What about if you have a more defined and open way to carry items, I don''t know how your engine is contruscted (and someone has sorta mentioned this) but you could assigned different keypoints on your character, like in many games before, x-com, diablo, etc where you can place items, i.e. the small dagger around the ankle etc.
To implement this you could have a list of allowable items in each of these key places, and the maximum amount of weight and encumbarance that each place could have, then a player could have his sword hanging from his belt, in his hand, on his back in a scarrab thingo. Andwhen the player aquires a puch they could attach it to their belt (allowing for qquick fetching, yet making it easy for ppl to steal it) put it into his backpack, (taking up a small amount of room but allowing for items to be sorted?), or it could be hidden away in a shoe? around the ankle? or in other places...
A backpack would then be much sought after and more valuable than a sack becasue it would allow you to have both hands free, while a hand would be required to carry a sack, and two for a heavy one? Well I can''t exactly give you that much more info...
Dæmin
(Dominik Grabiec)
sdgrab@eisa.net.au
🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Buying Inventories - rpg
Paul : somehow, I don''t think most game designers have ever carried a sword around. Because being able to put a sword in a backpack is just difficult, but having several weapons is just as stupid as the inventory systems in FPS. The sword I have here for instance (in my room, along with the bow and arrows 
) is around 4-5 kilograms, which is damn heavy. If you take a two handed sword, you easily reach the 10 kilograms, and not far from 2 meters in length. Putting a sword *inside* a backpack, of bag, is quite unrealistic, as most of the time it''s more than a meter long (or more than a yard).
I would love to see the backpack cliche end, and be able to put daggers in holsters around my torso (a la Desperado), have a dagger and a sword on my side, my two handed sword in the back (look at the highlanders in Braveheart, for instance).
I still think if you want to come up with good ideas, you''d have to go out and see what you can *really* carry in a bag. I have been walking around in the mountains this summer, and trust me, you can''t put that much in a backpack.
Having a bag at your side is a pain if you want to handle anything, even more so if you''re fighting. Pouches are nice, but useless for anything bigger than some food or money.
Most of the time, if you want to carry lots of stuff, you''d use tons of pocket, and belts passed all around you (torso, belly, shoulders, thighs, etc)...
Go out and practice, I am sure it will make things much clearer, then you will probably come up with some new cool concepts
I also notice that no one commented on my previous post, did anyone understand the explanations at least ???
youpla :-P
) is around 4-5 kilograms, which is damn heavy. If you take a two handed sword, you easily reach the 10 kilograms, and not far from 2 meters in length. Putting a sword *inside* a backpack, of bag, is quite unrealistic, as most of the time it''s more than a meter long (or more than a yard).I would love to see the backpack cliche end, and be able to put daggers in holsters around my torso (a la Desperado), have a dagger and a sword on my side, my two handed sword in the back (look at the highlanders in Braveheart, for instance).
I still think if you want to come up with good ideas, you''d have to go out and see what you can *really* carry in a bag. I have been walking around in the mountains this summer, and trust me, you can''t put that much in a backpack.
Having a bag at your side is a pain if you want to handle anything, even more so if you''re fighting. Pouches are nice, but useless for anything bigger than some food or money.
Most of the time, if you want to carry lots of stuff, you''d use tons of pocket, and belts passed all around you (torso, belly, shoulders, thighs, etc)...
Go out and practice, I am sure it will make things much clearer, then you will probably come up with some new cool concepts
I also notice that no one commented on my previous post, did anyone understand the explanations at least ???
youpla :-P
Paul, this is not a flame but I am wondering how you think this would add to a game, and how it would be better than the elements that you are removing...
What do you think that this concept will bring to your game / gameplay that will make it better? It sounds as though this would frustrate many players, and the reason that you can hold so many weapons in most First Person Shooters is because it 1. simplifies inventory management + gives an easy to use user interface.
What would justify the different backpacks available, in other words would it be just that you had to choose what you carried. Or that is was more (ahem) realistic... etc.
What do you think that this concept will bring to your game / gameplay that will make it better? It sounds as though this would frustrate many players, and the reason that you can hold so many weapons in most First Person Shooters is because it 1. simplifies inventory management + gives an easy to use user interface.
What would justify the different backpacks available, in other words would it be just that you had to choose what you carried. Or that is was more (ahem) realistic... etc.
Author
Well the thing is that a lot of people find the micromanagment area''s of an rts fun. So i''m wondering if a little bit of micromanagment in an rpg would be fun too. Thus i''m looking at backpacks you see. Now i''ve got to make it work so it IS fun. If the player could have fun altering what their backpack can hold then i was thinking that the player would be enjoying the element of customization. The more the player feels that they are changing things the better, and this is allowing the player to fiddle with the game that little bit more. (Suppling more interaction).
As some of you may know, i take realism with a pinch of salt. So no, this has no realism motive behind it if that answers your question Ketchaval
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
As some of you may know, i take realism with a pinch of salt. So no, this has no realism motive behind it if that answers your question Ketchaval
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
>Well the thing is that a lot of people find the micromanagment area''s of an rts fun.
Nope...not me...I hate micromanagement
...but then again maybe I''m wierd or something as I like console style RPGs many times more then the computer ones ["Xenogears" is still my current fave RPG]...but I''ll stop "protesting" now as I''ve seen the question "Just how does this imrove gameplay?" was already asked...
So here are some suggestions to help improve RPG micromanagement:
1. make magic work as how it is suggested in the various D&D books...that is make the spells require different herbs and such...not just "magic points"...so the player can explore all over looking for the "red eye of a toad" used in spell "x" etc..
2. set it up so that the charactors need to eat and drink...this can get deep as eating certain foods would have an effect on the charactors health...you can even include "potty breaks" during the adventure...
3. along with a day/night cycle [IMHO one of the worst waste of RPG programming time ever created] set things up so the charactors need a bath and shave every few "days"..after all the players don''t want to make a bad impression to the king when they are collecting the reward for killing the local trouble makeing dragon, do they?
4. add in an "ego boost" type system...you could implament this in a mannor simular to the sword fighting in the original "secret of monkey island"...that is allow the fighters to engage in "verbal combat"..er...cut each other down as they fight...this would boost the damage they inflict upon each other as they constantly insult and provide "come backs" while hacking away
5. increase the number of attacks...you can start with a basic "stab" but as the charactor gains experience new sub-options open up like "stab head" or "stab body"...players can then assign points to these new "skills" and improve them over time...and these new skills can be broken down even further ["stab left eye", etc..] allowing the players to fine tune the charators fighting abilities
ouch...after reading back through these I can see they are all heavily influenced by "reality"...the resulting game would be more like a simulation then RPG...realisam and gameplay, I find, are like fire and gasoline...mix at your own risk!
Nope...not me...I hate micromanagement
...but then again maybe I''m wierd or something as I like console style RPGs many times more then the computer ones ["Xenogears" is still my current fave RPG]...but I''ll stop "protesting" now as I''ve seen the question "Just how does this imrove gameplay?" was already asked...So here are some suggestions to help improve RPG micromanagement:
1. make magic work as how it is suggested in the various D&D books...that is make the spells require different herbs and such...not just "magic points"...so the player can explore all over looking for the "red eye of a toad" used in spell "x" etc..
2. set it up so that the charactors need to eat and drink...this can get deep as eating certain foods would have an effect on the charactors health...you can even include "potty breaks" during the adventure...
3. along with a day/night cycle [IMHO one of the worst waste of RPG programming time ever created] set things up so the charactors need a bath and shave every few "days"..after all the players don''t want to make a bad impression to the king when they are collecting the reward for killing the local trouble makeing dragon, do they?
4. add in an "ego boost" type system...you could implament this in a mannor simular to the sword fighting in the original "secret of monkey island"...that is allow the fighters to engage in "verbal combat"..er...cut each other down as they fight...this would boost the damage they inflict upon each other as they constantly insult and provide "come backs" while hacking away
5. increase the number of attacks...you can start with a basic "stab" but as the charactor gains experience new sub-options open up like "stab head" or "stab body"...players can then assign points to these new "skills" and improve them over time...and these new skills can be broken down even further ["stab left eye", etc..] allowing the players to fine tune the charators fighting abilities
ouch...after reading back through these I can see they are all heavily influenced by "reality"...the resulting game would be more like a simulation then RPG...realisam and gameplay, I find, are like fire and gasoline...mix at your own risk!
I looked at this issue a while back when I was tinkering with a rogue-like game and doodled some ideas down. Here''s what I had planned (on paper).
Each item has a size (in length and width of inventory squares) and weight.
For objects that are normally attached at a single point (most weapons, and some containers, but little else) there would also be a size (in length and width of inventory squares) for the attachment point.
Which is to say a sword might be 1 square wide by 4 squares long, but it could be hung from a 1 square by one square point on the belt, or even on the outside of a backpack. If you put it in the backpack, it would take up the full 1x4 squares.
In either case the character is burdened by the full weight.
Objects like arrows would be stackable up to a maximum limit.
The player has some default Diablo-style boxes for equipment. The space on the back could be used for a pack, or a quiver, or a larger weapon, or maybe a spare shield.
Containers would ''open up'' wiht another window to monkey with their contents.
Anything on the original player paper doll and anything hangin on the outside of a pack would be available quickly (during combat), anything inside the pack would take some significant time to get to.
Different packs would then have different configurations. Some with more room on the inside than others, some with more attach points, some with a small quiver built in, etc.
I left off trying to balance the attach point sizes with the items that a player might hold in their hands at any given time. I was trying to manage the weapons they could use based on player size (4 ft dwarf vs 9 ft troll) by the same system, by giving them inventory slots for the active hands.
That and trying to make sure the player didn;t walk around with a skirt of swords.
Each item has a size (in length and width of inventory squares) and weight.
For objects that are normally attached at a single point (most weapons, and some containers, but little else) there would also be a size (in length and width of inventory squares) for the attachment point.
Which is to say a sword might be 1 square wide by 4 squares long, but it could be hung from a 1 square by one square point on the belt, or even on the outside of a backpack. If you put it in the backpack, it would take up the full 1x4 squares.
In either case the character is burdened by the full weight.
Objects like arrows would be stackable up to a maximum limit.
The player has some default Diablo-style boxes for equipment. The space on the back could be used for a pack, or a quiver, or a larger weapon, or maybe a spare shield.
Containers would ''open up'' wiht another window to monkey with their contents.
Anything on the original player paper doll and anything hangin on the outside of a pack would be available quickly (during combat), anything inside the pack would take some significant time to get to.
Different packs would then have different configurations. Some with more room on the inside than others, some with more attach points, some with a small quiver built in, etc.
I left off trying to balance the attach point sizes with the items that a player might hold in their hands at any given time. I was trying to manage the weapons they could use based on player size (4 ft dwarf vs 9 ft troll) by the same system, by giving them inventory slots for the active hands.
That and trying to make sure the player didn;t walk around with a skirt of swords.
The gameplay point is a valid one. I think it is important not to go over the top with this idea, or the player will start having to fight with the game in order to manage his inventory.
Items can either be ''worn'' or ''stored''. Worn items are quickly accessible, either through the basic game interface or via a keypress (or both) These items represent things strapped to belts, hidden in shoes etc. Obviously the back pack itself is a worn item. Stored items are not so easily accessible, since you will have to rummage through the pack in order to find them. For the sake if simplicity, you could make an exception with spell ingredients (if you are using them) - provided the ingredients are in a pouch or pocket that is being worn, the spell can be cast, and the ingredient would automatically be used up. The size restrictions on the different types of container make it possible to prevent the character from carrying ridiculous numbers of awkward items (like 2H swords for example) while still making it possible to carry large numbers of small items (gems)
some example sizes:
backpack: 8x10
pouch: 3x3
quiver: 3x10
short sword: 4x7
long sword: 5x12
2H sword: 6x20
shortbow: 6x14
longbow: 6x20
arrow: 0.2x10 (15 in a quiver)
arrowhead: 0.5x0.5 (4 per 1x1 space)
gemstone: 0.5x0.5 (4 per 1x1 space)
spell ingredient: 0.5x0.5 (4 per 1x1 space)
Hence a character with a backpack and quiver can only carry a maximum of 55 arrows. (and nothing else) Alternatively, he could learn the fletcher skill and only carry a few arrows, but lots of arrowheads, and make the shafts when he needs them. Also, a spell caster can carry an enormous number of spell ingredients without even needing to lug a heavy pack around.
There should be some advantage to storing things in packs over wearing them strapped to the body. Maybe each body location can carry a pouch sized object without penalty, but larger items impose some agility penalty, based on how much bigger and more awkwardly shaped they are.
eg
backpack: -5
pouch: 0
quiver: -2
short sword: -3
long sword: -4
2H sword: -7
shortbow: -5
longbow: -7
arrow: -2
arrowhead: 0
gemstone: 0
spell ingredient: 0
The exact effect of these penalties is up to you to decide, I jut gave them a number for comparison purposes.
Hence storing arrows in a quiver is less awkward than strapping them all to the body separately, and storing them all in a backpack is less impeding then carrying them in a quiver.(althoug they are less accessible) Also a mage or a thief may not need a backpack at all, since much of their equipment will be small enough to carry in pouches. The player does not need to be aware of the exact mechanics, he just needs to know that storing items in a pack is less encumbering than carrying them all over the body, but they are less accessible.
Wow. That was a long post. I must be bored.
Items can either be ''worn'' or ''stored''. Worn items are quickly accessible, either through the basic game interface or via a keypress (or both) These items represent things strapped to belts, hidden in shoes etc. Obviously the back pack itself is a worn item. Stored items are not so easily accessible, since you will have to rummage through the pack in order to find them. For the sake if simplicity, you could make an exception with spell ingredients (if you are using them) - provided the ingredients are in a pouch or pocket that is being worn, the spell can be cast, and the ingredient would automatically be used up. The size restrictions on the different types of container make it possible to prevent the character from carrying ridiculous numbers of awkward items (like 2H swords for example) while still making it possible to carry large numbers of small items (gems)
some example sizes:
backpack: 8x10
pouch: 3x3
quiver: 3x10
short sword: 4x7
long sword: 5x12
2H sword: 6x20
shortbow: 6x14
longbow: 6x20
arrow: 0.2x10 (15 in a quiver)
arrowhead: 0.5x0.5 (4 per 1x1 space)
gemstone: 0.5x0.5 (4 per 1x1 space)
spell ingredient: 0.5x0.5 (4 per 1x1 space)
Hence a character with a backpack and quiver can only carry a maximum of 55 arrows. (and nothing else) Alternatively, he could learn the fletcher skill and only carry a few arrows, but lots of arrowheads, and make the shafts when he needs them. Also, a spell caster can carry an enormous number of spell ingredients without even needing to lug a heavy pack around.
There should be some advantage to storing things in packs over wearing them strapped to the body. Maybe each body location can carry a pouch sized object without penalty, but larger items impose some agility penalty, based on how much bigger and more awkwardly shaped they are.
eg
backpack: -5
pouch: 0
quiver: -2
short sword: -3
long sword: -4
2H sword: -7
shortbow: -5
longbow: -7
arrow: -2
arrowhead: 0
gemstone: 0
spell ingredient: 0
The exact effect of these penalties is up to you to decide, I jut gave them a number for comparison purposes.
Hence storing arrows in a quiver is less awkward than strapping them all to the body separately, and storing them all in a backpack is less impeding then carrying them in a quiver.(althoug they are less accessible) Also a mage or a thief may not need a backpack at all, since much of their equipment will be small enough to carry in pouches. The player does not need to be aware of the exact mechanics, he just needs to know that storing items in a pack is less encumbering than carrying them all over the body, but they are less accessible.
Wow. That was a long post. I must be bored.
What will happen to the players that use the backpack only for storing their loot? They won''t be able to carry 20 two-handed swords anymore?
I got pissed by Ultima IX inventory system. A black pearl uses the same size of a bag, or a chain mail, or even a halberd! damn them to hell...
Gaiomard Dragon
-===(UDIC)===-
I got pissed by Ultima IX inventory system. A black pearl uses the same size of a bag, or a chain mail, or even a halberd! damn them to hell...
Gaiomard Dragon
-===(UDIC)===-
Author
If a backpack was split up into different subsections then you could assign hotkeys to these areas giving value to the idea of having differently designed backpacks.
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
