MYTH TESTED: The evasion penalty is zero for any encumbrance in the NONE range. The evasion penalty then begins at one stone into the Light Burden range.

Ok, so I took Hanryu's advice and started experimenting with Encumbrance levels and their respective evasion penalties.

I've been using gobs of coins to adjust my burden to one stone above the threshold of the previous burden level, and then testing the evasion penalty. I was not wearing or holding any shields, armor, weapons, or parry sticks and I was using only pure Evasion stances for the tests.

Now according to a post by Dartenian on 4/15/09, the evasion penalty is supposedly zero as long as your encumbrance is in the 'None' range, and then the evasion penalty begins at 'light burden' and increases with each point of burden thereafter.

So, when I moved my character one stone into the 'light burden' range, I noticed that I was receiving about a 5% penalty to my evasion compared to holding no coins. I had hypothesized that since I was only one stone over the limit, the evasion penalty would hardly be noticeable. I was looking for something like 1% or less, so ~5% penalty was quite a bit higher that I expected.

This got me curious.

I decided to drop one stone to fall back into the 'None' range and then test my evasion penalty again. Supposedly, the penalty would fall back to zero. Interestingly, though, my penalty was still at 4-5%, even in the 'None' range. The evasion penalty continued to drop as I lowered my weight 20 stones at a time for the next 200 stones. Then, around 200 stones below my 'light burden' threshold, I was finally back to 0% penalty. Those 200 stones had all been in the 'None' range of burden.

Without further ado:

Since the 'NONE' burden range is supposed to have a 0% penalty all the way until it hits 'Light Burden', I would like to officially tag this MYTH as BUGGED!

Case-closed! :)

>> Just wondering but how did you find out you were being penalized at 5%?

I used Hanryu's method from post 177.

Basically, I set my evasion to 100 and appraised a critter. Then I stanced down evasion until the appraisal of the critter difficulty increased by one level. I continued stancing down and recording the evasion percent for each increase in critter difficulty.

Then I increased my burden just enough to hit 'Light Burden' and then I repeated the test. This time the evasion percentages required for each critter level were higher. Then I increased by burden another level and tested again. I did this all the way up to 'Over burdened'

Basically, the increase in evasion percent for all critter appraisals increased by about 5% from None to just barely into 'Light Burden'. This was what I found odd, because if the evasion penalty really started at 'light burden', it should have started around 0% or 1% at the beginning of 'Light Burden' and not 5%.

I have more data as well, and can post it if anyone is interested.

Rather than have som hidden cumbrance, why not flesh it out and list it on a larger scale?

>Could always be some nonsense of some stat or parry or the Defensive value being penalized by encumbrance separately from evasion.

This would be easy to test for with the app method.

---

>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.

<<I think it's funny all this elaborate testing was done when Dart posted awhile back that there was a range in "none" where encumbrance was present. Surprised no one seems to remember it.

http://elanthipedia.com/wiki/Post:Encumbrance_and_Evasion_-_4/15/2009_-_2:41:11


They're not ignoring the post, they're actually referencing it. They're saying there is a penalty in the none range of encumbrance, when there shouldn't be any. Though I tend to agree with another poster, that (if there is a problem) it might not be the none (but a little) encumbrance penalizing evasion, but actually penalizing another stat/skill, which hurts your defense anyways.


DRPrime - Celeres Turrance
DRPrime - NecroUnknown

It's entirely likely that there's a bug...

---

>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.

Maybe none is a range to...


~Worrclan, Dwarf of the Realms-

I think not many people are familiar with the post by GM Dartenian regarding Encumbrance changes in April 2009. I'll copy it here for everyone to read. This post is the reason I believe there is a bug with encumbrance. If this post never existed, I wouldn't have any issues with encumbrance right now.

* Encumbrance and Evasion · on 4/15/2009 2:41:11 AM Post: 161 *

Heyo!

When INFO / ENCUMB tells you that you have an encumbrance of none, it really means it now...at least in terms of evasion penalties. "None" is still a range, but as long as you are in that range, you will no longer take a penalty to your evasion skill due to your burden.

In addition, even when you do finally start taking an evasion penalty from burden, it will be less than it was before. Basically, the entire penalty scale has been shifted up to start with "Light" encumbrance, rather than starting at 1 point of burden and going up from there.

This change is live in Platinum and Prime. TF will follow once I am comfortable enough that this change hasn't broken combat (too much).

- GM Dartenian

So the way I understand this post... Prior to April 2009, Encumbrance "NONE" was a range of evasion penalties from 0% (when carrying 0 stones) to X% (when carrying one stone less than "Light Burden").

However, after April 2009, the entire encumbrance "NONE" range was replaced with a 0% penalty. The evasion penalty then began at 0% with one point of burden into "Light Burden" to Y% at the Light Burden/Somewhat Burdened Threshold.

The main issue is that during my testing, I found that the evasion penalty actually began around 200 stones less than "Light Burden", meaning the penalty still began in the "None" range, which it isn't supposed to. If the GM's changed it to this new model, that's fine, I would just have liked there to be an announcement to go with it. Otherwise, I think this is a bug.

>>Please read all of the previous posts carefully before commenting on a thread. While what you say is true, your comment was already addressed in the original post. It was not the 5% penalty that 'proved' to me that there was a penalty in the NONE range... it was the further research I performed afterward that Confirmed it. I'll state it again here for convenience sake:

I usually do for some reason my eyes went tl;dr and jumped right over it.

You did bug this in the game, right?

_______________________
As good almost kill a man as kill a good book; who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye.
-John Milton

<< I usually do for some reason my eyes went tl;dr and jumped right over it. >>

No worries, it happens to the best of us. (I'll admit some of my posts can get lengthy, though I try to use lots of Paragraph breaks to spice things up... haha)


<< You did bug this in the game, right? >>

Actually, I haven't although I did post it in the BUG folder as well. I suppose an in-game BUG would draw more attention to it, since no GM's have commented on this thread yet.

Solomon's mother so fat she couldn't dodge ... never mind.

>>Let's get back on topic, thank you.

Looks like it worked. Mods will pass on all sorts of good information to GMs.

Now back on topic before Annwyl beats me to a bloody pulp...You have it on the forums, which is great. File a bug report just below the amount you need to have the penalty, and an addendum at the amount where you have the penalty. That's my two cents anyway.