Increased Stack Amounts
hyori finkl
I'm not sure if this was already discussed at an earlier date but what about increasing the fixed amount of 250 per stack to lets say 999? I for one would definitely appreciate the extra inventory/storage slots. Maybe this would be an ideal implementation for GW2 as well.
Do A Barrel Roll
/signed
Having several stacks of bones, feathers, iron and glittering dust takes up alot of space.
Having several stacks of bones, feathers, iron and glittering dust takes up alot of space.
vandevere
/Signed...
This would easy any storage crises by a considerable margin...
This would easy any storage crises by a considerable margin...
Zodiac Meteor
/signed, make the cap 1000 instead of 999.
Masmar
/signed.
Means i can holds moar ec....glit dust
Means i can holds moar ec....glit dust
drkn
i wonder if it's just cosmethic or has something to do with the bytes, just 255 per stack looks worse than 250 ;p
we love ectos
/Signed...very usefull
aspi
/signed indeed, I hate the stacks right now. 1000 would be so much better.
Riot Narita
/signed
But of course A-Net would never do this - they'd rather sell you new character slots or accounts :-P
But of course A-Net would never do this - they'd rather sell you new character slots or accounts :-P
Ralisti
/pointless petition
it's a no brainer that everyone would love higher stack sizes so they could horde more stuff
It's 250 for a reason- if you want more storage you have to pay for it
might as well have tons of pointless petitions-
I would like guild wars to let me have Base Defense on my skill bar for all my toons- /SIGNED!
it's a no brainer that everyone would love higher stack sizes so they could horde more stuff
It's 250 for a reason- if you want more storage you have to pay for it
might as well have tons of pointless petitions-
I would like guild wars to let me have Base Defense on my skill bar for all my toons- /SIGNED!
rokocoko
/signed
More storage space won't hurt anyone.
More storage space won't hurt anyone.
own age myname
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Riot Narita
/signed
But of course A-Net would never do this - they'd rather sell you new character slots or accounts :-P |
But, /signed anyways
Shriketalon
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by drkn
i wonder if it's just cosmethic or has something to do with the bytes, just 255 per stack looks worse than 250 ;p
|
In hexadecimal, it takes 8 bits to represent a number up to 256 (2^8). Storage space, via memory, thus goes to 250, because you can represent the number of items in each slot with eight bits.
Your suggestion would basically require 2 more bits per every single stack. While this doesn't sound like much at all, think of it as a 25% increase in the size of memory required, not counting name and other data, to store your stuff. That means more hard drive space dedicated to virtual item memory, hardware which is not in any way, shape, or form free.
MagmaRed
We have Material Storage which holds 250 of every crafting material. We have storage panels (some free, some available for purchase), and we have 2 bags, a belt pouch, and a backpack that can all hold stackable items. Outside of armor, nothing requires more than 250 of an item, and armor is a one time purchase, not like you need to carry those materials around all the time.
Would it be nice? Absolutely. Is it necesary? Absolutely not. And in case you are wondering, I horde materials and collectibles. I have 12 stacks of Dust alone, and that does not include my iron, granite, feathers, cloth, bone, etc. Would I like to be able to stack more than 250? Yes, but I don't NEED to. Due to the possible difficulties with the server support from something like this, I'd rather they put their time/energy into skill balances, bug fixes, and game additions (more Dhuum like updates).
Would it be nice? Absolutely. Is it necesary? Absolutely not. And in case you are wondering, I horde materials and collectibles. I have 12 stacks of Dust alone, and that does not include my iron, granite, feathers, cloth, bone, etc. Would I like to be able to stack more than 250? Yes, but I don't NEED to. Due to the possible difficulties with the server support from something like this, I'd rather they put their time/energy into skill balances, bug fixes, and game additions (more Dhuum like updates).
Not Listing it Here
Would be nice, but I would rather the dev time be spent elsewhere. Like, maybe raising the toon gold limit or storage limit (or both).
gremlin
yes it would be a great improvement but if it would indeed demand more memory to store above 250 then it will not happen, not in GW1 anyway.
I also doubt more storage will come about as I recon they have just about reached the limit of what the majority will pay.
It might be possible to make more things stack as presumably it takes the same memory to store 250 as it does to store 1.
Another option could be to create extra items that stand for multiple items.
There are fireworks rockets sparklers etc and there are also Boxes of fireworks.
So maybe there could be similar groups for other items, 250 wood becomes for instance Timber and you could store 250 timber.
I am sure you clever people could come up with decent names for all the resources in the game.
The material costs of all items you buy or craft would of course need to allow for the new material classes.
So something requiring 500 wood would accept 2 timber etc.
Hope that.snot too crazy an idea.
I also doubt more storage will come about as I recon they have just about reached the limit of what the majority will pay.
It might be possible to make more things stack as presumably it takes the same memory to store 250 as it does to store 1.
Another option could be to create extra items that stand for multiple items.
There are fireworks rockets sparklers etc and there are also Boxes of fireworks.
So maybe there could be similar groups for other items, 250 wood becomes for instance Timber and you could store 250 timber.
I am sure you clever people could come up with decent names for all the resources in the game.
The material costs of all items you buy or craft would of course need to allow for the new material classes.
So something requiring 500 wood would accept 2 timber etc.
Hope that.snot too crazy an idea.
Dorny
Even though it wont happen, /signed.
Axel Zinfandel
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gremlin
yes it would be a great improvement but if it would indeed demand more memory to store above 250 then it will not happen, not in GW1 anyway.
I also doubt more storage will come about as I recon they have just about reached the limit of what the majority will pay. It might be possible to make more things stack as presumably it takes the same memory to store 250 as it does to store 1. Another option could be to create extra items that stand for multiple items. There are fireworks rockets sparklers etc and there are also Boxes of fireworks. So maybe there could be similar groups for other items, 250 wood becomes for instance Timber and you could store 250 timber. I am sure you clever people could come up with decent names for all the resources in the game. The material costs of all items you buy or craft would of course need to allow for the new material classes. So something requiring 500 wood would accept 2 timber etc. Hope that.snot too crazy an idea. |
But I dig it. totally.
/signed
Chthon
Technical restriction. Increasing the amount over 255 would require doubling the space on disk, memory on server, and memory on client required to handle this data. Highly unlikely a-net would do that. Convenient for the player, but unlikely.
REDdelver
Would there any downside to changing the materials storage pane to something like this?
Instead of holding upto 250 of each of 36 crafting materials....what about changing it to where you can store 36 slots of max(250) of crafting materials.
For example. One could 36 stacks of ectos in it then nothing else.
Or you could do 10 stacks of dust, 10 iron, ......and so forth.
I know i have several 0's in my storage of things I never have the need for. SO it would be nice to use those slots to store materials that I do use.
Would this help or would there be any downside that I'm not thinking of atm?
Clarifying : as well as partial stacks of a material, not just full stacks.
Instead of holding upto 250 of each of 36 crafting materials....what about changing it to where you can store 36 slots of max(250) of crafting materials.
For example. One could 36 stacks of ectos in it then nothing else.
Or you could do 10 stacks of dust, 10 iron, ......and so forth.
I know i have several 0's in my storage of things I never have the need for. SO it would be nice to use those slots to store materials that I do use.
Would this help or would there be any downside that I'm not thinking of atm?
Clarifying : as well as partial stacks of a material, not just full stacks.
jazilla
If they won't raise the plat limit a character can hold(besides the fact that a large part of the user base feels that will hurt the economy) i love this idea as an alternative!
/signed
/signed
Lawliet Kira
they should just take the cap off...no point for it in the first place
own age myname
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lawliet Kira
they should just take the cap off...no point for it in the first place
|
FoxBat
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by REDdelver
Instead of holding upto 250 of each of 36 crafting materials....what about changing it to where you can store 36 slots of max(250) of crafting materials.
|
0 120 50 30 200
Since crafting storage is always in the same order, the game can simply interpret this as say 0 wood, 120 iron, 50 fiber, 30 chitin, 200 steel.
If you want different stacks of stuff, you're going to need an extra number to indicate what is being stored for each slot. That needs to hold at least 6 bits for over 32 possible IDs... but knowing Anet they'd probably just round it up to a byte anyway for efficient processing. Basically it would double the amount of memory needed for the same # of slots. (Albeit, it's arguable that half the storage slots with this flexibility would be preferable.)
MithranArkanere
Marty Silverblade
Obivously more storage is good, but since it requires more storage space on the servers, it would cost Anet more. That extra cost would most likely be passed onto the players. Since I don't have any major problems with stacks (I'm not farming obsessed with 10+ stacks of one material), I wouldn't get anything out of this, so /notsigned.
Trader of Secrets
or buy more storage space just like they already provide.
aspi
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trader of Secrets
or buy more storage space just like they already provide.
|
Risus
No, GTFO, only the richest of the rich would have aproblem with a stack of 250. Which no one has characters all stocked full of 250a. You can buy storage panes, you can buy character slots for mule accounts, totalling to 200 in storage space, and 450 spaces with 10 characters. If you need more that 650 spaces, please open a thread in Ventari's Corner and trash some stuff. I gurantee you that the stack of worthless collectable drop will never have any use in the future.
Rekliss
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ralisti
/pointless petition
it's a no brainer that everyone would love higher stack sizes so they could horde more stuff It's 250 for a reason- if you want more storage you have to pay for it might as well have tons of pointless petitions- I would like guild wars to let me have Base Defense on my skill bar for all my toons- /SIGNED! |
/Signed
spirit of defeat
everyone here just wants more stuff.
But why?
You rarely need more then 250, unless you are saving for an armor.
and if you are just use normal storage for the time being.
no need for it.
/not singed
But why?
You rarely need more then 250, unless you are saving for an armor.
and if you are just use normal storage for the time being.
no need for it.
/not singed
Bob Slydell
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shriketalon
Indeed, this is a memory issue.
In hexadecimal, it takes 8 bits to represent a number up to 256 (2^8). Storage space, via memory, thus goes to 250, because you can represent the number of items in each slot with eight bits. Your suggestion would basically require 2 more bits per every single stack. While this doesn't sound like much at all, think of it as a 25% increase in the size of memory required, not counting name and other data, to store your stuff. That means more hard drive space dedicated to virtual item memory, hardware which is not in any way, shape, or form free. |
I never thought about this before.
Kurosaki129
this wouldn't happen at all. Storage Panes are introduced. No reason to increase stack sizing since this means they will lose $ if they increase stack size, and the fact people that would not pay for storage panes once stack size is increased.