feat(balance): round 101~119g -> 100g

[scarf005]

Purpose of change (The Why)

• Descrete volume and weights for items #2505

metricate item weights, part 2 (remember #4568?)

1. destroy grams suspiciously resembling 1/4 pounds
2. there's really no value reason these items has to be 101g over 100g.
3. making them all 100g is nicer for eyes and calculation.

It's kind of the same reason they were 1/4 pounds etc. in the old days lbs was the default unit; so it made sense to use 1/4 pounds for weight since it would nicely display as 0.25 lbs on UI.
now it's the opposite; since #2510 the default is kg, so 0.1 kg display better

Describe the solution (The How)

round 101 grams from 119 grams to 100 grams.

Describe alternatives you've considered

• do something with 120g+?
• round higher grams into 125g?

but again, no real reason they can't be nice and simple 0.1kg

Testing

Additional context

Checklist

Mandatory

• I wrote the PR title in conventional commit format.
• I ran the code formatter.
• I linked any relevant issues using github keyword syntax like closes #1234 in Summary of the PR so it can be closed automatically.
• I've committed my changes to new branch that isn't main so it won't cause conflict when updating main branch later.

[chaosvolt]

[KheirFerrum]

I'd probably round to the nearest multiple of 5 instead of the nearest multiple of 100 myself.

[scarf005]

that'd also work, however these numbers were originally either

• meant to round up to 1/4 pounds (113g, 114g)
• arbitrary numbers (107g)

thus it'd cause no harm in e.g rounding 107g to 100g rather than 105g.

[chaosvolt]

[RobbieNeko]

119 and the like make much more sense to round to 120, and in general I think that nearest 10 is the more sensible approach for most items.
Additionally: M33 ball ammo is genuinely about that heavy, and thus would arguably be best served at 115 (an entirely realistic value).

gwuh

[scarf005]

119 and the like make much more sense to round to 120, and in general I think that nearest 10 is the more sensible approach for most items.

again, there's no real reason plant marrow is 119g, no tangible benefit to rounding to arbitrary weight value.

Additionally: M33 ball ammo is genuinely about that heavy, and thus would arguably be best served at 115 (an entirely realistic value).

this would be whether to choose realism vs gameplay abstraction (simpler weights). i'm indifferent on this one, could revert them if we want this level of precision but i doubt players want it

[RobbieNeko]

I don't see how rounding to the nearest 10 is all that arbitrary. The entire basis of the metric system is base 10. It still makes things far more metric to round to that, and the numbers would likely be just as pleasing when displayed ingame.

[scarf005]

I don't see how rounding to the nearest 10 is all that arbitrary.

rounding from arbitrary values doesn't make sense. are there any real reason plant marrow must be 119g? it could have been any value, 118g, 104g, 93g... then why not just use 100g which rounds up nicely.

and the numbers would likely be just as pleasing when displayed ingame.

but 100g is better on eyes than 110g; 23 of 100g plant marrows is 2.30kg wheras 23 of 110g plant marrow is 2.53kg.

again, to reiterate: if it doesn't really matter how heavy plant marrow should be, then it'd better be 100g which stacks nicely.

[RoyalFox2140]

119 and the like make much more sense to round to 120, and in general I think that nearest 10 is the more sensible approach for most items.

again, there's no real reason plant marrow is 119g, no tangible benefit to rounding to arbitrary weight value.

Additionally: M33 ball ammo is genuinely about that heavy, and thus would arguably be best served at 115 (an entirely realistic value).

this would be whether to choose realism vs gameplay abstraction (simpler weights). i'm indifferent on this one, could revert them if we want this level of precision but i doubt players want it

There's no tangible benefit to doing any rounding. You're doing this to nitpick because you specifically dislike pounds and non-rounded numbers, Which is generally why I don't accept this, I leave it up to you to talk someone else into this.

[RobbieNeko]

I don't see how rounding to the nearest 10 is all that arbitrary.

rounding from arbitrary values doesn't make sense. are there any real reason plant marrow must be 119g? it could have been any value, 118g, 104g, 93g... then why not just use 100g which rounds up nicely.

By that standard about 80% of the game's weights are arbitrary and rounding would never make sense except for the things that have a specifically defined weight such as chemicals... except then it doesn't because they have a specifically defined weight as it is. So when would you accept rounding other than to intervals of 100?

[scarf005]

no tangible benefit to doing any rounding.
You're doing this to nitpick because you specifically dislike pounds and non-rounded numbers

there exists UI improvement, see #2505

and PR body:

It's kind of the same reason they were 1/4 pounds etc. in the old days lbs was the default unit; so it made sense to use 1/4 pounds for weight since it would nicely display as 0.25 lbs on UI.
now it's the opposite; since #2510 the default is kg, so 0.1 kg display better

[RoyalFox2140]

After lengthy discussion in dev chat, and overall examining what's going on,

I don't approve of any rounding, but if we for some reason have to round for any reason, 10's works. I.E. 114 g goes to 110 g. I see no reason to round at all and upend weight as it subtly messes with balance especially on low strength / bad back players.

[scarf005]

• Round 113g to 110g or 100g? #6022