Items stackable by 100 ?
- Gael de Sailly
- Member
- Posts: 845
- Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 17:01
- GitHub: gaelysam
- IRC: Gael-de-Sailly
- In-game: Gael-de-Sailly gaelysam
- Location: Voiron, France
Items stackable by 100 ?
The default max stack for items is 99. But mods can exceed this value.
Why do not turn it to 100 ? It changes nearly nothing in gameplay, but so items are easier to count.
Since mods can exceed 99, I guess it's not a 2-digit limitation.
489 leaves in the 2 lines !
Yes, it's a low-priority change, but, why not ?
Why do not turn it to 100 ? It changes nearly nothing in gameplay, but so items are easier to count.
Since mods can exceed 99, I guess it's not a 2-digit limitation.
489 leaves in the 2 lines !
Yes, it's a low-priority change, but, why not ?
Last edited by Gael de Sailly on Fri Jul 08, 2016 20:36, edited 1 time in total.
Just realize how bored we would be if the world was perfect.
- rubenwardy
- Moderator
- Posts: 6978
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 18:11
- GitHub: rubenwardy
- IRC: rubenwardy
- In-game: rubenwardy
- Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
- Contact:
- Calinou
- Moderator
- Posts: 3169
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 14:26
- GitHub: Calinou
- IRC: Calinou
- In-game: Calinou
- Location: Troyes, France
- Contact:
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
I agree, it should be 100 by default.
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
Maybe it should be a highly composite number instead. I mean, I like 100 as much as the next fellow whose native base is 10, but it's divisibility is only slightly better than 99.
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
I like the 100 idea
Many of my mods are now a part of Minetest-mods. A place where you know they are maintained!
A list of my mods can be found here
A list of my mods can be found here
- 12Me21
- Member
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 00:36
- GitHub: 12Me21
- Location: (Ignore all of my posts before 2018)
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
should be 96.
96 is evenly divisible by 12 numbers:
1,2,3,4,6,8,12,16,24,32,48,96
99 is only divisible by 6:
1,3,9,11,33,99
and 100 is divisible by 9 numbers:
1,2,4,5,10,20,25,50,100
Another option would be 120, with 16 factors. HOWEVER, none of these numbers (except 99) are divisible by 9 (iron, mese, and other metal and crystal blocks, are crafted from 9 of the item.) If you're OK with having much larger item stacks, 360 is probably the best, since it is divisible by:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 ,12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 60, 120, and 180.
But yes, I do agree that stacks of 100 are SO much easier to count. but maybe it would be better if you could fit an unlimited amount of items in a stack, or, at least, an absurdly high number, like 65535 or 99999 or something.
96 is evenly divisible by 12 numbers:
1,2,3,4,6,8,12,16,24,32,48,96
99 is only divisible by 6:
1,3,9,11,33,99
and 100 is divisible by 9 numbers:
1,2,4,5,10,20,25,50,100
Another option would be 120, with 16 factors. HOWEVER, none of these numbers (except 99) are divisible by 9 (iron, mese, and other metal and crystal blocks, are crafted from 9 of the item.) If you're OK with having much larger item stacks, 360 is probably the best, since it is divisible by:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 ,12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 60, 120, and 180.
But yes, I do agree that stacks of 100 are SO much easier to count. but maybe it would be better if you could fit an unlimited amount of items in a stack, or, at least, an absurdly high number, like 65535 or 99999 or something.
Last edited by 12Me21 on Fri Mar 13, 2015 00:11, edited 1 time in total.
- 12Me21
- Member
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 00:36
- GitHub: 12Me21
- Location: (Ignore all of my posts before 2018)
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
wow, I actually was looking at that page before I saw your postbdjnk wrote:Maybe it should be a highly composite number instead. I mean, I like 100 as much as the next fellow whose native base is 10, but it's divisibility is only slightly better than 99.
- Casimir
- Member
- Posts: 1207
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 16:59
- GitHub: CasimirKaPazi
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
1, 2, 6, 12, 60, 420, 2520 . . .
Those numbers are divisible by all whole numbers without gap. e.g. 60 is divisible by 1,2,3,4,5,6. But that might not be the best for Minetest. If you want it to go up to 9 - because of the nine fields in the craft grid - you would need a stack of 2520.
Those numbers are divisible by all whole numbers without gap. e.g. 60 is divisible by 1,2,3,4,5,6. But that might not be the best for Minetest. If you want it to go up to 9 - because of the nine fields in the craft grid - you would need a stack of 2520.
- 12Me21
- Member
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 00:36
- GitHub: 12Me21
- Location: (Ignore all of my posts before 2018)
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
You don't need it to be divisible by ALL numbers, the important ones are:Casimir wrote:1, 2, 6, 12, 60, 420, 2520 . . .
Those numbers are divisible by all whole numbers without gap. e.g. 60 is divisible by 1,2,3,4,5,6. But that might not be the best for Minetest. If you want it to go up to 9 - because of the nine fields in the craft grid - you would need a stack of 2520.
2
3
4
6 (2 rows of crafting grid)
8 (all spaces except middle)
and 9 (all spaces filled)
Also, there are more important things than having lots of divisors.
For example:
64 can be divided by 2 six times, before it gets to 1:
64
32
16
8
4
2
1
but 2520 can only be split in half 3 times.
2520
1260
630
315
and then... 157.5
The best numbers are powers of 2, and highly composite numbers.
- Gael de Sailly
- Member
- Posts: 845
- Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 17:01
- GitHub: gaelysam
- IRC: Gael-de-Sailly
- In-game: Gael-de-Sailly gaelysam
- Location: Voiron, France
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
For me, divisibility isn't the question : I fully agree that 100 is not the best about divisibility.
Or why not 144 ?
That's why the base should be 6 or 12 (12×12=144), but base 10 is so established in our society that it would be impossible to change (Duodecimal system).
Don't go too far !
Really I think that the best is 100. Count the items in the first and in the second line of the picture in the first post. Which one is the more handy ?
72 is the simpler number that matches these conditions.12Me21 wrote:You don't need it to be divisible by ALL numbers, the important ones are:
2
3
4
6 (2 rows of crafting grid)
8 (all spaces except middle)
and 9 (all spaces filled)
Or why not 144 ?
That's why the base should be 6 or 12 (12×12=144), but base 10 is so established in our society that it would be impossible to change (Duodecimal system).
Stay reasonable ! It's a good idea to make it divisible by 1~10 but think about gameplay ! It's completely foolish to stack 2520 items in your pocket ! And after someone will enev say : "It's not divisible by 11 ???".Casimir wrote:(…) stack of 2520
Don't go too far !
Really I think that the best is 100. Count the items in the first and in the second line of the picture in the first post. Which one is the more handy ?
I don't expect a major gameplay change. I only want to simplify items counting.bdjnk wrote:it's divisibility is only slightly better than 99.
Just realize how bored we would be if the world was perfect.
- philipbenr
- Member
- Posts: 1897
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 01:56
- GitHub: philipbenr
- IRC: philipbenr
- In-game: robinspi
- Location: United States
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
+2 to 100
+1 to 144
-1 to 64
I think that the larger numbers are better. I always get annoyed whenever I fill up my inventory while playing survival, and it would be even worse with 64. I think that 100 sounds like the best even number, and 144 for divisibility.
+1 to 144
-1 to 64
I think that the larger numbers are better. I always get annoyed whenever I fill up my inventory while playing survival, and it would be even worse with 64. I think that 100 sounds like the best even number, and 144 for divisibility.
- 12Me21
- Member
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 00:36
- GitHub: 12Me21
- Location: (Ignore all of my posts before 2018)
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
Now that I think about it, 100 is the best. When are you going to have EXACTLY one stack of an item? that's the only time divisibility matters. Plus, it's so hard to craft a lot of an item, since you can't hold shift and right click to spread them evenly.
- Casimir
- Member
- Posts: 1207
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 16:59
- GitHub: CasimirKaPazi
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
With 2520 I just was joking. For Voxelgarden I decided on a stack of 90, which is divisible by 2 (right click), 10 (middle click) and 9 (craft grid), also it is not to small and not to big. You can very easily split up the stack of 90 into ten items each for the crafting slots.
- Krock
- Developer
- Posts: 4650
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 07:48
- GitHub: SmallJoker
- Location: Switzerland
- Contact:
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
90 is acceptable.
I know, realism it not a theme in Minetest but still, stacks with > 100 items just decrease the use of chests.
IMO, players should plan space for their stuff.
I know, realism it not a theme in Minetest but still, stacks with > 100 items just decrease the use of chests.
IMO, players should plan space for their stuff.
Look, I programmed a bug for you. >> Mod Search Engine << - Mods by Krock - DuckDuckGo mod search bang: !mtmod <keyword here>
- Brane praefect
- New member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 01:23
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
--this post was irrelevant to the subject... edited
Last edited by Brane praefect on Sun Mar 15, 2015 19:55, edited 1 time in total.
- 12Me21
- Member
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 00:36
- GitHub: 12Me21
- Location: (Ignore all of my posts before 2018)
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
if you have > 41 types of items, you can't fit them in your inventory no matter how large the stack size is. for example, on a mining trip, you might have:Krock wrote: I know, realism it not a theme in Minetest but still, stacks with > 100 items just decrease the use of chests.
a pick and shovel -2
some ores: iron, copper, diamond, mese, coal -6
torches - 8
wood - 9
food - 10
cobble - 13
That's fine, but what about on servers like moontest, where you have to have a spacesuit, and usually carry a UFO?
And if there are mobs on your server, and you need a sword? There goes another slot...
What about birthstones! That's at lease 11 more spaces filled up! (opal ore doesn't generate)
Now you're using 27, which only leaves 14 spaces left.
Then maybe you carry a travelnet box, and elevator, and a bunch of other crap*! Sooner of later, you're gonna find yourself having to use the crafting grid!
[color=#FFFFBFd]mesecons
even with INFINITE stacks, the inventory fills up quite quickly. I'm not against having a practically infinite stack size, that way you can both count items easily, and store lots of stuff, too.
I think, Minetest is more about building and exploring than surviving; that's why you don't lose items when you die, and there's no hunger system.
- Gael de Sailly
- Member
- Posts: 845
- Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 17:01
- GitHub: gaelysam
- IRC: Gael-de-Sailly
- In-game: Gael-de-Sailly gaelysam
- Location: Voiron, France
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
I fully agree but it takes part to the survival mode. We must put away numerous things. And, as you say, the problem is not the stack size. My aim is not to extend max stack, else it would be ridiculous to turn 99 to 100. Simply it's simpler to count.12Me21 wrote:the inventory fills up quite quickly
For stacks of 99 :
14 stacks + 62... yes it's around 1462, but if you want want the precise number, it's 1400 + 62 - 14, which is... 1448, after severals seconds, or even minutes (we aren't all living calculators).
For stacks of 100 :
14 stacks + 62 ---> 1462. Pretty simple, isn't it ?
Just realize how bored we would be if the world was perfect.
- 12Me21
- Member
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 00:36
- GitHub: 12Me21
- Location: (Ignore all of my posts before 2018)
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
I agree, 100 is probably the best. However, I would like to see some new types of chests that can hold more items, since we don't have double chests like in Minecraft. I'm not saying we should add double chests, though. (that's a bad idea, since then you can't place more than 2 normal chests next to each other)Gael de Sailly wrote:I fully agree but it takes part to the survival mode. We must put away numerous things. And, as you say, the problem is not the stack size. My aim is not to extend max stack, else it would be ridiculous to turn 99 to 100. Simply it's simpler to count.12Me21 wrote:the inventory fills up quite quickly
For stacks of 99 :
14 stacks + 62... yes it's around 1462, but if you want want the precise number, it's 1400 + 62 - 14, which is... 1448, after severals seconds, or even minutes (we aren't all living calculators).
For stacks of 100 :
14 stacks + 62 ---> 1462. Pretty simple, isn't it ?
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
There are a few mod that give bigger chests. More chests is one.12Me21 wrote:I agree, 100 is probably the best. However, I would like to see some new types of chests that can hold more items, since we don't have double chests like in Minecraft. I'm not saying we should add double chests, though. (that's a bad idea, since then you can't place more than 2 normal chests next to each other)Gael de Sailly wrote:I fully agree but it takes part to the survival mode. We must put away numerous things. And, as you say, the problem is not the stack size. My aim is not to extend max stack, else it would be ridiculous to turn 99 to 100. Simply it's simpler to count.12Me21 wrote:the inventory fills up quite quickly
For stacks of 99 :
14 stacks + 62... yes it's around 1462, but if you want want the precise number, it's 1400 + 62 - 14, which is... 1448, after severals seconds, or even minutes (we aren't all living calculators).
For stacks of 100 :
14 stacks + 62 ---> 1462. Pretty simple, isn't it ?
Many of my mods are now a part of Minetest-mods. A place where you know they are maintained!
A list of my mods can be found here
A list of my mods can be found here
-
- Member
- Posts: 3015
- Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 13:02
- GitHub: ABJ-MV
- In-game: ABJ
- Location: In Earth orbit, with a perigee of 1048 km and an apogee of 1337 km and an inclination of 69 degrees.
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
Thats a good idea. 99 is a nice number but it makes the stack seem so "incomplete". And the obvious reason that 100 is easier to count.
-
- Member
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 23:54
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
Hmm. I guess my vote would be for 128, because binary. :-P
- Linuxdirk
- Member
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:21
- In-game: Linuxdirk
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
Why was it 99 and not 100 in the first place? Accidentally used … < 100 instead of … <= 100 and decided to leave it that way?
- 12Me21
- Member
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 00:36
- GitHub: 12Me21
- Location: (Ignore all of my posts before 2018)
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
Most likely, there was little thought put into it, and it was just used because it was the highest 2 digit number in decimal.Linuxdirk wrote:Why was it 99 and not 100 in the first place? Accidentally used … < 100 instead of … <= 100 and decided to leave it that way?
-
- Member
- Posts: 3015
- Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 13:02
- GitHub: ABJ-MV
- In-game: ABJ
- Location: In Earth orbit, with a perigee of 1048 km and an apogee of 1337 km and an inclination of 69 degrees.
Re: Items stackable by 100 ?
That said, on some servers, the maximum amount of players that servers can accomodate is displayed as "99+"
Maybe it's because 99 is a multiple of the number of which the 55 in Celeron55 is the fifth multiple of :D
No offence intended
Maybe it's because 99 is a multiple of the number of which the 55 in Celeron55 is the fifth multiple of :D
No offence intended
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests