggestion that if those characters were to enter combat, those items would be dropped.
* Large items being defined by an ArmageddonMUD coder.  My suggestion would be the weight of a "blocky stone" object, since it is the largest rock item you can forage.



I don't want to have the characters with large items in their inventory to have their combat skills lowered while holding those large objects.  Dropping those items should be easier to code.
I don't want to have the characters with large items in their inventory to have to fumble around during crafting / socializing / exploring / achieving with object management.

[FantasyWriter]

@NightQueen

I guess I am seeing a bigger scope from what the OP than what you are talking about now.  Is the perceived lack of how it affect combat your biggest concern?  I thought you were talking about the ability to carry that kind of stuff around in general.  Like this:
https://ibb.co/0cKhFN5

[Tranquil]

To clarify my position on this topic:

I really don't care if characters have large items in their inventory for every instance in the game, with the sole exception of combat.  My suggestion that if those characters were to enter combat, those items would be dropped.
* Large items being defined by an ArmageddonMUD coder.  My suggestion would be the weight of a "blocky stone" object, since it is the largest rock item you can forage.



I don't want to have the characters with large items in their inventory to have their combat skills lowered while holding those large objects.  Dropping those items should be easier to code.
I don't want to have the characters with large items in their inventory to have to fumble around during crafting / socializing / exploring / achieving with object management.

I agree completely. Strength is supposed to let you carry huge things. That's why muls and giants are made. Nothing stopping them from carrying eight chests whilst hauling stuff around.

However, I still think this shouldn't be abused in combat, for the many reasons stated above.

Just another way to abuse and go about the set 'limitations' of a race, in the stage of combat that often way too heavily favors strength in almost every way.

[Riev]

Is the issue that strong characters are carrying chests and you want to attack them so they drop the chest?

Is the issue that strong characters are carrying chests during combat and utilizing objects inside them?

Is the issue that strong characters are carrying multiple chests rather than using a backpack?



What I'm reading is "half-giants should not be able to fight well if they are carrying a bunch of things".
What I'm responding is "why can elves have 12 pockets full of jingling coins and dangling glass jewelry they stole and can still sneak and hide".

[Filthy_Grey_Rat]

/I/ think the problem is, when you see the half-giant:

The mud-faced, floppy-eared half-giant
  - he is carrying a wooden chest
              more wooden chests
                too many chests



Perhaps we can just change the text to read: he is burdened by a wooden chest


And change the return from inventory to : In your inventory (instead of hands)


Wouldn't that fix the  problem?

[Kaathe]

hopefully helpful facts:

Several clans have gigantic/giant-intended-use backpacks that themselves are about the size of a trunk or a crate. Most giants do not know about or use these items.

I checked the database and found four! Half are kadian, half are indy. They aren't flagged specifically as HG packs, so I may have missed a few. They're bigger than chests but smaller than crates.

Thanks to analyze changes and opening up darkmoon crafts to indies, hopefully we'll see the indy ones in use.

My suggestion would be the weight of a "blocky stone" object, since it is the largest rock item you can forage.

Many weapons are heavier than those blocky stones.

[Night Queen]

/I/ think the problem is, when you see the half-giant:

The mud-faced, floppy-eared half-giant
  - he is carrying a wooden chest
              more wooden chests
                too many chests



Perhaps we can just change the text to read: he is burdened by a wooden chest


And change the return from inventory to : In your inventory (instead of hands)


Wouldn't that fix the  problem?

How would it help to make characters able to invisibly hold unrealistically bulky items in hands that do not exist?

Obviously that would be impossible to do, even if not holding a weapon, crates aren't little boxes, even for giants they're much bigger than hands, for the size, you know they're things big enough to stuff a few dozen fully packed tents in, they're room furniture. It's obviously unrealistic seeing it, even if it's been normalised for some, it's one of those things that just is stupid to see. This isn't just giants either, but when it's an obviously karma-required character doing it, it gives a worse impression for newer players that roleplay can be just ignored when the desire for "LOOT" overrides

[mansa]

hopefully helpful facts:

My suggestion would be the weight of a "blocky stone" object, since it is the largest rock item you can forage.

Many weapons are heavier than those blocky stones.

[Filthy_Grey_Rat]

@nightqueen

I just meant to change the wording from 'carrying' to 'burdened by'. Not make them invisible

[Night Queen]

The issue isn't the wording, it's that it's realistically impossible to hold more than one of these enormous things, or holding things in hands while holding one of these enormous things.

[Filthy_Grey_Rat]

The issue isn't the wording, it's that it's realistically impossible to hold more than one of these enormous things, or holding things in hands while holding one of these enormous things.

Ooooooh, wow. I'm so sorry. This clearly isn't the type of conversation I thought it was. I'll leave you to your game, and your opinions.

[Armaddict]

It's impossible for elves to hold 12 things in their hands, but they manage.  It's impossible for things to fly, but whirans happen.  It's impossible for bugs to be this large due to how oxygen is processed without circulatory systems, but they manage.

Half-giants can hold a total of 3 items, sometimes 4.  Holding large containers is kind of what they do, in order to deal with this.  They wear it when they can.  They stash things when they can, just like everyone else does.  They're just stronger and can hold more stuff in fewer places.

If realism is your end-all-be-all of whether or not some things should be possible or impossible with code, then there's a whole lot of things to look at.  For now, I'm completely content with half-giants having to rely on large containers to put their strength to use, unless there is some severe limitation to playability that comes from this.

[betweenford]

Giant player detected.

If you have a container filled with more than 100 stone worth of stuff in it and you get bashed/floored in combat you should drop the item and everything inside should explode into the room in a mess of clutter.

[LindseyBalboa]

Having an inventory full of crap you couldn't realistically carry is like... extremely standard rpg.

[Armaddict]

Giant player detected.

If you have a container filled with more than 100 stone worth of stuff in it and you get bashed/floored in combat you should drop the item and everything inside should explode into the room in a mess of clutter.

Wrong on the player detected side, but a good attempt at some sort of psychological win that doesn't exist.

As I said, if there's some sort of playability issue being caused by it, then we can have that discussion, but for now I haven't seen anything other than 'this annoys me.'

[burble]

Many years ago I tried playing a half-giant.
It was a miserable gaming experience. Stored and will never do that again. Most of my time was spent trying to juggle items in those 2 carry slots.
Every damn time it needed to pick up something: stop, put down the crate, pick up the item, put item in crate, pick up crate. Anything with a tool was a nightmare.

Hats off to anyone who can put up with that. I don't.

Games are for fun and you want to make it even more tedious?
Just have everyone on Zalanthas surrounded by a personal levitation field that carries items proportional to their strength.
So you're not "REALLY" carrying anything, it's kinda just there with you.

[ShaiHulud]

/I/ think the problem is, when you see the half-giant:

The mud-faced, floppy-eared half-giant
  - he is carrying a wooden chest
              more wooden chests
                too many chests

I've played many hgs and played with many hgs, and never have I seen this.
I think this whole thing is hyperinflated without any substantiation.

Emote ties some rope-like giant-hair from his beard into an agafari chest handle, letting it hang there.

[FantasyWriter]

/I/ think the problem is, when you see the half-giant:

The mud-faced, floppy-eared half-giant
  - he is carrying a wooden chest
              more wooden chests
                too many chests

I've played many hgs and played with many hgs, and never have I seen this.
I think this whole thing is hyperinflated without any substantiation.

Emote ties some rope-like giant-hair from his beard into an agafari chest handle, letting it hang there.

Did you just invent a half-giant feed bag?
#Notacomplaint

[Night Queen]

Ooooooh, wow. I'm so sorry. This clearly isn't the type of conversation I thought it was. I'll leave you to your game, and your opinions.

Ooooooh, wow. I'm so sorry. This clearly isn't the type of conversation I thought it was. I'll leave you to your game, and your opinions. Club Penguin?

It's impossible for elves to hold 12 things in their hands, but they manage.

That's a good point, a naked flag got added was in recent years, seems like it might not be too complicated to change that so if not wearing clothes to hide things in that can't do that. It's important to fix a lot of this stuff, but that isn't a good reason for just not doing anything

It's impossible for things to fly, but whirans happen.  It's impossible for bugs to be this large due to how oxygen is processed without circulatory systems, but they manage.

These ones don't make any sense because they follow the rules of the Zalanthan world. Invisible extra hands holding items so large that they are obviously performing an impossible act at first glance don't (the X holding a massive chest with no handles while wielding a massive sword in both hands)

As I said, if there's some sort of playability issue being caused by it, then we can have that discussion, but for now I haven't seen anything other than 'this annoys me.'

It seems like the problem is seeing things through a lens of "playability" instead of "what makes a more believable world that fun roleplay stories can come from that don't sound stupid to the uninitiated". The story of the giant wielding a huge sword with a handle-less chest does not give new or potential new players a good impression, there's no justification for doing stuff like that, all it needs is a simple "Would someone consider this stupid/unrealistic seeing a character doing this or hearing they did this somehow". Shouldn't we all be on the same side on this? There's so many games that don't require roleplaying, and this is one of the few that do, that has to compete for quite a small audience of people easily distracted and hard to win over to bring here. Stories of silly stuff like that does not help.

[Veselka]

This is a strange hill to die on.

[Night Queen]

There's a bad impression of MUDs that people put silly game stuff as more important than the roleplay, this kind of thing is what makes that reputation and so makes it harder to persuade new people to try Armageddon, turning a blind eye to it doesn't help anyone. All these little things can build up to give a bad impression, this is just one thing, but it's one of the most obviously impossible bad RP examples

[cnemus]

Regarding the OP's original proposal:

My proposal is that carrying things in your direct 'inventory', especially if they're heavy, provides you a small combat or general roll malus with each item. Larger or more cumbersome things would give an even larger malus, dependant on weight.

As has already been pointed out, this is already the case:

It is already coded into the encumbrance stat.

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,31465.0.html

Despite this, the thread has made some additional suggestions and ideas. I support everyone who wishes to make them and personally ask myself how would any of these changes make the game better?

The story of the giant wielding a huge sword with a handle-less chest does not give new or potential new players a good impression, there's no justification for doing stuff like that, all it needs is a simple "Would someone consider this stupid/unrealistic seeing a character doing this or hearing they did this somehow". Shouldn't we all be on the same side on this?

What I love about roleplaying is stepping into a character, developing a personality, interacting with strange and different characters to create a shared narrative that I could never write alone. The characters of half-giants have many unique qualities, one of them as fantastically large, strong beings that can casually perform feats of strength that no normal human ever could. It is a wondrous part of the fantasy setting. I can respect that we see things differently, but just because we have a different point of view does not mean obviously bad Roleplay. I see this as an inherent part of their roleplay, so no, we shouldn't all be on the same side.

I don't personally think any of the suggested changes makes the game better, for playability OR roleplay. Keep things as they are is my vote.

[Night Queen]

perform feats of strength that no normal human ever could.

The issue isn't strength though, no one's saying characters shouldn't be able to carry heavy things?

The point is people are carrying items created as furniture, with carrying capacity and look descriptions that makes it clear these are things that can carry things much bigger than the arms of any character (even giants), and would need hands to hold them, and would would not make it possible IC to be running around also carrying another crate/weapons in an invisible set of third and fourth limbs.

It seems like it just reduces them to characters that not many people take seriously, but are grandfathered in from the older game before roleplay was more common. Saying this gamey cheesy behavior is meant as an inherent part of them just makes me wonder if they are beyond salvaging and should just not be player characters anymore (it'd probably increase RP for everyone else anyway since merchants would have to do more than have 1 "hunter giant" so much)

[Hestia]

Shabago never promised that I wouldn't lock a topic.

You all know better. Save the nastiness for the game. It doesn't belong here on the GDB.