Gob Sack

[Ashay]

Having a separate inventory for each type of equipment would be nice, but I imagine that it'd be even more complicated than to adjust macros and add a new inventory type using the new macro function. If that's the only way this could work though, it'd be just as fine in the long run.

The main idea I had was that you could use /equip1 and /equip2 for the Gobbie Bag and Gob Sack respectively, for the sake of simplicity. That would be another increase of 80 inventory slots, which I know a lot of people wouldn't mind having. Changing macros to work like this but for the Mog Satchel and Sack would be just as good, utilizing /equip2 and /equip3. If it could work, it'd be an easy adjustment to any existing macros and allow for better preparation in terms of what you can equip during battle.

[Greatguardian]

If you want me to be perfectly honest, my biggest concern would be Spellcast compatibility with the new /equip system. That might take nearly as much coding as the change SE has to make, coming from a significantly smaller and unpaid staff.

[Amador]

... seriously? Posting on the official forum over your concern for a 3rd party program? lol.

I hope the 3rd party tool spellcast goes obsolete very quickly.

[hiko]

add new commands to move item sack/satchel <=> bag (without opening windows client side).

i dont think the equip2 is as simple to code as you think because equiping gears is not just moving item from bag to equipment list: equiped gears are still in bag with an "equiped" tag (can't move them)

[Daniel_Hatcher]

Well here's an offshot idea. We currently know that it's impossible to expand the current gobbie bag beyond 80 do to coding limitations, but what if they were developed into a organizational sub-bag type architecture, by breaking up the bag into smaller sections.

Essentially everything in your Gobbie bag would be broken up into categories like med's/food/head/body/feet/misc items/etc. Each of these categories would be treated like it's own individual bag up to 80 slots. The Macro's behavioral programming might have to be adjusted somewhat to address the change, but depending on how it's setup SE wouldn't likely have to worry too much.

But, that's just a random thought that might work.

EDIT: I didn't read past the first few posts btw, so if someone already posted a similar idea I apologize in advance.

Isn't the technicality of it that it can't go past 99, don't know about you but I'd be fine with 99 inventory.

[Swords]

Perhaps, I mostly threw that out there because of the technical limitations preventing inventory slots from going beyond 80. I thought it might be able to circumvent the mechanics and limitations by breaking up everything and treating each category as it's own psudo-gob bag.

[Greatguardian]

... seriously? Posting on the official forum over your concern for a 3rd party program? lol.

I hope the 3rd party tool spellcast goes obsolete very quickly.

If people insist on making a big fuss about it, I'm sure the GMs will just delete the post. I was just hoping people would be mature enough to discuss the very relevant topic like adults. So far, that seems the case, so I don't think there was anything wrong in my assumption.

As for Spellcast going obsolete, that's never going to happen. If they were to introduce /equip1 and /equip2 into the game, they still wouldn't be worth using by the PC playerbase until Spellcast compatibility was added.

As for the 80 inventory limit, yes that is a technical issue. They cannot expand our inventory beyond 80 slots per "space". They can give us more sacks, server space allowing, but they can't expand our inventory beyond 80 slots.

[Kiakasha]

Yes but people really don't need more room for gear. The problem is actually picking out the stuff you need from a list that's completely unorganized. It's like trying to find a needle in a hay stack.

Advanced players need more space for ALL of the situational gear the devs keep cranking out... its all about builds (tp idle ws etc) if u haven't noticed...

[Arcon]

If you want me to be perfectly honest, my biggest concern would be Spellcast compatibility with the new /equip system. That might take nearly as much coding as the change SE has to make, coming from a significantly smaller and unpaid staff.

The location of an item is known to the PC client, or can be found very quickly at least (real time), which means every item must be stored locally somewhere. Which means, it could be made to just find the right location at runtime (or even keep its own memory), and then adjust the /equip command accordingly.

The only problem would be, due to the retarded augment system, that different items with same names can exist. Usually you can just leave identically named items in different spaces, to avoid mix-ups, but this would make it harder. On the other hand, especially with SpellCast, you could work around that, if they allowed you to look in certain spaces specifically. So you could specify to equip Indra's staff from /sack, for lightning damage affinity, and from /satchel for lightning accuracy affinity.

Something like:
<if skill="enfeebling">
<main inv="satchel">$%SpellElementAccuracyStaff</main>
</if>
<elseif skill="elemental|dark">
<main inv="sack">$%SpellElementDamageStaff</main>
</elseif>

This would only work if you had different staves (or multiple staves) in each location. If you use Lv.51 elemental staves, you could do something else, like store the right location for the staff in a variable. Either way, it would still be advantageous to use SpellCast over normal macros.

I wish Windower was obsolete, I wish SE would make the game playable by themselves. But I don't think that goal is within either their capabilities, or desires, which would be even worse. They seem to be quite happy where they are, which is a crying shame, because the game, from a technical standpoint, is horrible.

[Amador]

If people insist on making a big fuss about it, I'm sure the GMs will just delete the post. I was just hoping people would be mature enough to discuss the very relevant topic like adults. So far, that seems the case, so I don't think there was anything wrong in my assumption.

As for Spellcast going obsolete, that's never going to happen. If they were to introduce /equip1 and /equip2 into the game, they still wouldn't be worth using by the PC playerbase until Spellcast compatibility was added.

As for the 80 inventory limit, yes that is a technical issue. They cannot expand our inventory beyond 80 slots per "space". They can give us more sacks, server space allowing, but they can't expand our inventory beyond 80 slots.

Don't derail this thread into a pathetic windower/spell cast discussion.

What's the point in playing a game when you have a little robot doing it all for you?

Your play style is just a copy of what some other cheater is doing. Instead of taking time to make your own macros and play them by your own hand as they should be you're just having someone else hand you over an xml. file to help you play just the same way they play.

How do you discuss cheating as an adult when that in it's own is kid stuff?

I've been a PC player since this game was released, and I have never felt the need to mess with 3rd party tools to help me play. I'm not the only person who feels this way about windower either. It's cheat tool plain and simple.

They did add a Windowed version of the game. A legit version. So as an adult, don't sugar coat the obvious face it for what it is. Cheats are cheats.

Edit Reason: Man and as an add on. They're barely considering ditching PS2, IF at all that survey was in regards to that. You think they're going to worry about some 3rd party tool creators?

"Due to spellcast limitations, we cannot implement this feature." gtfo.