Darmo

Might also be an opportunity to introduce some simple sand casting.  Pig iron was normally done in sand beds.  But that was industrial scale, of course.

That's a good take Stroam.  You front legs are backwards and there's some proportions I'd suggest changing, but other than that I like what you did there - would you mind posting the model so we could see the legs in action?   Your call if you want to adopt some of that or not Krono.  I can go either way.

Sorry didn't reply earlier.  RL stuff.   I definitely like the slanted body more.  It helps in giving it a hulking appearance.  The shoulder blade thing was just a thought.  I can kind of imagine how it'd be hard to actually implement, with animation, and have look good.  It'd probably be a lot different from the way we've structure most animals so far.  I don't think you could just lengthen the upper leg box, that'd be too long and weird, so you'd about have to do it in two pieces probably.  It definitely would be challenging and I don't have answers.  I'm fine with it being generally structured as we've been doing (which is what you have right now) - I do think the slanted body with larger chest gets the muscular idea across pretty well.

The legs and paws still seem a bit oversized to me.  I hear what you're saying on muscular and I agree it does enhance that, but to me it also makes it look slow and clumsy, rather than lithe and agile.  Maybe if they were a bit long, so they didn't seem as stocky?

Here's a screenshot of the mountain lion I did way-back-when in Techne, in the days before MCMC. 

I structured all my big cats the same.   I think your smilidon is actually a bit smaller than my big cat models, which to me jumps out mainly in the face, and the paws.  I had three claws per pawn, which required 6-wide boxes.  I think yours are 5 with two claws - I think 3 claws would be better.  I think another very important thing for predators is to try and avoid the derpy eyes - I actually made my heads 10 wide to accommodate an extra eye pixel and center the pupils.  I think it helps them look more focused and aggressive.  Even the nose and ears appear to be 1 pixel wider than your smilodon.  So, I'd recommend scaling up the head to at least allow for that, and then scaling up the rest to match.  And if you want to go even bigger I'm fine with that.  These are primary predators of the player, and I think it'd be fine for them to be bigger than 'normal' big cats.

I kind of agree with Stroam on the fangs - might be slightly too curved. 

I don't think separate claws are necessary, but if you want to try it out I'm open to the notion.  It could be interesting if the texture changed so they only appear when the smilodon is angry, rather than constantly being out.

On 6/23/2017 at 8:33 PM, Stroam said:

This contains 4 potential future textures.

For some reason if I try to download that I get a corrupted version.  Also have you tried that brick one in a tiled setting?  I'd be concerned that the dark bricks may establish too repetitive and obvious of a pattern...

Hi Krono, great to see ya back!    I think Bioxx was ok with taking some 'artistic license' with the smilodon, so don't feel totally constrained on dimensions and such.  I forget which picture he gave as an example, but as I recall it had a 'mane'.  Maybe similar to the Ark smilodon?  Not sure, and it doesn't mean that's how you have to go.  But prehistoric animals we have a bit more license I think.  And as a large and serious predator, I'm ok with them having more detail.  You could add paws for instance.

I like what you've got with the head, and I'd be fine with even another section of fang taper if you want.  I'm ok with the ear tips as well, though I question if it will look very good once textured.   I would suggest making the legs perhaps a bit thinner, at least the front ones, and adding paws.  Since big cats' paws are a primary attack item, I think it's worth depicting them (I did that for all the 'regular' big cats).  As for "muscular", I think perhaps the best way to do that would be to use a 2-piece body, with thicker chest, and thinner waist.   A lot of big cats have what I'd consider a 'muscular' feature of their shoulder blades extending above their backbone a bit, so you can see them move.  Might be interesting to try out - though it wouldn't work well if you decided to go with a mane.  I'd also be ok with another section or two on the tail.  I'd even entertain separate 'cheek tufts' if you wanted.  I gave tigers a separate box to represent those.

I'd also be interested in seeing just a quick texture with eyes and nose.  It's a large enough model I'm not immediately clear how they will be arranged/sized.  Maybe also a quick take on the ears to see if that diagonal section will mesh well texture-wise.   And remember that since it's prehistoric, we have no real precedent on coloration or pattern.  So feel free to try spots, stripes, or whatever.

Just in general, unless Bioxx says otherwise, any large prehistoric or fantasy creatures - and especially highly player-aggressive ones - I'm allowing for more detail, and artistic license.   I'd still like to stay away from dramatically angled leg structures on mammals (insects are obviously a different matter in that regard) but about anything else, I think we can bump it up a notch.

2 hours ago, Stroam said:

Stepped roofing - What sort of stepped are you talking about?

I was just meaning a 2-step block, just like vanilla stairs (IV in your graphic).  It's just always irked me that that even in TFC1, thatch was a solid block, and you couldn't even chisel it, despite that it's most appropriate use was for roofs.  I think the 2-step model is fine considering the general blocky nature of the world.  I've never been a fan of those mods that put a slanted plane in place of steps.    The finer-grained slopes you show would just I think be a lot more polys at not that much benefit.  And pattern IV already exists, so should be much less work for you I'd imagine.

Here is a good depiction of some standard brick layouts:

Of course the limitations of 16x16 graphics means anything diagonal is probably out - though I might give it a shot.  Various others don't really lend themselves due to not being square in pattern.  And anything 'stacked' is relatively modern.  But the basics mentioned above are in there.

Soldier coursing is when your orient the bricks vertically, and is typically done above windows (as a lintel), or for steps (sleepers - soldiers laying down).

I should say though, that flat brick lintels are a relatively modern thing, as they rely on a steel angle to support the brick.  "back in the day" a brick lintel would have used a full or jack arch to give it it's own strength, without steel:

Of course it would be impractical to try to do jack arches in minecraft.

 

Brick soldier courses can also be used within a wall to add interest:

And then you can do corbeling to add even more interest:

IRL corbeling is mostly done with horizontal coursing because the bricks have to extend into the wall as well in order to be tied in with the wall, but within the context of using a 2-step model and not being strictly constrained by physics, I thought soldiers would be more visually impactful.  One could actually do a 3-step sleeper corbel model if they wanted, which would be similar to the left graphic above.  There's a huge, huge variety of sort of applique brick details one could do if one were ambitious enough. 

 

It could get pretty wild, if there were several colors of brick.  Do a google search for "polychrome brickwork" and you can see some of the amazing stuff that's done with multi-color brick patterns.  The basics are red, black, and sort of off-white/tan.  Most of what one finds on the internet can't really be reproduced effectively in minecraft I think, but some could.

Brick and half-timbering go really well together, btw

I would suggest roofing blocks be stepped, to make for a finer slope.  In addition to the wood and slate roofing you mentioned, I'd suggest thatch, and a few colors of ceramic (red, blue, green). 

I'd also suggest some alternate brick patterns.  Rather than have a separate recipe, maybe a new tool - trowel - is added, and the player simply sets the trowel to the pattern they want, and then right-clicks on a brick block to change it to that pattern.  Example patterns might be basket weave, herringbone, and Flemish bond.  a stepped soldier course for roof eaves and steps would be amazing.  And that's just layout patterns.  Bond patterns could be an entire other level.  Brickwork could be a mod all by itself, honestly.  I could probably help with the graphics, if desired.

Regarding your patterns given, I'm interested to see how the half-timbering is implemented - that is, if it's at all automated, or the player has to selected each pattern.  You could honestly ditch the horizontal 22.5 degree angled beams.  That's almost never used irl.

Ya, I'd think it might be worth trying to re-use the old TFC1 texture.  I am imagining a lot of people will have the same problem.  Or at least make it not looks so much like sand.

6 hours ago, ChunkHunter said:

Edit: I've not encountered any clay yet,  either. 

In my experience, most average length rivers have about 1 deposit.  So it's not very common.  It'll spawn around lakes as well I think, but the lake itself seems to delete most of the deposit, so it's hard to spot.  Easiest way is just to travel up a river till you hit it.  It looks a lot like sand so you have to be watchful.  It's not as obvious as in TFC1.  But it's bright, and interrupts the gravel river banks.  So the darker the stone of your island, the easier it is to spot.

Scratch that, I realized it was the xp bar.  Doh!  Been awhile since I played an actual game, rather than just debug testing, I guess.

Haven't had much time for testing of late, but I noticed in clay crafting, if you don't successfully complete a shape, it still uses up the clay.  Didn't know if that was intended since it's not how it worked in TFC1. 

It's also kind of funny how when you knap stone tools, the resulting tool heads actually get heavier.  Game balance though I guess.

I like how the encumbrance thing looks so far.  I think it'll be good that it stays away from exact numbers.  It seems that the bar in the hud, the big long one that I assume is for encumbrance, doesn't work yet?

9 hours ago, Stroam said:

Items in containers don't have weight...

Is that the actual confirmed plan, long-term?

4 hours ago, R.o.N1N said:

I can not assemble a workbench (open locked cells).

Ya, I don't think Bioxx has coded that yet.  The game is VERY early alpha stages.  You can't make a saw or any metal tools yet, never mind the stuff that requires a saw to make it.  The stone age isn't complete yet, even.  The only way to "solve" the problem is go creative mode. 

Adobe bricks would be good, as there was a great demand for them for TFC1, given that pretty much every LP I watched used that mod that brought in adobe bricks.  The rest of the stone age stuff are a bit 'meh' to me, unless they do in fact get incorporated into a mechanic of resisting mob attack.  The plaster and half timber stuff is what I'd be most wanting.  In TFC1 I would keep all raw chalk and granite blocks, because they were the best simulation of plaster that could be had  in vanilla TFC1.  But that was very tedious.  It'd be really great to be able to make plaster.  Maybe gypsum would be the 'easy-mode' way to get it, with baking lime the 'hard way'.

Slingshots depend  upon elastic material.  Basically rubber, and irl were not possible till vulcanized rubber was discovered in the mid-1800s.  Slings on the other hand, have existed god-only-knows how long.  But have also been suggested before.     A lot.   Like, many times.  A ridiculous amount, honestly, for what would be an early-game weapon, abandoned in the mid-to-late game, or at best kept for hunting.

Thanks, it went through a lot of revision so I'm glad it made some sense.  I did totally forget to mention one other characteristic that could separate containers, that being speed of opening.  So chests and large vessels could open faster, barrels could have a pause, bins a longer pause, and crates could have nails in the texture, and require the player to right click each one with a hammer to open the crate.   In that scenario maybe crates could have a lot of slots, since they would not be quick-access.  Safes/vault doors would have a code to input, and then either instant, or some additional pause.

Also  I was going to suggest having bins maybe only show half their inventory, with the rest of the slots light grey for empty or dark grey for occupied.  This would kind of represent that they are mass-storage solutions, not great for finding what you put in them fast.

So I wanted to make a case for a non-enumerated system of containers and inventory. I was planning on making a separate post, but ultimately it's all about encumberance, so I decided to continue this thread.  Originally I was going to propose is a system that does not use weight at all, but found some problems so now am basically proposing to keep TFC1's system of size and weight, that does not use any numbers.  This is as opposed to the OP and in Konlii's tier-based weight/encumbrance thread.

On 11/13/2015 at 4:36 PM, Bioxx said:

 what we gain is a more fully realized world with a purpose to a vanilla mechanic (minecarts) that even mojang has yet to provide.

THE TLDR:  In a nutshell, I think a non-enumerated system of size and weight, like TFC1 used, would be sufficient to accomplish the above goals.   The main 'new' mechanic would be to limit heavy items like ore (and building materials if desired) to the hotbar only, and not allow them in the inventory itself.  By doing this you limit the player's native slots that can carry the heavy items, and so it becomes much easier to make conveyances that are superior in capacity.  Specifically if ore blocks dropped themselves, and then had to be pulverized for ore, those ore blocks could be made to fit only on the hotbar, and stack very low (4 or 8, perhaps).  Furthermore, I think a non-enumerated system would be simpler to balance.   Rather than having to decide how much every single thing weighs, and how much every container will hold, and trying to balance it all, and having the 'realists' complain, you only worry about 'what should fit in this container' and 'what is the effect of this weight on the player'.  There is still some balancing, but less detaily, I think.  I think it would also be easier for players to understand and plan around: it's much easier to understand how many slots you have available I think, vs figuring out how much weight capacity you need to allow for a given task (I'm assuming that in an enumerated system the player would have a meter or number to tell them how much they are currently carrying, so knowing how much weight they are already carrying would not be hard).  That's the idea in a nutshell.  I'd now like to try and portray how this system could function, and the variety of containers and conveyances that might be used to create a dynamic and interesting system.

SIZE AND WEIGHT CATEGORIES
 

CONTAINER TRAITS

CONTAINERS AND SKILL

CONTAINER LIST

CONTAINER DETAILS

So that's all the basic details.   There would of course be other containers, this was just a basic list.   I was going to add more containers (like Stroam's seed bags) but the spoiler mechanics of this forum and the table I cut and pasted, don't play well.  

In the early game, large items could be cumbersome to deal with.  The player's first copper mine will probably be where the player sets up operations.    They may well process the ore down in the mine, since it will be somewhat tedious to carry it out, without conveyances or pack frames.  They can carry 1 block at a time and run and jump and climb, but any more and they can't do those.  So they would have to build a staircase out of the mine, and they would have to walk it.  But, once the player has that first saw, they can make a cart, maybe a pack frame and crates, and now they can transport ore more effectively.  There is still the question of what would make the player use minecarts for mining vs pack animals, since pack animals don't require tracks.  It could perhaps be that some ores are even heavier, and cannot be carried by pack animals (or wooden rails).  These would probably be fantasy ores, maybe iron.   If such ores were y-limited to deeper regions, it would make the staircase scenario less practical.   The track problem could also be alleviated somewhat if there are mineshafts - similar to the abandoned mineshafts in vanilla, except not abandoned.  They could provide a good supply of tracks. 

There could also be added weight categories, for instance that only prevent the player from climbing ladders and jumping, but still allows them to run. 

But anyway, that's my case on why limiting certain large items to the hotbar could make the non-enumerated system still deserves consideration.

29 minutes ago, Stroam said:

so wearing just armor decreases and carrying nothing takes twice as long as compared to wearing nothing and carrying nothing. That's a 100% speed decrease. So should a full inventory and full plate be equal to 200% speed decrease? 

I think you meant something like 50% and 75% decreases?  A 100% decrease would be immobilized.  Are we talking in the context of an enumerated weight system?  I'd think it'd be better just to base it on total weight, and the armor weighs a lot?  Unless the plan were to discourage the player from wearing heavy armor constantly, as is the norm in TFC1 (or vanilla, for that matter).  In that case it actually probably would simplify things to just give the armor a speed debuff all it's own.  50% seems like too much to me though.

Ya, I've read before about how full armor was much more mobile that some stereotypes allow.  Probably has a lot to do with the fact that armor and knights declined as armies changed to firearms, and so the remaining armor became more ceremonial, and less well suited for field use.  There was also the matter of jousting armor, which was entirely different from combat armor. 

4 hours ago, Stroam said:

What do people think of having certain recipes unlocked by achievements?

Not totally opposed, but not wild about it.  Logically I'd think a shield would make more sense if you killed a missile-using enemy to unlock it - the assumption being it used it's missiles on you, so you decide you need a shield.  At a minimum, if killing with missile is the gate, it needs to be an actually threatening enemy.  No killing rabbits and chickens to unlock shields. 

As for armor, I think it remains to be seen how armor shakes out.  Will there even be different types with different resistances?  Or will it merely be differences in effective tier level, and maybe encumbrance?  Unless the differences are significant, I'm not really a fan of unlocking.

Weapons, so what would the player start with, a knife, axe, and a javelin?  Everything else (presumably at least sword and mace) would have to be unlocked?  If it's only mace and sword, I don't know that there's much point in gating them.  I have a hard time imagining a much larger resistance array as far as weapons go, if we're going by damage type.  I'd forsee people grousing over maces, as that's probably the very first kind of weapon mankind ever had.  I guess to me in general it'd make more sense to have weapons unlocked by obtaining an example of that weapon from an enemy.  Even armor could work that way.  And then you wouldn't automatically unlocked things the first time, assuming mobs dropping weapons and armor is rare.  That might make it less a matter of checking off a box, and more of a surprise-reward-drop situation.  Which might be more enjoyable.

By 'protected' do you mean has innate or armor resistance?  Because while skeletons are common in vanilla, I'm hoping that in TFC2 they will be far less common.  I would think that there would be humanoid mobs (goblins, orcs, troglodytes, etc) that would fill in the 'general threat' roster.  With more resistant mobs being perhaps more rare.  That could be totally off though. 

7 hours ago, Stroam said:

You can forgo the back slot and have the offhand slot for heavy items like rolling a barrel.

Forgot to mention that I do I like that, although I think keeping the back slot for backpacks and maybe cloaks or something would be a good idea.  What would people think of a meta-change from barrels being the long-range transport option, to carts or pack animals?  So then barrels could prevent you from running/jumping/laddering.   Making the ability to move them more a matter of arranging them, rather than using them to transport goods on your person.

I was envisioning each container having it's own inventory, like vessels in TFC1, but that's a good look, and would handle size variance neatly, and like Stroam says it would allow easy transfer between containers.  But my concern would be that it may not allow for much container size variance.  I was hoping containers could have increased slots, with increased player skill. Maybe as many as 5 different grades.  Although not all would necessarily increase inventory. 

1 hour ago, kotoroshinoto said:

it'd be interesting if we could get a seed breeding mechanic similar to agricraft

I don't know about agricraft, but seed genetics has been suggested in the agriculture thread.

1 hour ago, Konlii said:

Basically, the entire concept of encumbrance is thrown out the window and instead you are classing items based on what part of the player inventory they can be put into? 

That was the 'new' concept, yes.   I mean, I call it 'size' out of habit, and also 'size' is one syllable vs 'encumbrance', but it's the same general notion.  I think you're very correct that both weigh and physical dimensions can play into how an item is classed.  But so the size/encumbrance would factor into where in the inventory things fit, but also what containers they fit in, as it did in TFC1.  I didn't rehash that since it's an old concept.  So for instance vessels could accept up to tiny or small or whatever, backpacks another size larger, chests another size larger, etc.  EXCEPT that there will be cases where certain items have their own specialized piles and racks and so forth, regardless of size.  So it's not only what fits where in the inventory, but also what fits in what containers.  But you're right, there could in theory be different sections of inventory that accept a certain max size.

I'm a big fan of having a variety of containers, some specialized, and the good thing about enumerated encumbrance, was that a container could offset that, to give that container an advantage.   So you could have a wheelbarrow which might offset 50% of the weight inside, but could only carry dirt, sand, gravel, cobble, etc.  This would encourage the player very strongly to use that wheelbarrow in those situations.   But even better, it allowed there to be a skill production bonus.  So a normal wheelbarrow reduces the weight 50%, but an 'excellent' wheelbarrow reduces it 60%, and 'masterwork' 70%.  And that would be pretty nice I think.  So, there's good things about having numbers.  I just think it's simpler to balance overall, and simpler for the player to grasp, without the numbers.  I feel like a lot of frustration could possibly arise from the player going out to collect resources, and discovering they have plenty of inventory, but not enough encumbrance capacity, and they have to go back home and offload more.  Hitting your encumbrance I think could 'sneak up' on you a lot easier that maxing out inventory/container slots.

The downside to a size-without-numbers system, is that it becomes harder to give much quality gradation to items - the most obvious is more slots.  So if we assume a player can only carry dirt etc on the hotbar, and a wheelbarrow provides maybe 9 slots, but requires a hotbar slot and the offhand slot, then the player nets as many as 7 additional slots (7 hotbar + 9 wheelbarrow = 16, vs 9 hotbar with no wheelbarrow).  An 'excellent' wheelbarrow could have more slots.  If the base 9 are 3x3, then you could add another column of 3 to the right.  Masterwork another column, etc.  It's not as fine-grained as percent reductions, but it can provide a bonus to skill of craftsmanship, or materials.  It's somewhat easier to do for hotbar-limited items - since there's so few hotbar spaces it's easier to have a container with more slots.  Items that fit in inventory will require either a smaller inventory, or different strategies to provide incentive.  I do have some idea, but I'm going to make a separate post just about containers for that.  As a side note, I am kind of a fan of - well, at least exploring the notion of - starting the player with may just like, 9 available inventory slots, and the clothing they wear makes more available.  I know this sort of thing has been done in other mods.  But that too, is kind of a different topic.

3 hours ago, chepelink said:

What can be a 4th factor?

Fourth factor is size.  As in, physical dimensions.  Like Stroam said, irl a fishing pole is light, but you can't even fit it in a barrel.    The interesting thing is TFC1 *already* had both size (tiny, very small, small, medium, large, huge) and weight (light medium or heavy) according to the wiki.  I never really noticed that before I was researching into this.  Because out of all those classifications, the only mechanical effects that I ever really noticed were that some items fit in vessels/barrels and a couple items can only be carried on the back (full barrels/vessels and anvils).  I don't know if the querns and beds things were just kept small for convenience, or just waiting until better systems(handcarts) were coded, which never happened for TFC1. 

Stroam there's good ideas there but it's a little OT compared to the OP I think.  I'm going to try to stick with Konlii's original stuff.

In the context of Konlii's weight system, what I'm going to say is, it's going to come down to mining.  The mining system needs to use conveyances.  Everything else can dance around that, but mining, being integral to tiered advancement in metals, I think can be made into a localized enough activity to not 'slow down' the entire game, but also make minecarts and other animals good and necessary. 

Before getting into this, I will say that I'm feeling like the 'unstackables' encumbrance still seems a bit much Konlii, unless it's not an absolute.  For instance what if we don't want potions to stack, for game balance sake?  This is how vanilla does it right?  Despite being small, they exist only in stacks of one, I presume to keep the player from just having oceans of potions to breeze through stuff.  I think that's a good mechanic, but I think it's not good to have them weigh huge amounts.  And I can only imagine they would not be the only case - wands, rods, maybe even special books, all might want to be unstackable.  I think it would be better if all items simply had an encumbrance assigned.  But then how to limit the number of weapons, tools, and armor carried?

My suggestion for limited 'major gear' carried would be - if code-possible - to make add a break-point where items can ONLY be carried on the hotbar and in special slots.  This takes the entire 'inventory' out of the equation, and limits these items purely based on a limited number of slots available, but still leaves the vast player inventory for use with all the little 'collectibles'.    In the context of the OP, I think tier 4 - heavyweight, would be the candidate. 

Now to back up a bit, the way I'm envisioning the inventory system is the hotbar, the offhand, 4 belt slots, and back slot.  All visible along the bottom.  offhand, back, and belt slots are essentially extensions of the hotbar that only are available for certain items (offhand) or when supplementary items are worn on them (belt and back).  When you're actually in the inventory screen, there are also the vanilla four armor slots, an additional four clothing slots (maybe) and 'baubble' slots for 2 rings, necklaces, etc.  That's just how I envision it, it of course may (probably) won't shake out that way.

So back to tier 4 encumbrance.  Armor pieces (metal armor that is) can only be carried on the hotbar, or worn in the armor slots.  Not allowed in inventory.  I think this accomplishes Konlii's goal of making armor a cumbersome item, without making it have to weigh insane amounts.  Shields - hotbar or offhand.  Two-handed weapons (as discussed elsewhere) offhand, 1 hotbar slot, and 2 sheathe slots.  Empty barrels - hotbar or back.  Full barrels - hotbar AND offhand (2 slots).  They slow the player immensely, and the player cannot climb ladders or jump, but the player can still move up and down stairs - this is an attempt to simulate 'rolling' the barrel, without forcing Bioxx to animate that.  Although I guess if the barrel were shown in front of the player horizontal, that would still be a nice accessory thing, and similar to the barrel-on-back thing.  This will encourage localization of barrels, and basically allow the player to 'roll' them to a cart for further transport.  Anvils could be same as full barrel, or maybe also have the option to be carried on the back alone.   So that's a few examples.  As many mods as i've seen that toy with inventory slots, I'd hope that limiting some items to hotbar+ slots would be code-possible.   I feel this solution kind of accomplishes Konlii's goal of having certain items come 'at a premium' without having to ramp up the encumbrance levels so much. 

But now, where I was heading this whole time, mining.   So I'm going a bit OT here, but it's in service of trying to tie this system into the world more.  Basically, I'm thinking for TFC2 it'd be a good idea for ore blocks to drop themselves when mined, and then the player has to process them to get the ore out.  So ore blocks themselves would then be tier 4.  This allows the player to carry a certain amount of them on their hotbar.  But while mining the player will certainly have other things on their hotbar, so they'll have to find a balance.   But if ore block max stack were 8, then the player could carry 72 max and that would be only if they stowed their pick and other hotbar stuff.  Bioxx has suggested before that TFC2 ore may be reduce per-block, but even at vanilla levels, 72 normal ore is only 18 ingots.  Not a ton by any means, but still enough for a lot of tools and some armor.  So maybe stack size of ore blocks is 4, or ore yield is smaller, but however that shakes out, the point is to try and make the max ore blocks carryable not all that great.  Barrels are no longer an attractive long-range transport, and ore blocks can't fit in backpacks.  It'd be a fine balancing act between making early-game ore processing not be too onerous, but still keeping conveyance useful in both early and later phases of the game.  I think processing ore blocks to get ore will help because you can bring in tiered processing that varies the yield.  Early game processing would be easily mobile, but low-yield, while late game would be very expensive and tough to move, but higher yield.

So, coming full-circle, I've tried to keep to Konlii's suggestion, but I've tried to reduce the need for number in the thousands, with drastically encumbering unstackables, by introducing a mechanic of hotbar-only items.  I think this would allow for a greater number of low-tier encumbrances, and reduce the need for a huge upper limit, by keeping items we want to control the numbers of limited to the hotbar, which will already have regular tools and such competing for that space.