Please allow stacking to 200 for all crafts!

xillix666

We the crafting community need our space and please compliment your 200 count stacking change for Enchanting for the other crafts (it would only be fair and awesome).

We are at the point of the game where many many months have gone by and many many banks and bag spaces are being filled, please help remedy this, and let's see some more 200 stacks.

Thank you,
Xillix

Ourorboros

Yeah, it seems nice to be able to stack to 200. Before the patch that allowed this, potency runes only stacked to 20. I think the 200 stacks were an accident when that was fixed. I would not complain if it stayed that way, but until something official verifies 200 stacks, I'm keeping my stacks split at 100. The last thing I want is a stack of 200 high value runes to disappear after a corrective patch, never to be seen again.

xillix666

I would just love to be able to save some bag/bank space as I did with enchanting with my provisioning, all trait stones, etc.

Also, the patch notes officially said you could get 200 stacks when the 20 stacks were fixed. I have not had any disappearing runes or issues since, and it was not any accident, they are still all stacking to 200.

Gyudan

I would love to see this implemented. The thousands of flowers in my inventory agree too.

Please help.

zhevon

xillix666 wrote: »

I would just love to be able to save some bag/bank space as I did with enchanting with my provisioning, all trait stones, etc.

Also, the patch notes officially said you could get 200 stacks when the 20 stacks were fixed. I have not had any disappearing runes or issues since, and it was not any accident, they are still all stacking to 200.

Edit : missed this comment and original patch notes - pretty much says it all. They should make it for all crafts.

Kalman

Why stop at 200? Just make it 999 for all items that can stack and call it a day .

xillix666

Kalman wrote: »

Why stop at 200? Just make it 999 for all items that can stack and call it a day .

One could dream, but I agree, with all the limited space we are able to have, 999 would be ideal but baby steps is all we ask.

Gyudan wrote: »

I would love to see this implemented. The thousands of flowers in my inventory agree too.

Please help.

Exaclty my point, also would make it fair for all crafters to be able to stack to 200 not just enchanting. Saved me over 60 spaces on my enchanting mule and the mats just keep on adding up as the game grows.

xillix666

Let's see some more support on this feedback request!

okraus

999 - it should be

æxæ

+1 for 999, also for forward camps, siege warfare, identical weapons, armor, jewelry, basically everything to cut this short before anyone starts a new request.

Marthenil

Gyudan wrote: »

I would love to see this implemented. The thousands of flowers in my inventory agree too.

Please help.

So THAT's what you're doing when not in Trials

Me, I wouldn't know, I never got to get that many mats, and I usually sell off everything after I'm done farming/roaming/whatever.

My inventory is full constantly, yeah, but mostly by those useless epics/rares that just won't stop dropping

But inventory management in ESO is tedious to say the least, so every little bit helps. I love the idea.

Ninnghizhidda

Increasing the stack size would be great, and in effect would be like increasing the actual inventory size, even if it would only affect items that can be stacked. Also, a stack size of 1000 would not be unrealistic.

Black_Wolf88

a stack of 1000 for all materials regarding crafting would be awesome. even 500 would be good. due to limited bank space and the need to master all crafting professions makes the need for 1000 pr stack.

Kalman

Depending on how the database and variables are configured a change from the 3 digit to a 4 digit value can be a monumental task. That is why I said 999 and not 1000. To make even and divisible by 10 they could just do 900 pretty easy instead of 999.

zhevon

Kalman wrote: »

Depending on how the database and variables are configured a change from the 3 digit to a 4 digit value can be a monumental task. That is why I said 999 and not 1000. To make even and divisible by 10 they could just do 900 pretty easy instead of 999.

The stack size could also be configured by storage size - so if they only have a byte storage - you would be limited to 128 or 256 depending if signed or unsigned. We would hope they would choose unsigned, but mistakes do happen. So if 200 might actually be the nice rounded off limit that they currently support without DB rearrangement.

You are right futzing around with DBs can be a monumental task. Just by the fact that all runes went to 200 instead of 100 is an indication that something odd planned or unplanned was going on.

Origin

Kalman wrote: »

Depending on how the database and variables are configured a change from the 3 digit to a 4 digit value can be a monumental task. That is why I said 999 and not 1000. To make even and divisible by 10 they could just do 900 pretty easy instead of 999.

I don't think that we are talking here about technical limitations. The numeric data type, for ex. for an Oracle database having a field defined as 'NUMBER' allows storing numbers:

• Positive numbers in the range 1 x 10-130 to 9.99...9 x 10^125 with up to 38 significant digits
• Negative numbers from -1 x 10-130 to 9.99...99 x 10^125 with up to 38 significant digits
• zero

And this is a very large number.

In the case a numeric field is defined in a table with precision and thus limiting the numbers stored in that field to a maximum fixed number of digits - for example 'NUMERIC(3)' will accept positive numbers up to 999 - the field will have to be modified in order to store larger numbers.

However, altering a table field in order to increase its size it is a very simple task in Oracle. Doesn't even require a DB downtime.
Additionally the application that is accessing the DB would need to be checked and the size of variables that are using the field values have to updated if the case.

Also the additional disk space needed after increasing a numeric field size from 3 to 4 is 1 byte for an Oracle database per each record, which is very small, even for millions of records for the today's enterprise grade storage systems.

However, a good DB design would consider from the start the needs to grow in the future and these limitation would be then avoided. It might be that the ESO game database is poorly designed and I do suspect that there are some problems here considering the access issues to the guild bank and store.

Most likely the limitation is intended to force the players to sink gold in game in inventory upgrade.

Mystmare

+1 for 999 or 1000 whateva ^^ for all items (including identical armor, weapons, etc.)

xillix666

I couldn't agree more, simple task, just has to be done for every item and presto, make 100% of the community happy instantaneously and saves them a lot of data because instead of having 100 separate stacks, one can just have 1.

Suru

SAVE MY BANK! from my stacks of thistle and wormwood ._.

xillix666

You can always send them to me... but a better idea would be to stack them in higher denominations, yes?

Darthryan

Gyudan wrote: »

I would love to see this implemented. The thousands of flowers in my inventory agree too.

Please help.

Botting or just from hoarding?lol

xillix666

Darthryan wrote: »

Gyudan wrote: »

I would love to see this implemented. The thousands of flowers in my inventory agree too.

Please help.

Botting or just from hoarding?lol

Please keep it on topic, and accusing someone of botting, really? He's clearly a hoarder, and as we all are as crafters, everyone in our guild and friends sends us stuff to keep and make, but we lack the room to store it.

Free us from hoarding and increase the stack size... but in all seriousness this needs to be done, we play a P2P game not a F2P. I don't understand why the space system in this game is so limited and costly, and items cannot stack, that just seems like poor design. Normally a wizard would have a home with stocks and stocks of alchemic materials...