Josiah Gibbonson Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 My suggestion is near-identical items being able to share the same inventory space. If you middle-mouse-clicked (or whatever you bind it to) a "bundle" in the inventory, it'd pop up a grid that would allow you to move items to and from said bundle. An example of this would be berries. All your different berries could now share the same inventory slot instead of each taking up their own spot. A bundle could only go up to the usual stack size for berries, and couldn't exceed, but it'd make it so if you had like, only a couple of each berry on you, it wouldn't take up so many inventory spaces. (Which, they shouldn't, individually) Items only bundle themselves if you manually take said item from your inventory and right click on the item you want to bundle it with, assuming they're the same item type. Logs could also work in this way. A bundle couldn't exceed a stack of 16, but you could have multiple different kinds of logs occupy the same slot if you wanted. The log that would be in the first bundle grid slot would be the one placed when placing blocks. Mushrooms would also benefit from this. When mushroom hunting, you could bundle all your mushrooms up to their stack size limit, without needing to have four different inventory slots available per different kind of mushroom you find. Bundled items aren't just inventory specific, they'd be able to be bundled inside chests as well. Your different kinds of meat could be bundled together, as in red meat, poultry, fish meat, and that other less appetizing variant, up to their stack size. Items like logs and sticks could not be bundled together, since they're not similar enough and have a different max stack size. The bundling idea would be only for items that are pretty much identical. If an item in a bundle starts to spoil, it has a chance of spoiling other items in the bundle as well. Be careful when bundling edibles. Rot will stay in bundles until removed, and has a chance of causing other edibles in the same bundle to expire faster. I don't know if this would make the game too easy, but it'd help when it comes to inventory management. I hate going berry or mushroom hunting, but then having most of my inventory taken up by like 2 berries or shrooms per slot because they're all different variants. ((If the devs wanted to make animal specific hides, like deer hide for example, this would also solve the issue of there being too many hide variants taking up inventory. On the topic of hides, since they're different sizes, I'd make it so they *could* be bundled with cured hides of the same size, but couldn't be bundled with other sizes of hide.)) Again, items don't bundle manually, you'll have to do that yourself from the inventory screen. If you hover over a bundled stack of items, an information gui pops up near your pointer to quickly let you know what's in the bundle.
Thorfinn Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 So this is more of a virtual "stacking"? If you put a poison mushroom in the bundle it doesn't make the rest "kind of toxic"? Rather that it's effectively turning a slot into a bag that accommodates as many different substacks as you give it, so long as it doesn't exceed the total for that type? Rocks one type, ores another, presumably? Coal and charcoal can probably combine, firewood and peat not so much? If you don't consider inventory management an important part of the game, why not just make the bags bigger?
Josiah Gibbonson Posted February 15 Author Report Posted February 15 5 minutes ago, Thorfinn said: So this is more of a virtual "stacking"? If you put a poison mushroom in the bundle it doesn't make the rest "kind of toxic"? Rather that it's effectively turning a slot into a bag that accommodates as many different substacks as you give it, so long as it doesn't exceed the total for that type? Rocks one type, ores another, presumably? Coal and charcoal can probably combine, firewood and peat not so much? If you don't consider inventory management an important part of the game, why not just make the bags bigger? I wouldn't think a poison mushroom put into a stack of others would effect them, that'd be getting into a level of complexity I wouldn't think nessecary. I mean, hypothetically it *could* be that way. But let's use the example of logs. Logs cannot exceed 16. You could, in a bundle, put 10 of one type of log, and six of another kind, in the same bundle. You couldn't put 10 of a log, and then 7 of another kind, because that would exceed a log's natural stack of 16. But yes, charcoal and coal could, but firewood and peat not so much. Again, inventory management is fine, but I find it kind of silly that an entire inventory slot is taken up by a single mushroom apiece, despite the fact they can clearly go to higher stacks if they're the same kind of mushroom.
Thorfinn Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 1 hour ago, Josiah Gibbonson said: but I find it kind of silly that an entire inventory slot is taken up by a single mushroom apiece Agreed. I once thought a foraging sack that more or less did this was a good idea. Might still be. But I confess to being much more interested in seeing where the developer's vision is headed. The very limited inventory and storage space, particularly in early game was a design choice. They could have, for example spotted you 10 inventory spaces before you started adding baskets and backpacks. 1
LadyWYT Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 3 hours ago, Josiah Gibbonson said: If the devs wanted to make animal specific hides, like deer hide for example, this would also solve the issue of there being too many hide variants taking up inventory. On the topic of hides, since they're different sizes, I'd make it so they *could* be bundled with cured hides of the same size, but couldn't be bundled with other sizes of hide. I'm not completely sold on the entire idea, but the hides example makes me inclined to say it's a decent idea(especially if creatures get their own unique pelts, and I hope they do!), provided it's feasible to code without causing major issues elsewhere. Which, it's the coding part that seems like it could be a big problem. 3 hours ago, Josiah Gibbonson said: If an item in a bundle starts to spoil, it has a chance of spoiling other items in the bundle as well. Be careful when bundling edibles. Rot will stay in bundles until removed, and has a chance of causing other edibles in the same bundle to expire faster. Really ought to be a vanilla mechanic anyway, in my opinion. Something rotting away in a storage vessel should cause the other perishables with it to rot faster as well. Would mean players need to be a little more diligent about curating their food stores, though it would also mean that players can create compost more efficiently by making dedicated compost containers. That being said, I'd be surprised if this were a popular change. 1
Josiah Gibbonson Posted February 15 Author Report Posted February 15 1 hour ago, Thorfinn said: Agreed. I once thought a foraging sack that more or less did this was a good idea. Might still be. But I confess to being much more interested in seeing where the developer's vision is headed. The very limited inventory and storage space, particularly in early game was a design choice. They could have, for example spotted you 10 inventory spaces before you started adding baskets and backpacks. I agree as well with this; I just wish for something less restrictive when it comes to foraging. I just hate having to forage for the same exact mushroom(s) or berry(s) just to conserve my very limited inventory space.
Thorfinn Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 Maybe someday they will explain the logic behind the choice. It's not just early game, either. I once wanted a collection of all the shells of every color. But each one taking it's own inventory space? Suffice it to say I've never set a goal like that ever again in this game. I looked at how many trips it was going to take clearing out the RA and said, "Nah. I'll leave it here for someone else to enjoy."
Recommended Posts