Back to minecraftBack to minecraft.net

Provide feedback related to crafting, combat, enchanting, and general gameplay. Do not post bugs, support issues, or lists of random ideas. Please search!

← Gameplay
118
Follow

Increase stack size

Can we get 100 blocks max stack insdead of 64

Avatar
Registered User shared this idea

30 Comments

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Sorted by oldest
  • 4
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    64 is not arbitrary, it's due to how binary numbers work.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_number_format

    So in order to change the max stack size to 100 they would have to change how the game records the number of items in a stack.

  • 3
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    Maybe instead of adding a higher limit, instead make an item that will let you stack up to 128 and 256 depending on the item.

  • 1
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    64 is good. If you made it bigger imagine trying to split stacks...

    nightmare

  • 2
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    Not a good idea. 64 is a good number because it is easy to split into halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, etc. so it is a very convenient number to work with.

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    64 is about right.

  • 2
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    I think instead there should be a command to disable stacking limits making all items stack up to 64.

  • 1
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    whats the point?

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    I would not want it to bee 100, because that would make it too easy. Maybe in Peaceful?

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    They can just edit all the 64s to 100s, but that is not gonna be very beautiful in my eyes.

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    They probably juat decided ro store otems as shorts or bytes. Also this would really feel wierd.

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    Stacks of 64 is Minecraft and changing this to anything higher would piss off a huge amount of the community

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    100 isnt possible or if it is its to hard and unlikely, however they could try 99 size stacks. 

         pros of 99:

    It is still 2 digits

    Divisible by 4,6,8, and 9

    Still non arbitrary

     

         cons of 99:

    Its not even and will offend people with OCD

    Would piss of all the OG players who cant handle simple changes

  • 1
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    99 isn't even even, much less divisible by 8.

     

    I have found myself wishing for higher stack sizes too, but it will never be changed because it has been accepted as 64 now. And that's fine.

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    No! Please no! Plus, some items stack up to 16, like enderpearls, and some don't stack at all.

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    Not good for Redstone...

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    That would work as anythung up to 127 should work but i think i would rather have 64 as it has been the limit since alpha

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    Dude its binary limitations

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    There was a time in pre-alpha when you could stack up to '999+' items. Therefore, it is likely that the maximum stack size is 65,535, the 16-bit integer limit.

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    maybe not 100, do 128. That way it will split into 64 and it is a larger number

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    I am against this. I rather have a smooth running game than having high numbers.

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    64 is kinda a Iconic number to the Game so I think it works, also Shulker Boxes would just be easier to Crash Big Servers if this was a Thing

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    I believe 64 was chosen because it’s 2 digits long and easily divisible by 2 (being a power of 2). The game can already provide stacks of up to 127 of any item through commands which means the game probably stores signed bytes (can go from -127 to 127). Since the negative numbers are unnecessary, the type could be changed to an unsigned byte like effects, allowing stacks to be up to 255 items.

  • 1
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    most of you (the previous commenters) are complete idiots. 64 being an acceptable size? when? do you see in literally any other game where 64 or some random number of the like was the stacking size? that's more of a "dart board" number, than someone actually putting thought into how many items could be put into one stack, before starting a new one.

    now i do understand this whole game's "thing" is about constructing creative builds for simple tasks; but the amount of large chests needed to store "good enough" amounts of items is blatantly ridiculous, unacceptable, and just overall stupid by gaming standards. i've yet to see anything about storage spaces being increased over the years of updates or any new chest having more than the typical amount of slots; but i have seen updates where new items were intro-ed yet we're still dealing with the same ol space limits. as i'm sure we've all seen; there's literal 100's of youtube videos with massive contraptions being build, just to store items. where the player has 10, 20, or even as much as 50 chests just to store one item. now multiply this by the amount of items in game, still feel like 64 is an acceptable amount? ha! give me a break. it shouldnt be 100, it should be a typeable option in the create world options for the player to decide.

  • 3
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    darkfang1989 - you can make your point without namecalling. Consider yourself warned.

  • 1
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    People saying that it isn't possible to increase stacksizes don't know what they're talking about

  • 2
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    How about a button in the create world menu with all of the other settings that lets you change the stack limit of each item ingame? that will be cool! from a limit of 16 to 255, that will be very cool!

  • 2
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    the game stores the stack size as a Java integer (32 bit signed integer) so the stack size can be up to 2 billion without changing the way the game stores the stack size. If 64 was the highest possible number then they would of needed to store it as a 6 bit unsigned integer or a 7 bit signed integer - which would be unnecessary, precarious and silly.

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    Increasing max stacks to 100 maybe can make your devices lagging. But, imagine increasing stack size to 1000, that would be so much and maybe could make your devices lag so that your device can't rely on your Minecraft and make your Minecraft crash instantly

  • 1
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    I believe that stack sizes should be 999 instead of 64, even if only for building blocks, items, and crafting components. This is and has been the standard for all sandbox games this decade and even Minecraft of past (The pre-classic & survival test era of Minecraft), the stack size was 99, not 64. It for some reason, changed to 64 once it hit Indev. It doesn't help that with the stack size being 64, its very easy to insta-mine a entire parameter with haste 2 beacons and fill up your chest and shulkers in a matter of minutes and then spend the next hour moving all that to your storage room which isn't in that cave. Too easy to fill up your inventory and it takes too long to empty it our or move it. Even if 64 is seen as "iconic", this is actively wasting the time of many builders, players, and storage room expansions.

    This stack size increase would ensure moving day in-game doesn't feel like moving day in real life; painful and slow despite being able to fly and carry tons in Shulker Boxes in-game unlike real life. This would only buff our ability to move items and make moving less of a hassle. This would solve one of the many inventory problems Minecraft is suffering from and would let us spend less time moving items and more time building with those bigger stacks.

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    64 is way too many.