Inventory Limits

Possibility 1:

Do Not Implement Them!

It doesn't matter if they're only applied to new worlds.

1. Gear sets were implemented, requiring more space for items that you wouldn't already necessarily keep as best items for jobs. New items also have a collectibility factor encouraging people to keep them.

2. Forts require us to hoard products that will be required to build them.

3. It hurts all levels. Inventory limits would encourage lower level players to completely ignore prior advice to hang onto products that you'll need for future quests, may need for quests that haven't been implemented yet, and all items and products, even if they don't need them, since they can't be lost dueling or passing out on the job.

It hurts mid level players who have a higher range of best job items before they can use the higher level items that are the best items for a large number of jobs.

It hurts high level players who have no other way to save money with a $12k bank limit. Personally, on the worlds where I have mercenary work, I'll have to sell whiskey almost every day, since doing the job four hours each day gives almost a full stack of whiskey (8/10).

Possibility 2:

There has to be some way around it, and not just upgrading your backpack, unless the highest upgrade allows unlimited items.

1. Increase bank limits. I don't care what the specific limit is or how it's implemented, but it needs to be greatly increased, i.e. either unlimited or maybe $100k, for a maxed bank, whether it be for the current level 10, level 15, or level 20 doesn't really matter as long as something is done. I have to think some kind of increase already intended, with the Gatling gun costing $30k, but it's yet to be seen in Beta.

2. Allow for storage of items in the bank or in a new town building. If it's in the bank, it can be increased with the level, with a maxed bank allowing unlimited storage.

3. Increased stacks. This is not my favorite option, because it would only make a minor difference, but it's better than nothing. Make all products stackable in stacks of 100, 255, or unlimited. Make all other items stackable.

I vote for possibility 1 - don't restrict our inventory!

I also agree with points 1 and 3 of possibility 2 regardless of inventory limits. And point 2 would be a good work-around for limits.

Yay! Enough said. Gem, lets get this to the devs now.

Elmyr speaks the truth. Backpack limits are a flaw, not an enhancement of the game.

im still new to game. but, i think inventory limits are bad for game, as many quest alone require you to save up products. thus, less room for items you need to do the quest in first place.
if anything expand inventory

I like option 1 - go for it!!!

I kinda like the idea of a building to store things. Maybe a Purveyor or Quarterhouse. Couple it with a speed bonus for traveling with less gear. It would make you really think about what you might or might not need and give questing a new dimension, especilly quests that require long travel (we need more of these). It might become more like an expedition where you need to plan for your needs and get back home in one piece with all your goods.

My 2c,
BB

no limit!
i like collecting stuff!

I'm pretty sure the devs know that most people hate the backpack limits.
I think they were talking about it to add more of a challenge to the game.
If the point was to level up as quickly as possible and the devs agreed with it, we would have jobs with 200% for experience. They want to keep the game interesting so people continue to play and continue to support InnoGames by buying premium.
But by trying to make the game more interesting and challenging by adding a backpack limit, the developers have overlooked the fact that it will contradict how the game was made and the basic mechanics of how we play.

Just my little opinion

@pi-man: And I thought the precedent of not changing construction skills because of the ruling of the court of public opinion was going to be enough to kill inventory limits, but then the eiswiesel IRC talk was posted in German forums.

I thought their combined common sense would at least tell them it was a bad idea, but, alas, they seem to find no problem with it.

any suggestion about the number

i`m all for it

There should not be any inventory limit, I just don't see any good reason for it. It makes the game less fun, more work, rather than keeping the game more "challenging" so players stay around longer, why not make the game more interesting by adding new features?

nerfing games is rarely a good idea, unless it has to be done to address inbalance issue. Most of these games just add on new features, with expansion packs, new areas, new monster, new battlefields, new weapons, so on and so forth to keep the player base interested. This is true for both RPG or tactical games.

Ultima Online, Everquest, Asheron's Call, Worlds of Warcraft, extend level limit, add new area, monster, items, etc.

Warcraft, Warcraft II, III, Starcraft, Broodwars, Diablo I, II, the list goes on and on.

Forts are the right steps in the right direction, devs need to speed that up, rather than wasting time on limiting backpack space, it makes no sense, wasting precious development time on something that does not enhance game play for players, rather, it inconvenient, alienate, anger players.

Blitzkrieg said:

does not enhance game play

Click to expand...

QFT. That exact phrase goes through my head every time I think about this.

im not a programmer but could the reason be to reduce the load of the program?

if that is the case couldnt that be reduced by expanding on our inventory by using multi folders like a sales folder a headgear folder,shoes folder etc. ,like other strings here have discussed. that info wouldnt need to be used unless that folder was opened for use?otherwise it would be compressed info taking up less room?

this may sound a bit offtopic, and sorry if it does. but, simply saying "no its a bad thing" isnt going to convert ones mind that is allready set to this derection. unless, a alternative method that can produce same affect is brought up in defence.

personally i dont want to lose my storage space i have now.i rather find a way that may be able to ease any issues they may have making them pro-limit and at same time addressing our no-limit wish.

oldhippi said:

im not a programmer but could the reason be to reduce the load of the program?

if that is the case couldnt that be reduced by expanding on our inventory by using multi folders like a sales folder a headgear folder,shoes folder etc. ,like other strings here have discussed. that info wouldnt need to be used unless that folder was opened for use?otherwise it would be compressed info taking up less room?

this may sound a bit offtopic, and sorry if it does. but, simply saying "no its a bad thing" isnt going to convert ones mind that is allready set to this derection. unless, a alternative method that can produce same affect is brought up in defence.

personally i dont want to lose my storage space i have now.i rather find a way that may be able to ease any issues they may have making them pro-limit and at same time addressing our no-limit wish.

Click to expand...

Not really. If you can search something I wrote perhaps almost 1/2 year ago (I haven't been that active in this game nor on this forum for a few months due to rl), I laid out some reason why devs may want to limit backpack space and the programming reason behind it. I rejected pretty much all the programming reason behind limiting backpacks.

Limiting backpack space can and do limit disk space for storing data, as long as it's done correctly. However, with storage being so cheap now, it just make no sense to impose such "arbitrary" limit.

There are ways to reduce disk storage use in storing our inventory in database (under current system) but the trade off is increased server load on some database queries, etc.

I guess if they are running the west on a shoe string, with hamster powering their servers and they just absolutely cannot expand their 10GB HDD drive to 120 GB HDD (lack of revenue as too many players in the west don't buy nuggets), etc. There just isn't any good reason to do what they did.

well it sounds like a bad idea to limit it , judging by the strings ive read on this subject and my personal view. the game is a time eater to me already. with this kind of change i would stop playing it as it would be next to impossible to get anywhere.

there has to be something other then game play coming into there thinking on this.

Denisero said:

Yay! Enough said. Gem, lets get this to the devs now.

Elmyr speaks the truth. Backpack limits are a flaw, not an enhancement of the game.

Click to expand...

Exactly. For some bizarre reason known only to God and perhaps supra-genius space aliens people routinely propose these backpack limits.

What POSSIBLE way would this improve the game?

Some people play with the sole goal of collecting 1 of every single item in the game which will take months if not over a year to accomplish.

No, I think it enhances game play.

It's a game, it's supposed to be a challenge, which gear to keep, which gear to throw away? If your already wearing all the best gear then it doesn't matter. The rest is junk anyway. Why keep it?

Maybe it will give all that extra cash some people seem to be carrying on them a purpose.

James Woodson said:

No, I think it enhances game play.

It's a game, it's supposed to be a challenge, which gear to keep, which gear to throw away? If your already wearing all the best gear then it doesn't matter. The rest is junk anyway. Why keep it?

Maybe it will give all that extra cash some people seem to be carrying on them a purpose.

Click to expand...

Argument = Fail

Inventory limits will give people with extra cash something to do?