Thread: Another way to handle inventory space in Stormblood?

Expanding inventory and Armoury Chest for Stormblood is a good idea, but I doubt it'll be enough. For items we use (like foods, pots, and crafting and gathering mats), the max stacks of each that aren't unique is 99 at a time, and getting more than that fills up another slot. Imo I think it's annoying and I'm not willing to buy more retainers to make more room. I think what they should also do is increase the max stacks of items we can hold at a time from 99 to a higher amount (maybe 999 or 9,999). If they're that high, we might not worry too much about inventory space for awhile imo.

As a crafter, I must say that higher stack limit will only help partially.

While I was leveling my crafters, I need to store a variety of mats for the daily turn-ins unless I want to spend an hour everyday hunting the mats down.

On the other hand, I used to have 3 stacks of Kupo nuts before I turned them into fiber glass, so having 999 as a stack definitely helps.

From a programming perspective, how would increase the stack size affect everything? Does the database suddenly need 10 times more storage? From what little I know, it should be a matter of changing a constant (i.e. stack_size =999), but what do I know really.

Honestly at this point I am waiting to see what the actual inventory increase means. They have been very vague. The only real detail seems to be it is personal inventory, not retainer inventory. Is it just more bags or are they adding extra bags like a tackle box or a materials bag? Currently we have almost nothing to go on.

Lets wait and see how the new inventory expansion looks for Stormblood before we start jumping to new ideas. Perhaps we won't even need more room. But that's wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by Big_Panda

From a programming perspective, how would increase the stack size affect everything? Does the database suddenly need 10 times more storage? From what little I know, it should be a matter of changing a constant (i.e. stack_size =999), but what do I know really.

Well I don't have any knowledge of SE's back end so don't take this as gospel truth.

It shouldn't take any more database resources going from 99 to, say, 250, because generally the smallest variable size used is 1 byte. But any more and you'll need to expand the size of the field in the database that keeps track of stack size. That's for every inventory slot, for every player/retainer, not just once.

Moving away from IT specifics, I'd thought that it was item variety that was eating space, not multiple stacks of the same item. Glamour and omnicrafting mats, etc.

Originally Posted by DarthVella

...
It shouldn't take any more database resources going from 99 to, say, 250, because generally the smallest variable size used is 1 byte. But any more and you'll need to expand the size of the field in the database that keeps track of stack size. That's for every inventory slot, for every player/retainer, not just once.
...

It's possible (but I'd imagine unlikely) that the DB column is numeric (2), which would cap out at 99. The variables in the code could also cap out as small as 127.