Tac vests now have a max encumbrance of 5 (was 30) 🦺 #38396
Conversation
I lived in fear of using my tac-vest storage, as encumbrance 30 was much higher than anything else I wear. This change maxes the encumbrance at 5, using the rule of thumb that 1L storage = 1 encumbrance for well-designed storage. The tac-vest has a base encumbrance of 2, and 3 litres of storage. I'm not sure how the max encumbrance was showing as 30, as reading `item::get_encumber_when_containing` uses 1 encumb per 250ml, so 3L should only add 12 encumbrance, not 28. ‾\_(ツ)_/‾ Closes CleverRaven#34768
|
The reason the tac vest could have such a high encumbrance is that it does look at slots: 3L (storage) + 4×1L (magazines) = 7L = 28 encumbrance This holds true for other non-rigid storage items as well, such as the chest-rig. The result is that most non-rigid pouches, holsters, and rigs have very high max encumbrance values if they're not otherwise set. |
|
Is this not consistent behavior then? I would imagine that trying to do martial arts with a fully-loaded cargo-style vest with lots of full floppy pockets would be pretty difficult. Or are you saying that all non-rigid storage items should have significantly lowered encumbrance? |
|
I agree, a loaded tactical vest seems like it should be very encumbering |
|
Very much seems like it's working as intended. |
|
@kevingranade @jkraybill : I'm so sorry for going silent on this, it's been a busy week! I agree that 5 encumbrance is too low, especially now I understand how the algorithm works. Looking at the link from @ZhilkinSerg, 30 encumbrance is a touch under ornamental armor or a wedding dress. I'm Australian, so I have no experience with tactical vests and guns, so I just want to check that 30 seems right here. A makeshift sling from a bedsheet gives 10L of storage for 15 encumbrance. It feels odd to have a tailored storage solution that's only giving 7L storage for 30. |
|
15 encumbrance for a makeshift sling seems crazy. You've got a sheet tied around you, loaded wi junk. There's no way you're fighting effectively like that. |
|
I guess I'm confused as to what encumbrance values should be, because either the tac-vest's values are wrong, or there are a lot of similar items that need to be adjusted. I'm totally cool if that's the case, it's just not what I expected from having played the game. If our other items do have approximately the right encumbrance (clearly the sheet doesn't), then it feels like the tac-vest should max out around 10-15. That's not as good as as an MBR, or a golf bag, or a leather pouch, but it's much closer, and the tac-vest gives fast-reloads, which a golf bag does not. |
|
It would be completely reasonable to get a list of soft pockets items and their min and max encumbrance. 30 might be too high, and golf bags and slings might be too low. Probably both |
Summary
SUMMARY: Balance "Tac vests no longer result in a large encumbrance when full"Purpose of change
See #34768.
I lived in fear of using my tac-vest storage, as encumbrance 30 when full was so much higher than encumbrance 2 when empty.
Describe the solution
This change maxes the encumbrance at 5, using the rule of thumb that 1L storage = 1 encumbrance for well-designed storage. The tac-vest has a base encumbrance of 2, and 3 litres of storage.
Describe alternatives you've considered
Figuring out why 3L of storage is resulting in 28 extra encumbrance.
Testing
Checked tac vest in-game before and after change.
Additional context
I'm not sure how the max encumbrance was showing as 30, as reading
item::get_encumber_when_containinguses 1 encumb per 250ml, so 3L should only add 12 encumbrance, not 28. ‾_(ツ)_/‾