@Blizzard It appears I have found a limit that shouldn’t exist in gem fragment (probably others) numbers. That number is 990 (9)k. I discovered this when I was cleaning up my bank in preparation for the incoming end of season 4. All my gems I had been keeping from removing on now deleted characters ended up on the ground (fragments now) instead of in my inventory, when using gem crafter to fragment them. Can we get an increase in the number to basically infinite by using M B etc for multipliers beyond?.
Thank you.
1 Like
i mean, i dont see why not personally… but also… why is this an issue?
Because all things in game have a value and perhaps at some point in the (hopefully) not too distant future, Eternal realm will actually have some proper parity with the internal changes going on. The point you’re missing is this is modern programming 101 of storage, limited integer issues and lack of decent stack sizes etc are a thing of 20 or more years ago.
1 Like
The way around this currently is to craft as many gems as you can and store them in inventory, thereby giving you room for more fragments. It isn’t ideal and can take a fair number of slots in your stash, but it’s the only way to deal with the limitation.
But just out of curiosity, exactly what scenario are you running into where you can even use the number of gems you could craft at the maximum number of fragments?
Not necessarily. While the game client may be natively 64-bit, not all values used in-game are 64-bit. In fact, most of the values stored in the database files are not 64-bit. Most aren’t even 32-bit. There are tangible benefits to using smaller word sizes, namely in database enumerations. With the number of concurrent users, not using word/value sizes larger than necessary keeps latencies and memory usage down.
I did actually have them as I said from multiple characters gear over all seasons. When I deleted all gear that was legacy (gems in) usually I make 6-8 chars per season… the result was 3-4 lines of just royal gems even. I was peaved at the time, otherwise as my wife pointed out, could have made gems again and just sold them and picked up the fragments :).
To your point, I’m aware of various scenarios of data storage (wife’s the expert) but anyway, the fact remains the tiny storage required for even millions of accounts of this game… can’t see it. Maybe because of sharing with all passing players in season game. Or console issues. Thanks for a considerate reply.
It isn’t the individual size, it’s the cumulative size. Remember, these data values are read (enumerated) from the database into RAM on the server. That RAM is finite. Storage has grown massively, at least on the spinning rust front, but RAM has essentially stagnated and not grown much outside of the (very expensive) enterprise/server market. Consumer DIMMs top out at 64 GB, and although server DIMMs can reach 256 GB each, they aren’t cheap, and not all server configurations can handle them.
In the end it’s a fairly complex set of conditions that still requires minimizing data sizes whenever possible. Locally stored and operated games can handle larger data sizes in most cases with no real performance hit as they are not hindered by having to store multiplayer data or very large data sets, and since the number of read/write transactions is also more limited in a non-multiplayer/MMO environment, less computationally intensive as well. In Diablo 3, very high greater rift levels tend to suffer lag. Lots of it. The cause? Excessively large data values being constantly calculated and then streamed. While that’s an extreme example, it serves as a reminder that seemingly “small” things can add up, very quickly. Individual player data on a purely data structure level is probably in the order of a few MB per player. But that adds up fast in a MMO setting like D4 has.
BTW, everything I mentioned so far also does not factor in how D4 loads that data. Remember, it loads all character data between players in a group setting and when they are on the same shard, be it out in the field or in town. Cutting data structure “costs” (compute cycles and RAM space taken) is the cheapest, yet often most impactful performance boost outside of engine optimizations.
1 Like
I bow to your very well thought out answer :). Still want more storage LOL. Or better still make requirements much less :). Seriously 10k fragments… what were they smoking.
I prefer fragments instead of crafted gems since crafted gems takes up inventory space. A higher fragment value would be nice.
Playing Eternal for quite some time now, I have max’d out all of my gem fragments. At first, it became an issue to me when my screen is filled with gem fragments on the ground when I opened a bunch of Whisper caches so I decided not to pick up any legendaries and summoning mats since they’re going to be sent to my stash anyway…it was unnerving at first but I made do…I don’t keep any gems at all and leave them as fragments in my inventory - saved me a ton of space! I do like the suggestion of increasing the cap. 
1 Like