Currently, main inventory is 4 rows x 9 columns x 64 items per stack = 2304 items.
However, that is a theoretical limit because, in actual practice, players carry several tools and 1-per-stack items so the "actual" limit is much lower.
However, the variety of "carriable" items is only 4x9 = 36 different types of items. And while this served us well back in beta, now with all the new blocks and new items (and let's not even talk about those from modpacks), the inventory constantly feels "cramped. You can go branch mining and carry thousands of tons of cobblestone around, but when exploring the world you can't walk 5 minutes before your inventory is full of small stacks and you can't even pick up a new flower anymore.
I propose modifying the inventory so that players cannot carry more items (in terms of a practical, not theoretical, limit), but are able to carry more varied types of items.
--> Inventory would become 13 columns of slots instead of 9 columns.
--> Direct slots hotkeys would become: '~' (key at left of '1' key), '1' through '0', '-' and finally '=' (keys at right of key '0'). Configurable of course just like the '1' to '9' keys currently are. In the Options, the key would be named direct slots #0 to #12. Thus, Slot #1 would still be keyed in to key '1'.
--> Chests also become 13 wide.
--> Horse chests could become wider (instead of only 5 slots wide).
--> MAYBE Dispensers/Hoppers/etc could have higher number of slots, however I personally do not see a huge need for that here.
--> Maximum stack size becomes 32 items per stack (without this, carry limit simply explodes, which would be totally unbalancing).
in short, more slots, yes, but less per slot. Increasing total VARIETY of "carriable" items, not the total AMOUNT.
Now the theoretical carry limit would become 4x13x32 = 1664 items. At 1st glance this seems too much lower than the 2304 limit we currently have. However, in practical terms, because of all the slot with tools and potions and 1-item-per-stack stuff, the practical limit would not really change all that much. For players that are used to carry as few tools as possible, the new limit would definitely seem to be lower. But for players that like to carry tools for every occasion and not constantly swap tools in and out of inventory every single time they change task, the limit would actually seem to become bigger. For most players, who have an in-the-middle situation, with a fair but not exaggerated number of tools, the practical limit would seem to be about the same as before.
The only times it would feel a bit lower would be when you want to do heavy-carrying: branch mining and wanting to keep all that cobble, or when you want to move all of your chests between two bases.
Both of these aspects would make building minecart systems a more appealing proposition anyway, which might be seen as either a plus or a minus, depending on the player asked.
You'd also have a bit more handling of stacks when dealing with large number of items. However, we already have a simple mechanic here: holding any item in hand, SHIFT and double-click on a stack to move ALL of the same-item-type stack between inventories. So the impact of this wouldn't be big at all.
The big gameplay gain would be that you could carry 56 different stack types instead of only 36. Explorers could pick up a bit of everything along their travels, builders trying designs would have much less micromanaging switching blocks in and out of their direct slots, or between main inventory and "building parts" chests, and so on. Chests for "mono type" resources would fill up faster, sure, but however chests for holding tons of different items would fill up much less fast !
Mods often add tons of new items: that kind of mod would gain even more from this "more slots, not more total items" approach to inventory.
A secondary but very minor issue is that a few trades require more than 32 items from the player. Lots of potential possible solutions here but IMHO the simplest would be to simply these "over 32 items" trades use both input slots. Let's say a Cleric profession trade rate is 39 Rotten Flesh for 1 Emerald, then the trading interface would show left input slots needing 32 Rotten Flesh and right input slot needing 7 Rotten Flesh.
Overall I'd say the gameplay positives far outweigh the few negatives.
I'm not huge on the idea. I would like to have an additional column for the 0 key but that is about it. It is an incredibly minor issue that is almost entirely offset by proper planning and organization.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
Here is what my Ender chest typically looks like after a play session (all of this was mined in a single play session):
Excluding the last 5 slots, I picked up a total of 5,708 resources occupying 20 slots, and most of those slots are occupied by full stacks; counting mineral resources only the utilization efficiency is 77% (5310 / 6912). With stacks of only 32 the utilization efficiency would become 88% (5310 / 6048) but I would also need 21 slots, a 75% increase, which more than offsets the 44% increase in total slots (assuming you are only increasing the number of columns, not rows, so you get 39 slots instead of 27). Including the other resources, many of which occupy the same number of slots with your idea, I would need 31 slots, 55% more, which is still more than the number of extra slots. After I dump all of this into a double chest for temporary storage between trips back to my main base the differences become even greater since the ratio of filled to partial slots becomes greater after several play sessions; for example, I rarely accumulate more than a stack of emerald ore but often more than half a stack, so it would take up twice as much space.
In other words, despite a higher utilization efficiency per slot I would not benefit from being able to carry more types of items and would have to return more often, particularly back to my main base (I empty out my Ender chest into a double chest and make trips back when it is full). In fact, in one of my mods I even added a special double chest size Ender chest (in addition to the normal one, so that's 3 times the storage) so I don't have to go back so often. In fact, see the odd-looking blocks 3 slots from the right in the second row? I added a block that lets you craft 9 rails into one block to make more room (instead of 64 you get 576 items per stack, reducing 9 slots to 1); likewise, I did not bother mining more coal than I actually used until 1.6 added the block of coal and would have done the same for redstone if I started playing before 1.5; I also consider Fortune to be deleterious because of the extra drops or the need to carry another pickaxe.
The only real advantage to this suggestion is more hotbar slots, and even then the smaller stack size means you'd usually have to open your inventory more often when building (if you want to make e.g. a rainbow with every wool color you can lay down one color at a time instead of trying to do all 16 at once). Otherwise, Ender chests allow you to have up to 62 inventory slots (including the offhand and subtracting 2 for the Ender chest and Silk Touch pickaxe; 64 if you are only transporting items between bases with Ender chests in them).
I'm not huge on the idea. I would like to have an additional column for the 0 key but that is about it. It is an incredibly minor issue that is almost entirely offset by proper planning and organization.
I would be totally down for this. Adding a 10th slot wouldn't be awkward at all, and I think that after a little bit of awkwardness at first, most players would appreciate it. After all, more inventory space is rarely considered a bad thing. (I'll address the 13 wide below).
Here is what my Ender chest typically looks like after a play session (all of this was mined in a single play session):
Excluding the last 5 slots, I picked up a total of 5,708 resources occupying 20 slots, and most of those slots are occupied by full stacks; counting mineral resources only the utilization efficiency is 77% (5310 / 6912). With stacks of only 32 the utilization efficiency would become 88% (5310 / 6048) but I would also need 21 slots, a 75% increase, which more than offsets the 44% increase in total slots (assuming you are only increasing the number of columns, not rows, so you get 39 slots instead of 27). Including the other resources, many of which occupy the same number of slots with your idea, I would need 31 slots, 55% more, which is still more than the number of extra slots. After I dump all of this into a double chest for temporary storage between trips back to my main base the differences become even greater since the ratio of filled to partial slots becomes greater after several play sessions; for example, I rarely accumulate more than a stack of emerald ore but often more than half a stack, so it would take up twice as much space.
In other words, despite a higher utilization efficiency per slot I would not benefit from being able to carry more types of items and would have to return more often, particularly back to my main base (I empty out my Ender chest into a double chest and make trips back when it is full). In fact, in one of my mods I even added a special double chest size Ender chest (in addition to the normal one, so that's 3 times the storage) so I don't have to go back so often. In fact, see the odd-looking blocks 3 slots from the right in the second row? I added a block that lets you craft 9 rails into one block to make more room (instead of 64 you get 576 items per stack, reducing 9 slots to 1); likewise, I did not bother mining more coal than I actually used until 1.6 added the block of coal and would have done the same for redstone if I started playing before 1.5; I also consider Fortune to be deleterious because of the extra drops or the need to carry another pickaxe.
The only real advantage to this suggestion is more hotbar slots, and even then the smaller stack size means you'd usually have to open your inventory more often when building (if you want to make e.g. a rainbow with every wool color you can lay down one color at a time instead of trying to do all 16 at once). Otherwise, Ender chests allow you to have up to 62 inventory slots (including the offhand and subtracting 2 for the Ender chest and Silk Touch pickaxe; 64 if you are only transporting items between bases with Ender chests in them).
Your response is sort of the exact opposite of what this post is about. Everything you said against this was basically all said in the OP as a tool to argue for the suggestion (technically, they only mentioned cobble. But they were implying mining in general, and I'm about to explain why). Mining results in a very limited amount of blocks that are actually different. You only mine around 6 different blocks the entire time, and that's including cobblestone - which I can see you threw away (aside from the extra 6 but shhhh). Not to mention, all of those blocks are compactible, as I can see you took advantage of. This is a good way of mining, frankly it's the right way of mining. But unfortunately, it has little to nothing to do with what this suggestion is all about. This suggestion is about when you go out into the world (above ground) and explore. You gather many different resources when you're not limited to the small amount of ores the game contains, but instead the expansive overworld blocks. If you read through the OP carefully, you can read the line about how after a short time you won't even be able to pick up a new flower. If you say "bah, who needs to pick up flowers? I'm only taking what I need so that I have room", then I say "Shut up already that's not what this suggestion is about!!!"
Ranting aside, the suggestion is about adding more different items, not more items overall. Also, using an enderchest is an incredibly expensive, late game, obnoxiously expensive way of storing items that frankly almost nobody uses (and I mean that as in bringing one with you, where you have to break and then re-craft it all the time with new eyes of ender).
I don't really like the idea of adding that many extra inventory slots; it would just be a little overwhelming. But I do think that it's definitely a problem with the game, and one that I'm glad somebody brought up. I can't really think of an alternative solution, but I wish I could.
P.S. Sorry for being sort of rude/ranty above, and talking as if it's my thread (which it obviously is not). I also assumed a lot of stuff about the author's opinions, sorry if I inserted my own where they didn't belong
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Even though my Join date is in 2014, I tried the demo on 8/30/2012, and bought the game two days later on 9/1/2012. So hipster
1. ...and that's including cobblestone - which I can see you threw away (aside from the extra 6 but shhhh).
2. This is a good way of mining, frankly it's the right way of mining. But unfortunately, it has little to nothing to do with what this suggestion is all about.
3. Also, using an enderchest is an incredibly expensive, late game, obnoxiously expensive way of storing items that frankly almost nobody uses (and I mean that as in bringing one with you, where you have to break and then re-craft it all the time with new eyes of ender).
1. Actually, I don't throw away cobblestone - I actually often intentionally mine more so I can build bridges in ravines, fill in holes, and so on (when they call caves in 1.6.4 Swiss cheese they really mean it) - and you don't really even need to mine any stone while caving.
2. My point was that the suggestion is reducing the number of items each stack can hold and despite an increase in utilization of each slot (i.e. the number of items you have divided by the maximum possible if every slot was filled) and the number of slots I would suffer from a decrease in inventory capacity; I wonder, is the OP assuming that you are only carrying like 1-3 of each item? Even after I included the slots with only a few items I still had a net loss in overall capacity. I also did not mention the fact that chests themselves would also store less, so if you were storing a lot of items you'd need more space, and if you did have that many you'd probably be using one chest for each type of item or variants of a specific item (there aren't that many variants of any type of item unless you were very general, such as grouping together all colored blocks, which wouldn't fit in even 39 slots anyway).
3. Ender chests are actually very cheap to use unless you just started playing the game, and you can use Silk Touch to mine them without having to recraft them (hence why I said you only needed 2 slots, one for the Ender chest and one for a Silk Touch pickaxe, instead of slots for obsidian, Eyes of Ender, and a crafting table). Maybe not as cheap as the backpack mod I used at one time which required leather and string but I could make one within a few in-game days after spawning; getting Silk Touch would take longer but the 1.8 enchanting makes it easier to get enchantments, particularly if you use the blocked bookshelf trick to change the levels (anything above level 8 can give you Silk Touch on a diamond pickaxe and each level has a different set of enchantments).
Like I said, the only real advantage I see to this suggestion is more hotbar slots, which could be done without changing the inventory itself.
I honestly don't see much of a problem in just increasing the overall inventory size by an extra column. You could argue that limited inventory size is part of the challenge, but it's not like we're talking about doubling the inventory size. I don't think all of this lowering of the maximum stack mess is really necessary as long as we don't add too much. While problems with inventory limitations can be avoided with proper planning, I really don't feel like it adds much in terms of challenge to the game. All it really is is a minor inconvenience. If you run out of inventory space you just have to run all the way back to your base, dump everything into a chest, and run all the way back (unless you're carrying an ender chest and Silk Touch pickaxe). If you're so far away from your base that going back and forth isn't an option, it only takes 8 wood planks to build a temporary chest; 12 if you don't carry a crafting table with you.
Sure, you could argue that extra inventory space allows you to carry more potions, tools, etc. but really, I can't see any practical arguments against it. Increased inventory space really only seems to be an increase to overall convenience. Is that ever a bad thing?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This is a test, this is only a test.
boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...
Currently, main inventory is 4 rows x 9 columns x 64 items per stack = 2304 items.
However, that is a theoretical limit because, in actual practice, players carry several tools and 1-per-stack items so the "actual" limit is much lower.
However, the variety of "carriable" items is only 4x9 = 36 different types of items. And while this served us well back in beta, now with all the new blocks and new items (and let's not even talk about those from modpacks), the inventory constantly feels "cramped. You can go branch mining and carry thousands of tons of cobblestone around, but when exploring the world you can't walk 5 minutes before your inventory is full of small stacks and you can't even pick up a new flower anymore.
I propose modifying the inventory so that players cannot carry more items (in terms of a practical, not theoretical, limit), but are able to carry more varied types of items.
--> Inventory would become 13 columns of slots instead of 9 columns.
--> Direct slots hotkeys would become: '~' (key at left of '1' key), '1' through '0', '-' and finally '=' (keys at right of key '0'). Configurable of course just like the '1' to '9' keys currently are. In the Options, the key would be named direct slots #0 to #12. Thus, Slot #1 would still be keyed in to key '1'.
--> Chests also become 13 wide.
--> Horse chests could become wider (instead of only 5 slots wide).
--> MAYBE Dispensers/Hoppers/etc could have higher number of slots, however I personally do not see a huge need for that here.
--> Maximum stack size becomes 32 items per stack (without this, carry limit simply explodes, which would be totally unbalancing).
in short, more slots, yes, but less per slot. Increasing total VARIETY of "carriable" items, not the total AMOUNT.
Now the theoretical carry limit would become 4x13x32 = 1664 items. At 1st glance this seems too much lower than the 2304 limit we currently have. However, in practical terms, because of all the slot with tools and potions and 1-item-per-stack stuff, the practical limit would not really change all that much. For players that are used to carry as few tools as possible, the new limit would definitely seem to be lower. But for players that like to carry tools for every occasion and not constantly swap tools in and out of inventory every single time they change task, the limit would actually seem to become bigger. For most players, who have an in-the-middle situation, with a fair but not exaggerated number of tools, the practical limit would seem to be about the same as before.
The only times it would feel a bit lower would be when you want to do heavy-carrying: branch mining and wanting to keep all that cobble, or when you want to move all of your chests between two bases.
Both of these aspects would make building minecart systems a more appealing proposition anyway, which might be seen as either a plus or a minus, depending on the player asked.
You'd also have a bit more handling of stacks when dealing with large number of items. However, we already have a simple mechanic here: holding any item in hand, SHIFT and double-click on a stack to move ALL of the same-item-type stack between inventories. So the impact of this wouldn't be big at all.
The big gameplay gain would be that you could carry 56 different stack types instead of only 36. Explorers could pick up a bit of everything along their travels, builders trying designs would have much less micromanaging switching blocks in and out of their direct slots, or between main inventory and "building parts" chests, and so on. Chests for "mono type" resources would fill up faster, sure, but however chests for holding tons of different items would fill up much less fast !
Mods often add tons of new items: that kind of mod would gain even more from this "more slots, not more total items" approach to inventory.
A secondary but very minor issue is that a few trades require more than 32 items from the player. Lots of potential possible solutions here but IMHO the simplest would be to simply these "over 32 items" trades use both input slots. Let's say a Cleric profession trade rate is 39 Rotten Flesh for 1 Emerald, then the trading interface would show left input slots needing 32 Rotten Flesh and right input slot needing 7 Rotten Flesh.
Overall I'd say the gameplay positives far outweigh the few negatives.
I'm not huge on the idea. I would like to have an additional column for the 0 key but that is about it. It is an incredibly minor issue that is almost entirely offset by proper planning and organization.
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/suggestions/2775557-guidelines-for-the-suggestions-forum
What would the new inventory look like?
I'd very much rather use the current system; why?
Here is what my Ender chest typically looks like after a play session (all of this was mined in a single play session):
Excluding the last 5 slots, I picked up a total of 5,708 resources occupying 20 slots, and most of those slots are occupied by full stacks; counting mineral resources only the utilization efficiency is 77% (5310 / 6912). With stacks of only 32 the utilization efficiency would become 88% (5310 / 6048) but I would also need 21 slots, a 75% increase, which more than offsets the 44% increase in total slots (assuming you are only increasing the number of columns, not rows, so you get 39 slots instead of 27). Including the other resources, many of which occupy the same number of slots with your idea, I would need 31 slots, 55% more, which is still more than the number of extra slots. After I dump all of this into a double chest for temporary storage between trips back to my main base the differences become even greater since the ratio of filled to partial slots becomes greater after several play sessions; for example, I rarely accumulate more than a stack of emerald ore but often more than half a stack, so it would take up twice as much space.
In other words, despite a higher utilization efficiency per slot I would not benefit from being able to carry more types of items and would have to return more often, particularly back to my main base (I empty out my Ender chest into a double chest and make trips back when it is full). In fact, in one of my mods I even added a special double chest size Ender chest (in addition to the normal one, so that's 3 times the storage) so I don't have to go back so often. In fact, see the odd-looking blocks 3 slots from the right in the second row? I added a block that lets you craft 9 rails into one block to make more room (instead of 64 you get 576 items per stack, reducing 9 slots to 1); likewise, I did not bother mining more coal than I actually used until 1.6 added the block of coal and would have done the same for redstone if I started playing before 1.5; I also consider Fortune to be deleterious because of the extra drops or the need to carry another pickaxe.
The only real advantage to this suggestion is more hotbar slots, and even then the smaller stack size means you'd usually have to open your inventory more often when building (if you want to make e.g. a rainbow with every wool color you can lay down one color at a time instead of trying to do all 16 at once). Otherwise, Ender chests allow you to have up to 62 inventory slots (including the offhand and subtracting 2 for the Ender chest and Silk Touch pickaxe; 64 if you are only transporting items between bases with Ender chests in them).
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
I do not support the 13 wide. My keyboard has ~ below backspace (its the UK layout). Maybe 9x6 instead? Or 10x6, if you want to include 0?
System.out.err("Nope");
I would be totally down for this. Adding a 10th slot wouldn't be awkward at all, and I think that after a little bit of awkwardness at first, most players would appreciate it. After all, more inventory space is rarely considered a bad thing. (I'll address the 13 wide below).
Your response is sort of the exact opposite of what this post is about. Everything you said against this was basically all said in the OP as a tool to argue for the suggestion (technically, they only mentioned cobble. But they were implying mining in general, and I'm about to explain why). Mining results in a very limited amount of blocks that are actually different. You only mine around 6 different blocks the entire time, and that's including cobblestone - which I can see you threw away (aside from the extra 6 but shhhh). Not to mention, all of those blocks are compactible, as I can see you took advantage of. This is a good way of mining, frankly it's the right way of mining. But unfortunately, it has little to nothing to do with what this suggestion is all about. This suggestion is about when you go out into the world (above ground) and explore. You gather many different resources when you're not limited to the small amount of ores the game contains, but instead the expansive overworld blocks. If you read through the OP carefully, you can read the line about how after a short time you won't even be able to pick up a new flower. If you say "bah, who needs to pick up flowers? I'm only taking what I need so that I have room", then I say "Shut up already that's not what this suggestion is about!!!"
Ranting aside, the suggestion is about adding more different items, not more items overall. Also, using an enderchest is an incredibly expensive, late game, obnoxiously expensive way of storing items that frankly almost nobody uses (and I mean that as in bringing one with you, where you have to break and then re-craft it all the time with new eyes of ender).
I don't really like the idea of adding that many extra inventory slots; it would just be a little overwhelming. But I do think that it's definitely a problem with the game, and one that I'm glad somebody brought up. I can't really think of an alternative solution, but I wish I could.
P.S. Sorry for being sort of rude/ranty above, and talking as if it's my thread (which it obviously is not). I also assumed a lot of stuff about the author's opinions, sorry if I inserted my own where they didn't belong
Even though my Join date is in 2014, I tried the demo on 8/30/2012, and bought the game two days later on 9/1/2012. So hipster
Stuff I support:
Click here to get Rick-Rolled. No seriously
1. Actually, I don't throw away cobblestone - I actually often intentionally mine more so I can build bridges in ravines, fill in holes, and so on (when they call caves in 1.6.4 Swiss cheese they really mean it) - and you don't really even need to mine any stone while caving.
2. My point was that the suggestion is reducing the number of items each stack can hold and despite an increase in utilization of each slot (i.e. the number of items you have divided by the maximum possible if every slot was filled) and the number of slots I would suffer from a decrease in inventory capacity; I wonder, is the OP assuming that you are only carrying like 1-3 of each item? Even after I included the slots with only a few items I still had a net loss in overall capacity. I also did not mention the fact that chests themselves would also store less, so if you were storing a lot of items you'd need more space, and if you did have that many you'd probably be using one chest for each type of item or variants of a specific item (there aren't that many variants of any type of item unless you were very general, such as grouping together all colored blocks, which wouldn't fit in even 39 slots anyway).
3. Ender chests are actually very cheap to use unless you just started playing the game, and you can use Silk Touch to mine them without having to recraft them (hence why I said you only needed 2 slots, one for the Ender chest and one for a Silk Touch pickaxe, instead of slots for obsidian, Eyes of Ender, and a crafting table). Maybe not as cheap as the backpack mod I used at one time which required leather and string but I could make one within a few in-game days after spawning; getting Silk Touch would take longer but the 1.8 enchanting makes it easier to get enchantments, particularly if you use the blocked bookshelf trick to change the levels (anything above level 8 can give you Silk Touch on a diamond pickaxe and each level has a different set of enchantments).
Like I said, the only real advantage I see to this suggestion is more hotbar slots, which could be done without changing the inventory itself.
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
I honestly don't see much of a problem in just increasing the overall inventory size by an extra column. You could argue that limited inventory size is part of the challenge, but it's not like we're talking about doubling the inventory size. I don't think all of this lowering of the maximum stack mess is really necessary as long as we don't add too much. While problems with inventory limitations can be avoided with proper planning, I really don't feel like it adds much in terms of challenge to the game. All it really is is a minor inconvenience. If you run out of inventory space you just have to run all the way back to your base, dump everything into a chest, and run all the way back (unless you're carrying an ender chest and Silk Touch pickaxe). If you're so far away from your base that going back and forth isn't an option, it only takes 8 wood planks to build a temporary chest; 12 if you don't carry a crafting table with you.
Sure, you could argue that extra inventory space allows you to carry more potions, tools, etc. but really, I can't see any practical arguments against it. Increased inventory space really only seems to be an increase to overall convenience. Is that ever a bad thing?
This is a test, this is only a test.
boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...
Support, But I think the 64 items per stack is fine as it is.
Minecraft For Life.
Honestly I can't really judge this without a visual representation. There are some ways it could work, others it can't.
.............mcf isnt gone???????????????