FOSS gamedev and creative worlds

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 ?

+1

I made a pull request like this.

Add setting to customise stack max

I agree, it should be 100 by default.

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.

I like the 100 idea

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.

bdjnk 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.

wow, I actually was looking at that page before I saw your post

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.

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.

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)

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.

For me, divisibility isn't the question : I fully agree that 100 is not the best about divisibility.

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)

72 is the simpler number that matches these conditions.
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).

Casimir wrote:(…) stack of 2520

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 ???".
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 ?

bdjnk wrote:it's divisibility is only slightly better than 99.

I don't expect a major gameplay change. I only want to simplify items counting.

+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.

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.

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.

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.

Krock wrote:I know, realism it not a theme in Minetest but still, stacks with > 100 items just decrease the use of chests.

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:
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.

12Me21 wrote:the inventory fills up quite quickly

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.

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 ?

Gael de Sailly wrote:

12Me21 wrote:the inventory fills up quite quickly

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.

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 ?

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)

12Me21 wrote:

Gael de Sailly wrote:

12Me21 wrote:the inventory fills up quite quickly

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.

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 ?

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)

There are a few mod that give bigger chests. More chests is one.

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.

Hmm. I guess my vote would be for 128, because binary. :-P

Why was it 99 and not 100 in the first place? Accidentally used … < 100 instead of … <= 100 and decided to leave it that way?

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?

Most likely, there was little thought put into it, and it was just used because it was the highest 2 digit number in decimal.

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

You can get stacks of 100 by using /giveme. Even 1000 if you like

Some servers have increased the stack size for cobble. That's very practical as that ugly stuff takes less of your storage space away that way. Regarding the topic, I'm pretty sure the theory that it was set to 99 because that's the highest two-digit-number in decimal notation is the most likely one.

there should be a setting called "default_stack_max"

Hybrid Dog wrote:there should be a setting called "default_stack_max"

What a great idea! Who would code such a thing?

rubenwardy wrote:

Hybrid Dog wrote:there should be a setting called "default_stack_max"

What a great idea! Who would code such a thing?

Hybrid Dog do not suggest Rubenwardy. I am ready for a new chapter in this book so he will be busy.