Weapon carrying capacity

[Sarissofoi]

Rap wrote:

I’d personally go with reducing the slots to 1/3

It sounds good on first but on the other hand reducing slots to one can lead to some problems if person switch from shield and one hander to two handers or bow/xbow. So weapon or shield will be dropped on ground?

I think leaving 2 basic bag slots with fatigue reduction for items in it and making 4 slots and no max fatigue reduction for perk will be the simplest choice now.
Four slots is kinda overkill though.

[Ryan]

Why not have “back”, “belt” and “bag” slots?

That way, were you to start equipped with, say a hatchet and round shield, you could drop the hatchet to your belt, and switch your shield with your two handed ‘great axe’ or similar, from you back. The shield would then be on your back. Not sure how plausible carrying a ‘great axe’ or shield would be on your back, outside of the movies, without seriously effecting your ability to fight (well) but certainly keeping one weapon in a dedicated ‘slot’, like a knife in a belt scabbard, and a main weapon, like an axes, hanging from a belt would be sensible would it not?

Would stop people being able to carry two ‘un-holsetered’ weapons, so to speak.

The inventory perk would effectively be like allowing you to carry a brace of pistols, or a wear a funky extra shoulder/thigh/ankle holster!

[tomme25]

They could introduce some kind of penalty if you carry large stuff on your back. Minus movement or something like that. Your suggestion sounds nice though, with the back, belt and bag slots!

[Rap]

Sarissofoi wrote:

It sounds good on first but on the other hand reducing slots to one can lead to some problems if person switch from shield and one hander to two handers or bow/xbow. So weapon or shield will be dropped on ground?

I think leaving 2 basic bag slots with fatigue reduction for items in it and making 4 slots and no max fatigue reduction for perk will be the simplest choice now. Four slots is kinda overkill though.

Good point.

Overhype Studios - follow us!
Facebook Youtube
Twitter

[gorlum]

Hello, first post so excuse me for me bad english and congratulation for this game (it looks very good).
What if instead of 1,2 or 4 slots you include weapon-slots differentiation? Each battlebroder will heave two “sidearm” slots (or only one) and one “back” or “backpack slots. “Sidearm” slot/slots can contain only knife, dagger one-handed sword, one-handed axe/mace or a buckler. And weapon from this slot don`t give any encumbrance penalty (if something like this is implemented). Weapons from sidearm slots will be easier to change/switch to (less AP for this action – maybe only 1 or 2). “Back”/”backpack” slots – for two-handed (spear, halberd, bow, crossbow) or heavier weapons and shields. Maybe each battlebrother should start with only one backpack slot so only one two-handed weapon.

[PsenBattle]

Hi Gorlum,
what you describe is one of various solutions we are discusing at the moment. Would be a bit micro-managy but also rather realistic, which I like.

Overhype Studios - Let´s roll!

Facebook Youtube
Twitter

[jimcrowley]

Trig wrote:

Of all the ideas tossed around in this brainstorming, I like the fatigue penalty one most.
Having a sword and dagger on your belt wouldn’t slow you down much. Having an orc axe and a crossbow tied to your back probably would…

This does seem to be the simplest and most elegant solution, if the notion of carrying pole-arms and great swords on the back is acceptable.

Another aspect to this is that the single melee skill is applied equally to every melee weapon such that any brother can find and use any weapon and use it with the same skill as any other weapon.

Given that most of the initial brothers are just starting out, they would be lucky to own a single weapon and probably wouldn’t be that skilful with it. Only professional soldiers or knights would have had multi-weapon training and even they would probably favour a specific weapon. Ditto with archery skills.

Perhaps this discrepancy is already covered within the traits and I’m looking forward to the release to see how this works.

[Trig]

jimcrowley: Agreed. And if it’s not, there’s always the possibility of just roleplaying your character “realistically” and imposing “house rules” on yourself, taking all these limitations into consideration. It’s how I usually play games anyway, while others get a kick out of exploits, cheats etc, which is legit too, as long as it’s fun, which is what games are supposed to be anyway.

[Author]

Posts