The problem with athletics

[owens]

The problem with athletics is (in my eyes) the armour weight penalty curve.

lets do case study of 5ath vs 2ath

Athletics should be noticeably beneficial to movement speed and acceleration at 12 weight armour and a decent helmet and weapons. Beyond this strength should be better. Currently strength is better from about 9 weight.




This is how I see it, I might be wrong.

Basically the already "fragile" athletics builds have to dedicate to light armour only increasing there chances of being chopped down.

If you plus one this post -1 the other please maintain the ying and yang

[TurmoilTom]

I have to admit, athletics definitely isn't worth going past once you hit 7 or 8 if you intend to use medium armor (9 to 13 weight).

I was fighting San in the duel server with a 12/27 STF and he asked me how much athletics I had. I answered "9" and he seemed surprised that I had so much.

To give an idea I was wearing a Haubergeon, Mail Gauntlets, a Kettle Hat and Splinted Leather Greaves.

[owens]

I assume that 12 strength is that of an ordinary man.

27 strength is that of a pro wrestler or heavy weight boxer.

27 athletics should be equivalent to a decent triathlete. At the moment its more like a fun runner.


With zero armour a high athletics UAM is 13. Is not that much shy of a Sumptard. With 7 ath and decent armour 5 ath is the same speed.

This problem is amplified by the "lumpy" maps and unnecessary and some times ridiculous gradients you see in warband.

[rustyspoon]

If they made the speed reduction to athletics linear instead of percentile-based, it would make a HUGE difference.

[Akynos]

I assume that 12 strength is that of an ordinary man.

27 strength is that of a pro wrestler or heavy weight boxer.

What am I then at 36 strength? A mutated gorilla? x)

Anyway, it is true that athletics don't feel that useful right now. I mean, thats the reason why I roll full str, because agility is not worth the power and survivability you gain from strength, unless your playstyle is really adapted.

[Wrangham]

If they made the speed reduction to athletics linear instead of percentile-based, it would make a HUGE difference.

http://forum.meleegaming.com/beginner's-help-and-guides/athletics-weight-and-run-speed-question/msg268964/#msg268964

See above post for a graph of WaltF4's research on the issue. Unless I am misinterpreting his findings or something has changed, weight is already very nearly a linear reduction in run speed.

here's WaltF4's original topic http://forum.meleegaming.com/beginner's-help-and-guides/running-in-crpg/

[owens]

Walt's graphs don't account for higher strengths effect on weight penalty.

Each build he tests have the same strength. In fact he proves nothing we didn't know. (no offence good research).

The average weight for an ath build should be between 15 and 30 currently the speed penalty at 20 weight is far too high. I would even argue that until 25 weight very little penalty should be noted.


A penalty that goes from shallow linear up to 30 weight and than smoothly transitions into an ever steepening parabola or exponential would be a more suitable shape. For example I can carry a full hiking pack without being much slower, but when the pack is heavy enough that just holding it on my back is difficult more strength is going to be more beneficial than more athletics.

Currently that transition is far too early.

[rustyspoon]

http://forum.meleegaming.com/beginner's-help-and-guides/athletics-weight-and-run-speed-question/msg268964/#msg268964

See above post for a graph of WaltF4's research on the issue. Unless I am misinterpreting his findings or something has changed, weight is already very nearly a linear reduction in run speed.

here's WaltF4's original topic http://forum.meleegaming.com/beginner's-help-and-guides/running-in-crpg/

Really, it was a bad choice of words on my part. I should have said a "flat" reduction instead of "linear". The fact that higher-athletics builds are penalized MORE than lower-athletics builds proves that the reduction is percentile-based and not a flat reduction. So, higher athletics builds get a much higher penalty for carrying more gear than builds with lower athletics.

[Wrangham]

Really, it was a bad choice of words on my part. I should have said a "flat" reduction instead of "linear". The fact that higher-athletics builds are penalized MORE than lower-athletics builds proves that the reduction is percentile-based and not a flat reduction. So, higher athletics builds get a much higher penalty for carrying more gear than builds with lower athletics.

The penalty you are talking about:

                                                 60 weight run time/ 0 weight run time                               60 weight run time - 0 weight run time
Agility   3 and Athletics 1:                        1.13                                                                            3.21 seconds
Agility 15 and Athletics 5:                        1.20                                                                            4.21 seconds
Agility 27 and Athletics 9:                        1.24                                                                            4.48 seconds

A pure-STR character with 1 ATH and 0 weight will run 13% slower after adding 60 weight. A balanced 5 ATH character will run 20% slower after adding 60 weight, and a 9 ATH character will run 24% slower after adding 60 weight. The difference is much smaller in practice because it's inconceivable someone would carry 60kgs into battle (Heaviest possible armor is ~35kg.) I don't know whether it's fair or unfair but I thought I'd add some numbers to Rustyspoon's point.

Walt's graphs don't account for higher strengths effect on weight penalty.

Owens there doesn't seem to be any effect from higher strength: From WaltF4's test "Character strength and level had no effect on run times."

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

While Rustyspoon has a point then seriously, don't buff medium armor even more please.