Feature Request: New Inventory Action: Combine

10FingerArmy

Hi,

combining inventory items results in a new item in many adventures. Currently this requires adding one new item to the inventory and removing two other ones.

My proposal is to add a new Inventory:Combine action which does all that, hide two objects (which were combined, knowledge should actually be there in the engine since the user just dragged these, if not select them in two dropdowns) and add a new one (dropdown).

Cheers, Robert

ChrisIceBox

Sorry, but I feel this'd be more trouble that it's worth.  I see your point, but I think it'd be unreliable.  Feel free to write it as a custom Action, though.

10FingerArmy

Why do you think it is unreliable? The easiest way would be to have an action with 3 listboxes, first two the objects that are combined, last one the new one that should be created. The optional candy would be to detect the source objects automatically but even without that it would already be much easier to use and less verbose as three separate actions.

ChrisIceBox

Sounds like a good case for parameters.  When it comes to game production, there'll always be common tasks you want to perform over and over, which is why parameters are useful - they let you combine often-used Actions together, even though the Actions vary slightly each time.  You can create a "Combine items" ActionList asset, and call that to do the 3 actions instead:

1) Create a new ActionList asset and name it "Combine items"
2) Check Use parameters and give it three Inventory item parameters: "Item to remove 1", "Item to remove 2", "Item to remove 3"
3) Create the 3 actions (two Remove Inventory, one Add Inventory), assigning the parameters appropriately.
4) Now whenever you want to combine items, just call this asset with the Engine: Run ActionList Action, and assign which items are passes to it.

orrence

I would like to endorse 10FingerArmy's proposal, because this is such a common case and it would be cumbersome and unnecessary time and effort if all the hundreds of users would all have to go through the 4 steps you suggested in your post.

I think this is a case where it would perfectly make sense to implement the suggested feature. Just my 2ct though ...

Thanks for the great engine, Chris, and for the time and energy you keep investing into further improvements and support!

Cheers,
orrence.