Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 36 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upRemoves weird exclusionary rule that makes many storage items and armors ethereal and semi-broken. #3584
Conversation
i2amroy
merged commit 675e6e2
into
CleverRaven:master
Oct 12, 2013
1 check passed
default
Merged build finished.
Details
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Rivet-the-Zombie commentedOct 12, 2013
Currently anything with a storage value over 24 can't be hit and provides no protection value, rendering most of its attributes moot.
With this minor tweak, backpacks will provide a small measure of protection from harm while gaining the risk of being damaged. All it takes is the removal of a small snippet of code.
This bit of code seems to me like something that's simply not been noticed until now, since things like purses and messenger bags run afoul of it already, and it makes armor with decent storage capacity useless as actual armor.
I'm guessing that originally it was a kludge to keep backpacks from getting damaged for game-y reasons, but it seems to me that they should be susceptible to damage while also providing a small measure of protection if you get struck on that area of the body that they cover, and removing the exclusion entirely would remedy this.