PTR Patch Notes Updated 9 April - Stash Change

General Discussion
Prev 1 54 55 56 65 Next
05/10/2019 05:52 PMPosted by Gunnerflux
Blizzcon is sold out, why are you even here?


I am surprised that they actually sold out of tickets with the fiasco that was last Blizzcon. I guess some will never learn.

05/10/2019 06:09 PMPosted by Demonmonger
Why is everyone hating on Nev, sorry, but you guys are overstepping in a massively uneducated fashion.

I think you should stop deflecting.


We don't buy that line she was given to tell us. It makes zero sense for three other players stash to be loaded on your computer. That means that the sole purpose was to gate them behind seasons to increase the monthly average user numbers. Doing that will make the suits happy.

Otherwise it is saying that the devs of this game are bad at coding for the game. They thought it a brilliant idea to put three party members stashes on your computer. When there is zero reason for them to do that. I am sure that any transaction in trade doesn't go from stash to the other player's inventory when trading within that two hour window. I am sure that you would have to have the item in your character's inventory. If not then just change things where you would have to have that item in your character's inventory. Then you can make the game where the other three party members stashes won't be needed to be loaded on your computer.

Then you could give out way more storage if needed. This is why we don't buy that company line she was given because it isn't likely for the problem she gives as being true.

05/10/2019 06:22 PMPosted by MerLock
Bring back the AH but not for trading but for storage. I can then store my items in the "AH" and retrieve them as necessary. I assume this wouldn't cause any issues because the AH worked fine back in the day with tons of items on it. It was also nice to view all the gear on my character and character stash from one easy UI.


If the problem she states is true there is an easier solution. Get a team of devs to change it where the three other party members stashes don't have to load on your computer. If they are not there then they are less actors as she puts it. So that would solve the problem.
05/10/2019 07:21 PMPosted by Demonmonger
Valid question, and one she does not need to answer, and likely cannot answer.

Also, do not conflate the words hate and hating, you and I both know they mean completely different things.


The only difference between the two is the -ing. Adding -ing doesn't change the definition of the word at all.

Could I suggest suggest tracking down the developer who programmed said stuff in WoW? Or perhaps, hire better devs? I mean, you developed a LOOT BASED GAME. And made a set of rings to give us the possibility of using any legendary item's affix to make fun equipment combinations. Didn't you thought that perhaps we may want to store all of those equipment for gameplay? Even after your company also developed that other LOOT BASED game called WoW?


I am still trying to figure out why you would need the other three party members stashes loaded on your computer. Is it because they need them there just in case you wanted to trade during the two hour window? What couldn't their server handle the transaction by sending the needed info in packets to the players doing the trade? All without having to have the stashes of the other three party members.

05/10/2019 07:24 PMPosted by Demonmonger
You are asking someone with limited power/say in a company worth billions to answer a question staff likely do not know the answer too.

I get it, you see a blue post, you want to ask. I think it is a little rude and uneducated to silicate that though. Just my opinion.

When I say deflecting, I am basically saying that people are mad at Blizzard, but seem to be directing that angst towards unrelated parties. I feel like Nev is just doing her job, and probably should not be directed with these questions.

I wish Blizzard would respond with other blues, higher positions employees with more say. But unfortunately that is never going to happen :(


But she should be telling her superiors that we are not buying that line she was given. Along with the reasons why we are not buying it.

Instead the reason was given when they said that gating them behind seasons was the intention all the long. Then they had to backtrack a little to invent the new explanation. Getting even deeper each time they try to cover their behinds. No, I don't fault Nev on this I fault her superiors for giving her junk information to give to us. Information that they thought that we would be much like the line they gave at the fiasco that was 2018 Blizzcon that is now used as a meme.

What does Blizz actually believe that we are that stupid and will believe everything they tells us without question. No we are far smarter than that. Just like many of us will not play a mobile game so that Diablo Immortal isn't and wasn't a game for us.

The same is true for stashgate. We will not be buying their lines of we done this because of x because it doesn't make any sense.

If that was the issue then get someone to change the coding where the other three members of a party's stashes don't have to be loaded on your computer while teaming with them.

05/10/2019 08:29 PMPosted by Coreinsanity
Sorry guys, it just doesn't add up.


Agreed, I don't see why three other party members stashes should be loaded on my computer. It doesn't make any sense at all. I cannot look at their stashes nor have access to them. The same with the other three compared to my stash.
I am a developer as well and as disappointed as I am about the situation, I totally believe the devs have a point. Let me play devil's advocate:

I am not a blizzard developer and I have no insight into the actual implementation, but I can imagine it all started with the system being designed around the AH. Back then, the 3 stash spaces were enough. You could trade almost every item at any given moment, so it was needed to track every single item at any time, because they could be dropped at any time for someone else to be picked up.

An optimization strategy on the server would be to just get the entire profile from some sort of NoSQL-store without filtering and let the client figure everything out, since filtering on the server would serve no purpose. That NoSQL-store would have to be synced with other systems. Back in 2012, this entire intricate system had been tested extensively and it was put live. Since many systems are involved, it is hard to simulate interaction between those systems with a load as heavy as being live. And kind of unnecessary, since the AH was there to stay. Why optimize prematurely and take into account that the AH might one day vanish.

Now in 2019, we could still trade every single rare we find. Adding filtering on the NoSQL-store or somehow altering the way things are stored to gain performance, I think the risk of doing so is too great.
05/11/2019 02:32 AMPosted by VvT76
I am a developer as well and as disappointed as I am about the situation, I totally believe the devs have a point. Let me play devil's advocate:

I am not a blizzard developer and I have no insight into the actual implementation, but I can imagine it all started with the system being designed around the AH. Back then, the 3 stash spaces were enough. You could trade almost every item at any given moment, so it was needed to track every single item at any time, because they could be dropped at any time for someone else to be picked up.

An optimization strategy on the server would be to just get the entire profile from some sort of NoSQL-store without filtering and let the client figure everything out, since filtering on the server would serve no purpose. That NoSQL-store would have to be synced with other systems. Back in 2012, this entire intricate system had been tested extensively and it was put live. Since many systems are involved, it is hard to simulate interaction between those systems with a load as heavy as being live. And kind of unnecessary, since the AH was there to stay. Why optimize prematurely and take into account that the AH might one day vanish.

Now in 2019, we could still trade every single rare we find. Adding filtering on the NoSQL-store or somehow altering the way things are stored to gain performance, I think the risk of doing so is too great.
Yeah but nothing prevents them using alternative storage such as the mail system or the ruins of AH. It would just mean too much work at this point most likely.
I am a developer as well and as disappointed as I am about the situation, I totally believe the devs have a point. Let me play devil's advocate:

I am not a blizzard developer and I have no insight into the actual implementation, but I can imagine it all started with the system being designed around the AH. Back then, the 3 stash spaces were enough. You could trade almost every item at any given moment, so it was needed to track every single item at any time, because they could be dropped at any time for someone else to be picked up.

An optimization strategy on the server would be to just get the entire profile from some sort of NoSQL-store without filtering and let the client figure everything out, since filtering on the server would serve no purpose. That NoSQL-store would have to be synced with other systems. Back in 2012, this entire intricate system had been tested extensively and it was put live. Since many systems are involved, it is hard to simulate interaction between those systems with a load as heavy as being live. And kind of unnecessary, since the AH was there to stay. Why optimize prematurely and take into account that the AH might one day vanish.

Now in 2019, we could still trade every single rare we find. Adding filtering on the NoSQL-store or somehow altering the way things are stored to gain performance, I think the risk of doing so is too great.


yes this is the problem... but how is possible for china server store 20stash tab without problems?
05/11/2019 02:49 AMPosted by Ruined
05/11/2019 02:32 AMPosted by VvT76
I am a developer as well and as disappointed as I am about the situation, I totally believe the devs have a point. Let me play devil's advocate:

I am not a blizzard developer and I have no insight into the actual implementation, but I can imagine it all started with the system being designed around the AH. Back then, the 3 stash spaces were enough. You could trade almost every item at any given moment, so it was needed to track every single item at any time, because they could be dropped at any time for someone else to be picked up.

An optimization strategy on the server would be to just get the entire profile from some sort of NoSQL-store without filtering and let the client figure everything out, since filtering on the server would serve no purpose. That NoSQL-store would have to be synced with other systems. Back in 2012, this entire intricate system had been tested extensively and it was put live. Since many systems are involved, it is hard to simulate interaction between those systems with a load as heavy as being live. And kind of unnecessary, since the AH was there to stay. Why optimize prematurely and take into account that the AH might one day vanish.

Now in 2019, we could still trade every single rare we find. Adding filtering on the NoSQL-store or somehow altering the way things are stored to gain performance, I think the risk of doing so is too great.
Yeah but nothing prevents them using alternative storage such as the mail system or the ruins of AH. It would just mean too much work at this point most likely.


Except this is not what they are claiming. The server instance has access to all items in the game for everyone. This is obviously necessary and servers can easily handle it. The game client does not need this access and in fact should not be allowed to access it at all. It violates the principle of never telling the game client what it doesn't need to know to prevent hacking and cut down on bandwidth usage. Their claim is the purest form of nonsense. It requires no work to reverse a decision that has nothing whatsoever to do with other people's stash on your game client.
Diablo3 offline and remove DRM security would solve all of your problems, so back to work, and do this
This whole mess leads me to believe that communication will become worse over time, not better.
They’ve been saying they need to, “improve their communication” for years now. Pretty obvious this is just their canned response for the abysmal handling of this game and franchise.
05/11/2019 02:32 AMPosted by VvT76
I am a developer as well and as disappointed as I am about the situation, I totally believe the devs have a point. Let me play devil's advocate:

I am not a blizzard developer and I have no insight into the actual implementation, but I can imagine it all started with the system being designed around the AH. Back then, the 3 stash spaces were enough. You could trade almost every item at any given moment, so it was needed to track every single item at any time, because they could be dropped at any time for someone else to be picked up.

An optimization strategy on the server would be to just get the entire profile from some sort of NoSQL-store without filtering and let the client figure everything out, since filtering on the server would serve no purpose. That NoSQL-store would have to be synced with other systems. Back in 2012, this entire intricate system had been tested extensively and it was put live. Since many systems are involved, it is hard to simulate interaction between those systems with a load as heavy as being live. And kind of unnecessary, since the AH was there to stay. Why optimize prematurely and take into account that the AH might one day vanish.

Now in 2019, we could still trade every single rare we find. Adding filtering on the NoSQL-store or somehow altering the way things are stored to gain performance, I think the risk of doing so is too great.


Yeah... I really doubt this. Why would you use NoSQL for this? Especially in the manner you suggested, this would just be a bad idea.

Diablo 3 was a AAA game developed by an AAA studio whose past games (ie: WoW, D2) deal with items just fine. You're telling me they essentially got complete amateurs to make the game and implement this, getting no input from the teams with experience (like WoW) on how to handle large amounts of items? Incidentally, WoW has an AH too.

No, I doubt this. In fact, if you spend 5 minutes googling for save editing on the console scene you can see they use Google Protobuffers. Protobuffers is a binary format and RPC protocol. It's goal is storage efficiency, as in when you serialize it, it packs the bits. If you have an int that's just "3", it gets packed so it takes up just as much space as it needs (see https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/encoding.) I doubt they redid their entire storage mechanism for Console. More likely they just make it save to a file instead of the DB, which is easy to do with protobuffers.

I use google protobuffers in the MMO I'm working to restore, and at work as an RPC protocol to connect several internal services. I re-wrote the character storage to use it, and we store it in SQL no problem as binary. No, we can't filter it directly in SQL, but there are workarounds to that. For instance, instead of storing it as one big blob for a character + his items, you can serialize and store them separately. IE: Items each get their own entry in the DB, serialized and filterable. The actual item data being serialized, and meta data like where it's at can be a column.

Sorry, it still doesn't add up. I might not work for Blizzard, but they aren't amateurs, and this kind of experience is right in their wheelhouse at large scale.

05/11/2019 03:23 AMPosted by Zymurgeist

Except this is not what they are claiming. The server instance has access to all items in the game for everyone. This is obviously necessary and servers can easily handle it. The game client does not need this access and in fact should not be allowed to access it at all. It violates the principle of never telling the game client what it doesn't need to know to prevent hacking and cut down on bandwidth usage. Their claim is the purest form of nonsense. It requires no work to reverse a decision that has nothing whatsoever to do with other people's stash on your game client.


Even the server doesn't need access to everyone's items at all times. The server only needs to retain access to currently relevant items. I could see them caching your stash items in memory just to save some DB calls when you go back to town, but technically when you're in a GR absolutely nothing should care about your stash. It may be sitting in a small amount of server RAM, but it has absolutely no business being shipped to the client lagging out an active GR when none of the clients need to care about it. And it definitely has no business being replicated between all the players in the game regardless of what zone you're in. Why do other players need to care what my inventory is? That's asinine. You send it relevant item data when it needs it, like if I drop an item on the floor. You don't hammer every client with my entire stash.

Edit: Also I don't mean this to sound hostile to you lol. I just find this entire thing kind of ridiculous, and insulting that they're choosing to go this route. It's all just frustrating.
I think that the whole worst case scenario used as a justification to limit stash space is based on a flawed assumption. Let me make an analogy to put this in context. It would be like a major retailer who can expand their parking lot saying that they can’t because if all vehicles in the parking lot were completely full 12 person vans that would exceed the maximum occupancy of the building (and ignoring the fact that most people have smaller cars).

For certain items, one stash square is associated with 2 in game actors. This occurs potentially for 3 item types: socketed rings, socketed amulets, and socketed chest armor where each socket has a gem as Nevalistis said.

In this case when taking into consideration stash tabs plus the character’s inventory and equipped items (character + follower), the maximum number of in game “player item” actors is:

12 stash tabs + character/follower = 1793 actors [= (140x12) + 60 + 24 + 29)] Current

13 stash tabs + character/follower = 1933 actors [= (140x13) + 60 + 24 + 29)] OK in patch 2.6.5

14 stash tabs + character/follower = 2073 actors [= (140x14) + 60 + 24 + 29)] Impaired performance

If I have read Nev’s post correctly, it appeared that Blizzard tested the game limits for stash storage using completely maxed out tabs using only these gem-filled 3 item types (socketed rings, amulets, and chest armor).

It is my opinion that this worst case scenario is utter nonsense. People keep other item types in their stash. Bracers, gloves, shoulders, and boots occupy 2 stash squares but are only 1 in game actor. A stash tab full of these is only 35 in game actors (and not 140). Belts, helms, weapon, off hand, and follower tokens average 1 actor per stash square (at most). Socketed pants with 2 gems occupy 2 stash squares and would be 3 in game actors. Taking this into consideration, it seems that their testing would be consistent with a more generous increase in stash tabs.
Simple alternative solution:

If you can not add stash space, then why not add character slots? There is no issue with in game actors in that case.
Here is one that might make most people Happy. Why don't they give US the Stash Space after you finish the 1st 4 chapters. Instead a pet or Portrait.

Then if people want to finish the season journey give them a really nice Primal. Plus something that the character can really use.
05/11/2019 08:11 AMPosted by MicroRNA
Simple alternative solution:

If you can not add stash space, then why not add character slots? There is no issue with in game actors in that case.


Thats a great one, Neva, has this been considered too?
Also, my tin-foil hat seems to be going into overdrive. I think many of us feel that the whole stash tab thing is simply a quest to keep MAU up and they think they can do it best in their opinion by "encouraging" seasons. The question arises why not keep 9 additional stash tabs gated in season versus the 5? I wonder if Diablo:immortal is due out during season 18. If some PC players are too busy getting an extra stash tab in Diablo 3, they would be less likely to engage in their new phone product.
The actor issue could be solved easily.
Almost all items in stash are boa (bind on account) and can't be shared anyway.
Just add a "private" attribute to the actors and set it to true for boa items.
Then don't distribute private actors to the clients, except to the owner.

This would also remove half transparent gems and mats some people drop on the ground in town, perfect.
05/11/2019 02:32 AMPosted by VvT76
I am a developer as well and as disappointed as I am about the situation, I totally believe the devs have a point. Let me play devil's advocate:

I am not a blizzard developer and I have no insight into the actual implementation, but I can imagine it all started with the system being designed around the AH. Back then, the 3 stash spaces were enough. You could trade almost every item at any given moment, so it was needed to track every single item at any time, because they could be dropped at any time for someone else to be picked up.

An optimization strategy on the server would be to just get the entire profile from some sort of NoSQL-store without filtering and let the client figure everything out, since filtering on the server would serve no purpose. That NoSQL-store would have to be synced with other systems. Back in 2012, this entire intricate system had been tested extensively and it was put live. Since many systems are involved, it is hard to simulate interaction between those systems with a load as heavy as being live. And kind of unnecessary, since the AH was there to stay. Why optimize prematurely and take into account that the AH might one day vanish.

Now in 2019, we could still trade every single rare we find. Adding filtering on the NoSQL-store or somehow altering the way things are stored to gain performance, I think the risk of doing so is too great.


Are you saying that when the AH was in existence that everyone playing when you were playing stash was loaded on your computer. Because that is the only way that the client could figure everything out. Remember that AH represented more than just the members of your party.

That still doesn't answer the question of why does the three other party members stashes have to be loaded on your computer. It doesn't make sense even considering the AH days. Even if that is the case you mean that when they knew that they would be discontinuing it when RoS launched they couldn't change it. That was when they made that expansion so they could've changed it right then and there.

05/11/2019 04:37 AMPosted by SzymeQ
Diablo3 offline and remove DRM security would solve all of your problems, so back to work, and do this


That would just add other problems that we don't need.

05/11/2019 07:45 AMPosted by Miciah
They’ve been saying they need to, “improve their communication” for years now. Pretty obvious this is just their canned response for the abysmal handling of this game and franchise.


They have been all talk and no action. Blizz needs to show that they are sincere in improving on communications. More than just radio silence entertaining crickets for a long time. Where the only blue posts are ones talking about favorite cats or things that you love about this game.

They need to look at communication being more than just a pipeline of information. It is and should be about just sitting down and having a chat with us. We have proven that we can be civil toward them so they don't need to treat us as if we will bite them every time they say hello.

05/11/2019 07:47 AMPosted by Coreinsanity
Edit: Also I don't mean this to sound hostile to you lol. I just find this entire thing kind of ridiculous, and insulting that they're choosing to go this route. It's all just frustrating.


I still haven't seen anyone even try to answer why Blizz would need to store the stashes of three other party members on your computer. That just doesn't make any sense and would as you said make them to be amateurs as far as making games goes, which also makes no sense.

05/11/2019 08:08 AMPosted by MicroRNA
If I have read Nev’s post correctly, it appeared that Blizzard tested the game limits for stash storage using completely maxed out tabs using only these gem-filled 3 item types (socketed rings, amulets, and chest armor).


But still Blizz hasn't said why my computer has to have three other party members stashes loaded on my computer. Then the line of reasoning they are using would make sense. When they know that the real reasons isn't because of some game stability issue. No it is due to increasing the monthly average user numbers.

05/11/2019 08:18 AMPosted by MicroRNA
Also, my tin-foil hat seems to be going into overdrive. I think many of us feel that the whole stash tab thing is simply a quest to keep MAU up and they think they can do it best in their opinion by "encouraging" seasons. The question arises why not keep 9 additional stash tabs gated in season versus the 5? I wonder if Diablo:immortal is due out during season 18. If some PC players are too busy getting an extra stash tab in Diablo 3, they would be less likely to engage in their new phone product.


I think they already know that a good majority of us will not be touching their phone product. So they figure that stashgate will be something that will placate us and make us feel better about playing D3. When for the majority it will do the opposite. I guess as an actor of a fine comedy team said would be proper here. The name of the comedy team I am speaking of is Laurel and Hardy. Where Hardy kept telling Laurel; "This is another fine mess you have gotten us into."
05/11/2019 09:15 AMPosted by StuRedman
The actor issue could be solved easily.
Almost all items in stash are boa (bind on account) and can't be shared anyway.
Just add a "private" attribute to the actors and set it to true for boa items.
Then don't distribute private actors to the clients, except to the owner.

This would also remove half transparent gems and mats some people drop on the ground in town, perfect.


Even easier than that just don't have the other three party members stashes on your personal computer.
Today put a 10 dollars inside on my PC, and awesome thing happened my PC doubled the Ram O_o, In addition to that the language changed to Chinese, something strange is happening, maybe if I put the Pc more dollars may also improve the chip processor, in the slots more coins I see that more surprises arise...
05/10/2019 05:03 PMPosted by Nevalistis
05/10/2019 04:57 PMPosted by MicroRNA
You claim that the issue is client side in an earlier post.


To clarify - the issue isn't exclusively client side. It's a combination. The issue is exacerbated on console because offline mode means there's a higher reliance on client-side resources.


To clarify - everyone on pc gets to suffer because some people play on a half baked potato.
Everyone on console gets to suffer because they all play on a completely baked potato.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum