Talk:Encumbrance

This formula might not be accurate anymore. I gave it a try, and according to mama's I have 904 stones on me, then it took 720 coins in addition to that weight to go from no burden to light. My strength is 20, my stamina is 21. I've tried using the formula, but the closet I can get is it telling me I need 1082 stones to go from no to light. Not a huge difference, but one none the same. I think this formula will give you an idea, but not exact numbers.
Martslyis

Were you wearing your armor during the coin test? I vaugely recall that worn armor is ~20% lighter than being carried, might account for the difference. Assuming that there isn't actually an error in the formula and I'm not confused.
-Glimmereyes 23:04, 3 October 2008 (CDT)

No, I had no armor on. The only things I was wearing were a j gweth, weighed at 10 stones, a k gweth, also 10 stones, pants 35 stones, and a backpack weighing 849 stones. My armor was in the vault, but the backpack had a variety of other things in it.
Martslyis

there are hidden items that aren't realy items that are tied to your features (I believe it was Ssra on the play.net forums who explained this to us). For instance, your full beard might weigh 5 stone even though the only exposure you have to your beard is via your appearance and hygiene. Not all features utilize these hidden items, however, and the GMs aren't going to tell us which are which. I imagine certain conditions also add hidden items, like water when wet.--Symphaena 13:01, 4 October 2008 (CDT)

I don't think the main emphasis should be on the overall accuracy of the formula, but the changes that strength and stamina have. (ie the multiplier in front of those stats). This is more important than the constant (base) that everyone has, as it affects (effects?) what stat to train. If the formula is accurate, simply to increase weight capicity, it's simply the cheaper of the two. How far up has the formula been tested(to what str/sta values). Has it been tested with all 11 races? Also how did you come up with it; as it is rather complex in the form it was originally posted in.--VTCifer 04:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)