Alternative ways of using multiple rows.

[Penumbra]

I'll use my "one wish" on a usability improvement. This is the one thing that has been getting in my way for how I like to approach the game. Extra key bindings for inventory bars 2-10

To me, it doesn't sound like a large change, but would be one that gives a large amount of flexibility to the players. These extra binds, which would be completely unbound by default, would allow for other features some people have requested. Personally, this would allow me to have dedicated buttons on my keyboard for wooden platforms AND crates. I could have light orb on G, flash of light on Shift-G, and light snake on Ctrl-G. I always want quick access to fire touch and then a host of combat spells. A whole grouping for three different shield types. I could go on, but I hope I made my pint 

As for future development on this, showing more inventory bars when "closed" and labeling the extra slots could totally be put off till past 1.0. This Mantis report is just for the binds, and the extra options menu window to set them.

[keith.lamothe]

I'll use my "one wish" on a usability improvement. This is the one thing that has been getting in my way for how I like to approach the game. Extra key bindings for inventory bars 2-10

To me, it doesn't sound like a large change, but would be one that gives a large amount of flexibility to the players. These extra binds, which would be completely unbound by default, would allow for other features some people have requested. Personally, this would allow me to have dedicated buttons on my keyboard for wooden platforms AND crates. I could have light orb on G, flash of light on Shift-G, and light snake on Ctrl-G. I always want quick access to fire touch and then a host of combat spells. A whole grouping for three different shield types. I could go on, but I hope I made my pint 

As for future development on this, showing more inventory bars when "closed" and labeling the extra slots could totally be put off till past 1.0. This Mantis report is just for the binds, and the extra options menu window to set them.

The difficulty with not labelling them is that with the rotating-row thing how would you know which bind goes with which slot, unless you somehow always keep straight which row is "first"?

[x4000]

I guess we could label them "row 1, row 2, etc" in the inventory itself.  But for players who are NOT using this feature, that might get more than a little confusing.

[Toll]

Can't remember which game had this, but what you could do is ditch the rotating system and assign row one to 1-0, row two to ALT+1-0, row three to SHIFT+1-0 etc. Between the permutations of alt, shift and ctrl, you should be able to hit eight usable rows that way. Not sure how easy-to-use that would be though, although personally I've never actually used the row changing function other than by accident anyway.

[Penumbra]

I would assume it would always be relative. And, if as a user I decide to bind two bars instead of just one, rotating them would have expected consequences. 

[x4000]

I went ahead and split this topic out, because it was taking over the other thread.  I think that makes good sense if it's always relative: then you can rotate AND yet you can also still do the sort of bindings described here.

[keith.lamothe]

I guess we could label them "row 1, row 2, etc" in the inventory itself.  But for players who are NOT using this feature, that might get more than a little confusing.

Yea, though possibly we could just put a special marker on "row 1" for anyone who has any of those row 2+ binds defined, so they'd have to do one exploratory bind and could then work from there.

I would assume it would always be relative. And, if as a user I decide to bind two bars instead of just one, rotating them would have expected consequences. 

That much could be done with no additional UI, yea.  I'm not sure if other users would be as understanding   I've noticed a trend when adding new interface stuff for specific players: they put up with foibles and are happy to have it, but then other players come along later and wonder why on earth these very specific bindings (or whatever) don't do what they want

[Penumbra]

Can't remember which game had this, but what you could do is ditch the rotating system and assign row one to 1-0, row two to ALT+1-0, row three to SHIFT+1-0 etc. Between the permutations of alt, shift and ctrl, you should be able to hit eight usable rows that way. Not sure how easy-to-use that would be though, although personally I've never actually used the row changing function other than by accident anyway.

I think this would take away large amounts of flexibility needlessly. Any key you bind to bar one would lose all the modified versions at once. It would also remove your ability to rearrange your inventory freely. Having this configuration could be bound, however, if that user wishes it.

[x4000]

I'm not sure if other users would be as understanding   I've noticed a trend when adding new interface stuff for specific players: they put up with foibles and are happy to have it, but then other players come along later and wonder why on earth these very specific bindings (or whatever) don't do what they want

I've noticed that trend also, but I do think that it's really likely that many of the players who would want these binds aren't going to be the sort who use the rotation in the first place.  If you have 30 items bound by default anyhow, why would you?

Then we will have the camp who wants to simply assign wooden platforms (or whatever) to a specific key and have done with it.

Perhaps, to placate that second camp, we can simply do some keybinds specifically for some commonly-needed spells (wooden platforms and crates being the two big ones I can think of).  I guess then we could also do ones for all the light-related spells, for that matter.  And I guess the various shields.

Not that I want to get into specific unbound keybinds for every spell... but for the logistical spells that would by far be simplest and most flexible, in a lot of respects.

[Penumbra]

Specific binds for every spell is what I am going after. I suggested this because it had more "grounding" in the original interface. I would see no real difference when playing, except for when I would want to change, say, which three shields I am using. I would then be forced to go into the key binding interface and swap three things instead of just rearranging my inventory.

[x4000]

I really don't think that specific bindings for every spell will ever be that feasible.  I mean, I guess we could, but that's a whole heck of a lot of bindings.

In most respects that would be easier than the relative rows thing, though -- if we just made bindings for a list of "key spells" for now, would that solve your query?  And we could always grow the list of "key" spells over time.

[Penumbra]

Maybe I don't understand "relative" in this case. Here is how I am meaning it.

The "main" bar is whichever is shown at the bottom. They key bindings for these start at the left and move right. If the user rotates the inventory bars, all items shift through and a new set is visible on the main. The key bindings are for the slots, and not the spells.

For the key binds I was suggesting, this would work just like this, except working on the second through tenth bars.

Specific binds for every spell would be completely untenable, with updates and usability issues. 

[x4000]

Maybe I don't understand "relative" in this case. Here is how I am meaning it.

The "main" bar is whichever is shown at the bottom. They key bindings for these start at the left and move right. If the user rotates the inventory bars, all items shift through and a new set is visible on the main. The key bindings are for the slots, and not the spells.

For the key binds I was suggesting, this would work just like this, except working on the second through tenth bars.

I understand what you mean by relative, and that's also how I meant it.

Specific binds for every spell would be completely untenable, with updates and usability issues.

That's my thought also, and why I said "key spells."  Basically, what I was thinking was this:

1. Have a keybind for "wooden platform" that is default unbound.  If you bind that to, say, G, then you know you can always hit G to trigger wooden platforms no matter where they are in your inventory.
2. Do the same thing for the shields, the light spells, maybe teleport... and that's about it.

Odds are, most players would not use any of that.  But if ball of light is central to how you play, then you'd map that and possibly wooden platforms to... whatever you want.  Then you can just throw them anywhere in your inventory and not worry about their position, relative or otherwise, and always know you can trigger them.  And meanwhile you can scroll through differently themed bars to get different combat spells at any given time.

It's not a replacement for what you were describing, but it's a far simpler way of hitting the most common cases.

[Penumbra]

It's not a replacement for what you were describing, but it's a far simpler way of hitting the most common cases.

This would give me 5 free slots to do with as I choose, as "floater" spells. The first bar is shared with my 5 button mouse, so 5 of those must be combat spells (and by must, I mean for me). I would be able to play with a few more spells at a given time. And, if it really is much easier to implement, that makes perfect sense. I don't have a good grasp on the difficulties involved.

Having specific binds for certain key spells is a nice feature, just, as you said, not this one    I reserve to right to bring it up again in the future!

[Penumbra]

the players who would want these binds aren't going to be the sort who use the rotation in the first place. 

This describes me perfectly. One of the first things I did was remove the binds for rotating. I use Vim almost exclusively at work, and I just like have a specific series of keys to do a discrete action. Once things become relative, all of a sudden I have to start remembering state. That just makes me do one of two things: either check constantly to remember, or always revert back to a known state.   I never claimed to be like most people, however