Guild Wars 2

This is probably one of my biggest issues with the game at the moment.

Why does the collection tab only stack up to 250? it shouldn’t have a limit on it really, and if it has to, it should at least be 1000 (especially with all these 1k upgraded items we get lately)

My bank and bags are just full of everything that I want to keep in case they are needed at any time. I have stacks and stacks of cloth and leather but I want to keep it all because I will no doubt need stupid amounts of it when we get ascended armour crafting.

The only reason I can see why they put a stack limit on it is because they want your bank/inventory to fill up so you will buy more bag and bank slots from the gem store.

I have 5 bank tabs, a personal guild bank and 5 20 slot bags and still never have room for anything, and don’t even get me started on bloodstone dust…

So yeah, I wish they would just remove, or at the least increase the collections limit.

I’ve been willing since the public beta tests to pay gems for increasing the stack limit.

I’ve seen aspects of this suggestion a few dozen times, so I’m sure that it’s not in the game because (a) it’s technically more complicated than it sounds and/or (b) because it would have a profound negative impact on the economy, e.g. drastically reducing supplies of certain collectibles or giving (yet) another advantage to hoarders.

Increase to 1k would be perfect. The wallet made unlimited collections of dungeon tokens and other things clogging the bank, but the collection tab is still a source of frustration. Increase to 1k would be simple and effective.

I did think at first it might have been a technical problem on server and data load because everything you own in the bank/bags is basically stored on their servers, but I can’t see how that would make a different because I’m still holding the same amount of items, they are just all split in stacks all over the place (which in fact would likely cause more stress on the data servers than just having 1 stack count)

Also, that same thing counters your comment of having a negative effect on economy, again this wouldn’t effect it because I’ve still got the same amount of stacks, it’s not like if they increase the stack limit I will have more of them, I already have loads they are just taking up 30+ slots instead of one.

So I’m not really sure why this can’t be changed, again like I said in the first post the only reason I can think of why they wouldn’t do this is because they want people to buy bag slots and extra bank tabs. Because if your items are taking up less space then there is less chance you will buy a bank tab.

Whitey.6185:

Also, that same thing counters your comment of having a negative effect on economy, again this wouldn’t effect it because I’ve still got the same amount of stacks, it’s not like if they increase the stack limit I will have more of them, I already have loads they are just taking up 30+ slots instead of one.

So I’m not really sure why this can’t be changed, again like I said in the first post the only reason I can think of why they wouldn’t do this is because they want people to buy bag slots and extra bank tabs. Because if your items are taking up less space then there is less chance you will buy a bank tab.

Well some people (at least I do) store up until I hit max then I’ll either
1) refine until that’s max
2) put it in an inventory slot and start storing again
3) sell any extra on the tp

So I can see how increasing the stack size could lower the supply (at least initially) and raising prices.

Around the anniversary data miners did find an item that would increase the stack limit in your bank by 250 (no clue if that was a one time use thing or if it was stackable). So, Anet did at least think about it. They are either waiting to implement it or have decided to scrap the idea for whatever reason.

I agree. the 250 limit is a joke
especially when you have the items that require 1k-10k items to make them.. im looking at you Candy Corn

It’s not rocket science here, it’s about money. If they increased the max, less people would pay (real money) for bank expansions…it’s that simple.

The real issue is that there are items that require over 250 of an item to make. That just shouldn’t happen in a non-grindy game.

Leamas.5803:

It’s not rocket science here, it’s about money. If they increased the max, less people would pay (real money) for bank expansions…it’s that simple.

People will full bank and character bag expansions (me) would also pay for this feature. I even made a Bank guild to store some of my mats that is overflowing, it’s not about having more storage, as I will always ind a way to store my excess needs, I just rather have a neat way to store all my stuff. If this were wnother game and add-ons were available that auto organised based on a set parameters and auto “stacked” my stuff, I would care less how messy my bank and backpack tabs are, but since there isn’t one, it would be awesome to have this feature offered by Anet.

Havvy.4897:

The real issue is that there are items that require over 250 of an item to make. That just shouldn’t happen in a non-grindy game.

Cannot agree more.

Just reduce the materials requirements for many crafted items will go a long way to fixing this problem, and it will also have the added benefit of making the world and players more enjoyable to be around rather than this ‘train/kill/rush rush/obsession that’s going on. It’s quite sad.

Leamas.5803:

It’s not rocket science here, it’s about money. If they increased the max, less people would pay (real money) for bank expansions…it’s that simple.

Yup just more junk to collect, and less things to do with it, more and more account bound stuff, no options to sell it, just destroy it seems the only option.

They obviously have a “business plan” to make as much money as possible.

i guess its how data is stored

1 byte = 8 bit can have max 256 and 256 looks ugly so it is 250^^

to rise this cap they need to make more room on there servers and this is a lot money – its not just a number^^

but i agree it would be nice to have more – i even would pay gems for it like 800 for 250 more up to an cap from 10x or something like this

Just an idea…but perhaps the limit is to induce more trading in the market?

If you have more than the 250 stack, I assume people will just sell the surplus. Supply>demand means low prices for those that don’t have surplus. If people could hoard all their loot drops, then the only feasible ways of obtaining them are buying (expensive since now demand>supply) or farming yourself (which GW2 tries to steer away from).

It’s because of server limitations. 1 byte can have 256 ‘items’ stored in it, meaning that every stack you have only takes up 1 byte of server space. Were they to increase it, it would put a lot more pressure on their servers.

In fact, if you break the 256 limit, you’ll break the game. Fun story: there was a bug in GW1 where you could use heroes and disconnects to get a bigger party than normal. The highest I ever went with it was making a 20/8 party, but someone I know actually tried to go higher and higher. When he reached a 255/8 party, his game crashed.

TL;DR: it’s never going to happen due to server limitations.

Romek.4201:

i guess its how data is stored

1 byte = 8 bit can have max 256 and 256 looks ugly so it is 250^^

to rise this cap they need to make more room on there servers and this is a lot money – its not just a number^^

but i agree it would be nice to have more – i even would pay gems for it like 800 for 250 more up to an cap from 10x or something like this

Likely this.

And adding more to the stack wouldn’t really solve the problem, you would still be capped at max, only now you would have 1000 in your bank rather than 250.

With how much memory is in computers these days and hard drive space is so cheap it might as well be free how many people honestly believe it’s a memory/space issue? It’s not like all this stuff is kept in server memory, only the session will be kept in server memory and only while you’re playing and everything else will be loaded down to the client PC memory at start up. This is the only possible way it could be done. The player profile, and everything therein, including the inventory items WILL be stored on the server hard disk storage array, but I would be surprised if it was anything but a single file containing numbers.

So let’s assume there is the 1 byte limit. How much memory do most computers have these days? I venture most have at least 16G, where gaming machines will usually have more like 32G or more. There are 1000bytes in a kilobyte and 1000kilobytes in a megabyte and 1000megabytes in a gigabyte and if a machine has 16gigabytes of RAM, and GW2 uses 800M of that, it is 800,000,000 bytes (This is how much it uses on my laptop). At most people can have a few hundred stacks of stuff with a fully expanded bank…that’s only a few hundred bytes out of 800 million and people are claiming they can’t expand the slots due to a lack of memory? Sounds fishy to me….poor design if this is truly the case.

Leamas.5803:

With how much memory is in computers these days and hard drive space is so cheap it might as well be free how many people honestly believe it’s a memory/space issue? It’s not like all this stuff is kept in server memory, only the session will be kept in server memory and only while you’re playing and everything else will be loaded down to the client PC memory at start up. This is the only possible way it could be done. The player profile, and everything therein, including the inventory items WILL be stored on the server hard disk storage array, but I would be surprised if it was anything but a single file containing numbers.

So let’s assume there is the 1 byte limit. How much memory do most computers have these days? I venture most have at least 16G, where gaming machines will usually have more like 32G or more. There are 1000bytes in a kilobyte and 1000kilobytes in a megabyte and 1000megabytes in a gigabyte and if a machine has 16gigabytes of RAM, and GW2 uses 800M of that, it is 800,000,000 bytes (This is how much it uses on my laptop). At most people can have a few hundred stacks of stuff with a fully expanded bank…that’s only a few hundred bytes out of 800 million and people are claiming they can’t expand the slots due to a lack of memory? Sounds fishy to me….poor design if this is truly the case.

you forget that people want fast access to their profile and items, meaning memory has to be fast -> fast memory is very expensive -> a lot of fast memory is very costy

now if they really stored everything on hard disc and just sent you data upon login, do you realize how long it would take to drag chilli peppers from bank to own inventory?

besides that, server hardware differs from normal PC hardware by a lot and is very expensive as it ment for industry, requires higher stability/security etc. and companies making servers try to sqeeze as much money as possible out of customers since customers are actually firms and not just privat person with relatively low budget

you also forget that we don’t pay monthly sub, server maintenance alone is quite costy tho

now to solution: since technically going beyond 250 would be with given budget not possible, what they could do is make stacks of stacks:
meaning if you double click (or use w/e command) on 100 chilli peppers they convert into 1 stack of chilli peppers which again can be stacked into 250 stacks of chilli peppers
if you use w/e command or double click(arguable) on stack of chilli peppers you get 250 chilli perppers

if THAT amount of stacking is not enough for you, then ….well its time to sell lol

oh on side note: 1KB = 1024 bytes btw not 1000
also i believe limitation isn’t only by memory but also by data base; certain data bases support only such long entries/blobs

Bright.9160:

It’s because of server limitations. 1 byte can have 256 ‘items’ stored in it, meaning that every stack you have only takes up 1 byte of server space. Were they to increase it, it would put a lot more pressure on their servers.

In fact, if you break the 256 limit, you’ll break the game. Fun story: there was a bug in GW1 where you could use heroes and disconnects to get a bigger party than normal. The highest I ever went with it was making a 20/8 party, but someone I know actually tried to go higher and higher. When he reached a 255/8 party, his game crashed.

TL;DR: it’s never going to happen due to server limitations.

Except when you consider our dungeon tokens in the wallet are unlimited, not 250, then that theory breaks. There has to be a different reason why we’re capped at 250. Especially when you need 250 or more for some crafting or mystic forge things.

Malganis.7468:

Bright.9160:

It’s because of server limitations. 1 byte can have 256 ‘items’ stored in it, meaning that every stack you have only takes up 1 byte of server space. Were they to increase it, it would put a lot more pressure on their servers.

In fact, if you break the 256 limit, you’ll break the game. Fun story: there was a bug in GW1 where you could use heroes and disconnects to get a bigger party than normal. The highest I ever went with it was making a 20/8 party, but someone I know actually tried to go higher and higher. When he reached a 255/8 party, his game crashed.

TL;DR: it’s never going to happen due to server limitations.

Except when you consider our dungeon tokens in the wallet are unlimited, not 250, then that theory breaks. There has to be a different reason why we’re capped at 250. Especially when you need 250 or more for some crafting or mystic forge things.

pretty sure items have more properties than tokens; tokens probably have about 3 properties and nummeric value; items have more properties than that
tokens are always on account while bank and bags are their own tables basically

oh and i highly doubt that dungeon tokens are unlimited; they probably cap at w/e number kind was set for them (probably something like “long” in C++)

Cynz.9437:

Malganis.7468:

Bright.9160:

It’s because of server limitations. 1 byte can have 256 ‘items’ stored in it, meaning that every stack you have only takes up 1 byte of server space. Were they to increase it, it would put a lot more pressure on their servers.

In fact, if you break the 256 limit, you’ll break the game. Fun story: there was a bug in GW1 where you could use heroes and disconnects to get a bigger party than normal. The highest I ever went with it was making a 20/8 party, but someone I know actually tried to go higher and higher. When he reached a 255/8 party, his game crashed.

TL;DR: it’s never going to happen due to server limitations.

Except when you consider our dungeon tokens in the wallet are unlimited, not 250, then that theory breaks. There has to be a different reason why we’re capped at 250. Especially when you need 250 or more for some crafting or mystic forge things.

pretty sure items have more properties than tokens
tokens are always on account while bank and bags are their own tables basically

Also remember tokens and badges both used to stack like normal items, until they finally did the Wallet. So, they may have had the previous limitation and it took some time/coding to make them account bound, and limitless like gold.

Wallace MacBix.2089:

Cynz.9437:

Malganis.7468:

Bright.9160:

It’s because of server limitations. 1 byte can have 256 ‘items’ stored in it, meaning that every stack you have only takes up 1 byte of server space. Were they to increase it, it would put a lot more pressure on their servers.

In fact, if you break the 256 limit, you’ll break the game. Fun story: there was a bug in GW1 where you could use heroes and disconnects to get a bigger party than normal. The highest I ever went with it was making a 20/8 party, but someone I know actually tried to go higher and higher. When he reached a 255/8 party, his game crashed.

TL;DR: it’s never going to happen due to server limitations.

Except when you consider our dungeon tokens in the wallet are unlimited, not 250, then that theory breaks. There has to be a different reason why we’re capped at 250. Especially when you need 250 or more for some crafting or mystic forge things.

pretty sure items have more properties than tokens
tokens are always on account while bank and bags are their own tables basically

Also remember tokens and badges both used to stack like normal items, until they finally did the Wallet. So, they may have had the previous limitation and it took some time/coding to make them account bound, and limitless like gold.

tokens and gold is not limitless though

reagrdless what language/data base they are using it has its limitations for nummeric values

just a simple example: let’s say they programm in C++ and decided to use integer variable to store token value; the max tokens you could have is 1000, if you went above that you would get overflow error

I think the limit on the wallet items is 142,963,548. Reason I think so:

https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/109850/gw037.jpg

Coming from this thread, and have seen the bug before.

Cynz.9437:

you forget that people want fast access to their profile and items, meaning memory has to be fast -> fast memory is very expensive -> a lot of fast memory is very costy

now if they really stored everything on hard disc and just sent you data upon login, do you realize how long it would take to drag chilli peppers from bank to own inventory?

besides that, server hardware differs from normal PC hardware by a lot and is very expensive as it ment for industry, requires higher stability/security etc. and companies making servers try to sqeeze as much money as possible out of customers since customers are actually firms and not just privat person with relatively low budget

Again, it depends largely on how it’s implemented. Since the player ID, player inventory, player collections and bank ID are already loaded in to session at the point you open the bank, then in dragging peppers, you should only be dragging an “item ID number” and a count, that’s only two regular integers, which are typically 4 bytes in most modern programming languages (Max number of 2,147,483,647, beyond that you typically need a long data type). So, a stack of 250 is actually the same amount of transferred data as a stack of 10000. Besides the overhead of what already exists, the data involved to move items should be 8 bytes, 4 bytes for the ID, 4 bytes for the count, it’s not like they’re physically transferring 250 little images of peppers. They could be using a short integer, which is still 2 bytes and still gives 32,767, and some languages allow for unsigned short integers giving 65,535, still vastly larger than the 250 we’ve been allowed.