Curse

Shayne Hawke · Mar 29, 2008, 02:46 AM // 02:46

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.

/signed for increased stack cap unless that quote is true. I'd rather stay at 250 than be treated to free lag bombs.

Div · Mar 29, 2008, 09:23 AM // 09:23

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.

Solas · Mar 29, 2008, 11:39 AM // 11:39

/not-signed

250 is enough to buy armor or fill some requirements

Omnidragon42 · Mar 29, 2008, 12:06 PM // 12:06

/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.

Phoenix Tears · Mar 29, 2008, 12:21 PM // 12:21

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.

hmm, thx for the explanation. But has made anet really not enough money over 3 years now, to increase the efficience of the servers, so that they can give us more storage >.>

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 · Mar 30, 2008, 02:04 AM // 02:04

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.

MithranArkanere · Mar 30, 2008, 02:58 AM // 02:58

Exactly. The problem with storage is solved by eliminating the need of storage with traders and unlocking of items.

Kanyatta · Mar 30, 2008, 04:50 AM // 04:50

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.

killing strife · Apr 03, 2008, 06:32 PM // 18:32

i agree. Stack size should improve/be bigger. Also more items should be stackable, like inscriptions ;o)

Dronte · Apr 03, 2008, 06:50 PM // 18:50

999 simply sounds bad
Make it 500, and I'm happy.