Antares Posted November 13, 2013 Group: Members Topic Count: 74 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 420 Reputation: 89 Joined: 01/30/12 Last Seen: April 29, 2023 Share Posted November 13, 2013 Hi! So what I suggest is to make a toggleable custom feature which enables the stacking of similar equipments. Why it can't be stacked right now is because equipments can have cards/refine/name/element/starcrumb/etc in/on them so items with the same id can be different. I think this was only a cheap excuse on gravity's part, because similar items technically CAN be stacked. For example: Chain Mail[1] can be stacked with other slotted chain mails that has exactly the same properties (no card/refine...etc) And the same goes to altered items. Different swords in the storage could look like: Sword[3] 2ea +7 Sword[3] 3ea Whitesmith's Very Strong Sword 5ea +10 Whitesmith's Very Strong Sword 4ea So as you can see we could stack items in case they are completely identical. Why I'm asking this is because: We can do this in many other games Castle drops wouldn't flood our storage (and we can't raise the storage limit above 700 because of some packet thingies........) To make +10 armors we need hundreds of them, and storing them is problematic (if you want to refine 'em all in the same time and not 1 by 1). It would be cool It doesen't seems to be a huge thing to implement. Instead of comparing only the item IDs we would need to compare the whole record, and ignore the stackable properties. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kichi Posted November 13, 2013 Group: Members Topic Count: 25 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 509 Reputation: 80 Joined: 11/20/11 Last Seen: October 3, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2013 That against the item unique_id isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antares Posted March 24, 2014 Group: Members Topic Count: 74 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 420 Reputation: 89 Joined: 01/30/12 Last Seen: April 29, 2023 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 Well, we can stack apples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyWorld Posted March 24, 2014 Group: Members Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 379 Reputation: 304 Joined: 11/10/11 Last Seen: December 2, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 There is no "amount" parameter for each entry in equipment list packet. The "1 ea" can't be changed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandbox Posted March 25, 2014 Group: Members Topic Count: 38 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 949 Reputation: 174 Joined: 06/12/12 Last Seen: March 6 Share Posted March 25, 2014 +1 though I think this would be very difficult, specially the card/refine difference part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anacondaq Posted April 8, 2014 Group: Members Topic Count: 42 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1096 Reputation: 344 Joined: 02/26/12 Last Seen: May 30, 2023 Share Posted April 8, 2014 + all functions need to rewrite in source code. + all have become accustomed to what works for many years I'm personally against this suggestion:) It's really hard to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nanakiwurtz Posted April 8, 2014 Group: Members Topic Count: 81 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1654 Reputation: 583 Joined: 08/09/12 Last Seen: January 14, 2020 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Nice suggestion, but wouldn't making this to happen needs more time and work to our dev team? And just like what sandbox stated above, it'll be only applicable to items with no modifications (cards, refine levels, custom name). Unless someone wants to focus and willing to give a large amount of his/her time to make this and even fix the problem that may arise at later time.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euphy Posted April 8, 2014 Group: Members Topic Count: 72 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2997 Reputation: 1130 Joined: 05/27/12 Last Seen: June 1, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Given what KeyWorld posted -- that this isn't even possible client-side -- this is not worth implementing on the server end. If official clients happen to support this in the future, we can reconsider. Thank you all for your input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts