Architect Archive
Thread: Petition to allow resources to stack higher than 100k
look the arguement that stacking resources beyond the 100k mark will hinder new players is entirely irrelevant.... most new players only have limited access to storage anyway, why cripple them further by not allowing this. We had a great spawn on solid petro on Ahazi 971OQ... I run my guild harvesters and I also received contracts for 2million units. I picked up over 5million units before it despawned. I assure you this only had minimal impact on my storehouses. Life for me would be alot more prganized f I could stack more than 100k per. If it does not happen I will always be able to make arrangements anyway,
btw I did sign
Abominable-TCO wrote:
Whether or not they stack to a million units ppl will harvest large quantities anyway as there are always ways of storing more! The only difference is that one way causes players to go to extreme measure to find additionaly storage the other reduces the amount of identical things we need to store. 6 BER10 harv's on a good% can pulling 500k odd of resources and its annoying that one then has to store 5 or more objects of exactly the same thing!
Dodece wrote:
The problem is this I will give an example recently on sunrunner we got a super osterine deposit 982 oq. Needless to say it might not get this high for another six months. Now if you let stacks be a million units. I would guarantee people would do it. I stocked 160 k of this material. Now if you had a million units of this material. You will never run out, and you wil have an infinite edge. This is not about the combats. This is about fairness in crafting. A entrenched crafter should have an edge. Nobody will argue that, but a insumountable edge is not a good one. People that enter a crafting profession should have a chance to catch up. With limitless supplies of a perfect resource this is not likely. You want it to be hard not impossible. Is it really fair that a 3 month mws should have no chance at all against a 9 month mws.
Also this is part of what makes the economy even more dynamic. You can actually run out of resources. Forces you to assess where to apply them to greatest effect. Forces you to reason out which resource needs the greater attention. It is part of the fun three good resources spawn. Where should you commit the harvesters. One is not great but you need it. One is only needed for one gun, and another is a key ingredient. Where do you want to put those harvesters
Component stacking would have the same problem. You would just dump all of a resource in a needed component, and endround space concerns. The system as is will not allow one person to just own the market. Which is quite reasonable.
The only thing that I see that really needs stacking is the themepark rewards, and items like krayt tissue. Just for ease sake.
100% agreed. I understand the logic and agree behind the general thrust that this might be unfair to new crafters by allowing further entrenchment but I do not think increasing stack size would cause a shift in this area. I doubt there has ever been a time a great resource has spawned that anyone limited their pull because they were worried about where to put it. If it supercedes a previous resource you can liquidate the old stockpile to free up space. If 950+ Cd and OQ copper hits the deck none of us will think "I shall only get 200k as I have limited storage" - we'll dredge up tons and MAKE room. Once on my server 1000OQ polymer spawned and someone ordered 5 million units. 50 stacks. I doubt he would have ordered any more if he could get them in larger chunks.
Additionally this would I believe help solve database loads. As far as I am concerned they should limit the stack based on the variable type assigned to keep track of it in the database (if that's how the paradigm is). So if a double is being used to store it, then make it cap out at a double, rather creating and multiplying deadspace.
They increased stack sizes from Beta, and they need to do it again. Sign the petition! Its the 2nd largest one in the core systems now!
I remember, but it was stacks of 250.....
If the Dev's want to reduce database storage, they need to let factory crates stack to 1000. I'm tired of needing 4 houses and 3 factories to store all of my component crates needed to craft.....
Manipulative wrote:
In a word: NO
Players do not need hundreds of millions of units of resources. I have probably4 million units of resources on hand right now. That really is a lot, but it doesn't consume that much of even one of my acct's storage space.
If a player can't figure out a way to make the 150+100+100 inventory slots available to them from a medium house, their bank, and their person, (350 slots is 350 Million resource units!), they have a problem.
Just because you have a small unimaginative business and don't understand why others thrive on the economy shouldn't limit everyone else. I burn through 2 million units of ore a week, minimum. and 350 million units is not comparable with a freaking CDEF pistol uses the same storage as a 100k stack of duralloy.
Players do need a lot more storage, the database needs intelligent usage to overcome limitations set in live because of knee-jerk reactions to a few exploters. I have well over 40 million unitsof resources on average and no problem using them as fast as I can get them. Setting down houses just means more overhead for me and less fun.
No ambition players really ruin the game for those with some and give the devs excuses not to make this game playable. I guess you're in the IDers need 1 hour timers corner too, huh?