Stash (bag of holding)

[Nekoatl]

This idea has been proposed and discussed before, but from what I found, not sufficiently.

The idea:

A stash (functionally a Nethack-style bag of holding) as a UI element rather than an item (similar to the spell library) that can be accessed by spending 10 turns, interruptible by a monster entering LoS. Upon completion of those 10 turns, items can be freely exchanged between the inventory and the stash. When attempting to autopickup with a full inventory, the prompt to ignore the item is replaced with a prompt to place the item in your bag, which only takes 1 turn to perform regardless of the number of items to autopickup on that tile (similar to picking them up into your inventory). The 10-turn limit assumes that the 52 item limitation is desirable in that it forces players to choose which items to carry in their inventory and not merely an unfortunate side-effect of a 26 letter alphabet; if that assumption is wrong, then a smaller amount of time (or even no time) could be used.

Update:

There should be no time delay for placing items in the stash, whether or not there's one for removing them. And, picked-up items stackable with items in the stash should automatically go into the stash to join the stack.

Expected usage:

Players will store situational items that can't (or are less likely to) be meaningfully utilized mid-combat (e.g. resistance armor, scrolls of remove curse, etc.) and those that are likely to be irrelevant to the current branch (e.g. rings of protection from cold in the volcano) in the stash, while keeping those that can (e.g. evokables, scrolls of blink, etc.) and those that are convenient to have on-hand (e.g. scrolls of identify) in the inventory. Basically, the same behavior that players currently perform using the floor, minus the case of dropping an item to make room to pick up a and use-identify a piece of equipment before dropping the unwanted equipment and picking up the dropped item.

Design goal relevance:

This significantly advances the painless interface major goal and slightly advances the no spoilers minor goal, while preserving and somewhat advancing the meaningful decisions major goal. Allowing players to carry equipment in their stash would free up inventory room, reducing or removing the need for the tedious drop/pick-up/equip/drop/pick-up routine, would eliminate the need for backtracking across the several levels to pick up a situational item left behind and the incentive to research how many inventory slots need to be left empty to accommodate items found in a timed portal or other temporary level, and would eliminate the incentive to ferry items in bulk to choke points to reduce long-term food and piety consumption across multiple trips and the incentive to move all potentially useful items next to the staircase to an unexplored level in case that level contains a timed portal. Players' need to decide which items are most important to have available in combat is preserved my the inability to access items in the stash within sight of monsters, and somewhat enhanced in that more items can be available to choose from.

Arguments against:

Juggling items between the bag and the inventory is less convenient and efficient than juggling items between the inventory and the floor. Counterargument: This proposal does not include removing the ability to drop items. Not only is juggling items between the inventory and the floor still an option, but the ability to stash items that would otherwise clutter the inventory would reduce the time spent with a full inventory and make the need to juggle items less common.

There's no need for such a feature because items can simply be dropped on the floor and returned to later. Counterargument #1: This doesn't work with timed portals, Pan levels, and the Abyss. Counterargument #2: Even in non-transient levels, the process of backtracking to collect old items is less convenient and efficient than spending 10 turns at the current location, for no significant advantage in meaningful and interesting choices... and attempting to optimize around that inefficiency to preserve piety, rations, and/or remaining time before collapse of portals is tedious behavior that should not be incentivized.

[tealizard]

It's basically false that there is a need to have items beyond what the player has in inventory, what's on the ground in the current level, and what's in shops, so in fact dcss gives the player too much access to items as it stands, since you can backtrack to access items from dead levels. Items are bad, there are too many of them in the game, too much persistent access to them, and the problem increases as the game wears on.

I think the obvious response to a secondary inventory is that this sounds a lot like direct access to items from dead levels via the search menu (i.e. without traveling to the item to interact). This is something that's been suggested before. It would be better than the way things work now of course, but that's a common story with dcss.

There are different ways to go on this kind of thing. The removal of books as items is one model, where the qualities items possess, their uses and "physicality" (position and so forth), are displaced into some secondary inventory-like thing like the spell library. You can simply make items or access to them expire, for example by removing items on dead levels as has been done in hellcrawl. There's a lot to be said for the latter approach as reforms that don't fundamentally shake up the mechanics of items go. Even in hellcrawl, in my opinion, the existence of huge numbers of items on certain levels and in shops is problematic. Part of the story has to be massively cutting back on the number items generated in the first place.

[Nekoatl]

There's no need to have any items at all, and if the premise that "items are bad" were true, then they should all be removed. But, useful items give players options to play different ways, and variety improves replay value. Certainly, the number of items in Crawl could be reduced (why do scrolls of random uselessness even exist?), but most items in Crawl are at least occasionally useful. Of course, if you're going to place a hard limit on carrying capacity, then "occasionally useful" doesn't cut it, and experienced players will learn to disregard them in favor of more consistently useful choices, at which point it would naturally seem that those ignored items shouldn't exist. But, the benefit of having those occasionally useful items is that they can be used to survive extraordinarily dangerous situations for which a character is otherwise unprepared (situations which Crawl deliberately creates through the use of out-of-depth monsters) which in turn allows more flexibility in choice of strategic direction and improves replay value. Massively cutting back on the items generated purely for the sake of reducing inventory clutter is unnecessary and runs counter to Crawl's design goals.

Speaking for myself, I've also felt that there are too many items in Crawl, because my successful characters inevitably reach a point where the inventory fills up, and then I end up doing an assessment of which item to drop every time I find a new item. This is incredibly tedious, to the point where on many occasions that tedium has outweighed the enjoyment of playing and I just quit those characters to put an end to it. But, I'm sure I wouldn't feel that way if not for the hard cap on carrying items and the clear strategic advantage to carrying as many potentially useful items as possible. If a proposal like this one were implemented that allowed me to postpone those decisions and make them less frequently, I'm sure I would find the variety of items in Crawl to be a boon rather than a source of frustration.

Another possible approach that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is to not have fixed item letters at all, but instead dynamically assign them based on the current UI command, as per ADOM, but not only does this mean that players can't bind specific items to specific keys for a faster fire-and-forget style of play, but it also removes the strategic choice of which items to carry, which I assume is considered to be meaningful and therefore desirable. This specific proposal is intended to be relatively low-impact in terms of coding, and to reduce the downsides of inventory selection while preserving the upsides.

[tealizard]

Assuming things are good because they're there is probably the most common error in thinking about dcss. Many things that should be removed hold out for a very long time. Next most common is misapprehensions about the design goals of dcss, which if anything would militate against the glut of items that currently exists. Third most common error would be thinking that a correct understanding of dcss's design goals is the determining factor in this kind of discussion, an error I've occasionally found myself guilty of.

Now of course items are useful, no one doubts that. The question is whether something else could be as useful or how to maintain the usefulness aspect without the item aspect. (And of course we can also look at the marginal interest of the typical item, which is approximately zero in my experience.)

This bag of holding thing is a retreat into the realm of flavor and metaphor as opposed to directly addressing the game, its rules, its mechanics. It's a failure to think creatively about the game, thinking "creatively" about flavor instead.

[duvessa]

Nekoatl, you've correctly identified the problem that DCSS gives you too many useful items to fit into a convenient inventory. But your solution is to...make the inventory less convenient so you can fit more items in it? That is not a good solution. Instead, if you want to retain DCSS's item system at all, you should look at how to reduce the number of items so that players don't reach the 52-item cap. Here are some possible starting points:

- Currently there are six direct damage wands, plus random effects, lightning rod, and lamp of fire. It would be fine to just have one of these.
- And there are five misc items that summon allies, plus scroll of summoning. There could just be one of these.
- The more different resistances and stats you offer on equipment, the more equipment gets lugged around for swapping. As a first step, you could get rid of rPois, rCorr, and rN on equipment without changing balance much at all. You ultimately need to go much further than that though, either by combatting swapping itself or removing all resistances and many other properties from equipment. (Even in a hypothetical with no resistances on equipment, a player should still carry, at a minimum, a set of equipment for fighting in, a set of equipment for spell success, and a set of a equipment for spell power.)
- Scrolls of noise, scrolls of random uselessness, and potions of degeneration only exist to make scrolls of identify less effective, but you could just generate fewer scrolls of identify. There also probably don't need to be eight buff potions (haste, might, brilliance, agility, invisibility, berserk rage, resistance, lignification), I mean at the very least the game did fine for ages before brilliance/agility/lignification were added.
- There's also a collection of scrolls with really small niches (torment, immolation, holy word, vulnerability, silence) whose absence would barely be noticeable, and several "escape" scrolls (blinking, teleportation, fear, fog, summoning again) when there could easily be fewer.
- There are 15 inventory slots worth of ammunition in the game. That's pretty goofy.

[petercordia]

I've always thought that the 52 item cap only existed to keep the UI tidy and keyboard-accessable. Interesting to hear that some people disagree.
My own preference would be to have separate inventories for different kinds of items (one for equipment, one for spells, one for evocables, one for consumables, and one for missiles). The bag of holding sounds like a step in that direction, though you'd have to be very careful to keep it keyboard-accessable and tidy.

[Nekoatl]

Aside from the choice of name ("Stash"), how does flavor play any part in this proposal? The motivation here is to get desired items that are not immediately on hand off the ground into a more convenient and reasonable location. That's a mechanical change, not a thematic one. You can name it whatever you want for all I care, but "Stash" seemed the most appropriate choice to me, so that's what I went with, and the Nethack UI for adding or removing items from a container seems the post practical, which is why I chose that as a reference. This isn't meant to be a creative proposal, but a practical one, and I don't consider that a failure in any way. If designers were never willing to use ideas from other games, very few games would get made.

Improving the usefulness of items and removing useless items are both good things, but are beyond the scope of this proposal, unless and until the number of useful items can be healthily brought so low that a player would never want to have 52 piles in their inventory. If that can be done while preserving the value of the choices offered by the items to be removed, it would render this proposal obsolete, however, the time and effort required to do that well are non-trivial to say the least, and certainly would be a far greater undertaking than implementing this proposed feature. Moreover, if the intent is that players should never need to decide which items should be in their inventory, then the current awkward and tedious item management mechanics create undo pressure to move functionality from items to elsewhere even in cases where items may otherwise be the most sensible place for that functionality, or to consolidate similar functionality into a single generic representation (Duvessa's post nicely illustrates my point on this). That pressure limits the design space, and this proposal would help to alleviate it. And yes, there is a reason why items may be the best place for that functionality, which is that it makes that functionality available to all characters in limited quantity, regardless of build (admittedly, evocations is somewhat of an exception to this, and I think there's a strong case to be made for reworking non-wearable evokables into their own menu as per spells or abilities because they're already limited by charges or timers, similar to how decks were reworked into invocations).

Most items are mundane or cursed equipment, which are rarely if ever worthy of interest, except perhaps to Jiyva's slimes which is not sufficient reason to keep them in the game. Emergency consumables are only interesting when you need them, not when you find them. 99+% of the time, I don't care if my inventory contains a scroll of fog or not, for example, but very rarely they are a lifesaver, which is why I assume they haven't been removed from the game yet, and why I sometimes choose to carry them even when my inventory fills up. Many items fall into this category, and for such occasionally useful functionality to be provided to all characters to deal with occasionally out-of-depth dangers provided to all characters makes sense.

But to be clear, I'm not bringing this up to preclude other strategies for reducing inventory clutter, I'm just presenting it as one tool in a toolbox... one that, in my opinion, would provide immediate and lasting benefit. As mentioned in the OP, I expect this would be used primarily to store alternate equipment choices which already aren't practical to swap mid-combat, and between that limitation and the limited availability of wearable equipment slots, having wearable equipment (barring perhaps a limited supply of weapons and jewellery to swap between) take up space in active inventory is unnecessary. Currently, we leave this equipment on the ground when we expect to not need it, but this is a bad solution for the reasons addressed in my OP.

Even I want to see useless items removed, but Duvessa does make a good point that they serve to make scrolls of identify less useful, and there are multiple strategies for identifying items without ID scrolls. However, in my opinion ID scrolls are currently so common that those strategies are so rarely necessary that there's currently little point in those useless items existing, but if there were more types of useless items and fewer available ID scrolls, maybe the decision of how to use those scrolls would actually be interesting. However, it's worth noting that the "niche" items that Duvessa rightly pointed out rarely get used are niche in part because they're double edged swords, which as ID-scroll sinks go, are much more interesting than items that are strictly bad or do nothing.

The point of having resistances and damage types is prioritization, and this takes many forms. In terms of resource management, you have 3 otherwise identical damage bolts, for example, that each do a different type of damage, and you have a limited number of charges of each, and you want to zap things that have no weaknesses or resistances, you should try to balance your use of those charges so that when you encounter things you want to zap because they do have resistances or weaknesses, you have some charges left of the most suitable element. Of course, this is a one-dimensional choice that's not very interesting, but it is marginally more interesting than having only one damage bolt that all charges are pooled into. Ideally, some other factors should be mixed in so the choice is no longer one-dimensional, varying accuracy, damage, AoE, DoT, etc., etc. In terms of threat assessment, if you're in a fight with enemies using a variety of elements against you, only some of which you're resistant to, that changes the priority in which you should deal with those enemies. Even if you knew that a branch only had a single damage type, whether or not you found the matching resistance might influence when you decided to tackle the branch. Again, these decisions aren't very interesting in a vacuum, but when they need to be considered in conjunction with a variety of other factors, they can significantly improve the replay value.

Also, let me clarify that I personally do not like the idea using carrying capacity to limit available items, and so I would prefer a version of the stash that did not take multiple turns to access, but I recognize that the powers that be might want to keep that in some form, which is why I presented both options in the OP.

The disadvantage to giving each type of item its own lettering scheme is that actions which can be applied to multiple item categories would need an additional step (action -> category -> letter vs. action -> letter). This isn't as big a problem for Crawl as it would have been in the past, but it's still something that needs to be kept in mind. Also, I can imagine that players that aren't interested in collecting the Orb could eventually collect enough artefacts that even 52 items per category would become a burden... granted, that's probably a vanishingly small number of characters, but if these characters are meant to be played indefinitely, they might be stuck with that frustration indefinitely (though it would still be a big improvement over the current system).

[Shtopit]

If something of this sort were to be implemented, I would advise a more radical solution. You effectively have two inventories: the current inventory (limited at 52) and a "found items" menu (essentially the stash). Everything you find goes into the "found items" menu. Every ring, every halberd, everything. It's automatic. Taking a look at the found items is free, but it takes 10 turns to move each into the inventory. Interface-wise, you can move items to the inventory even if you get over 52, but you immediately enter a "drop" menu that you cannot leave until you have chosen what to drop into the "found items" menu.
It would completely remove the problem of going back and forward through the levels to collect items. Would it be better than now? It depends on how the players approach it. From my point of view, it would mean using ctrl+F much faster. But an attempt to use it without ctrl+F would be terrible. There also is the question of whether the player would be aware of the important items he encounters, if they are automatically absorbed.

Otherwise, I second Duvessa's opinion that there are too many item types as main cause of inventory pressure. I haven't played much lately, but I also remember a lot of floor clutter (unenchanted robes and clubs, stuff like that) which probably should be removed or made not usable by the player.

[tealizard]

Reducing the number of types of consumable and evocable items is definitely a good way to address part of this problem, but the huge volume of equipment and types of equipment the game generates is a bigger part of the impetus for direct-from-ctrl-F interaction proposals, I think. That's been discussed here before, essentially the point is that most equipment generated is there to modify the characteristics of monsters where instead the monsters could be modified either by ego types or just more base types of monsters that do not correspond to a permanent item (to the extent that these modifications are needed at all, of course). This general line of thinking makes a lot of sense to me and would be worth pursuing.

Making consumables not items was discussed a bit a long time ago, I think. Some people were talking about consumables timing out or otherwise departing from the traditional mechanics of items. Could be good, could offer some useful design options beyond inventory issues as well.

Anyway, I think removing items has proved to be the best approach to this circle of problems and that continuing in the direction of the ctrl-F half measure with new facilities for handling the absurd number of items is a dead end.

[Implojin]

So, you've identified one of Crawl's Big Problems. Congrats.

Your solution is backwards, though. You're looking at it from the player's perspective: "How can I keep all of this loot?"

A better way to look at it is from a dev perspective: "Why are we letting players keep all of this loot?"


I've suggested in the past that all items left on a floor should be despawned when a player leaves the floor. I still think that's a good approach here.

(Despawning floor items obviously doesn't solve the issue of DCSS having a bunch of items with duplicate/overlapping/pointless function. This should also be addressed. Hellcrawl has made good inroads there; Stone Soup should, too.)

[Nekoatl]

Why stop there? Why not randomly delete items and equipment from the player's inventory over time, so those duplicate equipment lying all over the floor could be used to replace what was lost? The more items the player collected, the more quickly their collection would be annihilated, so they'd never have the opportunity to fill their inventory.

[Implojin]

Why stop there? Why not randomly delete items and equipment from the player's inventory over time, so those duplicate equipment lying all over the floor could be used to replace what was lost? The more items the player collected, the more quickly their collection would be annihilated, so they'd never have the opportunity to fill their inventory.

The thing is, you don't need more than 52 items to win a game of Crawl. This limit is *already* excessive by half.

Your indignation is understandable given the response you're receiving here, but stopping your game to juggle inconsequential items is among the worst gameplay DCSS has to offer.

Your proposal would create more of that.

[Nekoatl]

No, seriously, if your proposal were implemented, I'd probably just never download a version of Crawl that included it unless you also removed shaft traps and timed portals at a minimum, and even then if I gave it a try, I'd probably quickly delete it in disgust. It's bad enough to worry about which items to leave behind without having to worry about leaving them behind forever, and currently it's possible to avoid that by leaving non-critical items outside of temporary levels, but your proposal would not only foreclose that remedy but make it so that every level was effectively a temporary level for purposes of item management.

I don't mind criticism, it's just frustrating when that criticism seems to be complete non-sequitur. The original responses to the proposal were the same way. That's why I wanted to create this thread and point out the problems with that reasoning, but at this point I'm ready to just throw my hands up and walk away.

[bel]

From what I gather, you want to keep thing similar to what they're now, just a bit more convenient interface-wise. The main advantage here is that you wouldn't need to backtrack across levels to get the items you need.

Everyone has their own take on inventory in DCSS, so if people don't agree with your premises, they won't agree with your arguments or proposal. If you don't want to discuss those arguments, just don't respond to them.

Speaking for myself, I find 52 slots more than enough for my needs. Backtracking can be sometimes irritating, but it's quite infrequent in my games, and not much of an issue either way. Perhaps I'm influenced by playing Hellcrawl, where backtracking is impossible. That said, I don't have any issue with the proposal itself.

[Shtopit]

No, seriously, if your proposal were implemented, I'd probably just never download a version of Crawl that included it unless you also removed shaft traps and timed portals at a minimum, and even then if I gave it a try, I'd probably quickly delete it in disgust. It's bad enough to worry about which items to leave behind without having to worry about leaving them behind forever, and currently it's possible to avoid that by leaving non-critical items outside of temporary levels, but your proposal would not only foreclose that remedy but make it so that every level was effectively a temporary level for purposes of item management.

I actually understand this very well. In part, Crawl items can be very opaque. In part it's because you fill the inventory quickly and so you have to make inventory choices very often. In part, it's simply because you may have invested hours into a game, and it gives a disproportionate weight to choosing what to carry.

For me, it's quite normal to leave the game when I have to choose what to carry. Permanent item destruction if you don't pick something up would make it even worse for me.

[Sorcerous]

I can certainly sympathise with having to go waaay back to the one item I didn't need before just for a few things (or even one) that make it useful, if not outright a necessity. I would also add in that only some of my games have made the swapping/finding/retaking/using/dropping routine an absolute chore to do, but that also factors in that I do like going for more runes. Having the option to stash away something "maybe useful" for later and not wasting hundreds of turns zipping up and down floors is interesting, but imo not always needed. When it is needed, a proposed stash like this one could help.

Keeping some of the above posts in mind, I also wouldn't be against some rework/removal of the offending items so long as it is reasonable. The argument of missiles alone taking up a whopping 15 potential inventory slots is strange, because I tend to stick with 1-3 that mow my problems down, and ignore the rest entirely. Maybe I need to finally upgrade to 0.24+ to appreciate the ideas as presented.

[Implojin]

I actually understand this very well. In part, Crawl items can be very opaque. In part it's because you fill the inventory quickly and so you have to make inventory choices very often. In part, it's simply because you may have invested hours into a game, and it gives a disproportionate weight to choosing what to carry.

For me, it's quite normal to leave the game when I have to choose what to carry. Permanent item destruction if you don't pick something up would make it even worse for me.

I think Shtopit offers a useful perspective here.

There are a lot of items in Crawl, and when an unspoiled player encounters a whole bunch of items it's easy for that situation to lead to decision paralysis. How are they supposed to know which items to keep?

In that situation, it probably feels a lot less punishing if you can make a best guess at what to bring and be assured that whatever you've passed up will still be there if you discover later that you needed it. Otherwise, as Nekoatl points out above, players might spend inordinate amounts of time agonizing over what to keep, as Crawl has no realtime clocks to keep the game flowing.


Here's my perspective on this:

Inventory tetris is not a fun minigame.

If your game is going to have an inventory that fills up, whatever goes in that inventory needs to be impactful, impermanent, and relatively rare. This creates excitement when you find a good thing, and tension when your good thing is about to wear off.

(This is why charge-based items are good for Crawl.)

[Nekoatl]

That's basically what I'm trying to address here. Let's look at potions of mutation, for example. If a player wants to be able to undo bad mutations, and for whatever reason is unwilling/unable to worship Zin, Jiyva, or Xom, and is not a mummy, they'll want to save potions of mutation they find just in case they get mutated at some point. But, for most of the game, they're not going to want to drink them, so they just sit in the inventory taking up a spot until the inventory fills up, at which point they're a prime candidate to leave on the ground, and they end up littered all over the place so if a time comes the player actually wants to start drinking them, they have to go back from one place to another where they left the potions behind until they're done drinking. If, for whatever reason, they're avoiding auto-travel for some or all of that trip, it becomes even more of a chore. There are two basic ways to address this... either remove (permanent) mutations from the game entirely, disappointing everyone who enjoys that feature, or provide a convenient space for carrying items that doesn't fill up.

Considering that players have widely different strategies and goals for playing Crawl, the amount of content that would need to be removed from the game to prevent inventory clutter varies widely. For some players, inventory clutter isn't a problem as-is. For others, drastic cuts would need to be made, significantly reducing Crawl's strategic and tactical complexity. Providing unlimited carrying capacity in some form or another is a robust safety-net solution that ensures that, regardless of what other changes may or may not be made to streamline Crawl's inventory system, that problem, should it occur, is significantly less painful.

I'm enthusiastically in favor of streamlining the inventory where it makes sense. Consolidation of chunks and the spell library, for example, were huge quality of life improvements that I'm grateful for, and I welcome similar improvements. I have mixed feelings about simplifying ammunition, as I like the idea of having a dual-ego system, where launchers exclusively modify how missiles are delivered (velocity, piercing, multishot, etc.) and ammunition modify damage type.

I actually think charged items (wands and miscellaneous evokables, specifically) should never go into the inventory at all, however. General inventory commands include wearing, removing, identifying, uncursing, dropping, and using. Wands, etc., aren't worn, removed, identified, or uncursed. They wouldn't need to be dropped if they were never in the inventory, so if V were modified to use a keybinding system similar to spells or abilities, there would be no reason to have them in the inventory at all (V? could allow players to check bindings, timers, cooldowns, and descriptions, and aV could allow adjustment of bindings).

[TheMeInTeam]

So, you've identified one of Crawl's Big Problems. Congrats.

Your solution is backwards, though. You're looking at it from the player's perspective: "How can I keep all of this loot?"

A better way to look at it is from a dev perspective: "Why are we letting players keep all of this loot?"


I've suggested in the past that all items left on a floor should be despawned when a player leaves the floor. I still think that's a good approach here.

(Despawning floor items obviously doesn't solve the issue of DCSS having a bunch of items with duplicate/overlapping/pointless function. This should also be addressed. Hellcrawl has made good inroads there; Stone Soup should, too.)

Without significantly rebalancing multiple facets of the game (including but far from limited to shafts), reducing the number of consumable options and deleting items introduces somewhat more difficulty and somewhat more RNG variance to crawl.

Considering player winrates, crawl does not need more of those in particular. Further combining throwing/launching items is reasonable, and wands could be trimmed a bit too. I don't think stuffing every potentially marginally useful item into a bag of holding and interacting with that repeatedly will solve the inventory crunch though. The most annoying things with full inventory are the extra prompts (where missing a useful item is also annoying) and constant +/- 1 from food/chunks.

Bag of holding with 10 turns access might also be able to pull off some things in dangerous areas that otherwise wouldn't be possible by returning to safe floors, so there's a small balance issue/player buff there.

Honestly just goldifying food will go a long way toward making this interaction less annoying. Same for the mut pot example - muts are in a bad place anyway so addressing that would help etc.

[delarado]

I agree on goldifying food, for the pure reason that "Couldnt pick up item, ignore?" on chunks is often a reason for my autoexplore to stop.

[4Hooves2Appendages]

It's probably been suggested multiple times before, but here goes:
Scrolls, Potions and Evokers could be goldified, accessed via the existing (r) (q) (v) menus.

After that there should be enough ordinary inventory space for ammo, weapons, armour and jewellery.

If that's considered too good, then the generation rate of scrolls, potions and evokers can be reduced accordingly.

Edit:
Puzzling over which niche scroll/potion/wand to leave always pains me. I find it hard to make these decision quickly.

[Nekoatl]

I mentioned that before, yes, but currently, potions and scrolls can be targeted by identify scrolls, which would be awkward/difficult if they weren't in the inventory.

[4Hooves2Appendages]

Well, it would require one extra button press, similar to identifying stuff on the floor.

[Nekoatl]

Exactly, and adding an extra keypress to every scroll use is less convenient than optionally moving rarely used items out of inventory and into a stash.

[4Hooves2Appendages]

It's only 1 occasional extra keypress for each identify scroll. Everything else works normally.

That said, there's actually no need! The interface could just show all unidentified items when identify is used.