Architect Archive
Thread: Please voice your support for increased resource stacks and crate sizes.
Savauge
Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:17 am
#53
I fully support crate sizes all 100 each for every item in the game. Standardize the crates - and help us limit the "lack of inventory space" 
The Devs have said crates are easier on their database - so maybe they'll do it
The Devs have said crates are easier on their database - so maybe they'll do it Larger resource stacks would be nice and help on inventory as well, but not as important to me as fixing the crate standardization.
Emeraldkp
Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:21 pm
#54
I just want to get this straight, TH said NO to resource size stacks but didn't reject the crates idea, right?
The resource size stacks are debatable, but the crate sizes should definiltey be bigger. And the OMU crates?? That should be easy to fix. We should push forbiggercrates (or crates at allfor OMUs)first and get it out of the way.
And to the guy who said 1000 schem limit is a bug, I don't think so. It used to be 100, then the devs intentionally changed it to 1000 and put that in the patch update notes.
Far more reasonable to Archs. I mean how can we factory produce Heavy harvesters otherwise? Even with 1000, we can only make 13 Heavy minerals at a time 
Bah, far more reasonable for every crafting profession... for reasons too numerable to list here
Happymob
Sun Jun 20, 2004 3:55 pm
#55
If the reason to limit resource stack size (and crate size for that matter) is to prevent hoarding, they could still increase the stack sizes, but make larger stacks take up more inventory space. Make a stack of 101K to 200K units take up 2 slots. Make a stack of 201K to 300K units take up 3 slots. We don't gain anything as far as storage is concerned, but we do gain a lot of convenience. The same could be done with crates. If the normal crate size for a component is 5, then a crate of 50 would take 10 inventory slots.
I know it doesn't address what many people consider the key issue (storage), but it adds a huge amount of convenience without any real downside except for the coding involved.
Pawlin
Sun Jun 20, 2004 6:01 pm
#56
Emeraldkp wrote:
I just want to get this straight, TH said NO to resource size stacks but didn't reject the crates idea, right?...
Ya that is how his answer sounded to me.
Veers_Intrepid
Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:39 am
#57
Mor-Dan wrote:
i was once a foremost architect on my server, so i know how much space this all takes, but no one was ever meant to run 1000 count schems. it is a bug, and one they have graciously left in. if you keep pushing, if you don't let this die, you could find yourself with a schematic 1/10th of it's previous size.
/burns this petition
sorry you are totally wrong on that!
yes at start the factory limit was 100 items and a bug let us make 1000. BUT then the devs patched it and set the limit intentionally to 1000 per shematic.
so in current state its NOT a bug and its working as intended.
khamafeu
Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:56 am
#58
khamafeu wrote:
100K stacks are not enouhg? Plz guys...
A month ago I mined 1mil units of Dimekaine, the great steel that popped... it takes 10 units of storage... 1 more than a composite armor... As it stands you can have 15 mil units in a small house, how is that not enough?
I'll not sign this petition.
Arianrhod
RotorofCorRng wrote:
Cross server lot trading sucks and it is an unfair advantage over those that dont have the time or are new. I hope they make it impossible for you guys that take such advantage of an obvious unintentional way to overpower a portion of the game.
Message Edited by RotorofCorRng on 06-09-2004 06:27 AM
You both are the type of player that just irritate me. This statement would be the same for combat or any other prof. Just insert "I can't fiigure out how to do it and I don't want to so I think you should be nerfed".
He is not taking advantage of anything. He is playing within the rules. You may not like those rules, but they are what they are. Instead of developing market forces to counter an activity you dislike you call it "taking advantage". I'm sure you'd vote no against Wal-Marts too.
Resource stacking would help people consolidate management and saave enormous overhead on server loads for the Oracle database. This, combined with changes to vendors for batch posting would easily reduce lag issues for everybody.
Fivo Asia
Well yes I don't know how to inlclude prevous messages in my replies...
Well me and afriend run a business of 28 harvesters, we extract about 300K units per day... that is like 3 new items... UAU!!!! 3 new items a day, fantastic! Where am I gonna put them.. how about this R2 Taking3 days of mining? Sounds bad... 100K stacks are fine. If you wish to hoard than deal with storage issues... simple. For the Crate size thing I can think of no reason not to have crates in an uniform fashion... Crate sizes equal I'm with you, 25 for all seems nice! I guess the different crate sizes come from the initial volume idea. I think this games needed something like volume to keep it balanced, I'm sure no one thinks it's a natural thing when a compo armor or 900K resouces mean the same storage space? or a candle and a structural factory?
This therad is about want a boost, not about askign for a nerf... so please Fivo Asia read before reply...
Arianrhod
Cafa
Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:15 am
#59
khamafeu wrote:
khamafeu wrote:
100K stacks are not enouhg? Plz guys...
A month ago I mined 1mil units of Dimekaine, the great steel that popped... it takes 10 units of storage... 1 more than a composite armor... As it stands you can have 15 mil units in a small house, how is that not enough?
I'll not sign this petition.
Arianrhod
RotorofCorRng wrote:
Cross server lot trading sucks and it is an unfair advantage over those that dont have the time or are new. I hope they make it impossible for you guys that take such advantage of an obvious unintentional way to overpower a portion of the game.
Message Edited by RotorofCorRng on 06-09-2004 06:27 AM
You both are the type of player that just irritate me. This statement would be the same for combat or any other prof. Just insert "I can't fiigure out how to do it and I don't want to so I think you should be nerfed".
He is not taking advantage of anything. He is playing within the rules. You may not like those rules, but they are what they are. Instead of developing market forces to counter an activity you dislike you call it "taking advantage". I'm sure you'd vote no against Wal-Marts too.
Resource stacking would help people consolidate management and saave enormous overhead on server loads for the Oracle database. This, combined with changes to vendors for batch posting would easily reduce lag issues for everybody.
Fivo Asia
Well yes I don't know how to inlclude prevous messages in my replies...
Well me and afriend run a business of 28 harvesters, we extract about 300K units per day... that is like 3 new items... UAU!!!! 3 new items a day, fantastic! Where am I gonna put them.. how about this R2 Taking3 days of mining? Sounds bad... 100K stacks are fine. If you wish to hoard than deal with storage issues... simple. For the Crate size thing I can think of no reason not to have crates in an uniform fashion... Crate sizes equal I'm with you, 25 for all seems nice! I guess the different crate sizes come from the initial volume idea. I think this games needed something like volume to keep it balanced, I'm sure no one thinks it's a natural thing when a compo armor or 900K resouces mean the same storage space? or a candle and a structural factory?
This therad is about want a boost, not about askign for a nerf... so please Fivo Asia read before reply...
Arianrhod
I read just fine. Apparently logic has no consideration in your fantasy world.
100K stacks are 800% more wasteful on the server than 1000k stacks. If you don't understand Oracle storage methodologies I can refer you to some good sources, but I am not going to provide training for someone that apparently only thinks of themselves. Of course, since you are FINE with lag, FINE with vendor lag, FINE with missions not paying out and FINE with rollbacks then I guess you could give a crap. But the sheer idiocy of bandwidth and storage reductions by at LEAST 800% that would help improve overall throughput and storage retrieval mean improving my gameplay and the gameplay of all players.
Your span of control does not mean that we have to limit our efforts to the same sphere.
Fivo Asia
Huntercrom
Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:27 am
#60
Ok, let me get this straight.
1: They do NOT want to increase stack sizes of resources
2: They want to keep the vendors from being storage devices
3: They will, EVENTUALLY, look into the crating of items, i.e. OMU's
4: We have to use TONS of Carb Ore just to make some of our items, i.e. Large Harvesters
5: Lot vs. Items for storage is low
6: Server Database is overloaded with stuff (An early complaint by the Dev's themselves)
Yet, with all of what is listed above, we seem to have people that think, increasing the stack size of resources from 100k to 1 million units, i.e. Current Stack size x 10, would be a bad thing, and this is to include TH and the Dev's. Hmm..
1st off, they don't want us to use the vendors as storage devices.
My Reply: Increasing the Stack size would decrease the amount of items I have in my house, thus, decreasing the number of items I need to store all together. What this does is allows me to harvest more of the needed resources and I'll be able to use up less storage, thus reducing the amount of storage I need from 'Other' sources. Meaning, I could take down one of my vendors that I use for storage, take down a few of my houses I use as storage, freeing up some valuable Database elements, thus decreasing the lag on the database as well. If this isn't a win/win situation, I don't know what is. I get 1 thing from this, and the Dev's and the game get several. The return of Vendors to their original job, selling stuff. The Decrease in Database storage as well, thus freeing up room for more garbage to be collected from all the 'NEW' content being put into the game from the Dev's.
2: The eventual crating of OMU's.
My Reply: Thanks for finally doing something that should have been done a year ago. However, my question to this is, WHY DID WE HAVE TO WAIT SO LONG FOR IT? That is of course if they truly intend to do just that. I, personally, think it's just a throw off to keep us quiet for a while. They give us a promise to 'look into it' and that's as far as it goes. When it happens, I'll be happy, but I'm not going to get to worked up over it until it does.
3: The fact that we need so much Carb Ore and our Storage vs. Lots used is to low.
My Reply: I'm hitting this two-fold here. A normal Architect will use 3 to 1 Carb Ore. Meaning, for every 100k units of ANY other material he uses, he needs roughly 300k of Carb Ore. So, with just those numbers, you are already using 4 units of storage in a 150 unit house. Now, go make yourself some OMU's, Some Wall units, some Generator Turbines and a few other various items that you'll need so that you can fill out orders.
You'll have used up your 150 units of storage just getting to the point of being able to make massive amounts of harvesters.
You then have 50 items of storage in a personal, equipped, backpack. You have 60 units of storage on your personal inventory. You have 100 units of storage in your bank deposit box. But by the time you are capable of being able to make these harvesters, you'll have eaten most of that up too. WHY? Because OMU's don't crate, resources stack to 100k, other items crate way to low, i.e. 5 items per crate, meaning more crates, meaning more storage.
Your resources are going to need to be replaced, meaning more storage.
Sheesh.. I won't continue with this, I'll only confuse you more. Anyway, suffice it to say that we could reduce alot of our storage with just one simple thing. Increasing our Stack size from 100k to 1 million units. I
_______
The think it would cause griefing and economy down turns by allowing resources to crate to 1 million. I don't see how. I honestly don't.
They think that only big Cities or PA's would be able to control the resource market because 1 million units selling at a time. Sorry, but that even happens now, with 100k stack. I've seen it on my trade forums. SELLING 1 MILLION UNITS OF POS STEEL. bah, they don't know what it will do to the economy until they try it. I think it'll be a more positive solution.
The only other solution I think that would allieviate this, is to allow us to use our 'Furniture' as intended. Such as Trunks. Why can't we have 20 units of storage per trunk, or heck, even 50 units. But, have it only count as one unit in the house? Don't tell me they can't do it, because they can. Look at Unlocked Containers for heaven's sake. While still unlocked, they only count as ONE item in your house, although once unlocked, they can have several items in them. Interesting isn't it? So why can't they do that with trunks? Make a locking mechanism for them, and allow us to put items in it, lock it, then the trunk only counts as 1 item, even though it is holding 20 items inside of it. The server already accounts for this now with said locked containers, so why can't they just put the trunks in the same code, with a lock and unlock mechanism to it? It'll increase our storage capacity within our houses by doing this.
If we can't have increased stack sizes, then we need to be able to store items in 'lockable' trunks, and utilize the locked container coding for it as well.
jacnz
Fri Jun 25, 2004 5:05 am
#61
Hi all,
When I did architect the first time, stack sizes were not too much of an issue for me, as a solo player and with the low BER of harvs then I never really accumulated much resource.
As I got more into architect and started to need factories, storage etc. I really started to notice how the low levels in crates had a huge impact on my ability to produce. I ended up hiring a miner because I ran out of lots for mining and needed more resource than I could get myself.
I helped upgrade the miner harvs from 18 medium to 18 heavy (BER 4 to BER 7 in those days) and the biggest problem I had was crate storage and resource storage (because of all the crates) to get this done.
It actually took 3 weeks to build these and I was using all the storage I had to do it, I had two factories, 2 houses and the final 2 lots running harvs (for gas, copper Al etc.). Note, this was in the days of redeeding factories between runs so they could not be used for storage.
Now I have two accounts, my alt is a master merchant and artisan and I have just returned to master architect. Now with BER 10 and 13 harvs it's great for resource gathering but where do you put it!!! the requirement for storage just for components has gone up (some more items to craft) but now you can gather far more resource than before (this is what the Dev's intended with high BER right?!).
I am currently running up some high quality lights in my factory, 100 of each type, and got a rude shock when the crates only held 10 items!!!
I am not a casual player, but not super hardcore either, so I tend to try and do fairly big runs so I can drip feed the vendors as needed instead of being in a constant crafting to stock because I can't store loop.
Add to this the need for high stat resources which you must get in quantity when they appear and resource storage becomes a problem too. As some resources are rare and high stats are needed you must stockpile when the stuff is available, this adds to the storage preasure.
Add to this that you really must do high BER harvs in factories, and there is a real need to have and store ore/metal in bulk. And they wonder why we use factories and vendors for storage. They gave us higher harvest rates, this WILL means more items crafted so must have been the intent. But where do we put them all?
Bigger stacks, more items in crates? YES! /sign /a.s.a.p. please!
When I did architect the first time, stack sizes were not too much of an issue for me, as a solo player and with the low BER of harvs then I never really accumulated much resource.
As I got more into architect and started to need factories, storage etc. I really started to notice how the low levels in crates had a huge impact on my ability to produce. I ended up hiring a miner because I ran out of lots for mining and needed more resource than I could get myself.
I helped upgrade the miner harvs from 18 medium to 18 heavy (BER 4 to BER 7 in those days) and the biggest problem I had was crate storage and resource storage (because of all the crates) to get this done.
It actually took 3 weeks to build these and I was using all the storage I had to do it, I had two factories, 2 houses and the final 2 lots running harvs (for gas, copper Al etc.). Note, this was in the days of redeeding factories between runs so they could not be used for storage.
Now I have two accounts, my alt is a master merchant and artisan and I have just returned to master architect. Now with BER 10 and 13 harvs it's great for resource gathering but where do you put it!!! the requirement for storage just for components has gone up (some more items to craft) but now you can gather far more resource than before (this is what the Dev's intended with high BER right?!).
I am currently running up some high quality lights in my factory, 100 of each type, and got a rude shock when the crates only held 10 items!!!
I am not a casual player, but not super hardcore either, so I tend to try and do fairly big runs so I can drip feed the vendors as needed instead of being in a constant crafting to stock because I can't store loop.
Add to this the need for high stat resources which you must get in quantity when they appear and resource storage becomes a problem too. As some resources are rare and high stats are needed you must stockpile when the stuff is available, this adds to the storage preasure.
Add to this that you really must do high BER harvs in factories, and there is a real need to have and store ore/metal in bulk. And they wonder why we use factories and vendors for storage. They gave us higher harvest rates, this WILL means more items crafted so must have been the intent. But where do we put them all?
Bigger stacks, more items in crates? YES! /sign /a.s.a.p. please!
Fneegan
Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:04 am
#62
I'd like to say YES - but I'm gonna have to hold back and say NO. Just to be the devil's advocate.
Everything HAS to have LIMITATIONS - that's all there is to it.
If we ask for stacks of 500, then we'll want 1000k.If we could do it for this - then we'll want it for that.Things should be manageable with:
+ 10 lots
+ Having houses, factories, droids and banks (vendors)for storage
+ 100k stacks
It's not all about making a gazillion dollars a week or who has the most toys.
I'm sure, all of this was thought of (or maybe they were just lucky guesses) to reduce hoarding etc....
Could you imagine if that were so?Not only would crafters be competingbut competing with many MOREwho have amassed LARGE amounts of crafted items and resources. Now, you can run into a crafting profession, accumulate a year's worth of assets, drop your crafting profession for others and continue selling as if you've never left the profession. It be so easy to hold on to a 500k or 1000k of HIGH qual resource(s) to let it sit and mature and bring up the cost of it whenever you wanted to intoduce it to the market.....
Vocalese6
Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:56 am
#63
I'm unsure how much the developers pay attention to Architecrts, but I do want to voice my support for this proposal.
* OMUs take up too much space. These MUST be thrown in a crate. There is no valid reason for them not to be.
* 100K stacks take up too much space in our inventories as well as (I'm guessing here) the SWG database. (The flat "No" by TH to paying customers is a bit disheartining to say the least)
* Someone said that archs should just "deal with" having only 10 lots. Why? Our factories take up 2 lots. We HAVE to harvest enromous amounts of LG Ore (which rarely is found in concentrations above 60%) so that means the majority of lots is on ore. In turn, we become slaves to the unofficial "miners". And where are we supposed to live? Oh yeah, that one lot Naboo house... Isn't that great...
For the last point I'm speaking of people like me who have no alt, and no cross-server lot trades.
There must ALWAYS be limitiations, but make limitations that make sense. Not limitations just for the sake of having them.
firennice
Sat Jun 26, 2004 7:59 am
#64
Give up on it.....unsticky this post....and lets move on with life.
The developers didnt just say "we are not sure"
they said "hell no!"
i tend to agree. i have been an architect approaching a year.. I have had no trouble. If you have that many resources use them or quit mining. between vendor, homes, factories. there is no need for a billion resources. It is just laying around using memory.
lets find something to push them on that they have not given an answer
we spend too much time on this board waisting keystrokes on stupid/impossible ideas.
Lendara
Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:37 pm
#65
I just would like it that all crate sizes are identical. (25 or 50) and not 10,25,50....