Stash: The Unlimited Inventory Mechanic

[Stun]

 

The IE games used a slot based inventory system, not a grid based one.

 

And the need for item categories goes away the moment you scrap the convoluted list + pages + unlimited space nonsense

 

What do you mean by 'slot based'?

A Slot based system is when one item takes up one slot, regardless of its size. This is different than a grid based system, for example, where the number of slots taken up by an item depends on the size/shape of the item. With the latter, you're playing "inventory tetris", while with the former, you're merely adding 1+1. Edited February 3, 2013 by Stun

[rjshae]

 

The IE games used a slot based inventory system, not a grid based one.

 

And the need for item categories goes away the moment you scrap the convoluted list + pages + unlimited space nonsense

 

What do you mean by 'slot based'?

 

And yes, if you limited the number of items a player can have there is no need to have categories. 

 

I believe he means that every object takes up exactly one square slot. That means a pebble takes up as much room in the inventory as a full suite of plate mail. It's not a very realistic system; in the IE games where there were a limited number of slots, it basically forced you to toss away everything but the most essential objects. A big, big problem with this is that you're not always sure what is important and what isn't: is that letter from the count worth handing on to? Or the mysterious key? You end up dragging around a ludicrous pile of junk. I'm all for seeing the end of that approach. Having key rings, potion bags, and scroll pouches is just a poor substitute for having category tabs.

[Stun]

Also.... a minor nitpick here:

And yes, if you limited the number of items a player can have there is no need to have categories.

It'd be more accurate to say that if an individual character's inventory has a finite, single-page space limit, then there would be no need for item categories.... since the entire content of the inventory can be seen at a glance. (The infinity engine games did this)

 

The number of items in such a system are still potentially infinite, assuming the system allows for item stacking (for example, you find 10 identical longswords..... they stack and all ten would take up just 1 slot. ie. Longsword x10)

Edited February 3, 2013 by Stun

[moridin84]

Oh so that's a slot based inventory.

 

So yeah, 100% against that. Lists are definitely better than that. It can be a hassle finding everything, especially if you aren't sure what it looks like or where it is so you have to go with the inventory of each single character in your party, mousing over single item in order to find it. 

[rjshae]

The one element of lists I don't much care for is inventory exchange. Drag-and-drop is generally quicker and easier than scrolling down the list, selecting on an item, then clicking on the transfer button.

 

There's probably no perfect approach, alas.

[Lephys]

I think the whole grid bit is useful, to an extent. I mean, weight is one factor, but what if you're dealing with claymores? Should one person really be able to carry around 15 claymores, just because they only weigh 12lbs a piece? Probably not.

 

I'm not saying "Just use reality as your ruler! Only 2 claymores would be carriable at once, so NEVER ANY MORE THAN 2!!! >_<"

 

I mean, let's assume 2 was the realistic limit (you could still carry more small things, but would have no more room for things that are the length/size of claymores). Well, if the game abstracts it a bit and you can carry 3, or maybe even 4 before you run out of item space (rather than weight), then okay. But if you can carry FIFTEEN?! That's a little much. Clearly, 1,000 claymores would be ridiculous, so that means at SOME point (well before 1,000), believability just goes out the window. I think whatever point that is, it's an important factor.

 

It's not an exact, nitpick-worthy thing. It's like filling a glass halfway. If it's only filled 44%, then meh, that's pretty close. If it's 60%, then, yeah, that's about half the bottle. If it's 20% full, or 90% full, then it's CLEARLY not very close to the halfway point.

 

Anywho, I think the bit of the inventory that IS limited should be intelligently limited (otherwise not at all). Space and weight are pretty feasible factors to base it on. As for the bit that might not be limited (the stash for which this thread began), well, as long as its handled properly, I'm fine with it (see previous posts in this thread.)

[moridin84]

Hmm, well if you don't want someone carrying 15 claymores you can just make them fairly big so you can't fit a lot of them in the top pack. Adding weight on top doesn't really add much. 

 

Take Deus Ex Human Revolution as an example.

Edited February 4, 2013 by moridin84

[Lephys]

Ehhh... adding weight CAN have a purpose. Let's assume you're abstractly fitting 2 claymores into a bag or chest or something (or just strapping them upon your person.) However you're carrying them, unless you have a container shaped EXACTLY like the claymores, you've pretty much got tons of extra space in there, in between the claymores and the walls of the container (or, if you strapped 'em onto your belt/pack, then you've still got space IN your pack for smaller things. You were going to strap some herbs and potions onto your pack where those claymores went.)

 

Human Revolution is a good example, but you're abstractly carrying around a large case in that, and everything you find is designed to fit neatly inside that case (weapons basically take up rectangles, ammo and clips take up little squares, etc.). In a historical fantasy setting, if I put a claymore in my pack (and it takes up 10 squares out of 30), then I should be able to pick up WELL more than 20 gemstones. That's why things stack in individual spaces sometimes. It's representative of their being smaller than an actual single square of abstractly represented inventory space. But, anywho, I should be able to carry 200 herb clippings in however few spaces they'll stack, but not necessarily 200 iron sling pellets. That's where weight comes in. On the other hand, you might have some piece of insect carapace that's 3 feet by 3 feet, curved, and rigid, so it takes up a lot of space. But, it may only weigh 5lbs. So, while you could only carry 2 claymores, realistically, you might only be able to carry ONE of those carapace pieces. But, you're nowhere NEAR in trouble with weight there. So, you should get to carry that much more small stuff.

 

If you simply use space, then you've got to abstractly alter the size/stackability of something simply to make the already-abstracted size/tetris interface represent the change in weight.

 

Is it necessary to use both? Not at all. But they do serve individual purposes, as far as representing actual factors goes.

[Lurky]

My opinion is the same as that of many people in this thread: I like the equipment / top of pack / stash system, and I like the addition of an unlimited third layer of inventory made for hoarders, but I wish this mechanic could be properly integrated into the game, instead of just as an abstraction, like it is right now.

 

Therefore, I'm basically posting here to give props to JonVanCaneghem for his idea, because I really dig it. I'd also like to bring up again the already mentioned thread of beasts of burden, because there are some good ideas there too. Any of those would satisfy me, and in practice any of them could still work as well as Josh's abstracted system.

 

For me, the best combination would be both of these solutions to be implemented in the game: the scavengers for hire and the beasts of burden.

- On one hand, the scavs would clean up the dungeon completely at a cost, but you would have to visit them each time you wanted their assistance (unless you had a scrying orb to communicate with them, at least), and they wouldn't work for caved-in and blocked-off dungeons, nor for the locked stuff.

- On the other hand, the beast of burden would be an extra inventory you could carry with you, which means that it would work for the dungeons the scavs can't go into (and some people mentioned that it could be used for faster travelling, too), but it could have other limitations, such as providing ample-but-not-unlimited space, needing upgrades in order to be more useful, or taking up a party slot.

 

...Of course, implementing both mechanics to address the same issue would be overkill, and probably not the best use of development resources, so that's right out. But looting is something I consider an important part of IE games, so no matter what the final solution is, I hope it's well integrated with the rest of the game content. I don't know how many people care about proper gameplay/lore/story integration, but I care, and I'm not the only one :\

[TrashMan]

I actually believe that infinite storage will remove a psychological barrier us packrats have had with selling stuff. I think it will end up with me carrying less, rather than more.

And I consider this to be a good thing.

 

 

Because that is how it ended up in all games with unlimited inventory?

Yeah right...

 

Unlimited inventory is a blight on CRPG's.

 

 

I love it. Don't care that it's not "realistic." A weight limit isn't fun, but has some theoretical utility in gameplay. This system removes the unfun element, but keeps the utility.

 

This system kills everything good and pure and murders actual challenge and atmosphere.

Fun?

There's nothing fun in picking up every bauble.

It's anti-fun.

 

 

 

*****

 

And before some genius gets the bright idea of saying "well, then just don't pick up everything", he should remember that if the game gives you a mechanic, it expects you to use it.

 

In other words, if you do have unlimited stash, then the game will be balanced with it in mind. In other words, NOT picking up everything would be a sub-optimal path where you end up worse off and have a harder time.

 

 

It's ironic, becuase such big focus on loot hunting and stealing everything is the anti-thesis of a good RPG experience and a proper atmospehre/story setup.

Do you recall Aragorn and the gang switching items every 5 minutes and stealing everything that wasn't bolted down?

Edited February 4, 2013 by TrashMan

[Stun]

What totally baffles me is that Josh flat out said that they're using IWD2's inventory system as a starting point. A starting point? IWD2's inventory system was great. Why the hell would they want to change it?

 

 

See, this is precisely the type of mindset that has driven the cRPG genre down the gutter over the past decade: Developers trying to fix things that aren't broken.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Stun

[JFSOCC]

The IE games used a slot based inventory system, not a grid based one.

 

And the need for item categories goes away the moment you scrap the convoluted list + pages + unlimited space nonsense

Right, to be replaced with the "Oh ****, I don't know what's more valuable, so I best spend 5 trips picking everything up, going to the merchant, checking it for value, selling some things which will turn out to be useful later, oh **** maybe I should keep it then. (and then it turns out you never need it)

 

much better

[Helm]

See, this is precisely the type of mindset that has driven the cRPG genre down the gutter over the past decade: Developers trying to fix things that aren't broken.

This is what I say to myself every time I visit this forum.

 

And trying to fix what isn't broken has never went wrong.... right?

[Helm]

 

The IE games used a slot based inventory system, not a grid based one.

 

And the need for item categories goes away the moment you scrap the convoluted list + pages + unlimited space nonsense

Right, to be replaced with the "Oh ****, I don't know what's more valuable, so I best spend 5 trips picking everything up, going to the merchant, checking it for value, selling some things which will turn out to be useful later, oh **** maybe I should keep it then. (and then it turns out you never need it)

 

much better

I personally have no problem going back to a dungeon to pick up the missing loot if I require cash.

 

But they could just make the stash bag/wormhole/pixies/demons/mules/whatever jinx all the items you put inside. You can put stuff in and even sell it, but you can never take stuff out or use those items again, so that there is at least a tradeoff when you use the magical stash. And if you mess up and decide that you really did need a certain item that you stuffed into the stash, then you can have it unjinxed for a certain fee.

 

It wouldn't be too abstract and would solve the problem with runnning back and forth 3 times to get all the loot.... the only problem is that my beloved gem bags would become worthless.....

[Stun]

 

The IE games used a slot based inventory system, not a grid based one.

 

And the need for item categories goes away the moment you scrap the convoluted list + pages + unlimited space nonsense

Right, to be replaced with the "Oh ****, I don't know what's more valuable, so I best spend 5 trips picking everything up, going to the merchant, checking it for value, selling some things which will turn out to be useful later, oh **** maybe I should keep it then. (and then it turns out you never need it)

 

much better

LOL

 

I had that problem with BG1 and IWD1's inventory systems when I first played them. And yes, the inventory systems in those games was crap, and it promoted pretty much exactly the type of worthless gameplay that you're describing. But those were 2 of the earliest IE games. And those problems were fixed in BG2 with the addition of the various bags and higher stackable numbers. And then Icewind dale 2 came out, and massively refined the system even more:

 

1) The number of inventory slots was doubled.

2) Inventory weight limits were increased

3) In addition to containers, they vastly increased the amount of permanent ammo items (everlast arrows, returning darts, etc.

 

The end result was that pretty much the only thing you had to think about with regards to your inventory was the stuff that *mattered* Ie. weight limits, and who gets to carry what. This is as it should be.

 

The system Sawyer is proposing makes it so that you don't have to think about ANYTHING. The common vernacular of this is to call it "Dumbing Down" (because that's what it is. By definition). But that term gets thrown around too much IMO, so I won't use it for my argument. Instead, I'll just point out that its a system that does away with a very fundamental gaming strategy associated with gear management. And NO, The inclusion of strange arbitrary inaccesable "levels" of inventory does not create strategy. It Just promotes metagaming. People will simply reload their games if they come across an encounter and realize that the items they have that would help them in that encounter happened to be tucked away in the "deep stash" where they can't access them. They'll reload from an earlier save when they had access to the deep stash, then they'll take the item out and put it in the "equipped and ready" section or whatever its called.

 

This is NOT a substitute for TRUE inventory strategy that weight/volume limits promote. And again, I'm befuddled that a game like PE, which has to really make every funding penny count, would have devs willing to waste their time overhauling a PERFECT system they themselves already created a decade ago.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Stun

[rjshae]

The system Sawyer is proposing makes it so that you don't have to think about ANYTHING. The common vernacular of this is to call it "Dumbing Down" (because that's what it is. By definition). But that term gets thrown around too much IMO, so I won't use it for my argument. Instead, I'll just point out that its a system that does away with a very fundamental gaming strategy associated with gear management. And NO, The inclusion of strange arbitrary inaccesable "levels" of inventory does not create strategy. It Just promotes metagaming. People will simply reload their games if they come across an encounter and realize that the items they have that would help them in that encounter happened to be tucked away in the "deep stash" where they can't access them. They'll reload from an earlier save when they had access to the deep stash, then they'll take the item out and put it in the "equipped and ready" section or whatever its called.

 

Reloading from an earlier save where they had access to the deeper stash is only slightly better than travelling back to the camp, because then the player will still need to travel back from the camp plus perform any intervening actions. This is "metagaming" the hard way. Having a deep stash is little different than using a storage container somewhere; the only thing it saves you is a lot of useless running back and forth. More so if you put some thought into it ahead of time; less so if you play stupid.

[JFSOCC]

I'm not opposed to grid systems, but I would like different tabs for different item types (weapons/armour;quest items;crafting ingredients;consumables;trade items;scrolls, books & other paper)

[Stun]

I don't get the "running back and forth" argument. Did any of you play Icewind dale 2? There was very little "running back and forth" to free up inventory space, manly because almost every hub in the game had a merchant, but also because your inventory was big enough to hold the stuff you found.

 

So... No. Can someone come up with a better defense of Sawyer's new system?

Edited February 4, 2013 by Stun

[Ffordesoon]

It... doesn't waste the player's time?

[Stun]

Inventory management is a staple of party based RPG gaming. If you consider that a waste of time then perhaps the genre's not your cup of tea.

[Lephys]

Inventory management is a staple of party based RPG gaming. If you consider that a waste of time then perhaps the genre's not your cup of tea.

So is health management, yet you see ways of regaining all your HP in a timely fashion, rather than recovering 10HP-per-hour (of actual playtime.)

 

Also, there wasn't an issue in previously cited games because the inventory was big enough that you didn't have to make lots of trips, so therefore a design choice that makes sure the inventory is always big enoughso you don't have to make lots of trips is stupid and a problem?

[Ffordesoon]

Inventory management is a staple of party based RPG gaming. If you consider that a waste of time then perhaps the genre's not your cup of tea.

So all those party-based Japanese RPGs based on Wizardry, like Etrian Odyssey, that have unlimited inventories A) don't have inventory management, and B) aren't party-based RPGs?

 

Interesting.

 

You know games with only one created character (like, er, all the non-IWD Infinity Engine games) aren't technically "party-based" RPGs either, right? Because, according to some people's definition of "party-based," it's only a party-based game if you create all your PCs.

 

That's stupid, right? I mean, the IE games are clearly party-based, yeah? Only a lunatic would assume that one specific implementation of a feature that they really really like is the feature itself, and any variation on it will automatically result in disaster! Oh, those crazy RPG nerds!

 

Why am I bringing that up? Oh, no reason. You were saying?

[Stun]

 

Inventory management is a staple of party based RPG gaming. If you consider that a waste of time then perhaps the genre's not your cup of tea.

So is health management, yet you see ways of regaining all your HP in a timely fashion, rather than recovering 10HP-per-hour (of actual playtime.)

And? Instant hp regeneration is not health management. It's the opposite of health management. It's a mechanic designed to eliminate the need for health management.

Also, there wasn't an issue in previously cited games because the inventory was big enough that you didn't have to make lots of trips, so therefore a design choice that makes sure the inventory is always big enoughso you don't have to make lots of trips is stupid and a problem?

um... no? The fact that IWD2 made it easy for a normal party, employing minimal, reasonable gameplay strategy, to get through a dungeon without filling up their inventory completely is a testiment to good design, not a nod to unlimited inventory capacity. There is a huge difference here. IWD2 also made it so that if you created a party of 6 sorcerers with 9 strength, and you deliberately set out to grab every single item you see, while refusing to use bags of holding and scroll cases, and refusing to ever sell anything to merchants, you WOULD eventually suffer the consequences of such retarded gameplay decisions. Can we say the same for the system proposed by josh here? Or is his system, in fact, specifically designed to be Idiot proof, like just about every other DUMBED DOWN rpg mechanic invented in the last half decade or so?

So all those party-based Japanese RPGs

<gag> if I wanted to include Japanese RPGs in my claims, or for that matter, hybrid shooter-type games like the Mass effect series (no inventory system at all in the latter iterations of those games!), I would have said JRPGs and "Bioware hybrids". But since PE is not, and never was, envisioned as either one, theres no point in even mentioning those types of games in any discussion on this particular forum. Edited February 5, 2013 by Stun

[Lephys]

And? Instant hp regeneration is not health management. It's the opposite of health management. It's a mechanic designed to eliminate the need for health management.

Man, I love how fond some of the people on this forum are of twisting anything that's said into a specific argument against their personal stance on some completely irrelevant specific issue. "Instant HP regeneration"? When was I talking about that? When did I even give a HINT that I was talking about that?

 

Health management involves 2 things: losing health, and gaining health. I asked a simple question... Do you think casting a heal spell or drinking a health potion or staying at an inn (whatever means of regaining HP you see fit to choose) should only restore SOME of your HP every time, or do it on a gradual basis?

 

Inventory "management" involves 2 things: Gaining loot, and losing (getting rid of, via whatever means) loot. It doesn't even have any bearing on combat, or any other system, like Health management does. You don't strategically gain and lose loot. Inventory limitations are a simple nod to immersion. They don't provide any strategy, besides "make several boring trips to fetch all the stuff," or "don't get all the stuff." Not picking up the most valuable stuff, only, when your inventory is limited isn't bad strategy as opposed to good. It's sheer laziness.

um... no? The fact that IWD2 made it easy for a normal party, employing minimal, reasonable gameplay strategy, to get through a dungeon without filling up their inventory completely is a testiment to good design, not a nod to unlimited inventory capacity. There is a huge difference here. IWD2 also made it so that if you created a party of 6 sorcerers with 9 strength, and you deliberately set out to grab every single item you see, while refusing to use bags of holding and scroll cases, and refusing to ever sell anything to merchants, you WOULD eventually suffer the consequences of such retarded gameplay decisions. Can we say the same for the system proposed by josh here? Or is his system, in fact, specifically designed to be Idiot proof, like just about every other DUMBED DOWN rpg mechanic invented in the last half decade or so?

Okay, so... you'd rather always have to tetris everything around between party members (despite the good design of the game always providing you with plenty of inventory space for the amount of loot you find), because always having enough space and NOT having to tetris everything around would be "dumbing down"?

 

What's next... dialogue management? "You have to make your character swallow and breathe at the right time, or you can't finish your dialogue lines!"

 

Health management I get. Everything you do in combat is basically managing your health. It's a limited resource that is spent in combat. But loot? Loot is just a resource, that just sits there. It doesn't move around... it doesn't fight you. You don't strategically use it in a given situation. It is static. It's already limited by its own quantity (in availability). So, yes, is it stupid design to put in 38,000,000,000,000 pieces of loot? Yes, yes it is. But, assuming they're going to employ intelligence in the design of their game (I know, it's mind-boggling that they would do such a thing!), what's the difference between giving you an inventory space of 100, and 90 pieces of loot per area (between times you're able to actually offload/sell loot and clear out your inventory), and giving you an inventory space of infinity and STILL having 90 pieces of loot per area?

 

You're fine with having your character decide how to hold and swing his sword, but you're adamant about controlling how he fits loot into his pack, and how efficiently he gathers the loot? Really?

[Ffordesoon]

@Stun:

 

Mm-hmm. That's what I thought you'd say. And I'm so glad you did, because you just revealed the depth of your ignorance.

 

You are welcome to dislike Japanese RPGs. The point is, you are rejecting and - for the purposes of this discussion - denying the existence of an entire genre's worth of steadfastly traditional party-based RPGs on the grounds that you don't like them, and yet you are taking it upon yourself to lecture me on the nature of party-based RPGs. You are, in other words, a hypocrite.

 

I can understand the exclusion of "Bioware hybrids" from the discussion, because they remove traditional genre elements. I don't agree with their exclusion, but I get it. But to argue that we can't bring Japanese games into the discussion because "they're all icky and Japanese" is to out yourself as just as much of an ignoramus as you just implicitly accused me of being.

 

You're willfully ignorant of an entire country's worth of games, and you're telling me party-based RPGs "might not be for me?" What would you know about party-based RPGs? You're the one who hasn't followed the subgenre's evolution for the past twelve years!

 

You said "inventory management" - by which you meant "the type of inventory management I like" - was "a staple of party-based RPGs." I mentioned that there were many party-based RPGs with unlimited inventories that still involve the management of an inventory. You said that was irrelevant to the discussion, because - ugh! - they're Japanese.

 

Yes, and the Witcher games are Polish; what's your point? JRPGs are direct descendants of Wizardry and Ultima III. Should we exclude those games from the discussion? Because you're essentially arguing for that when you argue for the exclusion of JRPGs from any discussion of RPGs.