Posting this here as well so you guys can discuss the changes as you see them:
http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,31465.0.html
Please read the post before discussing it here.
Gooood.... With an extra two 'o's even.
I have a question. If it effects people negatively to be on the heavy side of the spectrum, will it be more positive to be extremely light in the same regard? Or will the "extremely light" emcumbrance remain the same as it is now, with no real penalty. (If I'm understanding how it works right now.)
To clarify: Will lighter loads be given a boost, or just no negative?
Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2008, 11:49:38 AM
Now I can has a coded, as well as IC reason to emote throwing a bag of glass and obsidian slag to someone before wailing on them. ;D
So, I assume that this is a viable method of twinkery (and an easy way to offload excess karma). :D
What about causing people to drop heavy items in inventory during combat?
If it's not already at the moment, (I've never looked into it...) it would be best to change the code so that you cannot accept items while in combat. Easy fix, if it doesn't completely eliminate the twinky example provided.
Quote from: Is Friday on July 02, 2008, 12:03:29 PM
If it's not already at the moment, (I've never looked into it...) it would be best to change the code so that you cannot accept items while in combat. Easy fix, if it doesn't completely eliminate the twinky example provided.
Give 'em the heavy bag
before wailing on them. ^^
I would formally complain to the imms so hard if someone twinked out like that on me. There is no option to refuse the "give" command. Please don't do this.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2008, 12:08:52 PM
Quote from: Is Friday on July 02, 2008, 12:03:29 PM
If it's not already at the moment, (I've never looked into it...) it would be best to change the code so that you cannot accept items while in combat. Easy fix, if it doesn't completely eliminate the twinky example provided.
Give 'em the heavy bag before wailing on them. ^^
I really hope there is some fix before idiots start doing this. Someone is going to.
As was brought up in the other thread.
Morg, will armor be re-balanced along with this change?
Quote from: X-D on July 02, 2008, 12:13:13 PM
I'm in total agreement with 7DV.
As it stands now we have a good balance in how much encumbrance affects combat compared to how much armor affects combat. IE, Armor does not take very much off damage right now so encumbrance should not and does not have a huge affect on combat (though it does have some affect, same as armor has some).
In summery. I am all for the change as long as armor is balanced right along with it. Otherwise I say leave it the way it is since a balance already exists by having it so neither of them have a massive affect.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on July 02, 2008, 11:58:35 AM
I am of a mixed mind. On one side, I don't mind that this is happening. But I think that there should be aspects to it. So you are faster and dodge more in light armor, but in heavy armor you should be slower and absorb WAY more damage. If you are wearing heavy armor, whether you are at manageable or not, that armor should be able to take more blows than the light armor, and -that- is a fix that should looked into.
I think heavy armor versus light armor should balance out, but in different ways. Because I have played a character that wore heavy armor, and this is going to suddenly make that character invalid, because he'll have lost those fights in armor that was manageable.
If the rate for armor-blocking goes up drastically for heavy armor, then I'll be down for it. If it does not, then I have to say that I wish that it hadn't gone in, because heavy armor doesn't absorb enough to make this change balanced. But what do I know? Maybe that character was the reason that Morg saw reason to change it.
Actually I think X-D and 7DV have an extremely good point. Depending on where the penalties begin for weight, and I believe they already started fairly low, the changes may just end up nerfing those that wear armor as opposed to the unarmored high agility types.
Due in part to the extreme cost and rarity of heavy armor, I'd hate to see this negatively impact it. I very much hope that the weight or damage absorption of armor was considered with regard to the changes and that any necessary adjustments have been made.
I don't think it would be a very good situation at all if there was a requirement of excellent or better strength to make silt horror plate worth wearing, that kind of change just leads to dissatisfaction with stats and makes certain roles in the game extremely difficult to play.
Edit: Trying to consolidate the discussion a bit.
Re: Twinkery & giving items to someone to 'weigh them down'
This will not be tolerated, if you see this happen, complain, please include logs. We will review the logs and then take appropriate removal of karma or banning (in extreme cases).
Re: Light encumbrance
The 'boost' you get for staying at light encumbrance is not getting a penalty. There's no other benefit.
Re: Armor balancing
There is a separate issue regarding the damage absorption of heavy armor vs. it's weight that may or may not be addressed.
I think I like the change, but my one concern would be that it seems to only increase the importance of strength. But other than that, I think moving toward more realistic penalties is probably a change for the better.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on July 02, 2008, 12:13:27 PM
I would formally complain to the imms so hard if someone twinked out like that on me. There is no option to refuse the "give" command. Please don't do this.
I completely agree. I would consider that to be an extreme form of code abuse. I would hope anyone who made a practice of that would be restricted from playing combat characters.
edit: whoops, didn't see Morg's post
I'd actually already (wrongly?) assumed that encumbrance would effect fighting and such. I like how much sense it makes. Overall, this game seems to make a lot of sense mechanically, and as a new player, I really appreciate that.
It effected fighting before. It will do so much more now.
Questions in my mind:
What weight do mounts max out at? I am hoping that it is at the modifier level, so that killing a person's heavily weighted down mount might be a more viable strategy in some cases than attacking the rider.
I've never been clear if the combat mods for group combat affected the chance to hit someone via throw or archery use. I would assume that if I can attack them and get great combat bonus's because of their weight, I can get sitting duck bonus's to my throw and archery chances vs them.
And...I want to see what getting a group combat bonus to a hidden backstab is going to look like. Ick. So its definately going to be an issue for everyone, not necessary just people ready to fight. heh.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on July 02, 2008, 02:03:06 PM
It effected fighting before. It will do so much more now.
I want to like this change, but I'm afraid it might unbalance things for the time being. I'll post my thoughts in the other thread.
Looks like it's going to suck harder than ever to play a warrior with 'below average' or 'poor' strength.
Heh. I'm glad I stored that guy. It was real pain, sometimes. "Erm, I'd love to wear another wrist-wrap, Sarge, but my back is killing me...?"
This change is very reasonable in terms of realism, but even further enhances the value of strength, which I think is a slightly over-favored stat.
As a possible work-around, in 2.Arm or otherwise–a 'heavy armor' skill which reduces your armor encumbrance by x% based on skill level might be useful, allowing warrior-types to train in the use of heavy armor and wear it better than inexperienced characters. Or well-crafted armor could have 'reduced encumbrance' properties–historical plate, for example, was very heavy but less encumbering than it could have been thanks to well-designed straps and such which distributed weight across the body. Or maybe high agility or endurance could reduce encumbrance to some degree.
To be clear, I'm still in favour of strength being the 'prime attribute' for toe-to-toe melee fighting. I don't want it to get to the point where it's the only stat that really matters, though.
Just a note, I assume everyone has done the math to realize this, but holding something in your inventory and wearing it provides two different encumbrance penalties. Because armor is designed to be worn, it is less encumbering to wear it than to carry it.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on July 02, 2008, 12:01:03 PM
Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2008, 11:49:38 AM
Now I can has a coded, as well as IC reason to emote throwing a bag of glass and obsidian slag to someone before wailing on them. ;D
So, I assume that this is a viable method of twinkery (and an easy way to offload excess karma). :D
What about causing people to drop heavy items in inventory during combat?
What about adding a notake toggleable flag to PCs? It'd work like this
"Rowdy" Roddy Piper tells you in English:
"Put on the glasses!"
>notake on
You are no longer accepting gives
>tell roddy
"No!"
"Rowdy" Roddy Piper tries to give you a pair of 80's sunglasses but you refuse.
It's always seemed kinda ridiculous to me that you will always take anything given to you. With the notake flag on, people could still give you things with the plant skill though.
Some people seem to be worried that heavy armor is now too ineffective while others seem to be worried that even more fighters will be favoring strength in the future. If heavy armor doesn't absorb enough damage to make it that worthwhile why would more people start picking strength as their highest priority to be able to wear it?
I like the change; I think it will encourage hunters, lumberjacks, miners, etc. to wear more realistic gear so they can appropriately deal with their haul.
Why don't we give it a good test-run?
Quote from: Tisiphone on July 02, 2008, 04:37:32 PM
Why don't we give it a good test-run?
We will. I am only speaking from experience about the lack of damage heavy armor absorbs. If heavy armor took as much damage as light armor, it would grow used and so forth at the same ratio, and probably faster. But it doesn't, and despite what Morg says, I am tempted to say that it's because it doesn't offer protection-for-weight on the same level that lighter armors do. Light armor always gets the used tag before heavy armor, exponentially.
Quote from: Zalanthan on July 02, 2008, 04:26:55 PM
Some people seem to be worried that heavy armor is now too ineffective while others seem to be worried that even more fighters will be favoring strength in the future. If heavy armor doesn't absorb enough damage to make it that worthwhile why would more people start picking strength as their highest priority to be able to wear it?
I like the change; I think it will encourage hunters, lumberjacks, miners, etc. to wear more realistic gear so they can appropriately deal with their haul.
I think the concern is that the change could create a situation where heavy armor is effective on high strength warriors, but worse than being naked for anyone else. Which would all but require that warriors have extremely high strength, especially in military clans where you may not be able to choose your armor according to your ooc min maxing of the combat code.
Honestly, I think the concern is that it makes heavy armor obsolete, frankly. You might be able to wear a suit of heavy armor as long as you have no pack, belts or anything else, not to mention the lack of protection-for-weight. And most characters do carry shit with them, so ...
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on July 02, 2008, 04:40:45 PM
Quote from: Tisiphone on July 02, 2008, 04:37:32 PM
Why don't we give it a good test-run?
We will. I am only speaking from experience about the lack of damage heavy armor absorbs. If heavy armor took as much damage as light armor, it would grow used and so forth at the same ratio, and probably faster. But it doesn't, and despite what Morg says, I am tempted to say that it's because it doesn't offer protection-for-weight on the same level that lighter armors do. Light armor always gets the used tag before heavy armor, exponentially.
Yeah, sorry, I noticed I've been snarky on the boards lately, and I'm trying to cut back. My question was meant more in the, "Hey, let's go do this because I'm curious and would like to give feedback to the staff, so maybe those of us who are in sparring positions should give it a good going through," rather than the, "Why don't you all shut up and test it before offering possible critiques," idiom.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on July 02, 2008, 04:40:45 PM
If heavy armor took as much damage as light armor, it would grow used and so forth at the same ratio, and probably faster. But it doesn't, and despite what Morg says, I am tempted to say that it's because it doesn't offer protection-for-weight on the same level that lighter armors do. Light armor always gets the used tag before heavy armor, exponentially.
I'm not that familiar with the in-game differences between armors but I would think light armor would start showing signs of wear and tear long before its heavier counterpart.
Agreed, but I doubt the current rate of wear is as correct as it should be. Which also means that I don't think that heavier armor absorbs as much as it should, or as often. Wearing heavy armor should make you hit less, dodge less, and use your armor more. With the new changes Morg's got in the mix, it better absorb more, or it'll become obsolete, particularly for humans.
And I like heavy armor, so I don't want it becoming obsolete.
To add to this, when I think about it: It's not that I don't like the change. I do, it's real. Here is the point. Encumberance should have nothing to do with whether my steel wyvren-etched helm absorbs blows or not. If I am standing stock still and am fully-plated, you should have to take a really good shot to even scratch me. By the same token, I should not be able to chase you to kingdom come. What I am saying is that I want the options to wander about with heavy but managable encumberance, shrugging off blows and sweeping my maul in true golem fashion, or to dance about in no armor and sting and slap and whittle away at my foe's defense. Yes, there should be massive differences in fighting styles, but not in balance. If my hands are empty or nearly empty when I am at heavy emcumbrance, then I should be able to function just fine, just slower, with my armor taking more blows.
And I shouldn't be able to go for RL years without ever having to repair my armor, heavy or not.
I was a little concerned about the further advantage to half-giants and their ilk, who can pack a wagon in their pack and still walk around just fine. However, the change to tailoring has relieved that. Once everyone has tailored their garmet, at least.
I do wonder about NPCs though. Not only the obvious "give back full of heavy stuff; kill NPC" thing, which could be solved by not having NPCs accept items unless a person commands them, or only accepting up to a certain weight, but also if NPCs have stuff loaded on them with this in mind. That fully horror plate armored, low strength House guard now might be about as effective as a gimpka rat.
And last time I used heavy armor, 7DV, a year or two ago, it absorbed a lot. A lot. So I guess my experience varies from yours.
Quote from: Twilight on July 02, 2008, 05:04:30 PM
I was a little concerned about the further advantage to half-giants and their ilk, who can pack a wagon in their pack and still walk around just fine. However, the change to tailoring has relieved that. Once everyone has tailored their garmet, at least.
I do wonder about NPCs though. Not only the obvious "give back full of heavy stuff; kill NPC" thing, which could be solved by not having NPCs accept items unless a person commands them, or only accepting up to a certain weight, but also if NPCs have stuff loaded on them with this in mind. That fully horror plate armored, low strength House guard now might be about as effective as a gimpka rat.
Oh, now I feel bad about that poor mul who's carrying a whole bunch of large obsidian chunks somewhere in 'Nak, heh :)
Quote from: Twilight on July 02, 2008, 05:04:30 PM
And last time I used heavy armor, 7DV, a year or two ago, it absorbed a lot. A lot. So I guess my experience varies from yours.
*sigh* Alright, fine. I drop my argument. Maybe it is just me.
Sorry, Morg. Thanks for the change.
I really doubt that we'll see a buncha people handing crap to NPCs so that they can kill them. I mean, really ... have a bit of faith.
> l in sack
many large unworked chunks of obsidian
em Flinging ~sack at %man chest, @ takes a flying leap at ^man, growling with a deep, seething bloodlust.
>give sack man; kill man
CAN I PLEASE?
No, because you used an emote instead of a command emote, and that's just lame.
Your FACE is lame.
Oooo. Better put some ice on that burn.
Quote from: manonfire on July 02, 2008, 06:11:02 PM
> l in sack
many large unworked chunks of obsidian
em Flinging ~sack at %man chest, @ takes a flying leap at ^man, growling with a deep, seething bloodlust.
>give sack man; kill man
CAN I PLEASE?
Awesome, but he doesn't get a chance to make a save roll and get out of the way.
So no.
Oh well.
/pines for the days of the subdue/draw bug
Wow. This sucks for desert elves.
*Sigh*
"Better start peelin' off them clothes, sharpie!"
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on July 02, 2008, 05:10:54 PM
*sigh* Alright, fine. I drop my argument. Maybe it is just me.
You're not alone, and no, it's not just you.
Quote from: Gunnerblaster on July 02, 2008, 06:31:25 PM
Wow. This sucks for desert elves.
I don't think that
desert elves are supposed to be wearing heavy armor, anyway..
Quote from: Malken on July 02, 2008, 06:46:27 PM
Quote from: Gunnerblaster on July 02, 2008, 06:31:25 PM
Wow. This sucks for desert elves.
I don't think that desert elves are supposed to be wearing heavy armor, anyway..
Poor strength = Tunic = Tunic heavy.
T.T
I don't want to see this change make all warriors be copies with max strenght all wearing light armor to be as lightly encumbered as possible.
I'd rather have it be viable to fight heavily encumbered, if the armor was good enough, etc.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on July 02, 2008, 04:44:53 PM
Honestly, I think the concern is that it makes heavy armor obsolete, frankly. You might be able to wear a suit of heavy armor as long as you have no pack, belts or anything else, not to mention the lack of protection-for-weight. And most characters do carry shit with them, so ...
I agree. And this makes me very sad.
I'm willing to take up the arguement 7DV.
My experiance on armors is the same as 7DV, the answer somebody else gave "heavy armor absorbes alot" is subjective at best. A lot could be 4 points instead of the two that the sandcloth takes. Before this change the amount of damage heavy armor prevented verses weight/enc penalty was marginal at best. Now, if you put in code that means you fight even 10% worse then you did before you have swung the balance and it is no longer worthwhile to wear heavy armor unless your PC is SILLY strong, and even then probobly not. The current difference in light leathers and sandcloth armors compared to heavy shell/chitin armors is rather small in my book. I also agree that since it is a fantesy game, I to also want the warrior that moves like a tank through a bunch of bow wielding halflings AND the nimble warrior able to dance his way around the tank...And everything in between.
A couple of suggestions:
> I would consider having one's encumbrance determined by a combination of strength, agility, and endurance because they can all play a part in one's ability to maintain a high level of fitness while loaded down with gear. This would not only help to balance out the races and classes that don't have a lot of arm strength, but may have a lot of physical conditioning, it would also keep fighters from feeling the need to always pick strength first simply to be viable in combat wearing anything more than a few leathers.
> While probably impractical for Arm 1.0, I think this would be a perfect example of where PC armor crafter roles could really clean house. Amateurs might be able to grab a heavy piece of shell or thick length of chitin and throw a couple straps on there, but real artisan crafters that could take an extremely protective material and create pieces of lightweight armor would become highly prized and sought after, especially since there's usually not a shortage of new blood in need of fine armor.
Just a couple of ideas.
-LoD
I can't say I look forward to this. My experience with the human range of strength is that at normal strength, a well-equipped hunter will only be able to wear a mix of sandcloth and leather. Is that the way it should be? I dunno. If that hunter is lightly armed and has a tent, then there can't be any hunting done, because the weight limit is just about reached.
One thing that might help, though, is the ability to offload some weight during combat, and this could be done in two ways :
1. Allow people to remove items while in combat. I honestly don't know why this is the way it is, which makes me wary of changing it.
2. Allow greater loads to be carried in the hands. This is very limited currently what with the weight limits directly relating to weapons and shields, but it would be great if containers and the like could be evaluated separately or just by their size, as in too big to hold with one hand or even two. With that, I can have my character carry a bag in his off hand and be armed in the other. Just for flavor, I'd say he'd slung the bag over his shoulder. If he's attacked, he just drops it and proceeds into combat.
Quote from: LoD on July 02, 2008, 07:03:01 PM
> I would consider having one's encumbrance determined by a combination of strength, agility, and endurance because they can all play a part in one's ability to maintain a high level of fitness while loaded down with gear. This would not only help to balance out the races and classes that don't have a lot of arm strength, but may have a lot of physical conditioning, it would also keep fighters from feeling the need to always pick strength first simply to be viable in combat wearing anything more than a few leathers.
> While probably impractical for Arm 1.0, I think this would be a perfect example of where PC armor crafter roles could really clean house. Amateurs might be able to grab a heavy piece of shell or thick length of chitin and throw a couple straps on there, but real artisan crafters that could take an extremely protective material and create pieces of lightweight armor would become highly prized and sought after, especially since there's usually not a shortage of new blood in need of fine armor.
Yes to the first, agree it's impractical for arm 1.0 for the second.
I like the code change, but don't want it to negatively affect the way people play warriors.
Hunters, out in the scorching desert, should favor sandcloth and leather anyway....
That part I like and agree with. Down with plate armor in the desert.
Quote from: a strange shadow on July 02, 2008, 07:16:36 PM
That part I like and agree with. Down with plate armor in the desert.
I'l agree with that, or rather, I'll agree with that in the sense of travelling in it.
I think it might be a good idea...
perhaps...
to have the guild warrior get some bonus or skill or something coded, to help them with heavy armours.
Just an idea.
No, I don't like that so much. No skills ... just realistic counter-balancing of options is all I ask. I say no skill because there are non-combative classes that do combative things and serve in certian ways so as to need armors for certian things.
I think the code change will turn out to be a positive addition to the game.
I believe that most people can still wear heavy armor without reaching the heavy encumberence level provided they don't try to put everything including the kitchen sink into their backpack and wander around with it all for days on end.
I think career soldiers should find the only real difference is that they have to remember to leave their excess junk at home when they go fighting.
As for hunters and the like, I always found it a little jarring for a "hunter" to be out "hunting" in a full suit of chitin armor with a kite shield and a bone-bladed bastard sword anyway. If this code change means that more outdoor-types will start wearing lighter armor because they'll know that they're going to get burdened down with pelts/bones/meat/ect ... I look at that as a positive change!
Per the tents the thing, I've never had a tent with any of my characters, but ... when I play rangers, they tend to carry a lot of extra equipment (like climbing gear, extra bandages, extra arrows above what would fit in their quiver, torches, extra water, ect ect) and to avoid having that burden the character down, I always just packed it onto his mount. They even sell saddlebags in-game so ... why not just do the same thing with a tent and you wouldn't have to worry?
I think moreso, 7DV, you'll see less people bulking up in terms of heavy armor unless they actually have the strength to support it.
No more decking out in silt-horror plate. This has been an issue (albeit a minor one) for awhile. A lot of people would simply load up on armor they knew absorbed a lot, encumber themselves, then ride mounted into combat to dismount there. While I am in agreement with you in that some things will definitely be out of whack for a bit, I don't particularly like seeing heavy...HEAVY armor used that much in a desert world. Travel light.
Bah. If he rides out to battle, dismounts, and fights in heavy armor, I don't see why it matters. Trust me, Armaddict (and you should know to do this), horror-plate already takes a shitload off one of your stats. Seriously. If I chose to pay for it and be restricted in a stat, why should I suddenly be unable to ... bah.
This desert world crap gets on my nerves sometimes because we can't grasp the fantasy part of it. If you really wanna be real about it, make it so that heavy armor does nothing but get you killed unless you happen to be mounted. Knights, the only soldiers to wear heavy armor, were mounted. When and if they got dismounted, they tended to die. So heavy armor footsoldiers didn't even exist in the real world.
But in fantasy, heavy armor is cool as fuck. You get to have all sorts of baroque crap and spikes and all sorts of gigs. I like fantasy, and I like the idea that I can be whatever I wanna be, including a slow-ass footsoldier in steel plate, if I wanna be.
Nonetheless, I think I should say this.
As with every code change in the world that I don't agree upon, I'll roll with it and adapt, because Zalanthas naked is cooler than SoI in elite gear.
Hopefully, one cool by-product of this is that you will see desert elves actually using mounts as pack animals. Since they wouldn't need to mount them at all now. And I want the chance to steal a few back.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on July 02, 2008, 07:27:45 PM
No, I don't like that so much. No skills ... just realistic counter-balancing of options is all I ask. I say no skill because there are non-combative classes that do combative things and serve in certian ways so as to need armors for certian things.
I always think that warriors should be the only people to be able to wear plate mail... right?
Just like in World of Warcraft. They should know how to fight with heavy armours.
Quote from: Morgenes on July 02, 2008, 01:00:32 PM
Re: Twinkery & giving items to someone to 'weigh them down'
This will not be tolerated, if you see this happen, complain, please include logs. We will review the logs and then take appropriate removal of karma or banning (in extreme cases).
Re: Light encumbrance
The 'boost' you get for staying at light encumbrance is not getting a penalty. There's no other benefit.
Re: Armor balancing
There is a separate issue regarding the damage absorption of heavy armor vs. it's weight that may or may not be addressed.
-There was once a time when twinkery this pc-deadly and this easy to pull off was restricted by simply making it codedly impossible rather than wagging the finger.
-I want to encourage reconsidering the idea of very very low encumbrance actually granting a bonus, based not on realism but the concept of a 'standard encounter,' that average roll results for Average Fighter X vs Average Monster Y assume that Fighter X is armed, healthy, alert, on his feet, two eyes, two legs, etc, all the way down to 'carrying the average amount of junk'.
-The benefits of utilizing cumbersome gear have to go hand in hand with the penalties. To make them separate issues makes them broken.
Quote from: mansa on July 03, 2008, 11:30:05 PM
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on July 02, 2008, 07:27:45 PM
No, I don't like that so much. No skills ... just realistic counter-balancing of options is all I ask. I say no skill because there are non-combative classes that do combative things and serve in certian ways so as to need armors for certian things.
I always think that warriors should be the only people to be able to wear plate mail... right?
Just like in World of Warcraft. They should know how to fight with heavy armours.
We are not WOW. I would actually probably become angry if warriors gained a skill letting them use heavy armor better, and I play warriors faithfully. Why should an assassin not be able to wear heavy armor if they want to, and gain the same benefit from it as a warrior? There is no reason at all, if that assassin feels like serving in a combative position that he needs protection in. No. I just want to see heavy armor do heavy armor work, that is all. Suck up blows. That is what it is there for.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on July 04, 2008, 12:45:09 AM
Quote from: mansa on July 03, 2008, 11:30:05 PM
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on July 02, 2008, 07:27:45 PM
No, I don't like that so much. No skills ... just realistic counter-balancing of options is all I ask. I say no skill because there are non-combative classes that do combative things and serve in certian ways so as to need armors for certian things.
I always think that warriors should be the only people to be able to wear plate mail... right?
Just like in World of Warcraft. They should know how to fight with heavy armours.
We are not WOW. I would actually probably become angry if warriors gained a skill letting them use heavy armor better, and I play warriors faithfully. Why should an assassin not be able to wear heavy armor if they want to, and gain the same benefit from it as a warrior? There is no reason at all, if that assassin feels like serving in a combative position that he needs protection in. No. I just want to see heavy armor do heavy armor work, that is all. Suck up blows. That is what it is there for.
You're shifting the idea from a guild_based game into a skill_based game. Why can't warriors backstab or assassins quit in the wilderness? They don't, and they probably won't in the future.
Armageddon is a game based around a guild that you pick. Warriors are the tanks and Assassins are the Damage Dealers.
If Dungeons and Dragons can revise their core rules to treat it more like World of Warcraft, I'm sure we can also pick and choose some things from that very successful game and implement it into our game.
I'm thinking that instead of a -30% to your fighting skills when wearing PLATE_MAIL, GUILD_Warrior should be able to get a -15% to your fighting skills. Or, at least some skill that allows you to do so, perhaps branchable in the future. I'm not saying to remove the negatives... just make the negatives less.
Hrm.
I don't know now. S'a good point.
Warriors already have the ability to specialize in a certain weapon style, mastering the style beyond any other guild.
Why not allow them to specialize in a certain armour style/type as well? This would of course require that armour skills be put in the game. These skills shouldn't be restricted to warriors, just as the weapon skills are not restricted to warriors. But again, warriors should be able to master them beyond the abilities of any other guild, being the premier combat guild.
Benefits to skill in using your armour? Reduced encumbrance penalty, reduced chance of armour sustaining damage (the whole armour damage system would need to be fixed first) and perhaps an increased chance to absorb/deflect blows.
Honestly, did we really need another reason to prioritize strength first?
I've already ranted at length about this, so I'll just throw out some sarcasm:
Now we have a valid reason for explaining why there are no elves in 2.0: everyone stopped playing them in 1.0.
Eh, I do agree that there has been a bit more emphasis placed on strength than other stats. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't strength determine if you hit an opponent? i.e. the stronger you are, the more likely you will hit your opponent? I could very well be wrong, but in any case, placing such a heavy emphasis on strength does severely limit the capabilities of elves. One could argue that the elves could balance things out by using their speed and light enc. to combat the brute strength of a heavily armored warrior, but everyone knows that armor is much too important.
I've tried the whole "elven savage who only wears a loincloth and warpaint" before. It doesn't work.
Eh, well...back in the old days before the defense nerf, I had a d-elf warrior who ran around with nothing but a loincloth and a tattoo on every location, and he could whoop the pants off of anything, using only a single chipped, obsidian dagger in his secondary hand.
I even got a funny account note for it: "...has an insanely high offense...does anyone know how this happened?"
Then again, d-elves don't really play by the same rules as city elves, do they?
Jesus..
Quote from: Lakota on July 04, 2008, 03:55:29 AM
I could very well be wrong, but in any case, placing such a heavy emphasis on strength does severely limit the capabilities of elves. One could argue that the elves could balance things out by using their speed and light enc. to combat the brute strength of a heavily armored warrior, but everyone knows that armor is much too important.
I've tried the whole "elven savage who only wears a loincloth and warpaint" before. It doesn't work.
Strong beats weak in a typical fight. That's the way real life works. Even if the weaker has an edge in skill, all the stronger one needs to do is wear the other out. There isn't all that much that can be done unless an opportunity presents itself. Then there's the fact the stronger can wear heavier armor, which means less opportunities will present themselves. Now the weaker will have to rely on hit and run tactics and superior numbers. That takes organization, which is hard to come by.
By the way, anyone who runs around in just a loincloth should expect to be mostly useless in a straight fight.
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. Likewise will armor be made lighter or be more effective? For those characters that would like to wear or need to wear heavy armors all I see this doing is negating the need to even wear the armor if it is just going to make you lose.
Warriors seem to constantly be taking hits, they already do not have many skills and I see code constantly adding negatives to fighting capabilities. Kicks can be blocked now, their skills leech off their stamina, and now wearing armor will weigh them down in the only thing they're particularly good at - combat. It seems to negate entirely the former appeal in having your warrior be more likely to focus on good armors that are typically somewhat weighty.
Not to mention I won't go into to much IC info, but what about the additional weight of projectiles?
Before where I would think a warrior or fighter capable of armoring themselves at an advantage, now I can seem the advantage totally going to the newb kid in his sandcloths. :S
That is from the other thread as I did not see this one.
And to whoever said, well warriors easily get better at combat than other people, is wrong, wrong, wrong. Warriors are falliable in so many ways, and I have seen a lot of other guilds get just as good as warriors. Their ONLY capability is really in combat and now that is getting curved again. Warriors are becoming more and more ineffective. And elves ... ouch I don't even want to think about that.
I really think armor should be more effective in blocking blows....
I can assure you, the difference between wearing armor and not wearing armor in a fight, is very very small, so much that you will hardly even notice.
I have this new idea. Instead of complaining about this code that Morgenes took time out of his schedule to implement for us that -probably- wasn't just a rash decision... why don't we accept that it was done, and cry "Reboot" so I can leave this cave and venture into a world devoid of lashing storms?
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.
Quote from: Morgenes in the announcementNote to all of you who have been going around at 'heavy, but manageable' or higher encumbrance and fighting.
I think this is the reason why these changes fail to alarm me so much.
I've played some pretty low-strength characters, but never have I had a character weak enough that armour
on the necessary places and cloth/light leather everywhere else put my PC at 'heavy, but manageable' or higher.
Sure, like Seph says, I had to ditch the backpack full of crap, the 18-stone plated gurth shell sleeves, and the 12-stone boots that held three knives, but it was plenty easy to keep that character's encumbrance down and still have midweight-to-heavy armour over the vital bits.
I've always kept around...
Your encumbrance is no problem
or
Your encumbrance is light
I do not see having any problems with this new change for my warriors/rangers.
I've had warriors with exceptional strength, wearing some of the lighest leathers he could find. Black stuff, from salarri. Was fun.
I agree with Seph, and that's what I was getting at with my first post.
People encumber themselves way too much on purpose as is. "No, I'm still at heavy, but manageable. I can still move without penalty, I'm fine." "No, I'm at very heavy, but I'm going to be riding someplace."
People will actually have to be frugal when traveling or going into combat about what they bring, now. And hello pack animals.
I'll admit, my primary concern with this is that it does create more realism. What's wrong with that? It means that sometimes, certain things can't be done. 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. Expeditions into the wilderness will be even more limited on account that more people will be packing vital supplies on their mount. That can constitute a harsh limit to mobility in various situations. You'll get more situations where people have to turn around and not do something fun because of weight limits. This includes the phenomenon of putting people to menial tasks where they won't be able to dive into into the action along with everyone else.
Quote from: Dalmeth on July 04, 2008, 04:12:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Sephiroto on July 04, 2008, 03:03:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Desertman on July 04, 2008, 04:45:39 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: NoteworthyFellow on July 04, 2008, 06:15:32 PM
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.
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
Quote from: NoteworthyFellow on July 04, 2008, 06:15:32 PM
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.
Quote from: Dalmeth on July 04, 2008, 06:30:19 PM
Quote from: NoteworthyFellow on July 04, 2008, 06:15:32 PM
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.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on July 04, 2008, 05:01:03 PM
Quote from: Desertman on July 04, 2008, 04:45:39 PM
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..
(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
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.
Quote from: Good Gortok on July 04, 2008, 08:52:00 PM
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?
Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 04, 2008, 09:10:44 PM
Quote from: Good Gortok on July 04, 2008, 08:52:00 PM
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.
Just out of curiosity, has this change gone through yet?
QuoteHow 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
Quote from: Good Gortok on July 05, 2008, 01:54:26 AM
QuoteHow 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!" :D
Quote from: Armaddict on July 04, 2008, 09:06:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Bebop on July 04, 2008, 10:49:50 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Sephiroto on July 04, 2008, 04:42:31 PMAlso, 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.
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.
Quote from: Sephiroto on July 04, 2008, 04:42:31 PM
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.
Intuitive Apathy posted:
QuoteWarriors
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.
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?
Quote from: Lizzie on July 06, 2008, 12:01:57 PM
Intuitive Apathy posted:
QuoteWarriors
Defense > 60 Branch: light armour use, medium armour use, heavy armour use (all caps 100)
Rangers
Defense > 60 Branch: light armour use, medium armour use (all caps 60)
Assassins
Defense > 60 Branch: light armour use (all caps 40)
I like the skills, but I'd do it a little differntly..
Warriors
Defense > 60 Branch: light armour use, medium armour use, heavy armour use (all caps 100), longer delay in getting back up when falling as a result of failed bash, charge, etc.
Rangers
Defense > 60 Branch: light armour use - 60, medium armor 80, heavy armor 40 with all stealth skills netted down to 0 (possible succeed, likely fail)
Assassins
Defense > 60 Branch: light armour use 80, medium armor 60, heavy armor, shifts ALL stealth skills to a net of -10 (no way in hell will you succeed), and provides 40 to all other defense.
Edited to turn =10 to -10 which is negative ten, not just a dash.
If we did somethign like this. I would have to say Liz's idea is best. Why?
Because then I can still wear all the damn armor types and not be like fricken a MMO where I see red letters if I can't use something because guild.
Guild really has nothing to do with RP. Hell! I did Warriors as merchants, merchants as hunters, assassins as medics, etc..
I WOULD UTTERLY HATE TO SEE CLASS RESTRICTED ARMORS!!
>:( I have said my peace. Good day. I said GOOD DAY!
I'm not all that big on class restrictions, but then again, I'm not all that big on classes. But this game -does- have classes, and so it needs to have benefits and limitations for each. That's just the nature of the code. If they all could do the same things, there wouldn't be classes at all. So to me, the classes are more "potentials" or "capacities."
A warrior class character has the *potential* through a certain combination of strength, agility, wisdom, endurance, and desire (the player's goals) to be really good at THOSE skills.
A ranger class character has the *potential* through a _different_ combination of code and RP'ed desire to be good at THESE skills.
And so on and so forth. It's just the things the player has determined that his character is *most likely* to be any good at.
It would be neat if rangers were better at lugging desert gear than warriors. i.e. get less encumbered by light leathers and tent, rope, etc when out in the wilds. Whereas a warrior would be less encumbered than the same ranger lugging around in heavier armor and a few weapons.
Quote from: BlackMagic0 on July 06, 2008, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Lizzie on July 06, 2008, 12:01:57 PM
Intuitive Apathy posted:
QuoteWarriors
Defense > 60 Branch: light armour use, medium armour use, heavy armour use (all caps 100)
Rangers
Defense > 60 Branch: light armour use, medium armour use (all caps 60)
Assassins
Defense > 60 Branch: light armour use (all caps 40)
I like the skills, but I'd do it a little differntly..
Warriors
Defense > 60 Branch: light armour use, medium armour use, heavy armour use (all caps 100), longer delay in getting back up when falling as a result of failed bash, charge, etc.
Rangers
Defense > 60 Branch: light armour use - 60, medium armor 80, heavy armor 40 with all stealth skills netted down to 0 (possible succeed, likely fail)
Assassins
Defense > 60 Branch: light armour use 80, medium armor 60, heavy armor, shifts ALL stealth skills to a net of -10 (no way in hell will you succeed), and provides 40 to all other defense.
Edited to turn =10 to -10 which is negative ten, not just a dash.
If we did somethign like this. I would have to say Liz's idea is best. Why?
Because then I can still wear all the damn armor types and not be like fricken a MMO where I see red letters if I can't use something because guild.
Guild really has nothing to do with RP. Hell! I did Warriors as merchants, merchants as hunters, assassins as medics, etc..
I WOULD UTTERLY HATE TO SEE CLASS RESTRICTED ARMORS!!
>:( I have said my peace. Good day. I said GOOD DAY!
I'd hate to see guild restrictions on armour too.
Going with my example, just because you don't have the advanced skill in that armour type doesn't mean you can't strap it on. It just means that warrior next to you probably knows how to get around/fight in/whatever better in it.
For instance, a skill of 100 in 'heavy armour use' might grant your character a reduction of 15% in the encumbrance penalty applied beyond 'heavy, but manageable'. Your assassin might strap that obsidian breastplate on too, but you'd get hit with the full encumbrance penalty.
Anyway, just an example.. there's plenty of ways armour skills could be put in.
I'm starting to come around to armor skills - I get the point. It even makes sense. But as long as I would never see 'You do not know how to use that armor' when I try to strap a silt-horror nut-cup on my bare-fist champion merchant, I'm ok with it.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on July 06, 2008, 08:37:12 PM
I'm starting to come around to armor skills - I get the point. It even makes sense. But as long as I would never see 'You do not know how to use that armor' when I try to strap a silt-horror nut-cup on my bare-fist champion merchant, I'm ok with it.
Yeah, I'm not even close to arguing for certain guilds being completely unable to wear certain types of armor. It's not about being able or unable to use armor, it's just about varying degrees of proficiency with moving in those armors. Like I said before, I don't care how strong you are, plate mail will take some getting-used-to before you can fight in it really effectively.
Dig.
Err, that's trademarked.
Underdug.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on July 06, 2008, 08:37:12 PM
I'm starting to come around to armor skills - I get the point. It even makes sense. But as long as I would never see 'You do not know how to use that armor' when I try to strap a silt-horror nut-cup on my bare-fist champion merchant, I'm ok with it.
I don't want to see that either. All I want to see is a potential "Less Restrictive" skill to armours. So, if you're wearing plate armour, you get -30% or whatnot. If you got plate armour skill, you get 0%. Or potentially +10%.
You understand what I'm thinking?
I understand Mansa, and I'm Lovin' it.
All this armor skill/less restrictive/bonus-giving/penalty-inducing/yadda yadda fucking nonsense is making my head spin. I love picking apart code and all that shit, but the last couple of pages here have gone off the deep end.
Just keep it simple, like it is.
I don't really see a need for armor skills. Has it ever been asked for before this encumbrance change went in? Many characters are already limited in what armor they can favorably use anyway, seeing as certain skills become much less effective in heavy armor. While one could argue that the amount of protection that armor provides is at times insufficient, I never felt it should be guild-related in any way.
I don't think an armour skill is necessary because:
1. Rogue classes + rangers lose stealth skills by wearing heavy armour anyways. This is a big enough incentive not to wear it. This leaves merchants and magickers who suck so bad anyways it doesn't matter.
2. There's already a big enough gap between beginning and experienced characters, why make it wider?
3. With the new encumberance code it covers it well just by taking into account how physically capable your character is walking around with heavy shit. Turning it into a skill would just lead to elves and humans with silt horror armor and HG's with nothing because they can't learn anything.
Not really the encumbrance topic... but since were talking about armor skills...
Im definetely opposed to restrictions... but bonuses work great.
Like you can wear whatever you want, but certain guilds can utilize armors better then others.
Just a note, the changes to encumbrance have still not gone live. We should do a weekly maintenance this Wednesday and bring it in.
People have expressed worry at possible twinking once these changes go into effect, with players burdening their adversaries with items before attacking.
Someone may have already suggested it, but how about we have a toggle where one can explicitly note in the code whether they are accepting/not accepting items?
> plant boulder man
;D
But yeah, why not.
A toggle is fine, but it shouldn't get rid of the main problem, which is 'planting' items on people. If you 'give' me something, I can just drop it and proceed to kick your ass with a minor inconvenience.
However, the toggle shouldn't take 'plant' into account purely BECAUSE 'plant' is giving something to someone without knowledge or consent.
I would think plant goes through the same checks and saves as steal, right?
And just as it is MUCH harder to steal large objects from someone than it is to steal light things, then it should be MUCH harder to plant large objects than small ones....
Now if someone is content with weighing you down with baby tregil kneecaps, then I suppose there is a small problem there. But it's a problem I don't really even see being much of a problem because there's a big chance of getting caught.
Qzzrbl, I believe you're correct, but a direct 'accepting/not accepting items' toggle would have unrealistic behaviour with regard to plant.
I really, really think that you guys might be just a tad paranoid. I have never seen abuse like this. S'not to say it couldn't happen or even doesn't. It's to say, it's not that likely.
In a slightly tangential discussion, I'd prefer not to be able to give something over a certain weight (or bulk) to someone in a fight. That wouldn't solve these proposed problems, though.
7DV, I agree that these eventualities are very unlikely to happen, but I find that paranoia in coding is a good thing.
My main concern with a flag to say 'don't accept gives' is you'll have to remember to toggle it on and off when you do want someone to give you something. And even then, you will have to toggle it off, let someone give to you, then toggle it back on, leaving yourself open to gives for awhile.
I'm not sure what the best answer is. I certainly understand the concern/fear involved, and I'm more than happy to try and work something, but I want it to not cause more problems.
Quote from: Morgenes on July 08, 2008, 03:59:03 PM
I'm not sure what the best answer is. I certainly understand the concern/fear involved, and I'm more than happy to try and work something, but I want it to not cause more problems.
Suggestion: drop heavy stuff in your inventory when attacked.
Suggestion 2: heavy containers containing liquid should spill. :D
Quote from: brytta.leofa on July 08, 2008, 04:03:35 PM
Suggestion: drop heavy stuff in your inventory when attacked.
I actually think this is the best idea.
After thinking about this for a while, I'd say that it should probably just be left alone. There's really nothing that unrealistic about someone shoving something in your arms and then bashing your face in. Heh. Let them do it if they can. Just like anything else, you have to be ready for stuff like that. Think fast and drop the object and regain your senses/balance. Like if you are resting or sleeping or whatever, you can't toggle on a "wait-until-i-get-up-first" thing. Just hurry up and stand up yourself and draw your weapons to defend yourself or run. Yeah, it sucks if it happens, but that's Arm.
I can visualize someone slamming a large object into the chest of their victim and then drawing a weapon and laying it on them... so I would actually have to say it would be dumb for someone to get in trouble if that happened unless they were going around and handing heavy bags of junk to NPC's and slaying them over and over again or something equally silly. On the other hand, I would probably expect that an emote would be required to do something like that... emote hefting it violently against your chest, handing you the object, and then drawing weapons... I wouldn't complain if it happened to me. I'd be ticked off, but it wouldn't be the first time... heh.
Why not have the person giving something heavy over, considering they would be doing so quickly, end up -so- off balanced that they are a sitting duck for any retaliation, have it triggered by giving the object and then engaging in combat, or while being in combat. Sort of like if you're brained and you get sent reeling, you're stuck there for a moment getting pummeled. After that initial moment off balance, you can recover, but potentially with some abuse on you.
Just a thought.
Ok, hold on, I think this deserves a poll.
Quote from: Furious George on July 08, 2008, 04:18:27 PM
Why not have the person giving something heavy over,
A little post-command delay for
give? That would help PCs out.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on July 08, 2008, 04:21:22 PM
Quote from: Furious George on July 08, 2008, 04:18:27 PM
Why not have the person giving something heavy over,
A little post-command delay for give? That would help PCs out.
Thing is, you don't want a delay for -everything- you're giving over in just any setting...buying armor, giving coins, whatever. Though, it probably wouldn't matter all that much.
As for nogive...I can imagine the sneaky bastards who enjoy the plant function will rise up and begin throwing things.
Quote from: Tisiphone on July 08, 2008, 02:39:00 PM
Qzzrbl, I believe you're correct, but a direct 'accepting/not accepting items' toggle would have unrealistic behaviour with regard to plant.
Yeah, so long as nogive leaves plant alone, I'd be cool with it.
I'd be pissed if I tried to plant some spice on someone outside of the 'Nakki gates so I can run off with their expensive mount, and got shut down because of nogive. >:(
Just got my account approved, and feel the need to chime in.
I study SCA combat, and have for almost a decade. While I do live in California, we have three hours practices all the time, and eight hour fighting events in 60-100 pounds of gear. I've fought in Florida in the summer, and Arizona in the spring as well, and while you wanted to wear less at times due to heat, if you stayed hydrated, you could suck up the discomfort and fight all day.
In terms of code, I'd like to see fitted armor be considered to weigh some fraction of its weight when worn. Its easier for me to wear my gear off the field and hike to the truck than to carry it around in rucksacks.
Both SCA fighting and in the other style I train in, the ability to stop a full speed, full power blow is expected of most students. This allows training without armor in one form, and allows novices to train without masters without injury. Its mostly a matter of learning how to end the blow at the skin rather than one, three or six inches past the point of contact. The development of the skill is a stepping stone towards other edge control and attack skill concepts that are necessary.
Quote from: Halcyon on July 08, 2008, 08:58:48 PM
Just got my account approved, and feel the need to chime in.
I study SCA combat, and have for almost a decade. While I do live in California, we have three hours practices all the time, and eight hour fighting events in 60-100 pounds of gear. I've fought in Florida in the summer, and Arizona in the spring as well, and while you wanted to wear less at times due to heat, if you stayed hydrated, you could suck up the discomfort and fight all day.
In terms of code, I'd like to see fitted armor be considered to weigh some fraction of its weight when worn. Its easier for me to wear my gear off the field and hike to the truck than to carry it around in rucksacks.
Welcome aboard. You will find that what you expect is so. Armor that is worn encumbers you a fraction of what it would in your inventory.
Derail approaching!
Quote from: Halcyon on July 08, 2008, 08:58:48 PM
Just got my account approved, and feel the need to chime in.
I study SCA combat, and have for almost a decade. While I do live in California, we have three hours practices all the time, and eight hour fighting events in 60-100 pounds of gear. I've fought in Florida in the summer, and Arizona in the spring as well, and while you wanted to wear less at times due to heat, if you stayed hydrated, you could suck up the discomfort and fight all day.
In terms of code, I'd like to see fitted armor be considered to weigh some fraction of its weight when worn. Its easier for me to wear my gear off the field and hike to the truck than to carry it around in rucksacks.
Both SCA fighting and in the other style I train in, the ability to stop a full speed, full power blow is expected of most students. This allows training without armor in one form, and allows novices to train without masters without injury. Its mostly a matter of learning how to end the blow at the skin rather than one, three or six inches past the point of contact. The development of the skill is a stepping stone towards other edge control and attack skill concepts that are necessary.
I had never heard of SCA combat... so I looked it up. Thank you YouTube. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQjh8EQ5h40) So it's kinda like LARPing? But more... intense or realistic or something?
Quote from: Winterless on July 08, 2008, 09:56:23 PM
I had never heard of SCA combat... so I looked it up. Thank you YouTube. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQjh8EQ5h40) So it's kinda like LARPing? But more... intense or realistic or something?
It looks like the same spirit as civil war reenactment (except focused on medieval wars) mixed with competitive sport.
Quote from: Dalmeth on July 08, 2008, 10:40:54 PM
Quote from: Winterless on July 08, 2008, 09:56:23 PM
I had never heard of SCA combat... so I looked it up. Thank you YouTube. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQjh8EQ5h40) So it's kinda like LARPing? But more... intense or realistic or something?
It looks like the same spirit as civil war reenactment (except focused on medieval wars) mixed with competitive sport.
Bingo.
Oh shit. Did the mud crash, did it crash?
Ooo, is the change going in now? Ooo.
Dammit.
Heh heh he.
Weekly Maintenance happened today.
This code change is LIVE.
Yeah, so I've been kinda catching up on the board occasionally lately, so I'm coming into this discussion late...
Earlier in this discussion, either X D or 7DV said that someone else's experience with armor protecting his/her character enough is anecdotal... well, sorry to say, guys, but your experience is too. Just because you don't see a 'armor piece X blocks the blow!" doesn't mean that it didn't absorb damage. That message only comes when it absorbs the ENTIRE hit instead of just part of it. You can't use the quantity of those messages as an indicator.
'Notake' or 'nogive' or 'nosave give' is mandatory, in my eyes... well, unless we can be reassured that any death to such twinky behavior as some fear will result in a resurrection. I doubt this would be the case, though. I've heard a few people bitching about how someone did something totally twinky in order to kill their character... and they didn't get a resurrection. I don't think any of us care nearly as much if someone else gets punished for performing a twinky kill on our characters... we care about getting our characters back that died to someone being a real jerk on an OOC level. The reason the characters are not resurrected? Because it wasn't a bug. Well, this won't be a bug either. It'll be a 'code feature.' We've had other coded fixes to prevent twinking, so why not this one?
Don't get me wrong, I think that encumbrance should affect combat. I thought it did.