Page 8 of 27 FirstFirst ... 45678910111218 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 529
  1. #141
    Community Member Cyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    7,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Missing_Minds View Post
    My dislike of asking hard questions?

    I dislike questions being asked that aren't related to the thread at hand. Your question ideally should be handled in state of game addresses (we've seen just how frequent and useful those are.) let alone in their own thread and NOT just because a developer is paying attention to their OWN thread.

    Also how many threads have popped up about the boots, and people making cracks about them? How many others are talking like you are? Yeah, quite the minority right now aren't you.

    So yes, thread jacking. I'm done with this topic in this thread.


    No one said that I was unique in noting the inconsistency of stating one goal and then doing the opposite thing.

    If I waited for a state of the game address thread by Madfloyd I might wait forever.

    He brings it up, it is fair game in thread no matter what you might think.
    Proud Recipient of At least 8 Negative Rep From NA Threads.
    Main: Sharess
    Alts: Avaril/Cyr/Cyrillia/Garagos/Inim/Lamasa/Ravella

  2. #142
    Community Member Thalmor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thlargir View Post
    Encumbrance is a game mechanic that adds variety and thereby more decisions to the game, which is a good thing.

    Contents of bags should be weightless (aren't they in non-dimensional space?)

    Best of both worlds...

    Now, what would be really nice if our bags were in fact Hewards Handy Haversacks and always opened to what we wanted to pull out (that was partly achieved when ingredients could be pulled out of bags when crafting)
    I use to love my Hewards Handy Haversack... One of the best items ever created for PNP. All you had to do was thing about the item and it would always be the item you would pull out.
    Where is my GREATBOW???


  3. #143
    The Hatchery Scraap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Monkey_Archer View Post
    Encumbrance itself doesn't add any value to the game at all IMO. However, the mechanics of strength damaging effects having an influence on movement speed/ac/etc.. does.
    I'd say get rid of the weight/encumbrance system, but modify the strength damage system to keep the penalties associated with a low strength character being hit by a ray of enfeeblement or other strength damaging effect.

    Something like:
    6+ strength = no encumbrance regardless of weight
    3-5 strength = weakened, small movement penalty, max dex penalty, monks become uncentered, etc..
    1-2 strength = burdened, same as above but with larger penalties
    0 strength = helpless
    This I could see.

    Let's face it, if you really wanted to play munchkin in PnP, you'd have separate bags of holding with wide enough lips to fit 50 great-swords into for one bag, a few hundred sets of armor in another, ect ect.
    Last edited by Scraap; 01-27-2012 at 01:59 PM.

  4. #144
    Community Member dkyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    5,477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HungarianRhapsody View Post
    It provides an alternative avenue of attack for enemy spellcasters to disable your character instead of attacking your HP (and I believe that's a good thing). This is also one of the few areas where melee types have an advantage over offensive casters.
    Encumbrance can never disable you. All it gains them is a second where you down a Lesser Restore pot. An 8-base STR Wizard is at risk of being Enfeebled into helplessness simply due to his STR, not encumbrance.

    And while I don't want to see the gap between melee and casters widened, it's just such a negligible effect in regards to balance, in actual practice, that adds more annoyance than it's worth.

  5. #145
    Community Member MnaSidhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    no longer reading the forums
    Posts
    483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HungarianRhapsody View Post
    Finally, giving Halflings an encumberance penalty in addition to their Strength penalty seems excessive.

    Halflings have an encumberance penalty?
    I think we should have an encumberance bonus, because we can hold on ourselves, and position ourselves so that we dont get in your way whilst you are running us around!

    Encumberance hasn't bothered me yet. If it stays or goes... well... doesn't really bother me.
    But other than encumberance I am sure that there are many more important things to be working on!
    No longer reading the Forums.

  6. #146
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    113

    Default

    My initial reaction would be to say yes, remove it, just as many others here have said.

    However, this would effect game play in various situations.

    Ray of Exhaustion. Currently, if the spell lowers your strength to a point where you become encumbered, you will walk slower.

    Symbol of Weakness, as above. However, the abbot has a nifty trick where he likes to cast symbol of weakness, preventing people from casting ice wands or running to the ice platform!

    However, I agree that outside of debuffs cast upon players, there should be no limits on encumbrance. Our characters already carry tons more than would be realistic, I don't think limiting our carrying capacity benefits the game. However, I would like to see the above spells (and others that decrease your strength) keep their usefulness for enemy casters.
    Renowned - Thelanis
    Ranit, Ferromagnet, Metamagnet, Pinkponytail, Rinat, Rinatta, Seemur

  7. #147

    Default

    Game design requires the right kind and amount of player annoyances.

    You don’t want to annoy players too much but you don’t want them to be too convenient either.

    Having no encumbrance is convenient but so would having a portable hole as a bank and being able to access it from anywhere, or selling from anywhere, or crafting from anywhere, or teleporting to any quest from anywhere, etc. All this could be explained why it is possible in a magical world and it would reduce player annoyances but it is not good game design for DDO.

    I believe encumbrance serves a purpose in DDO and provides a proper annoyance but I believe all bags (gems, ingredients, collectables) should act as bags of holding with a set weight unaffected by the contents. Players have pretty much reached their limit on annoyances with ingredients and collectables, encumbrance should not add to the annoyance of these items. Giving the ingredients and collectables a weight of 0 all the time would be fine too if that is easier from a coding perspective as opposed to them having no weight when in a bag.

    Nine backpack slots for spell components seems excessive but my casters don’t seem as cramped for backpack slots as my melees so maybe it is some kind of caster/melee backpack balancing mechanic. I am undecided on spell components from a game mechanic stand point but from a logic stand point spell components take up way too much backpack space.

  8. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadFloyd View Post
    Encumbrance: what value does it really bring to DDO?

    How many of you would mind if this just sort of 'went away'?
    I would love to see encumbrance completely removed from the game.

    (My halfling cleric just got encumbered this afternoon. She did not dump str, she had a str item on, and her ingrediant bags are not loaded down with tons of stuff. She simply did 2 raids and 5 quests without selling or banking.)

  9. #149
    Community Member Aliss7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Happy Hunting Grounds
    Posts
    492

    Default

    I'd be sad to see it go.

    Like spell components, it's right on the borderline of that fun/annoying line, but it gives the game flavor you know? DnD flavor. It does seem that this would officially make strength a dump stat for non-strength builds too.

    I noticed you recently tweaked some quest to reduce the weight of some items. Why did you do that? What was the motivation to go back and tweak that?

    You then brought weight to bags and now you're seeing balancing issues having to be taken care of now.

    I can't help but think that what you really want to do is just get rid of encumbrance so you don't have to deal with the coding/balancing issues behind the scenes and you want to just gauge player reactions here to make sure there isn't some huge revolt. I don't mean that in a negative way either. I'm happy here to at least give you my two cents.

  10. #150
    Community Member Vormaerin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyr View Post


    No one said that I was unique in noting the inconsistency of stating one goal and then doing the opposite thing.

    If I waited for a state of the game address thread by Madfloyd I might wait forever.

    He brings it up, it is fair game in thread no matter what you might think.
    He didn't bring it up. He responded, wryly, to someone else bringing it up.

    If you think a "Oh look, only 53 posts to bring up this off topic complaint" type comment is "bringing the subject up... well, lets just say I don't share your style of reading comprehension.

  11. #151
    Community Member uthanak69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    296

    Default

    I +10 this. Get rid of it please

  12. #152
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In a box.
    Posts
    2,266

    Default

    I'd almost say get rid of it.

    Nothing is more aggravating than being a caster (or, god forbid, a healer) in an elite, at-level irestone and not being able to see those warmages until you're suddenly burdened and helpless. And that's with a couple of points in strength just for gear purposes. So it's handy for teaching new players how they can't just dump a stat because they're not focusing on whatever aspect of combat they think it relates too.

    That said, once you get some gear and you're past the handful of quests where enfeeble ray is an issue, it's not as much of a immediate problem as a huge annoyance. I want to say taking out encumbrance and encouraging the use of strength as a dump stat for non-melees would have some implications down the road, but I can't really think of any at the moment.

  13. #153
    Blogger and Hatchery Hero
    2015 DDO Players Council
    katz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Texas - the most "MURICA!" part of 'murica! rawr
    Posts
    3,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Therrias View Post
    You only really notice it if you are:

    a) a monk
    b) a caster
    c) a halfling
    agreed. everyone either has so much strength burden is totally a non-issue (like my horc paladin/monk and my halfling (yes halfling) bard), OR they are teetering on the edge of disaster... pick up one suit of plate armor, or get hit by ray of enfeeblement and yer f-ed. (like my low str AA clonk. i pick up one suit of armor and boom, i drop out of form )

    it's a huge annoyance. coins already weigh nothing, which is unrealistic. i wouldn't mind much at all if all burden went away.

    the official home of LOLWUT

    LONG LIVE R.O.G.U.E ! Pay2Win AND PROUD
    Q: how do you get me to instantly appear in a thread? A: ask a bard question!

  14. #154
    Community Member jkm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,455

    Default

    The biggest issue with encumbrance is that it hammers new players the most (since they are the ones most likely to not understand its impacts). This is good in some ways as it is one of the few early metagaming "teachers" about how the game is totally focused on strength.

    So, encumbrance could go away, however you have to redo the character builds and stress to new characters that strength is everything in this game. I honestly think you should do like KOTOR 1 and just give weapon finesse as a default feat.

    Caveats: This helps halflings the most. However, the knockdown penalty from Gust of Wind is so harsh on them that this change is net neutral.

  15. #155
    Community Member Vormaerin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,225

    Default

    Encumbrance at the moment is a joke. A pointless joke. I can carry multiple suits of armor, dozens of weapons, thousands of arrows, etc even on my sorcerer.

    The carrying capacity of most characters is so far off the charts that its ridiculous. I can't recall encumbrance ever mattering except when hit by Ray of Enfeeblement. The limitation is always inventory space.

    So I say: get rid of it and give Ray of Enfeeblement some other effect to penalize casters (the loss of to hit/dmg is enough penalty on melee). A special effect if it brings your strength below 8 or something.

  16. #156
    Scholar Of Adventure & Hero Missing_Minds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    work....
    Posts
    30,172

    Default

    I'm going to ask a very bad question...

    What effect would the by the book encumbrance rulling do to PvP if it was removed?

    As I do not PvP here, I don't really know.

  17. #157
    Community Member Ebondevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Encumbrance or Limited Inventory Space.

    Personally I'd be happy to keep encumbrance if we had unlimited inventory space. Encumbrance fits D&D, limited inventory space doesn't.

    But with Limited Inventory Space having Encumbrance as well is annoying.

    How about when you get the 150 Coin Lord Favour (or the 400 Coin Lord Favour) you get a lot more inventory space?

    I can dream can't I?

  18. #158
    Community Member Meat-Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadFloyd View Post
    Encumbrance: what value does it really bring to DDO?

    How many of you would mind if this just sort of 'went away'?


    It has some value. Flavor, helps punish ppl that dump str., one of the few limitations on monks, etc.. But ultimately, I wouldn't care if it went away.

    Does it add to lag in any way shape or form? If so get rid of it NOW.


    EDIT: I also would dig getting rid of inv slots in favor of encumb. So, I can fill up my inv with full plates or with scrolls and that's the same...?
    KASHIL -- KASHILAH -- MATTAH -- MAHGANE -- KHYBER -- ANNIHILATION
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkrok View Post
    First, Meat-Head is exactly correct...

  19. #159
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadFloyd View Post
    Encumbrance: what value does it really bring to DDO?

    How many of you would mind if this just sort of 'went away'?
    dunno why but this line made me think of this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7tS74x55pQ
    1) "Quijenoth" Main Arcane Caster, 2life PM, 3life BrdTR, 4life FvS.
    2) "Vallaes" Melee Tank build, 2nd life Barbarian.
    3) "Elvraema" Experiments, 1-Mnk6/FvS14 Solo build. 2-"Dronker"

  20. #160
    Community Member xxScoobyDooxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    626

    Default

    For all the purists saying keep it ........... 4,000,000 PP .................... think about it.

    Just get rid of it.
    Flashious, Slashious, Bashious, Delushous, SifuTam Toustious, Sneakious
    Officer - Templar - Cannith

Page 8 of 27 FirstFirst ... 45678910111218 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload