Curse

hyori finkl · Feb 09, 2010, 07:08 AM // 07:08

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 · Feb 09, 2010, 07:32 AM // 07:32

/signed
Having several stacks of bones, feathers, iron and glittering dust takes up alot of space.

vandevere · Feb 09, 2010, 07:54 AM // 07:54

/Signed...

This would easy any storage crises by a considerable margin...

Zodiac Meteor · Feb 09, 2010, 09:00 AM // 09:00

/signed, make the cap 1000 instead of 999.

Masmar · Feb 09, 2010, 11:11 AM // 11:11

/signed.
Means i can holds moar ec....glit dust

drkn · Feb 09, 2010, 11:21 AM // 11:21

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 · Feb 09, 2010, 11:58 AM // 11:58

/Signed...very usefull

aspi · Feb 09, 2010, 12:11 PM // 12:11

/signed indeed, I hate the stacks right now. 1000 would be so much better.

Riot Narita · Feb 09, 2010, 01:39 PM // 13:39

/signed

But of course A-Net would never do this - they'd rather sell you new character slots or accounts :-P

Ralisti · Feb 09, 2010, 02:09 PM // 14:09

/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!

rokocoko · Feb 09, 2010, 02:13 PM // 14:13

/signed

More storage space won't hurt anyone.

own age myname · Feb 09, 2010, 02:22 PM // 14:22

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

^this.

But, /signed anyways

Shriketalon · Feb 09, 2010, 03:04 PM // 15:04

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

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.

MagmaRed · Feb 09, 2010, 04:26 PM // 16:26

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).

Not Listing it Here · Feb 09, 2010, 04:36 PM // 16:36

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 · Feb 09, 2010, 04:42 PM // 16:42

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.

Dorny · Feb 09, 2010, 06:10 PM // 18:10

Even though it wont happen, /signed.

Axel Zinfandel · Feb 09, 2010, 06:38 PM // 18:38

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.

Now I can TOTALLY get behind an idea like that. It sounds like less work/memory, but I don't know how hard it would be for them to modify traders to accept the bigger bundle counterpart to materials.

But I dig it. totally.

/signed

Chthon · Feb 09, 2010, 07:06 PM // 19:06

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 · Feb 09, 2010, 08:06 PM // 20:06

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.