Currency stack sizes

Is there any rationale behind the stack sizes?

Chaos and regret, which are both of nearly equal value in the economy, have stack sizes of 10 and 40 resp.

Alchs, which are pretty common but still useful have a very low stack size of 10, while Gcps being much rarer relatively, have stack size of 20.

Would be great if stack sizes of all orbs could go upto a fixed value, such as 99 or 100, so that we could save some stash space. Exalt/eternal stacks are fine because most people don't have 100s of them.

Unless ofc it is part of the 'challenge' of the game to make players struggle to manage stash space?

Yeah, I wish they'd just pick a size and stick with it.

The current stack sizes seem random and make no sense.

My opinion: Just make everything 40.

"

BeakersBeak wrote:

My opinion: Just make everything 40.

Agreed.

Its RNG

"

MaxTheLimit wrote:

Stash space is supposed to be limited. GGG have said so in the past...

Sure, to promote more stash tab purchases :)

If someone was proposing that GGG should make gems stack, or swords stack, then this point (about stash space being a precious commodity by design) would rightfully come into play. But we're talking about items that are already stackable and take up 1x1 spaces.

"

MaxTheLimit wrote:

Low value stacks are 40. High value stacks are 20.

I know what you're saying, and yes I would prefer that too... If there had to be two tiers. But this still seems silly to me because people will have less "high-value" orbs anyways, so the reduced stack limit is often not even reached. That's why it's dumb to have a reduced stack size on the more infrequent items.

"

morbo wrote:

Its RNG

LoL, how apt.

P.s. The contraction of "it" and "is" would be "it's", not "its".

Not disagreeing or giving an opinion just stating

-->

The stack size is not based on stash limitations, but rather for inventory limitations. So please analyse currency stack sizes based on this

They want to discourage hoarding. They want you to feel like you can use orbs and not "lose". So they spread them thin so it looks like you have a lot of them and are encouraged to use them up to free up space.

That's quite a bit of psychology there, Shagsbeard.

I understand the inventory concerns. If you don't have space for an exalt orb, that's a gameplay challenge that GGG wants to enforce (for the same reason the inventory has any limits at all). If they didn't want that, then they could just have a "gold counter" in your inventory screen for each orb.

The stack sizes are indeed quite arbitrary, but I'm not sure what the heuristic for stack sizes should be. I don't think "flat X size across the board" is entirely right. The current heuristic of "tiered stack size based on rarity" seems to work, but with OP's noted mismatches.

---

Separately, I don't like the stash restrictions. I would greatly prefer the "gold counter" approach when it comes to mass storage, one counter per orb type. You can pull them out of there one stack at a time with lclick, can shift+lclick to pull out a number less than a stack, can use one with rclick, or just shift+rclick and use up a thousand in one go.

This just feels like something that GGG never planned on returning to 'touch up'. They didn't have shift+lclick or shift+rclick back in the day, and they probably don't want to touch the stash (UI or contents) now since it's very risk-prone. Would be nice though, and would make stash tabs ever-so-slightly less p2w.

Not sure if I buy the psychological concerns. Maybe, but that fails Occam's Razor. It's much more likely they just never gave it the time of day.