- You cannot add custom items to containers. I'm guessing this was just an oversight, because I don't see any logical reason for them to be excluded.
- You cannot put containers inside containers (seriously?) There are other ways to address the concerns that prompted this. Limit the number of nestings allowed. Only allow items to be moved "Out to Inventory," into a container in inventory (if they're also in inventory,) or into a container within the container they're in. Create a way to "explode" a container so all inner items, no matter how deeply nested, are just added to your inventory. Go with the suggestion to make "Sack items" and "Sack containers" separate things, and just disallow the container items, so you can at least put a "Sack" of some sort into your Bag of Holding.
The Dev update this week addressed both of these issues:
custom items are, on the backend, distinctly different things than equipment. The backend folks are already working on allowing custom items to be added to containers; once they have it sorted, the front end folks will need to work on bringing it into the UI.
the containers inside containers issue has do to with the complexity of what I believe the developer call “recursion”, the fact that it could in theory be an never ending spiral of containers within containers. It sounded to me like they weren’t ruling out allowing limited containers within containers eventually, but had decided not to go down that rabbit hole yet.
One of DDBs release principles is to release a feature as soon as it reaches a stable and usable point, and not waiting until all the refinements/possible features are ready. It means folks get basic functionality sooner, but have to wait for more in-depth aspects of features. For users who need just the basics, that is helpful. For users who need more complexity, it is frustrating. From the devs perspective, it generates more feedback about what additional features are actually needed and why.
Now, none of that addresses the issues of notes, customizations, and currency that disappeared in the process. That should not have happened. My characters seem to be ok, although I haven’t looked closely, but I didn’t have a lot of customizations. But I absolutely understand the anger of those who did lose a lot. I’m glad to hear that some of it at least has been restored, and I hope for everyone’s sake that they are able to get it all restore quickly.
Containers such a missed opertunity released with way to many issues. No weight limits on containers😡. Containers do not give total weight of contents in them 😡. Custom items can not be added to containers 😡. Extra dimension bags add total weight of contents to encumbrance 😡. Coins can not be added to containers 😡. No stronghold container for items stored there 😡. All this should of been basic functionality on release.
They would have been better off waiting for containers to be fully functional because as it is now achieves nothing. We still need to do all the hard parts to track encumbrance and how much space is available in each container. Now we just have a mess of different containers to search through to find an item but no benefit of having the math of inventory management done for us automatically. It is as if they think DM's and plays do not track inventory encumbrance and container content limits.
In the dev update on YouTube they brag about how good this is and that they are working towards shared containers. I don't care that they are working to shared inventory I want working containers for an individual sheet, I don't give a rats about shared inventory until individual inventory works.
- You cannot add custom items to containers. I'm guessing this was just an oversight, because I don't see any logical reason for them to be excluded.
- You cannot put containers inside containers (seriously?) There are other ways to address the concerns that prompted this. Limit the number of nestings allowed. Only allow items to be moved "Out to Inventory," into a container in inventory (if they're also in inventory,) or into a container within the container they're in. Create a way to "explode" a container so all inner items, no matter how deeply nested, are just added to your inventory. Go with the suggestion to make "Sack items" and "Sack containers" separate things, and just disallow the container items, so you can at least put a "Sack" of some sort into your Bag of Holding.
The Dev update this week addressed both of these issues:
custom items are, on the backend, distinctly different things than equipment. The backend folks are already working on allowing custom items to be added to containers; once they have it sorted, the front end folks will need to work on bringing it into the UI.
I'm going to hold back further comments about the company's design decisions, and just state that custom items shouldn't have been so distinctly different from other equipment. Allowing custom items should have been trivial. (I am now really, really, really interested in what the backend of their code looks like though.)
Still, I'm glad it's been addressed, and that they've confirmed it's coming.
the containers inside containers issue has do to with the complexity of what I believe the developer call “recursion”, the fact that it could in theory be an never ending spiral of containers within containers. It sounded to me like they weren’t ruling out allowing limited containers within containers eventually, but had decided not to go down that rabbit hole yet.
I understood the issue as soon as I heard they disallowed containers within containers; it's not like the developers here are the first ones to ever have to deal with anything like that, which is why I actually offered a few ideas as workarounds. There's literally open source code available that deals with both handling items like containers, and presenting them properly, where they could at least see how others dealt with the limits (Qt's tree views spring to mind.)
No, handling the recursion isn't necessarily easy, but it's also not rocket science, and let's be honest, that should have been the first, most obvious concern when they decided they were going to implement containers in the first place. (Frankly, I would have thought it would have been a concern right from the initial decision to create an inventory system.) If someone at DDB felt it was so difficult or time-consuming as to not be worth handling upfront, I have to question if they should have even bothered at all.
And that's all I'll really say about that for the time being. At least once custom items can be added, I can NAME some generic item as an "extra adventurer's pack" after stashing it into my bag of holding.
One of DDBs release principles is to release a feature as soon as it reaches a stable and usable point, and not waiting until all the refinements/possible features are ready. It means folks get basic functionality sooner, but have to wait for more in-depth aspects of features. For users who need just the basics, that is helpful. For users who need more complexity, it is frustration. From the devs perspective, it generates more feedback about what additional features are actually needed and why.
One of DDBs release principles is to release a feature as soon as it reaches a stable and usable point, and not waiting until all the refinements/possible features are ready. ...... From the devs perspective, it generates more feedback about what additional features are actually needed and why.
That's a real mixed bag. Personally, I disagree strongly with the design philosophy stated in the first part. I can sort of understand the value in the second statement. But that's why MMO's have Betas, and Public Test Servers.
Releasing in an incomplete state made a bad first impression. (In addition to the unintended interactions.) As an end-user, I don't feel this is the best way of doing things. I'll just point to another recent DDB addition, as an example. Adding the extra step of menu clicks, to rolling dice with advantage. It may be setting the stage for future functionality. But currently, it serves no purpose. And there are no options to opt-out of new changes, like these.
Containers such a missed opertunity released with way to many issues. No weight limits on containers😡. Containers do not give total weight of contents in them 😡. Custom items can not be added to containers 😡. Extra dimension bags add total weight of contents to encumbrance 😡. Coins can not be added to containers 😡. No stronghold container for items stored there 😡. All this should of been basic functionality on release.
They would have been better off waiting for containers to be fully functional because as it is now achieves nothing. We still need to do all the hard parts to track encumbrance and how much space is available in each container. Now we just have a mess of different containers to search through to find an item but no benefit of having the math of inventory management done for us automatically. It is as if they think DM's and plays do not track inventory encumbrance and container content limits.
In the dev update on YouTube they brag about how good this is and that they are working towards shared containers. I don't care that they are working to shared inventory I want working containers for an individual sheet, I don't give a rats about shared inventory until individual inventory works.
What we have received is a MVP (Minimal Viable Product) and this is a standard delivery method in software development through the Agile way of working. I for one am very happy that they are taking this approach. You should realize that the things that you mention are missing will be incoming as what is called "scope extensions". We should see these updates in the near future depending on technical complexity.
If releases return too much "hate" then perhaps they will need to adjust the definition of what constitutes a MVP. But generally I'm quite pleased and am looking forward to the next updates.
What we have received is a MVP (Minimal Viable Product) and this is a standard delivery method in software development through the Agile way of working. I for one am very happy that they are taking this approach. You should realize that the things that you mention are missing will be incoming as what is called "scope extensions". We should see this updates in the near future depending on technical complexity.
If releases return too much "hate" then perhaps they will need to adjust the definition of what constitutes a MVP. But generally I'm quite pleased and am looking forward to the next updates.
Thank you for reminding me of the correct terminology. (Minimal Viable Product)! One of the project managers used that term a while back on the dev update, and while I remembered the meaning, I couldn't remember the precise term, thus my more convoluted and less precise explanation above.
Containers such a missed opertunity released with way to many issues. No weight limits on containers😡. Containers do not give total weight of contents in them 😡. Custom items can not be added to containers 😡. Extra dimension bags add total weight of contents to encumbrance 😡. Coins can not be added to containers 😡. No stronghold container for items stored there 😡. All this should of been basic functionality on release.
They would have been better off waiting for containers to be fully functional because as it is now achieves nothing. We still need to do all the hard parts to track encumbrance and how much space is available in each container. Now we just have a mess of different containers to search through to find an item but no benefit of having the math of inventory management done for us automatically. It is as if they think DM's and plays do not track inventory encumbrance and container content limits.
In the dev update on YouTube they brag about how good this is and that they are working towards shared containers. I don't care that they are working to shared inventory I want working containers for an individual sheet, I don't give a rats about shared inventory until individual inventory works.
What we have received is a MVP (Minimal Viable Product) and this is a standard delivery method in software development through the Agile way of working. I for one am very happy that they are taking this approach. You should realize that the things that you mention are missing will be incoming as what is called "scope extensions". We should see this updates in the near future depending on technical complexity.
If releases return too much "hate" then perhaps they will need to adjust the definition of what constitutes a MVP. But generally I'm quite pleased and am looking forward to the next updates.
Sorry MVP is a poor software delivery policy as you end up releasing under performing soft that then needs continual work and leaves customers disappointed and frustrated due to lack of functionality.
This update is like having a car without an engine and you may or may not get that in a couple of months but until then you can push it around manually.
Containers such a missed opertunity released with way to many issues. No weight limits on containers😡. Containers do not give total weight of contents in them 😡. Custom items can not be added to containers 😡. Extra dimension bags add total weight of contents to encumbrance 😡. Coins can not be added to containers 😡. No stronghold container for items stored there 😡. All this should of been basic functionality on release.
They would have been better off waiting for containers to be fully functional because as it is now achieves nothing. We still need to do all the hard parts to track encumbrance and how much space is available in each container. Now we just have a mess of different containers to search through to find an item but no benefit of having the math of inventory management done for us automatically. It is as if they think DM's and plays do not track inventory encumbrance and container content limits.
In the dev update on YouTube they brag about how good this is and that they are working towards shared containers. I don't care that they are working to shared inventory I want working containers for an individual sheet, I don't give a rats about shared inventory until individual inventory works.
What we have received is a MVP (Minimal Viable Product) and this is a standard delivery method in software development through the Agile way of working. I for one am very happy that they are taking this approach. You should realize that the things that you mention are missing will be incoming as what is called "scope extensions". We should see this updates in the near future depending on technical complexity.
If releases return too much "hate" then perhaps they will need to adjust the definition of what constitutes a MVP. But generally I'm quite pleased and am looking forward to the next updates.
Sorry MVP is a poor software delivery policy as you end up releasing under performing soft that then needs continual work and leaves customers disappointed and frustrated due to lack of functionality.
This update is like having a car without an engine and you may or may not get that in a couple of months but until then you can push it around manually.
In that case, what they delivered was not a MVP. A delivery only satisfies the requirement for MVP status if the customer is happy. If the customer is unhappy and the customer feels that stuff is missing from the delivery to be valuable, then the MVP was not scoped correctly and should have been worked on longer before delivery.
What we see with this delivery is that people had some corruption of custom items and item overrides. With this in mind, perhaps the MVP wasn't scoped correctly. I personally can understand the annoyance with the corruption of the custom items and think that part should have been fixed before release.
I generally think that they should put efforts into making custom items match standard items in the backend. Align the data objects, the database structures etc, so that they can apply the same functions on both classes of items, instead of having to do double work for each type of items.
Are there any plans to add containers to extras? For example adding saddlebags with items to mounts so I can see what's in there without being instantly encumbered because I'm carrying the extra 150lbs of equipment that's actually on my horse. Agree that having to monitor container weights is annoying, spent ten minutes shifting things to a backpack before realising it was over 50lbs and having to get rid of half of it.
Preface: this is mostly griping about this situation. But it is customer feedback, and belongs somewhere. I have strong emotions about this; but imagine my words in a very civil tone.
(written over the past couple days) -re: something that was said: Where are the Dev Updates? (Please don't tell me I have to start reading the patch notes for DDB like it's an MMO.) -The one major thing this would be useful for is Bag of Holding and weight. But I wouldn't even use this system as intended. Because if I place items into my BoH for weight purposes, then I effectively have two separate inventories to search through. I would use it as an abstract bookkeeping method. If I have a bunch of mundane toolsets in my BoH; maybe I'll designate a "sack" for them, to de-clutter my main inventory window. Like Windows directories. That's about it. -edit: it seems there is no toggle for keeping a container collapsed. Every time you navigate away, then back to Inventory; it's expanded, again. This is annoying. At the very least, I would rename those organizing bags to "z_Sack 1" or "~Sack 1", to alphabetically force them to the bottom of the field.
-Here's the thing. DDB keeps adding features that don't matter to me. While functionality that would matter to me, critically, has been "in development" for over two years. So if something like this gets released, smoothly, in a way that does not cause me any trouble; then fine, whatever. It's just something extra, that I can either use or not. ... Even if this had been properly tested (internally, and on a Public Test Server), it wouldn't change the fact that I now have half my Inventory window taken-up by empty sacks & pouches.
Are there any plans to add containers to extras? For example adding saddlebags with items to mounts so I can see what's in there without being instantly encumbered because I'm carrying the extra 150lbs of equipment that's actually on my horse.
I don't know, but just based on everything else, I find myself skeptical. You can't give mundane items to mounts (never mind magic items like Horseshoes of Speed,) and they still don't even have extras implemented in the mobile app.
-re: something that was said: Where are the Dev Updates? (Please don't tell me I have to start reading the patch notes for DDB like it's an MMO.)
Dev Updates are done in a video format every Thursday, at 9 Pacific via twitch. Afterwards they are available as VOD and posted to youtube. (I believe they show up on youtube a day or so later). There is also a thread in the Announcements forum for each update, which includes the "slides" from the update and a link to the videos.
WIth this particular release, there is also a changelog available here. There tend to be change lot entries for the significant feature releases, but they aren't as frequent as the Dev Updates.
The no containers inside containers bothers me to no end. Why not just put a cap on how many can be inside each other? 3 would be sufficient. A pouch inside a a sack inside a bag of holding. Sucks they have written it off for the time being because of some easily solved hypothetical issue. Almost never would a container like a sack be used by a player character unless it was inside of a backpack or something.
It's weird you can add a cart to your inventory, but if you try to include the adventuring gear contents of the chest being carried by the cart, the line is drawn at your backpack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Dev update this week addressed both of these issues:
custom items are, on the backend, distinctly different things than equipment. The backend folks are already working on allowing custom items to be added to containers; once they have it sorted, the front end folks will need to work on bringing it into the UI.
the containers inside containers issue has do to with the complexity of what I believe the developer call “recursion”, the fact that it could in theory be an never ending spiral of containers within containers. It sounded to me like they weren’t ruling out allowing limited containers within containers eventually, but had decided not to go down that rabbit hole yet.
One of DDBs release principles is to release a feature as soon as it reaches a stable and usable point, and not waiting until all the refinements/possible features are ready. It means folks get basic functionality sooner, but have to wait for more in-depth aspects of features. For users who need just the basics, that is helpful. For users who need more complexity, it is frustrating. From the devs perspective, it generates more feedback about what additional features are actually needed and why.
Now, none of that addresses the issues of notes, customizations, and currency that disappeared in the process. That should not have happened. My characters seem to be ok, although I haven’t looked closely, but I didn’t have a lot of customizations. But I absolutely understand the anger of those who did lose a lot. I’m glad to hear that some of it at least has been restored, and I hope for everyone’s sake that they are able to get it all restore quickly.
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
Containers such a missed opertunity released with way to many issues. No weight limits on containers😡. Containers do not give total weight of contents in them 😡. Custom items can not be added to containers 😡. Extra dimension bags add total weight of contents to encumbrance 😡. Coins can not be added to containers 😡. No stronghold container for items stored there 😡. All this should of been basic functionality on release.
They would have been better off waiting for containers to be fully functional because as it is now achieves nothing. We still need to do all the hard parts to track encumbrance and how much space is available in each container. Now we just have a mess of different containers to search through to find an item but no benefit of having the math of inventory management done for us automatically. It is as if they think DM's and plays do not track inventory encumbrance and container content limits.
In the dev update on YouTube they brag about how good this is and that they are working towards shared containers. I don't care that they are working to shared inventory I want working containers for an individual sheet, I don't give a rats about shared inventory until individual inventory works.
I'm going to hold back further comments about the company's design decisions, and just state that custom items shouldn't have been so distinctly different from other equipment. Allowing custom items should have been trivial. (I am now really, really, really interested in what the backend of their code looks like though.)
Still, I'm glad it's been addressed, and that they've confirmed it's coming.
I understood the issue as soon as I heard they disallowed containers within containers; it's not like the developers here are the first ones to ever have to deal with anything like that, which is why I actually offered a few ideas as workarounds. There's literally open source code available that deals with both handling items like containers, and presenting them properly, where they could at least see how others dealt with the limits (Qt's tree views spring to mind.)
No, handling the recursion isn't necessarily easy, but it's also not rocket science, and let's be honest, that should have been the first, most obvious concern when they decided they were going to implement containers in the first place. (Frankly, I would have thought it would have been a concern right from the initial decision to create an inventory system.) If someone at DDB felt it was so difficult or time-consuming as to not be worth handling upfront, I have to question if they should have even bothered at all.
And that's all I'll really say about that for the time being. At least once custom items can be added, I can NAME some generic item as an "extra adventurer's pack" after stashing it into my bag of holding.
That's actually very helpful to know. Thank you.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
That's a real mixed bag. Personally, I disagree strongly with the design philosophy stated in the first part.
I can sort of understand the value in the second statement. But that's why MMO's have Betas, and Public Test Servers.
Releasing in an incomplete state made a bad first impression. (In addition to the unintended interactions.) As an end-user, I don't feel this is the best way of doing things.
I'll just point to another recent DDB addition, as an example. Adding the extra step of menu clicks, to rolling dice with advantage. It may be setting the stage for future functionality. But currently, it serves no purpose. And there are no options to opt-out of new changes, like these.
What we have received is a MVP (Minimal Viable Product) and this is a standard delivery method in software development through the Agile way of working. I for one am very happy that they are taking this approach. You should realize that the things that you mention are missing will be incoming as what is called "scope extensions". We should see these updates in the near future depending on technical complexity.
If releases return too much "hate" then perhaps they will need to adjust the definition of what constitutes a MVP. But generally I'm quite pleased and am looking forward to the next updates.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Thank you for reminding me of the correct terminology. (Minimal Viable Product)! One of the project managers used that term a while back on the dev update, and while I remembered the meaning, I couldn't remember the precise term, thus my more convoluted and less precise explanation above.
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
Sorry MVP is a poor software delivery policy as you end up releasing under performing soft that then needs continual work and leaves customers disappointed and frustrated due to lack of functionality.
This update is like having a car without an engine and you may or may not get that in a couple of months but until then you can push it around manually.
In that case, what they delivered was not a MVP. A delivery only satisfies the requirement for MVP status if the customer is happy. If the customer is unhappy and the customer feels that stuff is missing from the delivery to be valuable, then the MVP was not scoped correctly and should have been worked on longer before delivery.
What we see with this delivery is that people had some corruption of custom items and item overrides. With this in mind, perhaps the MVP wasn't scoped correctly. I personally can understand the annoyance with the corruption of the custom items and think that part should have been fixed before release.
I generally think that they should put efforts into making custom items match standard items in the backend. Align the data objects, the database structures etc, so that they can apply the same functions on both classes of items, instead of having to do double work for each type of items.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Are there any plans to add containers to extras? For example adding saddlebags with items to mounts so I can see what's in there without being instantly encumbered because I'm carrying the extra 150lbs of equipment that's actually on my horse. Agree that having to monitor container weights is annoying, spent ten minutes shifting things to a backpack before realising it was over 50lbs and having to get rid of half of it.
Preface: this is mostly griping about this situation. But it is customer feedback, and belongs somewhere. I have strong emotions about this; but imagine my words in a very civil tone.
(written over the past couple days)
-re: something that was said: Where are the Dev Updates? (Please don't tell me I have to start reading the patch notes for DDB like it's an MMO.)
-The one major thing this would be useful for is Bag of Holding and weight. But I wouldn't even use this system as intended. Because if I place items into my BoH for weight purposes, then I effectively have two separate inventories to search through.
I would use it as an abstract bookkeeping method. If I have a bunch of mundane toolsets in my BoH; maybe I'll designate a "sack" for them, to de-clutter my main inventory window. Like Windows directories. That's about it.
-edit: it seems there is no toggle for keeping a container collapsed. Every time you navigate away, then back to Inventory; it's expanded, again. This is annoying. At the very least, I would rename those organizing bags to "z_Sack 1" or "~Sack 1", to alphabetically force them to the bottom of the field.
-Here's the thing. DDB keeps adding features that don't matter to me. While functionality that would matter to me, critically, has been "in development" for over two years.
So if something like this gets released, smoothly, in a way that does not cause me any trouble; then fine, whatever. It's just something extra, that I can either use or not. ...
Even if this had been properly tested (internally, and on a Public Test Server), it wouldn't change the fact that I now have half my Inventory window taken-up by empty sacks & pouches.
I don't know, but just based on everything else, I find myself skeptical. You can't give mundane items to mounts (never mind magic items like Horseshoes of Speed,) and they still don't even have extras implemented in the mobile app.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
Dev Updates are done in a video format every Thursday, at 9 Pacific via twitch. Afterwards they are available as VOD and posted to youtube. (I believe they show up on youtube a day or so later). There is also a thread in the Announcements forum for each update, which includes the "slides" from the update and a link to the videos.
WIth this particular release, there is also a changelog available here. There tend to be change lot entries for the significant feature releases, but they aren't as frequent as the Dev Updates.
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
The no containers inside containers bothers me to no end. Why not just put a cap on how many can be inside each other? 3 would be sufficient. A pouch inside a a sack inside a bag of holding. Sucks they have written it off for the time being because of some easily solved hypothetical issue. Almost never would a container like a sack be used by a player character unless it was inside of a backpack or something.
It's weird you can add a cart to your inventory, but if you try to include the adventuring gear contents of the chest being carried by the cart, the line is drawn at your backpack.