Inventory Space: Oh my god it's a thread about Inventory

[Odati 1]

I think the difference in what we're talking about here is that you're speaking of inventory in space requirements, where I am speaking more in terms of weights. I'm not a coder, so I have no clue how hard each idea may be to implement, so I cannot speak to that side of things. 

 

For me personally, I dislike the idea of space management when you restrict the total number of different items I can carry.  In example, if you can still stack heavy items (even in smaller numbers) that's like saying  I cannot carry 3 different Stone Blocks, but I can carry 3 of one kind and 3 of another (total six)...  seems wrong to me personally.  That's what draws me more to a weighting system as it doesnt restrict the number of different items specifically, just to total weights of those items as a whole.

 

Inventory "space" restriction makes sense if you're speaking in terms of how many large items you can carry in your arms/hands. But, to me that would require you to then not allow stacking of items.  If I can carry 2 large items only, then I shouldnt be able to hold stacks of those items in each arm.

 

I do agree that math makes many angry, especially if it requires hovering over every item just calculate how much it weighs, so I see your argument there.  That being said I wonder if its possible for each square in the inventory to show the total units (weight) that square contains.  In this case each items units in a stack would have to be separate and then totaled, but at that point you could easily see what the totals of each square are, and since each square would still only contain one item (or container, like the ceramic pots) you should be able to easily glance at them and review.  Containers in this instance would show the total they carry plus the containers weight.

 

My idea (or basis for one as it is) may not even be implementable, I have no clue, but I like the idea of a system that doesnt restrict the number of "different" items I can carry, especially in a game in which there are so many different items.

[Sting_Auer 59]

Most of you who frequent the IRC would already have seen my take on the subject, but I'll reiterate it here:

 

I would prefer it if we had a Volume and Mass limited inventory, instead of a Tile and Stack limited inventory. Each item would have a volume and mass stat that would be tailored primarily to balance, but also to match an approximate size and mass of the object.

 

The more mass you carry, the slower you sprint, until you reach a point where you can't sprint at all. If you max out your mass, you start to move more slowly even when not sprinting, and adding more just strengthens the effect.

 

Volume is limited by what clothing you are carrying. New-spawn Steve? could only carry what he can carry in his hands, and his pockets. His mass limit would be fine, but his volume limit would be very small. You can expand it with a backpack, pocketcoat, bag, etc.

 

This solves the problem of the quickbar, of different items all taking 1 tile, and wouldn't need an entirely new GUI. Just make it auto-drop an item if your mass or volume limit is maxed. Having a button to toggle pickup on and off (preferrably of different kinds of items) would solve the problem of trying to sort through a pile of items on the ground. Having a list of nearby items and being able to click on the ones you want to grab would be an excellent way of doing it, too.

 

On this note, I'd also like to see an equip slot, where weapons can only be made use of when in an equip slot (held in your hand). This is mostly off-topic, but does tie in slightly to an overhauled inventory system.

[transcengopher 349]

Why would that be a much harder task to code?  Wouldn't you just iterate through all the items and add up their weights, comparing the result to some value to see if you are overburdened?

 

If that were to happen, it would be nice to see some gui improvements that make it easy to spot heavy items for the user, instead of mousing over each one to see if it's light or heavy.  This approach would also change the way carrying capacity is increased via backpacks, wagons, etc.  It would be rather disappointing to have the typical RPG mechanic of "You leveled up STR!  You can carry 5 extra pounds."  I think Hyena Grin's method would be more rewarding, but both sound more absorbing than the current method.

You ask how it is harder to code and then in later post start to describe exactly  why it would be yourself.

[GeoffNukem 0]

I also like Hyena's idea. Its a really good idea, but I can't help thinking to maybe tweaking it a little.

 

 

The way I am thinking is, the Light, Medium and Heavy weight categories have their own value. For example, Light = 10, Medium = 20 and Heavy = 50. The player has a Carry Limit value of 100 and each item consumes their part of the limit. The player can then balance between carrying a lot of light items versus carrying a few Medium/Heavy items.

 

The player's carry limit is left as the given limit. Bags and other containers would be given a weight category. Each container would have their own limit of how much can be put inside of them. For example, Leather Pouch has a limit of 40 and a backpack is 100. The containers can also be accessed by right clicking the item, like with the clay pot, which could also have its own limit.

 

The numbers I've given can be tweaked for balancing purposes and for simplicity, if needs be (perhaps 1/2/5, with a limit of 10). The numbers could also be placed in the config file for players and server admins to tweak to their preference.

 

Another idea is to also implement the size of the item in a similar way with the weight. Items are either Small/Medium/Large. So you can have a lot of small item, or a few large items, whilst also balancing the weight of items you're carrying. Alternatively, only let the item size effect the containers, so only small items can fit in a leather pouch.

 

Some changes to the Inventory GUI, like displaying the current amount carrying and the limit (Current /  Limit). Perhaps colour coding the weight/size text in the tool-tip (the colours could also be changed in the config).

 

 

This is probably just a mathematical version of Hyena's Light/Medium/Heavy idea, but I think this would still be just as flexible and simple as the original idea.

[Hyena Grin 92]

I am sensitive to the concern that so few Heavy slots will just end up getting used up by handfuls of single objects. 

 

I have thought about this. If you look at the item list in TFC, however, virtually all Heavy items are constructed. They are either rocks put together to make cobblestone (a process that can be reversed, btw), are brick blocks, are thatch (which should be reversible, btw), or are crafting stations that you normally build and then place. While people do often walk around with large amounts of different kinds of cobblestone in their backpacks, this is more a result of not having to actually worry about inventory space, more than it is a result of normal gameplay. When you mine out rock you actually collect rocks which are Light and Tiny and thus stack to 64. So running around collecting rocks? Not a big deal even at the start. Mining stone? Not a big deal. Until you start throwing the stones together into cobblestone. Then it's going to start taking up space. There are only three instances where you can find Heavy objects in the world that aren't deliberately made by the player; Raw Stone, which although no 'made' by the player is generally not collected by accident nonetheless. The other two are both ore. The first one is mined ore, which is Heavy and stacks to 16. This is probably fine. Part of the reason for these limitations was to make mining large quantities of metal ore more of an ordeal and thus provide incentive for things like minecarts and roads and handcarts to move those ore chunks around. The second is surface ore (small nuggets) which are heavy and stack to 64. I would change this to medium and reduce the stack size to 32. This would accommodate the fact that you can find multiple types of ground ore over a relatively small area, and it'd rapidly eat up heavy slots with items you may not find a lot of.

 

I don't necessarily have an issue with a mixed slot/weight inventory system, though I will note that things do get a little funky when you try to impose weights onto objects that are already limited by volume.

 

Using the numbers you suggested, two stacks of brick blocks (64 x 10 weight units) equals 640. So you would need at least 640 weight units available to carry two stacks of brick blocks. What does that translate to in terms of other objects? That is twenty stacks of wooden logs (16 x 2 weight units = 32. 32 x 20 stacks = 640 units). Or 10 stacks of tiny light items (64 x 1 weight units = 64. 64 x 10 = 640). 

 

When 10 stacks of tiny light objects is equivalent to 20 stacks of logs and 2 stacks of brick blocks it starts to become apparent that the whole weight/volume/slot/stack system would need some work before a system based on both weight and slots would work well.

 

My reasoning with the system I came up with is that the game already tries to balance things based on their volume. Regardless of a unit's actual weight you can only carry so much of it because it has an inherent volume. That's why logs are only Medium but it takes 2 stacks of them to equal one stack of Heavy brick blocks which happen to have a smaller volume. With the system I described, if you carry nothing but logs in your medium slots and nothing but brick blocks in your heavy slots, you will actually only ever be able to carry slightly more logs than you can carry brick blocks despite having quite a few more slots, because of the volume difference. That is pretty much exactly how it ought to be. With progressively lighter objects you have more 'wiggle room' in your inventory in terms of number of slots for item variety, but for many important items you are carrying similar actual physical quantities of items. I think this actually does a good job of implying a volume limitation system without actually imposing a threshold on the player. Add in slot limitations and what you get is a degree of control over the resources the player can move in large quantity.

 

Two slots for Heavy objects is supposed to be limiting. That's the point. Gaining more slots for light and medium objects will not be as quite a big deal for the player as gaining slots for heavy objects. That is why the backpack adds an additional two slots, and you will be able to use quickslots to contain one or more additional heavy objects, and beyond that you have the handcart which can carry many stacks of heavy objects for the player. In other words, if you have a building project going and need multiple types of Brick blocks and Cobblestone and Stone Fences and Thatch etc etc etc... then that is what handcarts are for, carrying all the excess.

 

The very idea is to necessitate new system and new gameplay by limiting the player. If you come at it from a raw weight perspective then all you're doing is putting in an extra step and making people dump all their 'extra' gear into a chest before moving tons and tons of ore/wood/stone just like they always did.

 

But yes, that all said I am not strictly against a weight system, or a hybrid system, I am just waiting to hear some details that would solve some of the problems I see with it.

[Arekis 3]

You ask how it is harder to code and then in later post start to describe exactly  why it would be yourself.

 

I was responding to your statement, specifically: "Making inventory only take a specific numbers of weight is much harder task to code than what Hyena suggested."

 

If you were implying adding other UI changes beyond what you stated in that sentence, then yes, that would also be involved, but so are Hyena Grin's suggestions since they would be altering the UI.  However, tallying up the total weight of your inventory and then deciding whether you are encumbered or can take additional inventory should hopefully be trivial.

 

-----

 

@Hyena Grin

 

The one issue I still have with that system is the sheer number of unique items in TFC.  If you are limited to only 2 kinds of heavy items, that seems unfairly limiting no matter how many of those items you have.  If you run across more than 2 types of heavy rocks in your travels, you have to give one up unless you have the extra means to carry them, but of the original two you can carry a full stack of both.  Volume-wise, it still doesn't make sense unless you can carry up to a pre-specified number of large objects which I imagine would look awful interface-wise.

 

Unfortunately, I cannot offer an elegant solution and will have to ponder it some more.  It would be nice to see some of these ideas prototyped.  Perhaps my misgivings are inconsequential when presented with an actual working model.

[Hyena Grin 92]

@Hyena Grin

 

The one issue I still have with that system is the sheer number of unique items in TFC.  If you are limited to only 2 kinds of heavy items, that seems unfairly limiting no matter how many of those items you have.  If you run across more than 2 types of heavy rocks in your travels...

 

What heavy rocks? Like I said, that doesn't exist. You might as well be talking about carrying around elephants.

 

Reread what I said. There are lots of unique items but none of the heavy ones are found in the environment. 

 

I don't know how else to say that in a way that will sink in. 95% of the heavy items need to be crafted by the player. or deliberately carved out of a mountain-side. You know, on purpose. Anything you might find in the world is going to fit into one of the 15 other slots you have. 

 

Seriously, go look at the list of items in TFC (http://terrafirmacraft.com/wiki/Item_Index) and then come back here and actually list the ones you think would cause a problem. Apart from the stuff I already talked about. Don't just make up a hypothetical object; find me the stuff that you think will present an issue. Because the only heavy items in the game (with a couple of exceptions that I already went over) are ones that you deliberately craft for a specific reason. These are the items that we kinda sorta want people to find other ways to move around in large quantities. That is why handcarts and roads are being suggested. As crucial parts of the resource-moving process. There's no reason to come up with a gameplay mechanic that doesn't actually impact gameplay in a meaningful way. But your concern about heavy objects is largely unfounded. You are not going to find heavy objects out in the world. You will be crafting them. When you mine rock what do you get? Light objects. When you craft them together to make cobblestone what do you get? Heavy objects. Solution: don't make cobblestone and carry it around unless you need it for something. Don't wander around in the wild with a stack of stone fences if you aren't building a fence. And if you need to take stuff from one place to another, that's what the handcart is for. If you need to make the trip multiple times, that is what roads are for.

 

I will save you the trouble and list the heavy objects in the game that you can find naturally in the environment:

 

Dirt (can go in a pot, so 4 per slot unless this gets changed)

Cobblestone (can go in a pot, can also be broken down into rocks that fit in other slots)

Sand (can go in a pot)

Raw Stone (usually mined out deliberately. Can go in a pot)

Raw Stone Smooth (result of player action. Also can go in a pot)

Leaves (Not even sure how to harvest leaf blocks, but suffice to say they can go in a pot)

Peat (Can go in a pot)

Ore (Both regular and nugget) (Can go in a pot. Also nuggets should be changed to medium, but even if they aren't, pottable)

Thatch (Technically not found in the environment, but simply because it's freely available to build and cannot be reversed. But also fits in a pot)

 

That is it. That is literally every single Heavy item you might run across in the environment. That is every single thing with a 'Heavy' weight that isn't deliberately constructed by the player.

 

Which of these do you have an issue with exactly?

You are concerned about an issue that frankly doesn't exist, and I explained why. You are dramatically overestimating the number of heavy objects in the game.

[Arekis 3]

Dirt (can go in a pot, so 4 per slot unless this gets changed)

Cobblestone (can go in a pot, can also be broken down into rocks that fit in other slots)

Sand (can go in a pot)

Raw Stone (usually mined out deliberately. Can go in a pot)

Raw Stone Smooth (result of player action. Also can go in a pot)

Peat (Can go in a pot)

Ore (Both regular and nugget) (Can go in a pot. Also nuggets should be changed to medium, but even if they aren't, pottable)

 

...

 

Which of these do you have an issue with exactly?

You are concerned about an issue that frankly doesn't exist, and I explained why. You are dramatically overestimating the number of heavy objects in the game.

 

There are 23 different types of minerals stones in the game and 12 useful ores.  So just looking at the stone items you enumerated, you can have 23 unique cobblestones, 23 raw stones, 23 raw smooth stones.  That's 69 stone items for the inventory of 2.  Add in different ores and all the different dirts and different sands.  The ceramic pot seems like a workaround the space limitation issue, so that would also alleviate it.  But then you don't have 2 heavy spots, you have 8 if you can fit the items in the pots.

 

I concede that digging up the rocks and not putting them together is a good way of not exhausting your heavy inventory, but you can't do that with some other items you naturally get in the environment like the sand and dirt.  Those can accumulate quickly if you are landscaping and only having 2 slots sounds very limiting.  Nonetheless, I'd be eager to try out this kind of a system.

[Hyena Grin 92]

As a general rule people wouldn't put cobblestone together if they didn't need to (at least under this system). If someone complains that they don't have enough room for the four different types of cobblestone they are carrying then they are making their own problems, since there is no loss to break down cobblestone for transport. Usually you're not picking up cobblestone unless there's a cave-in (though off the top of my head I can't remember if cave-in cobblestone drops cobblestone or rocks). So most of the time the only reason you'd need to worry about that extra step is if you went through the trouble to put them together in the first place.

 

Useful ore is supposed to be limited. That's one of the goals of the system, to make moving useful resources around just a little bit more involved than filling your inventory. Though honestly with pots, even off the bat you can carry 8 full stacks of ore with a pot which is moooore than plenty. Almost too much, really. Once you have fully expanded your inventory you'd have four pots and that's 16 slots for ore. At that point we're practically not even limiting the inventory anymore, but that's a bridge we can cross when we get there.

 

Sand, Dirt, and Gravel (forgot that one) are the only things I think could be cause for concern. Their value is quite limited, however. Usually dirt and sand and gravel are the first things people toss away to make room for something else. As for landscaping; you aren't required to pick up dirt while landscaping, and if you want to collect large amounts of dirt for a project, that is precisely the kind of thing the handcart is for. I understand that could be an issue for servers if a lot of people are ignoring dirt sprites due to lack of space, however. It might be worth making these items medium in weight to avoid various issues around it.

 

Like any overhaul suggestion, certain changes might need to be made to the specific items that the system impacts.

[davoval0001 19]

ok,

 

 

Personally i lean towards the space restricted inv management system. Why? Because i feel, that if weights and the a likes was the way to go, the game would turn into the sort of thing fallout and Skyrim have, ie spending 8 minutes sorting out my inventory, ect. I personally don't want that sort of thing, and i also feel that the space way would be better.

 

 

Regarding the Space method, i like how you would have limited space for different sized objects, and i can't really see any problems with it. Having Handcarts ect would just elaborate on the task.

 

 

Now regarding tools. I thought as Hyena has suggested it, i better go it proper detail.

 

Simple the way it would work is. (Let’s use a sword for example) All tools would be carried as is right now in the inventory, but this poses as problem. This sword is now taking up valuable space. So to combat that, you could craft a scabbard. The sword would then be able to store in the scabbard, and as a result the sword would also no take up inv. What other Pros? When the scabbard is worn, it would open a new hotbar slot that is only reserved for swords. This would also be added to the use of quivers, ect.

 

 

Clothes?

 

I would like to see clothes added to the game as many people would. Warmth and protection are just some of the things that clothes could provide. But Clothes wouldn’t just stop there.

I would like to see different types of clothes added, so having the warmest clothing isn’t the best for mining ect. Some types I would like to see are, clothes for warmth, heat, scouting, mining, trading, heavy(protective clothing, ) chainmail, ect (Just examples). Each types of clothing would have different effects, like, increasing/decreasing inventory  space, protecting from the temperature, allowing quicker move speed ect.  This would cause people to have to choose clothing depending on the conditions they will meet, not just “this is made out of Blue Steel”

 

The there are unique items, that would have the ability to store certain items Some ideas

-Scabbard- (as suggested) would allow a sword (maybe other weapons?) to be carried within, without taking up space. Items that are stored are added to the hotbar (button 0).  

 

-Tool belt- would allow the carry of hammers, chisels, axes (maybe shovels) and would have the same sort of principles as the scabbard.

 

-combat webbing- Would allow the use and carry of more combat weapons/items.

 

-Quiver- Able to carry arrows, maybe gives the ability to sling bow over back?

 

(Note; I’m sure there is more to add, but I can’t remember some at the moment, so these are just a few rough ideas)

 

One of the main things with these unique systems would be how they work with clothes. For example tools belts wouldn’t work as well with red steel armour, and heavy clothing  or chainmail, where combat webbing would work well as it is all combat based.

 

This whole idea needs to be elaborated on, as this is only a quick rough job, as I just wanted to get the full idea out.

[Arekis 3]

As a general rule people wouldn't put cobblestone together if they didn't need to (at least under this system). If someone complains that they don't have enough room for the four different types of cobblestone they are carrying then they are making their own problems, since there is no loss to break down cobblestone for transport. Usually you're not picking up cobblestone unless there's a cave-in (though off the top of my head I can't remember if cave-in cobblestone drops cobblestone or rocks). So most of the time the only reason you'd need to worry about that extra step is if you went through the trouble to put them together in the first place.

 

Useful ore is supposed to be limited. That's one of the goals of the system, to make moving useful resources around just a little bit more involved than filling your inventory. Though honestly with pots, even off the bat you can carry 8 full stacks of ore with a pot which is moooore than plenty. Almost too much, really. Once you have fully expanded your inventory you'd have four pots and that's 16 slots for ore. At that point we're practically not even limiting the inventory anymore, but that's a bridge we can cross when we get there.

 

Sand, Dirt, and Gravel (forgot that one) are the only things I think could be cause for concern. Their value is quite limited, however. Usually dirt and sand and gravel are the first things people toss away to make room for something else. As for landscaping; you aren't required to pick up dirt while landscaping, and if you want to collect large amounts of dirt for a project, that is precisely the kind of thing the handcart is for. I understand that could be an issue for servers if a lot of people are ignoring dirt sprites due to lack of space, however. It might be worth making these items medium in weight to avoid various issues around it.

 

Like any overhaul suggestion, certain changes might need to be made to the specific items that the system impacts.

 

I agree.

 

Just to clarify, I like the idea and by no means implied that the "2 heavy item slots" made the entire concept horrible.  I simply wanted to express that the particular limit may be of concern and might need some adjustment.  And if it doesn't, then fantastic!  I'll be quite happy.  Perhaps it might be worth considering readjusting some weight values to make sand/dirt/gravel not take up the heavy slots.  In this case, a clump of dirt would be roughly equivalent in weight to a rock or two.  If the heavy slots are dedicated to constructed uncommon items, then that limit would make more sense to me.

[davoval0001 19]

-snip-

-snip-

 

 

Someone please give this man the titile of "essay master" or something along the likes of it.

[AllenWL 186]

And why is that bad? It might become a necessary skill. Being able to glance over your inventory and quickly remember what items are light/small and what heavy/big. For inexperienced player, it might be hard. But for experienced player, they know rocks are small, logs are medium (or what, I don't remember), doors are big. And even then, it is not like you have to do this. You just keep what you need to keep and drop everything else. Even worse, people are already doing this. But instead of weight/size, they measure value of the item itself. Like with long expeditions, even with current inventory space, you can hit situation where you need to pick between items in your inventory and one you just found. If you limit inventory even more, you will force people into this either way.

 

There is also idea of adding weight of the armor worn to the equation. Which might add even more depth into the armor system, because there would be demand for light armor, so either different types of armors or different alloys, that would break away from the linear "higher is better in all ways".

 

 

The problem I have with weight systems, is when I try to get large amounts or res. I played a mod with a weight system, and it'd be fine till a creeper blew up and scattered a bunch of cobble, then, it could really slow you down. Also, another annoyance of the weight system, it that if you are carrying too much and you throw away items, you can still pick them up accidentally, and When I was mining, I had to stop every once in a while to clear my inventory. I'd rather I cant pick them up in the first place. besides, this means you can't say, 'oh, I'm carrying too much, oh well, I'll just move with a slowness 4 debuff, no big deal.' also, the slot limitation means you have to be careful not to miss any ores while mining, and you really ARE limited. If you have limited slots, you have to choose, but if all you get is a debuff, you can just carry them all and have the debuff. So I feel that a weight system isn't really the best idea.

 

Of course,  wood carts, barrows, and beast of burden which are commonly found would be needed to balance it out and not make the stone age really really annoying.

 

Oh and one thing, how about keeping the inventory as it is, but separating them into different areas and giving each area a item limit?

For example, there can be 8 heavy slots that can carry 16. this will not be 16 items each, but 16 items total. So you can carry 8, 4, and 4, or 4, 4, 2,and 6

[soulion 9]

i didn't bother to read the other post (so don't get mad at me if i copyed yours) but i always liked my idea of a resident evil way of inventory management, and you can have a back pack to right click to have another area to store stuff.

[KJGinger 0]

While I believe Hyena Grin raises many excellent points about the benefits of an inventory system rehaul (The necessitating of small settlements with workshops and whatnot within range of the harvesting point being something I very much enjoy the idea of). I don't believe a realistic option is available, nor one that is both enjoyable and believable. I want to preface this rebuttal by saying that I really like your idea; and I'd love to see some sort of realism/believability instituted into the inventory system.

 

Realistically, one must ask where the inventory is actually stored. Pockets? A backpack? Some sort of magic sack? Nothing feasible would really be able to hold the vast array of products the Minecraft Character is able to. To be honest, all people were able to transport in Neolithic is what they could carry in their own two hands. Early humans had many inventions that eased their ability to carry products, such as Clay Vessels and pottery; but nothing that could allow them to carry three tools, as well as food, lumber, and stone. The reason the Egyptians were so successful is that they had very many hands (thanks to slave labour) with which to put to work, a feat not as feasible in minecraft. One of the earliest examples of a bag being used as transport is Twyford woven bag found in the Early Bronze age. If the game stayed true from the technological-development stance up to this point, thats still a major part of ingame time where the player has very little inventory usage.

 

Believably, the system originally suggested would pose difficulties simply due to it's hard limits on item numbers. IE: Why can I carry only two heavy items? Why not 3 Light items and no medium items? (I understand that the OP was just proposing an idea, I'm just trying to get my point across in reference to limitations, no negative feelings intended). Furthermore, as much as it pains me to say so, I don't think instituting limits on inventory would create a need for on-site settlements or outposts. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love that idea; but I'm of the opinion that the cost of setting up an outpost would outweigh that of just dragging everything back to home base, encouraging tedium rather than innovation. 

 

Also, just because I'm a bit nitpicky and this has been bothering me, many people have made the claim that instituting a system like this would encourage people to use weaker armours due to the inherent lightness and speed they must possess; that's an idea primarily created by the need for balance in games. Typically armour that is 'stronger' or more higher tiered was lighter as well as stronger, thus the evolution to them. For example, even if you had armour that was the exact same as far as construction is concerned, and just the material its composed of was changed, copper armour is much heavier than Iron (Take a look at where Cu and Fe are on the periodic table). The same applies for Iron and Steel. A cubic meter of Iron weighs 7,874kg, whereas a cubic meter of Steel weighs slightly less at 7,850kg.

 

In conclusion, I'd love to see some sort of rehaul done to the inventory system in Terrafirmacraft; however my opinion towards the possibilities of it being possible without inducing tedium is not very good.

[transcengopher 349]

Believably, the system originally suggested would pose difficulties simply due to it's hard limits on item numbers. IE: Why can I carry only two heavy items? Why not 3 Light items and no medium items?

 

It actually is not as bad as you probably think it is in this suggestion. If you look closely at the fourth post at the second page (or maybe other posts), medium type inventory slot does not accept medium items only - it's up to medium. That means you can only put light items in light type slot, but you can put any item in heavy slots. At a cost of being able to carry heavy items, you can fill it up even with light items.

 

To the rest of folks who might read this, I got distracted (for couple of months. riiiight...) and didn't answer properly.

Basically, what is hard to code about co-proposed weight-and-volume-based inventory - is how you would pick items up. In Hyena's system you either have a slot or you don't (with added complexity that certain slot is unavailable for certain items), it is still a simple computation.

Now, with fancy weight and volume stuff you gotta have multiple values tracked and finicky hooks to explain auto-hoovering mechanism how many items it should pick up from a stack that is laying on the ground. And a thing that I see annoying as a player is that I can never be sure that if I drop a stack of items, I will be able to pick up, say, an anvil - most times I should be doing math to figure this simple thing out, even if every light item (like a stick and a hay tuft) have the same values for weight and volume, which for certain items is not the case.

[Tsuarok 47]

Instead of having specific slots for items weights, why not just have larger items take up multiple slots, with perhaps a total weight encumbrance system?  Keep the stack sizes small and maybe add sensible external storage (idk, brick piles?).  And of course external transport systems such as horse/cow wagons (different speeds), handcarts, backpacks and baskets. 

[soulion 9]

While I believe Hyena Grin raises many excellent points about the benefits of an inventory system rehaul (The necessitating of small settlements with workshops and whatnot within range of the harvesting point being something I very much enjoy the idea of). I don't believe a realistic option is available, nor one that is both enjoyable and believable. I want to preface this rebuttal by saying that I really like your idea; and I'd love to see some sort of realism/believability instituted into the inventory system.

 

Realistically, one must ask where the inventory is actually stored. Pockets? A backpack? Some sort of magic sack? Nothing feasible would really be able to hold the vast array of products the Minecraft Character is able to. To be honest, all people were able to transport in Neolithic is what they could carry in their own two hands. Early humans had many inventions that eased their ability to carry products, such as Clay Vessels and pottery; but nothing that could allow them to carry three tools, as well as food, lumber, and stone. The reason the Egyptians were so successful is that they had very many hands (thanks to slave labour) with which to put to work, a feat not as feasible in minecraft. One of the earliest examples of a bag being used as transport is Twyford woven bag found in the Early Bronze age. If the game stayed true from the technological-development stance up to this point, thats still a major part of ingame time where the player has very little inventory usage.

 

Believably, the system originally suggested would pose difficulties simply due to it's hard limits on item numbers. IE: Why can I carry only two heavy items? Why not 3 Light items and no medium items? (I understand that the OP was just proposing an idea, I'm just trying to get my point across in reference to limitations, no negative feelings intended). Furthermore, as much as it pains me to say so, I don't think instituting limits on inventory would create a need for on-site settlements or outposts. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love that idea; but I'm of the opinion that the cost of setting up an outpost would outweigh that of just dragging everything back to home base, encouraging tedium rather than innovation. 

 

Also, just because I'm a bit nitpicky and this has been bothering me, many people have made the claim that instituting a system like this would encourage people to use weaker armours due to the inherent lightness and speed they must possess; that's an idea primarily created by the need for balance in games. Typically armour that is 'stronger' or more higher tiered was lighter as well as stronger, thus the evolution to them. For example, even if you had armour that was the exact same as far as construction is concerned, and just the material its composed of was changed, copper armour is much heavier than Iron (Take a look at where Cu and Fe are on the periodic table). The same applies for Iron and Steel. A cubic meter of Iron weighs 7,874kg, whereas a cubic meter of Steel weighs slightly less at 7,850kg.

 

In conclusion, I'd love to see some sort of rehaul done to the inventory system in Terrafirmacraft; however my opinion towards the possibilities of it being possible without inducing tedium is not very good.

whats funny is that in vanilla steve can carry 25% of all the gold that's been found(if he has it filled to every slot) in the world which is a few million tons I think..

[kurzninja 10]

Someone way earlier in the thread mentioned creating roads and paths for moving items back and forth from home to the mine/forest/etc. I'd like to suggest something like the Brownstone roads in Tinker's Construct that increase your walking speed for this purpose. That way, roads can be built and actually have a useful property other than being merely aesthetic or as a navigation guide. There could be a number of different variations on roads such as "paths" for use between your various buildings, gravel roads, dirt roads, paved roads, etc. Each with its own movement modifier. 

 

Just my two cents.

[Sda215 8]

Extra Credits - "When Difficult is Fun": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toVNkuCELpU

[corki99 23]

Cool, it does seem very TFC like.

[transcengopher 349]

Instead of having specific slots for items weights, why not just have larger items take up multiple slots, with perhaps a total weight encumbrance system?

Because that requires a complete rewrite of existing inventory system and is way more trouble than it's worth.

[KJGinger 0]

Alright, I've come up with a possible solution. I'm not certain on the difficulties coding this in would provide, but ideas are fun, right?

 

Perhaps rather than limiting items themselves based on amount of sizes possible, theres a total possible weight a character can carry. Now, this system doesn't include shapes of objects, and thus the inconvenience of carrying them (IE, it's much more difficult to carry an oddly shaped object of a lighter weight than a heavier object of cubic shape), because I believe that would just be excessive. This could be implemented in a variety of ways, but some of the ones most apparent to me include:

 

Basic Cap: There's a maximum weight a player can carry, and once they reach this weight, they cannot move or move with a debilitating slowness. Similar to the system instituted in the Elder Scrolls games.

 

Tiered Punishments: Players have several levels, or tiers of punishments inflicted by weight carried. This system has flat plateaus of limits, like this. For example, once a player carries 45Kg, they move 10% slower, Once up to 90Kg, 20% slower. (Example values completely off the top of my head and hold no actual reference, just for understanding of idea)

 

Scaling Punishments: Similar to Tiered Punishments, but every Kg (Or whatever measurement of weight chosen) adds increased punishment to the player. IE: You have 45Kg moving 10% slower, and adding one Kg increases that speed punishment whatever ratio the devs feel to be balanced.

 

Now, I believe the way items are to be weighed would have to be either individually assigned to each object, based entirely on the current 'weight' (light, heavy, very heavy) of each object, or based on a spreadsheet combining the weight and size of each object. In this way, size could be used as a placeholder for inconvenience of carrying each object. IE: It's harder to hold a large wooden door than a pickaxe, even though they may weight the same amount.

 

Realistically, the average soldier is able to safely carry about 50lbs (Source), though soldiers frequently carry 70-90lbs (Source). so perhaps some sort of system could be devised keeping this in mind.

 

Personally, I am of the opinion that a combination of the Basic Cap system, and the Size/Weight value would be the system that causes the least frustration while still reforming the inventory system in a positive manner. Though it's not a 100% realistic solution, I am of the opinion that it is believable. I'd love to hear the opinions and additions anyone else has to make.

[Hyena Grin 92]

Well, somehow this thread got revived. I've been eyeing the posts (I get email notification) and had planned to not get involved again.I'm seeing old ideas rehashed (no offense KJGinger, but as far as inventory suggestions go, you've been beaten to the punch. To put it lightly), old arguments being repeated long after they'd been concluded, concerns brought up that have already been addressed in this thread, and even a vaguely bizarre arguments against something that was never suggested in the first place (I dunno who the 'a lot of people' we are referring to are, but I don't recall armor weight coming up in this thread at all. Kind of a weird point of contention against a nonexisting argument).

 

Here's my take on this; the whole notion of the thread was to talk about inventory management as an existing problem that deserves a solution, and hopefully get Bioxx and Dunk to look at it. It's pretty obvious they've seen the thread, seen the arguments, and I suspect may have already experimented with some of these ideas. For example, (technically from the sister thread: http://terrafirmacraft.com/f/topic/4675-transportation-infrastructure/ ) Dunk mentioned that they experimented with roads giving speed buffs and decided it didn't work. Although I remain unconvinced by that and admit being.. rather disappointed - it's ultimately their mod. 

 

I have no doubt that they plan to adjust how inventory works in the future, whether it be by tweaking of stack sizes or more of an overhaul as some of the suggestions in this thread. But I have a feeling they've probably already worked out what they want to do with inventory in the future. They haven't popped in to say one way or another, but I do have that feeling. Also there hasn't been any mention of inventory changes (that I am aware of, please correct me if I'm wrong), so if they do have plans they are probably not for the immediate future. Whatever the case, I'm not convinced that rehashing old arguments serves much purpose. But then, it doesn't really need to.

 

If people really want to continue to use this thread to talk about inventory, have at it. Personally I'd be content to hear from Bioxx or Dunk on whether they've settled on something (even if that is no change at all), because my only real point is that the game could benefit a great deal from inventory restrictions, and it'd be nice to know if there are any plans to address it. For my part I think I'll avoid getting embroiled in more arguments/discussions on the subject, particularly ones I've already had. The discussion around my original post was pretty thorough, and I'm pretty sure that there's a decent chance that any complaints or concerns (at least about my idea, and my opinion of some other ideas, such as weight limits) - already have a personal response buried somewhere within these three pages.

[Tsuarok 47]

rehashing old ideas can present new solutions, as well as show support for the original ideas

if you don't want to read about it, I'd suggest unsubscribing to the thread