So recently, I was thinking that if we took one of the bits from the item quantity to use as another bit to the item number (so that it is 10-bit) we would then be allowed to have over 1000 items... However, the quantity of any "unique" item per inventory slot would max at 15 instead of the normal 30.
But since this bit was not next to the item number bits, I came up with the idea that this bit would simply reference a secondary list of items. Further planning concluded that if we also got rid of the quantity bits, the equipped bit, and the other bit , we could potentially have 512 + 32768 = 33280 items. (Including the "Nothing" field.)
Note: Not recommended, but if one did not want to decrease the item quantity for the first group, they could simply replace one of the other bits... (like a bit in the item number for instance.)
(And if I work on this, I might include some documentation in this post/topic on what data/code needs to be edited in order to achieve this.)
..."Second list of items"?
Whoops. Not sure how that mistake got there. (I probably got mixed up in one of my edits or something.) Fixed.
Quotefor the second list of items
Has been removed. The bit I was referring to was something else. (What makes the red 'x' appear over the item... Ex: Broken Rings)
Edit: But I have to admit, at least it shows someone was paying attention. :)
Oh, icons. Okay, I get ya. Was gonna say - if there was a redundant list, then why not open it up? But if it's the broken toggle, then I can see what you mean.
Actually, I just figured out what I was trying to say earlier when I made that mistake. Seems it could be read two ways.
Not "other bit for the second list of items" .. but rather... only getting rid of the quantity bits, equipped bit, broken bit... when the second custom list of items are applied.
I can see a hack that doesn't use broken items, but the other two are pretty important, wouldn't you say?
Yeah, that's why I wanted to keep most of those bits for the first 255 or 511 items (Save for any one bit that may be replaced to accomplish a custom second list.), while the rest might never need them, otherwise, it would have been a potential 65535 items. Which is sort of a huge trade-off when you finally realize you don't have the broken/equip/quantity bits for any items...
Also, I am pretty sure some people doing difficulty hacks wouldn't mind getting rid of the useful quantity feature altogether... I suppose it could be compared to the same logic one may have when they try to play as an inept in a way. (Surely you don't just magically have 29 extra spaces in one slot?)
Anyway, this would only really be useful for item-heavy hacks... And maybe ones where you can combine a number of items to get another (However, you would only combine items that can be combined.)
What kind if hack would even use more than 512 items?
TLA doesn't use nearly that many, and it feels like a pretty big game... :Sweat:
Quote from: Teawater on 27, June, 2013, 05:52:50 AM
Also, I am pretty sure some people doing difficulty hacks wouldn't mind getting rid of the useful quantity feature altogether... I suppose it could be compared to the same logic one may have when they try to play as an inept in a way. (Surely you don't just magically have 29 extra spaces in one slot?)
They could just disable the stackable flag. And I don't find it illogical that you can store 30 herbs in the same space that you store a sword.
Quote from: Misery on 27, June, 2013, 01:46:23 PM
What kind if hack would even use more than 512 items?
TLA doesn't use nearly that many, and it feels like a pretty big game... :Sweat:
Yes, it is a pretty big game, but TLA still doesn't take up even half the available space we have for data, and you could practically add another game or two, to it... (The game's file size is 16 MB with plenty of Empty data (00-filled)... The max file size a GBA game can be is 32 MB.)
The topic idea was more or less an experimental thought, so who knows?
Quote from: Misery on 27, June, 2013, 01:46:23 PM
Quote from: Teawater on 27, June, 2013, 05:52:50 AM
Also, I am pretty sure some people doing difficulty hacks wouldn't mind getting rid of the useful quantity feature altogether... I suppose it could be compared to the same logic one may have when they try to play as an inept in a way. (Surely you don't just magically have 29 extra spaces in one slot?)
They could just disable the stackable flag. And I don't find it illogical that you can store 30 herbs in the same space that you store a sword.
And disabling the stackable flag renders quantity bits useless... which was my point on how "Important" the quantity bits would be for those items if that was done to all items...
Since the item is quite small and wouldn't weigh much, I can understand, but only having up to 30 for every different size item is like... hmm.... I suppose they could just have 30 smaller bags in those slots...