one thing though, the shape of the bag can affect what it carries also. If you have a long, skinny bag, then that will easily hold a sword, but it won't hold a shield, or something else that is wide in all dimensions.

One way you could have it is that you have a number of slots and that each item takes a number of slots and that they must take a certain pattern of slots also. So one bag could be a grid of 5 by 5 slots and then you have to fit stuff into those slots like a puzzle.


_______
|_||_||_| so here's one bag, and you have two items:
|_||_||_| LLL and XX
|_||_||_| L XX

they will fit if you put them in like this:

_______
|L||L||L| and you still have one slot left over
|X||X||L|
|X||X||_|



shut up
*Voltron pulls out Blazing Sword*
Viewers: "It's over!"

Edited by - capn_midnight on September 22, 2000 2:14:54 PM

The way I see it, it would be quite nice to have a unified system just like in Elite. Objects uses a volumetric ton unit, that is, a object that is said to be 1 ton, is either taking the volume of 1 ton (of say, water, so that would be 1 cubic meter) or it''s actually weighting 1 ton, but without exceeding a ton of volume.

The problem is that in Elite, you have only a cargo bay, so the problem of the shapes doesn''t really apply.

In a game like an RPG, you get objects with shapes that can be accomodated much more easily than other. For instance, 20 arrows are almost as encumbrant as one, if you think about it, and 20 arrows would probably take, say, 4 liters (I have some arrows here in my room, so ...). But we can''t say that 1 arrow is .20 liter, because they take the same *volume* (to be more correct, the same encumbrance) than those 4 liters.

So what you get is a system where those arrows, as long as they are not heavier than 4 liters (that''s 4 kilogram, in the case of water) will be considered being 4 liters heavy/wide.

You could have some very specific containers, being able to contain very specific objects, to accomodate exceptions, but in the case of "bags" in general, this work quite well, methinks.

Mmmm, I have to think about this a bit more, ''cause I still see some problems. For instance, there is always room for a sword, even if it''s heavy, because you can just pass it through a belt, or attach it on the *outside* of your backpack, in which case the volume is meaningless ...

Not that easy ...

For the GUI and those who don''t understand why one would want to have containers in containers ... you''d have to play a game like Ultima 7 to understand... I''ll support KEtchaval for the "organisation" reason.
When you have 30 regeants for spells, 20 books that you decided to collect for the fun of it, tons of vegetables and other edible stuff, potions of all colors, weapons, clothes, scrolls, and you have an interface like Ultima''s, you *REALLY* like the ability to put pouches inside your bag so you don''t have to search for hours to find what you want.
To make it simpler for those who don''t know Ultima, simplu imagine running a computer with NO FOLDERS ...
I think it explains it quite simply.
Actually I knew some people who did''t mind having all their files in one unique folder, but that was because no one ever told them they could create folders and organise their work(Business students ... aaaaaah )

youpla :-P

I think its a pretty interesting idea, and definitely worth trying it out. Implementing the different sizes and shapes shouldnt be too difficult, usin the scrolling grid idea.

As for containers in containers, why not allow it, but restrict it to one level of nesting.

eg

Backpack - must be worn
pouch - can be worn or stored in backpack
shortsword - can be stored in backpack, not pouch
2H sword - must be carried, ''worn'' (strapped to back) or carried in large scabbard)
Gems - can be stored in either backpack or pouch
Scrolls - can be stored in either backpack or pouch

etc.

HMmm inntersesting ideas, you could probably do simply by squers and have slots on the sides say... ie. You have a Lareg backpack, which inside you have about 16 square 4X4 where you have whatever items, but also you have a sword attacht to one side of the bag, and say another one on the other side, but for the inside of bag simply designate a size for each object, say a sword is 4 squares high, and you bag is 3 squares high, i wont fit, but then again you cna rotate so if it is 3high but 4 long you could fit it in that way. And everything has a wieght, so say you have a 2kg sword in your bag pack, and 1kg of mixed foods, and 1kg of assorted potions and scrolls and such then your back pack wieghs 4kg, which is taken on our shoulders and provides an encumbercing value, which slows movement, or agilty, but depeneding on the pack pack, i may lower that value, because the wieght is beign equallized across your shoulders. the same wight factor would applie if you had sword strapped on the side, maybe even you could make the encumbercing value change for different parts of your body, say you have a sword strapped to your waist it''s gonna encurbare you a bit more than on yuo back, but only really on your legs, so maybe you can''t walk/run as fast, but say it''s strapped to your back then you couldn''t say stop as fast or jump as high, but would restrict your leg movement as much.... sorry if i''m beign vague or there a many typos!!!
Jes
Je Saurai

Delisk: There were loads of magical items like that in the AD&D game - pouch of accessibility, bag of holding, girdle of many pockets etc. But if you put one inside the other then you would open an interdimensional rift and be sucked into another dimension. Oh, and if someone used a dispel magic on it then all the extra items would fall out on the floor.