Proposed Inventory System

[Hypevosa]

Your backpack has a limited volume.

When volume is just a number you don't have to worry with tetris, because you KNOW you can fit X volume. Exactly how you arrange it doesn't matter.

 

It makes much more sense to me to have a parametric volume value instead of a stupid tetris minigame inventory.

 

Well I agree that the tetris minigame is a bit silly. I think that's the only way to do a volume-based system though.Or rather, the only value in doing a volume based system.

 

If you do it via numbers then it's not any different to weight. It's just instead of the amount you can carry being based on your strength, it's based on the amount of pack space you have.

 

And if you combine it with weight... then it means you have to worry about two things (which are basically the same) instead of one. It doesn't seem interesting or fun

 

 

It wouldn't be a big deal if you only had to worry about your own inventory, but you have to worry about the inventory for any companions you have as well. Or may not have.

 

it sounds a little problematic at first, but think about it. How often are you going to have a pack full of lead vs having a pack full of hollow armor? I think volume is actually the more limiting factor to use, but ignoring that the mage with 6 strength likely cannot carry around a full plate in his backpack is also silly.

 

With some backpacks volume will be your limiter, and with others it will be weight. I feel having to worry about both values at once would be a rarer circumstance.

[Hypevosa]

Then excuse me, but why not as in my suggestion?

No inventory slots.

A value for volume.

The game arranges the items by itself.

 

If a dagger weights 500g and occupies "3" volume, a full set of set of armor could weight 50kg and occupy "80".

If a normal human could carry "100" in his backpack you already have a situation where it's impossible to carry 2 full set of plate armor a 5 helmets and 3 shields and whatever else.

 

But my warrior with 18 strength can easily carry four sets of full plate due to the weight, but he lacks a proper container.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Hypevosa

[DocDoomII]

But my warrior with 18 strength can easily carry four sets of full plate due to the weight, but he lacks a proper container.

I don't get it.

Do you want to go around like this just because you have the strength?

[moridin84]

What exactly are we trying to do with this inventory system? Are we trying to avoid having the player carrying a ridiculous amount of gear? Because it's not realistic?

 

If you really want to be realistic then you can't carry even 10% of the gear you will pick up in a normal 'dungeon run'. You could set up it up so that not that much loot drops but.. that then you wouldn't have anything to sell, there's also the issue that the PC could he playing on his own or he could be playing with companions.

[Hypevosa]

xD that picture is priceless.

 

But that's essentially what the rogue's loot sack I proposed is. You can't use anything while carrying it around, but it allows you to carry it none the less.

 

It's just an option for the high number of pack rats in the game. Having tensor's floating disk to carry items and the like would also help though.

[Hypevosa]

What exactly are we trying to do with this inventory system? Are we trying to avoid having the player carrying a ridiculous amount of gear? Because it's not realistic?

 

If you really want to be realistic then you can't carry even 10% of the gear you will pick up in a normal 'dungeon run'. You could set up it up so that not that much loot drops but.. that then you wouldn't have anything to sell, there's also the issue that the PC could he playing on his own or he could be playing with companions.

 

But what if the world responded to the realism by not having every single tom **** and harry running around in full suits of armor? What if gold suddenly had enough value that having 5000 of it, while heavy, was still considered rich?

 

It's not realism for realism's sake so much as I also want things carried that are valuable to really be valuable. Full plate armor should be REALLY expensive, and not everyone should have it, so it should be worth making the space to tote it back to the store, ya know? It makes things more special than when you find 40 of it and it's only worth like 20 gold.

[moridin84]

Ah but you see, you can't fix that by using an inventory system. You need to fix the loot system. What items get dropped, how many, how often, how much they are worth, etc.

 

I think that's something worth talking about, after the loot system is worked out, then you can try and create a decent inventory system.

 

I think it will be a quite a while before Obsidian will even start to think seriously about the loot system though.

[Blablachar]

For inventory, only tetris like is what I accept fully- the slots like in the IE games are very second.

 

Also- I would like actually not to be able to sell the armor of the fallen enemy- let's say it's destroid due to fight with us and thus worthless. This could also highlight the alternative ways of disposing enemies, like poisoning them in order to keep their armor intact.

[Hypevosa]

For inventory, only tetris like is what I accept fully- the slots like in the IE games are very second.

 

Also- I would like actually not to be able to sell the armor of the fallen enemy- let's say it's destroid due to fight with us and thus worthless. This could also highlight the alternative ways of disposing enemies, like poisoning them in order to keep their armor intact.

 

That's rather unforginging though. while I agree that using a spell like disintegrate should have a decent chance to destroy some armor and gear, excluding half the party from a fight so you can get that nice armor would just be cruel. The whole point of high AC is that you are hitting their armor, not destroying it - when you bypass someone's AC you've forced them to open themselves up to attack somehow and hit them in a soft spot.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Also- I would like actually not to be able to sell the armor of the fallen enemy- let's say it's destroid due to fight with us and thus worthless. This could also highlight the alternative ways of disposing enemies, like poisoning them in order to keep their armor intact.

That would be amazing. I would really like that.

 

We'd basically be instituting something like the old inanimate object saves from 1st edition AD&D, where wooden shields were sometimes destroyed by fireballs. I love this idea.

[Hypevosa]

With spells it makes sense, but the whole point of armor is it's tough and protective. If you hit their armor you aren't destroying it, but your blow is deflected. If you bypass AC you're hitting a point of them that is not armored and doing damage, knocking them about or thrusting a sword through armor to do damage.

 

If you try to cut through chainmail or platemail, it just doesn't work that way. Maybe with leather.

 

You shouldn't always destroy armor, or even very regularly for that matter. Often a killing blow is someone taking a cut to the throat or having their guts exit out the wound left on their lower abdomen, not because you somehow completely ruined their armor.

 

Having to repair armor to regain its full potential sometimes is something I could agree with, but that should also happen if a player character is downed.

[Blablachar]

Well- it's protective, but when we hit strong enough or pierce it with an arrow (even a chainmail- those didn't stop arrows), it fails to save its user.

 

It's simply more consequence and gear shifting this way- like mentioned by Sylvius, when we face a fire-casting magican, we better not to use wooden shields (but may be effective vs different kind of spells, where the metal one wouldn't be effective). A necessity to choose the right tool for job- always welcome feature.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Blablachar

[Hypevosa]

Well- it's protective, but when we hit strong enough or pierce it with an arrow (even a chainmail- those didn't stop arrows), it fails to save its user.

 

It's simply more consequence and gear shifting this way- like mentioned by Sylvius, when we face a fire-casting magican, we better not to use wooden shields (but may be effective vs different kinds of spells, where the metal one wouldn't be effective). A necessity to choose the right tool for job- always welcome feature.

 

but you're essentially saying the right tool for the job is always not a warrior? That's my problem. Saying that anyone with a sword/hammer/etc will destroy all the opponents armor so it's a worthless job means that I'm being punished for not having loads of sniping archers, rogues, and magic users who can leave the equipment intact.

 

If I pierce chainmail with an arrow, it is not destroyed armor. Does it needs repair? yes, but it is largely, 95% perhaps, effective still. Plate armor, unless you dropped a boulder on them and the armor is crushed to oblivion, is still completely protective.

 

Unless there's an obvious reason for it, randomly destroying armor is just a needless penalty. Disintegrate turns the items to ash, an earth elemental crushing them to death would leave platemail that can't be put on someone else (and usually has bits of its previous owner inside) etc. But a warrior with a longsword didn't kill that enemy by cutting the enemy armor to ribbons, they got that kill by putting one well placed hole in the armor at best, if not hitting somewhere the armor is not like the neck or the guts.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Hypevosa

[Blablachar]

A warrior may be a way to go- it's hard to have two shields at once, but if we have a second one in our party with a different gear, together they cover most (or at least greater) number of issues (like different kinds of weapon and monster's immunities for those).

 

The second thing- I never liked in IE games that at some point we have almost unlimited amount of money due to the dozens of armors we sell from our fallen enemies. Eventuallyt shakes the game's economy, we can afford what we like and money is not an issue- it always should be an issue and the motivator (one of many) for doing quests.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Blablachar

[Umberlin]

I suppose you can somewhat fix the unlimited money thing through a combination of efforts. One of the first is the obvious, limit the amount of money merchants have, and augment their prices on objects of certain types based on how many they have incoming, and how much money they have. That's just the first up front thing, but it's a start. Essentially the end goal is to get a little isolated electronic economy going to ensure the player always needs gold, and never has it just piling up too far beyond the amounts needed so that when they do spend on what they need they have little to nothing left, with the future holding further need for more gold that they don't have yet.

 

Gold being relative of course, they could deal in clam shells for all I care.

[Hypevosa]

A warrior may be a way to go- it's hard to have two shields at once, but if we have a second one in our party with a different gear, together they cover most (or at least greater) number of issues (like different kinds of weapon and monster's immunities for those).

 

The second thing- I never liked in IE games that at some point we have almost unlimited amount of money due to the dozens of armors we sell from our fallen enemies. At some points, it shakes the game's economy, we can afford what we like and money is not an issue- it always should be an issue and the motivator (one of many) for doing quests.

 

There are usually epic items in stores that required the incredible amounts of gold you could attain if you wanted to have all the best gear. I still don't understand how they got or kept all that junk, but who knows.

 

Normal armor should be common and worthless. Leather, studded leather even, chain shirts... reselling it shouldn't be terribly profitable since the merchant has to sell something already used, already on the market, etc. The only armor worth carrying back for resale should be breastplate armors and above, and those should be something rarely encountered. If a full garrison of soldiers attacked you, the leader should have full plate or something of the sort, and everyone else pretty much should just have chain shirts or some similarly not valuable but effective armor.

 

if people really want to carry around a 30lb item to sell it for 6 gold, that's their prerogative though :\

[moridin84]

Well- it's protective, but when we hit strong enough or pierce it with an arrow (even a chainmail- those didn't stop arrows), it fails to save its user.

 

It's simply more consequence and gear shifting this way- like mentioned by Sylvius, when we face a fire-casting magican, we better not to use wooden shields (but may be effective vs different kind of spells, where the metal one wouldn't be effective). A necessity to choose the right tool for job- always welcome feature.

Hah. That doesn't really jive with a limited inventory size though.

[Hypevosa]

I think in standard D&D the rule is you critically fail a saving throw and your gear risks damage - I'd prefer that system to saying fireball would leave an armorless party naked, ya know?

[SGray]

My main wish for inventory is for it not to be list-based. It's just huge waste of the time, scrolling down such list, while in grid-based or any inventory with displayed different looking and sized items it takes up to 2 clicks to get what you're needed (5-30 secs vs 1-2 seconds, simple UI efficiency). Many modern games are implementing list-based inventory only because they are console-unificated, where you haven't decent pointer.

 

 

Some words about proposed system: like it, especially if it's taught gently, say, by old adventurer telling stories in the inn. But there are some important for me things, that should be considered, on my thought.

 

If there is autosorting for all items you obtain - inventory screen should be shown not for individual character, but for entire group + what's behind their feet. Perhaps, 2 views of inventory: "loot" for entire party (highlighting char, who is carrying specific item), and "equip" for individual chars. Additional to that - total number of free slots in your group displayed numerically.

 

Weighted money leads to 2 things: bank paychecks & pouches with diamonds, first are less reliable, second are good for rogues. So you'll trust to carry your money only to char with high perception/wisdom.

 

Think, gems shouldn't be common to buy or to sell, but necessary for rich adventurer without his own treasury. So, max is gold or platinum, gems handled separately. Always wanted in such games for poach with gems, hidden for the bad day to make sense. This leads to limited vendor cash. Possibly - some of them can give you paycheck (wit almost unlimited sum) but from less respected ones it could be fake. For not to drop fortune-worth loot to local village trader/wandering merchant. Possibly, those checks could be cashed not in banks but by same vendor later.

Edited October 5, 2012 by SGray

[Hypevosa]

I agree, hate lists.

 

The idea of having a button that allows you to see the inventory of the whole party is something I like, but individual inventories should be viewable as well.

 

You don't need a bank system if you have a good barter system and items that are valuable but lighter in weight. A gem that's worth 300 gold you can just keep and use in barter later. Encourage people to keep good light weight treasure instead of just selling things instantly - you can also just give the party the ability to buy means of travel like a carriage for keeping such things. Why would 6 people always choose to walk if they were filthy rich and could buy a carriage so they could keep their strength up and even rest during the journey if they needed?

 

Almost like Identify for magic items, gems should be appraisable by merchants if player lore is so low. I'd think your average thief knows his gems though.

[Osvir]

Bump

 

I'm feeling Inventory Management discussions popping up somewhat soon (and some already has) and I might've made a separate/1 more topic myself tomorrow but wanted to see what was discussed to a start. Can something that has been discussed this past month give more insight to "Inventory Management"?

[Delogic]

Let's all be be honest.. We'll never see character models with backpacks.

 

And for a reason; it would look stupid and ridiculous with your party wizard lugging around two extra suits of plate mail, three halberds, 42 daggers and a cat while throwing spells and and high tailing it from a pack of burnt orcs.

 

I say make the inventory endless.

 

Endless you say? Yup, give the protagonist a Bag of Holding at the very start (maybe a special talking one?), and make the inventory of individual characters limited to what the can strap on, wear and carry in their hands. This makes potion belts, throwing knife bandoleers and cool stuff like that actually important, and enables the game devs to actually make each item's encumbrance effect realistic, while allowing the party to lug around loot (which we do want now, don't we).

 

Then, only allow the Bag to be opened when out of combat so the party doesn't have an endless supply of healing potions and other 1-use items (maybe the Bag is a coward or shy, or it requires a stationary surface to be attached to). Makes inventory management a lot more strategic and fun, I would imagine.

 

And if someone actually wants to use a backpack and let one of the NPC's be the party mule? Let them. Make fetching items from it during combat take a while, and make it restrict that player's combat ability, but make it a viable choice a player could make.

 

Sort of lets you have your cake and eat it too.

[TrashMan]

It still fails to take into account things whose shape limits them from being in the pack, or being in the pack together. It's the reason I essentially have the volume system you proposed, but with bulky slots for when bags can't contain something like 2 full suits of plate mail armor, and strap slots for things like halberds.

 

No it doesn't.

 

Volume lists your total capacity to carry things. Weather you put it on a strap or in a backpack is irrelevant.

Any items you carry i automaticly assumed to be carried in the most efficient manner possible.

 

And with proper balancing of volume, who said you can carry 2 full sets of plate mail?

Edited November 5, 2012 by TrashMan

[TrashMan]

Well I agree that the tetris minigame is a bit silly. I think that's the only way to do a volume-based system though.Or rather, the only value in doing a volume based system.

 

If you do it via numbers then it's not any different to weight. It's just instead of the amount you can carry being based on your strength, it's based on the amount of pack space you have.

 

And if you combine it with weight... then it means you have to worry about two things (which are basically the same) instead of one. It doesn't seem interesting or fun

 

 

It wouldn't be a big deal if you only had to worry about your own inventory, but you have to worry about the inventory for any companions you have as well. Or may not have.

 

 

I find your objection silly.

 

Mass and volume are not the same. Claiming they are because tehy are both "numbers" is like me claiming STR and DEX are the same, because they are both numbers dispalyed on the same screen.

 

I see no reason why an inventory system would be based on just volume or just weight. That is just silly and adds nothing to the game.

 

 

And if you dread taking care of a simplified inventory for 6 characters, then I have to wonder if you ever played on enjoed any IE game before...

[TrashMan]

That's rather unforginging though. while I agree that using a spell like disintegrate should have a decent chance to destroy some armor and gear, excluding half the party from a fight so you can get that nice armor would just be cruel. The whole point of high AC is that you are hitting their armor, not destroying it - when you bypass someone's AC you've forced them to open themselves up to attack somehow and hit them in a soft spot.

 

OR you pierced their armor.

Armor is tough but not indestructible.

 

But a hole in the armor doesn't make it unusable. Just in need of repair.

 

However, it's worth to note that plate mail needs to be FITTED.

Just taking a damaged armor from a fallen enemy and donning it won't bring you big defensive bonuses.