Fall-Damage Inconsistency

[Maga 99]

Currently I am playing on a server and have 21 levels. I'm building a new home and often fall off 3 or 4 block high walls. With 21 levels on me I can take upwards of 20 hits from a zombie wearing absolutely no armor. Paradoxically, falling off my 3 meter walls a few times is deadly and I frequently have to stop and wait for my health to get up to a safe level before I continue building.

 

I think it's appropriate that fall damage be scaled down along with damage from hostile mobs. It makes no sense that I can get mauled by a grizzly more times then I can walk off my balcony. In order to prevent players from leaping off cliffs without worry I think the damage reduction should only strongly apply to falls of 3-5 blocks. After a 6-7 meter fall I think it should be devastating but if I can become more agile and dodge most of the damage from a skeletal archer... I like to think I would be agile enough to roll when I hit the ground after falling a few blocks.

 

My suggestion is very simple and would be easy to implement in the code. I hope you agree and will consider adding it to the game.

 

[kaldskryke 27]

Please note that experience levels don't add "damage reduction". Experience actually increases your maximum health pool.

 

So why is it that fall damage is still quite lethal even with lots of total health? I had to check the code to make sure, but Fall Damage is increased when you have additional health. The increase is proportional to your extra health, so You will always be able to survive the same amount of falling, regardless of experience.

 

This is clearly intentional, so I doubt your suggestion will be accepted.

 

However, I'm inclined to agree that minor falls are a huge nuisance. I would like to see minor falls dealing fairly little damage, but instead applying a slowness debuff.

[Kittychanley 1,002]

There are a couple different damage types in which this is the case. For fall damage and starvation damage, the calculation is actually done as X% Max Health, instead of Y HP. I'm fairly sure that Bioxx implemented it this way intentionally, so that even with higher levels, the player isn't invincible.

 

Edit: For clarification of the X% Max Health. Right now starvation damage does 50% damage, so if the player has a max health of 1,000 HP, they will take 500HP damage from starvation. If the player has a max possible health of 1,000HP, but only currently has 600 HP and is regenerating, they still take 500HP damage. If the player has leveled quite a bit, and has a max possible health of 2,000 HP, they will take 1,000 HP of damage while starving.

 

The 50% was actually a bug, as it is supposed to be 5% so you don't instantly die, but the premise is the same. Because the damage is based off of the player's max health and not a static HP value, players will starve to death at the same rate regardless of what level they are at. So a just because a player has enough levels to have 2,000/2,000HP, that doesn't mean they can live twice as long while starving.

[Maga 99]

I'm aware of the 50% bug and I observed that even at level 21 the drop from 4 blocks took my health bar back the same amount of pixels.

 

The problem I see (and it is clearly in the title) is the Inconsistency, I don't understand why I can get repeatedly mauled by a bear without much of a problem but if I fall off my 4-high wall 6 times in a row I'm practically dead.

Either make bears (and other things) much more deadly at all levels along with falls or stop the silly business of lethal 4 block drops.

 

I'm NOT suggesting that someone at a high level doesn't have to worry about falling... I just wan't the scaling to be tweaked. On top of this I would like to see a MINOR reduction to the X% Max Health of 4-7 block falls that comes with being a higher level. Nothing game-breaking, just a tiny perk for not dying all the time. It kinda hurts that you guys think I'm one of those people demanding god-mode endgame silly business. That ain't me. I just like believably. As I previously mentioned, the contrast between mauled by a grizzly and falling a few times once you get up there in levels is a little ridiculous and still serves as a good example for the issue as I see it.

 

Please don't assume I'm hysterically demanding that we be able to Featherfall IV off mountains.

 

Also, I like the slowness from broken legs/bruised ankles. Fantastic idea.

[Kittychanley 1,002]

The difference that I see between the two damages, and why one is static while the other scales with the player's max health is the basis of why you get more max health with levels in the first place. It's meant to represent real life experience, and perhaps even combat experience. So, as you gain experience you become more and more skilled in combat with a bear. This difference is shown by taking less relative damage when the bear hits you, which can be interpreted as you doing a better job blocking the front of the blow, or simply partially dodging the attack altogether. So while you were a new player, when a bear attacked you they did full on maul the crap out of you; but now that you are more experienced with dealing with bears, while he still might get a swing or two at you, you're better at avoiding and the attacks are more like side swipes or grazes, so they don't impact your max health very much.

 

Other than mastering the tuck and roll, no amount of experience is really going to change the fact that falling twice your height is going to hurt, and will probably hurt pretty badly. You can't really out-wit gravity into only giving a grazing blow once you are falling from a certain height.

 

The damage you take is "inconsistent" because they are two completely different types of damages. Kind of like saying the number of seeds you get is "inconsistent" when comparing apples and oranges.

 

Edit: Assuming that the code still uses the vanilla base amount of 1 point per block fallen after the 3rd (1 point for 4 blocks, 2 points for 5 blocks, etc.) you should be taking 8% max health damage for each block fallen (8% for 4 blocks, 16% for 5 blocks, 24% for 6 blocks, etc). If I've interpreted the code correctly, and it's behaving correctly, that means that player who was at full health, and isn't regenerating health for simplicity's sake, can fall off a 4 high wall 13 times before they are dead. Obviously if you account for regeneration and the time between falls, they can do even more than this. In my opinion, if you're falling that many times.. you probably should be dead.

[Maga 99]

Other than mastering the tuck and roll.

 

My point... It's right there... you just said it...

 

If I can (theoretically) get experience in fighting bears why can't I get experience in tucking and rolling. 

 

I have said, over and over and over and over again, that the damage reduction at higher level should ONLY affect SHORT falls. Yes, with practice you can tuck and roll from a fall twice or even 3 times your height and be fine (I jump off the trampoline, my toes 6 feet off the ground and land no problem without a roll every time)

 

Direct quote from op: "After a 6-7 meter fall I think it should be devastating" I completely agree that long falls should be just as deadly as they are now. I made sure to repeat this several times in my second post just to make sure it was noted.

 

The inconsistency I refer to is NOT the difference in the damage value number itself (why would I complain about that)... It's the lack of ability to "learn" how to fall better, just as you "learn" to fight mobs better.

 

I feel as though you are bringing up issues with my OP that I not only addressed, but offered the same opinion as you did.

 

There are things that I addressed 2-3, 4 times (multiple times per post) that are still being brought up as though my previous comments towards them were never made, and it's a little frustrating. I'll try to remain as polite as possible but I am now forced to be blunt in hopes that it will not be misunderstood.

 

You are correct about the 13 times. That was a mistake on my part. I suppose after falling off my house I was getting annoyed by the mechanic and exaggerated the damage in my OP. The fact remains that a fall from 6 feet (my height) is absolutely nothing to me, a fall from 12 feet is something (An experienced gymnast be able to roll from) and a fall from 24 feet is certainly more than twice as bad as 12.

 

The linear progression currently used is neither realistic nor believable. The lack of ability to learn how to take the short falls over time is again, neither realistic nor believable as well as being inconsistent with learning how to fight better (what is already in the game).

 

I really hope this was clear.

[Kittychanley 1,002]

I see your point, but the problem lies in the fact that you are suggesting that the experience only helps with short falls. Which pretty much nullifies your following statement:

 

My suggestion is very simple and would be easy to implement in the code.

 

The fall damage is currently a linear system because Mojang hardcoded it that way. The only thing that TFC does is take the vanilla fall damage value (1 point per block) and multiplies it by 8% of the player's max heatlh. We don't change the physics or how fall damage is actually calculated.

 

The only possible solution that I can think of  to fix the linear system is to change where we multiply it by the 8% to be something along the lines of checking which value is being used, and multiply it by different amounts. So we change 

else if(event.source == DamageSource.fall){	float healthMod = TFC_Core.getEntityMaxHealth(entity)/1000f;	event.ammount *= 80*healthMod;}

to something more like

else if(event.source == DamageSource.fall){	float healthMod = TFC_Core.getEntityMaxHealth(entity)/1000f;	if(event.ammount <= 1)		event.ammount *= 80*healthMod;	else if(event.ammount <= 2)		event.ammount *= 100*healthMod		etc, etc, etc}

So that a fall from 5 blocks does 20% damage, while a fall from 4 blocks only does 8%. There might be another way to get this to scale in a way other than linearly, but I can't think of it right now.

 

This change also only fixes the linear damage, it in no way fixes the damage taken while at a higher level. The only thing I can think of that would make it so that smaller falls aren't as devastating for players at a higher level is to make that a static value.

else if(event.source == DamageSource.fall){	float healthMod = TFC_Core.getEntityMaxHealth(entity)/1000f;	if(event.ammount <= 1)		event.ammount *= 80;	else if(event.ammount > 1)		event.ammount *= 100*healthMod}

If we do this, a 4 block fall will always do 80HP of damage regardless of the player's level, essentially becoming the same damage application style as when being attacked by a mob. Larger falls however, will still use the current system of % max health. This way, a fall that takes 50% max health, will take 50% max health even for higher level players.

 

Obviously this system would need a bunch of testing to figure out which numbers should be used to be properly balanced, or if something like this is even feasible and makes a big enough difference to basic gameplay to even make it worth implementing in the first place.

 

The other major flaw that I can think of in making smaller falls a static value is for players who have a lower than average max health because of poor nutrition. In the current system, a player who only has a max health of 200HP due to poor nutrition only takes 16 HP of damage from a 4 block fall, and 32HP from a 5 block fall. With the above altered system, a 4 block fall would do 80 HP, taking 40% of their health, while a 5 block fall would only do 40HP of damage. Suddenly the system gets a lot more complicated in order to have it make sense for all different height and max health combinations.

[Maga 99]

I didn't think It would be too hard to check what the damage would be and then multiply it down by a factor influenced by the level.

 

I'm not fluent in code though, so if I am wrong on that front I apologize.

 

I still think it would be better than the current system.

[Kittychanley 1,002]

A good general rule to follow is to never, ever state anything along the lines of "easy to code" unless you are familiar with the code. The majority of the time, when I see someone say "oh it should be easy to code!" I expect them to then provide the code to fix it. If they know that it's so easy to do, then why didn't they just quick code the fix themselves and suggest that change be made, providing the actual difference in code and explaining why they did it?

 

You wouldn't tell someone "Oh it should be easy to fix this brain tumor" when you have absolutely no knowledge of brain surgery, or what steps are actually involved in the process would you?

 

When a suggestion directly references the code, or how it should be easy to code, my responses are completely different than to a suggestion that doesn't. Behind the scenes of the average suggestion, when it gets down to actually coding it, there is a bunch more going on than one would usually think. There are a bunch of different questions that have to be given explicit answers, and a bunch of different scenarios that need to be accounted for. It isn't as simple as "Tell the computer to do this, it will figure out the rest on its own." because computers aren't that smart. They do what we tell them to do, and we have to code all of that "figuring out" in addition to what we want it to do.

 

So, here are just some of the behind the scenes questions that would be involved in order for it to just "check what the damage would be and multiply it down by a factor influenced by the level."

 

• How and when do we check what the damage would be?
• Do we use the provided, hard-coded Mojang value of counting how many blocks fallen and go from there?
• What exactly do we do to determine the player's level given the resources that we have access to in this method?
• At what player level does the "multiply it down" start kicking in?
• How does the current level of the player exactly influence this factor?
• Do we do it on a linear scale, an exponential one, a log one?
• How far can the player fall before their level no longer matters?
• Does this distance change as the player gains more levels, or is it a static value regardless of level?
• How does this system work for players of all different max health values?

[Miner239 47]

I am against this suggestion because you only get levels from killing mobs. Unless the devs add the acrobatic skill from MMOMC, that makes more sense than 'i killed 300 zombie, i can drop as much as kratos can'.

Can't you overwrite the code responsible for fall damage? If I can, I would figure out what speed Steve will have when falling three blocks, set fall damage as (speed-3blockspeed)^2-acrobaticlevel-level, and commit. Now that is a bit easy.

EDIT: So I found that the 3 block fall speed is 12 m/s or 0.6 m/t. The formula is now maxhealth((speed-0.6)^2)-(acrobaticlevel+2*level) . Forgot to add the maxhealth there.

[Maga 99]

In case just adding skills left and right for everything isn't what the devs have in mind...

 

I don't know this language at all so I'll use layman's terms but here is just what came to mind first.

 

currently you say it is this

(event.amount)(max health/1000)(80)

 

adding a small bit of math could change it so that it is this

(event.amount)(max health/1000)(80) / (0.002<experience level>^2)+1)

round up the answer to nearest decimal and put a cap on around level 40

 

Assuming player has 1000 max health, here are some examples of the output of a 4 block fall at level:

0   = 80

10 = 73

20 = 58

30 = 43

40 = 31

 

Obviously this doesn't help a whole lot because it does not include a way to have larger falls give damaged based more on height and less on player level.

For example, the damage from a fall of 8 blocks at level:

 

0   = 80x5 = 400

10 = 73x5 = 365

20 = 58x5 = 290

30 = 43x5 = 215

40 = 31x5 = 105

It's still linear

 

Solution one: Make it a piece-wise function so that once the default damage goes above 4 it uses a different multiplier, if it goes above 10 use no multiplier.

Solution two: Add a bit of math to the current equation that incorporates the fall height

 

It would need to make this value

(0.002<experience level>^2)+1)

quickly approach 1 at the correct rate as the event.amount value increased 

 

It's a little late for me and I don't trust myself to come up with the perfect equation for doing that in a well-scaled manner.

Probably give it a go tomorrow when my eyes stop trying to shut themselves.

 

EDIT: CHANGES MADE IN FUTURE POST BELOW

[Miner239 47]

I did the math of my formula on excel since normal calculator is a burden to do that kind of equation. My formula is more forgiving, damaging 4 dmg at 4 meters and lethal at 26 meters. I need to fix my equation to balance it... 50 level is enough to make 5 meter drop safe. However, it is tied to the max health, not nutrition max health. Be right back, testing my formula.

[Maga 99]

 Behind the scenes of the average suggestion, when it gets down to actually coding it, there is a bunch more going on than one would usually think. There are a bunch of different questions that have to be given explicit answers, and a bunch of different scenarios that need to be accounted for. It isn't as simple as "Tell the computer to do this, it will figure out the rest on its own." because computers aren't that smart. They do what we tell them to do, and we have to code all of that "figuring out" in addition to what we want it to do.

If you feel you need to tell me this than I must have come across as a simpleton. Allow me to remedy that.

 

You wouldn't tell someone "Oh it should be easy to fix this brain tumor" when you have absolutely no knowledge of brain surgery, or what steps are actually involved in the process would you?

Point taken, but I'm not asking for brain surgery.,just that we take the variables of fall height and player level into account. Code to obtain the player's level already exists. We determine the fall height by working off of the default Minecraft fall-damage values. The code for getting that already exists as well. There's barely any new code here, mainly the idea is just to obtain and then use these values in a more complicated equation than "multiply by 8% maxHP"

 

Also, implying that I know ABSOLUTELY nothing in this field is akin to telling someone they have absolutely no common sense. Kinda hurts.

 

Please forgive my lack of knowledge in this coding language as I answer these in order.

• How and when do we check what the damage would be?
• Do we use the provided, hard-coded Mojang value of counting how many blocks fallen and go from there?
• What exactly do we do to determine the player's level given the resources that we have access to in this method?
• At what player level does the "multiply it down" start kicking in?
• How does the current level of the player exactly influence this factor?
• Do we do it on a linear scale, an exponential one, a log one?
• How far can the player fall before their level no longer matters?
• Does this distance change as the player gains more levels, or is it a static value regardless of level?
• How does this system work for players of all different max health values?

 

-The same way we do now

-Yes

-I assume that since we already do melee damage reduction based on level we can copy the code to obtain player level

-At every level

-By being part of the equation to manipulate the default damage (more on this later)

-Exponential, both in regards to level and fall height

-It always matters in the equation, but eventually the answer will be rounded to roughly the same number regardless of level

-See above answer, It's not static since the two values are used in conjunction, though independently.

-It starts with the same method of 8% of max health multiplied by default MC damage and goes from there

 

 

Now, I made an equation that models this scenario in a way that allows you to play around with it yourself and tweak it if you feel the need.

Here's the link: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wnpbq5mtuf

 

Guide for graph:

the x axis is the player's experience

the y axis is the value that the current TFC fall damage output is multiplied by

variable c is the significant number of blocks in the fall (see below)

 

Below the graph is another equation that represents the fall damage if a player had 1000 health and we started with manipulating a value of 8% of max health

a = a possible output value based on using a percent of a player's max health (set to 80 as default, can be changed)

b = the player's experience level

c = the number of blocks in the fall that deal fall damage (falling 3 blocks does 0 damage, so the equation starts at 1, representing a 4 block drop in minecraft.

 

Note that even with an increase of only a few extra blocks of falling, it quickly begins to take a serious amount of exp to get any sort of significant reduction.

 

All these variables are changed using the sliders below, note changing variable c will influence both the graph and the equation below.

 

Tweaking the exponents and coefficients is obviously both possible and a good idea to get the right balance. This was meant to serve as a proof of concept.

 

 

 

When I see someone say "oh it should be easy to code!" I expect them to then provide the code to fix it. If they know that it's so easy to do, then why didn't they just quick code the fix themselves.

 

It would be nice if I was fluent in code but I'm not, and not at all in this language. I was bold enough to say it would be easy to code because I know it would use values that are already being obtained elsewhere  and just combine them with nothing more than an equation. That's just the very, very basics of coding and some algebra.

 

Hopefully I changed your mind, both about the relative ease of implementing this suggestion and my intelligence.

[Kittychanley 1,002]

I'll look into the rest of the post later, but one thing I wanted to point out before I start.

 

• What exactly do we do to determine the player's level given the resources that we have access to in this method?

 

-I assume that since we already do melee damage reduction based on level we can copy the code to obtain player level

 

There is absolutely no melee damage reduction currently being done based on the player's level. I have not checked the code yet, but I am not sure if there even is a way in this method that makes the current player level accessible. The way that the system currently works, a mob will always hit you for roughly X# HP.

 

Using fake numbers, let's say that a bear hits you for 200 HP. When you are at level 0, the bear hits you for 200 HP. Because you only have 1,000 max HP, 1/5th of your health bar disappears, so it looks like you took a lot of damage.

 

Now let's say that you are at level 50. With a health gain rate of 20HP per level, you should now have a max HP of 2,000. A bear hits you. Since there is no damage reduction being done based on level, the bear still hits you for 200HP. However, because 200 is only 1/10th of 2,000 it looks like the bear is hitting you for less damage, because less of your health bar actually disappears.

[Maga 99]

Upon closer inspection it appears I have derped.

How unfortunate :/

 

In that case just pop on over to the code in Minecraft 1.6.4 that handles enchanting tables.

I would think that the game needs to know what level you are when you open the GUI, checking to see if you have the required levels for the enchantment options displayed. If a solution can't be found in that code then I'm out of ideas for now.

 

This is really making me wish I was a Java wizard.

[hoseja 23]

If your health represents experience in fighting, why does it increase with better nutrition? Falling damage shouldn't scale with max health, that's like "progress" in Oblivion where the stronger you got, the stronger sewer rats and mud crabs got. Absolute nuisance that discourages having levels in the first place. The fact that falling damage is the deadliest threat with no way to mitigate it is very annoying. And discouraging exploration.

 

This implementation might seem logical in theory but during the actual gameplay it's just frustrating and annoying, not in a good way.

[AllenWL 186]

Other than mastering the tuck and roll, no amount of experience is really going to change the fact that falling twice your height is going to hurt, and will probably hurt pretty badly. You can't really out-wit gravity into only giving a grazing blow once you are falling from a certain height.

Well, I just want to point out one thing.

I agree that falling off from twice your height is not a safe thing to do.

But what about jumping off?

 

I can jump off a place twice my height(or slightly higher) and not even get a scratch(unless I land wrong, but I usually don't).

But I can fall off my chair and sprain my wrist on the landing.

 

It's just a matter of being prepared.

If you're ready, it only takes a few practice to master landing safely.

If you're not expecting it, it hurts. It hurts a lot.

 

I think it would be best if we could do something to negate much of the fall damage but only for small falls( possibly crouching right before you hit the ground, and only for say, 4~5 blocks or so) but any larger, there's nothing you can do. This would let us build without having to build a way back down or getting hurt every time, but won't let us walk away from a huge fall just because we're level 100 or something.

 

The theory I'm working on is for the height that you can negate the fall damage for, you'll fall too fast to actually do it unless you where expecting it, so accidental falls would still be deadly, while you can jump off small falls safely with experience and skill. For the long falls that would make no sense for you to walk away from, it would have no effect, and it also prevents people from recovering from accidentally falling off huge cliffs, where you have time to go 'oh, I'm falling, better prepare'.

[Kittychanley 1,002]

If your health represents experience in fighting, why does it increase with better nutrition? Falling damage shouldn't scale with max health, that's like "progress" in Oblivion where the stronger you got, the stronger sewer rats and mud crabs got. Absolute nuisance that discourages having levels in the first place. The fact that falling damage is the deadliest threat with no way to mitigate it is very annoying. And discouraging exploration.

 

This implementation might seem logical in theory but during the actual gameplay it's just frustrating and annoying, not in a good way.

 

Health doesn't represent experience in fighting. Your experience levels do, which just happens to also increase your health. Nutrition also increases your health to represent that you are healthier as a person. So from the experience side, it looks like you take less damage because you are better at fighting and dodging. From the nutrition side, it looks like you take less damage because you are overall healthier, and can therefore heal yourself better and fight off infection and whatnot.

 

In my opinion, fall damage doesn't discourage exploration, it encourages smart exploration. If you want to scale a mountain or traverse cliff-sides, you have to actually think about the path that you are taking so that it is a safe route, instead of just blindly pressing the W key to do a straight line from A to B. It also encourages the use of other methods such as ladders, or using mods like Smart Moving to make the travel much more interactive.

 

To put it this way, in the current system a fall of 16 blocks is guaranteed to kill any and every player, regardless of levels. For the Americans out there, that's a fall of over 52 feet. If fall damage didn't scale with levels, that fall would only take away half the life of a level 50 player, which to me does not seem balanced at all. There's a reason that wikipedia lists falling as the second leading cause of accidental death.

[123mop 2]

I think the math you guys are looking for for the damage is something like:

Base fall damage percentage ^ (1+ (Player level / 100))

 

This way a fall that completely kills a level 0 player kills any other level player as well.  Long distance falls still do mostly the same damage (level 50, 15 block fall deals 94% instead of 96% damage, even a 13 block fall still deals 71.6% instead of 80%), but shorter falls deal significantly less damage (level 50, a 4 block fall deals only 2.26% damage instead of 8%, 5 block deals 6.4% instead of 16%)

 

The degree to which fall damage is affected by level can be tuned by increasing the number you're dividing the player level by.  For falls of 16 blocks or more the fall damage value is increased, but it's irrelevant because dead is dead.

[Maga 99]

Not sure if you used the link I provided to my equation. If you didn't here it is again.https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wnpbq5mtufIts something along the same idea but much more customizable and the exponential progression is better scaled.

[dunkleosteus 2,425]

Ooh code in the forums. Anyway, I think Kitty's done a good job of explaining how things are done.

 

I do want to comment that % max health seems odd when you consider how nutrition affects it: "Eat your veggies and take higher absolute fall damage"

 

What is the community's opinion on this?

[Maga 99]

Not code per se, buy kitty started berating me for originally posting a request without providing a specific way to implement it. I can't code but I've done enough Calculus to work out an equation for a simple situation like this one. If you play around with the graph I think you'll find its very easy to customize the effects of both variables to achieve a balanced progression.

In regards to health I think it seems reasonable to say a healthy person is going to get hurt a little less by a fall than a malnourished and frail one who doesn't have enough calcium and protein to maintain strong bones and ligaments.

An experienced gymnast will also be able to control a fall better than someone who's totally new to physical activity.

Seeing as I provided an equation to effectively deal with the issue, I don't see much reason why fall damage could not be slightly affected by nutrition, experience or a combination of both.

[Palisight 34]

I would say the relevant variables are (in alphabetical order)

 

Hardness of the ground you land on

Health level

Nuitrition

 

If skills were to effect fall damage, I think you would gain falling skill after taking falling damage (you are learning from your mistakes)

 

I'd say no to experience affecting it, Surviving the wilderness as a whole has little to do with fall damage: I've gotten better at killing things, so suddenly I take less fall damage?

[Maga 99]

After 10 meters it doesn't really matter if it's dirt or concrete, you're gonna be hurtin' or dead. Heck, falling from high enough onto still water will shatter bones, rupture organs and even "splatter" you a little bit due to surface tension.

 

I think of health and nutrition as the same thing, unless body temp is going to combine with nutrition to give an over-all health reading.

 

I played on an SMP server that added an agility skill from falling. I set up a long fall followed by a short one to kill me right by my spawn and sat there grinding levels for an hour until I could fall from sky limit and be fine. IMO not something the devs would want to add since it end up being grindy min/maxing instead of fun adventuring.

 

To me the experience reflects developing your strength and agility in general, so yes, I think should affect how well you can handle a fall. Even then, "realistic" mechanics don't mean jack if they can't translate to good gameplay. Adding another reason not to die discourages players from reckless behavior, and that's something the devs have said they wish to maintain.

[Palisight 34]

So you are saying that if you fall into mud (i.e. hydrated grass) or sand, you will take as much fall damage as if you fell on stone? I would actually argue that this is the most important criterion for how much damage you take

 

If you were going to add a detailed skill system, you would have to add steep penalties for death. You should not be able to grind for skill levels as described in that example

 

Also there can be limits on how much skills help you. A maximum protection value or something

 

http://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-Long-Fall

 

I'm not really sure where to look for experts on this subject, but this article states that

 

"For very high falls, the surface on which you land is the greatest influence on your chance of survival"

"The best possible surfaces on which to fall are those that will compress or give way when you fall on them, snow, soft ground (such as a newly tilled field or in a marsh), and trees or thick vegetation (although these present a high risk of impalement)."

"Water is only safe to fall into up to around 150 ft"