Bring back infinite lockers/crates

[Elchorico]

Recently, on my mining round, i noticed that i cannot close a crate due to it being too full. Now, i remember containers like these having infinite space, which is perfectly balanced, as all things should be. Personally i havent seen anyone like this change, and didnt even see it written anywhere in the changelog. 

Therefore, a proposition. Bring back infinite containers, and return the balance that was never supposed to leave.

Edit: oh shite ignore the star icon it doesnt mean anything, i misclicked and didnt notice it.

[Frank_Stein]

Can we get some more details how this works?

[OMJ]

why was this even changed? Open source was a terrible idea.

[Enfaeutchie]

Can we get some more details how this works?

If you attempt to close a crate while it contains more than 100 items, it will refuse, saying it's too full. This was part of a refactor to a lot of QM-related code made on the 5th of April; you can see the pull request here and the exact changes to storage devices here.

I don't really have any strong opinions on it, personally. You can still use satchels to dish out exact amounts of stuff that will fit in the crates. Just a bit more fiddly now.

[saccharineChampion]

I think it's a good change. I understand if it's initially a bit unpopular - it's one of those changes which depowers things - but the few cases I've known where a crate would end up with more than 100 contents have tended to be along the lines of
- cargo mass-ordering and mass-selling, in which case this makes it less of the one good strategy and makes selling other stuff (crops, ores) more convenient in relation.
- mining collecting ores, in which case, a simple click-drag of an ore to an adjacent space stacks all like ores, so there's no actual issue there
- people trying to stuff everything onstation that isn't bolted down into one crate, in which case it's actually better that they'd need to periodically dump stuff into some sort of rat's nest.

I do wish it had some sort of "shoves off everything except the first 100 items on the tile, then closes" when there's too much, but that'd be more of a cherry on a cake.

[Frank_Stein]

I think it's a good change. I understand if it's initially a bit unpopular - it's one of those changes which depowers things - but the few cases I've known where a crate would end up with more than 100 contents have tended to be along the lines of
- cargo mass-ordering and mass-selling, in which case this makes it less of the one good strategy and makes selling other stuff (crops, ores) more convenient in relation.
- mining collecting ores, in which case, a simple click-drag of an ore to an adjacent space stacks all like ores, so there's no actual issue there
- people trying to stuff everything onstation that isn't bolted down into one crate, in which case it's actually better that they'd need to periodically dump stuff into some sort of rat's nest.

I do wish it had some sort of "shoves off everything except the first 100 items on the tile, then closes" when there's too much, but that'd be more of a cherry on a cake.

Yeah I'm in this boat, especially if the limit is 100, which feels pretty generous to me

Some fun tweaks to how it works like trying to close a too full bin and having stuff shoot around would be nice

[UrsulaMejor]

I think stacking ores makes them not sell correctly; was this fixed? that's my only real concern with infinite storage going away. 100 items is pretty darn close to infinite

[Enfaeutchie]

I think stacking ores makes them not sell correctly; was this fixed? that's my only real concern with infinite storage going away. 100 items is pretty darn close to infinite

Just tested on local and it's working fine - a stack of X ore is worth as much as X pieces of 1 ore.

I did have one quibble with this change - that is, that click+dragging produce and stuff overfills crates and makes it difficult to manage without a satchel - so I made a PR to address that. Apart from that, I think this change is fine, tbh.

[Drago156]

Uh, 100 items is infinite in *most* cases, but I can think of a number of cases where this would get easily bothersome. Personally I don't see an issue with truly infinite storage crates, and to be quite honest, I think I would very much prefer them over 100 item limit crates.

[vampirate]

Could you make ore and only ore count as like half an item?

[saccharineChampion]

I'm pretty sure you can, but why? Ore is the one thing you can stack into one being object, and per Enfae's test, it isn't bugged to sell for less anymore.

[Flourish]

I've personally experienced more cases where infinite crates were a detriment (mostly people stealing everything or shoving way too much into a crate and then lagging others when opening it) than a positive thing. I don't think I've ever really needed more than 100 items in a crate. I'm interested in hearing what situations people who do need more than 100 items are generally in.

I feel similar to Sacc and I think Enfae's PR is a good fix to make things more intuitive.

[Xaviens]

I feel like this would be less of an annoying thing were it not for the bug with ores where stacking them and placing them into a reclaimer just spits out one of the given item.

[ZeWaka]

Of note, there was also a bug that this sort of addressed, in that crates with a lot of objects in them would take too long to sell/delete and then cause a big crate pileup in space due to not being dealt with soon enough if people were sending out many hundreds of items in multiple crates

[Gerhazo]

why was this even changed? Open source was a terrible idea.

The change (and PR) was made by a goonstation coder, so not really a relevant argument, if anything the usage of open source here meant there was more room for people to oppose the thing and voice their opinions as opposed to it just appearing one day unannounced.

That said, nothing has changed since then and things can still be reverted as usual, so if a change is genuinely considered bad it can be easily overturned, though there appear to be points in favor of this one specifically.