Any things you don't like in the 3.0 patch notes?

**Waliel** · 06-18-2015 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by Zfz

It's probably because 99<128, and 128 is one byte. To allow a stack of 999, it will require two bytes to store the quantity, which literally means doubling the storage space needed for every player. But I'm just guessing. It's as likely to be just a design to force people to have inventory problems, as inventory management have always been part of a lot of RPGs.

One byte holds 256 "numbers". Increasing stack size to 200 would not require them to do anything more than increase the limit. Unless they're using signed integers for god knows what reason for item stacks.

Increasing the inventory data by one byte for every registered 4 million users -- let's even say everyone has two characters -- would increase the size needed to store all of the extra invetory by less than seven gigabytes for every account and character combined. And that is only if every character on every account would use all of their extra possible inventory space fully. Inventory space requirements is almost nothing compared to what other data they need to store.

**Grey_Cain** · 06-18-2015 07:29 AM

I figured with what Yoshi had said before that we'd get at least 1 extra free retainer.

[3.0] Level 50 main scenario quests introduced prior to patch 3.0 will now grant experience points upon completion.

It really doesn't affect me, but my interpretation of this is that characters who don't get the expansion won't gain XP from level 50 main quests, so there's the possibility that non-HW characters won't be able to level past 50. Seemed a little odd to me.

* The difficulty of temple leves can only be increased to +1. In the event your character is two or more levels higher than that of the levequest, you will suffer a penalty to rewards.
* Reattempting a large-scale temple leve will require an additional 10 allowances.

Bad enough that the new leves are limited to only +1, but to be penalized for being over-leveled when the spread is just two levels is a bit much.
Also, boo to failed levequests still costing leve allowances the same as if you'd abandoned and grabbed them again from the levemete. What's the point that makes up for random disconnects? Why not allow a trade-in for a new levequest if you find you can't clear the current one?

Originally Posted by Waliel

One byte holds 256 "numbers". Increasing stack size to 200 would not require them to do anything more than increase the limit. Unless they're using signed integers for god knows what reason for item stacks.

Integers are minimum 2 bytes, though, and can have a number up to 32767 (or 65535 for unsigned), so technically increasing the stack size to 999 shouldn't cost any more memory than it's already using. >_> Unless they're numbering by hex, and then that would probably require an extra digit to get above 255 (maybe? I'm not big on hex).

**sanosuke001** · 06-19-2015 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by Grey_Cain

Integers are minimum 2 bytes, though, and can have a number up to 32767 (or 65535 for unsigned), so technically increasing the stack size to 999 shouldn't cost any more memory than it's already using. >_> Unless they're numbering by hex, and then that would probably require an extra digit to get above 255 (maybe? I'm not big on hex).

Bytes are Integers with a max value of 2^8-1 (unsigned)
Shorts are Integers with a max value of 2^16-1 (unsigned)
Ints are Integers with a max value of 2^32-1 (unsigned)
Longs are Integers with a max value of 2^64-1 (unsigned)

There's nothing saying that an "integer" has only one byte or is at minimum two bytes.

Thread: Any things you don't like in the 3.0 patch notes?

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Hybrid View