# New encumbrance

**URL:** <https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/new-encumbrance/9211>\
**Category:** The Bunker\
**Created:** [March 22, 2015, 7:06am UTC](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/new-encumbrance/9211 "2015-03-22T07:06:27Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 9\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Murphy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.cataclysmdda.org/murphy/32/2371_2.png) [@Murphy](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/u/Murphy)\
**Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 12:03am UTC](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/new-encumbrance/9211/21 "2015-03-24T00:03:34Z")

</div>

It was silly anyway to wear 2 pairs of drop leg pouches, 2 survivor belts, 2 harnesses and somehow cargo shorts + cargo pants.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Vorchar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Vorchar](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/u/Vorchar)\
**Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 2:28pm UTC](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/new-encumbrance/9211/22 "2015-03-24T14:28:26Z")

</div>

> [@Murphy](#):
>
> It was silly anyway to wear 2 pairs of drop leg pouches, 2 survivor belts, 2 harnesses and somehow cargo shorts + cargo pants.

You still can and propably should do it actually. With current encumbrance rules it seems that running with 2x harnesses/runner packs is better than having a backpack.

You get quite a lot less volume, armor and wramth from each layer now so outer layer should be a single as much armor as possible (can’t stack or you get penalty) piece of cloth.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kryxx](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.cataclysmdda.org/kryxx/32/438_2.png) [@Kryxx](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/u/Kryxx)\
**Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 3:25pm UTC](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/new-encumbrance/9211/23 "2015-03-24T15:25:30Z")

</div>

Well it makes sense, a few belts and harnesses to attach things on or in is less restrictive than a backpack with 30lbs of gear in it dragging on your shoulders and back.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LordHelmchen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/41988e/32.png) [@LordHelmchen](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/u/LordHelmchen)\
**Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 10:10pm UTC](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/new-encumbrance/9211/24 "2015-03-25T22:10:05Z")

</div>

Greetings!  
I was about to check out the experimental to get all the new features, but a look at the encumberment made me reconsider:  
Copied save folder, loaded in both versions, this gives:  
Torso

thermal electic outfit  
flame resistant suit  
scabbard  
small waterskin  
survivor belt  
survivor trenchcoat  
light survivor harness  
MBR vest (empty)  
Browning BLR (on shoulder strap)  
Head

thermal electric outfit  
flame-resistant hood  
helmet netting  
survivor helmet  
Eyes

pair of fit-over sunglasses  
survivor mask  
Mouth

protective mouthpiece  
thermal electric outfit  
survivor mask  
Arms

thermal electric outfit  
flame-resistant suit  
survivor trenchcoat  
Hands

thermal electric outfit  
pair of flame-resistant gloves  
pair of light survivor gloves  
Legs

boxer shorts  
thermal electric outfit  
flame-resistant suit  
survivor cargo pants  
holster  
pair of drop leg pouches  
leather chaps  
   
Feet

thermal electric outfit  
pair of flame-resistat socks  
ankle holster  
pair of survivor boots

[table]  
[tr][td]location[/td][td]0.C[/td][td]experimental[/td][/tr]  
[tr][td]Torso[/td][td]0+2[/td][td]57+45[/td][/tr]  
[tr][td]Head[/td][td]3+0[/td][td]42+0[/td][/tr]  
[tr][td]Eyes[/td][td]1+0[/td][td]22+10[/td][/tr]  
[tr][td]Mouth[/td][td]1+0[/td][td]22+0[/td][/tr]  
[tr][td]Arms[/td][td]0+0[/td][td]17+0[/td][/tr]  
[tr][td]Hands[/td][td]0+0[/td][td]12+10[/td][/tr]  
[tr][td]Legs[/td][td]0+0[/td][td]21+10[/td][/tr]  
[tr][td]Feet[/td][td]1+0[/td][td]22+0[/td][/tr]  
[/table]  
even considering a factor 10 for conversion: Is the magnitude of the new encumberance intended? Is my loadout that unreasonable? It seems that as it stands, one is better of just grabbing a duffel bag and throw everything into that instead of carefully working out a set of bags and holsters to optimize equipment storage…

I do know that 10 is the new one, and I can accept that some numbers are still in flux and due for balancing… I guess I’m more or less wondering what the design vision is for encumberment system.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Coolthulhu](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.cataclysmdda.org/coolthulhu/32/2446_2.png) [@Coolthulhu](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/u/Coolthulhu)\
**Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 10:34pm UTC](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/new-encumbrance/9211/25 "2015-03-25T22:34:30Z")

</div>

> [@LordHelmchen](#):
>
> I do know that 10 is the new one, and I can accept that some numbers are still in flux and due for balancing… I guess I’m more or less wondering what the design vision is for encumberment system.

Kevin plans to get rid of layering penalty sometime soon. Expect the numbers to change a lot in short time.  
Then, the whole round to 10 thing is supposed to be removed too.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![eccentric](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f9ae1b/32.png) [@eccentric](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/u/eccentric)\
**Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 3:54pm UTC](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/new-encumbrance/9211/26 "2015-03-26T15:54:13Z")

</div>

[quote=“Coolthulhu, post:25, topic:9211”]Kevin plans to get rid of layering penalty sometime soon. Expect the numbers to change a lot in short time.  
Then, the whole round to 10 thing is supposed to be removed too.[/quote]Can you explain or point to the thread on getting rid of the layering penalty?

I’m about 9-10days into a game with the latest experimental encumbrance and I’m in the minority cause I like it so far. After playing with it, the ability to put items into other storage items would be a good complement feature. Easily dropping your duffel bag full to the brim with books to fight the enemy then pickup and go would be convenient.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Vorchar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Vorchar](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/u/Vorchar)\
**Post date:** [March 26, 2015, 4:10pm UTC](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/new-encumbrance/9211/27 "2015-03-26T16:10:48Z")

</div>

[quote=“eccentric, post:26, topic:9211”][quote=“Coolthulhu, post:25, topic:9211”]Kevin plans to get rid of layering penalty sometime soon. Expect the numbers to change a lot in short time.  
Then, the whole round to 10 thing is supposed to be removed too.[/quote]Can you explain or point to the thread on getting rid of the layering penalty?

I’m about 9-10days into a game with the latest experimental encumbrance and I’m in the minority cause I like it so far. After playing with it, the ability to put items into other storage items would be a good complement feature. Easily dropping your duffel bag full to the brim with books to fight the enemy then pickup and go would be convenient.[/quote]  
As far as I unrestood Kevin is looking if you can completely remove layer penalty. Layer penalty is the penalty that you get when you equip more than one equipment on same layer (each bodypart has it’s own layers: skin, normal, outer, strapped). Each wearable over the limit gives 10 points of encumbrance. Wearing 2 long shirts would give you encumbrance like this 0+10=10. Kevin is looking if you can balance the system so that you would not have the layer penalty but each piece of cloth would have enough encumbrance to prevent player from stacking low encumbrance clothing to get very high armor/volume ratings.

The problem with new encumbrance I have is that 90% of the wearables are useless now. While a lot of them were quite useless before, it did not matter since you had so much room to play with. Quiver, sheats and waterskins actually take more than they give.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kevin.granade](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.cataclysmdda.org/kevin.granade/32/1316_2.png) [@kevin.granade](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/u/kevin.granade)\
**Post date:** [March 27, 2015, 2:08am UTC](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/new-encumbrance/9211/28 "2015-03-27T02:08:59Z")

</div>

After some discussion, I changed my mind about the layering penalty being obsolete, it still adresses issues we have.  
On the other hand, I think adjusting how the layering penalty and fitting clothes works to be more continuous is called for. I’m not sure what to do about the layering penalty and very low encumbrance clothes, but for fitting I think it should be either -10 encumbrance or encumbrance / 2, whichever is larger.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Vorchar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Vorchar](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/u/Vorchar)\
**Post date:** [March 27, 2015, 3:27pm UTC](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/new-encumbrance/9211/29 "2015-03-27T15:27:39Z")

</div>

I’m just going to throw here some of the thoughts I have gone trough about the encumbrance, what it is and what it could be.

Currently layering penalty and only two of a kind go for same limiting reasons: to promote diversity. So that we would not run in trenchcoats or hoodies (which it actually does not do, we ONLY wear them both unless for RP reasons). They also pevent stacking of low enc items for armor (t-shirt, long sleeved shirt). Only two of a kind more over prevents us from wearing a lot of strong items (harness, drop puch, face masks, hoodies, trenchcoats, cargo pants) than layers.

A lot of the discussions turn in to “People would be stacking t-shirt for armor” and “people would only use trenchcoat”. when we look at encumbrance and changes. These things don’t really have much to do with layering in my opinion. If each t-shirt would have 05 enc people could not stack them for armor. There would be no point there are better clothing to stack. So why would people wear t shirt? Good question, why should they? Perhaps for wramth and getting just tiny bit more armor and still not going over the encumbrance to get more penalty. This in my opinion is only a balancing issue. 2 of a kind rule is a bit more harder to solve if you remove it. Removing it would be pretty much a balancing nightmare and I feel that it is better to be left alone.

Trenchcoat is not really that good coat. It gives a lot of volume that people want. Armor is easier to get from shirts. Trenchcoat is actually pretty bad for armor and wramth. If getting wet would be a lot bigger issues and wramth would be a lot harder to get, trenchcoat stacking would be less ideal. You would want to have more item with better wramth and armor values.

In a imaginary situations let’s say that trenchcoat would have enc of 7, t-shirt enc of 1 and long sleeved shirt enc of 2.  
To not go past 10 enc you would could wear 1 trenchcoat and either 2 t-shirts or 1 shirt. With t-shirts only thing protecting your arms would be trenchcoat with very low armor, but with shirt you would get a sliver more. Add in another trench and we would be at 14 enc. Now we could stack 1 t-shirt and 2 shirts for 19 enc. We would have quite a bit of armor and wramth with the values that the game has now (I feel that there values and armor pen need some work) but not really much volume and getting anything else would give us even more penalty. As I did not delve to deep to min maxing it does not sound TOO bad without layering penalty item properties are played with. A lot more work than just implementing small fix to “layers easily” items, that I won’t deny.

Personally I feel that armor values could also go below 1 (but only full points count) and t-shirt might as well five you a 0.5 or 0.2 armor. Basically for armor you need to stack it with something else for it to be effective. It would still help for wramth and wet penalties.

I expect a lot of weirdness in the text above. I need to start doing my house work since putting these thoughts to text took a bit more than I would have liked.

[Previous page](https://discourse.cataclysmdda.org/t/new-encumbrance/9211.md?page=1)