I've always wondered why we have a cap on a stack to 250 items...seems that if it's a 3 digit problem, A-Net could've increased the stack size all the way to 999.
If they don't do it, no skin off my back...but it might help a bit for material hoarders like myself that just can't bring himself to selling excess materials to the trader when I know I'll need them in the near future.
Increase Stack Size to 999?
Jetdoc
Deadly Panda
I agree with this. When done with farming, most of the stuff I have, are matertials. I hate to sell them all to a trader, because when you're about to buy a new armor, you know that you have just wasted money by selling the materials
/signed
/signed
jinkas
Stack size is probably an unsigned 8-bit integer, which would be limited to a max of 255 and was probably rounded off to 250 out of convenience. The next step up would be an unsigned 16-bit integer, which would cap stack size around 65.5k, but could also theoretically slow down the performance of the game.
caufenkamp
ture that...but maybe at least double the size
Khanduras
... It's not like common materials are expensive or anything. Sell them to other players for 'x' price, chances are.. when you need the materials, you'll be able to buy them back at the same price. It's not like common materials fluctuate in price drastically.
I don't really see a need to increase stack size at all. If you're going to use it soon and you HAVE to have those extra two or three inventory slots open, why don't you just mule it to another character for the time being? And if you're already completely filled on all characters.. stop hoarding junk.
I don't really see a need to increase stack size at all. If you're going to use it soon and you HAVE to have those extra two or three inventory slots open, why don't you just mule it to another character for the time being? And if you're already completely filled on all characters.. stop hoarding junk.
Ferret Deathsquad
I think you will find almost everyone will agree with this who has more than one character and has to buy armor for them all.
/Signed
/Signed
gremlin
I don't know why 250 was chosen and I find it plenty for my needs.
I guess if they increased it I would make use of it but it's not that important.
When I am planning to use materials in the future I just start stacking materials in normal storage or on the character that I plan to use it with.
I assume this is of vital importance to those with storage clogged by multiple sets of armour.
I guess if they increased it I would make use of it but it's not that important.
When I am planning to use materials in the future I just start stacking materials in normal storage or on the character that I plan to use it with.
I assume this is of vital importance to those with storage clogged by multiple sets of armour.
I pwnd U
/signed
Would be nice to be able to put the 2 other stacks of cloth into my material storage.
Would be nice to be able to put the 2 other stacks of cloth into my material storage.
MithranArkanere
Hm... decrease storage to half to be able to have bigger stacks...
Hm... I'd rather not. And I don't like not-round numbers. 500 or 1000 would be much better, Yet still not possible right now.
Hm... I'd rather not. And I don't like not-round numbers. 500 or 1000 would be much better, Yet still not possible right now.
Smurf Minions
Well i think jinkas is right, they could use another way but this is the fastest.
TheRaven
Jinkas is correct. 255 is a common cap for numbers. They could increase the stack size to 255 very easily, but any larger would cost them a lot (A LOT!!) of money for more server memory, dev salaries, programming time, etc.
It's not worth it.
/not signed
It's not worth it.
/not signed
jimmywho
a stack of 999 ecto
/notsigned
/notsigned
Jetdoc
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jinkas
Stack size is probably an unsigned 8-bit integer, which would be limited to a max of 255 and was probably rounded off to 250 out of convenience. The next step up would be an unsigned 16-bit integer, which would cap stack size around 65.5k, but could also theoretically slow down the performance of the game.
|
As I said, I'm cool with it as it is...was just wondering why there was this odd limit (and that seems to have been answered).
duckboy
well here's another question...why can't characters hold more than 100k? shouldn't they be allowed 250k?
MithranArkanere
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by duckboy
well here's another question...why can't characters hold more than 100k? shouldn't they be allowed 250k?
|
It was also meant to limit the gold in player to player trades. Yeah, you can bypass it with things like ectos, but first you must get the ectos, and it was much slower than just getting plain gold.
Artorius.Maximus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jetdoc
Didn't realize that 255 was the limit for an unsigned 8-bit integer.
As I said, I'm cool with it as it is...was just wondering why there was this odd limit (and that seems to have been answered). |
On the max gold piece: While I am unsure of why they chose this limit since it is on an odd number (would require 17 bits) but going to 250k would require 18 bits.
This may be why the system is set up as gold and platinum as well, instead of just however much gold.
Operative 14
100k strikes me as an arbitrary figure they picked that didn't seem like to much, but didn't seem like to little either. Kind of like getting ten serving sets from Tiffany's (considering we're talking about a product from Seattle).
And trying to limit stack size to a one byte file size makes sense. Though, from a players perspective, it would be nice to have a stack of 500, considering the total material cost of some armors is a quantity of 400 for a certain material.
). And trying to limit stack size to a one byte file size makes sense. Though, from a players perspective, it would be nice to have a stack of 500, considering the total material cost of some armors is a quantity of 400 for a certain material.
Phoenix Tears
hopefully it will be better in GW2...
this low max cap sux. should be 1000, thats a fine number. and when 1000 makes any probs, then 999 >.>
god any stupid offline game can have higher max caps for item storage, than GW pfff, really
Don't understand, why the game should work slower or so, only because a dumb number raises higher...
The number of 250 means absolutely the same information for the game, as the number of 1000... they are only soem stupid digits -.-.
As if the digits of 1000 would mean so extreme much more information for the server, as 250 >.> really, can't udnerstand this problem. Maybe someone so nice to tell me, what is the thing about this whole prob.... X_X
this low max cap sux. should be 1000, thats a fine number. and when 1000 makes any probs, then 999 >.>
god any stupid offline game can have higher max caps for item storage, than GW pfff, really
Don't understand, why the game should work slower or so, only because a dumb number raises higher...
The number of 250 means absolutely the same information for the game, as the number of 1000... they are only soem stupid digits -.-.
As if the digits of 1000 would mean so extreme much more information for the server, as 250 >.> really, can't udnerstand this problem. Maybe someone so nice to tell me, what is the thing about this whole prob.... X_X
Operative 14
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Phoenix Tears
hopefully it will be better in GW2...
this low max cap sux. should be 1000, thats a fine number. and when 1000 makes any probs, then 999 >.> god any stupid offline game can have higher max caps for item storage, than GW pfff, really Don't understand, why the game should work slower or so, only because a dumb number raises higher... The number of 250 means absolutely the same information for the game, as the number of 1000... they are only soem stupid digits -.-. As if the digits of 1000 would mean so extreme much more information for the server, as 250 >.> really, can't udnerstand this problem. Maybe someone so nice to tell me, what is the thing about this whole prob.... X_X |
Considering even a very conservative number of people playing the game, and how many stackable items (one or two dyes, 250 cloth, 147 tanned hide squares, 172 ales...). Each one of those stacks, no matter how many virtual items are in them, take up one byte on the server. If they made it larger than a stack of 255, then each of those stacks, no matter their size, would suddenly take up two bytes.
That's a lot of memory when you consider at least 2 million people playing the game, not to mention another 3 million that are simply inactive or whatever but still have items in storage, and how many stackable stacks they have in their inventory.
freaky naughty
/signed. The more storage the better
Shayne Hawke
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jinkas
Stack size is probably an unsigned 8-bit integer, which would be limited to a max of 255 and was probably rounded off to 250 out of convenience. The next step up would be an unsigned 16-bit integer, which would cap stack size around 65.5k, but could also theoretically slow down the performance of the game.
|
Div
The only logical progression in choosing stack size increases is to a size of 50000, which is the highest "even number" below the 65536 mark.
And that's a dumb idea.
And that's a dumb idea.
Solas
/not-signed
250 is enough to buy armor or fill some requirements
250 is enough to buy armor or fill some requirements
Omnidragon42
/not signed
250 is big enough, It's easier to math around than 999 would be, it's probably a programming limitation, and if it was 999, I'd still have spillover stacks in my 4th storage page.
250 is big enough, It's easier to math around than 999 would be, it's probably a programming limitation, and if it was 999, I'd still have spillover stacks in my 4th storage page.
Phoenix Tears
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Operative 14
Becuase then the number of items in everyones storage would take two bytes to store instead of one byte. For every single stack of anything in the game.
Considering even a very conservative number of people playing the game, and how many stackable items (one or two dyes, 250 cloth, 147 tanned hide squares, 172 ales...). Each one of those stacks, no matter how many virtual items are in them, take up one byte on the server. If they made it larger than a stack of 255, then each of those stacks, no matter their size, would suddenly take up two bytes. That's a lot of memory when you consider at least 2 million people playing the game, not to mention another 3 million that are simply inactive or whatever but still have items in storage, and how many stackable stacks they have in their inventory. |
They make daily money through selling stuff, so much money they earn in 1 months can no servers cost...
and hmm, would would be worser for the servers, increasing the stack cap from 250 to 1000, what would result in a massive decreasement of stacks in slots, because thsoe stacks would get then simple compressed (and this should also save then too some server storage, because of the amount on stacks decreasing, that have to be stored up information wise, because the amount of stacks would be divided through 4, when the cap raises from 250 to 1000.
or would it be worser, if anet gives us instead better options for chest storage and lets the cap stay at 250 ...
Anet could give us for example a Tab for Minipets in the Chest or one for max Upgrades and Insignias, or one for consumeable items, like Alcohol, Sweets, EotN stuff, party items ect. and all those stackable stuff, that never will change and has different strength versions of itself, like Weapons...
Armor Storage for max armors could be finally done...
Anet would do great, if they give us those options for the storage chest.
I would even buy those things via Online Store. I'm sure many others would do so too...
gremlin
I can imagine the discussion at arenanets offices now.
Hey the players want more storage, so if we increased our server load and gave them 999 units in storage instead of 250 is there anyone here recon it will stop the moaning about lack of storage space.
Pause to have anyone who thinks yes removed to a safer environment in case they hurt themselves.
Eventual decision no extra storage because doubling tripling or increasing to the power of 10 wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.
People would still complain about storage so what's our incentive to do it.
Hey the players want more storage, so if we increased our server load and gave them 999 units in storage instead of 250 is there anyone here recon it will stop the moaning about lack of storage space.
Pause to have anyone who thinks yes removed to a safer environment in case they hurt themselves.
Eventual decision no extra storage because doubling tripling or increasing to the power of 10 wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.
People would still complain about storage so what's our incentive to do it.
MithranArkanere
Exactly. The problem with storage is solved by eliminating the need of storage with traders and unlocking of items.
Kanyatta
Wow, another stupid QQ thread which basically just says "MOAR STORAGEZ NAO PL0X!!!!!!"
See that NPC with "(Merchant)" at the end of his name. Talk to him, press the "Sell" tab, and then you won't have storage problems.
See that NPC with "(Merchant)" at the end of his name. Talk to him, press the "Sell" tab, and then you won't have storage problems.
killing strife
i agree. Stack size should improve/be bigger. Also more items should be stackable, like inscriptions ;o)
Dronte
999 simply sounds bad
Make it 500, and I'm happy.
Make it 500, and I'm happy.