In fact @Tanthalas, for myself i prefeer that Bag of Holding to not be avaliable in BG:EE, but as you said, an ammo belt would be wonderfull, as BG make better use of missle weapons than BG2.
I welcome bigger item stacks, or stackable items that were not originally, because I'm not fond of inventory slots hassle. I should spent less annoying time spreading and organizing all the items over the whole party slots.
For me, as long as the weight keeps increasing when you stack items, that's enough of a limitation based on the character attributes
@AndreaColombo, yet gold has very few uses in BG, anyway i didn't say more items but more things, someone in another thread was talking about more use to taverns, no?
its fun at the start of bg1 to save money for a full plate mail, but at some point of the game, specially after durlag's tower, you end up with 100000+ gold , baiscly you can buy a house in baldurs gate...
I think that in Baldurs gate the prices need to be much higher, even sleeping in an inn ( 'in an inn'.. funny.. its the right way to say it??? ) should be more expensive than at the outskirts... ( 8 gp for an exlucive room, rather cheap...)
Considering the income of the commoners (1sp/day for unskilled labor, approximately 1gp a day for skilled work like farming or blacksmithing, all before expenses) I don't find 8gp per night very cheap. Of course, adventurers are decked out with gear that's unimaginely expensive for the common people, so our understanding of money is a little different. I read a calculation somewhere that a family of four commoners (two parents, two children) make about 200ish gp per year, before taxes, in leftover money.
A vacation in an inn for half a week (five days in Faerûn) would cost them 40gp or 20% of the yearly budget on room rent alone.
I am against this for the simple reason that the OP is asking the Devs to stop other people enjoying this game in a way that appeals to them even though giving them the means to do so does not take away from his ability to continue playing the game as he/she wishes or in a way that appeals to him/her.
If the Devs introduce higher stacks and bags of holding; there is nothing stopping the OP or anyone like him simply NOT buying said bags of holding. And there is nothing stopping them from deciding to not carry any more arrows or whatever in stacks of more than 20 or 40 or whatever arbitrary limit he/she wishes to self-impose.
Asking the Devs to deny higher stacks and bags of holding to everyone else who wishes it, to make their game more enjoyable for them when it takes nothing away from him is sheer selfishness. It's like the homophobes on the Bioware forums who demanded that Bioware not "give in to the gay agenda" and give Shepard the option to romance in a same sex manner because they didn't like it - even though it was content they would never see unless they chose to see, and it didn't take anything from their experience by including it.
So no. I do hope that the Devs completely ignore this request.
Considering the income of the commoners (1sp/day for unskilled labor, approximately 1gp a day for skilled work like farming or blacksmithing, all before expenses) I don't find 8gp per night very cheap. Of course, adventurers are decked out with gear that's unimaginely expensive for the common people, so our understanding of money is a little different. I read a calculation somewhere that a family of four commoners (two parents, two children) make about 200ish gp per year, before taxes, in leftover money.
A vacation in an inn for half a week (five days in Faerûn) would cost them 40gp or 20% of the yearly budget on room rent alone.
My last BGT game, those containers (gem bags, scroll cases and potion bags) could be found as early as Beregost I believe.
I hope ammo belts are also added.
I can live with a Bag of Holding not being available in BG1.
I'm in the same boat actually. I'm playing right now and I guess I installed 'Bags of the Sword Coast' in one of the tweakpacks...its too much honestly. I am not one who enjoys tediously organizing my inventory but the fact that I have two potion containers that are full to the brim and and infinite supply of ammo on my belt really changes the feel of the game (for the negative). The only reason I don't mind it is that I have beaten BG1 so many times I don't feel like I'm being cheated out of the experience too much.
I really don't care in what we gonna spend the gold but shoud be other options avaliable, maybe the inns of the game lacks some hookers, a more playable gable game on the inns we found it (maybe some items on the game that we could only get in gamble), a girlfriend maybe (just kidding with this one, surelly the best way to burn money XD).
We could even make contracts with another adventure parties late in the game in some new quests where we contract someone to make the quest for us (a new way of making quests, would need a deep develop in this matter).
Dunno but finsh the game with 200.000 gold doesn't seems much funny...
So no. I do hope that the Devs completely ignore this request.
Completely ignore WHAT request? What do you think I want the devs to ignore? The title of this thread is "Can we NOT over-enhance inventory!?", not "Can we leave the inventory system the way it is!?"
IMO scroll cases/gem bags/bags of holding....just encourage hoarding. It makes sense in the last half of BGII because the player is stranded in the assylum/underdark ect... away from towns and stronghold. Other than that, IMO sorting all the "STUFF" is needless micromanagement. BGI doesn't have this problem because as I remember, there are far fewer special items. I agree, KISS.
I think it's more a concern for characters using ranged weapons, whose entire inventory might be taken up by stacks of arrows, which doesn't leave any room for gems.
Well, I do think that rings/amulets should be stackable, if they are of the same type. Similarly, arrows/bolts/bullets should stack to 40. Frankly that by itself makes it a lot less of an issue for ranged characters. But after that I'm not so sure that there needs to be further adjustments to stacking. In BG1 as Space_hamster pointed out there are really only one place where you can't leave and sell items (candlekeep's dungeons that I can think of - though cloakwood is kind of another because of your chance of being attacked when you transfer between areas). Heck, even in the underdark (BG2) there are vendors. Since gem bags, as well as bags of holding, are available when I would say inventory space is more of an issue (later in Soa + tob), I see the inventory system as it is now as a way of discouraging hoarding. There is an existing way of storing items for people who want to keep more stuff, just store items in a barrel/bookshelf anywhere you'd like
Sorry, I meant to say that gem bags are available in BG2 (early on I believe). So for that game its not so much of an issue. For BG1, I always end up with much more money than I could ever spend, even when I've had to drop items because of a lack of room.
Taking the fact that gems don't do a shit in the game, we just keep them for collection, if no bag is implemented i can live with that. But non-magical rings and necklaces should at least improve a bit a person charisma, just to give a use to them, at least the laeral necklace should (if a person carry 3000 gold in his neck i really want to know more about him, to steal/befriend...).
a) I often heard that there was to much money and nothing to spend it on. That's simply not true, though some people might have missed what stuff there is in all those shops. While there are not that many magical arms & armour, there are enough to spend most of your money, only late in the game when you loot Candlekeeps crypts you have nothing left to buy but potions and magical ammo.
b) The question whether there is to much money has nothing to with the convenience of higher ammo stacks.
c) The question whether higher ammo stacks need to be prevented has nothing to do with the convenience of gem bags, scroll cases and potion bags.
d) I played Tutu with all containers and higher stacks and stackable jewelry, and it worked out just fine. I didn't have to get bored by having to walk back to the next city with an otherwise still rested enough party. I was able to focus on proceeding in quests. So a big NO to categorically deny higher stacks and more stackable types of items (though within reasonable limits of course), and a big YES to all those fine containers.
As I said in my post you are asking the Devs to not make improvements or changes based on your own preference; which would be fine except for the fact that the proposed changes to the inventory would not be detrimental to aforementioned preferences. If you were questioning it on a time versus resources sort of way then I guess i could understand, but you aren't. You just don't like the idea of greater stacks in the inventory. And based on that you want the Devs to deny that little improvement (or change) to the people who do like the idea.
If they increased stacking then the people who want that option are satisfied. But if you do not want to have stacks of more than 40 (or whatever arbitrary number you want) of each item in your inventory then you can simply ensure that your stacks do not go over that. Heck you could make an addendum request to the greater stacks request, to make the stack sizes "optional" in some way. Maybe a menu option. Maybe configured in a text file in the override folder, or perhaps in the INI. Or something.
That way you are satisfied and the people who want higher stack sizes are satisfied.
So my point was that i would like the devs to not listen to you on this particular issue because your are coming from a place of, dare i say it, entitlement. That your preferences, and wishes, somehow seem to override other peoples preferences and wishes. Sorry but thats how I read your post.
@fitscotgaymer What preference? What specific line are you referring to? Where in my original post do I say "do this because I prefer it that way?"
I used the idea of items being stackable to 99 as an example of convenience possibly compromising the fun of the original game, and gave a reason why. I did not suggest that items not be stackable. Where did I say that higher stacks shouldn't be implemented?
Heck you could make an addendum request to the greater stacks request, to make the stack sizes "optional" in some way.
No thanks, but how about you go ahead! I don't a "stack option request" being attributed to my handle.
So my point was that i would like the devs to not listen to you on this particular issue because your are coming from a place of, dare i say it, entitlement. That your preferences, and wishes, somehow seem to override other peoples preferences and wishes. Sorry but thats how I read your post.
Well you read it wrong fella. I am not overriding anybody.
Hey now, hey now, this is a Baldur's Gate forum, not a Planescape forum. No doomsaying allowed.
I think that increasing the stack size limit to 40 (as it is in BG2) would be sufficient to give you enough ammo to get through a dungeon, without completely ruining your inventory. I also think adding gem bags and scroll cases early on would go a long way toward keeping inventory organized without ruining the balance of gameplay. An "Ammo Belt" might be good as well, although a fair bit more difficult to navigate when you're searching for arrows mid-combat.
I do agree that unlimited stacks for ammo, while a lot more convenient, does kind of disrupt my sense of realism a bit. In BG2, you can have 120 arrows ready to be fired all the time - which is an absurd amount of wood to be carrying around, if you think about it, and more than that it's an absurd amount of wood to be carrying around with no effect on your encumbrance. On some levels you have to stretch your suspension of disbelief, because there's no way to retrieve your arrows once you've fired them, which means that there's already some extradimensional spaces floating around Faerun. But even my Handy Haversack can't hold 3000 arrows.
There are mods out there that remove stack limits, and I think that's a good place for something like this. I've used such mods before, because it was more convenient that way - but at no point did I think, "Yeah, this is how the game was meant to be played."
Considering the income of the commoners (1sp/day for unskilled labor, approximately 1gp a day for skilled work like farming or blacksmithing, all before expenses) I don't find 8gp per night very cheap. Of course, adventurers are decked out with gear that's unimaginely expensive for the common people, so our understanding of money is a little different. I read a calculation somewhere that a family of four commoners (two parents, two children) make about 200ish gp per year, before taxes, in leftover money.
A vacation in an inn for half a week (five days in Faerûn) would cost them 40gp or 20% of the yearly budget on room rent alone.
Long story short: Commoners are fairly poor, adventurers (that survive) are millionaire style wealthy.
This is why I always donate to the town temple for good karma. They buy bread for the poor orphan beggar street urchins you see. What can you expect from a backward feudal, agrarian society?
Personally I have no opinion on what precisely the limit for stacking should be.
I lean more towards not having a "limit" on that at all, and instead having some sort of encumbrance/weight that compliments the space of the inventory, and limit what you can carry in that way instead.
im betting whats going to happen is this: ammo stack will hit 40 ( except for throwing daggers staying at 10 -weaaaaaaaak- ) and they will add the bags in same of the shops, so then it will all come down to: buy the bags if you want 'em, and dont buy them if you dont want 'em, and worst case scenario even if a single bag doesnt get added, everyone knows that as soon as this game comes out, the modders are going to go banana sandwich and start making their silly little mods and such, and you can bet dollar to doughnuts that a bag mod will be in there somewhere, so i say everyone is eventually going to get their satisfaction, i dont really understand why rage is coming out of this, i think people are starting to get more anxious for the game to come out and are becoming a bit restless
Well @sarevok57, in unnoficial mods, if they want to go lame it's their problem. Dark elf main char, Kuo-toa main char, bags, and chuck norris NPC... anything is valid in unnoficial mods, only installs who want.
But the existence of mods can't be used as an excuse that any request is an invalid request "cos someone will mod this latter", if this is done let's just close the "FEATURE REQUEST" directory of this forum and we just speak of the bugs and the good memories of the past, so...
By myself i see this in 2 ways:
Plot - Why Baldur's Gate domain would not have bags to sell and Amn have? Make no sense to me. 1 bag of each would sufice, but gems shoud do something more than just be pretty and shine to justify keep them (otherwise we should just sell them). An Ammo belt would be nice in BG, as scroll cases, they're pretty common items i think. Bag of holding is a magical important item, and besides davaeron write in one of his letters that someone used lots of bag of holding to smuggle the cloakwood iron, bags of holding should be considered a relative hard item to get (therefore only present in BG2).
game balance - I don't see a problem with gem bags as ppl just collect them for no reason, if exist ppl will keep the gems, if not ppl will sell them, besides durlag tower there's no place that if ppl hold too many gems they would end with no inventory space. Ammo belt should have his capacity reduced maybe in BG, and one scroll case don't change much so... Bag of holding in BG would take part of the challenge of the game, the challenge of keep your inventory clean XD!
My thought about:
Make the special containers quest items so the moment you get them can be controlled.
Is there any specific things that have been suggested or said that bothered you? In terms of the inventory I mean?
Or are you just doomsaying because you can?
I started the thread to promote discussion, which has been successful in my view. There has been no doomsaying on my part!
@Aosaw: I agree on ammo limits being at 40. It worked pretty well in BG2, and considering that quests were longer and enemies took more to take down in that game, it should be sufficient for BGEE.
I guess what I really would dislike would be weapons and armor being stackable. That's kind of where I see things going if super high stack limits were implemented. I can ignore arrows disappearing into other dimensions, but the thought of stacking helmets like Red Solo Cups is pretty goddamn depressing.
The funny thing is, that, like potion stacking, the stacking of armour or weapons would be the least problematic case, because you will quickly reach your encumbrance limit.
I'd like to see jewelry stacking, since I don't see why you shouldn't be able stack 5 gold rings or silver necklaces and put them on.
@Lunever: good point. Someone mentioned earlier that gems, rings, and ammo weighed practically nothing. I would not be opposed to there being a more realistic weight applied to these things as well.
Man I want a Chuck Norris NPC from a mod now after reading @kamuizin 's last post XD
On topic I'd just like BG2 ammo stacking and some containers for BG1 (no bag of holding though), if I want higher/unlimited stacking mods can take care of that.
Could crucial documents (like Gorion's letter, and the letters to Mulahey, Tranzig and Tazok) be relocated to the journal. It seems daft to toss them, but there's no reason for them to take up pack space. Or could it be an optional thing to move any document to the journal through a game mechanism similar to scribing a scroll.
Similarly, could we put the keys on a keyring. Again, daft to toss them but no reason why they should take up a lot of pack space.
Comments
For me, as long as the weight keeps increasing when you stack items, that's enough of a limitation based on the character attributes
its fun at the start of bg1 to save money for a full plate mail, but at some point of the game, specially after durlag's tower, you end up with 100000+ gold , baiscly you can buy a house in baldurs gate...
I think that in Baldurs gate the prices need to be much higher, even sleeping in an inn ( 'in an inn'.. funny.. its the right way to say it??? ) should be more expensive than at the outskirts... ( 8 gp for an exlucive room, rather cheap...)
I read a calculation somewhere that a family of four commoners (two parents, two children) make about 200ish gp per year, before taxes, in leftover money.
A vacation in an inn for half a week (five days in Faerûn) would cost them 40gp or 20% of the yearly budget on room rent alone.
A quick search reveals my source; http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19573350/D38;D_Commoners_Make_Plenty_of_Money
Long story short: Commoners are fairly poor, adventurers (that survive) are millionaire style wealthy.
If the Devs introduce higher stacks and bags of holding; there is nothing stopping the OP or anyone like him simply NOT buying said bags of holding. And there is nothing stopping them from deciding to not carry any more arrows or whatever in stacks of more than 20 or 40 or whatever arbitrary limit he/she wishes to self-impose.
Asking the Devs to deny higher stacks and bags of holding to everyone else who wishes it, to make their game more enjoyable for them when it takes nothing away from him is sheer selfishness. It's like the homophobes on the Bioware forums who demanded that Bioware not "give in to the gay agenda" and give Shepard the option to romance in a same sex manner because they didn't like it - even though it was content they would never see unless they chose to see, and it didn't take anything from their experience by including it.
So no. I do hope that the Devs completely ignore this request.
hmm... good point
I'm in the same boat actually. I'm playing right now and I guess I installed 'Bags of the Sword Coast' in one of the tweakpacks...its too much honestly. I am not one who enjoys tediously organizing my inventory but the fact that I have two potion containers that are full to the brim and and infinite supply of ammo on my belt really changes the feel of the game (for the negative). The only reason I don't mind it is that I have beaten BG1 so many times I don't feel like I'm being cheated out of the experience too much.
We could even make contracts with another adventure parties late in the game in some new quests where we contract someone to make the quest for us (a new way of making quests, would need a deep develop in this matter).
Dunno but finsh the game with 200.000 gold doesn't seems much funny...
But non-magical rings and necklaces should at least improve a bit a person charisma, just to give a use to them, at least the laeral necklace should (if a person carry 3000 gold in his neck i really want to know more about him, to steal/befriend...).
b) The question whether there is to much money has nothing to with the convenience of higher ammo stacks.
c) The question whether higher ammo stacks need to be prevented has nothing to do with the convenience of gem bags, scroll cases and potion bags.
d) I played Tutu with all containers and higher stacks and stackable jewelry, and it worked out just fine. I didn't have to get bored by having to walk back to the next city with an otherwise still rested enough party. I was able to focus on proceeding in quests. So a big NO to categorically deny higher stacks and more stackable types of items (though within reasonable limits of course), and a big YES to all those fine containers.
As I said in my post you are asking the Devs to not make improvements or changes based on your own preference; which would be fine except for the fact that the proposed changes to the inventory would not be detrimental to aforementioned preferences.
If you were questioning it on a time versus resources sort of way then I guess i could understand, but you aren't. You just don't like the idea of greater stacks in the inventory. And based on that you want the Devs to deny that little improvement (or change) to the people who do like the idea.
If they increased stacking then the people who want that option are satisfied. But if you do not want to have stacks of more than 40 (or whatever arbitrary number you want) of each item in your inventory then you can simply ensure that your stacks do not go over that.
Heck you could make an addendum request to the greater stacks request, to make the stack sizes "optional" in some way. Maybe a menu option. Maybe configured in a text file in the override folder, or perhaps in the INI. Or something.
That way you are satisfied and the people who want higher stack sizes are satisfied.
So my point was that i would like the devs to not listen to you on this particular issue because your are coming from a place of, dare i say it, entitlement. That your preferences, and wishes, somehow seem to override other peoples preferences and wishes. Sorry but thats how I read your post.
What preference? What specific line are you referring to? Where in my original post do I say "do this because I prefer it that way?"
I used the idea of items being stackable to 99 as an example of convenience possibly compromising the fun of the original game, and gave a reason why. I did not suggest that items not be stackable. Where did I say that higher stacks shouldn't be implemented? No thanks, but how about you go ahead! I don't a "stack option request" being attributed to my handle. Well you read it wrong fella. I am not overriding anybody.
Is there any specific things that have been suggested or said that bothered you? In terms of the inventory I mean?
Or are you just doomsaying because you can?
I think that increasing the stack size limit to 40 (as it is in BG2) would be sufficient to give you enough ammo to get through a dungeon, without completely ruining your inventory. I also think adding gem bags and scroll cases early on would go a long way toward keeping inventory organized without ruining the balance of gameplay. An "Ammo Belt" might be good as well, although a fair bit more difficult to navigate when you're searching for arrows mid-combat.
I do agree that unlimited stacks for ammo, while a lot more convenient, does kind of disrupt my sense of realism a bit. In BG2, you can have 120 arrows ready to be fired all the time - which is an absurd amount of wood to be carrying around, if you think about it, and more than that it's an absurd amount of wood to be carrying around with no effect on your encumbrance. On some levels you have to stretch your suspension of disbelief, because there's no way to retrieve your arrows once you've fired them, which means that there's already some extradimensional spaces floating around Faerun. But even my Handy Haversack can't hold 3000 arrows.
There are mods out there that remove stack limits, and I think that's a good place for something like this. I've used such mods before, because it was more convenient that way - but at no point did I think, "Yeah, this is how the game was meant to be played."
This is why I always donate to the town temple for good karma. They buy bread for the poor orphan beggar street urchins you see. What can you expect from a backward feudal, agrarian society?
I lean more towards not having a "limit" on that at all, and instead having some sort of encumbrance/weight that compliments the space of the inventory, and limit what you can carry in that way instead.
But the existence of mods can't be used as an excuse that any request is an invalid request "cos someone will mod this latter", if this is done let's just close the "FEATURE REQUEST" directory of this forum and we just speak of the bugs and the good memories of the past, so...
By myself i see this in 2 ways:
Plot - Why Baldur's Gate domain would not have bags to sell and Amn have? Make no sense to me. 1 bag of each would sufice, but gems shoud do something more than just be pretty and shine to justify keep them (otherwise we should just sell them).
An Ammo belt would be nice in BG, as scroll cases, they're pretty common items i think.
Bag of holding is a magical important item, and besides davaeron write in one of his letters that someone used lots of bag of holding to smuggle the cloakwood iron, bags of holding should be considered a relative hard item to get (therefore only present in BG2).
game balance - I don't see a problem with gem bags as ppl just collect them for no reason, if exist ppl will keep the gems, if not ppl will sell them, besides durlag tower there's no place that if ppl hold too many gems they would end with no inventory space.
Ammo belt should have his capacity reduced maybe in BG, and one scroll case don't change much so...
Bag of holding in BG would take part of the challenge of the game, the challenge of keep your inventory clean XD!
My thought about:
Make the special containers quest items so the moment you get them can be controlled.
@Aosaw: I agree on ammo limits being at 40. It worked pretty well in BG2, and considering that quests were longer and enemies took more to take down in that game, it should be sufficient for BGEE.
I guess what I really would dislike would be weapons and armor being stackable. That's kind of where I see things going if super high stack limits were implemented. I can ignore arrows disappearing into other dimensions, but the thought of stacking helmets like Red Solo Cups is pretty goddamn depressing.
Even though you clearly were?
Okay then. If you say so man.
I agree with @kamuizin about making some of the containers quest related in BG 2. That might satisfy the purists amongst us.
I'd like to see jewelry stacking, since I don't see why you shouldn't be able stack 5 gold rings or silver necklaces and put them on.
On topic I'd just like BG2 ammo stacking and some containers for BG1 (no bag of holding though), if I want higher/unlimited stacking mods can take care of that.
Similarly, could we put the keys on a keyring. Again, daft to toss them but no reason why they should take up a lot of pack space.