Stash: The Unlimited Inventory Mechanic

[wpmaura]

I am filing this under please stop holding my hand. I like invetory management knowthing that you have a limited room to carry equipment makes it more strategic. Otherwise you just dont pay attention to your surroundings or situations why well becuase you have 5000 items in a your back pack and one of them will get you out this situation.

 

If these is implemented please have it in the easy option for game dificulty.

[Lephys]

I am filing this under please stop holding my hand. I like invetory management knowthing that you have a limited room to carry equipment makes it more strategic. Otherwise you just dont pay attention to your surroundings or situations why well becuase you have 5000 items in a your back pack and one of them will get you out this situation.

 

If these is implemented please have it in the easy option for game dificulty.

In Obsidian's defense, you won't have access to all 5,000 of those items. So, if you don't manage the readily-accessible portion of your inventory well enough, you're still screwed. Just for what it's worth...

 

My take on this, at this point, is that they've decided to try to have an unlimited (or quite-huge) portion of the inventory that's inaccessible outside of camp/rest points, and I'm sure that simple decision is not the end of it, but rather the BEGINNING of an extensive design and balancing process. They're only going to use it if it works well.

 

Just like they opted to include full-misses after all, in combat, they're not just deciding "the inventory will be unlimited, and that's final. We don't care what effects that has on the rest of the game, u_u..."

 

So, other than discussing the potentiality of this decision and how it could work (since we don't know what all they're testing and deducing, at the moment), I'm simply waiting for them to provide more info, when they have it and decide to do so.

 

I really see no point in evaluating the simple decision without first evaluating the factors and possibilities, just as Obsidian is surely doing as we speak.

 

If we were currently beta-testing for them, or had all the specifics on the final decision for the inventory system, that would be a whole 'nother story.

[Shadenuat]

This stash mechanic means you can't pop infinite amount of potions out of your inventory during combat, which is good. And it solves a lot of tedious micromanagement with items which also it's that bad.

So, what is bad. The bad thing is that designers do not even concider any dungeons or any loot specific situation where encumbrance will matter. Meaning, no dungeon exit collapsing after you run out of it carrying dead companion or unconcious NPC on your hands, leaving all loot behind.

Do designers EVER did ANYTHING like that? In my p. long hobby life of cRPGs - no, I don't remember. Should they concider encumbrance/greed as viable plot encounter? I think so. But they never do it anyway, so... duh.

 

IMO, most of problems with inventory management could be solved by just making part of inventory shared, like in Wizardry 8. Just a shared part which can "carry" as much stuff as STR attributes from every party member combined, minus their equipment and items in their quick slots. You still can get overencumbered, but all inventory tetris and such goes away, yet you keep the feeling that it's your party carrying stuff, not some abstract born of mechanics black hole. *shrug*

Edited February 23, 2013 by Shadenuat

[Lephys]

I agree that unlimited inventory might not be the key, and I also agree that the potential for a giant treasure room with far more stuff than you can carry with a corridor collapse upon exiting (to oversimplify the situation) is a good thing.

 

The only thing that is bad is when every place you go has 50 more uber-valuable things than you can carry. But, obviously that's just as much the fault of the design and balance of loot-placement as it is the inventory's "inadequacy."

 

I will say, though, that they still haven't confirmed (I don't think) whether or not it's actually going to be unlimited, or just pretty big (which, if done properly, could essentially function the same way as the shared inventory you mentioned, Shadenuat). So, hopefully they're not going to leave any holes in the system.

 

Also, I just want to re-emphasize the possibility of (still finite) bags-of-holding-type increases to inventory space, and the fact that it would most likely be quite difficult to get exactly what you wanted out of a bag of holding (unless, maybe, you're Mary Poppins?). I mean, how do I reach into a bag that's holding 20 suits of armor, and pull out just what I want? Or is it voice-activated? You just rub the bag and what you desire pops out like a genie? *shrug*

[rjshae]

So, what is bad. The bad thing is that designers do not even concider any dungeons or any loot specific situation where encumbrance will matter. Meaning, no dungeon exit collapsing after you run out of it carrying dead companion or unconcious NPC on your hands, leaving all loot behind.

 

Usually when I see game situations like that, it's implemented by means of a clock countdown. That should limit your ability to loot because stopping to look through chests and such will eat into your time allotment.

 

I agree that unlimited inventory might not be the key, and I also agree that the potential for a giant treasure room with far more stuff than you can carry with a corridor collapse upon exiting (to oversimplify the situation) is a good thing.

 

The designers could use the simple mechanic of restricting access to the deeper inventory in certain circumstances. Doing so would present the player with interesting tactical decisions, particularly when there's a lot of loot available.

[moridin84]

This stash mechanic means you can't pop infinite amount of potions out of your inventory during combat, which is good. And it solves a lot of tedious micromanagement with items which also it's that bad.

So, what is bad. The bad thing is that designers do not even concider any dungeons or any loot specific situation where encumbrance will matter. Meaning, no dungeon exit collapsing after you run out of it carrying dead companion or unconcious NPC on your hands, leaving all loot behind.

Do designers EVER did ANYTHING like that? In my p. long hobby life of cRPGs - no, I don't remember. Should they concider encumbrance/greed as viable plot encounter? I think so. But they never do it anyway, so... duh.

 

So like... you want to be able to be people into your backpack?

 

And being forced to leave all the loot you got from a dungeon behind due to some fixed event? I can already hear the complaints. 

 

Unless you had the option of keeping the loot and leaving the NPC behind.

 

Cause that would actually be awesome. 

Edited February 24, 2013 by moridin84

[Lephys]

So like... you want to be able to be people into your backpack?

... SOYLENT BACKPACK IS PEO-PLLLLEEEE!!! IT'S PEO-PPPLLLLEEEEE!!!!!!!!

[Shadenuat]

So like... you want to be able to be people into your backpack?

I want to have a choice born naturally from game mechanics.

 

Unless you had the option of keeping the loot and leaving the NPC behind.

Cause that would actually be awesome.

Yes, it would.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Shadenuat