Development Info The Broken Hourglass - Inventory mechanics

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Tags: Planewalker Games; The Broken Hourglass

This week, <a href=http://www.planewalkergames.com/>Planewalker Games</a> has updated their site to talk about <a href=http://www.planewalkergames.com/content/view/69/1/>inventory mechanics</a> for their upcoming project, <a href=http://www.planewalkergames.com/content/view/32/46/>The Broken Hourglass</a>. The article discusses the rules for its inventory management:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>
<br>
The first is the concept of party inventory. Every creature in The Broken Hourglass is considered to be the member of some party. The player character and his or her allies form one party. The garrison at the city gates would form another party. A merchant and his guards would represent yet another party. Just as every creature has an inventory, every party is granted an inventory as well. All members of a party may put items into or take items out of that party's inventory.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
It's a backpack hivemind!
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks, <b>jcompton</b>!

 

[Ladonna]

I assume they are doing this for...what reason again?

Wouldn't it be simpler to either;

A) Have one giant inventory or

B) everyone has his/her inventory and you swap items that way?

 

[jiujitsu]

Right. It sounds interesting, but I can't think of a use.

Maybe, you can only control your own inventory and the party inventory. All other party NPCs control their own.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I guess it's supposed to be a compromise between annoying party inventory micromanagement, and having some control over the inventory to keep what you can lug around in realistic proportions. One would have to see how it plays, on paper it sure sounds awkward.

 

[Sarvis]

Right. It sounds interesting, but I can't think of a use.

You can't have roleplaying without it! Right Jed?

 

[KazikluBey]

Sounds good to me. The way I imagine the interface would show both the party inventory and character inventory on the character screen, so instead of keeping check of which character holds what, you just put (almost) everything in the party inventory.

 

[Micmu]

Useful and not a popular no-brainer simplification. Party inventory is off-limits during combat mode, which is good and the only way it's reasonable.
I was scared at first.

 

[Volourn]

Party inventory as a concept is just plain fuckin' lame. Period.

 

[Monolith]

Sounds X-Com like. Before every mission you have the that "party inventory" plus an inventory for each character. It made sense there...but I don't see its use in a BG like game. I didn't have much of a problem with inventory micromanagement in BG.

 

[jcompton]

Maybe, you can only control your own inventory and the party inventory. All other party NPCs control their own.

We wouldn't do that to you. You manage the inventory of all of your party members (although you may ask the AI to recommend itemsets to you).

I didn't have much of a problem with inventory micromanagement in BG.

Some people do genuinely enjoy inventory management. I myself got a certain perverse pleasure out of storing my party's considerable surplus wealth in a sack (container) at the back of a tavern, and similar containers will be provided for those also inclined. But we elected not to require that sort of behavior.

 

[denizsi]

Sounds good to me. It seems to encourage players to have their characters keep only the items necessary to have instant access to for each character, and dump everything else into a unified interface. Inventory management in BG didn't require 250 IQ, but it was tedious and annoying given that the game didn't pause in inventory so shit could happen while you were busy moving items.

I'm not sure about this part however:

Switching between these equipment sets is done in zero-time--that is, the character incurs no penalty and the player need only click one button to make the switch. (If an attack is underway while an itemset is changed, however, that current attack is aborted.)

Characters may have two swords equipped to switch between, but it should cost something. You sheath/whatever one to draw the other (or draw the second one first and sheath the last only then, according to the weapons employed from a realistic point); it's not like setting your lightsabre to form a light-lash suddenly.

Also, the equipment sets have unswappable items like armor, so the armor you wear is present in all sets. Why even include unswappable items in equipment sets as interface elements then? In Diablo 2, you have 2 sets, which only change the weapon slots, so sets in BHG could basically be set to be the same thing; You have unswappable items fixed and the sets, instead of switching whole thing to see the same unswappable items.

 

[crakkie]

Party inventory may be interacted with at any time during normal exploration, but party inventory is strictly off-limits when combat begins. Objects may not be placed into or removed from party inventory during combat. So you might be carrying the Halberd of Ultimate Mastery in party inventory to save on weight penalties, but if you are ambushed while it is still in party inventory, no one will be able to use it to defend the party.

This would just make inventory management more stressful. You may need a different weapon for different encounters, so with this system you'll have to carry around every weapon or item you might possibly use in the next encounter. So each character needs to be carrying healing potions, scrolls, etc, and you gain little organizational convenience from having a group inventory. It just becomes another level of organization to deal with.

Why not just use Wiz8's system? You can grab something out of the group inventory, but you need to spend a whole round doing it.

 

[denizsi]

Well, isn't a little planning beforehand to the best of your character better than FPS style weapon switching to your liking at the cost of whatever?

Besides, 3 sets should be enough, no? Even when it costs you a round to change weapon, you won't go through 5+ different weapons in one single combat encounter, right?

 

[suibhne]

Well, isn't a little planning beforehand to the best of your character better than FPS style weapon switching to your liking at the cost of whatever?

Besides, 3 sets should be enough, no? Even when it costs you a round to change weapon, you won't go through 5+ different weapons in one single combat encounter, right?

Yeah, I don't see the issue. As long as you have enough strength and inventory capacity for maybe 3 different weapons at most, there shouldn't be any problem. My larger concerns:

1. Auto-sorting: developers who don't at least make a minimal attempt at sorting/organization should be shot. Don't expose yourself to needless risk. :wink:

2. "Zero-time" quickset switching makes no logical sense. I know it's a RTwP game, so it should be possible to simply code a short lag-time - maybe 3 or 5 seconds or w/e.

3. The calculation of quickset mana cost seems, well, artificial. Find a good (in-game) way to explain it and that problem will go away - maybe something about needing to reserve adequate mana for the very process of readying something to wield, even if you don't actually wield it yet.

 

[Claw]

I was uncertain at first, but Volourn convinced me that it must be good.

 

[Volourn]

Good. The more idiotic people who like retarded ideas like this simply because someone they dissaprove of dissaproves of it; the better we are all off.

Afterall, we all know FO *must* suck because I like it.

Moron.

R00fles!

 

[Jed]

You can't have roleplaying without it! Right Jed?

One of the truest signs of dumbfuckery on these boards must be Sarvis' persistence in thinking he's right and clever when he never even understood the conversation in the first place.

 

[elander_]

Afterall, we all know FO *must* suck because I like it.

You liked FO? shit. I better play that game again to see if everything is alright with me.

I also like to collect all kinds of crap like a mad man and never throw anything away. Nothing to do with fat loot.

 

[Joe Krow]

Rpg inventory systems have never been all that realistic. (Have you ever lugged around a few suites of armor while wearing one? You havn't have you). Having an inventory system based on access seems no less realistic. Regardless, I doubt it will be what makes or breaks the game.

 

[Sarvis]

You can't have roleplaying without it! Right Jed?

One of the truest signs of dumbfuckery on these boards must be Sarvis' persistence in thinking he's right and clever when he never even understood the conversation in the first place.

I guess we're all just not worthy of your genious. After all, it takes a special kind of person to claim his opponent just doesn't understand when he hasn't got a leg to stand on otherwise.

 

[Jed]

I guess we're all just not worthy of your genious. After all, it takes a special kind of person to claim his opponent just doesn't understand when he hasn't got a leg to stand on otherwise.

The sad thing is that there's nothing genius about it, you're just that dense. I posted an opinion about the relationship of inventory capacity to choice in cRPGs, you went rabid with your "Jed thinks inventory=roleplaying" bullshit, I tried to clarify, you repeated your idiotic antics, ad naseum.

And you bring it up again. Why does it get to you so badly? I never gave you any shit before that, but ever since you couldn't understand that post, you've been a pissy bitch toward me. I don't know you, you don't know me, so really, it's time to get your head out of your ass and move on with your life. There's a whole world out there, Sarvie. Let it goooooo ...

 

[The_Pope]

I quite like the idea. The only logical way of carrying this much ph4t l3wt is to have a magic invisible pack wagon, which is exactly what this game does.

 

[Ladonna]

It certainly isn't a gamebreaker, but I still cannot see the need for it. I personally don't have a problem with not being able to carry around 50 suits of platemail to sell to merchants.

 

[Sarvis]

I never gave you any shit before that, but ever since you couldn't understand that post, you've been a pissy bitch toward me.

Err... this is the first time since then I've posted anything at all towards or involving you. How is that being a pissy bitch? Even then, it was only because the thread reminded me of it and I found it amusing.

Emo much?

 

[Jed]

That's actually not true, but since I'm too lazy to dig through your posts, I'll concede with a hearty, "Well then, you've been a pissy bitch in my heart."