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....