Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Pages: [1] 2
Print
Author Topic: PROPOSAL: Encumbrance, Armor and Clothes  (Read 11762 times)
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« on: April 03, 2009, 11:20:20 PM »

As promised.

http://wiki.parpg.net/index.php?title=Proposals:Encumbrance_Armor_Clothes

GUI section not complete yet.
Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
eleazzaar
Community member

Posts: 255


attempting lucidity


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2009, 12:19:44 AM »

EDIT:  C'mon!  Zenbitz, you edited 2 of my posts in this thread instead of replying.  Among other issues you have me saying all your quotes and visa versa.

GOD I AM SUCH AN IDIOT, SIGNED, ZENBITZ.  I EVEN MADE IT WORSE.


Quote from: eleazzaar
Why do we have strict limits on how big an object a person can carry by bulk? IMHO it would make more sense to have such a limit by weight, and not a hard limit, but one according to the character's strength (or similar stat).

Quote from: zenbitz
I actually don't think I meant that.  But we have bulk limits by containers, below.


Quote from: eleazzaar
"Properly Stored".  Basically what it comes down to is that you can put twice as much bulk in anywhere (other than the hands, or ready slot) than it's listed capacity.  What's the point?  Why tell the player he has a back-pack with a 300 bulk capacity, if he can actually put 600 bulk in it?

Quote from: zenbitz
I thought of this in passing as well.  I think the that conceptual problem I have with the obvious solution above is that it's so OBVIOUSLY easier to carry, say a rifle, or a sleeping bag, or other BULKY item  strapped to you or shoved in a sack than just grabbing it and carrying it.

The only game effect I can think of is that stuff in your ready slots that is not in a container is NOT halved.  But in the end, I think you are correct - and this can be dropped.  We might want to keep around an implicit factor between 1-2 to reduce the weight of real-world items when we carry them in the game.  I.,e I can look up that a Finnish RK62 weighs 4.2kg and is 0.9m long, but for the purposes of the game, we might reduce those (or equivalently, increase the capacity of items).


Quote from: eleazzaar
You want to limit containers by 3 factors?  Weight, total bulk, and a max item size.  Combine that with multiple containers, and the user will start to look wistfully at the old-fashioned tetris inventory.  Seriously, all we need is a bulk limit for each container.  Weight it accounted for by the encumbrance system.  A max item size limit per container is just annoying.
Quote from: zenbitz
Yeah, this is dumb isn't it?    We can modify to single bulk limit.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2009, 07:14:56 PM by zenbitz » Logged
maximinus
Community member

Posts: 694



View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2009, 02:50:13 AM »

I am not the chief designer of PARPG, so I'm only going to add the following:

Quote
T-Shirt: Cotton-Poly Blend (Light cloth), locations 4-13 (weight 0.4 kg, def .1/.1/.1, flex 0.9) - Q3

So, for an in-game t-shirt we have  Shocked 8 Shocked  variables? Just seems like overkill to me. If simple clothing is this complex, I can't imagine what the guns will be like...  Tongue
Logged

Science is open-source religion
eleazzaar
Community member

Posts: 255


attempting lucidity


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2009, 04:21:16 AM »

EDIT: Another mangled post.  Seriously, i know it's easy to hit "modify" instead of "edit", but not catching it and doing it twice, is just sloppy.

Quote from: zenbitz
Quote from: eleazar
Don't forget water and fire resistances.  That varies with each material too, right?  So a character dressed in relatively complete armor could easily have around 100 stats describing that armor, right?

Well, so what.  Computers are pretty good at that sort of thing.   And if some powergamer complains that he cannot figure out the best possible combination of things to wear vs. every attack type, he ain't getting much sympathy from me.

Fire and water resistance could easily be made binary (y/n), or fire resistence = crush damage resistence.
I would point out that FALLOUT had way more than 3 damage resistances!  Like 7 or 8! 


Quote from: zenbitz
Quote from: eleazar
One aspect which IMHO can clearly be done away with is "handedness".  What's the gameplay value in treating the right and left shoe/boot/glove/greave/etc as separate objects? I don't see any.  Let's make them all come in pairs and eliminate one superfluous stat.

Both the "single glove" and "piecemeal" armor rules - to me - are because of the post apocalyptic world setting.  In this kind of a setting, with little or no manufacturing,  protective equipment would be gleaned and improvised where possible.  This is also the  reason for the (otherwise superflourous) quality rating.    A well made pre-war artifact (say a military helmet) in good condition is going to be "better" than taking some old stock pot and hammering it out to fit your head.

This is ALSO the main reason for 35 hit locations!  I could certainly do "combat and injury" with 6-8 locations, but if some snowy wastland warrior wants to put a steel plate on his left shoulder (only) he should be able to do so, and have it matter.

Watch "The Road Warrior" (even Thunderdome, if you can stand it)  again - look at what they wear.  This is the kind of "armor" I am trying to represent (of course, with more fur since it's colder than the aussie outback).

I apologize for springing that clothing stuff on you guys.  It was in my head for a while, and while doing the inventory stuff I realized that the GUI for clothing is pretty much the same interface... so I just went ahead and made some definitions.

It's certainly easier from a programming perspective (at least MY programming perspective) to think of all the fiddly details that we may or may not need NOW, than decide we want them in 18 months!   It's much easier to go from 34 locations to 6 rather than vice-versa.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2009, 06:41:42 PM by eleazzaar » Logged
maximinus
Community member

Posts: 694



View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2009, 01:49:48 PM »

...i think it would be valuable if zenbitz would describe what sort of gameplay goals are motivating his design of clothing/armor.  The discussion can be more productive if we know what he is trying to do.

+1

Describing what effect is intended, rather than the literal mechanism is, is always a better start for me.
Logged

Science is open-source religion
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2009, 02:35:01 PM »

I am not the chief designer of PARPG, so I'm only going to add the following:

Quote
T-Shirt: Cotton-Poly Blend (Light cloth), locations 4-13 (weight 0.4 kg, def .1/.1/.1, flex 0.9) - Q3

So, for an in-game t-shirt we have  Shocked 8 Shocked  variables? Just seems like overkill to me. If simple clothing is this complex, I can't imagine what the guns will be like...  Tongue

It's just an example.  From a game perspective, you wouldn't even HAVE a t-shirt, but if someone really wanted to figure out the armor value of one, I already did it for you?

Templating also does a huge amount for you here:
"short sleeve shirt" = anything that covers locations 4-13.
"light cloth" = weight 0.04kg/location, def .1 x3, flex 0.9
Q3 = default average.

The cloth t-shirt is just a conflation of the 2 templates above.  It could be further simplfied IN THIS CASE as defense value: 0 flexibility = 1 (default for all materials).

What you are really complaining about is the concept of treating a t-shirt as armor; I agree this is a little silly unless there were lots of nekkid people running about.

Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
maximinus
Community member

Posts: 694



View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2009, 02:55:05 PM »

lots of nekkid people running about.

I kinda lost the thread there right at the end  Lips sealed
Logged

Science is open-source religion
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2009, 07:00:48 PM »

EDIT:  C'mon!  Zenbitz, you edited 2 of my posts in this thread instead of replying.  Among other issues you have me saying all your quotes and visa versa.
SHIT! Sorry.  The modify button is too close to the quote button!!!
Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
maximinus
Community member

Posts: 694



View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2009, 01:15:01 AM »

EDIT:  C'mon!  Zenbitz, you edited 2 of my posts in this thread instead of replying.  Among other issues you have me saying all your quotes and visa versa.
SHIT! Sorry.  The modify button is too close to the quote button!!!

Now you have the rest of us really confused when trying to re-read this thread!
Logged

Science is open-source religion
eleazzaar
Community member

Posts: 255


attempting lucidity


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2009, 04:53:50 AM »

I hit "edit" or "modify" a lot on forums where i have mod access.  It's easy to do since the same number of options aren't always available when you only mod some of the subforums.  Let's see what can be salvaged...

Quote from: zenbitz
Why do we have strict limits on how big an object a person can carry by bulk? IMHO it would make more sense to have such a limit by weight, and not a hard limit, but one according to the character's strength (or similar stat).

I actually don't think I meant that.  But we have bulk limits by containers, below.

This is what i'm talking about: (emphasis mine)

Quote
....
* 256 Extremely Large (medium box, back pack, watermelon, >6 locations worth of armor)
* 512 Huge - (large chest, bicycle, major appliance) these things cannot be carried for long distances, but can be moved.
* >512Too Big - You cannot lift or move this alone. If it's <=1024, then 2 people can treat it as a Huge object, etc.

IMHO limits on what you can lift and carry and for how long are better dealt with by weight (via encumbrance).  If we rely on that we can just replace the last two with:

* 512+ Huge - (large chest, bicycle, major appliance) requires both hands.


Quote from: zenbitz
"Properly Stored".  Basically what it comes down to is that you can put twice as much bulk in anywhere (other than the hands, or ready slot) than it's listed capacity.  What's the point?  Why tell the player he has a back-pack with a 300 bulk capacity, if he can actually put 600 bulk in it?

.....is that it's so OBVIOUSLY easier to carry, say a rifle, or a sleeping bag, or other BULKY item  strapped to you or shoved in a sack than just grabbing it and carrying it.

I understand what you are talking about.  If we need to simulate this (and i would be perfectly happy if we didn't), bulk is the wrong quantity for it to effect.

Instead we might say that any items held in the hands count double (or 1.5 times, whatever) when calculating encumbrance.


Quote from: zenbitz
Quote from: eleazzaar
You want to limit containers by 3 factors?  Weight, total bulk, and a max item size.....

Yeah, this is dumb isn't it?    We can modify to single bulk limit.

...And there was much rejoicing


Quote from: zenbitz
Quote from: eleazar
Don't forget water and fire resistances.  That varies with each material too, right?  So a character dressed in relatively complete armor could easily have around 100 stats describing that armor, right?

Well, so what.  Computers are pretty good at that sort of thing.   And if some powergamer complains that he cannot figure out the best possible combination of things to wear vs. every attack type, he ain't getting much sympathy from me.

I'm more concerned with the likelyhood of ordinary gamers having no clue how to evaluate their armor.

Quote from: zenbitz
Fire and water resistance could easily be made binary (y/n), or fire resistence = crush damage resistence.
I would point out that FALLOUT had way more than 3 damage resistances!  Like 7 or 8!

Actually i'm extremely pleased with the restraint in making only 3 main damage types.
I think you are being whimsical, but if not i'll point out that FO IIRC had only one piece of armor, so they could have dozens of damage resistance types and still have a simpler armor set-up.


Quote from: zenbitz
Quote from: eleazar
One aspect which IMHO can clearly be done away with is "handedness".  What's the gameplay value in treating the right and left shoe/boot/glove/greave/etc as separate objects? I don't see any.  Let's make them all come in pairs and eliminate one superfluous stat.

Both the "single glove" and "piecemeal" armor rules - to me - are because of the post apocalyptic world setting.  In this kind of a setting, with little or no manufacturing,  protective equipment would be gleaned and improvised where possible.  This is also the  reason for the (otherwise superflourous) quality rating.    A well made pre-war artifact (say a military helmet) in good condition is going to be "better" than taking some old stock pot and hammering it out to fit your head.

This is ALSO the main reason for 35 hit locations!  I could certainly do "combat and injury" with 6-8 locations, but if some snowy wastland warrior wants to put a steel plate on his left shoulder (only) he should be able to do so, and have it matter.


But stepping further back, i'm not sure that such a complex armor system really makes sense in this game.  It seems to imply that characters will frequently have rather unevenly distributed protection (steel plate on left shoulder) etc.  But besides the aesthetics (which we probably won't get to see anyway, since there will be a limited number of sprites) what gameplay role does all this armor have?  It tends to imply that there will be a significant advantage to targeting a character's weak spot.  But how is the player going to know what an enemies' weak spot is?  It seems like it would really bog down turn based combat to be presented with 35 possible hit locations each with different stats, even if we limit it to the stats the player could reasonably infer.  Or if the player doesn't usually have control over which location he is targeting, or if he can target but doesn't know what kind of defense is there, it seems like combat would be very random.

How is all this supposed to fit into combat?


I mean if the goal of this project was to create an in-depth armor-crafting simulation, i would bow before you.  But it's not clear to me that such a system fits well with everything else.

« Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 05:13:55 AM by eleazzaar » Logged
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2009, 05:55:51 AM »


Quote
....
* 256 Extremely Large (medium box, back pack, watermelon, >6 locations worth of armor)
* 512 Huge - (large chest, bicycle, major appliance) these things cannot be carried for long distances, but can be moved.
* >512Too Big - You cannot lift or move this alone. If it's <=1024, then 2 people can treat it as a Huge object, etc.

IMHO limits on what you can lift and carry and for how long are better dealt with by weight (via encumbrance).  If we rely on that we can just replace the last two with:

* 512+ Huge - (large chest, bicycle, major appliance) requires both hands.

Oh, I see your point.   What about a mattress?  Just to be a pedant.

Quote
Quote
.....is that it's so OBVIOUSLY easier to carry, say a rifle, or a sleeping bag, or other BULKY item  strapped to you or shoved in a sack than just grabbing it and carrying it.

I understand what you are talking about.  If we need to simulate this (and i would be perfectly happy if we didn't), bulk is the wrong quantity for it to effect.

Instead we might say that any items held in the hands count double (or 1.5 times, whatever) when calculating encumbrance.

Well, that's pretty much what it works out to... but I agree this is probably not worth simulating at all.




Quote from: eleazar

I'm more concerned with the likelyhood of ordinary gamers having no clue how to evaluate their armor.
  It's pretty simple really.  Armor is by material.  People are familiar with the concept that  better materials make for better protection.  And besides, it collapses pretty neatly on a simpler system once actual "garments" are defined by designers.  So really, if the designers can figure it out, it should work OK.

Quote
But stepping further back, i'm not sure that such a complex armor system really makes sense in this game.  It seems to imply that characters will frequently have rather unevenly distributed protection (steel plate on left shoulder) etc.  But besides the aesthetics (which we probably won't get to see anyway, since there will be a limited number of sprites) what gameplay role does all this armor have?  It tends to imply that there will be a significant advantage to targeting a character's weak spot.  But how is the player going to know what an enemies' weak spot is?  It seems like it would really bog down turn based combat to be presented with 35 possible hit locations each with different stats, even if we limit it to the stats the player could reasonably infer.  Or if the player doesn't usually have control over which location he is targeting, or if he can target but doesn't know what kind of defense is there, it seems like combat would be very random

It's just supposed to be cool.  And also to give people something to do if they find a scrap of metal they want to make a piece of armor out of.   I mean, I don't expect there to much armor manufacturing in the sense of tailored high quality medieval like harness.  Something like the chain mail example would be something "special" that maybe the atomic vikings have (it's not so hard to make maille, if you have wire and a couple pairs of pliers, but it's super tedious)

I don't find the complexity to be burdensome.  The computer can easily track it.  90% of it's going to be ineffective against firearms anyway.

Finally - it makes it easy to define a long sleeve shirt vs. a short sleve shirt,etc.
Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
maximinus
Community member

Posts: 694



View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2009, 08:48:49 AM »

I don't find the complexity to be burdensome.  The computer can easily track it.  90% of it's going to be ineffective against firearms anyway.

You are right, it's not burdensome for the computer. It might be a pain in the ass for the GUI designers, but that could be worked around. But I think most peoples eyes would glaze over such a huge number of stats and it maybe that only a few of them are ever really used.
Logged

Science is open-source religion
eleazzaar
Community member

Posts: 255


attempting lucidity


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2009, 07:34:31 PM »

Quote
....
* 256 Extremely Large (medium box, back pack, watermelon, >6 locations worth of armor)
* 512 Huge - (large chest, bicycle, major appliance) these things cannot be carried for long distances, but can be moved.
* >512Too Big - You cannot lift or move this alone. If it's <=1024, then 2 people can treat it as a Huge object, etc.

IMHO limits on what you can lift and carry and for how long are better dealt with by weight (via encumbrance).  If we rely on that we can just replace the last two with:

* 512+ Huge - (large chest, bicycle, major appliance) requires both hands.

Oh, I see your point.   What about a mattress?  Just to be a pedant.

What about a mattress?

I think you may still have to convert some of your thinking process from a PnP mindset to a cPRG one.  In a PnP, you never know what kind of crazy stuff the players are going to do, so you want to cover all contingencies.  But in a cRPG it takes too much work to robustly implement things that the player will probably never care to interact with.  We don't need rules to prevent players from doing things that they won't have the opportunity to do anyway.

So for your example of the mattress, in a cRPG one of the following will be true:

A) mattresses don't matter, so they aren't distinct objects, but part of a "bed", that may not be implemented beyond being something that blocks your walking.

B) the designer wants the mattress to be moveable for some specific reason, and thus it is implemented as a discrete object.  Thus obviously it will be given a "bulk" low enough that it is moveable, no matter where it should actually be on the bulk scale.



Quote
A character (possibly animal-NPC or even vehicle) an has a MAX weight capacity depending on his physical stats. This is a hard cap. He will suffer moderate penalties at 1/2 this capacity, and heavy penalties at 3/4ths this capacity. It is understood that the player (or AI) should strive to keep his character at under the 1/2 encumbrance capacity, and can temporally exceed this with only minor penalties for most actions. At the same time - the penalty must be severe enough to prevent Players from just using the hard cap or 3/4th cap as a default.

I realize that we don't have enough of the basic attributes figured out to nail the actual effect of encumbrance down, but i would look for a way to make it graduated instead of having a dramatic break-over point.  In other words, the penalties would gradually build from 1/2 max capacity to 3/4th capacity and beyond.

It tends to look silly in cRPGs when i add a tiny item to the character's inventory, and suddenly he's "encumbered" and movement is drastically reduced.


More, later...
Logged
maximinus
Community member

Posts: 694



View Profile Email
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2009, 10:28:39 AM »

A character (possibly animal-NPC or even vehicle) an has a MAX weight capacity depending on his physical stats. This is a hard cap. He will suffer moderate penalties at 1/2 this capacity, and heavy penalties at 3/4ths this capacity. It is understood that the player (or AI) should strive to keep his character at under the 1/2 encumbrance capacity, and can temporally exceed this with only minor penalties for most actions. At the same time - the penalty must be severe enough to prevent Players from just using the hard cap or 3/4th cap as a default.

I realize that we don't have enough of the basic attributes figured out to nail the actual effect of encumbrance down, but i would look for a way to make it graduated instead of having a dramatic break-over point.  In other words, the penalties would gradually build from 1/2 max capacity to 3/4th capacity and beyond.

It tends to look silly in cRPGs when i add a tiny item to the character's inventory, and suddenly he's "encumbered" and movement is drastically reduced.


If you like maths, you might have:

At 1/2 maximinum weight, move at full speed
Above maximum weight, no movement
Between the 2:

speed = normal_speed * ( cos ( ( (weight / max_weight ) - 0.5 ) x 90 ) )

This graduates it nice and smoothly.
Logged

Science is open-source religion
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 12, 2009, 11:28:43 PM »

I have updated the wiki page to incorporate suggestions.  I have left the complexity in, since I like it.
It can be coded as is - I think that if we "need" to we can reduce the complexity much easier than increasing it.

Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
Pages: [1] 2
Print
Jump to: