Competing for the Most Unimpressive Bug Award, here's my entry : Location : in the Caverns of Chaos Description : After winning a game with a random party, I open my loots. One is a Xipil Ring. It is marked as new (with the "!" exclamation mark). But I already have 2 ! After finishing the Caverns ending shredded at the next battle, I check my inventory : indeed there are 2 Xipil Rings on one of my active party. My guess : When checking if the player already has an item, the game forgets to check the active party if it did not actually fight (this is precisely the case in Caverns of Chaos and Mauve Manticore).
Yes, the game erroneously doesn't count items on characters in some special situations. The bug's been there for a long time, don't know why it hasn't been fixed yet.
Yep that's exactly what's going on. I feel like Jon was on the fence about fixing it back when we first noticed it, but I don't remember why. @Jon?
@Jon, could you please take another look at this bug? I found a new symptom which might make fixing this pretty easy. I have two copies of a Legendary item. They are both on a character who's not in the active party and not visible as the topmost reserve character. When I open Randimar's, there is a copy of the same Legendary item for sale (visible immediately upon opening the shop screen, this is significant). The item count shows as 0 (even though I actually have two of them). However, and this is a new observation, there is no "new item" star on the item! So the game already knows that I actually have it. It might not be so bad fixing the code because of this. Interestingly, if I scroll the shop inventory window so that the item disappears from view and then scroll back, now the "new item" star is visible on the item. This might be another pointer as to the code location the error lies in. If I close the shop and open it again, the star disappears again.
I, too, have noticed recently that I am ending up with extra copies of rares (4 boots, etc.) because I see a count of 2, when it is actually 3, and so keep a new one. Haven't noticed the "new but not actually new" issue myself (yet).
I think I have fixed this in the next build (which will be up on test shortly). I'd certainly appreciate some testing of it though, since there are a lot of different cases to account for.
