Inventory Limit

[DeletedUser]

storing items

i like the idea of everyone having their own house, it would have to be built, like the other town buildings & used for storing different items. Then we take in our backpack what we need.

 

[DeletedUser9470]

i like the idea of everyone having their own house, it would have to be built, like the other town buildings & used for storing different items. Then we take in our backpack what we need.

it would for sure be a laugh, in everyones house you get a wardrobe to save items you dont want in your backpack and a bed which is a lot more comfortable

Workers get a beautiful house
Adventurers get a tent
Soldiers get barracks
Duelers get mansions with swimming pools, and prison cells.

 

[DeletedUser6752]

Among the things that come to mind are -

How will this affect my ability to collect enough items in order to get the medal for having an inventory worth $1 million? (Understanding that the medals are of no importance to the devs.)

How is storing half my items in my backpack and half in my "storage shed" any easier, code-wise, than storing them all in my backpack?

Having enough time and energy to only do a few jobs per day, I gear up with the best gear for any job - just how restricted will the backpack space be, and will it have enough room for all the "best gear" for any given job available to me?

Implementing a fee for getting my own items out of storage is ludicrous - we're already strapped, once again, for cash with the need to respec for the new batch of jobs added in the last update.

Idea - how about, when we find an item, we get the option to either accept the item - or - accept cash in the amount of the item's purchase price?

Adding to our cash total doesn't add to the database bloat, does it?

 

[DeletedUser]

How will this affect my ability to collect enough items in order to get the medal for having an inventory worth $1 million? (Understanding that the medals are of no importance to the devs.)

I am not aware of such medal. I believe the medal is for having $1 million in the bank.

 

[DeletedUser22685]

Idea - how about, when we find an item, we get the option to either accept the item - or - accept cash in the amount of the item's purchase price?

If anything like that happened it would be the sales price.

 

[DeletedUser20104]

If anything like that happened it would be the sales price.

then people would just collect the item and sell them later like they do now

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah how does that help exactly ? :unsure:

 

[Noobmic]

I was just thinking, now if inventory will be limited what will happen with players that have more items that the limit?

Then there are players that bought with nuggets products, will we will receive our nuggets back?

We used premium to get higher income (more $) then bought items, will we get our nuggets invested to have more items?

Then for adventurers (like me) who spend nuggets in premium just for the higher chance of getting an item (the rest of class bonuses are useless), will we get our nuggets back?

I don't expect any answer, but this are some problems that I can think of that developers need to take in consideration if inventory limit will be implemented.

 

[Diggo11]

I don't expect any answer, but this are some problems that I can think of that developers need to take in consideration if inventory limit will be implemented.

It's very hard to give an answer when an inventory limit is a theoretical attachment to the unnamed "randomised items" update, and therefore not at all developed to some definite stage. Here's the best I can answer, based more logic and expectation rather than fact, as right now the facts are there is no concrete facts but a jumble of opinions...

Then for adventurers (like me) who spend nuggets in premium just for the higher chance of getting an item (the rest of class bonuses are useless), will we get our nuggets back?

We used premium to get higher income (more $) then bought items, will we get our nuggets invested to have more items?

In short, no. Your items will be kept as collections, which will offer unique achievements and hopefully tangible rewards too, and/or [at least] the sell price of that item will be obtained...

I was just thinking, now if inventory will be limited what will happen with players that have more items that the limit?

I am not sure what the developers envision, but if I personally went about this I would give players a two week "amnesty" to convert items into their purchase price in cash. After this period ends, the inventory limit comes into force. Any excess items are automatically sold until the inventory is within the limit's bounds, in order of "general" items from least to most expensive then "special" items from least to most expensive.

Then there are players that bought with nuggets products, will we will receive our nuggets back?

Not sure if products are included in "randomised items", not sure if they will be fully included in inventory limit, unable to make comment at this stage. However, in the extremely unlikely final resort that refunding would be necessary, it would only be a logistical possibility for products brought directly through the relevant premium option.

Two posible solutions to the technical problem of storage space
1. create a record per player:
Player Id, item 1 quantity, item 2 quantity, item 3 quantity ... item 1000 quantity
where each item is fixed, eg item 1 = golden gun, item 2 = mustang etc.

so for 1k different items we would need a record per player of about 1 k in size.
there are approx 160k player so total space requirement for the table would be less than a gigabyte (if my maths are right)

2. Create a record per player / item
Player Id, item number, quantity (total of about 10 bytes)

If every player had a thousand items, this would require
160k players * 1k item types * 10 byte record size
which is about 10 gigabytes

There are advantages and disadvantages to both of the above solutions. The best option requiring an analysis on the mix of items per player

I think your "Option 1" is how it is handled presently, where each item is assigned an "Item ID" and stored in another database. This works fine when we have X number (say around 500) of unique items. A player's inventory is basically a two dimensional array of integers with item ID and quantity.

The problem arises when "randomised" and "customised" items are introduced. Say every player, roughly 150k, finds a single random item. This would mean our item database would jump from 500 entries to 150,000 entries! It's an over simplification for argument's sake, but it does show that allowing essentially infinite expansion of random items to occur just won't be technically viable in any capacity.

 

[DeletedUser6752]

Yeah how does that help exactly ? :unsure:

If you have reached the limit of items for your backpack and find another item while working a job, a possible outcome in many games is that you either have to drop something else from your backpack in order to make room, or you just can't keep the item you just found.
Accepting a "cash equivalent" would mean you got as much cash as if you kept the item and then later on sold it - instead of just getting nothing at all for the found item.

Galen M - it's my understanding that the medal is for having a combination of cash as well as items that can be converted into cash, that would provide a total of at least $1 million if you sold all your items. Not just cash alone.


I don't understand - and maybe the idea hasn't been fully fleshed out yet - just how the idea of converting items into a set would work. Especially how it would be meaningful as far as gameplay is concerned. I try to wear the best items for any job - if I have all the Wooly Hats, for example, and want to wear the Fancy Wooly Hat for a job - if I just have a placeholder in my inventory for "all the wooly hats" how can I use a single wooly hat? Would I have to, or even be able to, put on "all the wooly hats" in order to do the job, since the individual wooly hats no longer exist in my inventory?

 

[DeletedUser22685]

then people would just collect the item and sell them later like they do now

What's the point of keeping something you're just going to sell anyway instead of getting the money you wanted immediately?

 

[DeletedUser30834]

The advantage of keeping it is you can sell it to allies, town mates, or if it's rare, for more money in the market than the sales price. In other words, more $$$ and helping friends and lower level player out.

 

[DeletedUser22685]

The advantage of keeping it is you can sell it to allies, town mates, or if it's rare, for more money in the market than the sales price. In other words, more $$$ and helping friends and lower level player out.

Then it is a flaw in Disappoint's suggestion, not in my amendment to that suggestion. If anything like that is going to happen, it will be sale price, not buy price. sidp should not have quoted my post if he was not talking about me.

 

[DeletedUser]

What's the point of keeping something you're just going to sell anyway instead of getting the money you wanted immediately?

Besides what Sumdumass said, it also saves bank fees, by selling something and spending the cash immediately, just like we were forced to do when bank accounts were capped at $12k.

 

[DeletedUser]

Seems to me that at least part of the huge inventory problem is a problem Inno have made for themselves in the way they have historically upgraded the game. New release changes frequently have a retroactive effect. For instance, the expanded job list resulted in items of clothing that no longer benefited existing jobs and that I had sold suddenly becoming useful again for the new jobs.
I don't really want to carry 3 salmon everywhere I go as they are no use to me whatsoever, but I can't be sure that there will not suddenly appear a new Martin Luther King Day questline or some such that requires a quantity of salmon to complete. Consequently I hang on to them, as the $21 they would net me would not compensate for having to fish for 4 hours.
If Inno would guarantee not to introduce retroactive changes (except for bugs, natch) then the need for future-proofing inventories would evaporate.

 

[DeletedUser22685]

Seems to me that at least part of the huge inventory problem is a problem Inno have made for themselves in the way they have historically upgraded the game. New release changes frequently have a retroactive effect. For instance, the expanded job list resulted in items of clothing that no longer benefited existing jobs and that I had sold suddenly becoming useful again for the new jobs.
I don't really want to carry 3 salmon everywhere I go as they are no use to me whatsoever, but I can't be sure that there will not suddenly appear a new Martin Luther King Day questline or some such that requires a quantity of salmon to complete. Consequently I hang on to them, as the $21 they would net me would not compensate for having to fish for 4 hours.
If Inno would guarantee not to introduce retroactive changes (except for bugs, natch) then the need for future-proofing inventories would evaporate.

The amount of stacked items does not put a strain on the server, it's the amount of different items. When these randomised items are introduced they will make for an enormous range of different items. As Diggo used in his example, if each player out of a player base of over 150,000 finds a random item, that's over 150,000 different items compared to the few hundred different items currently in-game. A few hundred items puts no strain on the server but 150,000 is a different story.

My opinion is that the easiest way around it is to scrap the idea of randomised items.

 

[DeletedUser9470]

The amount of stacked items does not put a strain on the server, it's the amount of different items. When these randomised items are introduced they will make for an enormous range of different items. As Diggo used in his example, if each player out of a player base of over 150,000 finds a random item, that's over 150,000 different items compared to the few hundred different items currently in-game. A few hundred items puts no strain on the server but 150,000 is a different story.

My opinion is that the easiest way around it is to scrap the idea of randomised items.

agreed, seems crafting isnt the right way forward. the game is losing people because there is no ability to compete. it has become a credit card competition rather than skill.
only w1 still has some character.

I dont see crafting is going to solve any issues but instead create more.

 

[DeletedUser16628]

My backpacks are full on 11-12-13.I sell on the market everyday and do very well but a limit well what are we talking here is there a number or is it still unknown.

 

[DeletedUser22685]

agreed, seems crafting isnt the right way forward.

Crafting is fine, there is a limited number of recipes and items that can be created. It's this part of the Roadmap that is causing the problem:

Randomised Items
Existing items, new and unique items can be found or created with random bonuses. This will generate a far greater diversity of equipment.

It doesn't seem like a great number of players showed much interest or in fact much recognition at all in this proposed feature (it definitely hasn't been a talking point up until now), so the easiest option would be to just scrap it, IMO.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why not get rid of the low level equipment no player is likely to buy. ie yellow headband, gray headband, yellow rags, gray wool belt, etc. At low levels money is too important and with the greenhorn set those items are irrelevant, only good for selling really.