Layering Penalties should be based on Coverage instead of number of items

Wearing a wrist watch and elbow pads? Sorry they are both on the strapped layer.

Wearing a backpack on your back (50% coverage currently) and chest pouch (15%)? Sorry they are both on the strapped layer.

Layering penalties should only happen going over 100% coverage.

This would open more possibilities for low coverage items.

And this would fix the items that are currently set to cover nothing (“unslotted”) and items playing around with the waist slot (chest rig) just to avoid layering penalties.

No more item limit but a coverage limit instead of 200% with increasing penalties of going over 100%.

Over 100% coverage - +1 penalty
Over 150% coverage - +2 penalty (two t-shirts would be 180% and the same +2 as currently)
Over 190% coverage - +3 penalty


Seconded! Great idea!!

I think the current system does well. But needs more polish to allow a more logical layering.

2 backpacks…not at all logical. 1 backpack + a strapped shotgun is legit as I can do that irl. But layering garments that are also containers should be polished to logically make the inner layer more time consuming to access(which won’t happen unless my inventory idea comes through and won’t) or make such volume in-accessible.

I can understand a loose garment being tricky to code even for what I just suggested. I can wear a pocket shirt and a chest rig with a lab coat or trench/survivor coat. So should I not have access to to crap under my coat even though it is by design super easy to access under each garment? Thorny that topic is, Mmmm, yes.

The issue with using coverage as the limiting factor is that you could easily have things that wouldn’t overlap in real life, but would overlap and cause penalties using that system… I can’t provide any example offhand, but it’s a possibility. A coverage system would probably be a vast improvement, but ideally it would probably be best to include more body areas for clothing (upper arm, lower arm, wrist, fingers, etc) so that everything can be done logically and made transparent to the player.

EDIT: Also has the issue that things that SHOULD overlap in real life have no penalties. Want to wear 6 chest pouches? Go ahead. No penalty.

1 Like

What? Backpacks have straps in the front, and chest rigs have a back panel. These absolutely should conflict with each other.

I still think it’s strange we can order the layering of worn items in a completely arbitrary way to let some items protect others. And this does nothing to encumbrance, and takes no time to do. But of course my clothing and armor was designed to be easily worn over my backpack and a couple of duffle bags. :wink:

I just tell myself “be like Superman”, it’s ok to wear your underwear over your overwear.

Consider it more along the lines of where the thing is worn. Backpacks are, oddly enough, worn on the back and wouldn’t receive nearly as much damage as they do in the game as in reality. It’s odd, but that’s the way I justify it.

Dark has a good idea with adding more slots. Also I agree with him in regard to having layers that should be layered and add no penalty.

Kevin: I think chest rigs are flat on the back. As is everyone I’ve seen in Military surplus an hunting stores. Many varieties but I’m pretty certain nobody would put pockets on the back that would impede a back pack in any way. Not likely to conflict at all from what I’ve seen and own.

Unawares: Wearing multiple bags will impede you a lot. Plus the more layers on that will be really silly yes. But it will certainly impede. Not sure how much sense it would make to force a certain layer. While I agree it is silly to put your boots on and you can have the socks over those boots. That I can shift crap that is made in the future tense is a great boon to both the devs and players alike. =)

Agreed ZoneWizard

One particularly good thing, regardless of layering sense, is being able to put holsters and such at the top of the list. Never mind it being worn under everything else, it saves me scrolling down so much in my inventory to activate it.

It doesn’t matter if they’re flat, they conflict, therefore it’s a bad (or good, actually) example in that it illustrates why basing encumbrance stacking on coverage would not only be complicated and difficult to understand, but it wouldn’t even help in the cases you’re concerned about.

I agree with the suggestion

Idea: add a “NO_CONFLICT” flag.

There are items intended to be worn on the same “layer” that logically don’t conflict with each other or can be worn in such a way that any conflict is negligible. (eg. backpack and pair of binoculars, rifle alongside backpack, panties and long underwear, two messenger bags, ect.)

Rather than changing the whole way encumbrance is calculated, add some leniency for items with small profiles or that can be worn in different ways to accommodate other items.

Survivors could then wear: 1 normal item and 1 “NO_CONFLICT” item or 2 “NO_CONFLICT” items in a layer before penalties get added.

I have no idea it seems what you mean by “they conflict”

or another brand

Flat backing on almost all of the chest rigs would in no way conflict whatsoever with a back pack. That is by design. These 2 garments(backpack + chest rig; not items shown) are supposed to be paired together with little to no encumbrance irl. So if they conflict in game(I don’t know as I never wear them) that would be inaccurate.

Chest Rigs are worn on waist layer, which looks weird but yes they don’t conflict.

Your sentence remains incongruous to the purpose of intent mate. But I think you mean to say they are not suppose to conflict with upper body garments?

He’s talking about ingame, and he was answering one of your sentences, ZoneWizard.

No, Backpacks and Chest Rigs do not conflict in game, since the backpack is strapped on the body, while the Chest Rig uses the Waist Layer, therefore they are on different layers and do not add additional encumberance to the person wearing both.

That’s all he wanted to say.

1 Like

Ah, cool. Figured something like that. But thanks for clarifying.