These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

i hate stacks

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
KrogothZero
Drunkendis Order
#41 - 2012-06-25 07:37:28 UTC
I quite like the idea of the UI automatically showing items with all the attributes in a single stack although I'd modify that to say items should be stacked where there is either no metadata or default metadata. You dont want two items with the same amount of damage to be stacked for example.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#42 - 2012-06-25 07:49:18 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
We store non-singleton items / stacks simply as the type ID and quantity and track no metadata. By definition then an item can't have quantity 0 and then we store singleton items using negative quantities: Quantity of -1 is the most common and is simply a normal singleton item, including singleton BPOs, -2 is singleton BPCs. See this dev blog for more details. All metadata associated with singleton items is stored in side-tables off the main inventory table. A lot of this DB logic is then hidden from the client and server code using views and virtual columns.

Now, this doesn't preclude the client from presenting BPs in some other manner; e.g., through some BP Manager or through views or filters in the Unified Inventory. What ideas could you guys come up with in that regard?


Would it be possible (performance-wise) to just automagically repack and stack everything that is put in the item hangar? It is quite annoying to have to do ctrl-a, repack, stack, all the time. Now that we have filters, there should be no need for the precious sorting containers


But I don't always want that behavior. Sometimes it's useful to have items unstacked and packaged.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Hershman
Creepers Corporation
#43 - 2012-06-25 10:33:05 UTC
CCP explorer can you please reply to my inquiry in the original post?

What about automatically repackaging/stacking anything you have of the same item type? (that has the capability of being packaged)

I play EVE every day! Follow me at http://www.twitch.tv/matthershman
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#44 - 2012-06-25 10:53:55 UTC
Hershman wrote:
CCP explorer can you please reply to my inquiry in the original post?

What about automatically repackaging/stacking anything you have of the same item type? (that has the capability of being packaged)
See RubyPorto's reply above; not everyone wants this behaviour and we don't want to add load by always scanning inventory locations to see if something can be stacked.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#45 - 2012-06-25 11:01:20 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
Hershman wrote:
CCP explorer can you please reply to my inquiry in the original post?

What about automatically repackaging/stacking anything you have of the same item type? (that has the capability of being packaged)
See RubyPorto's reply above; not everyone wants this behaviour and we don't want to add load by always scanning inventory locations to see if something can be stacked.


This quick reply to having your name called...

Shocked

CCP Explorer is Beetlejuice!

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Hershman
Creepers Corporation
#46 - 2012-06-25 11:03:28 UTC
But as you can see from this thread, there's a lot of people that want this feature. That's why I said it should be optional in the first place.

I know it would be incredibly wasteful to make scanning requests like that, but would it be possible to make it a mechanical response from the client itself?

I play EVE every day! Follow me at http://www.twitch.tv/matthershman
Callic Veratar
#47 - 2012-06-25 15:19:16 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
We store non-singleton items / stacks simply as the type ID and quantity and track no metadata. By definition then an item can't have quantity 0 and then we store singleton items using negative quantities: Quantity of -1 is the most common and is simply a normal singleton item, including singleton BPOs, -2 is singleton BPCs. See this dev blog for more details. All metadata associated with singleton items is stored in side-tables off the main inventory table. A lot of this DB logic is then hidden from the client and server code using views and virtual columns.

Now, this doesn't preclude the client from presenting BPs in some other manner; e.g., through some BP Manager or through views or filters in the Unified Inventory. What ideas could you guys come up with in that regard?


The idea I like most to solve this is to allow compresson of BPCs. If I have 5 1-run BPCs, I could "stack" them to make 1 5-run BPC. On a side note, I would expect that this would also allow me to split a BPC into two BPCs.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#48 - 2012-06-25 18:02:27 UTC
Hershman wrote:
But as you can see from this thread, there's a lot of people that want this feature. That's why I said it should be optional in the first place.

I know it would be incredibly wasteful to make scanning requests like that, but would it be possible to make it a mechanical response from the client itself?


What about remote stacking and repackaging. Would that work for you, instead of it being automatic?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2012-06-25 18:16:30 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
Hershman wrote:
CCP explorer can you please reply to my inquiry in the original post?

What about automatically repackaging/stacking anything you have of the same item type? (that has the capability of being packaged)
See RubyPorto's reply above; not everyone wants this behaviour and we don't want to add load by always scanning inventory locations to see if something can be stacked.


Please please do not autostack. This will break a lot of stuff I do with contracts.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Hershman
Creepers Corporation
#50 - 2012-07-02 18:51:39 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Hershman wrote:
But as you can see from this thread, there's a lot of people that want this feature. That's why I said it should be optional in the first place.

I know it would be incredibly wasteful to make scanning requests like that, but would it be possible to make it a mechanical response from the client itself?


What about remote stacking and repackaging. Would that work for you, instead of it being automatic?


Yeah, pretty much anything along those lines would be an improvement.

I play EVE every day! Follow me at http://www.twitch.tv/matthershman
Merovee
Gorthaur Legion
Imperium Mordor
#51 - 2012-07-02 19:23:09 UTC
I just buy containers. Makes a good filing system.

Empire, the next new world order.
Hershman
Creepers Corporation
#52 - 2012-07-02 20:13:30 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Hershman wrote:
But as you can see from this thread, there's a lot of people that want this feature. That's why I said it should be optional in the first place.

I know it would be incredibly wasteful to make scanning requests like that, but would it be possible to make it a mechanical response from the client itself?


What about remote stacking and repackaging. Would that work for you, instead of it being automatic?


But youre missing the point... I wanted to make it an option to automatically stack ammo and other non-singletons. That way if you dont want it or it will screw with the way you do things, you dont need to enable it! Just turn the option off.

I play EVE every day! Follow me at http://www.twitch.tv/matthershman
Sun Win
#53 - 2012-07-02 20:28:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Sun Win
Hershman wrote:

But youre missing the point... I wanted to make it an option to automatically stack ammo and other non-singletons. That way if you dont want it or it will screw with the way you do things, you dont need to enable it! Just turn the option off.


Read the whole reply, friend. Here I've bolded and underlined the important bit for you.


CCP Explorer wrote:
See RubyPorto's reply above; not everyone wants this behaviour and we don't want to add load by always scanning inventory locations to see if something can be stacked.
Tesal
#54 - 2012-07-02 21:28:21 UTC
Hershman wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Hershman wrote:
But as you can see from this thread, there's a lot of people that want this feature. That's why I said it should be optional in the first place.

I know it would be incredibly wasteful to make scanning requests like that, but would it be possible to make it a mechanical response from the client itself?


What about remote stacking and repackaging. Would that work for you, instead of it being automatic?


But youre missing the point... I wanted to make it an option to automatically stack ammo and other non-singletons. That way if you dont want it or it will screw with the way you do things, you dont need to enable it! Just turn the option off.

You may want it autostacked, but I don't and other people don't want it as well. Whenever you split a stack for any reason, that would go away with autostacking. A very BAD idea. I hope CCP doesn't listen to this as it is a waste of resources that could be put towards real bugs.
Hershman
Creepers Corporation
#55 - 2012-07-04 21:51:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Hershman
Sun Win wrote:
Hershman wrote:

But youre missing the point... I wanted to make it an option to automatically stack ammo and other non-singletons. That way if you dont want it or it will screw with the way you do things, you dont need to enable it! Just turn the option off.


Read the whole reply, friend. Here I've bolded and underlined the important bit for you.


CCP Explorer wrote:
See RubyPorto's reply above; not everyone wants this behaviour and we don't want to add load by always scanning inventory locations to see if something can be stacked.


I was responding to the variables mentioned by RubyPorto which is a seperate issue entirely from what CCP explorer mentioned. Perhaps you should read this whole thread again because it appears you are clueless as to its topic.

I play EVE every day! Follow me at http://www.twitch.tv/matthershman
ReptilesBlade
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#56 - 2012-07-04 22:50:29 UTC
Guttripper wrote:
*munches on pretzels...

At first glance, I thought the topic's title was "i hate snacks"! Lol

Without snacks, how can online gaming keep the reputation of everyone being bloated, fat, greasy haired, stinky neckbeards with empty bags of Cheetos lying around while playing Russian Roulette forgetting which Mountain Dew bottle has the soft drink to which one was a make shift urinal...?


This post just won the topic!

I loled!
Citizen Smif
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#57 - 2012-07-04 23:38:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Citizen Smif
Why not just add a system where you can just add BPCs of the same value together? i.e. merge the two BPCs. So runs would no longer be important, since you could just add 1 run from A to the 6 runs remaining on B, creating a 7 run C - I'm not a coder but I can't imagine that would be particularly hard?

Or even better:

BPC A has ME 10 & PE 05, it would take 10 units of Tritanium to make and will take 5 minutes.
BPC B has ME 05 & PE 10, it would take 08 units of Tritanium to make and will take 4.75 minutes.

combine to make

BPC C is a special "combined" BPC, ME -, PE -, but it would take 18 units of Tritanium to make and will take 9.75 minutes to make and must be used to create 2 units of X (i.e. you cannot use up 1 run of it). Therefore this workaround is not useful in all situations, but is useful for people who just want to mass produce something.
Hershman
Creepers Corporation
#58 - 2012-07-05 00:24:09 UTC
CCP Exporer already said the BPC stacking was impossible within the database, as they are singletons with individually assigned data.

I'm still keeping my fingers crossed though and hoping. I think if they really put their minds to it CCP could code these options into the client. Maybe even some user-side external mechanic that would better organize BPCs but that may just be a pipe dream.

I play EVE every day! Follow me at http://www.twitch.tv/matthershman
NextDarkKnight
Storm Chasers.
Pandemic Horde
#59 - 2012-07-07 05:10:57 UTC
Skogen Gump wrote:
NextDarkKnight wrote:


I can't wait for something like this so I can manage all my extra BPCs I have.



The reason being is that the container doesn't actually exist, it's a virtual group, not a partition of data if you will.
The only way to *populate* the container is to select extensively from the database where the metadata values match and for the sake of common normalisation and the kind of data that EVE has to keep, there is likely no good index for this stuff.



A good index does not exisit "yet", In my case where I have hundreds BPC that are identical the query on the return set will only return the paper clips and the joined lookups on the meta data. What is that meta data anyway? ITEMID, RUNSREMAINING, PE, ME? If you concat that information how big of a data container will you need to store that information? Also if you normalize the blueprints you can shrink that number down alot more to the data needed to be stored. Besides the extra data stored in a lookup table you gain not having to return hundreds of extra records for items stored in paper clips.

Because items are only clipped when a user calls the process to clip the items you are not causing over head when viewing like some of the auto sort features.
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2012-07-07 08:25:53 UTC
NextDarkKnight wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:


Can't be done. A BPC is by definition a singleton. A singleton is a unique item that is tracked individually. 2 BPCs with the same meta data are still considered to be apples and oranges as far as the database is concerned as they are unique, even though they look the same. Stacking removes all meta data (research, number of runs, etc) and would effectively turn it into a blank BPO.



A new Container called a "Paper Clip" needs to be created. It can only contain items that have the exact same attributes.

When the first item is moved into the Paper Clip Object it should
"Copy the attributes to the Paper Clip" so when you show info on the paper clip it can show it attributes of the BPCs it contains plus a item count.

Each additional item copied into it should check if the attributes match and if they do they can be added into the container else a error message is displayed.

Paper clips should be allowed to be put into containers.

The end user (The Player) will just see a paper clip and the item name will be "(Clipped) - Fury Heavy Missiles BPCs x100"

Show Info will display the Runs remaining for the clicked items, research, etc etc etc. since all of them are exactly the same.

I can't wait for something like this so I can manage all my extra BPCs I have.


paper clip technology has yet to be invented in this universe...

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde