Well, that was part of the âmaybeâ there - itâs a problem I have to study in more depth. But the implementation right now just seems bad. At the very least Iâd like to reduce definition dependencies like âammoâ and the inability to have multipurpose items, like a tool or weapon you can âwearâ.
It may end up just involving reimplementing a better, more sensible subclass system in the end, but at the very least I want to get rid of the whole âtoolâ and âammoâ subclasses - any item should be able to be assigned a âuseâ action (even if itâs just some silly message about how using this like that would be ill advised), and it would be trivial to handle well, and every item should be valid ammo if something really wants to use it for that, without having to change the definition of the ammo item itself. Something that, Iâll note, will mean a lot of headaches with the proposed mod-manager I want to implement if it is not changed.
Subclasses like âgunsâ could very well stick around when I finish my analysis, but having multiple subclasses makes Artifacts⌠weird. Because artifacts are weird, admittedly, but it would be better, I think, to have it work in a different way.
I definitely agree about polymorphism and subobjects being potentially valuable. Iâll certainly be taking your suggestions into account, as Iâve not done much here except getting frustrated with the limitations of the system as-is.