AlienEyeTX Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 But, seriously, databases read the number of digits for the limit. So, if the limit is 999 and you want to raise it to 10,000, you actually raise it to 99,999 because that's what the database can do based on how this works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillionsKNives Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 But, seriously, databases read the number of digits for the limit. So, if the limit is 999 and you want to raise it to 10,000, you actually raise it to 99,999 because that's what the database can do based on how this works. [citation needed] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWagner Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 But, seriously, databases read the number of digits for the limit. So, if the limit is 999 and you want to raise it to 10,000, you actually raise it to 99,999 because that's what the database can do based on how this works. Databases, yes. There is also game script involve, which can limit it aside from database. Otherwise, you'd be level 99, wouldn't ya? As far as the limits. Why would you care what the limit is? The worst part is NPC vendors, in which case you can simply type in the number you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainot-keel Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 But, seriously, databases read the number of digits for the limit. So, if the limit is 999 and you want to raise it to 10,000, you actually raise it to 99,999 because that's what the database can do based on how this works. If they store numbers in a field declared as string yeah... the numbers of digits will matter... but I don't see many good reasons to do so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kallaes Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 If they store numbers in a field declared as string yeah... the numbers of digits will matter... but I don't see many good reasons to do so Not just when stored as strings but any numeric with precision and scale. X number of digits total with Y number after the decimal. So a decimal(4,0) would support from -9999 to 9999. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaximusRex Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I would of been happy with 999, but have no issues with 9999. Seems a strange thing to complain about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JourrnoRush Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Amen. Let us please let it just die already. The EMU is quite fun to try out if you have never played the game. Bear in mind, its not a hello kitty game like swtor so I can understand why so many never go into it/try it out. Its just way too hard for this population. Lets admit it, when this game inevitably dies there will NOT be an emulator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holocron Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Numbers ocd, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappywhite Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 WHO THE HELL NEEDS 9999 OF ANY SALVAGE sorry caps not intended. why would they do that.... 999 or 1000 ok but 9999 is weird... If you saw that you had typed in caps, and noted that you were aware of that, why didn't you just change the sentence to normal capitalization? Grow up, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lendul Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Why would anyone have a problem with something being ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holocron Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Why would anyone have a problem with something being ? mind asplodid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DataBeaver Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 But, seriously, databases read the number of digits for the limit. So, if the limit is 999 and you want to raise it to 10,000, you actually raise it to 99,999 because that's what the database can do based on how this works. Yeah, except databases work with binary digits, or bits. 9999 is 10011100001111b, so 14 bits. The largest value you can express in 14 bits is 16383, so upping the limit to 10000 would not change the storage requirement. Furthermore, the number of bits in a number tends to itself be a power of two. Likely the database is using at least 16 bits to store the stack size, so the limit could be upped all the way to 65535 without expanding its size on disk. Humans are accustomed to working with decimal digits though, so 9999 makes perfect sense as the largest amount that can be expressed in four digits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanyaCross Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Vegeta! What does the scouter say about the stack level?! http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/sixguns/images/7/7b/It-s-over-9000-its-over-9000-29849302-496-370.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draqsko Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) But, seriously, databases read the number of digits for the limit. So, if the limit is 999 and you want to raise it to 10,000, you actually raise it to 99,999 because that's what the database can do based on how this works. Actually, the database limit would be: Exact number data types that use integer data. bigint Integer (whole number) data from -2^63 (-9,223,372,036,854,775,808) through 2^63-1 (9,223,372,036,854,775,807). Storage size is 8 bytes. int Integer (whole number) data from -2^31 (-2,147,483,648) through 2^31 - 1 (2,147,483,647). Storage size is 4 bytes. The SQL-92 synonym for int is integer. smallint Integer data from -2^15 (-32,768) through 2^15 - 1 (32,767). Storage size is 2 bytes. tinyint Integer data from 0 through 255. Storage size is 1 byte. Most databases use a structure similar to SQL, except Oracle because it has to be different. So unless SWTOR is using a fork of Oracle (which I doubt), it'll be bound by these limits. Do note that if you do not need negative integers, you can basically double the range going from 0 to whatever the storage size is. For example tinyint is always unsigned, otherwise it would be -128 to 127 if it could be signed. PS. Also the item stack limit could be raised to 65535 without affecting the size of variable defining the stack, since it's already taking up 2 bytes. Edited February 17, 2016 by Draqsko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryuku-sama Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 'snip' The limit is unlikely to be in the database. The problem is more likely in the UI code where the quantity have to be displayed. And since we don't use a binary system.. Or any system using 2^n as base. We are stuck with artificial limts such as 99, 999, 9999... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XiamaraSimi Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 -walks back into thread, finds people now posting number commentary, listing who, whats, whens, wheres, and hows of coding things- Agh, numbers, numbers everywhere! I dont care why they made it 9,999 instead of 999, im just happy its not 99! -cue Flashback to a Beavis and butthead cartoon where they are sitting in class with the teacher droning on and on about a boring subject, they of course are totallly lost and Butthead says something along the lines of "Uhhhhhh... words..." while Beavis cackles- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halinalle Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 9999 - Saves a lot more space - You can easily put all high grade mats to legacy cargo hold and make it easier for yourself to craft 999 - Would have saved more space than 99 but can be reached way too easily with few characters just by doing dailies and gathering at the same time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dead-cat Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Agh, numbers, numbers everywhere! I dont care why they made it 9,999 instead of 999, im just happy its not 99! they should have taken round figures! like 1024 or 8192. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TX_Angel Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 PS. Also the item stack limit could be raised to 65535 without affecting the size of variable defining the stack, since it's already taking up 2 bytes. ^ While this is true, the game may not be able to display over 9999 due to the physical space on each icon, and they may not have wanted to code a smaller number size or another way to display it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twin Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Than the SWG shutdown. May it burn in ****. What does that have to do with stack sizes for materials? Few experienced gamers would argue that SWTOR beats SWG when it comes to Crafting, Trading and Resource management...and it's not bad to get inspired by good concepts imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hof_th Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 The limit was most likely set that way: Width of an Item in inventory divided by the width of a digit equals 4.xx, so they used 4 digits and came up with 9999. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_riches Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 OP, people have been asking for an increase of stacks over 99 for years, Bioware have finally made this change and I am grateful for it I have nearly halved my storage requirements on some characters, who really cares as to whether the change was to 999 or 9999 I guess its not any more difficult to code 9999 or 999, but now at least I have a target to aim for 9999 of a stack of something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuhu Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 OP, you make me laugh. This is not a problem, more like something most of us have been waiting for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erevan_Kindelar Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 WHO THE HELL NEEDS 9999 OF ANY SALVAGE sorry caps not intended. why would they do that.... 999 or 1000 ok but 9999 is weird... Because from a data storage perspective, they need exactly the same amount of space in the database to store the number "999" as "9999" - both will be represented in the system by a 16-bit integer. So depending on whether the team want to use a signed or unsigned integer, they could just as easily have implemented stack sizes of 32,737 or 65,535 without having to alter the database table sizes (although the stack size identifier on the icon might have needed a tweak to make the text smaller, hence the reason they probably stopped at 9999). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draqsko Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 The limit is unlikely to be in the database. The problem is more likely in the UI code where the quantity have to be displayed. And since we don't use a binary system.. Or any system using 2^n as base. We are stuck with artificial limts such as 99, 999, 9999... I realize that, I was replying to the person I quoted that the database limit would be a power of 2 not a multiple of 10, and the structure is probably similar to SQL given that C++ and C# also follow the same limits when declaring variables. Regardless of whatever is limiting the quantity, it takes up the same size in the database, whether it's 256 or 65535. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts