FOSS gamedev and creative worlds

Just some thoughts: Reducing the default stack size to a value below 99 can be a minor problem because it will not be backwards-compatible with existing worlds. There will be still item stacks of 99 after the update.
Increasing the stack size would be unproblematic, of course.

But I really don't care as long as you don't make the number smaller. I am fine with both 99 and 100. At the end of the day, it is up for the subgame developer to set sane and balanced stack sizes for the stuff in the subgames. Nobody argues about the engine default images for hotbars and crossbar, all good subgames just use custom textures. So why should default stack sizes be different? Go complain to the subgame authors instead.

What would be much more important IMO would be a way to set the default stack size, maybe among other default values for new items. Imagine you have a subgame where you want to have all “normal” items to be of size 64. Now some generic mod comes along, and, having the stack size not set, it defaults to 99. That's not good from the subgame perspective. The possibility to set the default stack size would overcome this.

Maybe (!), along with this feature, the engine default could be set to 65535, the maximum number the engine permits. It's extreme, but there are 3 ideas behind this:
- Sane default to make mods and subgames work “out of the box”
- Subgames will be “forced” to overwrite this number and actually *think* about stack sizes, instead of just mindlessly using the engine default. :-)
- Perfect for testing and quick hacks, before the hard work of gameplay balancing begins

The downside of my extreme idea is of course that old subgames will suddenly fall extremely out of balance until they are updated again. :/

Wuzzy. Love the idea. Would be great if it was a conf setting. default_stack_size = 99

vitalie wrote:

Hybrid Dog wrote:15 * 99 = 15 * 100 - 15 = 1485

Let's put it the other way round. "I need 1500 cobblestones. That would be ... err ... Hey, how many stacks would that be?"

With stacks of 100, you move the decimal point two positions to the left, round up and get the result. With stacks of 99 you do what? Yep, you do the same thing and take an extra stack just to be safe :-)

1500 = 15 * 100 = 15 * (99 + 1) → 15x99 + 1x15

Wuzzy wrote:Just some thoughts: Reducing the default stack size to a value below 99 can be a minor problem because it will not be backwards-compatible with existing worlds. There will be still item stacks of 99 after the update.
Increasing the stack size would be unproblematic, of course.

Actually both would be incompatible in some subtle ways. People may depend on an existing stack being normal (size <= stack_max), or depend on a stack being full.

Wuzzy wrote:Maybe (!), along with this feature, the engine default could be set to 65535, the maximum number the engine permits. It's extreme, but there are 3 ideas behind this:
- Sane default to make mods and subgames work “out of the box”
- Subgames will be “forced” to overwrite this number and actually *think* about stack sizes, instead of just mindlessly using the engine default. :-)
- Perfect for testing and quick hacks, before the hard work of gameplay balancing begins

I guess most people will not think about this and just use a number like 99. :)

Hybrid Dog wrote:

vitalie wrote:

Hybrid Dog wrote:15 * 99 = 15 * 100 - 15 = 1485

Let's put it the other way round. "I need 1500 cobblestones. That would be ... err ... Hey, how many stacks would that be?"

With stacks of 100, you move the decimal point two positions to the left, round up and get the result. With stacks of 99 you do what? Yep, you do the same thing and take an extra stack just to be safe :-)

1500 = 15 * 100 = 15 * (99 + 1) → 15x99 + 1x15

That's exactly what I was saying. With stacks of 99, you still need 100s.

Don wrote:Wuzzy. Love the idea. Would be great if it was a conf setting. default_stack_size = 99

+1 Best suggestion yet.

Ok math wizards. The only thing I don't understand is why just bring it up ONE number, to 100?

glichgamer12 wrote:Ok math wizards. The only thing I don't understand is why just bring it up ONE number, to 100?

The objective is not to increase stack max, but to set it to a round number, easier to calculate with. I suppose (I may have wrong) that at the beginning, it wasn't possible to display 3 digits, and the stacks have been limited to 99. That's no more the case now. That's why I propose 100.

The size of a player's crafting grid is typically 9, which is a divisor of 99, but not 100. I get a cool 11 coal blocks from 99 coal lumps, for example.

snowflake wrote:but in Minecraft its only stackable to 64..

We are not minecraft!

Put this on the top of init.lua of the default mod:

to set the default stack size to 100 (or any other value you dream of)
I agree, 100 is easier to calculate with and is an even number.

This is like the metric v imperial debate...
BTW metric is better

orwell wrote:We are not minecraft!

thanks

orwell wrote:or any other value you dream of

my oneiric value doesn't work :G
the stack size is set to 1 ;¬ {

Hybrid Dog wrote:

orwell wrote:We are not minecraft!

thanks

orwell wrote:or any other value you dream of

Your phone or window isn't wide enough to display the code box. If it's a phone, try rotating it to landscape mode.

Code: Select all

minetest.craftitemdef_default.stack_max=0/0
minetest.nodedef_default.stack_max=0/0
minetest.noneitemdef_default.stack_max=0/0


my oneiric value doesn't work :G
the stack size is set to 1 ;¬ {

Well, how di you want a stack of 0 items??

orwell wrote:Put this on the top of init.lua of the default mod:

Your phone or window isn't wide enough to display the code box. If it's a phone, try rotating it to landscape mode.

Code: Select all

minetest.craftitemdef_default.stack_max=100
minetest.nodedef_default.stack_max=100
minetest.noneitemdef_default.stack_max=100

to set the default stack size to 100 (or any other value you dream of)
I agree, 100 is easier to calculate with and is an even number.

It won't work for mods that load before default...

Just edit builtin/game/item.lua instead.

wilkgr76 wrote:Well, how di you want a stack of 0 items??

not really useful XD

Either 100 or 200. Nothing in between! Not even for increased stack size!

azekill_DIABLO wrote:not really useful XD

Your phone or window isn't wide enough to display the code box. If it's a phone, try rotating it to landscape mode.

Code: Select all

core = nil

<hr>
Hi,my user name is azekill_DIABLO and i'm an exelent bug-maker(yeah...i know...i have a bad reputation)

Yes, you are...

yeah. in the indev version i corrupted a lot of nodes

+1 to 100

@Gael de Sally, why don't you add a poll to the first post?

orwell wrote:@Gael de Sally, why don't you add a poll to the first post?

Good idea, I'll do.

I'll tell you what, people. Strange magic has caused certain nodes, such as leaves, cobble, paper, etc to stackable all the way to 495.

...

I did that with the "/giveme" command...

ABJ wrote:I'll tell you what, people. Strange magic has caused certain nodes, such as leaves, cobble, paper, etc to stackable all the way to 495.

False...those item can stack up to 34463:


It can't be higher i think.

I prefer the two digits maximum, so 99. Using a huger number like 100 could lead the people to change it to a higher value which is not required. I don't like when the bigger numbers cover the item, I want to see what I hold - not just the number of it.

@azekill_DIABLO :

Good point! @Krock

Yep! you learnt me something!

250 maxstack! like it used to be in terraria!

...