Inventory handling

[Madoc]

Yes, we're definitely going to steer clear of the trash loot model, we want to use fairly realistic trading mechanics. Anything you sell to a merchant would remain as a physical item, a merchant might pay based on inventory and demand, quite possibly refusing to buy an item.

Also, a cheap sword would most likely be valued in silver coins, not worth even as much as a single gold coin. Games tend to use gold coins rather generously, in reality they had a very high value.

 

[walltar]

Yes, we're definitely going to steer clear of the trash loot model, we want to use fairly realistic trading mechanics. Anything you sell to a merchant would remain as a physical item, a merchant might pay based on inventory and demand, quite possibly refusing to buy an item.

Also, a cheap sword would most likely be valued in silver coins, not worth even as much as a single gold coin. Games tend to use gold coins rather generously, in reality they had a very high value.

Would you use Gold, Silver, Copper system? ... If yes could you give example of item costimg few copper?

 

[Madoc]

Would you use Gold, Silver, Copper system? ... If yes could you give example of item costimg few copper?

Something along those lines yes. We won't make it overly realistic because that would just be too complicated, money was messy business in the middle ages. I guess we will scale up from the cheapest commodities which would likely be food. This likely means that gold coins will still be more common than they should but we don't want people casually trading with hundreds of gold coins because that's very unrealistic. Ultimately we're not going for historical accuracy as the game is not in fact set in mediaeval Europe, we've even considered different currency systems but the familiar metals of historical currency have their merits.

 

[Tony]

That brings up another question... What role will food have in the game? You've hinted in the past that you didn't want a realistic food system since it would just take away from fun gameplay. So what types of role will food have in Sui Generis?

 

[Cooper Holt]

That brings up another question... What role will food have in the game? You've hinted in the past that you didn't want a realistic food system since it would just take away from fun gameplay. So what types of role will food have in Sui Generis?

Yes, what is the answer to the question?

 

[Kaizer0002]

Two words: Pack Rat. In all seriousness, I wouldn't mind having a small inventory but the balancing really comes from what we're expected to carry. A lot of games have you playing inventory management and hauling junk about because it is either necessary to sell all that junk, keep as backup, or use it to craft. Since there's no character crafting, as long as you receive enough currency to get by and items don't degrade (or allow backup weapon slots if they do), you wouldn't need to carry very much besides quest items which don't need to fit within a physical inventory.

Still, I like having the 2D thing that I can click and drag items onto in order to show me how many slots i have to work with, particularly if multiple things occupy the same space (quiver and arrows on back, sword and shield, etc). I mean it's not the most innovative system, but it works.

Edit: I forgot there isn't the sort of strict quest system that would require quest objects. Still, having a small inventory allows for devs to make content that allows people to pick up a few things instead of running into the issue where you really want the user to be able to pick up the Tome of Ultimate Evil but there's no system in place that allows it.

 

[scurra]

Actually, to my understanding full armor does not encumber you the way most Rpgs portray. By having the armor crafted for you they make it like an exoskeleton. The upper body's armor actually rested on the lower armor and not your body. That is why knight had no problem carrying around 50 pounds of armor. If we are talking about realism then why would you have such an arbitrary category as heavy and light armor(they should treat it as incremental scale like they plan for weapons ex. sword 50% heavy skill 50% light)? Regardless of mobility i think a knight trained in full plate and with a claymore would have little trouble against a leather jerkin rouge with a stiletto( there is a reason rogues go for stealth and not full out combat). As for the inventory I agree that carrying around a lot of loot is annoying however I still think the pricing is realistic while the trader not getting more prosperous with your products is very unrealistic and solely due to lazy economic designs by the game producers." It is true that, unless looted from a battlefield or won in a tournament, the acquisition of armor would have been a costly affair. However, as there are certainly differences in the quality of armor, there also would have been differences in price. Armor of low to medium quality, affordable to burghers, mercenaries, and lower nobility, could be bought, ready-made, at markets, trading fairs, and in urban shops. On the other hand, there were also the high-end, made-to-measure products of the imperial or royal court workshops, and of famous German and Italian armorers. Armor made by some of these celebrated masters represented the highest art of the armorer's craft and could cost as much as a king's ransom."http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htmAnyway back on topic, I am not irritated by any inventory system because it merely limits me in one way or another and therefore is just something to take into consideration when I plan incursions. So lets just brain storm until we find a good balance.

edit: looking back on madoc's post I really like the idea of merchants refusing to buy items. That is a far more realistic reason for me not to bother gathering the items rather than a supposed lack of worth. Although, even today iron is a valuable item with all our manufacturing and mining of hundreds of thousands of tons, I can still get 50$ for like 150 pounds of scrap iron. Would it not be better to use the idea of diminishing returns when selling the same type of items to to the same merchant or even in the same town?

 

[scurra]

That brings up another question... What role will food have in the game? You've hinted in the past that you didn't want a realistic food system since it would just take away from fun gameplay. So what types of role will food have in Sui Generis?

What would be the point of a complex food system if you yourself does not use it? In reality there is a reason why many large towns in Europe did not appear until key agricultural techniques were discovered. In that case would we then have (comparatively)huge parts of the human controlled areas dedicated to farming? I also think that the accumulation of money in games is ridiculous but is it unrealistic? If you are a skilled adventure you would inevitably accumulate a fortune do to the lucrativeness of the trade. The problem lies in that many rpgs armor and weapons are your sole economic goal. you have a mace? well I just found a enchanted sword so i'm good. If a game truly wants to be an open rpg don't we first have to acknowledge that money makes the key functions of any society work? So, rather than forcing the player to be a relatively poor individual should there not instead always be something that you want to spend your money on(house, completing quests by hiring people out, paying for an aqueduct so that the frontier town you use as a hub does not disappears because the wells dried up).

 

[walltar]

I was thinking about food ... what about pasive food system? That could preserve need to eat but you don't have to actively use food as item. Think about Mount and Blade. You have food in your inventory and it is consumed over time passively. More types of food you have better buff you get, but it should by capped sou you dont get ridiculous buff. And when you don't have food you get debuf (not big so you can still play.) Also lets say you eat three times a day so you can consume diferent types of food on every meal. Some food have better stats and give you better stats (grain vs bread)... If you think about that you have many systems like that in game like sleeping, cleaning, going tio the toilet.

I must say that i don't like system when you must actively eat food to gain buff for, say 5minutes. I find it much more annoying than hunger system. I think that buff like these should be left for alchemy. And ithink if devs dont like healing potions then healing food is also out of the way.


And about heavy armour ... i know all about how it is better than most people think it is but we also see battles like Battle Of Agincourt where heavy armor contributed to loss of battle. So even if armour is better than it looks and it is lighter than modern fighting gear (well modern fighters dont use swords do they?) it would still encumber you and i think it would restrict your movement. An in game most of your armour is old looted gear which would not fit as good as if it would be made specially for you. And don't forget about visor, your sight would be restricted too. I still find that lihgter fighter could win against man full plate. He would be faster and could fight longer so it would first make you exhausted and then strike from sides exploiting your visor. Maybe i am wrong about that but i don't have way to test it in RL.

The problem lies in that many rpgs armor and weapons are your sole economic goal.

Also This! ... this is other thing where this game could get inspired from Mount and Blade and it's mods. Lets us buy shops or lands around cities and convert them to farmland.

 

[scurra]

I know that the team is going for realism but you could have a farm spawn food based on key factors. So farms could then be scaled down representation of a larger acreage (4 acres of farmland in the game is actually suppose to be 200 acres). In this way we could use the passive food system and not have huge areas dedicated to field after field. The importance of food could also lend real RP importance for just about any kind of player to do quests involving the protection of this land from raiders or monsters(no one wants more expensive food)

 

[BigT2themax]

I quite like your ideas on food, Walltar. Having some small debuffs if you're hungry, like being a little bit weaker (like for lifting stuff and how fast you swing a sword and that) or slower or something (stuff that is barely noticable, really) would be preferable to just dying if you don't get enough to eat. it would be good for the folks wanting realism, and not be too big a deal for those who don't.
Although, not entirely sure what you meant by food being eaten passively, but I'm guessing you mean it's eaten automatically if you get hungry and it's in your inventory? I don't care for that, especially if different foods have different bonuses. being able to choose what you eat is essential.

I also think it'd be neat if you have to sit down and relax somewhere to actually eat something, and show an animation of you doing so (nothing more than like, 10 or 15 seconds, though). Well, maybe you shouldn't HAVE to find somewhere cosy to eat, you could easily take a few seconds to wolf something down in some dark corner of the underworld, or some forest or something, as long as you're in a fairly safe location.

One thing that would have to be done if hunger is implemented is have it happen very gradually, where it's not at all noticable for quite some time until you can see you're having some small difficulties (only up to a certain point though, where even when you're starved, you're still capabable of doing stuff fairly well). A system where you're running along and all of a sudden, you start walking more slowly (hence indicating you've gone up a hunger level, or something) would be immersion breaking, for one, and it would realy annoy folks who aren't for realism in this game, as the game is essentially telling them "you have to go eat now". It should be a case of the player deciding they should eat some of that bread and cheese they brought with them, so that they stay at the top of their game, you know? Not HAVING to eat because it means you'll be really noticably weaker otherwise. I know it seems like the same thing, but that small difference would make any hunger effects seem much more different, in my opinion.

Really, most realism type things (being affected by weather, hunger, thirst, being overencumbered) should be a bit like that. Something that happens gradually, not really noticable for a while, which gives the player the choice to remediate it if they so desire (which means NOT killing the player or giving them really really noticible, immediate debuffs for not fixing it). It should be something that the player can just shrug off if they have to, and keep going, or they can do something about it and alleviate the problem.
For instance, I liked the "limited" inventory system wherein you have a bag or something you carry around and you put your stuff in there, but, using the game's physics, carrying lots of stuff around would make you unbalanced and heavy and slow.
As for questions like "how are you going to fit a suit of armor in the bag?" keep in mind that metal armors are just seperate pieces of metal. You could easily just fit each piece in a bag a bit more compactly, and the "loot" bag I imagined was like a big sack, which you carry with you fairly easily (slung over your shoulder like a cartoon robber might carry a bag of swag), which you would quickly put down on the ground if you fear an enemy might be close or if you need to do something. Pack mules and horses could play a part in this too.

Of course, another approach to these things would be to have them be optional. As in, have a "survivalist" difficulty option, so that people who just want to go adventure and explore without worrying about inventory space, food and water, etc. can go do so, and those that really like planning ahead and having the worry of finding food to eat and wondering what to carry with them and what to leave behind can do all of those things.

Just my two cents. Okay, rant over. Sheesh, I talk a lot when I want to, huh?

 

[walltar]

Yes by eated passively i meant automaticly ... you have food in your inventory and three times a day it is used. There is no animation ... so you dont have to sit down and wait and every time. Even if animation is few seconds it is action you must take and you have to remember it. It gets boring after few hours into the game. Many times i almost died playing minecraft because i was doing something and i didn't notice my food going down.

As for eating animation i think it should be one of idle animations. When you are doing nothing your character may teke out apple and eat it. But there still can be cooking in system like that ... even if you can eat ingedients you can make prepared meals out of them which have better buffs. And your inventory is less clutered that way because you just used three or more ingredients and made one meal.

 

[BigT2themax]

Okay, if food is eaten automatically, but different types of food give different buffs, then when the time comes for the player to eat what's stopping the game from forcing the player to eat his super-expensive plate of filet mignon with gold flakes and truffles instead of the loaf of bread?
Also, if different types of food give different buffs, what if (for instance) the player wants increased thaumaturgy powers to fend off some creature weak to magic, and wants to eat some mushroom or whatever that gives him that, but the game decides the player would be better off having this delicious sweetbread that makes him run faster instead?
It'd be nice to be able to carry food in my inventory without accidentaly eating it even when I don't want to, and it would probably be best to just have them quickly go into the inventory and using the food item from there.

Taking choices away from the player and forcing them to do something (without good reason, of course) is REALLY not a good idea for RPGs and really just for most games in general. It makes the player feel like their input isn't necessary, and will often end up with the game making decisions the player could have made themselves, and even choose the things the player doesn't want.

 

[scurra]

Okay, if food is eaten automatically, but different types of food give different buffs, then when the time comes for the player to eat what's stopping the game from forcing the player to eat his super-expensive plate of filet mignon with gold flakes and truffles instead of the loaf of bread?
Also, if different types of food give different buffs, what if (for instance) the player wants increased thaumaturgy powers to fend off some creature weak to magic, and wants to eat some mushroom or whatever that gives him that, but the game decides the player would be better off having this delicious sweetbread that makes him run faster instead?
It'd be nice to be able to carry food in my inventory without accidentaly eating it even when I don't want to, and it would probably be best to just have them quickly go into the inventory and using the food item from there.

Taking choices away from the player and forcing them to do something (without good reason, of course) is REALLY not a good idea for RPGs and really just for most games in general. It makes the player feel like their input isn't necessary, and will often end up with the game making decisions the player could have made themselves, and even choose the things the player doesn't want.

The increase is not necessarily to one specific trait but in general. In my experience this usually just shows up as increasing or decreasing morale. In this game it could just be a general buff/debuff of well-being due to having met that need (such as when after you eat your brain works faster due to the intake of calories it's called a food high or in extreme cases sugar high but that is usually like the name suggests, because of large amounts of quickly digested sugar). In reality your body would work all around more efficiently if you ate a balanced diet so by eating a complex meal such as stew it provides a much larger feeling wellness than bread. I think you are thinking of the whole buff potion system most Rpgs use. Which will probably exist in this world if a little toned down version from the whole magic potions of TES since they will not even have health potions.

 

[walltar]

It won't be diferent buff ... if should be different magnitude of same general buff. Guff will be something like Vitality increase and bread will be +5 and most expensive food will be +10 this buff will be there for whole day and after whole day of not eating you start to get debuffed. But debuff will be smaller than best buff sou you can continue playing.

For diferent buffs there should be alcheny .... i dont wan't to see chicken giving buff to archery while pork giving buff to onehanded ... i dont know about profesional olympic archers but when i was shooting i never found out food which gives me buff for archery.

This system is basicaly hybrid for those of us who wants to have food and hunger but it shouldn't restrict those who don't like eating food.

 

[calithlin]

I agree generally with walltar. If there's going to be food, the only 'buff' it should provide should be a blanked "you've eaten recently" buff -- with more expensive foods making the buff last longer.
Nothing along the lines of carrots giving me a boost to archery. I know beta-carotine helps eyesight, but one single carrot won't do that. This assumes there will be a food system at all.
I liked Mount and Blade, where you had a bonus to morale in general based on quantity and variety of food available. Random food would be eaten, and as variety decreased so would morale. If you had no food then you would start to have more sluggish soldiers (and mutiny but that's an unrelated mechanic).

 

[Cepheiden]

So again it's the question of realism vs fun. I think a very realistic inventory would be too limiting but there are many things inbetween. This seems like one of those things worthy of a poll.

Thank you for answering.
I see that you are thinking hard about topics like this.

Opening up a poll will give you results on what the most interested people would expect from the game. However I do not know if it would be the best thing for the game.

After all that you have presented about the game and the information from this board, I feel like it would be best to completely leave everything to what you developers feel is right for the game. Especially since the general outline of the game is apparently agreeable with many funders.

The game has to have a certain flow to it. While I certainly have an opinion about inventories and other stuff, I feel like a poll might make you pay too much attention to opinions and ruin a system that you consider fit for the game and consequently changing the flow of the game.


I know that times have changed with increasing production costs and the internet, but I really liked the times when games were just released and you wouldn't know that much about them anyway. Games were made in a way the developer team wanted them to be and it would turn out very enjoyable most of the time. These days its more like they are made in a cost-efficient and one size fits all manner, often lacking any kind memorability.

So maybe Sui Generis should be a little bit like it was back then? I think you make it happen. I am just used to asking about all the stuff because most companies produce nothing that feels well rounded.

 

[Bibidibop]

I played a game which used an inventory which uses bags for organization; however, in addition to bag based organization, there were only three ways to carry certain bags: left hand, right hand, back. You could find plastic shopping bags, which in their default state take one square, but can expand to 6 by 2 when you place any one object in them; the inside of the bag is also 6 by 2; naturally, you could only hand hold them, while backpacks could be hand held and back held.

In this setting, it would make sense to me to be able to use pockets, have clothing made with lots of pockets to go over armor, or under, or as my main clothes, hang bags from belts, in addition to hands and back, and pack animals. Such excessive pocket and bagging should naturally result in cumbersomeness.

Not being an expert, what comes to mind is having all the on-body bags showing up as one inventory, with some division. What might be interesting is to allow tall objects to stick 1/3 of the way out of a bag. It would be neat for swords and knives to either require a sheath or wrapping to be placed in a bag, or once wrapped they could be strapped with cord for carry on the back, but at the penalty of a slightly slower draw than from a sheath.

One thing I'm imagining is having a bag in each hand, and back, I press a button to draw my sword, which automatically drops both bags, and the pack, which takes longer, then draw, and while I am fighting, an unseen malefactor takes my dropped bags. That would be horribly frustrating in the best way.

 

[nox]

I played a game which used an inventory which uses bags for organization; however, in addition to bag based organization, there were only three ways to carry certain bags: left hand, right hand, back. You could find plastic shopping bags, which in their default state take one square, but can expand to 6 by 2 when you place any one object in them; the inside of the bag is also 6 by 2; naturally, you could only hand hold them, while backpacks could be hand held and back held.

In this setting, it would make sense to me to be able to use pockets, have clothing made with lots of pockets to go over armor, or under, or as my main clothes, hang bags from belts, in addition to hands and back, and pack animals. Such excessive pocket and bagging should naturally result in cumbersomeness.

Not being an expert, what comes to mind is having all the on-body bags showing up as one inventory, with some division. What might be interesting is to allow tall objects to stick 1/3 of the way out of a bag. It would be neat for swords and knives to either require a sheath or wrapping to be placed in a bag, or once wrapped they could be strapped with cord for carry on the back, but at the penalty of a slightly slower draw than from a sheath.

One thing I'm imagining is having a bag in each hand, and back, I press a button to draw my sword, which automatically drops both bags, and the pack, which takes longer, then draw, and while I am fighting, an unseen malefactor takes my dropped bags. That would be horribly frustrating in the best way.

This sounds very much like a system I'd like to see

 

[Bibidibop]

One thing I would like to add is, there were two other inventories to the bag system: the ground, and a vehicle. The former is relatively huge, and able to hold more bags worth of loot than can be carried, which facilitates reorganization of your inventory, as well as collection of local resources, such as plants, and the loot of the dead; the latter I could find was a shopping cart, which in this case could be a man dedicated to carrying a huge pack, a pack animal, a cart, saddle bags, and so on. Actually, a third inventory space was for crafting, but I'm not really a crafting fan, and would prefer basic camping, and eating, and drinking to be automated--as in not in the game.

I've been thinking about inventoried armor, and I have an idea which could be more annoying than fun. Small fact, armor on legs makes you slower than carrying the same weight on your upper body. Second, armor makes you tired faster. The plan so far is for armor to come in segments: what if carrying armor in a pack is advantageous over wearing it, for matters of long distance quick-travel time? For instance, only wearing your breast plate, nothing else, is a good compromise between ready defense and comfortable travel. Carry all of it, you go faster; wear all of it, and you take more breaks, or move slightly slower at a steady pace.

What if, the down side is, donning armor takes in-game minutes? That way, it can only be done if you know you are entering battle before hand, or if you are paranoid and are willing to have longer quick travel times. Further, to mitigate armor donning time, maybe we could have a squire, or maybe any followers automatically diminish the armoring time?