Carrying items

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-01-26 21:34:27

How much can you carry?

There was a discussion about inventory system earlier. A 3d mini model is fully functional, you can handle clothes, ordinary weapons, armour, rings, neclases, scrolls, books, ankle jewlery, keys, potions, throwing knives, tinderboxes, food, water.. etc. etc. But, it may be tricky. Where to put all these?

One can't just throw all of them to haversack - if you do, you don't find them from your inventory in a second. On top of all this, there may be some items which player wants to wield, rings and other jewlery for example but also rings that one does not want to wield. Not to mention the fact that we may want to hide our weapons for some purpose...

That we know.

It may well be that there is dozens of places in this 'attach items' inventory system. Room for 100 - 200 items?

If we list some of them..

* 10 (or 8) places for normal rings - two for every finger - makes 20 items
* 10 places for toe rings - makes 10 (20 maybye?)
* 2 places for ankle rings - makes 4
* 2 places for shoes, makes 4 (You can wield socks)
* 2 places for armour in lower legs - 2 (or 4 - ringmail-platemail eg.)
* 2 places for armour in thighs - 2 or 4
* one place for trousers - makes 1-2 (or even 4?)
* 8 places (inner/outer lower leg/thigh on left/right foot) for belts for knives, throwing stars or similar small weapons - makes 8 times 1-3 items. (There may also be pockets in trousers to replace these)
* 2 places for weapons in shoes
* one place for ordinary belt
* 1-5 places on ordinary belt - 1-2 for hand weapons (with or without scabbard) - one for map scroll, rope, quiver etc.
* 2 places on shoulders - for bow and quiver
* one place for backpack
* one place for hat, coif, helmet or crown etc. - makes 1-3 (even more?)
* one place for clothes in torso - makes 1-4
* couple of places in pockets - depends on the clothing in torso. (Can be replaced with shoulder belts with bag eg.) - every pocket can contain several, say, 3 items
* one place for armour in torso - makes 1-2
* 8 places for armour in arms (shoulder/upper arm/forearm/hand) - makes 8-14 (16?)
* 2 places for gloves - makes 4
* one place for robe - makes 1-2
* one place for necklaces - makes 1-5 (10 even?)
* 2 places for earrings - makes 6?
* then we have the backpack: Places for stuff inside, and in addition possibility to attach crossow, (tent?) or couple of tools and spears on top or pack of it.

Hmm. Makes 66 attach places plus the backpack - with 20 more or so?
And with quick calculation we have about 150 items. Have you ever thought how much we can carry? I hadn't before. Obviously weight limit prevents this much items to be carried - though most of these items are small and light - but in any case.

In this attach items system lies hidden another advantage. The time needed for wielding and using items depends highly on the place of the item. For example things in backpack need much more time to find than item from, say, shoulder belt. And abviously one needs to come to a stand (and maybye sit down) to find items there, when one can wield a throwing knife placed on belt while running.

If we think how much one can carry, it depends on the strenght of course, but the final limit is around the weight of the character. If one weights 75 kilos, he can barely move while carrying another 75 kilos etc. But when in battle - even the extra 15 kilos from ringmail has an enourmous effect on the time one can fight effectively.

In addition you may carry a sack in your hand - filled with more and more items! Maybye one should consider buying a horse and a wagon..

From: darshan
Date: 2002-01-27 00:04:46
In-Reply-To: 342

Carrying capacity will be realistic, eg. as far from ADOM as possible.

Sure, there may be dozens of places on your body on which to suspend things, but in practice nobody can move or stand up with all of them filled. This is a very good thing, because it forces everyone to think hard what to wear and what to pack because nobody can wear it all.
And in case it's still unclear to someone, there is NO "inventory". Unlike in MUDs, or Nethack, or ADOM, there's no abstract infinitely big open space inside the player character which holds objects up to a certain weight limit. If you want to carry an item, you either hold it in your hand, or put it in the bag in your hand, or the pack on your back, or your shirt pocket.

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-01-27 00:34:57
In-Reply-To: 343

Very true. It is quite hard to walk when you have 20 rings in your toes, or hard to repair items with three gloves in both hands.

In any case, a list this large makes possible to decide between different options - as IRL. You can choose whether to put the valuable ring to your pocket or to your backpack. From pocket you get it quickly if it is needed, but may be stealed by pickpocket. From backpack it cannot be stealed (easily at least) but it takes time to find and use the ring when situation occures.

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-01-27 20:26:01
In-Reply-To: 343

Nobody can wear it all.
Why?
I thought that fact, and it stroke me. What if every item has not only its weight but a constant called 'dropsAgiltyLimitTo' (or similar:)

When you carry a sword on your belt, weighting ..um 2 kilos, the weight doesn't effect your agility in almost any way. It is safe there. And when you carry a bow on your shoulder weighting only, well.. 1/2 kilos(?) you get minimal effect from the weight as well, but moving fast, climbing and running may damage the item. So one have to slow down and move more steadily - which drops the agility level allowed. Of course one can try to dodge and climb with full agility, but may pay for it.

I'm not quite sure if this was a working example, but if you got the point.

From: raeky
Date: 2002-01-27 16:29:01
In-Reply-To: 344

It should be explicitly defined in the races there differnt classes, a warrior would be able to hold more then a magician.

From: darshan
Date: 2002-01-27 16:45:20
In-Reply-To: 358

Raeky, you could simply shut up until you know what Majik is going to be like. There is no such thing as a warrior. There is no such thing as a magician. There is no such thing as a class. The weight one can carry depends on one's strength

From: Yendor
Date: 2002-01-27 16:39:47
In-Reply-To: 358

Come on. We don't want anything restrictive like 'magicians are allergic to every weapon other than staffs and wands'. IMO the class should be defined by what you can do. Not other way around where class defines what you can do.

From: darshan
Date: 2002-01-27 16:58:41
In-Reply-To: 362

Sorry, I take back that shutting-up bit. You probably couldn't have known it, considering what quality our concept-documentation is.

From: raeky
Date: 2002-03-05 23:28:21
In-Reply-To: 363

lol, good thing i waited so long to read these comments, (thanks to the "unread" tags in the main forum list.. heh)

Quite harsh, but granted i was uninformed. I likely ment that someone who spends there life killing with there hands likely would be stronger then someone who kills with words. :P

From: darshan
Date: 2002-01-27 21:03:07
In-Reply-To: 367

We don't need an agility-limiting variable separate from size/weight. Again, it would be superfluous.

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-01-27 21:49:45
In-Reply-To: 368

Hmm.. Yes, size and weight should be enough. Maybye you're right.

Well, just pondering.