Curse

jazilla · Feb 10, 2010, 01:41 AM // 01:41

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

Lawliet Kira · Feb 12, 2010, 01:53 AM // 01:53

they should just take the cap off...no point for it in the first place

own age myname · Feb 12, 2010, 03:49 PM // 15:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawliet Kira

they should just take the cap off...no point for it in the first place

Actually there is a point, it takes less memory for Anet if it's at 250 stack count

FoxBat · Feb 12, 2010, 04:29 PM // 16:29

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.

One of the things that makes the crafting storage so darn efficient is they DONT need an ID for the item. Basically it's a block of memory like this:

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 · Feb 12, 2010, 06:36 PM // 18:36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte

That should give you some insight.

**Marty Silverblade** · Feb 12, 2010, 10:17 PM // 22:17

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 · Feb 12, 2010, 10:49 PM // 22:49

or buy more storage space just like they already provide.

aspi · Feb 14, 2010, 04:59 PM // 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trader of Secrets

or buy more storage space just like they already provide.

I'dd buy if it was 9.99 for all extra not for one extra pane.

Risus · Feb 15, 2010, 12:50 AM // 00:50

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 · Feb 15, 2010, 04:19 PM // 16:19

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!

here's the problem: once you bought all of the panes and run out of room, it becomes useful. If you actually did almost everything in the game, you could see that each char has an extreme variety of weapons/armor they use, alot of collectible items, dyes, tomes. Full tomes takes up a whole pane. Dyes take up over 1/2 a pane. Saving UNID's to sell takes up an ASSLOAD of room. So depending on what you are doing... you need more room. This is just a nice way to save us some with minimal effort.

/Signed

spirit of defeat · Feb 16, 2010, 08:29 AM // 08:29

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

Bob Slydell · Feb 16, 2010, 09:16 AM // 09:16

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.

So thats why the magical number is 250 per stack?

I never thought about this before.

Kurosaki129 · Feb 16, 2010, 10:07 AM // 10:07

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.