[RFE] Reduce needless item variety.
issueid=3737 06-24-2015 08:40 PM
Ancient Member
Number of reported issues by Blasphemous: 110
[RFE] Reduce needless item variety.

This is a hot topic.
I know a small part of this has been addressed before, with the missiles of *foo* slaying and it worked marvelously, though many hoped it would have been extended to all missiles.
Rightly so.

Now, here's a very brief excerpt from a pile of items weighing around 40k stones, collected in BDC:

Code:
  
   a - uncursed chain mail (+0, -2) [-3, +8]                            [400s]
   b - blessed robe [+2, +1]                                             [60s]
   c - uncursed ugly clothes (+1, +1) [+2, +1] {Ap-1}                    [50s]
   d - uncursed black robe [+0, +1]                                      [50s]
   e - blessed robe [+1, +1]                                             [60s]
   g - uncursed robe [+1, -1]                                            [60s]
   f - uncursed robe [-1, +0]                                            [60s]
   h - uncursed clothes of sloth [+1, +0]                                [40s]
   i - uncursed ugly clothes (+1, +1) [+0, +0] {Ap-1}                    [50s]
   j - uncursed ugly clothes [+0, +0] {Ap-1}                             [50s]
   k - uncursed padded light furs [+0, +1]                                     [180s]
   l - uncursed chain mail (+0, -2) [-1, +7]                            [400s]
   m - blessed ring mail (+0, -2) [-1, +3]                              [300s]
   n - uncursed clean robe [-2, +1] {Ap+2}                               [60s]
   o - uncursed ring mail (-1, -1) [-1, +3]                      [300s]
4 robes, 6 if we count the clean one and the black one.
None stacking because of tiny little differences that bring absolutely nothing to the table.
I'm not even asking about the [0, -1] kind because I can't imagine how a piece of cloth can actually lower protection value.
Would it be so bad to fix *all* random robes to have [+1, 0]?

It's just a start.
There are two ring mails there which have the same protection and defense values of [-1, +3].
However they *slightly* differently affect melee and missile attacks.
Why? What's the point?
The difference is virtually non-existent.
It's non-existent even for starting characters that have enough to-hit at level 1 to not give a flying F about that -1 or 0.
The only outcome of that variation is extra inventory slots used and extra time needed to manage that.
I advocate to set that chance to hit to fixed values of (-1, -1).

Some armors notably affect said chance to hit in a more significant way, like full plate mails and plate mails in general.
That's fine, as long as the values remain fixed within that one item class, i.e. same for all adamantium plate mails, all mithril chain mails etc.

I know that you can roll a character like wizard or mindcrafter which starts with just a robe and a pair of boots in terms of armor.
Occasionally, that robe could be as high a [0, +4], which makes a big difference in the early game, especially if footwear also grants some PV.
Paladins and CKs especially can vary greatly in how much starting PV they have, which is ok I guess.
So let it stay in that case - items generated along with the PC could have that variety because they are just one of a kind.
It adds flavor and gives an early advantage on some lucky character rolls.

All of the above can be extended to virtually every piece of armor - helms, gauntlets, boots, shields, cloaks, etc., but also to weapons and especially regular missiles.
The variety could stay as it is for items with prefixes/suffixes because let's be honest - those are only desirable for the affixes, not the pv/dv or minor chance to hit modifiers.

Diversity is nice and I like it but only when it achieves something.
The only thing achieved here is extra pages in the inventory that the PC has to browse, and several more clicks when dropping or selling items, nothing else.

Here's a nod towards auricbond and gr3ybird who have reminded me I wanted to post this a long time ago.
Keep up the good work, I love arguing about tiny details with you guys ;)

Still on the wishlist: All item categories should sort entries alphabetically. That would be amazing. Perhaps another RFE.
Issue Details
Issue Number 3737
Issue Type Feature
Project ADOM (Ancient Domains Of Mystery)
Category Windows 7
Status Suggested
Priority 5 - Medium
Suggested Version ADOM r58
Implemented Version (none)
Milestone (none)
Votes for this feature 5
Votes against this feature 12
Assigned Users (none)
Tags (none)




06-24-2015 09:49 PM
Ancient Member
Generally disagree. There is no particular need for these items to stack, and the variations can be non-trivial, especially in early game (eg. there is a rather large difference between a [0,1] robe and a [0,4] robe). On the negative PV side, generally items with lower-than-average stats start off cursed, which, IMHO, is thematically appropriate. If nothing else, negative PV gear is useful for whipping.

There's also the problem that players can reintroduce these sorts of variations anyway through scrolls of defense/protection/smithing.

It's not like people actually carry around 40+ pieces of armor in their inventory anyway.

[edit]Just to be clear, for missiles, I do think this type of idea is useful, as missile stacks actually serve some purpose. Stacks of robes don't particularly matter one way or the other.

06-24-2015 10:12 PM
Senior Member
Quote Originally Posted by JellySlayer
Generally disagree. There is no particular need for these items to stack, and the variations can be non-trivial, especially in early game (eg. there is a rather large difference between a [0,1] robe and a [0,4] robe)
Look, maybe this is an okay compromise: Leave in dv/pv variations for armor. Take out other weird variations. You get your +4 robe, and there is no more chain mails not stacking because of missile attack differences or whatever.

Quote Originally Posted by JellySlayer
There's also the problem that players can reintroduce these sorts of variations anyway through scrolls of defense/protection/smithing.
How is that a problem? That's the exception, not the rule. How many items do most people do that stuff to? Very very few. It would still cut down on clutter. Nobody is saying you shouldn't be able to smith/enchant items, just that you find them with less variation.

Quote Originally Posted by JellySlayer
It's not like people actually carry around 40+ pieces of armor in their inventory anyway.
Nobody said anything about 40+. it's still annoying. Your exaggerating what someone said to make it sound like they are out of touch.

06-24-2015 11:21 PM
Ancient Member
I agree that it is a problem seeking a solution, but I think the title is a mistake; rather than reduce item variety, enumerate items more intelligently. I don't want to lose the early game lottery of equipping a +1 or +4 orcish helmet.

06-25-2015 12:49 AM
Ancient Member
Quote Originally Posted by JellySlayer
Generally disagree. There is no particular need for these items to stack, and the variations can be non-trivial, especially in early game (eg. there is a rather large difference between a [0,1] robe and a [0,4] robe). On the negative PV side, generally items with lower-than-average stats start off cursed, which, IMHO, is thematically appropriate. If nothing else, negative PV gear is useful for whipping.
PV and DV variations might very well stay as they are but to-hit modifiers should go, they are useless.
Only items such as gauntlets of peace of maybe archery gloves have sufficient impact to be considered.
They are already thematically named though, unlike the vast majority of regular items that get this variation for no good reason.
When you consider item destruction in certain areas, me and from what I've seen other players have been carrying around several items of the same type.
I often have 3-4 cloaks of protection or defense since they burn easily when you step on traps.
Same goes for thick gloves, bows and crossbows, girdles that can melt etc.
All those items usually don't stack because of mentioned variations in to-hit department.

There's also the problem that players can reintroduce these sorts of variations anyway through scrolls of defense/protection/smithing.
It's not like people actually carry around 40+ pieces of armor in their inventory anyway.
This is perfectly in their right, I do not suggest removing the possibility of item enhancement; I merely wish to cut down on excess variety when the items are randomly generated.
Players are free to do whatever they want with them.

[edit]Just to be clear, for missiles, I do think this type of idea is useful, as missile stacks actually serve some purpose. Stacks of robes don't particularly matter one way or the other.
You're normally running on a very limited inventory I suspect, so this isn't a problem for you.
Me - I'm a packrat and even stacking robes matter because of how often I pick stuff up, move around, drop, sell, equip-id etc.

06-25-2015 01:06 AM
Senior Member
While I think it'd be a great idea to get rid of the to-hit modifier deviations on armor, the PV/DV modifiers are a positive part of the game. Without them, there's no incentive for an early game character to keep trying on medium shields or leather boots in that quest for 2 more points of PV. I like the tradeoff early game characters make betwee packratting around a bunch of potentially useless duplicate gear and settling to avoid the burden.

But yeah, for missiles and armor, those to-hit modifiers are trash.

06-25-2015 01:33 AM
Junior Member
I'm in two minds on the to-hit modifiers .. I like the idea that a particular armour might restrict your movement somewhat, and thus affect you ability to hit. But if those were to disappear from all the wearables, or were applied more-uniformly, apart from specific items such as archery gloves, I don't think I'd miss it.

For the PV and DV modifiers, I like the variety they currently have. In the early game, when you discover a new armour, the possibility that it may give you a bit more protection, versus the chance of it being cursed .. it gives an intersting risk/reward dynamic to ADOM.

This variety does clutter the inventory. But with the filtering options in the inventory screens, I don't find it too annoying. Do others find inventory-clutter particularly annoying? I just considered it to be a part of roguelikes. :)

06-25-2015 02:05 AM
Senior Member
I wish this RFE could be restarted with the PV/DV thing amended. I think it would have really had a chance.

As far as to hit on armor, look at the reversed situation: there isn't a dv/pv adjustment on most one handed weapons. Do you really miss that?

06-25-2015 03:31 AM
Senior Member
IMHO, only the excessive ammo variety needs to be fixed to improve stacking (but there must also be a limit to item destruction monsters - how do they grab and rust all 100 bolts at once? It should be limited to the same amount you can, say, Dip into a potion).

06-25-2015 04:19 PM
Ancient Member
The problem with slaying missiles was that while you actually want to use them, it got so cumbersome because of constantly having to reload. That is not the case with (-1, +1) [-1, +0] robes, so you can just throw them away once identified.

06-25-2015 04:33 PM
Senior Member
I guess I keep trying to imagine if there is a way to make items with slightly different stats share the same pile to save space but somehow also show that variation. Anyone have any ideas?

06-25-2015 04:45 PM
Ancient Member
Even if there is a general agreement against this RFE, I believe this gives TB an idea of what players consider a problem.
I suppose somebody could post another RFE reduced in scope to only affect the crucial areas.

I'd say that missiles are of course a priority but also things like daggers and spears which many people like to throw.
Another thing - pickaxes. Arguably the only reason to carry them around is as tools for digging.
Many times however they don't stack and you have to search through inventory for that other pickaxe you know you have.
Your main tool has been broken and the replacement (or two or three replacements) got thrown further down the list because of some silly to-hit modifier.

I think that all pieces of armor should have fixed attack modifiers while PV/DV indeed remains as it is right now.
Occasionally finding clothing items with great PV is indeed a nice thing.

06-25-2015 05:06 PM
Ancient Member
Maybe items could be compressed to just its type, i.e. "Pick-axe" is one inventory slot, and then you can choose to select the item by best values (estimated/averaged), worst, or expand the slot to view all the pick-axes.

06-25-2015 07:33 PM
Ancient Member
Quote Originally Posted by auricbond
Maybe items could be compressed to just its type, i.e. "Pick-axe" is one inventory slot, and then you can choose to select the item by best values (estimated/averaged), worst, or expand the slot to view all the pick-axes.
This would be pretty amazing. I wonder what this looks like from the programming point of view but the idea is brilliant.

06-25-2015 09:07 PM
Senior Member
Quote Originally Posted by Blasphemous
This would be pretty amazing. I wonder what this looks like from the programming point of view but the idea is brilliant.
Are all items of the same type even guaranteed to be listed sequentially in the inventory?

I mean don't you sometimes have:

pick axe 1
x item(s)
y item(s)
pick axe 2
z item(s)
pick axe 3

Or am I making this up?

EDIT: and forcing items to be grouped by type could save some headache with missiles. At least you wouldn't have to go through as many 'do you want to reload with x' prompts when reloading because the first prompt would likely be similar to what you had.

I mean, right now isn't it possible to be firing vanilla arrows, run out, have another stack of the same in your inventory but *after* some other slaying arrow or whatever, and then first be asked first if you wanted to reload with the weird arrow type rather than the one identical to what you are using?

06-25-2015 09:16 PM
Senior Member
I think this was kind of Blas's point to begin with and then we got away from it:

It's not the random variation *itself*, it's the fact that it's so tiny and leads to pointlessly different items. I mean, if we kept the +4 robes in addition to the +0 ones, that would be fine, but what gets annoying is the 0,+1 robes, -1, +1 robes, +1, 0 robes, etc. Same for ammo.

Honestly, if we said: any time stat modifiers are < 2, set them to zero, it would save a lot of headache, because a change of +/- 1 to anything is very common and totally meaningless.

06-25-2015 09:19 PM
Ancient Member
Yes, that is the case, items will not be listed sequentially.
I don't know how items' placement in inventory is determined but it certainly appears to be chaotic.

The way I understood auricbond was that this wouldn't matter because the game engine would simply find all items of the same name in your inventory and group them under one collectively named position, in a way similar to how they are currently grouped in categories.
In this case though, we'd be dealing with an automatically collapsible menu, so you would only see all the various versions of the same item if you pressed a corresponding button, like a plus.

06-25-2015 09:27 PM
Senior Member
Quote Originally Posted by Blasphemous
In this case though, we'd be dealing with an automatically collapsible menu, so you would only see all the various versions of the same item if you pressed a corresponding button, like a plus.
Yes, and that is a very good idea. Sorry I didn't say that earlier, it would be great. I guess I was just thinking that sequential ordering could be a first step in that direction, maybe even something easy enough that we could get it the next update.

It's so weird because in python sorting a list of items by attribute would be really easy. I haven't learned any c yet. Is whatever type of c adom is written in really so convoluted that you can't do stuff like that?

06-25-2015 11:41 PM
Ancient Member
Another thing that would reduce inventory bloat is if wands could be stacked by type. Heck, save B/U/C status, zapping one or another of the same type is the same, so it could just pick any and it'll be drawing from the same pool.

In fact wands are probably the biggest offenders in terms of differentiation and unstackability. Not only are they inherently unstackable but if they were, different charges would separate them apart.

Might also be nice if you could quick-slot wands and/or books.

*EDIT
Further refinement of the earlier idea: allow 'collapse/expand all' and then allow sorting (e.g. sort weapons by to-hit or damage, descending or ascending). If you select an item type when collapsed it uses what would be the top-most option when expanded and sorted. Also have a 'manual' sort category which is fixed to your last manual arrangement and can be reverted to at any time (where items are dropped or taken it tries to maintain the order you specified, rather than forget it). This allows you to arrange your items by preference of access.

06-26-2015 02:42 PM
Senior Member
Quote Originally Posted by auricbond
Another thing that would reduce inventory bloat is if wands could be stacked by type. Heck, save B/U/C status, zapping one or another of the same type is the same, so it could just pick any and it'll be drawing from the same pool.

In fact wands are probably the biggest offenders in terms of differentiation and unstackability. Not only are they inherently unstackable but if they were, different charges would separate them apart.

Might also be nice if you could quick-slot wands and/or books.

*EDIT
Further refinement of the earlier idea: allow 'collapse/expand all' and then allow sorting (e.g. sort weapons by to-hit or damage, descending or ascending). If you select an item type when collapsed it uses what would be the top-most option when expanded and sorted. Also have a 'manual' sort category which is fixed to your last manual arrangement and can be reverted to at any time (where items are dropped or taken it tries to maintain the order you specified, rather than forget it). This allows you to arrange your items by preference of access.
This is probably a different RFE, though, isn't it? I think it would be worth it to submit a new one for the sequential listing of like items in the inventory/collapsible stacks.

I do think it's worth pointing out that sequential listing is an okay first step for the near future, because I think collapsible stacks (while a good idea) might take a while, and I'd like some sort of stopgap until then.

06-26-2015 03:25 PM
Ancient Member
Might be worth a separate RFE. I think if such inventory changes were introduced they should be done in slow evolutionary steps so as not to alienate the current playerbase with an abrupt overhaul that involves completely re-learning everything.

+ Reply