|
http://diablo.incgamers.com/blog/comments/where-did-my-bags-go
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/3967947405#5
From Bashiok : We reevaluated average character and account storage space requirements, and found it necessary to ensure we could handle what we anticipate will be a large amount of data very quickly after release. Diablo III has both the benefit and disadvantage of having completely random items. Pretty much everything can roll up different affixes, if not a range of its benefits. That's obviously great because the item hunt is what it's all about, more randomization means you can keep chasing that perfect item, but that means the amount of data needed to describe an item is much, much larger than say, a World of Warcraft item, which is static and only needs a unique number to identify it. For example: http://www.wowhead.com/item=51003 that number there at the end is that item's unique number. That's all we need to store to identify that item no matter where it is. A Diablo III item first has to say the base item, then each individual affix that it rolled up, then the ranges of each variable, and if it has any sockets. And we have to think about everywhere an item can be, an item on the ground is still an item, and so is an item on the auction house. We obviously have room to grow if our projections are incorrect, or we just find that we eventually have the space. World of Warcraft definitely grew over the years, and that storage space didn't appear out of nowhere (although it does seem rather magical at times). We find three tabs to be plenty for at least the initial release of the game though. Not counting the items you're wearing (assuming they're the best you have), and assuming worst case scenario of nothing but 2-slot items, you'd be able to hold 405 swords per region. That's a lot. We don't expect people to be storing 405 swords... hopefully ever, because that might indicate you have an obsession with swords, but at the very least there should be enough storage to start and then we can continue to evaluate as we go.
So 40% of the stash space has been removed, and it was intentional. I looked and didn't see any other posts. I never got a feel that there was an issue with item storage before the post from Bash. Now it sounds like people are concerend.
I'm not in beta. I really don't have a feel for these changes directly... but the way the gem/crafting/rune systems look like they are shaping up... I'm not sure 3 tabs is enough for a hard core player. (I'm not meaing Hard Core mode character).
Crafting mats... even though they are stackable they will add up.
Gems. On paper you could possibly need space for 6 * 14 = 84 colors and ranks of gems.
Runestones. God knows how that is going to work out.
The you have your pure DPS set. Your HP/Defense/Resist set. Your Best in Slot set. Your MF/Gold find set. Then you have just a bunch of stuff that you want to keep just because. Unique sets, sets with a cool graphic/proc...whatever.
I'd think it would add up quickly.
Yeah...you do have 10 character slots. But for me at least I'll probably make one of each class eventually. So you can't use 5 of your 10 slots for muling (effectively).
|
It's funny because the shared stash was supposed to obsolete muling, but with this change people are still going to need mule characters to store all their stuff. And since you can't have unlimited accounts now, storing shit is going to become a real problem. Probably gonna have to buy a 2nd copy of the game eventually just to get more storage space. I'm sure Blizzard has considered this 
|
This is becoming interesting... Every couple days, we lose one or more features or something is restricted or nerfed in size.
I just hope final version will have at least 3 playable character classes and at least 2 acts.
|
That's a lot of item IDs alright o.0
|
On February 02 2012 04:41 Sek-Kuar wrote:
This is becoming interesting... Every couple days, we lose one or more features or something is restricted or nerfed in size.
I just hope final version will have at least 3 playable character classes and at least 2 acts.
Me too. The way things are shaping up, I'm starting to think King Leoric is the final boss.
|
If this won't change we'll indeed still need mule-characters, but at least we wont have to drop stuff on the floor and swap chars because of the shared stash thankfully.
Keep in mind though the items take max 2 slots and the inventory and stashes are actually pretty big, though the pack-rat that i am is still not liking this change much.
I already managed to almost fill the first 2 fully upgraded bags in the beta, and that was without gems/runes/ and just only low-tier crafting stuff. The thought of this being 2/3 of total space at release is not cool.
|
but at the very least there should be enough storage to start and then we can continue to evaluate as we go.
Some small chance (hope) that they'll be able to increase that over time. :D
I'm just trying to stay positive in an otherwise grey and sorrow world... T_T
|
On February 02 2012 05:07 Maekchu wrote:Show nested quote +but at the very least there should be enough storage to start and then we can continue to evaluate as we go. Some small chance (hope) that they'll be able to increase that over time. :D I'm just trying to stay positive in an otherwise grey and sorrow world... T_T
Thats the spirit ! =)
Knowing Blizz the game will turn out great in the end, and even then stuff will be tweaked if/when needed.
|
cool, at least they supported it with good reason. anyone complaining has nothing better to do, 405 swords is a rediculous number. In d2 you could hold about 15
|
On February 02 2012 05:05 Urbz wrote:
If this won't change we'll indeed still need mule-characters, but at least we wont have to drop stuff on the floor and swap chars because of the shared stash thankfully.
Keep in mind though the items take max 2 slots and the inventory and stashes are actually pretty big, though the pack-rat that i am is still not liking this change much.
I already managed to almost fill the first 2 fully upgraded bags in the beta, and that was without gems/runes/ and just only low-tier crafting stuff. The thought of this being 2/3 of total space at release is not cool.
Yes I think most ppl still remember what it was like in D2, where items were so large you could not fit many into invetory. I just hope this will encourage ppl to actually trade items. Does anyone know if gems will stack this time?
|
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke.
|
On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke.
a bit more than what? they're already storing a large amount. Obviously there has to be a limit, and the more u store the more expensive it is (ie. more servers or w/e).
|
On February 02 2012 05:03 Horrde wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 04:41 Sek-Kuar wrote:
This is becoming interesting... Every couple days, we lose one or more features or something is restricted or nerfed in size.
I just hope final version will have at least 3 playable character classes and at least 2 acts. Me too. The way things are shaping up, I'm starting to think King Leoric is the final boss.
They're only beta-testing the essentials right now, so I'm sure that they'll have more than two acts. Why release the story for free if you don't want people testing it?
|
On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke.
Obviously you don't know how data is stored.
In this wondrous age of IT and IT-minded societies, I think the real joke here is you. You should know better than thinking data is just stored in pure air.
Also, I think this is more of a precaution than anything. It's better to increase the storing space over time, than have their servers crash during the starting period.
But then again, I'm just a naive optimist. I'm actually running on double rainbows, surrounded by dancing pink fluffy unicorns now...
|
On February 02 2012 05:47 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke. a bit more than what? they're already storing a large amount. Obviously there has to be a limit, and the more u store the more expensive it is (ie. more servers or w/e).
I must agree with rezoacken, how much are we really talking here about?
Unique item number, durability, defense, variables... maybe 20-30 B per item? So about 10-15 kB for stash full of (405) swords?
For gods sake on my totally free email adress I have over 600 MB of data and its unlimited anyway, it for sure does sound kinda ridiculous.
|
On February 02 2012 06:07 Sek-Kuar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 05:47 Assault_1 wrote:On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke. a bit more than what? they're already storing a large amount. Obviously there has to be a limit, and the more u store the more expensive it is (ie. more servers or w/e). I must agree with rezoacken, how much are we really talking here about? Unique item number, durability, defense, variables... maybe 20-30 B per item? So about 10-15 kB for stash full of (405) swords? For gods sake on my totally free email adress I have over 600 MB of data and its unlimited anyway, it for sure does sound kinda ridiculous.
You forget that many other variables might exist that they are not telling us.. it should not be only 30b per item. Also you do not access your 600mb of data from your email at once.
|
I seriously doubt it would take more than 20kb-30kb per item. I bet they will make size 3 -> 5 in an expansion.
|
even with my fairly limited knowledge of IT technology i know that memory in your server banks is one of the huge restrictions in this buisness.
Consider these 3 fairly evident factors before you post about this:
1) Your shared stash has to be loaded and sent to your PC each time you login, or each time you access it (depending on how DIII is constructed on their side, frankly i have no clue, but most likely the latter which is even more intensive)
2) even if the complete "file" (which likely isn't a file either) is only 50kb (a number that sounds like complete guesswork as well, it could very well be closer to 5mb considering what i know of comparable safes and their sizes) for up to 500k concurrent players that is already a shit ton of data (and a fairly conservative guess regarding player numbers)
3) Considering that Blizzard cannot charge for the battlenet (at least without loosing a ton of buisness) that service needs to be provided almost for free, or at least covered within their profit margin from buying the box.
With these 3 points in mind I'd consider such a cut a fairly reasonable action. Obviously we'd all want a bigger stash, but since we aren't willing to pay for it (or at least i am not willing to pay for bnet services) we should be somewhat modest regarding what we can expect. It sounds like a minor inconvenience, but for most players the number of slots given (405 2 slots) seems plenty big enough.
I don't have beta access, but at a guess that should be over 10 sets of complete equipment?
|
Give us a small stash then have an option to increase the size for a small fee. Micro transactions are the future.
|
On February 02 2012 06:29 Shodanss wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 06:07 Sek-Kuar wrote:On February 02 2012 05:47 Assault_1 wrote:On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke. a bit more than what? they're already storing a large amount. Obviously there has to be a limit, and the more u store the more expensive it is (ie. more servers or w/e). I must agree with rezoacken, how much are we really talking here about? Unique item number, durability, defense, variables... maybe 20-30 B per item? So about 10-15 kB for stash full of (405) swords? For gods sake on my totally free email adress I have over 600 MB of data and its unlimited anyway, it for sure does sound kinda ridiculous. You forget that many other variables might exist that they are not telling us.. it should not be only 30b per item. Also you do not access your 600mb of data from your email at once.
I think its safe to assume that variables like "found in daytime/nightime" are not going to exist - no reason for some unrealistic conspiracy theories - so list should be pretty small.
Unique number, iLVL, defense, current & max durability, color, socket 0/1 + gem inside, variables + random mod. No reason for more than 20-30 B, its really simple actually.
|
On February 02 2012 06:50 Sek-Kuar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 06:29 Shodanss wrote:On February 02 2012 06:07 Sek-Kuar wrote:On February 02 2012 05:47 Assault_1 wrote:On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke. a bit more than what? they're already storing a large amount. Obviously there has to be a limit, and the more u store the more expensive it is (ie. more servers or w/e). I must agree with rezoacken, how much are we really talking here about? Unique item number, durability, defense, variables... maybe 20-30 B per item? So about 10-15 kB for stash full of (405) swords? For gods sake on my totally free email adress I have over 600 MB of data and its unlimited anyway, it for sure does sound kinda ridiculous. You forget that many other variables might exist that they are not telling us.. it should not be only 30b per item. Also you do not access your 600mb of data from your email at once. I think its safe to assume that variables like "found in daytime/nightime" are not going to exist - no reason for some unrealistic conspiracy theories - so list should be pretty small. Unique number, iLVL, defense, current & max durability, color, socket 0/1 + gem inside, variables + random mod. No reason for more than 20-30 B, its really simple actually.
+Location, who killed the mob that dropped it, hardcore or softcore, and i bet 4-5 we do not know.Do not forget that they must have a way to see dupes etc..
|
On February 02 2012 06:45 Tula wrote:
3) Considering that Blizzard cannot charge for the battlenet (at least without loosing a ton of buisness) that service needs to be provided almost for free, or at least covered within their profit margin from buying the box.
you forgot their main source of revenue, taking a cut off each transaction in the auction house
this game will probably make more money for them than WoW
|
On February 02 2012 07:05 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 06:45 Tula wrote:
3) Considering that Blizzard cannot charge for the battlenet (at least without loosing a ton of buisness) that service needs to be provided almost for free, or at least covered within their profit margin from buying the box. you forgot their main source of revenue, taking a cut off each transaction in the auction house this game will probably make more money for them than WoW
Most of people in here just throw out some personal assumptions without real data supporting their claims.
Yes there is a possibility that D3 will be more profitable than WoW, but it is not like those profits just happen to get to them the first day, hence I do understand if they want to play safe and make 100% sure they have storage enough and then eventually increasing it over time. You are right that the RMAH will be their main revenue from this game, because of the success of mini-transactions, but the profits from RMAH will probably show after some time, since it needs to be used alot.
|
How come that wasn't a problem in D2?
|
On February 02 2012 06:54 Shodanss wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 06:50 Sek-Kuar wrote:On February 02 2012 06:29 Shodanss wrote:On February 02 2012 06:07 Sek-Kuar wrote:On February 02 2012 05:47 Assault_1 wrote:On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke. a bit more than what? they're already storing a large amount. Obviously there has to be a limit, and the more u store the more expensive it is (ie. more servers or w/e). I must agree with rezoacken, how much are we really talking here about? Unique item number, durability, defense, variables... maybe 20-30 B per item? So about 10-15 kB for stash full of (405) swords? For gods sake on my totally free email adress I have over 600 MB of data and its unlimited anyway, it for sure does sound kinda ridiculous. You forget that many other variables might exist that they are not telling us.. it should not be only 30b per item. Also you do not access your 600mb of data from your email at once. I think its safe to assume that variables like "found in daytime/nightime" are not going to exist - no reason for some unrealistic conspiracy theories - so list should be pretty small. Unique number, iLVL, defense, current & max durability, color, socket 0/1 + gem inside, variables + random mod. No reason for more than 20-30 B, its really simple actually. +Location, who killed the mob that dropped it, hardcore or softcore, and i bet 4-5 we do not know.Do not forget that they must have a way to see dupes etc..
Dude you have seriously no idea what you are talking about.
They dont keep location or who killed mob, only iLVL (or at least thats how it worked in D2), there is absolutely no reason to have HC/SC variable because SC char obviously can not have HC items, and to see dupes only thing they have is unique item code. They dont have 4-5 variables like "was this item duped 0/1" LOL.
Seriously stop this conspiracy theories about so many things we dont know about, it is pretty clear what variables items have.
|
On February 02 2012 07:12 Dagobert wrote:
How come that wasn't a problem in D2?
it was, they were gonna increase stash size in a patch then had to abandon it because all the servers became laggy
and this is like 100x bigger than d2's
|
Your stash probably gets loaded to server ram on login. The limiting factor is not the database/harddiskspace.
Also every item on the AH, on ground and wherever is probably an object in ram on some server.
So it should be easy to see why a big stash could be costly.
|
Id much more like to see them to reduce amount of useless common drops and rather keep bigger stash.
Its really sad, couple days ago they turned common items useless for no reason, so they are now literally nothing but loads of useless crap on servers nobody is going to pick anyway... and now they are reducing stash size because there is too much crap.
This last couple of weeks is just joke.
|
On February 02 2012 07:18 Sek-Kuar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 06:54 Shodanss wrote:On February 02 2012 06:50 Sek-Kuar wrote:On February 02 2012 06:29 Shodanss wrote:On February 02 2012 06:07 Sek-Kuar wrote:On February 02 2012 05:47 Assault_1 wrote:On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke. a bit more than what? they're already storing a large amount. Obviously there has to be a limit, and the more u store the more expensive it is (ie. more servers or w/e). I must agree with rezoacken, how much are we really talking here about? Unique item number, durability, defense, variables... maybe 20-30 B per item? So about 10-15 kB for stash full of (405) swords? For gods sake on my totally free email adress I have over 600 MB of data and its unlimited anyway, it for sure does sound kinda ridiculous. You forget that many other variables might exist that they are not telling us.. it should not be only 30b per item. Also you do not access your 600mb of data from your email at once. I think its safe to assume that variables like "found in daytime/nightime" are not going to exist - no reason for some unrealistic conspiracy theories - so list should be pretty small. Unique number, iLVL, defense, current & max durability, color, socket 0/1 + gem inside, variables + random mod. No reason for more than 20-30 B, its really simple actually. +Location, who killed the mob that dropped it, hardcore or softcore, and i bet 4-5 we do not know.Do not forget that they must have a way to see dupes etc.. Dude you have seriously no idea what you are talking about. They dont keep location or who killed mob, only iLVL (or at least thats how it worked in D2), there is absolutely no reason to have HC/SC variable because SC char obviously can not have HC items, and to see dupes only thing they have is unique item code. They dont have 4-5 variables like "was this item duped 0/1" LOL. Seriously stop this conspiracy theories about so many things we dont know about, it is pretty clear what variables items have.
I am not only talking about the kbs per item on the id... i am talking about kbs on item +server +the info that need to be exchanged from server to pc and back.We do not know all the variables and i know that what i say is my unsophisticated observation-idea-knowhow or whatever you want to call it, but i think way more kb go to items than what we think.
|
On February 02 2012 06:00 Maekchu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke. Obviously you don't know how data is stored. In this wondrous age of IT and IT-minded societies, I think the real joke here is you. You should know better than thinking data is just stored in pure air. Also, I think this is more of a precaution than anything. It's better to increase the storing space over time, than have their servers crash during the starting period. But then again, I'm just a naive optimist. I'm actually running on double rainbows, surrounded by dancing pink fluffy unicorns now...
No the real joke is you ! See what i did there ?
Please... don't try to put adjectives on me for no reason and without any real source to back it up.
You don't agree with my comment, fine. And yeah I understand we can't have unlimited space obviously duh.
Reasons for why I'm doubtful ? Other games do with more space, this is XX years into development that is the kind of things you can think before, 3 pages and multiple mules (need to store character data) is better than less mules and 5 pages ? what ? Really an item doesn't need more than 100b to be stored, overall a character is probably not even 1Mb... and stash is for your whole account.
Unless someone comes here with real numbers I guess we can keep trying though and evolve into a fanboy vs pessimist war.
|
You guys are over calculating the space, imo. You need the item ID. You need the current durability, but not the max, don't need the color, don't need how many sockets, only what would be inside of them. Basically, a way to find the original item (the ID), and the data that has modified the original. The rest can be found locally (on your machine, or the server) and does not have to be sent back and forth between client and server. The exact item can be constructed from the original with the changes applied.
Considering WoW and all the bandwidth that would use, I can't really say why they would do this. Obviously they can let the count stay at 5. Maybe they just don't want that initial load on the servers and they will increase it after a few weeks/months. If they make having 5 slots a micro transaction, fuck them.
|
But its not like WoW thats the point(its even the example in the blue post).
You need to store a lot more information because item properties are random and items are customizable.
|
The actual size of an item is irrelevant. Bashiok states two things.
1. The storage space required for WoW-items is huge.
2. An item in D3 require much more data than and item in WoW.
It is very understandable if they don´t want to take a risk of server overload at the release of the game. He does also say this is an initial precaution so they can evaluate what is required as the community develops.
|
On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke.
Blizzard is not Google, alright
Storing is not a problem, but accessible storage is a problem. Networking a large amount of HDD space with high bandwidth connection is very very costly. I'm sure you don't want to wait 3-5 seconds every time you open your stash, do you? Bash didn't go into technical aspects, but the truth is the bandwidth is still a precious commodity in 2012, even if the actually HDD space is nearly unlimited.
|
Blizzard is doing this to force hardcore players to purchase multiple accounts. I urge every one of you to go onto twitter @diablo @blizzardcs and write a complaint. Storage is a database problem, increasing storage will not change data flow rather change the space requirements. This is purely to force people to purchase more than one copy of the game.
|
On February 02 2012 15:56 Appendix wrote:
The actual size of an item is irrelevant. Bashiok states two things.
1. The storage space required for WoW-items is huge.
2. An item in D3 require much more data than and item in WoW.
It is very understandable if they don´t want to take a risk of server overload at the release of the game. He does also say this is an initial precaution so they can evaluate what is required as the community develops.
Yeah, I am not sure why some people read portions of what is stated, but never the entire point. It is like when the letter about the changes went out. Many people were fussing over the Mystic when they did mention they wish to still work on it and hopefully patch it later.
WoW originally had a limited space. As the game progressed, so did the space. I do not see why this would be any different. Diablo III has a lot riding on it, so Blizzard will be keeping the game updated and working well. Content patches will be included, for new items and such (later on). So, when the game is released, I honestly do not feel that this will be an issue at all. Later on, when we have more characters that are much higher level, than I will start worrying. But hopefully by than, the issue will be settled and Blizzard will add more space.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
I don't think this has to do with disk storage space but rather server RAM and bandwidth requirements, thus the amount of servers required. WoW's server maintenance costs are absurd and only make sense because of the even more absurd revenue from subscriptions. Diablo III will not be subscription based, but the required server infrastructure is probably comparable to WoW in complexity, so it makes sense to optimise it a bit, especially for the launch, when the RMAH will not yet be generating enough money to offset the server costs.
|
On February 02 2012 04:41 Sek-Kuar wrote:
This is becoming interesting... Every couple days, we lose one or more features or something is restricted or nerfed in size.
I just hope final version will have at least 3 playable character classes and at least 2 acts.
LOL, c'mon man. They are just trimming the fat... I hope. They do it with all their games, although it does seem like a little more trimming with D3 lately compared to their other games.
|
I wonder what the total maximum of slots of the stash is now? I bet it's less than a full account in Diablo 2 now... and there it was easy to have mule accounts, now you have to pay another copy for a mule account...
If you play HC PvP you can die anytime with your chars, so you will not store items on your characters. I surely want every class and probably some low lvl pvp chars, so my charlimit is already more than exhausted..
I don't know, those limitations feel really harsh to me. I knew I was gonna need two D3 accounts, but it might even be 3 or 4 now... :/ They should just let us get an increase for char/bank slots for a few $ if hardware is a concern... still better than another account.
As for storage requirements, you need:
- item id (8 byte more than fine)
- position (x/y/bag, each 1 or 2 byte)
- base item type (4 byte should be more than fine)
- item quality (1 byte should be fine)
- stack count (2 bytes should be fine)
For items with durability:
- current durability (1 byte)
For socketable items:
- sockets (1 byte should be fine)
For legendary/set items:
- original item id (4 byte should be more than fine)
For blues/rares/unique items with varying stats:
- affix id (4 byte should be more than fine)
- affix modifier (4 byte should be more than fine)
For rares:
- item name (20-30 byte should be fine as maximum) - since the potential names are limited, it might be even worth to have a lookup table for them to reduce this to 4 byte per item
For each socketed item:
- foreign key to socketed item id (8 byte more than fine) - same stuff again for the socketed item
Even in the worst case, it's less than 100-150 byte per item. Storage and bandwidth are surely not the argument here.
Maybe IOPS on oracle servers or database scaling, maybe license costs, maybe bad implementation at some place..
Maybe a reason to charge money for more D3 keys or an extension of slots or an incentive to get the addons. >.<
Edit:
The change basically cut the total stash storage from 350 spots to 210 (105 pieces of equipment)
210 slots.. 105 equipment items..
One Character in D2 had 88. That means one mule account had 704. Even calculating with the worst possible size (8), it's basically the same, a lot more for small items.
Seriously, that's ridiculous. I had 10+ full accounts in my prime times.. and that was without duping or botting... I realize that stacking makes it better but there is also new stuff to store...
And I hope they implement that earring thing! I had 3 accounts full of hc pvp ears in 1.09...
|
On February 02 2012 07:05 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 06:45 Tula wrote:
3) Considering that Blizzard cannot charge for the battlenet (at least without loosing a ton of buisness) that service needs to be provided almost for free, or at least covered within their profit margin from buying the box. you forgot their main source of revenue, taking a cut off each transaction in the auction house this game will probably make more money for them than WoW
I am not so sure how much that will actually bring in. We don't know how high the cut is and in addition they will accrue quite a few additional costs to administer the RMAH properly (and keep it secure from hack attempts).
It might make more money than WoW for a short period of time, but frankly I seriously doubt that this game will come even close to WoW in the long run.
Consider how many users will not use the RMAH much, if at all. I might spend the money on the box for the game, and maybe i will trade around inside the game, but frankly i am not planning to spend a single real dollar in the Auction House, and almost every gamer i know plans to do the same.
Yes there are some people who want it (the same people who bought Gold in WoW obviously) and will use it, but compared to the millions of subscribers in WoW who pay a monthly fee i don't think the revenue from the RMAH will come close.
|
On February 02 2012 16:47 Reasonable wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke. Blizzard is not Google, alright Storing is not a problem, but accessible storage is a problem. Networking a large amount of HDD space with high bandwidth connection is very very costly. I'm sure you don't want to wait 3-5 seconds every time you open your stash, do you? Bash didn't go into technical aspects, but the truth is the bandwidth is still a precious commodity in 2012, even if the actually HDD space is nearly unlimited.
Aaaaand, finally. Someone reasonable has spoken up. Everyone else pointing fingers saying, "no, you don't know what you're talking about!" and such, well, you don't know what you're talking about.
|
On February 03 2012 00:57 Artrey wrote:
Seriously, that's ridiculous. I had 10+ full accounts in my prime times.. and that was without duping or botting... I realize that stacking makes it better but there is also new stuff to store...
And I hope they implement that earring thing! I had 3 accounts full of hc pvp ears in 1.09...
sorry but in my opinion it is not blizzard's business if some people go nuts and play 24/7
|
On February 02 2012 04:41 Sek-Kuar wrote:
This is becoming interesting... Every couple days, we lose one or more features or something is restricted or nerfed in size.
I just hope final version will have at least 3 playable character classes and at least 2 acts.
Marketing. Promise things to get people interested (ex : Siege Breaker fight in 2008 with the death animations) then remove them or keep them for an expansion costing as much as the original (Mystic, stash area probably) or just remove them entirely (nephalem cube, stat and skill distribution, etc).
They are progressively making Diablo 3 worse. It's sad.
Next up : Skill system revamp : Removed runestones!
|
On February 03 2012 00:57 Artrey wrote:Edit: Show nested quote +The change basically cut the total stash storage from 350 spots to 210 (105 pieces of equipment) 210 slots.. 105 equipment items.. One Character in D2 had 88. That means one mule account had 704. Even calculating with the worst possible size (8), it's basically the same, a lot more for small items. Seriously, that's ridiculous. I had 10+ full accounts in my prime times.. and that was without duping or botting... I realize that stacking makes it better but there is also new stuff to store... And I hope they implement that earring thing! I had 3 accounts full of hc pvp ears in 1.09...
For muling accounts you also get 10x60(30 items) character space. So 300 more.
Still with over 2100 ears you are clearly an extreme case and its probably better if you are unhappy and x-million peaple have no server-queue. Not because you kill people but because extreme cases are by definition very rare.
And if the playerbase drops or the game is not very successfull we get our betabags back.
|
Yeah for a plain mule account.. But the 10 slots for play characters will not cut either. You can not even have each class of each sex in softcore and hardcore. You can not have multiple pvp builds "ready" without swapping skills, runes and gear. It just feels wrong having to buy a full account just for a few more slots. 10 Chars is nothing for any non casual hc player... I think every serious player (like people that register on a diablo forum) had 3-4 accounts...
I am surely more extreme than others about diablo, but I am surely not alone. There are still thousands of die-hard Diablo fans which are going to be disappointed. If you make slots and bags buyable for a $ each, casuals will not do it just for the sake of having them... Nobody can argue that there is a valid technical reason to limit us like this... you are surely not getting server queues because of a few kbyte per player...
|
On February 03 2012 01:39 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 07:05 Assault_1 wrote:On February 02 2012 06:45 Tula wrote:
3) Considering that Blizzard cannot charge for the battlenet (at least without loosing a ton of buisness) that service needs to be provided almost for free, or at least covered within their profit margin from buying the box. you forgot their main source of revenue, taking a cut off each transaction in the auction house this game will probably make more money for them than WoW I am not so sure how much that will actually bring in. We don't know how high the cut is and in addition they will accrue quite a few additional costs to administer the RMAH properly (and keep it secure from hack attempts). It might make more money than WoW for a short period of time, but frankly I seriously doubt that this game will come even close to WoW in the long run. Consider how many users will not use the RMAH much, if at all. I might spend the money on the box for the game, and maybe i will trade around inside the game, but frankly i am not planning to spend a single real dollar in the Auction House, and almost every gamer i know plans to do the same. Yes there are some people who want it (the same people who bought Gold in WoW obviously) and will use it, but compared to the millions of subscribers in WoW who pay a monthly fee i don't think the revenue from the RMAH will come close.
WoW is/was a 1+ Billion revenue, there is no way the RMAH will compete. It will make millions I'm sure of it but it will in no way come close to the big cash cow WoW is.
|
I say Were gonna be able to pay for extra storage space soon.
|
They could just make us pay some gold for the slots. That would at least add to the gold-sink mentality Blizzard is going for with Diablo III.
|
ITT: People who assume way too much. You have no idea how the items are stored and accessed, don't pretend you do.
Blizzard has the numbers and made a decision based off those numbers. Blizzard knows what they are doing, they are just trying to play it safe for now. If storage space is bad, then they will increase the stash size.
Going off what we have seen so far, microtransactions aren't Blizzards thing, at least not for gameplay altering things. Gold sinks yes but not money sinks.
|
On February 03 2012 06:32 Nilrem wrote:
They could just make us pay some gold for the slots. That would at least add to the gold-sink mentality Blizzard is going for with Diablo III. You do need to pay gold for slots.
|
somebody tell me, what is a shared stash exactly ?
|
Since Blizzard is trying to do as much as posseble to get rid of low, crappy items in AH, so when having 3 slots you obviously can't sell less as much equips.
|
On February 03 2012 07:12 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 06:32 Nilrem wrote:
They could just make us pay some gold for the slots. That would at least add to the gold-sink mentality Blizzard is going for with Diablo III. You do need to pay gold for slots.
Herpa Derp, forgot about that haha. Have not extended my stash in a while so I sort of forget about it. Like, since I maxed out the Crafting, I had to rethink for a moment what the max level for it was.
|
On February 03 2012 07:20 krzych113 wrote:
somebody tell me, what is a shared stash exactly ?
Storage area between characters. So you put something in on your wizard and it's available to your barbarian. The old way in d2 involved mule characters and silly trade scenarios to move something to another character.
To me not being in the beta, it seems ok. They reevaluated their starting requirements so it's not a huge deal. There's already tons of storage and if it's an issue in the future they can always extend it later on.
|
I'd like to see the specs of Blizz' servers. 
|
Ridiculous. I hope they increase the storage because this not only smells like Blizzard wants more profit at the cost of gameplay and player options, but also because its quite small. I want to collect all the runes in game and the stash is only 210 squares now...
|
On February 03 2012 20:01 Overpowered wrote:
Ridiculous. I hope they increase the storage because this not only smells like Blizzard wants more profit at the cost of gameplay and player options, but also because its quite small. I want to collect all the runes in game and the stash is only 210 squares now...
Yes, very ridiculous because you can't stack runes at all. We know that because Blizzard hasn't said anything about stacking runes and because of that we know that we can't stack runes at all.
Get a grip Blizzard!
|
Is it done to force people to use the new AH ?
|
1. More RMAH use
2. In the future probably there will be some drop that increases your stash size and that item can be sold in RMAH = paid services on RMAH
Not saying it is a good or bad thing but when you have a RMAH in the game the use of it will be more than just armor and weapons. Blizzard is putting the RMAH in the game and any functionality in the game will of course be affected by the presence of RMAH.
|
On February 03 2012 21:31 kuresuti wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 20:01 Overpowered wrote:
Ridiculous. I hope they increase the storage because this not only smells like Blizzard wants more profit at the cost of gameplay and player options, but also because its quite small. I want to collect all the runes in game and the stash is only 210 squares now... Yes, very ridiculous because you can't stack runes at all. We know that because Blizzard hasn't said anything about stacking runes and because of that we know that we can't stack runes at all. Get a grip Blizzard!
Runes are still under development, and might not turn out to be items at all. A theory about this can be read here for example ; http://diablo.incgamers.com/blog/comments/additional-non-item-runestones-evidence
On February 06 2012 16:39 papaz wrote:
1. More RMAH use
2. In the future probably there will be some drop that increases your stash size and that item can be sold in RMAH = paid services on RMAH
Not saying it is a good or bad thing but when you have a RMAH in the game the use of it will be more than just armor and weapons. Blizzard is putting the RMAH in the game and any functionality in the game will of course be affected by the presence of RMAH.
Except there is no RMAH on HC, nice try.
|
On February 06 2012 17:38 Urbz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 21:31 kuresuti wrote:On February 03 2012 20:01 Overpowered wrote:
Ridiculous. I hope they increase the storage because this not only smells like Blizzard wants more profit at the cost of gameplay and player options, but also because its quite small. I want to collect all the runes in game and the stash is only 210 squares now... Yes, very ridiculous because you can't stack runes at all. We know that because Blizzard hasn't said anything about stacking runes and because of that we know that we can't stack runes at all. Get a grip Blizzard! Runes are still under development, and might not turn out to be items at all. A theory about this can be read here for example ; http://diablo.incgamers.com/blog/comments/additional-non-item-runestones-evidenceShow nested quote +On February 06 2012 16:39 papaz wrote:
1. More RMAH use
2. In the future probably there will be some drop that increases your stash size and that item can be sold in RMAH = paid services on RMAH
Not saying it is a good or bad thing but when you have a RMAH in the game the use of it will be more than just armor and weapons. Blizzard is putting the RMAH in the game and any functionality in the game will of course be affected by the presence of RMAH. Except there is no RMAH on HC, nice try.
True but normal mode > hc mode in terms of players and thus priority and importance (specially considering lot of the money going into Blizz pockets for future development comes from RMAH if not almost all).
Again I'm not saying it is a bad decision from Blizz. I actually like the decision *hides under a shelter in case RMAH haters are going to flame me know*.
If I was working at Blizz as a game designer and we just decided with going with RMAH I would sure as hell base a lot of decisions around the fact that we have RMAH.
Instead of "paid services" have things that drop that can be sold at RMAH. Bigger stash size, pets that loot gold etc.
The stash size is a win-win. They don't need to have the same storage capacity and they can in the future have items that increases stash size that sells on RMAH.
And HC... well tough luck. HC will always be prio 2 after normal mode where RMAH is at.
|
So while you guys are discussing about whether bandwidth might be a real issue or not, let me ask something else:
If i want to transfer 10 items from char A to char B, if i can put 5 items in shared stash i need to switch characters four times to do so (log in A, store 5, log in B, take 5, log in A, store 5, log in B, take 5).
So now they change it to only have 4 items in shared stash. Now if i want to transfer 10 items, i have to relog 8 times?? and that's supposed to reduce server load? idk but that just sounds wrong, like they're shooting themselves in the knee with this Oo
|
On February 06 2012 20:55 MisterD wrote:
So while you guys are discussing about whether bandwidth might be a real issue or not, let me ask something else:
If i want to transfer 10 items from char A to char B, if i can put 5 items in shared stash i need to switch characters four times to do so (log in A, store 5, log in B, take 5, log in A, store 5, log in B, take 5).
So now they change it to only have 4 items in shared stash. Now if i want to transfer 10 items, i have to relog 8 times?? and that's supposed to reduce server load? idk but that just sounds wrong, like they're shooting themselves in the knee with this Oo
I don't know if you misunderstood the whole post, or I'm misunderstanding you
But we're talking about item slot TABS, not slots afaik. So less tabs, with the same amount of slots.
Meaning you can just put all your items in the stash np.
(sorry if you didn't mean that)
|
On February 06 2012 20:46 papaz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2012 17:38 Urbz wrote:On February 03 2012 21:31 kuresuti wrote:On February 03 2012 20:01 Overpowered wrote:
Ridiculous. I hope they increase the storage because this not only smells like Blizzard wants more profit at the cost of gameplay and player options, but also because its quite small. I want to collect all the runes in game and the stash is only 210 squares now... Yes, very ridiculous because you can't stack runes at all. We know that because Blizzard hasn't said anything about stacking runes and because of that we know that we can't stack runes at all. Get a grip Blizzard! Runes are still under development, and might not turn out to be items at all. A theory about this can be read here for example ; http://diablo.incgamers.com/blog/comments/additional-non-item-runestones-evidenceOn February 06 2012 16:39 papaz wrote:
1. More RMAH use
2. In the future probably there will be some drop that increases your stash size and that item can be sold in RMAH = paid services on RMAH
Not saying it is a good or bad thing but when you have a RMAH in the game the use of it will be more than just armor and weapons. Blizzard is putting the RMAH in the game and any functionality in the game will of course be affected by the presence of RMAH. Except there is no RMAH on HC, nice try. True but normal mode > hc mode in terms of players and thus priority and importance (specially considering lot of the money going into Blizz pockets for future development comes from RMAH if not almost all). Again I'm not saying it is a bad decision from Blizz. I actually like the decision *hides under a shelter in case RMAH haters are going to flame me know*. If I was working at Blizz as a game designer and we just decided with going with RMAH I would sure as hell base a lot of decisions around the fact that we have RMAH. Instead of "paid services" have things that drop that can be sold at RMAH. Bigger stash size, pets that loot gold etc. The stash size is a win-win. They don't need to have the same storage capacity and they can in the future have items that increases stash size that sells on RMAH. And HC... well tough luck. HC will always be prio 2 after normal mode where RMAH is at.
Maybe so but still all the available items will be the same in both modes, there should be no special items exclusively for SC/HC.
Aswell as being stated that they will increase the stash-size again in the future if it looks like it will be needed, wether or not we'll have to somehow pay for this no-one knows, time will tell as always. So assuming "the worst" is just baseless assumption at this time.
That said, the pack-rat that i am would not mind chipping in some for more stash-size but i will refuse to buy extra mule accounts though because after many hours of muling on D2 i will never want to go back to that again, ever.
I do think however any of this is why they changed this, and do believe Blizzard is just honest and wants to prevent big problems at release. They know their stuff, as real fans should know by now.
Diablo III will turn out great and we'll be playing it for a long time and no-one will remember things like pre-release changes and delay by then.
|
On February 06 2012 21:00 imPermanenCe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2012 20:55 MisterD wrote:
So while you guys are discussing about whether bandwidth might be a real issue or not, let me ask something else:
If i want to transfer 10 items from char A to char B, if i can put 5 items in shared stash i need to switch characters four times to do so (log in A, store 5, log in B, take 5, log in A, store 5, log in B, take 5).
So now they change it to only have 4 items in shared stash. Now if i want to transfer 10 items, i have to relog 8 times?? and that's supposed to reduce server load? idk but that just sounds wrong, like they're shooting themselves in the knee with this Oo I don't know if you misunderstood the whole post, or I'm misunderstanding you But we're talking about item slot TABS, not slots afaik. So less tabs, with the same amount of slots. Meaning you can just put all your items in the stash np. (sorry if you didn't mean that)
oh haha yeah, my fuckup ^^ mixed up slots with tabs. Also i completely ignored that diablo had "big" items that use up multiple slots, way to fail. i shouldn't post right after breakfast i guess^^ first finish waking up next time.
|
I play SinglePlayer Diablo2 with Plugy, so I have a shared stash with ~1,4 million pages for all my characters. I've been gathering items for years now. Some of the 10x10 pages are filled with rare/crafted amuletts/rings (i.e. 100 rare items which have the highest number of stats). Along with 5-10 pieces of each Unique, Setitems, Runes, hell, whatever you can find in the game. Basically thousands(!) of rather unnecessary items, just because I can.
My shared stash size is 208kB on my HD.
Even if I assume that an item in Diablo3 needs double the data than an item in D2, this is ridiculous. I mean, it's 2012. My google email account offers 7677MB for "free" (yeah, they collect some data...). Ofc these MBs don't need to be loaded at once into the server RAM etc, but seriously, item data doesn't need space. At all.
The more they reveal about D3, the less I want to play it. PoE looks good though
|
On February 07 2012 06:12 griD77 wrote:I play SinglePlayer Diablo2 with Plugy, so I have a shared stash with ~1,4 million pages for all my characters. I've been gathering items for years now. Some of the 10x10 pages are filled with rare/crafted amuletts/rings (i.e. 100 rare items which have the highest number of stats). Along with 5-10 pieces of each Unique, Setitems, Runes, hell, whatever you can find in the game. Basically thousands(!) of rather unnecessary items, just because I can. My shared stash size is 208kB on my HD. Even if I assume that an item in Diablo3 needs double the data than an item in D2, this is ridiculous. I mean, it's 2012. My google email account offers 7677MB for "free" (yeah, they collect some data...). Ofc these MBs don't need to be loaded at once into the server RAM etc, but seriously, item data doesn't need space. At all. The more they reveal about D3, the less I want to play it. PoE looks good though
As a beta tester in both games, PoE is baddddd. I'm hoping they make some major changes as in theory the game sounds great. However, as of this moment D3 (as expected) completely mops the floor with PoE.
|
Smaller stash? Can't keep all this stuff around, may as well sell in on RMAH and buy it back later if I need it. I wonder who profits off that?
|
Its so sad how these major changes are still happening for a game that you'd think would be well thought out over the course of 10 years.
|
On February 07 2012 09:20 DMKraft wrote:
Smaller stash? Can't keep all this stuff around, may as well sell in on RMAH and buy it back later if I need it. I wonder who profits off that?
Conspiracy theorists like yourself!
|
They should have started it at 2 slots...
Then "heard the community" and upped it to 3...
And be called amazing for a week.
|
On February 07 2012 06:12 griD77 wrote:I play SinglePlayer Diablo2 with Plugy, so I have a shared stash with ~1,4 million pages for all my characters. I've been gathering items for years now. Some of the 10x10 pages are filled with rare/crafted amuletts/rings (i.e. 100 rare items which have the highest number of stats). Along with 5-10 pieces of each Unique, Setitems, Runes, hell, whatever you can find in the game. Basically thousands(!) of rather unnecessary items, just because I can. My shared stash size is 208kB on my HD. Even if I assume that an item in Diablo3 needs double the data than an item in D2, this is ridiculous. I mean, it's 2012. My google email account offers 7677MB for "free" (yeah, they collect some data...). Ofc these MBs don't need to be loaded at once into the server RAM etc, but seriously, item data doesn't need space. At all. The more they reveal about D3, the less I want to play it. PoE looks good though
You're stash contents are stored on your local drive. D3's stash will be stored online and will need to be retrieved every time you access or look at the stash. This is the issue they are talking about. Not having to store it but rather having to "serve" it over and over (You are basically downloading that 208kb or whatever number you want every time).
|
I don't see anything wrong with proper limits to the amount you can hold in your stash.
Inventory space management is a strong component to a good RPG imho. It forces you to make decisions. You can't just horde everything or if you really want to, it will be a pain.
|
so the game gets nerfed because blizz makes terrible decisions about its framework
if the game wasnt entirely on their servers and always played ont heri servers this would not be a problem.
good job blizzard
|
Look at it the bright side, maybe a year after the game is released blizzard can "easily" expand the stash again - assuming the do not mind adding new rows into their DB...
|
On February 09 2012 09:20 willoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2012 06:12 griD77 wrote:I play SinglePlayer Diablo2 with Plugy, so I have a shared stash with ~1,4 million pages for all my characters. I've been gathering items for years now. Some of the 10x10 pages are filled with rare/crafted amuletts/rings (i.e. 100 rare items which have the highest number of stats). Along with 5-10 pieces of each Unique, Setitems, Runes, hell, whatever you can find in the game. Basically thousands(!) of rather unnecessary items, just because I can. My shared stash size is 208kB on my HD. Even if I assume that an item in Diablo3 needs double the data than an item in D2, this is ridiculous. I mean, it's 2012. My google email account offers 7677MB for "free" (yeah, they collect some data...). Ofc these MBs don't need to be loaded at once into the server RAM etc, but seriously, item data doesn't need space. At all. The more they reveal about D3, the less I want to play it. PoE looks good though You're stash contents are stored on your local drive. D3's stash will be stored online and will need to be retrieved every time you access or look at the stash. This is the issue they are talking about. Not having to store it but rather having to "serve" it over and over (You are basically downloading that 208kb or whatever number you want every time).
Why should the data get send to me every time I look? I have RAM, so it will probably be once a session. And as I wrote before, the 208kB are for thousands of items, I'd be surprised if the itemdata from a full D3 stash would exceed 1/10 of that. Let's be generous and say it'll be 50kB for a full stash.
Just for comparision: Do you realize that the banner on top of this page is 33,x kB big?
Do you really think that technical issues/bandwith is a concern for those petty amounts of data, even if there are 100.000 concurrent users online in any given region? In a game that was designed to be a client/server application from the start?
I, for one, really think we are getting bullshitted.
|
On February 10 2012 08:13 Hikari wrote:
Look at it the bright side, maybe a year after the game is released blizzard can "easily" expand the stash again - assuming the do not mind adding new rows into their DB...
for the low price of $19.99
|
On February 07 2012 07:40 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2012 06:12 griD77 wrote:I play SinglePlayer Diablo2 with Plugy, so I have a shared stash with ~1,4 million pages for all my characters. I've been gathering items for years now. Some of the 10x10 pages are filled with rare/crafted amuletts/rings (i.e. 100 rare items which have the highest number of stats). Along with 5-10 pieces of each Unique, Setitems, Runes, hell, whatever you can find in the game. Basically thousands(!) of rather unnecessary items, just because I can. My shared stash size is 208kB on my HD. Even if I assume that an item in Diablo3 needs double the data than an item in D2, this is ridiculous. I mean, it's 2012. My google email account offers 7677MB for "free" (yeah, they collect some data...). Ofc these MBs don't need to be loaded at once into the server RAM etc, but seriously, item data doesn't need space. At all. The more they reveal about D3, the less I want to play it. PoE looks good though As a beta tester in both games, PoE is baddddd. I'm hoping they make some major changes as in theory the game sounds great. However, as of this moment D3 (as expected) completely mops the floor with PoE.
I'm a tester for both games as well and the only difference I really see is that it's obvious blizzard has more money to put into their game. Yet PoE runs at 60fps on high settings where as I can only manage around 35 when in combat in diablo 3. I actually think PoE runs much better and looks better than diablo 3 at the same time, or at least seems to have a more powerful engine.
|
On February 15 2012 07:55 griD77 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 09:20 willoc wrote:On February 07 2012 06:12 griD77 wrote:I play SinglePlayer Diablo2 with Plugy, so I have a shared stash with ~1,4 million pages for all my characters. I've been gathering items for years now. Some of the 10x10 pages are filled with rare/crafted amuletts/rings (i.e. 100 rare items which have the highest number of stats). Along with 5-10 pieces of each Unique, Setitems, Runes, hell, whatever you can find in the game. Basically thousands(!) of rather unnecessary items, just because I can. My shared stash size is 208kB on my HD. Even if I assume that an item in Diablo3 needs double the data than an item in D2, this is ridiculous. I mean, it's 2012. My google email account offers 7677MB for "free" (yeah, they collect some data...). Ofc these MBs don't need to be loaded at once into the server RAM etc, but seriously, item data doesn't need space. At all. The more they reveal about D3, the less I want to play it. PoE looks good though You're stash contents are stored on your local drive. D3's stash will be stored online and will need to be retrieved every time you access or look at the stash. This is the issue they are talking about. Not having to store it but rather having to "serve" it over and over (You are basically downloading that 208kb or whatever number you want every time). Why should the data get send to me every time I look? I have RAM, so it will probably be once a session. And as I wrote before, the 208kB are for thousands of items, I'd be surprised if the itemdata from a full D3 stash would exceed 1/10 of that. Let's be generous and say it'll be 50kB for a full stash. Just for comparision: Do you realize that the banner on top of this page is 33,x kB big? Do you really think that technical issues/bandwith is a concern for those petty amounts of data, even if there are 100.000 concurrent users online in any given region? In a game that was designed to be a client/server application from the start? I, for one, really think we are getting bullshitted.
Yes it is. Bandwidth/servers aren't as cheap as you (and everyone who complains about MMO monthly costs) think they are.
|
Sounds about like what I expect from modern-day Blizzard.
|
3 rows is still a lot of room to store stuff and most likely blizz will add more slots in another expansion.
|
On February 15 2012 10:46 oxxo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 07:55 griD77 wrote:On February 09 2012 09:20 willoc wrote:On February 07 2012 06:12 griD77 wrote:I play SinglePlayer Diablo2 with Plugy, so I have a shared stash with ~1,4 million pages for all my characters. I've been gathering items for years now. Some of the 10x10 pages are filled with rare/crafted amuletts/rings (i.e. 100 rare items which have the highest number of stats). Along with 5-10 pieces of each Unique, Setitems, Runes, hell, whatever you can find in the game. Basically thousands(!) of rather unnecessary items, just because I can. My shared stash size is 208kB on my HD. Even if I assume that an item in Diablo3 needs double the data than an item in D2, this is ridiculous. I mean, it's 2012. My google email account offers 7677MB for "free" (yeah, they collect some data...). Ofc these MBs don't need to be loaded at once into the server RAM etc, but seriously, item data doesn't need space. At all. The more they reveal about D3, the less I want to play it. PoE looks good though You're stash contents are stored on your local drive. D3's stash will be stored online and will need to be retrieved every time you access or look at the stash. This is the issue they are talking about. Not having to store it but rather having to "serve" it over and over (You are basically downloading that 208kb or whatever number you want every time). Why should the data get send to me every time I look? I have RAM, so it will probably be once a session. And as I wrote before, the 208kB are for thousands of items, I'd be surprised if the itemdata from a full D3 stash would exceed 1/10 of that. Let's be generous and say it'll be 50kB for a full stash. Just for comparision: Do you realize that the banner on top of this page is 33,x kB big? Do you really think that technical issues/bandwith is a concern for those petty amounts of data, even if there are 100.000 concurrent users online in any given region? In a game that was designed to be a client/server application from the start? I, for one, really think we are getting bullshitted. Yes it is. Bandwidth/servers aren't as cheap as you (and everyone who complains about MMO monthly costs) think they are.
Yeah I am perfectly aware of the fact that bandwith is not free (but it is very cheap nowadays). We are still talking about petty amounts of data, so that's that.
This is just a push to highten the usage of the RMAH, which is their main source of continued revenues from the game and it is blatantly obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
