| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe
YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2016
   |
Posted - 2012.06.21 15:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
Virgil Travis wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:Any A-Team fans around? i'm a bird, I'm a plane, I'm a choo choo train!
I'm a Bird, I'm a Plane, I'm a BIRDPLANE
This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe
YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2056
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 07:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
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.
This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe
YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 11:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
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...
CCP Explorer is Beetlejuice!
This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe
YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2062
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
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?
This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
| |
|