No swimming allowed

Let's say you are in a sea battle and you lose and fall into the water. You can't just swim to shore because swimming uses up your stamina. When you reach zero stamina you swim real slow and start eating up health. If you don't reach shore before that runs out you die. This is my theory. What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

If your ship is destroyed underneath you out in the middle of the ocean, and you are left unkilled, being able to swim with reasonable though not excessive speed would be important, I would think.

Edit; also, underwater content will hopefully be a thing.

Damokles

Will treading water cost stamina? If not, then there is your answer.

Dygz

I don't expect swimming to expend more stamina than running.
How far player characters can swim typically has more to do with how seamless the world is and the devs only partially rendering the world.

unknownsystemerror

@noaani

sunfrog

Dygz wrote: »

I don't expect swimming to expend more stamina than running.
How far player characters can swim typically has more to do with how seamless the world is and the devs only partially rendering the world.

If you can swim then you don't need an aquatic mount.

HumblePuffin

sunfrog wrote: »

If you can swim then you don't need an aquatic mount.

I would assume an aquatic mount would just make you better on/under the water. Maybe they would do something like WoW with the deep water causing this where you would absolutely need an aquatic mount/ship to cross, but as someone said that’s mainly just used as a way to create an artificial barrier for a zoned world.

I gotta say, I can’t stop picturing a dwarf falling out of a ship and just flailing around in water trying to make its stubby arms and legs work as it just slowly sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

T Elf

I would rather have the mechanic that you don't die. Just have mounts that make you faster. I remember being able to swim in EQ across the ocean....it would take you hours, but you would survive. I also like the EQ2 mechanic where you level up swimming and become faster; but then, they didn't have water mounts.

unknownsystemerror

sunfrog wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

I don't expect swimming to expend more stamina than running.
How far player characters can swim typically has more to do with how seamless the world is and the devs only partially rendering the world.

If you can swim then you don't need an aquatic mount.

If you can walk, you don't need a horse!

Undead Canuck

HumblePuffin wrote: »

sunfrog wrote: »

If you can swim then you don't need an aquatic mount.

I would assume an aquatic mount would just make you better on/under the water. Maybe they would do something like WoW with the deep water causing this where you would absolutely need an aquatic mount/ship to cross, but as someone said that’s mainly just used as a way to create an artificial barrier for a zoned world.

I gotta say, I can’t stop picturing a dwarf falling out of a ship and just flailing around in water trying to make its stubby arms and legs work as it just slowly sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

The dwarf wouldn't flail around. He would just sink to the bottom and march to the shore. They don't take crap from anything.

Morashtak

Undead Canuck wrote: »

The dwarf wouldn't flail around. He would just sink to the bottom and march to the shore. They don't take crap from anything.

This is a stereotypical myth that I, as a member in good standing with the Society for Accuracy in Dünzenkell Details, would like to dispel;

Due to our superior lung-to-body-mass ratio we are actually much more buoyant than the more mundane stick-like figure body types. Hence, we are much less likely to sink even when full of our favorite beverages.

Thank you for your attention.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Undead Canuck

But did you take into account the large amount of iron strapped to your body?

That stuff is not very buoyant.

Damokles

Morashtak wrote: »

Undead Canuck wrote: »

The dwarf wouldn't flail around. He would just sink to the bottom and march to the shore. They don't take crap from anything.

This is a stereotypical myth that I, as a member in good standing with the Society for Accuracy in Dünzenkell Details, would like to dispel;

Due to our superior lung-to-body-mass ratio we are actually much more buoyant than the more mundane stick-like figure body types. Hence, we are much less likely to sink even when full of our favorite beverages.

Thank you for your attention.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

It is disappointing, that you as a dwarf forgott the higher dwarven muscle and bone density. This, in combination with your smaller size, leads to a non-buoyant body. A smaller surface in combination with a higher material density, leads to a sinking dwarf!

Kasel

All I want in terms of underwater content, are giant sea monsters. It's the scariest thing ever for me, and I want to battle this fear in AoC damnit.

Reflet

What about the "swimming in armor" thing???

I know we are in a magical world... but still... it's already hard to swim in regular clothes, even more in a thick wizard dress, so swimming in a heavy plate armor is unthinkable.
Having this kind of trouble in mind could play it's roll in the naval content!

Either the player wear leather or cloth armor, and can expect to swim if need be.
Or wear heavy armor to get less damages in naval combat, but run the risk of sinking in the event of falling from the ship or if this one is destroyed.

...choices have to be made!!

Amist

Reflet wrote: »

What about the "swimming in armor" thing???

I know we are in a magical world... but still... it's already hard to swim in regular clothes, even more in a thick wizard dress, so swimming in a heavy plate armor is unthinkable.
Having this kind of trouble in mind could play it's roll in the naval content!

Either the player wear leather or cloth armor, and can expect to swim if need be.
Or wear heavy armor to get less damages in naval combat, but run the risk of sinking in the event of falling from the ship or if this one is destroyed.

...choices have to be made!!

But wouldn't you technically get weighed down by walking as well then? Imagine having a backpack on filled with armor pieces, mounts, crafting materials, etc. It wouldn't be easy to walk around with. I think there's room for things to be unrealistic in this regard as to not take the fun away from walking/swimming around.

Nagash

Its a skeletons life for me

sunfrog

unknownsystemerror wrote: »

sunfrog wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

I don't expect swimming to expend more stamina than running.
How far player characters can swim typically has more to do with how seamless the world is and the devs only partially rendering the world.

If you can swim then you don't need an aquatic mount.

If you can walk, you don't need a horse!

You can't walk. That's why you fall through the mountains.

Child Item