PlaneShift
Gameplay => Wish list => Topic started by: Fish on January 17, 2004, 04:35:14 am
-
There are two factors when dealing with material being carried, size and weight. Weight is the one that is usually dealt with however in many games I?ve played the size issue is poorly dealt with. For instance you will have one slot where you can put one ring. The container will have five slots. That means the container can handle five rings or five ring mail shirts.
A fanny pack can hold 50 rings with room left over for necklace or two. But I doubt I could put a large helmets in it. Even though your trying to make the game, not necessarily in sync with reality, this one point seems to be really out of whack. Not necessarily in this game but in almost every game I?ve played.
I?ve got an idea though on how to fix it. Have a size number. In any container be able to infinitely stack any sane item. Have all containers have lots of slots, say 40. However if the total amount of size in a container exceeds the container size it is full. Nothing more can be put in it.
This means containers are rated by their size. But there?s also the weight factor. One critical difference between a backpack and a large sack is with a backpack you can carry more weight. This would mean all backpacks have a weight reduction attribute. A finely crafted backpack would be able to handle more weight. This is also in sync with reality. Having done a lot of camping and backpacking myself I have carried a 65 lb. backpack however caring 65 lbs. in a sack would be painful.
Then there is the container in a container problem. There is no reason why you can?t put a sack in a backpack. So it would kind of go like this.
The sack has items in it for a total weight and size. The sack itself has a size and weight. If the backpack can handle both size and weight numbers then you can put the sack in the backpack. This would help if you had a lot of very small items and need more than 40 slots. One key factor though you only get the weight reduction bonus on a final container. So if you have a backpack in a backpack the final one is the one on your actual back. So putting a backpack in the sack would seem kinda stupid.
Last point is how many slots does a person have on them. You only have one back so that?s one slot. You?re not going to carry anything in your hands if you?re swinging a sword however you may have a pouch on your belt, possibly a scabbard. It might be possible to have everybody start with the sack. You can put the sack in your one slot. From then on you would probably be looking to get something better. It would seem that you?re ripping off the players by giving them only one slot however you can look at it that you?re getting 40 with limited space and some weight restrictions.
-
Well the slots system you talked about sounds similar to the Diablo system for items (maybe not the best example of a good game, but it works), which I think worked out well for that game.
Adding the system of weight you mentioned would make it even better, and much more realistic, since a person could realistically carry a heck of a lot of jewlery before becoming encumbered, yet most people could not carry half a dozen suits of armor with them unless they had a cart or something (assuming the strengh of a character will determine the carry weight in this system).
-
This idea is exactly the same as the game Tibia...
And it was very realistic...
-
Doing that would also give Animal Trainers more importance since they train animals to carry bigger, heavier things.
-
And maybe some strong & slow animals that can carry lots a weight but is very slow... like that animal in a desert
(i dont know the english word of it :D)
Or a mule
But something like fast animals that cant carry much but has great speed.
-
Good idea, however... You can\'t put a great axe into your backpack. It\'s simply too big and it\'s not realistic. You can\'t put a full plate mail into your backpack either. No offense to the diablo-fans, but that\'s just weird. It\'s too big and it\'s too heavy, and besides, the backpacks of the medieval times weren\'t as strong as they are today, and they don\'t have the same supports, so carrying a 65lbs pack would seriously cause great injury to your back and shoulders, and wouldn\'t enable you to run very fast. :) Just think about it. A hauberk protecting your stomach, chest and arms weighs roughly 15kg (30lbs). I know it packs up neatly inside a backpack, but carrying such a thing around is very tough for your back, and trust me, I\'ve tried it. Luckily I was sitting in a train most of the way, but it still isn\'t fun, so think about what it would be like with a 50kg (100lbs) full plate mail in your backpack? Whew! :)
\"like that animal in a desert\"
Would you be talking about a camel? :)
-
Yes i mean that animal,
Srry im not english and i live in holland and im just 13 years... :/
-
NO. If they do this, they better have a banking system, because I like having backup armour and weapons. If you are going to do this, have a large grid and outline items with blocks, and if you can turn or move them to fit into the bag, then you can carry it. period. That would be good... because you are forgeting that this world has magic. weight can be lowered in bags, and the animals trainers use would allow a larger grid, not a larger weight carring system.
also, If your pet dies, can you revive him? or do you lose all your items?
If you die, does your pet teleport to your position?
-
Interesting pet questions ace!
-
Some ideas for ya qeustions
1. If your pet dies, you can take so much items if you can carry, but beware (other players can steal it ) but a better thingy: protect your pet better!
2. Maybe it walks/flys your position (it will take a while :P)
2a You can wait for your pet on the hydlaa plaza
2b Just go somewhere and you will see him in a while following you
2c It can be killed by a monster and other players can steal the items. (thats the risk)
-
Interesting pet questions ace!
-
Interesting pet questions ace!
-
The problem with a number describing volume is that items are three dimesional, so you could have a 1x1x12 item or a 3x2x2 item - one of these fits into a pack better... (A grid addresses this problem but only two dimesions of it...)
Also, you may not be able to put a great axe in your pack, but you can sling it over your back. Swords have scabbards and arrows have quivers - not everything goes in the pack - utility belt anyone?
-
Originally posted by TheAceOfFire
and if you can turn or move them to fit into the bag, then you can carry it. period. That would be good... because you are forgeting that this world has magic. weight can be lowered in bags
This world has magic, yes, but not everyone is able to use this magic, and let\'s be resonable about this. Where does all the 1 million-billion newbies that we\'re expecting for CB get their magic backpack from? I\'m sure that I wont be one of those mages who make sure everyone has a magic backpack. And what about Lord of the Rings? That\'s a magic world as well, yet frodo and sam can\'t carry a full plate mail in their packs? (If they can, at least it\'s not mentioned). And if you roleplay as some guy who is extremely afraid of magic, does he have a magic backpack as well?
-
I think that items in your bag should run on weight and not how many slots.
Because you could have many small things eg (cup, feather, rock,leaf, pepple) and they are small but take up all the room (1 slot each)
and if you could have the same amount of itemes but larger eg (helmet, helmet, sword, dog, cat) it would take up the same amount of space aye as the small items.
so i think it should go on weight and not how many \"slots\" there are.
-
The only problem I see with a pure wieght system is for those large items that are light.
Eg. In rl, you can only carry so many empty boxes due to the size. 100 or 200 lbs of empty boxes is huge :D but that weight is carryable if it is a rock or something. Thats why I think a combined system would be best.
Eg. You have a large amount of slots available and a max carry weight. Which ever fills up first determines how much you can carry.
Just a thought.
-
I\'d say to just limit what you can put in a rucksack and have other methods of carrying bigger stuff. This is, of course, significantly more difficult to implement than your typical grid and weight system however....
Sometimes if you make a system real enough you realize that the simple, unrealistic way does the exact same thing without as much work. One time I set out to design a more realistic system to replace HP and when everything was said and done the HP system worked out to do the same thing - especially if you add in don\'t move and don\'t act circumstances....
-
The mule, or pack animal ideas, are probably best.
Backpacks shouldn\'t be for carrying anything over say a short sword, or some gold or whatever, maybe some potions, extra flasks of oil, and food. You may be able to carry an extra shield across your back which was quite common, as shields were cheaper than armour and helped prevent being \'backstabbed\', when you were to poor for a full breatplate, and set of mail.
I think the ultimate system, is Bigby\'s portable hole, inside a bag of holding. And old D&D trick. It would carry infinite items, and weighed nothing.
Pack animals were successfully implemented in Dungeon Siege.
Most of the systems pondered in the threads of this type are Diablo style, and it was sufficient to an extent.
But for a player to be able to carry 4 halbers, is insane. It\'s not so much the weight, as the awkwardness. Which has been brought up.
Different animals, or grades of pack animals could permit carrying more or less, I\'m all for those ideas as well.
Something like a mule, could no carry anywhere near as much as say an oxen, or an elephant.
If horses will be implemented, they can double as both, saddle satches and extra weapon rigging was quite common of battle horses. But they were not so good with extra weight, as it defeated their purpose in battle.