Inventory Increase, New Satchel, Infinite (sortable) Item box in MogHouse

[Bntyhuntrx]

Let's start talking about storage and inventory space. I know I am not alone that if you have adequate to excellent gear and macros for your jobs, we definitely need more than 80 spaces in base inventory, or a linked bag of some kind, or heck even an "infinite and sortable storage system within the moghouse wopuld be awesome. Muling is such a waste of time and even still many things can't be sent. I wind up going to VW and have to toss all my logs and ores instead of npcing them due to lack of inventory space.

[Zinato]

I hate to be the one to say this but due to PS2 limitations (in this case its true) anything over 80 space is impossible. At least that's the story they've given us. Linking bags may work however, for the same reason 80 is max per bag type 160 would be the max for a linked bag, since that is the maximum allowed items the PS2 can process. (this is also why 80/80 is cap)

[Tamoa]

At this point I'd be happy if they could just make MH Storage accessible from anywhere - like they said they would. Months ago. -.-

[SpankWustler]

Sadly, it's been mentioned several times that 80 spaces in one thingy is the limit. Of course, I'd still love to hear about the impossibilities of other ways to make some kind, any kind, of additional macro-from-able space. I'd love to hear about the possibilities even more.


I wind up going to VW and have to toss all my logs and ores instead of npcing them due to lack of inventory space.

I love how the logs and ores are now so awful that selling them a very special lady in Lower Jeuno is the only realistic option, rather than using the Auction House at all. I think they've actually made themselves worse by dropping so relentlessly.

[Dragonlord]

Giving our in moghouse moogle the same options as a porter moogle would also be quite helpful. Its annoying/timely to job change when you have items on the porter moogle.

[Sarick]

I hate to be the one to say this but due to PS2 limitations (in this case its true) anything over 80 space is impossible. At least that's the story they've given us. Linking bags may work however, for the same reason 80 is max per bag type 160 would be the max for a linked bag, since that is the maximum allowed items the PS2 can process. (this is also why 80/80 is cap)

You know, I keep reading this all the time and there's one thing that screams BS..

The next time you look at the auction house list of items remember there's a limit of 80 per list. (sarcasm). If SE wanted to increase mog house storage it could be programmed like this too.

The maximum processed items means the item is recognized as owned. When you store things placing them in mail, in the auction house, or storage slips they're no longer processed as owned. This is why you can own more then one exclusive item when its stored outside the process pool. The main problem amounts to SE creating the same type of "processed" storage and because of this design it's limited to 80.

The truth is we're only hearing half the story. Yes, there is a process limitation of 80 at once and yes to overcome this limitation they split it into multiple inventories. I assume to avoid limitations all storage areas are processed once before deciding owned status. If this process was eliminated we could technically have more storage.

On a final note, giving players a database storage system would allow almost unlimited storage and I doubt they'd want to do this. Not only would it take a lot of time to program but reduce the number of players paying for mules.

[Runespider]

I'd be happy with being able to access storage from any mog house for now. If you use the features they gave us you shouldnt' really be running out of room if you've fully upgraded everything.

[Camiie]

I hate to be the one to say this but due to PS2 limitations (in this case its true) anything over 80 space is impossible. At least that's the story they've given us. Linking bags may work however, for the same reason 80 is max per bag type 160 would be the max for a linked bag, since that is the maximum allowed items the PS2 can process. (this is also why 80/80 is cap)


They could give us a Gobbie Box for our MH with a number of 80-slot sections we can switch between. Of course, there's no telling what horrors they'd make us go through for such a thing.

[Kraggy]

I know I am not alone that if you have adequate to excellent gear and macros for your jobs, we definitely need more than 80 spaces in base inventory.
If you have macros needing to swap in gear that won't fit into 80 slots you're clearly extremely over-the-top in terms of min/maxing, nothing in the game would demand that insane amount of gear swapping.

Maybe if you didn't use a third-party macro machine it would help.

[Arcon]

If you have macros needing to swap in gear that won't fit into 80 slots you're clearly extremely over-the-top in terms of min/maxing, nothing in the game would demand that insane amount of gear swapping.

Just like I'd call you a noob for not using the full extent of your inventory. I'm too good in your eyes, you're too bad in mine. Works out just fine.

[saevel]

The limit is actually 160 items or two sets of 80 at once. It's a memory limit on the PS2 which only has 32MB of system memory. To allow bigger active inventory's they would have to remove something else from active memory. This is also why the auto-translate system hasn't been updated with all the new terms.

Honestly it's one of those things that piss's me off. A 10+ year old platform is holding the entire game back.

[Tamoa]

If you have macros needing to swap in gear that won't fit into 80 slots you're clearly extremely over-the-top in terms of min/maxing, nothing in the game would demand that insane amount of gear swapping.

Maybe if you didn't use a third-party macro machine it would help.

That's just rubbish. And most people want/need a few open inventory slots for things like pop items, and loot - imagine being at 78/80 when doing voidwatch and having to take stuff out of the chest one by one. I don't view myself as extremely over-the-top in terms of min/maxing but what I just described frequently happens to me.

[Runespider]

If you have macros needing to swap in gear that won't fit into 80 slots you're clearly extremely over-the-top in terms of min/maxing, nothing in the game would demand that insane amount of gear swapping.

I remember a dev post ages ago about this and them saying part of the reason for limited inventory was due to game balance or game difficulty in that you had to pick what gear was most important to take and what not etc. So no guarantee they would increase it even if they could.

[Arcon]

I remember a dev post ages ago about this and them saying part of the reason for limited inventory was due to game balance or game difficulty in that you had to pick what gear was most important to take and what not etc.

I definitely remember people saying that, I've never heard it from a development bro though. The people who said it were openly mocked, and for good reason.

[Ophannus]

If windower and spellcast can make us equip 'sets' why can't they code a way for us to define 'sets' in an alternate equip menu where we 'attach' gear to empty slots like the automaton menu and save equip palettes that we can name and reference in our macros so we can type /equipset "Evisceration" and it will equip all of the gear we defined under the equip palette that we named Evisceration.

[Tinuviel]

Stop gear hoarding.

[Tamoa]

Stop gear hoarding.

Because a large - very large - part of this game isn't about gear hoarding?

[RAIST]

Stop gear hoarding.

Until they come out with more readily obtainable, more appropriate universal pieces.....this will always be a problem.

[Logandor]

It would be nice if they would just allow logs, skins, and horns to stack. That way people who want work on their crafting skills don't have to sacrifice space for skins to make leathers or space to make lumbers.

[Starry]

Stop gear hoarding.

Stop playing the game the way it's been played for 10 years? Okay...

[Krashport]

Let's start talking about storage and inventory space. I know I am not alone that if you have adequate to excellent gear and macros for your jobs, we definitely need more than 80 spaces in base inventory, or a linked bag of some kind, or heck even an "infinite and sortable storage system within the moghouse wopuld be awesome. Muling is such a waste of time and even still many things can't be sent. I wind up going to VW and have to toss all my logs and ores instead of npcing them due to lack of inventory space.

I agree! ^^b


Mule it. Mule it back later.

I'm sure not the only Customer but.. I have given and still giving Square Enix a lot of My money as it is, If I "Need" to pay for another Character, To fix a "Problem" with an MMORPG, There is something wrong. If this is the only way to fix a "Problem" within this Company. Which their making their Customers fix the problem for themselves.. Just isn't right, Mules or at least one should be free at this point.

I made a Character within Final Fantasy XI, Which is my main Character that I only want to use nonetheless. I farmed, I leveled, I skilled it all up. The Companies inventory system is flawed to where "Us" The Customer have to spend more time and money for access to more inventory space. Which in fact its a problem on the Companies part not ours. The main point is for inventory space as to farming and getting the gear we want and use on our main Character as well as to Play the game!, It's not Fantasy Mules.

I personally think that the security token shouldn't be tied to the Mog Satchel, It is for Security not inventory that is just bad marketing to me. Maybe giving the Customer the Mog Satchel without having to buy a security token. Adding a bank sharing system to use with our account might help a little. Not having to mule A.k.a logging out and switching between Characters running to the Auction House to Delivery Box then back to Mog House in order to get/send apiece of Equipment would be great. As the system is now its getting old.

If in fact "not saying it is" the inventory issue is connected with the Playstation 2 limitations or the Xbox Re-log problems. Well sh!t on the Consoles, So sad moving on..., I would like to suggest making the PC user accounts inventory bigger.

If you think that the Security token should not be tied to the Mog Satchel or you're tired of muling for gear as well as having a mule just to access more inventory space, I feel for you.

Dear Dev's, Could you please forward this to the man, @ Square Enix. Thanks for you're time. ^^

Edit; As threads go on and pages go long things are mostly forgotten, So making this thread and maybe Square Enix will fix things seeing they only talk to the OP for the most part.

[Zarchery]

It's ONE DOLLAR PER MONTH. Christ. That's not gonna break the bank. Aren't you the same people who are telling PS2 players "quit being such a cheapskate, you can get a new computer for three or four hundred bucks!"

[Krashport]

It's ONE DOLLAR PER MONTH. Christ. That's not gonna break the bank. Aren't you the same people who are telling PS2 players "quit being such a cheapskate, you can get a new computer for three or four hundred bucks!"

I would rather put the ONE DOLLAR PER MONTH into something else then a Mule. It's called Presonal Prefence.

[Midorikaze]

I would rather put the ONE DOLLAR PER MONTH into something else then a Mule. It's called Presonal Prefence.
This. Also there's no denying the current system is flawed regardless. And laggy as heck. Drag & drop between characters' inventories would be very helpful also. Waiting for a server to register 8 little BMPs, zoning back to the Mog House, zoning, running back to the AH is just stupid, takes alot of time (as does 99.9999% of things in the game), and yes - getting very old and redundant. Maybe I'm just impatient? I don't know....Just my humble opinion. =)

Yes, it's just a dollar, but those are my dollars, and those dollars add up, over the 8+ years I have played this game - just to put a band-aid on SE's outdated system, and more $$$ in SE's pockets. :p

[Zinato]

It's ONE DOLLAR PER MONTH. Christ. That's not gonna break the bank. Aren't you the same people who are telling PS2 players "quit being such a cheapskate, you can get a new computer for three or four hundred bucks!"

Here's the difference. While one dollar per person to gain extra inventory will help the inventory issue. (Mind you this doesn't do anything for the hassle of muling over gear for certain jobs and is just one dollar more towards XIV 2.0) The difference being removing ps2 from the system entirely solves many many more issues. Lack of auto-translate in a multicultural game, lack of new zones (yes they can add them but only so many we only know 1/5 of Vanadiel), lag, macro-size, graphical changes. This is but a small list, all of which is being held back by the PS2. (also with upgrading systems you are not paying SE for a shortcoming of SE. If you think about it as not that big of deal why should they change it? After all if it makes them more money its a BAD thing to fix it? Its like selling a broken item and charging to repair it, its that principle that makes 1 dollar unreasonable.)

[Arcon]

Inventory is the only thing the PS2 is holding back, really. Graphical changes they've already started to implement for PC only (so far only interface changes, but graphical changes may be possible as well, though unlikely they'll ever do it, with or without the PS2).

[Sarick]

Inventory is the only thing the PS2 is holding back, really. Graphical changes they've already started to implement for PC only (so far only interface changes, but graphical changes may be possible as well, though unlikely they'll ever do it, with or without the PS2).

Did you even read my post?

The game can store hundreds of items on any system. They just need to use a different method to store them. This wouldn't work for swapping but it would work for near "unlimited storage" inside a mog house.

Need proof. look at the ah and tell me how can the game load that auction house list on a ps2 if it's limited to 80 items? Some of those list exceed 160 items.

Please think about it not to sound rude but its obvious people will believe anything they're told if the developer says it.

If you're talking only about swappable processed space then the PS2 has a limit. Still players can have a storage that is outside the the limitations. SE doesn't want to do this so we're only hearing half the truth.

[RAIST]

it's more an issue of what space is left in memory after everything else is accounted for in the game. The PS2 has a limited amount of memory to use for all operations. It was designed with only so much space reserved for certain registers to ensure assets would be available for other processes. Granted, whether those assets remain unused and could be transferred could be open to debate. There could also be the issue that such unused resources might be needed for future plans, so they are unwilling to release them to something else.

As for the AH, that's a different animal I guess. Ever notice how long it takes for that list to load? Notice how it loads in chunks? And you can only scroll down so far, then you have to wait for the next block to load? It's like it is stacking blocks...kind of like how you have your normal inventory with the temp items stacked on top in a seperate block. When you auto-sort the temp block, it doesn't auto-sort your normal block--have to select a normal item to sort normal inventory because they are seperate containers. So, even though it may be possible to stack multiple containers in a list view, there is the performance issue that has to be taken into effect. Think about how bad things lag sometimes just loading the AH list. Imagine that happening in the field....mid fight, trying to unpack a toolbag or quiver, or gettting at that item you need right away that isn't on a macro.

There's a lot more to consider besides just whether it is possible.

[Zerich]

why would a company want to miss an opportunity to profit?

am i missing something, or is this thread full of completely naive people?

[Divinius]

why would a company want to miss an opportunity to profit?
Pretty much this.

You remember that update where they made it so you could send EX items to mules on the same account?

Do you think SE did that solely to alleviate player inventory issues?

Hell no. They did it because it gave players another reason to pay them an extra $1 or 2 a month.

Having a game designed around collecting gear, and then sticking with a system that almost forces you to use mules that you have to pay extra for if you want to hold it all, is a business decision. Some people will pay for mules, others won't, but until it can be proven that enough people are cancelling their accounts entirely that they would actually make MORE money by making mules free (or spending the development time to work on system improvements that remove the need to use them) there is no business reason to change it.

Personally, I think it's a brilliant business move, even if it is kind of a dick-ish one. But, this is SE we are talking about.

[Arcon]

Did you even read my post?

Barely, but I wasn't talking to you. Your post was mostly assumption on both what's actually going on in the code as well as about the effects your "solutions" would have.

Setting aside for a minute that the AH may be in a completely seperate memory location with preassigned memory just for it to use, it's different from the inventory in that it's just a list of numbers that's loaded into memory and nothing else. These numbers are then translated to names when they're being displayed (by a hashmap or w/e works fast in this case). The inventory is more than that, it stores metadata for each item as well. It's not just item names (or IDs), but also the quantity of items (irrelevant for the AH list, since there can only be one or a stack, with stack size being predetermined), augment data, charge data, usability check (whether or not you can use/consume them), bazaar check, etc. They're also different in that the items that can be loaded into the AH list are limited, whereas every item in the game can be in your inventory.

Secondly, you assume people would benefit from unlimited storage, but it would lead to abuse. And I'm not even talking about intentional abuse, but people being careless and flooding both the server as well as their own client and possibly loading items for a minute (and knowing some hoarders out there quite possibly more) every time they zone to download their complete item list with all the attached metadata.

Thirdly, you're being very vague with saying "database storage". How exactly would database storage work? Do you mean load it in a tree structure instead of a list? Or load it from the hard drive at runtime, through a tree to limit accessing cost? Elaborate on what exactly you mean, because all of the things I could think of have other drawbacks attached to them.

Regardless of all of that, all I said was that the PS2 is holding back inventory developments. Even if the PS2 wasn't the only reason for that, and changes could be implemented as it is now, that statement would still hold true.


Please think about it not to sound rude but its obvious people will believe anything they're told if the developer says it.

That made me chuckle.

[Alhanelem]

I must be the only person who has plenty of space for full gear for several jobs with no active mules. Just don't keep things you don't really need to keep, store old stuff on the available NPCs, and you're fine. unless you're so hardcore that you have all jobs to 99 and a full, complete, pro set of gear for all of them and you don't reuse anything from one job on aother, the storage available to us right now is adequate.

[Teraniku]

Stop gear hoarding.

Welcome to FFXI: post Abyssea.

[FrankReynolds]

why would a company want to miss an opportunity to profit?

am i missing something, or is this thread full of completely naive people?

They could charge people $$$ a month to add another 300 slots to their main account. It would be a lot more convenient, and SE could still make their money.

To the "we don't need more space" crowd: Yes you do. Your just not smart enough to know it.

[Eth]

There is an alternative to increasing inventory space which players have been asking SE to implement again and again for years: gear consolidation. A very common idea is to allow consolidation of all 8 elemental damage magian staves into one. Side effect: new time sink for BLMs most of whom just have ice and thunder and now need to trial up 6 more staves.

[Zarchery]

Inventory problems are impossible to solve. Junk expands to fill the space. All that giving you more inventory space would accomplish is that it you would have more junk you don't need that you refuse to throw away.

[Zinato]

Inventory problems are impossible to solve. Junk expands to fill the space. All that giving you more inventory space would accomplish is that it you would have more junk you don't need that you refuse to throw away.

That's right like the 8 elemental staves, 8 obis, 8 gorgets, 7 spaces of relic currency +various upgrade items, 5 types of forgotten items, 13 mog slips, 8 types of geodes and 8 more avatarites, various seals/+2/empy, the dozens of VW drops that are so rare dropping is nothing short of foolish. (and on the VW note, if they are dropped they cant be used for tickets in the future) Otherwise you have a valid point.

[FrankReynolds]

Inventory problems are impossible to solve. Junk expands to fill the space. All that giving you more inventory space would accomplish is that it you would have more junk you don't need that you refuse to throw away.

And why do you care how much useless crap I can hold? oh wait. trolling. got it.

[Sarick]

it's more an issue of what space is left in memory after everything else is accounted for in the game. The PS2 has a limited amount of memory to use for all operations. It was designed with only so much space reserved for certain registers to ensure assets would be available for other processes. Granted, whether those assets remain unused and could be transferred could be open to debate. There could also be the issue that such unused resources might be needed for future plans, so they are unwilling to release them to something else.

As for the AH, that's a different animal I guess. Ever notice how long it takes for that list to load? Notice how it loads in chunks? And you can only scroll down so far, then you have to wait for the next block to load? It's like it is stacking blocks...kind of like how you have your normal inventory with the temp items stacked on top in a seperate block. When you auto-sort the temp block, it doesn't auto-sort your normal block--have to select a normal item to sort normal inventory because they are seperate containers. So, even though it may be possible to stack multiple containers in a list view, there is the performance issue that has to be taken into effect. Think about how bad things lag sometimes just loading the AH list. Imagine that happening in the field....mid fight, trying to unpack a toolbag or quiver, or gettting at that item you need right away that isn't on a macro.

There's a lot more to consider besides just whether it is possible.

The point is it's possible to have unlimited storage. The space limitations are client side most of the time. AH and mog mail store that data on the server side. It does take longer to load because you download it but it's there.

[Kaisha]

I just want there to be a dedicated furnishings section for the MH (make it 50 slots or so) to put my furniture into that won't take up space from my Mog House. Heck, even do a -1 storage from all furnishings to make up for the lack of real inventory space it won't consume with that adjustment.

[RAIST]

The point is it's possible to have unlimited storage. The space limitations are client side most of the time. AH and mog mail store that data on the server side. It does take longer to load because you download it but it's there.

Exactly... client side limitation... as in PS2 limitations. You only have...what was it? 32 MB of RAM to use on the PS2 for EVERYTHING NEEDED IN THE GAME AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. Just look at the difference in assets that may be required when standing at the AH vs. being out in the field and pulling up your inventory screen during battle in something like, lets say Campaign or Besieged. There is a lot more going on behind the scenes with your client between those different points in time, and thus different levels of resources are being consumed.

[Arcon]

The point is it's possible to have unlimited storage. The space limitations are client side most of the time. AH and mog mail store that data on the server side. It does take longer to load because you download it but it's there.

So, with unlimited storage you meant putting everything on the server and only pulling up pieces of it at a time, as required?

[RAIST]

So, with unlimited storage you meant putting everything on the server and only pulling up pieces of it at a time, as required?

and in a game that doesn't really take advantage of broadband either because it is designed to run on a 56k connection....

[Arcon]

and in a game that doesn't really take advantage of broadband either because it is designed to run on a 56k connection....

Meh, I just read over it again, it seems he thinks inventory/storage data is currently not stored on the server at all, which is false. All item data is stored on the server (that's why the client has to load it from the server every time you zone). The issue is that the item list cannot be loaded in the active memory (like when viewing two inventories at the same time). Putting it on the server completely to extend the capacity is not gonna happen and I wouldn't want it to either, because that would bring a whole other range of problems with it, even disregarding the crippling loading times.

[Kristal]

Lack of auto-translate in a multicultural game, lack of new zones (yes they can add them but only so many we only know 1/5 of Vanadiel), lag, macro-size, graphical changes. This is but a small list, all of which is being held back by the PS2.

New zones are NOT an issue for the PS2. That rumour was based on the number of zones approaching 256 (a single byte), but devs have come forward a while back stating that this is not the case.

New zones (especially when part of new expansions) generally require a massive investment in resources, most of which are either cut back or working on the 75 -> 99 changes and rebalancing.

And Vana'diel isn't Minecraft... content and maps aren't auto-generated, so there will always be areas we will never see (the other 4/5th of Vana'diel).

[Lokithor]

One way to help the inventory problem would be to create another n-slot bag (where n = size of gobbiebag) that is field accessible into which ALL treasure drops fall. As with satchel or sack, you would need to move items from your treasure bag to main inventory to use, trade, sell, etc.

They could also change bazaar so that you could only bazaar items from your treasure bag, also freeing up more main inventory space.

[SpankWustler]

One way to help the inventory problem would be to create another n-slot bag (where n = size of gobbiebag) that is field accessible into which ALL treasure drops fall.

"Kupo! We at the MHMU have been working hard on this new creation, and we're pleased to announce the Log Lugger 800b! It lugs your logs, leaving your Gobbie Bag open and free! Kupo-po!"

[Sarick]

Meh, I just read over it again, it seems he thinks inventory/storage data is currently not stored on the server at all, which is false. All item data is stored on the server (that's why the client has to load it from the server every time you zone). The issue is that the item list cannot be loaded in the active memory (like when viewing two inventories at the same time). Putting it on the server completely to extend the capacity is not gonna happen and I wouldn't want it to either, because that would bring a whole other range of problems with it, even disregarding the crippling loading times.

No, all inventory is stored on the server side. The client itself keeps track of local inventory including item info. It's still verified on the server side. Take for instance, the storage slips. They're actually a really simple system on/off bits stored on the slip. The slip itself doesn't hold the item info it just stores if the user has or doesn't have the item on it. This is also how the storage NPCs store armor sets as a single key item. They store the items as placeholders inside the slip. These aren't processed into actual items until removed from the slip. This is also why trial weapons/armors messed up the slips.

I know exactly what I'm talking about just no way to communicate it. As for it crippling load times in the field the OP "Thread: Inventory Increase, New Satchel, Infinite (sortable) Item box in MogHouse" It wouldn't work for players that have 5 armor sets that they constantly swap in the field but it'd be faster then logging off and on more then 2 times to mail yourself 16+ items.

[Sarick]

So, with unlimited storage you meant putting everything on the server and only pulling up pieces of it at a time, as required?

Exactly.. This is why the clients limits for items is moot for collectors. It wouldn't solve local inventory for people complaining about not having room with a lot of swapping sets but it would enable a large amount of storage.

[FrankReynolds]

Exactly.. This is why the clients limits for items is moot for collectors. It wouldn't solve local inventory for people complaining about not having room with a lot of swapping sets but it would enable a large amount of storage.

This is exactly what we need. Imagine if they did this and then gave you a few sort options like the AH does.

Click inventory form mog menu -> Select "sort by job" -> Swap all gear in like 30 seconds.

[Shipp]

Just like I'd call you a noob for not using the full extent of your inventory. I'm too good in your eyes, you're too bad in mine. Works out just fine.

Nobody is using 80 pieces of equipment for one single job at one time. I have tons of macro swaps for rdm, blm, sch, and SMN. The most I'm ever at in inventory is 65/80, and that's still usually with extra crap I don't really need, like crystals, logs, etc.

That being said, I could use more space, but I still stand by the fact that nobody has 80 pieces of gear for swapping on one job at the same time. Maybe different sets for different events and different subjobs, but that's what mog sack/satchel is for.

[Shipp]

That's right like the 8 elemental staves, 8 obis, 8 gorgets, 7 spaces of relic currency +various upgrade items, 5 types of forgotten items, 13 mog slips, 8 types of geodes and 8 more avatarites, various seals/+2/empy, the dozens of VW drops that are so rare dropping is nothing short of foolish. (and on the VW note, if they are dropped they cant be used for tickets in the future) Otherwise you have a valid point.

Or you know, don't take up space with things you don't need? Seriously, you have every obi? Why? Thunder, ice, dark, and possibly light or fire are the only ones really "needed." Why do you have an earth obi? You use stone spells THAT much? When the majority of nukes cast are either thunder or blizzard, there's no reason to go get all the obis if you don't feel you have the space for them.

I haven't done gorgets yet, so I can't comment on those. You also don't seem to understand how the porter moogle works since he stores AF, upgraded AF, Relic, upgraded relic, empy, and upgraded empy.

No reason you have to hold on to 8 different types of geodes AND avatarites at the same time.

Also, do you not have a satchel as well as a sack? Boom, 240 inventory spaces from anywhere in the world at once.

[Zinato]

Or you know, don't take up space with things you don't need? Seriously, you have every obi? Why? Thunder, ice, dark, and possibly light or fire are the only ones really "needed." Why do you have an earth obi? You use stone spells THAT much? When the majority of nukes cast are either thunder or blizzard, there's no reason to go get all the obis if you don't feel you have the space for them.

Not only are they planning on leveling elemental dmg (meaning thunder will do the same as stone) But, earth is used for VW proc/abyssea proc/and anytime an enemy has a weakness to earth. Stone is used rather frequently and if im going to cast it I may as well get the dmg boost since between cape/obi/ring/legs it can get ~+20% that's not even day or double weather. Even just to humor you that's still 5/8 obis needed and also I forgot the belt set to go along with gorgets that's 8 more.


I haven't done gorgets yet, so I can't comment on those. You also don't seem to understand how the porter moogle works since he stores AF, upgraded AF, Relic, upgraded relic, empy, and upgraded empy.

I am very well aware of how the porter moogle works as I have well over 100 pieces of gear stored with him. What I refer to is +1 seals (100 types max), +2 items (20 types max), Empyrean weapon items (18 types max) that doesn't even include Forgotten, AF+1, ABC, Dynamis Currency and the various other upgrade items. Everything and its uncle requires some new item to upgrade now and expecting to do nothing but that task until its finished is unreasonable.



No reason you have to hold on to 8 different types of geodes AND avatarites at the same time.

When you have 8 blm staves, 8 summoner staves, and some dozen or so Elemental weapons for various jobs yes there is. Since I don't have millions of gil to outright buy 420 Geodes for +2, 1120 Geodes for +3 and 420 Avatarites for +4. At just 1k apiece that's 1.96m, and some geodes/rites go as high as 30-50x that.


, do you not have a satchel as well as a sack? Boom, 240 inventory spaces from anywhere in the world at once.

Personally, I couldn't care less about world inventory since only the 80 main can be used for macros and 240 pieces on a single job is highly unlikely. A second locker/storage/safe etc. would do just fine.

Overall, they keep adding more and more R/X gear many of which are such a low drop from an event that's dieing out that dropping it is foolish. On top of that they want to add a system that requires you have the original to create a second item so that it can be sold. Abyssea also had alot of R/X items JSE weapons, Fake Relic, Serpetine and Cousins. Anything that can be better needs an item to be so. There are items for breaking caps for NPC, for learning emotes, breaking caps (if you are one who needs rarab tail) Most of the issue is due to the reliance on Trials/Synergy for anything upgradable.

[FrankReynolds]

stuff.

couldn't have said it better myself.

The main problem is mog house storage. I'm fine with the amount of stuff that I can keep on me but porter moogles and mules are tedious. It's 2012. Lets get a giant mog locker and a few search options ffs. They can bill me for it if they want.

[Arcon]

No, all inventory is stored on the server side.

That's exactly what I said?


Exactly.. This is why the clients limits for items is moot for collectors. It wouldn't solve local inventory for people complaining about not having room with a lot of swapping sets but it would enable a large amount of storage.

Yes, that's possible and they're already doing it. That's what all the different forms of storage do (inv, sack, satchel, safe, locker, storage). And I wouldn't be surprised if they added more things like that. Unlimited won't happen though, since it's still all transferred to the client every time you zone (which is especially important for field storage, such as sack and satchel), which would lead to ridiculously large load times. If you only load inventory every time you zone and only load sack or satchel when you try to open it, that would lead to a 2~3s delay every time you open them, which would be pretty annoying.

The thing is, if you're just looking for storage for hoarders, there's already plenty of options. Armor storage, event item storage, Porter Moogle and muling are enough if you just wanna be a "collector". The problem is for actual users, people who use many jobs and need to swap quickly. and loading times do matter for those. The best thing they could do is add more locations like the safe and the locker (or possibly the sack and satchel), that would already be a great help. If you could equip gear from there, it would make it even better, although that would require more development time and testing than simply adding a new storage location.


Nobody is using 80 pieces of equipment for one single job at one time.

Yes, because we can't. 78 is the max, if you have one slot for a linkshell and one for swapping items from the sack or satchel. I know plenty of people who do use 78 and who would use a lot more if they could (including me). My PLD, for example, has a set for HP, Resting, Refresh, Regen, PDT, MDT (one for Shell up, one for Shell down), Haste, Melee, Attack, DEX, Fast Cast, VIT, Enmity, Shield skill, Enhancing skill, Cure potency and several macro items (Sentinel, Rampart, Cover, Shield Bash, etc.), and that is not counting other sets that I have in storage that I only get out for situational use (elemental resist sets, for example). Now you'll say "you don't need that many items", am I right? Well, in your eyes I don't, I know there's several people who think that. Doesn't change the fact that I wanna play as well as I possibly can, which is currently restricted by the inventory limit.

[SpankWustler]

Nobody is using 80 pieces of equipment for one single job at one time. I have tons of macro swaps for rdm, blm, sch, and SMN. The most I'm ever at in inventory is 65/80, and that's still usually with extra crap I don't really need, like crystals, logs, etc.

That being said, I could use more space, but I still stand by the fact that nobody has 80 pieces of gear for swapping on one job at the same time. Maybe different sets for different events and different subjobs, but that's what mog sack/satchel is for.

If there's any chance at all that I'll use Sanguine Blade and Magic Fruit on Blue Mage, and there always is if somebody is going to lose HP that day, then carrying everything I use puts me at roughly 79/80 depending on if I need echo drops or something. That number is after turning my resting set into "the same Refresh gear I idle in but my character wears it while sitting down" and other things I've done to save space such as using sub-optimal pieces for spells with AGI modifiers.

Similarly, I've rebuilt my resting set, enfeebling set, and Divine Magic damage set on White Mage to use more shared pieces with other sets than they would if optimized. I'm roughly 70/80 right now because I prefer not having to stick something in my Mog Sack every minute to dealing more damage with Holy II, but I could easily go up to the cap if I tried to optimize everything I regularly use.

Irregularly use in the case of the resting sets for both jobs, I suppose, but the cases I'll need it are unpredictable. I can only imagine how much I would hate my inventory if I had to deal with switching around Obis and a Twilight Cape to make my little tarubroro suck less in addition to the sacrifices I already make for inventory reasons.

Not only do some people use 80 things at a time, they could use more if the potential were there.

[Sarick]

I said >>

No, all inventory is stored on the server side.


That's exactly what I said?

Actuially, I corrected you for your misunderstanding when you said this >>


Meh, I just read over it again, it seems he thinks inventory/storage data is currently not stored on the server at all, which is false.

All data is stored on the server but not everything is loaded until it's requested by the client. So it's only loaded on the client side. << see the confusion?




Yes, that's possible and they're already doing it. That's what all the different forms of storage do (inv, sack, satchel, safe, locker, storage). And I wouldn't be surprised if they added more things like that. Unlimited won't happen though, since it's still all transferred to the client every time you zone (which is especially important for field storage, such as sack and satchel), which would lead to ridiculously large load times. If you only load inventory every time you zone and only load sack or satchel when you try to open it, that would lead to a 2~3s delay every time you open them, which would be pretty annoying.

Not the system I'm talking about, It's not transferred until you attempt to retrieve it from the mog house moogle or nomad moogle. It's stored as a placeholder in the character data on the server.



The thing is, if you're just looking for storage for hoarders, there's already plenty of options. Armor storage, event item storage, Porter Moogle and muling are enough if you just wanna be a "collector". The problem is for actual users, people who use many jobs and need to swap quickly. and loading times do matter for those. The best thing they could do is add more locations like the safe and the locker (or possibly the sack and satchel), that would already be a great help. If you could equip gear from there, it would make it even better, although that would require more development time and testing than simply adding a new storage location.

All of these take more then 2-3 seconds, you have to go out of your way to a special NPC to get them. It's funny that you make statements about players who use many jobs and need to swap quickly then promote muling. Tell me how running to a mog mail, placing items in the mog mail , logging off, logging on a mule, getting items out of mule, walking to ah, mailing items, logging off mule, and then finally logging back on main to get LOL 8 items as QUICK. It took me more then 8 seconds to write the mule dance.

Extra locations sack would only create more zone lag when zoning and are limited to 80. You still can't easily create swap sets for over 80 items.

Slips use inventory space, they're limited to items the developers allow stored in them, they can only hold one of each item and they also require a trip to special NPCs to utilize them.

Key item storage you need complete sets, they're limited to the sets developers allow stored and they also require a trip to special NPCs to utilize them. Money isn't really an issue with ki storage.

The near unlimited storage I'm talking about would only look up the data if requested. On top of that it would only load the specific section requested. The auction house is split up into categories and sub sections. Think of the unlimited storage like having a personal auction house inside your mog house where everything you own can be stored in it with some exceptions. This could be the easiest manageable inventory with a storage capacity beyond what most players could logically fill.

The system I speak of >>

1. No muling needed.
2. Store all item types with the exception of trials and uniquely augmented items.
3. Would work on all platforms.
4. No storage slips or key items.
5. No extra load times while zoning since items are downloaded as a list at moogle.
6. No special NPC's you could use the nomad, rent a room or mog house moogles.

These are just few of the advantages. This system would obsolete any past mass storage system. The only system that it wouldn't work for is in field transactions. It's just not in the intere$t of the developers to create this system.

Even if this system is not possible a few things could be done by slitting up the inventory. Some items can only be stored in there own section. linkshells, Keys, consumables, Weapons, Armor. At least to keep the main inventory clear.

[Arcon]

All of these take more then 2-3 seconds, you have to go out of your way to a special NPC to get them. It's funny that you make statements about players who use many jobs and need to swap quickly then promote muling. Tell me how running to a mog mail, placing items in the mog mail , logging off, logging on a mule, getting items out of mule, walking to ah, mailing items, logging off mule, and then finally logging back on main to get LOL 8 items as QUICK. It took me more then 8 seconds to write mule dance. The extra locations would only create more zone lagging.

I said those were options for hoarders and collectors. People who keep their Spelunker's Hat because it's a fun item. I mentioned explicitly that those options are a problem for people who want to swap their gear quickly. See:


[..] Armor storage, event item storage, Porter Moogle and muling are enough if you just wanna be a "collector". The problem is for actual users, people who use many jobs and need to swap quickly. and loading times do matter for those. [..][..]


The near unlimited storage I'm talking about would only lockup the data if requested. On top of that it would only load the sub section. The Auction house is split up into categories and sub sections. Think of the unlimited storage like having a personal auction house inside your mog house where everything you own can be stored in it with some exceptions.

So, how would you split it into sections? How would transferring gear from one location to another (like your inventory) work? Try to detail it for me. Would you select "head gear" "level 50~60" "job x" and it would show you the items you have that fit this category? I just don't know how you imagine this to go down. How will the data be stored on the server? A bitfield for every item in the game, which can be 0 or 1? Since you said something about "placeholder in the character data".

I can't think of any way that wouldn't have any other drawbacks attached to them. But I'm still not sure how you'd want to implement this, so I can't comment on any of it until you detail that a bit further.

[Sarick]

I said those were options for hoarders and collectors. People who keep their Spelunker's Hat because it's a fun item. I mentioned explicitly that those options are a problem for people who want to swap their gear quickly. See:

So, how would you split it into sections? How would transferring gear from one location to another (like your inventory) work? Try to detail it for me. Would you select "head gear" "level 50~60" "job x" and it would show you the items you have that fit this category? I just don't know how you imagine this to go down. How will the data be stored on the server? A bitfield for every item in the game, which can be 0 or 1? Since you said something about "placeholder in the character data".


Same way it's stored in the AH. The first placeholder says the player has the item, the second says how many. It doesn't need accessed until the player looks inside the container data. When you look at the AH list its split into categories and sub categories. Each category has items listed no matter what level. When you want an item to go to that category and it loads the list. The level range isn't important unless you sort by level.

The bitfield is how slips store items. The items have a single placeholder bit for each item. When the player retrieves one item the bit for that item is turned off in that slip. The game itself simply translates what bit equals what item. For instance, if the slip type was magically changed to anther slip the items in it would translate the bits into the other slips placeholders.

Say, for example slip 1 had all artifact armors, and slip 2 had all relic armors. If the artifact slip 1 ID was turned into slip 2 ID the bits stored in it as artifact armors would become placeholders for relic armors. The game itself just translates what bit is what item based on what slip it's stored on. Other then being it's own item and what placeholders are active all slips are basically the same.

My statement about slips meant they don't actively relate the items stored as being in your active inventory. Slips process data in them differently then a player active inventory. Technically the items don't exist on your character until they're removed from the slip. They aren't processed as owned items or loaded in memory when you zone. Only the slip itself is loaded.

To be honest this might not be the EXACT method they use but I can assure you it's not far off. It's like compressing. (no need to explain this in detail.)

Processed active inventory a problem for some while inactive storage is a problem for others. With processed inventory the client constantly scans it when you access your inventory. If you make a macro that says /equip head "Black Hat" or when you try to lot on an an item you can only hold one of this is the data that is checked. If the item is stored on a slip it's not processed and inactive so it doesn't exist in on the player to equip or restrict from owning more then one.

The system I'm talking about is for inactive mass storage that is easily accessible and quick. It wouldn't solve the local swap inventory limitations but would allow players to get items they want without muling or running out of actual storage.

As for how, Items in auction have several values such as Item ID, item type and item amount up. I think you know it's possible to do but are thinking to hard about it. It's just a tweaked personal auction house used as a storage medium with the data stored in their data folder.

[Midorikaze]

Wouldn't it be nice if equipped armor did not count against your inventory limit (like in many other MMOs)? Besides, if it's on your body, it shouldn't be counted as being in your "bag", right? Although that would be problematic for swapping if the quantity of gear pieces were different and your inventory were maxed....another can of worms altogether. :\

Could have the "swapped sets of gear" go into a temporary "container" of some sort during the swap so they would be still kept track of...don't know how that would work with memory limitations and all, though...there's those 'limitations' again. $%#@*. -.-;

[Greatguardian]

This is exactly what we need. Imagine if they did this and then gave you a few sort options like the AH does.

Click inventory form mog menu -> Select "sort by job" -> Swap all gear in like 30 seconds.

There's an app for that.

I mean plugin.

[FrankReynolds]

There's an app for that.

I mean plugin.

Yeah, sorta. Those things are all buggy.

If they simply implemented one large bag that was sort-able by job and could hold everything that was not on your person in the mog house, changing jobs would be as easy as selecting what job you wanted to gear, and then spamming the collect item key.

Those third part tools require XML and and spellcast knowledge, and they frequently break whenever a new item is added. Not to mention all the wacky rules for keeping items not related to a specific job.

This would allow any schmuck with a controller to change gear by simply emptying out everything but meds/tools from inventory, hitting sort, and spamming the button to transfer back items that have been sorted for the job they want.

It would actually even make those 3PP work better because it would make all the sorting mumbo jumbo that they do take far less time.

[Arcon]

I think you know it's possible to do but are thinking to hard about it.

On the contrary, I think you're not thinking enough about it. You still haven't said anything about how you think it should be implemented, which was the only thing I wanted to know.

But basically you're asking for the same thing everyone's asking for, more storage locations. Only the way you're describing it wouldn't work, for a few reasons. It would still need to be restricted to 80 slots when it is displayed (because they'd need to be in active memory, not on your hard drive or on the server, and that is currently limited by the PS2). So if you have more than 80 items in a category you're out of luck. The only method this could be prevented with would be if it was indeed an AH-style list, which would mean dropping the associated metadata and making a fixed list, that would have to be stored locally. Also, that list would be massive, because AH data is static (it doesn't only show the items that are on auction at any moment, but a fixed list of everything that's ever been on AH), and in this case you'd either have to store seperate lists for each user or make one huge ass list with all the items from one category on it. This would mean that it would take ages picking your gear out of that list for one (especially because you'd have to search for ages for each slot then reload a massive list for another slot), and also you couldn't store any items that rely on that metadata to exist (like trial items, augmented items, items with charges and anything like that).

Furthermore, this would be nearly impossible to implement on the server. A server needs to be able to retrieve and send data immediately, but for this to work the server would still have to perform an expensive search process. The reason why we've only ever had static storage (and the reason why it will always remain this way) is that it's significantly more efficient. Fixed-size data can be stored in an array and read in one swoop through a certain memory location. Unlimited storage would have to be searched, possibly all the time in different memory locations which would take a hell of a long time to find if you look at it in the server's terms, which would have to do this for every incoming user request. They'd have to keep their server data storage permanently defragmented to ensure fast access, which would be undone as soon as someone adds a new item to that storage.

Also, it would make searching for items locally impossible, if they ever decided to add that feature (which they totally should).

You're sugarcoating the advantages and ignoring many of the disadvantages of your suggested system.


1. No muling needed.

Arguable, depending on what other items you have.


2. Store all item types with the exception of trials and uniquely augmented items.

And any other type of item that has any metadata attached to it, like charged items or BCNM triggers, quest triggers and whatnot.


3. Would work on all platforms.

Not the way you're imagining it. If it was indeed true storage, it would still be limited to 80 items displayed per time because of PS2 limitations.


4. No storage slips or key items.

Wouldn't be required for any other kind of storage either (not even for Porter Moogles, if they adjusted their data storage server side). It's just how SE chose to implement it. I'm not saying that's good (it's the reason why I never use Porter Moogles myself), but I'm guessing if they did it like this there was a reason why they couldn't save it server side. After all, it would mean having to code an entirely new way of storing character relevant data on the server. Since the beginning of the game they've only stored job levels, skill levels, items, key items and quest progression on the server, nothing else. This would mean expanding that to incorporate new ways of item storage, which would be especially tricky if it was indeed unlimited, as you want it to be (which may even be impossible to implement due to the nature of the server side of the game, as I mentioned before).

Honestly it sounds a bit like wishful thinking, unless you can tell me where I'm wrong and how you would implement it. And you seem to ignore the downsides this would bring as well (forget fast regearing with a system like that). Don't get me wrong, I'm the last person who would turn down more storage options, as I suffer from short inventory like the next guy, I just don't see this as a feasible solution. A new storage location (like a sack and satchel) would actually fulfill all the points you mentioned better than your own suggested method (point #5 being arguable, but it wouldn't have a huge impact either, and it would be even better than point #6).

[Shipp]

Yes, because we can't. 78 is the max, if you have one slot for a linkshell and one for swapping items from the sack or satchel. I know plenty of people who do use 78 and who would use a lot more if they could (including me). My PLD, for example, has a set for HP, Resting, Refresh, Regen, PDT, MDT (one for Shell up, one for Shell down), Haste, Melee, Attack, DEX, Fast Cast, VIT, Enmity, Shield skill, Enhancing skill, Cure potency and several macro items (Sentinel, Rampart, Cover, Shield Bash, etc.), and that is not counting other sets that I have in storage that I only get out for situational use (elemental resist sets, for example). Now you'll say "you don't need that many items", am I right? Well, in your eyes I don't, I know there's several people who think that. Doesn't change the fact that I wanna play as well as I possibly can, which is currently restricted by the inventory limit.

Anything except BLU I call BS on. link a picture of this inventory of 78 items that are all needed at the same time for one single event.


If there's any chance at all that I'll use Sanguine Blade and Magic Fruit on Blue Mage, and there always is if somebody is going to lose HP that day, then carrying everything I use puts me at roughly 79/80 depending on if I need echo drops or something.
BLU I could understand, just due to the nature of either having to be a melee or nuker, or even support. Any other job? No.


Not only are they planning on leveling elemental dmg (meaning thunder will do the same as stone) But, earth is used for VW proc/abyssea proc/and anytime an enemy has a weakness to earth. Stone is used rather frequently and if im going to cast it I may as well get the dmg boost since between cape/obi/ring/legs it can get ~+20% that's not even day or double weather. Even just to humor you that's still 5/8 obis needed and also I forgot the belt set to go along with gorgets that's 8 more.
If you want to min/max every single thing, then don't complain about inventory issues. That's a you issue, not a game issue. At the moment, there is no reason to get a stone obi. Let me rephrase before you mention some out-in-left-field example. The effort to get, plus the -1inventory, is obviously out-weighing the benefit of getting a few extra damage in sandstorms or on Earthsday. Also, mobs weak to stone still take more damage from a fully merited Blizzard the vast majority of the time. The only time I can think of, other than procs, where I would really NEED to cast stone is during the torama BC.

Also, I don't tend to try to push my damage to the max when proc'ing. You know, because my damage goes to 0 if I die. Proc with crap damage so you can proc it fast, then wait until hate is set on the tank well and nuke in max damage gear. Might not work for everyone, but works just fine for me.

You're also extremely exaggerating the situation by insinuating that it's common to have every trial weapon, at least 1 of every seal possible, at least one of every stone, at least one of every avatarite, at least one of every +2 item, all the normal gear, etc. That's not common, especially for someone who talks about not being rich.

It would be nice if you could store seals though, that's all I really want.

[Lokithor]

What is this game about, really? It's about collecting gear. Just about everything you do in this game has an end goal of getting some new, marginally useful piece of equipment. That's what keeps people playing.

By that logic, SE needs to provide more incentive to want to get more gear to keep people playing. More storage to keep all the junk. More usable storage in the field in order to encourage more min/maxing. Combined with the content that provides the new gear, that's what keeps the subscription bucks flowing.

By that logic, it is in SE's business interest to make changes in this area.

I made a suggestion a few posts back about adding another field accessible bag and having all treasure drops fall there (as well as recoding bazaar to use that bag) rather than the gobbie bag. Seems like an easy way to go.

[FrankReynolds]

Anything except BLU I call BS on. link a picture of this inventory of 78 items that are all needed at the same time for one single event.


BLU I could understand, just due to the nature of either having to be a melee or nuker, or even support. Any other job? No.


If you want to min/max every single thing, then don't complain about inventory issues. That's a you issue, not a game issue. At the moment, there is no reason to get a stone obi. Let me rephrase before you mention some out-in-left-field example. The effort to get, plus the -1inventory, is obviously out-weighing the benefit of getting a few extra damage in sandstorms or on Earthsday. Also, mobs weak to stone still take more damage from a fully merited Blizzard the vast majority of the time. The only time I can think of, other than procs, where I would really NEED to cast stone is during the torama BC.

Also, I don't tend to try to push my damage to the max when proc'ing. You know, because my damage goes to 0 if I die. Proc with crap damage so you can proc it fast, then wait until hate is set on the tank well and nuke in max damage gear. Might not work for everyone, but works just fine for me.

You're also extremely exaggerating the situation by insinuating that it's common to have every trial weapon, at least 1 of every seal possible, at least one of every stone, at least one of every avatarite, at least one of every +2 item, all the normal gear, etc. That's not common, especially for someone who talks about not being rich.

It would be nice if you could store seals though, that's all I really want.

So exactly how does having better storage hurt you again? and why are you opposed? I see you arguing about peoples habits and play styles (which actually makes you look like you don't try very hard) , but I don't see any actual argument against better storage. Care to elaborate on that (on why you don't like better storage, not why you think that your better at storing things than other people)?

[Arcon]

Anything except BLU I call BS on. link a picture of this inventory of 78 items that are all needed at the same time for one single event.

I gave you a list of my sets, I'm not gonna list every single item I have. Pretty sure you can figure it out yourself from there (if you wanted to, which I doubt).


BLU I could understand, just due to the nature of either having to be a melee or nuker, or even support. Any other job? No.

My PLD and THF both go over the 80 limit and my BRD is close (the instruments alone make up a big part). Actually, all my jobs are in the 60~70 range, but BRD is ~75.


If you want to min/max every single thing, then don't complain about inventory issues. That's a you issue, not a game issue.

I predicted you were gonna say this:

Now you'll say "you don't need that many items", am I right? Well, in your eyes I don't, I know there's several people who think that. Doesn't change the fact that I wanna play as well as I possibly can, which is currently restricted by the inventory limit.

Because that's the only argument you people ever have when we tell you our inventory is not enough. Either way, you're wrong because it actually is a game issue. SE designed the game to allow gear swaps at arbitrary times, they knew people have been doing it forever and they keep dishing out more situational gear that has no uses aside from situationally being macrod in. So they know full well we'll use them situationally and macro them and as a result will need a lot higher inventory than just 16 pieces, which means they are encouraging our behaviour. However, the game doesn't allow us to go above 80. So for your theory to even be considered you'd have to assume that the 80 limit was their design. That is simply not true. It used to be a lot lower and they kept increasing it for years until they hit a brick wall. Why would they have done it, according to you? Because 80 is alright, but 81 isn't? And all those years they were just trying to find the right balance?

The truth is simply that 80 is a number defined by hardware limitations. SE obviously agrees with our playstyle to min/max situational gear. The extent of our gearswapping is no issue at all. Who are you to tell me that if I need 78 items it's ok, but 79 isn't?

So yes, it's a game issue and not ours.

[Shipp]

So exactly how does having better storage hurt you again? and why are you opposed? I see you arguing about peoples habits and play styles (which actually makes you look like you don't try very hard) , but I don't see any actual argument against better storage. Care to elaborate on that (on why you don't like better storage, not why you think that your better at storing things than other people)?
Where did I say I'm opposed to more inventory? Oh right, I didn't. I really don't care what people on this forum think of whether I'm "trying" or not, as this forum is pretty well known for being a bunch of whiners, nay-sayers, and people who just lack reading comprehension. Much like you and Arcon assuming I'm against extra inventory.

My entire point boils down to this:
No job -needs- to have 78 different pieces of equipment in their inventory at once. It is not necessary. There comes a point when you're doing 6k+ nukes that, just perhaps, you don't need to carry around that Hyorin obi when it's not ice day, not ice weather, and you don't happen to be /sch or have someone hailstorming you. You are not using that piece of gear at that moment, so it can be sacked/satcheled.

This is most likely the case with most people claiming they use 78 pieces of equipment for gear swaps. In MY opinion, and one that is not changing anytime soon, I am not going to need a stone obi for that little bit of extra damage from sandstorm while I'm proc'ing a mob with stone spells. For one, when I'm proc'ing, I want to be able to get off my proc spells WITHOUT pulling hate, this means I don't want huge numbers until the mob has been proc'd. Why have to waste manawall or douse when proc'ing instead of saving those 10 minute cooldowns for an actual emergency? Yellow is going to proc on Stone IV whether I'm naked or wearing every piece of earth-boosting equipment there is. The quicker I go through my spells and proc it, the faster we can just zerg it.




Now you'll say "you don't need that many items", am I right? Well, in your eyes I don't, I know there's several people who think that. Doesn't change the fact that I wanna play as well as I possibly can, which is currently restricted by the inventory limit.
Go ahead and min/max to the extreme, just don't act like you're superior to those of us who min/max normally without going insane and playing pokemon with gear.


Because that's the only argument you people ever have when we tell you our inventory is not enough. Either way, you're wrong because it actually is a game issue. SE designed the game to allow gear swaps at arbitrary times, they knew people have been doing it forever and they keep dishing out more situational gear that has no uses aside from situationally being macrod in. So they know full well we'll use them situationally and macro them and as a result will need a lot higher inventory than just 16 pieces, which means they are encouraging our behaviour. However, the game doesn't allow us to go above 80. So for your theory to even be considered you'd have to assume that the 80 limit was their design. That is simply not true. It used to be a lot lower and they kept increasing it for years until they hit a brick wall. Why would they have done it, according to you? Because 80 is alright, but 81 isn't? And all those years they were just trying to find the right balance?

The truth is simply that 80 is a number defined by hardware limitations. SE obviously agrees with our playstyle to min/max situational gear. The extent of our gearswapping is no issue at all. Who are you to tell me that if I need 78 items it's ok, but 79 isn't?

So yes, it's a game issue and not ours.
Rage more, please.

Did I ever say SE opposes gear swaps? No. My entire point that everyone seems to be overlooking is that 80 is THE LIMIT. Either adapt, or keep whining about not being able to pump out that extra 30 damage on a nuke that you just absolutely HAVE to have in your mind. The limit won't be increased due to the hardware limitations. No amount of whining is going to change it. The most that will happen is another bag is added like satchel/sack. Thus, my comment, learn to store situational gear that you may need during the event, but do not need right this minute. If you want to have your nuking/healing/DD sets from BLU all sitting in your inventory at once, go right ahead. Just don't whine that you have no room when you're bringing the issue upon yourself because you'd rather have every piece sitting in your inventory instead of actually grabbing it from the satchel when you realize you are going to need it.

For min/maxers, you all sure don't understand how to minimize unnecessary inventory burdens while maximizing your gear sets for the activity you are participating in.


I gave you a list of my sets, I'm not gonna list every single item I have. Pretty sure you can figure it out yourself from there (if you wanted to, which I doubt).

Link me that post please, because I haven't seen it. Also, if you aren't listing every item, then you obviously don't care enough about this topic to actually give an example of why this is a problem. You're just here for the whine, which as I already stated, this forum is notorious for.

[Sarick]

The first part of your post about how it would download the list and allow you to pick out items is technically correct. The issue you point out is the slow gathering of items. I explained it was mass storage process. It would be definitely be slower to download and get a category list of items but in all circumstances quicker then transferring from a mule. I also pointed out this wouldn't be a field inventory.

Now for the hard part.

Arcon, I've explained it enough that if you didn't figure it out yet simply you won't figure it out. I've pointed out loopholes in the limitations using a system that's outside the box. The limitations are cemented so deep that no amount of evidence or explanation could undo unless the reader figures it out. I provided the auction house example that has/can access thousands of items on any current platform. This proves there are ways around listing more then 80 items. You still made this comment: "If it was indeed true storage, it would still be limited to 80 items displayed per time because of PS2 limitations."

The truth is I played on the PS2 for years and the auction house never had an 80 item limit. There may indeed be a display limit but it has nothing to so with storage limitations. At this point pinning this on PS2 limitations is outlandish. Storage is simply a way to store items. There is no such thing as true storage. If items can be put someplace where they don't occupy the player inventory, maintain basic information and can be retrieved within reason it's still storage. The PS2 limitation is inventory related. The developers can create a system to mass store items. If people think still it's impossible because the PS2 limitations then they need to stop thinking that.

I'm just going to set things straight.

The server can list more then 80 items, The server can store more then 80 items. The limitation remains because the method of storage and this is what limits it on some platforms.

[Arcon]

My entire point boils down to this:
No job -needs- to have 78 different pieces of equipment in their inventory at once.

No job needs any equipment. It's just increasing our efficiency. You're just picking an arbitrary line and saying "if you need more than this you're overdoing it". Then you bring stupid examples of a Dorin Obi because you assume we're carrying all obi and all staves with us at any time when you fail to realize that even without it we're at our maximum. We don't carry everything with us we don't need. My THF is over the limit and that's not counting all my ranged accuracy gear and my steal and mug gear, which I all still have stored, just in case I'd ever need it. With that, my THF gear approaches ~100. Same for the earth/fire resist set for my PLD, with which I'd easily be over 100.


Go ahead and min/max to the extreme, just don't act like you're superior to those of us who min/max normally without going insane and playing pokemon with gear.

I'm not. I play with plenty of people who don't gearswap at all and I get on with them just fine. I don't have a problem with people like you, I have a problem with you, and it has nothing to do with your playstyle but with your groundless insistance that our opinion is worth less than yours, because that's all it is. We asked for ways to improve our inventory and you came in on your high horse and tell us we don't need it and we're mismanaging our inventory. You were the one telling us how to play. Don't make me out to be that bad guy.


Did I ever say SE opposes gear swaps? No. My entire point that everyone seems to be overlooking is that 80 is THE LIMIT.

Oh? Because I thought I remembered you saying it's not the game's fault. You seem to mix up your arguments.


For min/maxers, you all sure don't understand how to minimize unnecessary inventory burdens while maximizing your gear sets for the activity you are participating in.

Then how are we playing right now? Or do you think we're all on a strike and sitting in Port Jeuno crowding up Horst with angry shouts directed at SE that we can't play anymore? Newsflash: we do manage. But we'd manage better if the game would let us. Now you don't seem to understand for what we're asking. We're not asking SE to increase the inventory limit, because we already know that that's the physical limit. We're suggesting different ways to bypass this, different systems to work around that shortcoming. This is the part you seem to be confusing with whining. Sarick, for example, has posted his idea on a new system that would completely bypass the 80 limit imposed by the PS2. So what, are you saying we shouldn't even bother, because it is how it is and we should just be fine with it? Then what exactly are these forums for, if not for feedback and suggestions?



I gave you a list of my sets, I'm not gonna list every single item I have. Pretty sure you can figure it out yourself from there (if you wanted to, which I doubt).

Link me that post please, because I haven't seen it. Also, if you aren't listing every item, then you obviously don't care enough about this topic to actually give an example of why this is a problem.

No, I don't care enough to go through all my gear in my different storage locations and on my mule just to convince any random stranger as to why he needs to get his facts straight. And it's funny you're saying you didn't see that post when you even quoted it. Here it is again, the relevant parts bolded, so you don't skip over it again



[..] My PLD, for example, has a set for HP, Resting, Refresh, Regen, PDT, MDT (one for Shell up, one for Shell down), Haste, Melee, Attack, DEX, Fast Cast, VIT, Enmity, Shield skill, Enhancing skill, Cure potency and several macro items (Sentinel, Rampart, Cover, Shield Bash, etc.), and that is not counting other sets that I have in storage that I only get out for situational use (elemental resist sets, for example). [..]

Anything except BLU I call BS on. link a picture of this inventory of 78 items that are all needed at the same time for one single event.

[Arcon]

Sorry for the double-post, but I decided to split it because they're directed towards different people and address different topics.


Arcon, I've explained it enough that if you didn't figure it out yet simply you won't figure it out.

That's the thing, though. I'm pretty sure I did figure it out and I told you what was wrong with it.


I provided the auction house example that has/can access thousands of items on any current platform. This proves there are ways around listing more then 80 items. You still made this comment: "If it was indeed true storage, it would still be limited to 80 items displayed per time because of PS2 limitations."

That's because the AH listing is inherently different from the inventory listing, and I told you repeatedly why. The inventory is not a static list that can just be read and interpreted and it's not just numbers that are being displayed but entire objects. Each item in an AH list is just a number (displayed as the item name) along with three markers, stack size (probably implemented as two flags as well), whether or not it's usable/equippable and whether or not it is currently equipped. This can be done entirely in a 13-bit array assuming a max of 512 items per category (even 12-bit with some clever coding). This simply does not work with items in the inventory, because they do list almost everything related to that item. WS points, for example, or max charges, charges left and recharge time, number of items, flags for usable or equipped items, etc. Now add on top of that that it's not a fixed item list and the storage size for each item increases. The inventory can't impose a limit of 512 items like AH categories to reduce storing information, because every item in the game can be in your inventory. Last I checked a compilation it was around 14k items (probably higher by now), if I remember correctly, which alone would require at least 16-bit allocated memory for each item. You cannot possibly combine all of that information in under 32 bits (I didn't do the actual math because I don't know how SE implemented it, but this would be the bare minimum). Now you do the math, 512*13 = 6656, divide that by our 32 bits per item and you're at 208 items for our inventory. Half that, to get 104 max inventory (because two storage locations can be up at any time to swap items). That's 104 items, in the same space that the auction house uses to store several hundreds of items. And notice how close it is to the current 80 item limit, and I was assuming the worst for many of those options.

And please note that I'm not saying my math is correct, I don't know how exactly SE coded it. I'm just saying it's plausible. You keep using the AH list as an indication that more than 80 items can be displayed when that's simply not always the case, because the space requirements are fundamentally different between the two. That's all I'm trying to say here.

I already said it would work for certain items (items with no metadata attached), but they're still not comparable and it's still not unlimited. So other means of storage would still be required. So if they added another storage location they would achieve the exact same result, only it would work on all items, it would be a lot faster to swap and it would be easier to implement (this is an educated guess, based on the fact that they've already done it several times). The only drawback would be that it would increase loading times after zoning, by a maximum factor of 15%, quite probably a lot less if you consider that all the key items, friend list and blacklist entries probably take up most of the time. So the entire process would still be within only a few seconds.

You said it would make any past "mass storage system" obsolete. What exactly do you mean by "mass storage"? What is the majority of your items? Because for me, it's gear I use constantly for all of my jobs. You even said yourself it's not for quick job changes, only that it was an improvement from muling (which I completely agree with). But what remains after the gear that I constantly use are some items most of which can already be stored (like event items and old artifact armor) and some old quest rewards or NM drops that I don't wanna toss. They hardly make up any kind of "mass" though (I think I have less than 30 of those items). So in the end I'd still prefer other systems for faster gearing and would barely use this, unless I had items I could store away permanently. I realize this may be different for other people, but again, not trying to bash the idea, just saying it's not quite as rosy as you made it out to be before.

The best reason for this is the increased capacity, because you could strip all those items of their metadata and just store them with much less space, possibly with less than 14 bits per item. However, I don't think SE's servers are a bottleneck for storing item data, so I'm not sure how relevant that would be. They could probably just add another /satchel-like storage and get away just as good, maybe even better, depending on the person and their playstyle.

[Sarick]

Arcon, You're confusing a few things. First off I mentioned somewhere that this isn't inventory It's a storage system. Don't confuse inventory with storage. The mog house storage is actually a part of your inventory, it's just named storage. Secondly, I did say that there where some exceptions to what items could be stored. The obsolete wording was a comparison to the amount you can store vs other currently available storage systems. No where did I say it was the only way to store or hold items. The main inventory would still be necessary for instant access items.

As for the words near unlimited. Let me explain what I meant by near unlimited. I meant that of all the systems this one could hold more then most players could fill within reason. Also, this doesn't translate directly into never running out of space. I'm sure someone could fill it up if they tried but to do so would be abusive.

Mathematics aside the type of storage I'm talking about wouldn't need all the item data stored with it. It'd only need the item identification, and how many are owned. As for timers etc as metadata. SE avoided timers by resetting them when you got the item. The charged items where limited too fully charged only. Unique augmented items where not allowed to be stored. Finally they solved the issue with signed items by clearing them when sold. This shows data is stripped when items are placed on the auction house or stored in some fashion. The so called metadata limitation only exist if items require it. Storage slips would be such an item.

Mass storage is this. You craft 250 healing potions that can't be stacked in regular inventory. You can store all 250 of them like this even though they don't stack. This is where this system would excel. It wouldn't matter if you stored 1 or 200 of the same item it'd still consume the same amount of space. Gear or whatever you want could stack even if you can only hold one at a time.

[FrankReynolds]

Where did I say I'm opposed to more inventory? Oh right, I didn't.

Right, so when you say:


I really don't care what people on this forum think of whether I'm "trying" or not, as this forum is pretty well known for being a bunch of whiners, nay-sayers, and people who just lack reading comprehension. Much like you and Arcon assuming I'm against extra inventory.

My entire point boils down to this:
No job -needs- to have 78 different pieces of equipment in their inventory at once. It is not necessary. There comes a point when you're doing 6k+ nukes that, just perhaps, you don't need to carry around that Hyorin obi when it's not ice day, not ice weather, and you don't happen to be /sch or have someone hailstorming you. You are not using that piece of gear at that moment, so it can be sacked/satcheled.



Your not saying that your against more inventory.

Your saying that you are way better at managing inventory than I am, but you still think they should add more inventory.

Man sorry for my poor reading comprehension. It's just that when an amazingly well thought out and eloquent post like yours comes along, it stumps my somewhat inferior mind.

Thanks for straightening us laymen out on how to manage our inventory. It's great to hear that you want better / more storage too. I guess we have nothing left to argue about huh?

EDIT: I know your not good at catching this, so I'll just spell it out for you. All of that was sarcasm.

[Jile]

I hate to be the one to say this but due to PS2 limitations (in this case its true) anything over 80 space is impossible. At least that's the story they've given us. Linking bags may work however, for the same reason 80 is max per bag type 160 would be the max for a linked bag, since that is the maximum allowed items the PS2 can process. (this is also why 80/80 is cap)

You know, SE could add a huge storage expansion that imho shouldn't impact the PS2 users.

If they add the MogSack2 that we purchase for another 10k gil on the npc, and PS2 users would be told - do not buy this item or you will break your game......

Frankly I'd like to see a quest or moogle-purchase where I can double the lines of my macros..... another to get blue-magic-sets so I could switch group-sets of BLU spells..

There are lots of things SE could do but the PS2 limitation, with so few legitimate players using it (I have 1 friend in 6 years that I know, that still uses his ps2 for xi) I don't understand why SE cant either make some of the above noted suggestions or at the very least, platform-specific updates, so PS2 can be omitted on an update while the rest of us get our game's updated. Obviously this is possible, 360 has much better graphics images than the PC so there are obviously different update packages they could push to each platform.

-Just my 10 cents.

[Zinato]

You know, SE could add a huge storage expansion that imho shouldn't impact the PS2 users.

If they add the MogSack2 that we purchase for another 10k gil on the npc, and PS2 users would be told - do not buy this item or you will break your game......

Frankly I'd like to see a quest or moogle-purchase where I can double the lines of my macros..... another to get blue-magic-sets so I could switch group-sets of BLU spells..

There are lots of things SE could do but the PS2 limitation, with so few legitimate players using it (I have 1 friend in 6 years that I know, that still uses his ps2 for xi) I don't understand why SE cant either make some of the above noted suggestions or at the very least, platform-specific updates, so PS2 can be omitted on an update while the rest of us get our game's updated. Obviously this is possible, 360 has much better graphics images than the PC so there are obviously different update packages they could push to each platform.

-Just my 10 cents.

This is exactly why so many are pushing for SE to drop PS2 support, in the interest of "balance" they won't ignore any single system. However, rumor has it SE made an agreement with Sony ever so long ago that any expansion made for FFXI must be made as a game disc for PS2. Ever notice how everything past WoTG is broken into mini expansions even though abyssea could have very easily been released all at once? Hence why until PS2 is dropped they keep dancing around players requests for expansions even though they swear up and down they can make them. I wish I could find it but sony made a statement awhile back saying that basically XI cant drop PS2 support unless sony does first. Which of course sucks for us, then again with all the lies, backpedalling and ignoring of player questions its hard to tell what is and isnt true.

[Arcon]

Arcon, You're confusing a few things. First off I mentioned somewhere that this isn't inventory It's a storage system. Don't confuse inventory with storage.

I know, but the limitations I mentioned are for display purposes, because to be displayed means it needs to be stored in active memory. They could work around it, if they didn't have both menus up at any same time and made another way to move items between them. Which, for long-term storage, shouldn't be a problem, I guess. I don't know, maybe the AH memory and the inventory memory are entirely different anyway, I have no way of knowing that, but seeing how short SE claim they are for memory I believe they'd do all they can to compress it further.


As for the words near unlimited. Let me explain what I meant by near unlimited. I meant that of all the systems this one could hold more then most players could fill within reason. Also, this doesn't translate directly into never running out of space. I'm sure someone could fill it up if they tried but to do so would be abusive.

The problem is, many people may be abusing it unwillingly. People just not bothered by storage limitations will keep putting stuff in there because they feel like they're not limited by inventory anymore and keep it for "situational use" or whatever. Everything that's being tossed now (like shitloads of feathers and skins and whatnot) would just be kept in case anyone needs it. Then again, that would be their personal problem. It would definitely help with storage of certain items.


This is exactly why so many are pushing for SE to drop PS2 support, in the interest of "balance" they won't ignore any single system. However, rumor has it SE made an agreement with Sony ever so long ago that any expansion made for FFXI must be made as a game disc for PS2. Ever notice how everything past WoTG is broken into mini expansions even though abyssea could have very easily been released all at once?

Any sources for this? Sounds like something players came up with to justify SE's release behaviour when it really seems as simple as that they're out of development time and simply weren't finished when they wanted to be (and should have been). Hence the release in smaller amounts. Abyssea had a whole slew of reasons why it was probably released in steps. I don't know, this is just my first time hearing about this.

[Sarick]

I know, but the limitations I mentioned are for display purposes, because to be displayed means it needs to be stored in active memory. They could work around it, if they didn't have both menus up at any same time and made another way to move items between them. Which, for long-term storage, shouldn't be a problem, I guess. I don't know, maybe the AH memory and the inventory memory are entirely different anyway, I have no way of knowing that, but seeing how short SE claim they are for memory I believe they'd do all they can to compress it further.

It is stored differently. The items stored in the auction house are a listing. The client translates the item when you check them on demand. As for the display limits, the player inventory menus would only be open when storing items. You could only see the amount stored if you was looking at the retrieve list. When retrieving them they're pulled from a list just like the AH and player inventory isn't displayed. Take a deep look at how the AH works you'll notice the player inventory isn't shown when buying items. It's only shown when you sell an item and in this case the AH list isn't shown.

They won't compress it more because it's not in their best Intere$t to allow players this much capacity. Look at a simple text file. Let's consider If each item on the list used 8 bytes of data to store it even an old 64kb computer could manage hundreds of items in list forum. It just doesn't need that much memory data for an item. If the PS2 can list, store and retrieve items with a system then the only real limitation is if the code to make it happen can't fit in memory.


I The problem is, many people may be abusing it unwillingly. People just not bothered by storage limitations will keep putting stuff in there because they feel like they're not limited by inventory anymore and keep it for "situational use" or whatever. Everything that's being tossed now (like shitloads of feathers and skins and whatnot) would just be kept in case anyone needs it. Then again, that would be their personal problem. It would definitely help with storage of certain items.

Filling it up shouldn't cause a detrimental effect because the list would maintain placeholders for every item that could be stored. Items in the list could have 0 or 255 items they'd still take the same space in memory. The bytes used to store amounts would definitely have set limits. If those limits are hit either the client/server would block adding more or it would truncate extra items over the limit. This would insure that client crashing abuse wouldn't be possible.

[Sarick]

This is exactly why so many are pushing for SE to drop PS2 support, in the interest of "balance" they won't ignore any single system. However, rumor has it SE made an agreement with Sony ever so long ago that any expansion made for FFXI must be made as a game disc for PS2. Ever notice how everything past WoTG is broken into mini expansions even though abyssea could have very easily been released all at once? Hence why until PS2 is dropped they keep dancing around players requests for expansions even though they swear up and down they can make them. I wish I could find it but sony made a statement awhile back saying that basically XI cant drop PS2 support unless sony does first. Which of course sucks for us, then again with all the lies, backpedalling and ignoring of player questions its hard to tell what is and isnt true.

They aren't dropping support, they just aren't making a reasonable effort supporting it. If you look at all the PS2 forums where players complain about crashes and black screens they haven't done much to rectify these issues. In fact they pin all these issues into It's your fault, your providers fault, your firewalls/routers fault or a defective console. If they haven't fixed it yet they're not planning on fixing it. This is the same with inventory limitations. They want to pin the problem on the PS2 limitations. Either they don't know how to fix them or they don't want to because it would cause players to cancel some mule accounts. It's as simple as that.

[Arcon]

They won't compress it more because it's not in their best Intere$t to allow players this much capacity.

Why exactly not? How would it be anything but their interest?


Filling it up shouldn't cause a detrimental effect because the list would maintain placeholders for every item that could be stored. Items in the list could have 0 or 255 items they'd still take the same space in memory.

Now you're mixing something up. One drawback of bitwise storage is that it's only an on/off switch, meaning you can't store multiples of one item (like the 250 healing potions you mentioned earlier). If you want that kind of storage then you'd really just need very little space, but in addition to the metadata restriction (no augmented/trial items, charged/signed items, etc.) you also couldn't store more than one of any given item. You'd have to choose between bitwise storage and regular storage, one for a checklist-type of storage (for rare armor, for example) and the other for stacking various amounts of items (like craft materials or trial items).

[Zinato]

Any sources for this? Sounds like something players came up with to justify SE's release behaviour when it really seems as simple as that they're out of development time and simply weren't finished when they wanted to be (and should have been). Hence the release in smaller amounts. Abyssea had a whole slew of reasons why it was probably released in steps. I don't know, this is just my first time hearing about this.

I was shocked when I heard it to. (followed by a soft we're screwed, only with stronger words) A friend of mine showed me the statement on some Playstation news letter addressing if Sony was going to make PS2 and therefore FFXI obsolete (as in stop supporting it) I really wish I could find it again, but i'll ask if he still remembers where he found it.

[Shipp]

Oh? Because I thought I remembered you saying it's not the game's fault. You seem to mix up your arguments.


Not responding to everything, because you still don't understand my position on the matter. I said it's not the game's fault that you feel you need 500 gear swaps. I never said it's not the fault of the engine's limitations that you can't have those 500 gear swaps.

Also, I don't feel my opinion is more valid than yours. I feel you're pissing into the wind though since there is no way you are ever going to have more than 80 inventory spaces to carry around gear. This argument is akin to walking into a grocery store and demanding that they carry lingerie simply because they have some seasonal jackets for sale. It's not going to happen, no matter how much you complain. SE has said 80 is the limit due to hardware. Insisting that people need more is not going to do anything. Meanwhile, I'm trying to explain ways to work-around the problem and you are just stomping your feet saying that you should have more space when it's not even an option.




Then how are we playing right now? Or do you think we're all on a strike and sitting in Port Jeuno crowding up Horst with angry shouts directed at SE that we can't play anymore? Newsflash: we do manage. But we'd manage better if the game would let us. Now you don't seem to understand for what we're asking. We're not asking SE to increase the inventory limit, because we already know that that's the physical limit. We're suggesting different ways to bypass this, different systems to work around that shortcoming. This is the part you seem to be confusing with whining. Sarick, for example, has posted his idea on a new system that would completely bypass the 80 limit imposed by the PS2. So what, are you saying we shouldn't even bother, because it is how it is and we should just be fine with it? Then what exactly are these forums for, if not for feedback and suggestions?
The game will NEVER let you, so get that out of your head. That is what I'm saying. You can keep making rants on this thread about how the game SHOULD let you, but the problem is that the hardware behind the game CANNOT let you, and no amount of ranting is going to change that. So, you can either keep managing like the rest of us and get on with your life, or you can keep managing as you are now and keep complaining about something that cannot happen. Seems a bit futile to me, but it's your time. Sarick doesn't know the hardware that SE is working with. Sarick doesn't know anymore about the inventory problem than we do. While his suggestions might help, only SE knows it that could actually work or not, and so far, I haven't seen them agree with him. Anyone else parroting his response as if it's 100% doable without the knowledge of how things are coded in XI just looks like a whiner.



No, I don't care enough to go through all my gear in my different storage locations and on my mule just to convince any random stranger as to why he needs to get his facts straight. And it's funny you're saying you didn't see that post when you even quoted it. Here it is again, the relevant parts bolded, so you don't skip over it again

I didn't skip over it. When you said you had listed them, I thought you might have actually listed a bit of gear with them, not just, "Healing set, DD set, HP set, haste set," etc. There are also pieces that overlap between sets, so it's not as if you're changing every single piece of equipment between every set.

[Shipp]

Right, so when you say:




Your not saying that your against more inventory.

Your saying that you are way better at managing inventory than I am, but you still think they should add more inventory.

Man sorry for my poor reading comprehension. It's just that when an amazingly well thought out and eloquent post like yours comes along, it stumps my somewhat inferior mind.

Thanks for straightening us laymen out on how to manage our inventory. It's great to hear that you want better / more storage too. I guess we have nothing left to argue about huh?

EDIT: I know your not good at catching this, so I'll just spell it out for you. All of that was sarcasm.

Don't get your panties in a knot just since you assumed I was against more inventory/storage and attacked a position I never held to begin with.

Also, I understand sarcasm perfectly fine.

[Arcon]

Also, I don't feel my opinion is more valid than yours. I feel you're pissing into the wind though since there is no way you are ever going to have more than 80 inventory spaces to carry around gear. This argument is akin to walking into a grocery store and demanding that they carry lingerie simply because they have some seasonal jackets for sale. It's not going to happen, no matter how much you complain. SE has said 80 is the limit due to hardware. Insisting that people need more is not going to do anything. Meanwhile, I'm trying to explain ways to work-around the problem and you are just stomping your feet saying that you should have more space when it's not even an option.

[..]

The game will NEVER let you, so get that out of your head. That is what I'm saying. You can keep making rants on this thread about how the game SHOULD let you, but the problem is that the hardware behind the game CANNOT let you, and no amount of ranting is going to change that. So, you can either keep managing like the rest of us and get on with your life, or you can keep managing as you are now and keep complaining about something that cannot happen. Seems a bit futile to me, but it's your time. [..]

That's not news to anyone. I told you I know it's the hardware limit. But hardware limites can be avoided and bypassed by smart implementation. That's how SE managed to give us 400 places of active storage, despite the PS2 only being able to ~170 at a time (176 I believe was the number, not sure). We're not whining about something impossible. We're suggesting something very possible from our current understanding. And yes, none of us know that it's possible because we don't know the implementation exactly. But we can give educated guesses. And I can say with reasonable certainty that certain measures could be taken. Sarick's suggestion, for example, would work to some extent and provide different options for situational storage. Another suggestion that was brought before was to let us equip gear straight from sack and satchel, thus tripling our equippable inventory. That would also work, if SE wanted to implement it.

And yes, we don't know if they want/will, but again, that's what this forum is for. We wanted higher inventory, they said PS2 limitations prevent them from increasing it and they'll look for other ways to alleviate storage issues. So we moved on and stopped asking for higher inventory. Now we're asking for smarter inventory, and if they happen to come in and give us a valid reason for why it won't happen, we'll think of other ways it could work and we'll suggest those. And there's nothing at all wrong with it. You're calling it whining, but it's just feedback, nothing else.


I didn't skip over it. When you said you had listed them, I thought you might have actually listed a bit of gear with them, not just, "Healing set, DD set, HP set, haste set," etc. There are also pieces that overlap between sets, so it's not as if you're changing every single piece of equipment between every set.

I've marked situational pieces with an x instead of a number, all others are numbered in order of appearance. There are multiple entries, which haven't been counted twice though (unless I made a mistake somewhere). This list was compiled manually and it's possible I missed some items. I also left out a few more sets (like HP, MP and resting set), but it should give you an initial idea of where the issues come from. Many of these gear sets are out dated and there are new items that could fit in now where previously were none. Yes, I was that bored.

Haste:
1. Zelus Tiara
2. Creed Gauntlets +2
3. Velocious Belt
4. Creed Cuisses +2
5. Creed Sabatons +2

PDT:
(x. Eisen Grip)
6. Angha Gem
7. Valhalla Helm
8. Wiglen Gorget
9. Colossuss's Earring
10. Ethereal Earring
11. Grim Cuirass
12. Melaco Mittens
13. Patronus Ring
14. Jelly Ring
15. Shadow Mantle
16. Nierenschutz
4. Creed Cuisses +2
17. Jingang Greaves

MDT (Shell down):
18. Verthandi's Gem
19. Valhalla Helm
20. Twilight Torque
21. Merman's Earring
10. Ethereal Earring
22. Avalon Breastplate
23. Iron Ram Dastanas
24. Merman's Ring
25. Merman's Ring
26. Lamia Mantle +1
15. Nierenschutz
27. Inmicus Cuisses
28. Askar Gambieras

MDT (Shell up):
17. Verthandi's Gem
18. Valhalla Helm
19. Twilight Torque
20. Merman's Earring
21. Ethereal Earring
22. Avalon Breastplate
23. Iron Ram Dastanas
29. Shadow Ring
25. Merman's Ring
26. Lamia Mantle +1
15. Nierenschutz
30. Iron Ram Hose
31. Iron Ram Sollerets

Melee:
1. Zelus Tiara
32. Fortitude Torque
33. Suppanomimi
34. Brutal Earring
35. Creed Cuirass +2
2. Creed Gauntlets +2
36. Keen Ring
37. Rajas Ring
38. Atheling Mantle
3. Velocious Belt
4. Creed Cuisses +2
5. Creed Sabatons +2

Attack:
39. Twilight Helm
32. Fortitude Torque
40. Aesir Ear Pendant
41. Grim Cuirass
42. Creed Gauntlets +2
36. Keen Ring
38. Atheling Mantle
43. Anguinus Belt
44. Hecatomb Subligar
45. Dilaram's Sollerets

DEX:
39. Twilight Helm
46. Love Torque
47. Twilight Mail
48. Hecatomb Mittens
49. Thundersoul Ring
37. Rajas Ring
44. Hecatomb Subligar
50. Rutter Sabatons

VIT:
51. Bibiki Seashell
52. Hero's Galea
32. Fortitude Torque
53. Koenig Cuirass
54. Koenig Handschuhs
55. Spiral Ring
56. Terrasoul Ring
57. Valor Cape
58. Warwolf Belt
59. Koenig Diechlings
60. Koenig Schuhs

Fast Cast:
(x. Vivid Strap)
61. Incantor Stone
62. Creed Armet +2
63. Loquacious Earring
64. Homam Cosciales

Regen:
39. Twilight Helm
8. Wiglen Gorget
65. Sheltered Ring
66. Paguroidea Ring

Refresh:
67. Creed Collar
47. Twilight Mail

Enhancing:
(x. Fulcio Grip)
68. Colossus's Torque
69. Augmenting Earring
70. Merciful Cape
71. Olympus Sash
72. Gallant Breeches +1

Enmity:
52. Hero's Galea
73. Invidia Torque
35. Creed Cuirass +2
74. Valor Gauntlets +1
75. Hercules' Ring
76. Odium Ring
57. Valor Cape
77. Creed Baudrier
30. Iron Ram Hose
78. Dornen Schuhs

Shield:
62. Creed Armet +2
79. Shield Torque
80. Creed Earring
2. Creed Gauntlets +2
81. Boxer's Mantle
82. Gallant Leggings +1

Cure:
(x. Apollo's Staff)
39. Twilight Helm
83. Hospitaler Earring
47. Twilight Mail
(x. Cascade Belt)
84. Valor Leggings +1

Rampart:
85. Valor Coronet +1

Sentinel:
84. Valor Leggings +1

Cover:
86. Gallant Coronet +1
87. Valor Surcoat

Shield Bash:
88. Knightly Earring
74. Valor Gauntlets +1
89. Fenian Ring

Movement:
90. Blood Cuisses

RR-Set:
39. Twilight Helm
47. Twilight Mail

Convert DMG to MP:
10. Ethereal Earring
62. Creed Armet +2

Magic Attack:
39. Twilight Helm
91. Hecate's Earring
92. Novio Earring
47. Twilight Mail

Dark Magic WS:
93. Shadow Gorget
94. Shadow Belt

(Stoneskin:
x. Stone Gorget
x. Earthcry Earring
x. Stone Mufflers
x. Siegel Sash
x. Haven Hose)

[Sarick]

Why exactly not? How would it be anything but their interest?

Now you're mixing something up. One drawback of bitwise storage is that it's only an on/off switch, meaning you can't store multiples of one item (like the 250 healing potions you mentioned earlier). If you want that kind of storage then you'd really just need very little space, but in addition to the metadata restriction (no augmented/trial items, charged/signed items, etc.) you also couldn't store more than one of any given item. You'd have to choose between bitwise storage and regular storage, one for a checklist-type of storage (for rare armor, for example) and the other for stacking various amounts of items (like craft materials or trial items).

The whole concept of it not being in their best interest involves them losing a lot of monthly mule subscriptions. This was already made clear by other posters on this topic.

I'm not mixing things up, you've totally forgotten previous post I'm made. Go back and re-read everything. You seem to bring up things that have already been discussed as though no discussion was done. I keep explaining bit wise was the way slips may store data. If you look up one or two back post you'd see something like.

"Let's consider If each item on the list used 8 bytes of data to store it even an old 64kb computer could manage hundreds of items in list forum."

When I made this comment I was grossly over exaggerating the bytes per item. I know that it takes more one bit to store items with amounts. A byte is 8 bits and is 0-255. You could store an item in on a single bit as an on/off but the amount would need a separate byte for it to remember the amount.

This could be compressed into 1 byte per item using the byte as a placeholder in a table. Like this > If you have 0 as the amount in that personal byte it's 00 and you don't have it. On the other hand if you have 1 item that byte (01) or you have 255 (FF) you have it. No need for an on/off bit because if it's 00 you don't have it. Anything more then zero you have it in that amount. Next, 1 byte (8 bit) isn't really enough to record the ID of every item on the game. I think it could be done easily with 32bits, (a string of 4 bytes.) 3 for the item ID and one for the amount.

[SpankWustler]

Haste:
1. Zelus Tiara
2. Creed Gauntlets +2
3. Velocious Belt
4. Creed Cuisses +2
5. Creed Sabatons +2

PDT:
(x. Eisen Grip)
6. Angha Gem
7. Valhalla Helm
8. Wiglen Gorget
9. Colossuss's Earring
10. Ethereal Earring
11. Grim Cuirass
12. Melaco Mittens
13. Patronus Ring
14. Jelly Ring
15. Shadow Mantle
16. Nierenschutz
4. Creed Cuisses +2
17. Jingang Greaves

MDT (Shell down):
18. Verthandi's Gem
19. Valhalla Helm
20. Twilight Torque
21. Merman's Earring
10. Ethereal Earring
22. Avalon Breastplate
23. Iron Ram Dastanas
24. Merman's Ring
25. Merman's Ring
26. Lamia Mantle +1
15. Nierenschutz
27. Inmicus Cuisses
28. Askar Gambieras

MDT (Shell up):
17. Verthandi's Gem
18. Valhalla Helm
19. Twilight Torque
20. Merman's Earring
21. Ethereal Earring
22. Avalon Breastplate
23. Iron Ram Dastanas
29. Shadow Ring
25. Merman's Ring
26. Lamia Mantle +1
15. Nierenschutz
30. Iron Ram Hose
31. Iron Ram Sollerets

Melee:
1. Zelus Tiara
32. Fortitude Torque
33. Suppanomimi
34. Brutal Earring
35. Creed Cuirass +2
2. Creed Gauntlets +2
36. Keen Ring
37. Rajas Ring
38. Atheling Mantle
3. Velocious Belt
4. Creed Cuisses +2
5. Creed Sabatons +2

Attack:
39. Twilight Helm
32. Fortitude Torque
40. Aesir Ear Pendant
41. Grim Cuirass
42. Creed Gauntlets +2
36. Keen Ring
38. Atheling Mantle
43. Anguinus Belt
44. Hecatomb Subligar
45. Dilaram's Sollerets

DEX:
39. Twilight Helm
46. Love Torque
47. Twilight Mail
48. Hecatomb Mittens
49. Thundersoul Ring
37. Rajas Ring
44. Hecatomb Subligar
50. Rutter Sabatons

VIT:
51. Bibiki Seashell
52. Hero's Galea
32. Fortitude Torque
53. Koenig Cuirass
54. Koenig Handschuhs
55. Spiral Ring
56. Terrasoul Ring
57. Valor Cape
58. Warwolf Belt
59. Koenig Diechlings
60. Koenig Schuhs

Fast Cast:
(x. Vivid Strap)
61. Incantor Stone
62. Creed Armet +2
63. Loquacious Earring
64. Homam Cosciales

Regen:
39. Twilight Helm
8. Wiglen Gorget
65. Sheltered Ring
66. Paguroidea Ring

Refresh:
67. Creed Collar
47. Twilight Mail

Enhancing:
(x. Fulcio Grip)
68. Colossus's Torque
69. Augmenting Earring
70. Merciful Cape
71. Olympus Sash
72. Gallant Breeches +1

Enmity:
52. Hero's Galea
73. Invidia Torque
35. Creed Cuirass +2
74. Valor Gauntlets +1
75. Hercules' Ring
76. Odium Ring
57. Valor Cape
77. Creed Baudrier
30. Iron Ram Hose
78. Dornen Schuhs

Shield:
62. Creed Armet +2
79. Shield Torque
80. Creed Earring
2. Creed Gauntlets +2
81. Boxer's Mantle
82. Gallant Leggings +1

Cure:
(x. Apollo's Staff)
39. Twilight Helm
83. Hospitaler Earring
47. Twilight Mail
(x. Cascade Belt)
84. Valor Leggings +1

Rampart:
85. Valor Coronet +1

Sentinel:
84. Valor Leggings +1

Cover:
86. Gallant Coronet +1
87. Valor Surcoat

Shield Bash:
88. Knightly Earring
74. Valor Gauntlets +1
89. Fenian Ring

Movement:
90. Blood Cuisses

RR-Set:
39. Twilight Helm
47. Twilight Mail

Convert DMG to MP:
10. Ethereal Earring
62. Creed Armet +2

Magic Attack:
39. Twilight Helm
91. Hecate's Earring
92. Novio Earring
47. Twilight Mail

Dark Magic WS:
93. Shadow Gorget
94. Shadow Belt

(Stoneskin:
x. Stone Gorget
x. Earthcry Earring
x. Stone Mufflers
x. Siegel Sash
x. Haven Hose)

Am I wrong in thinking you could include even more stuff if you had space and the desire, such as a few bits to optimize Sanguine Blade damage or a few MND bits to increase the TP return from Chivalry?

Which I think really drives the point home. For almost any job that isn't a straight-up melee, one can post a list of stuff that already exceeds the 80 inventory limit and somebody else can say "You could use more stuff to marginal effect if you could carry more stuff and really wanted to use more stuff."

[Arcon]

The whole concept of it not being in their best interest involves them losing a lot of monthly mule subscriptions. This was already made clear by other posters on this topic.

Then can those posters explain why SE kept increasing our inventory, gave us new storage locations and several other storage options (armor storage, event item storage, Porter Moogle, etc.) over time? I can, because satisfied customers will net them more than pissed off customers, many of which don't even use their mules for storage (like me, for example).


I'm not mixing things up, you've totally forgotten previous post I'm made. Go back and re-read everything. You seem to bring up things that have already been discussed as though no discussion was done. I keep explaining bit wise was the way slips may store data. If you look up one or two back post you'd see something like.

"Let's consider If each item on the list used 8 bytes of data to store it even an old 64kb computer could manage hundreds of items in list forum."

When I made this comment I was grossly over exaggerating the bytes per item. I know that it takes more one bit to store items with amounts. A byte is 8 bits and is 0-255. You could store an item in on a single bit as an on/off but the amount would need a separate byte for it to remember the amount.

This could be compressed into 1 byte per item using the byte as a placeholder in a table. Like this > If you have 0 as the amount in that personal byte it's 00 and you don't have it. On the other hand if you have 1 item that byte (01) or you have 255 (FF) you have it. No need for an on/off bit because if it's 00 you don't have it. Anything more then zero you have it in that amount. Next, 1 byte (8 bit) isn't really enough to record the ID of every item on the game. I think it could be done easily with 32bits, (a string of 4 bytes.) 3 for the item ID and one for the amount.

See that's why I asked you to detail how you wanted to implement it. All your answers were so vague that I couldn't guess that was what you'd use the byte for (which you only mentioned in a different post). You never explained why you needed that. I thought you meant one byte to store the entire item, by ID. Which didn't make sense, as earlier you went on about bitwise storage, which is contrary to that. And it's still different to what you're saying now because this isn't the "on/off" switch, but an extension of that.

Anyway, the more I read about your idea the less it seems like anything new at all. You just want special storage for items with no metadata. Nothing unlimited, not even much bigger than currently possible when it takes up that much space. It's a valid suggestion, despite some limitations when implementing it, such as only being able to retrieve fractions of items at once because of stack limitations in the inventory or the fact that it will be something entirely new to display both at the same time, unless they modify the current item menu to be able to send items there via a submenu. It's basically an extra storage location, trading a restriction on space for a restriction of items that can be stored, only harder to implement.


Am I wrong in thinking you could include even more stuff if you had space and the desire, such as a few bits to optimize Sanguine Blade damage or a few MND bits to increase the TP return from Chivalry?

You're not wrong at all. Many less important sets are filled in sporadically, because I'm already well aware that I won't ever be able to utilize them fully. I don't even bother to get gear for stuff like Chivalry, Sanguine Blade and Cataclysm specifically, I merely use what I already have (nuking stuff from BLM which happens to be equippable by all jobs, Shadow Gorget/Belt from WAR, MND from gear like Twilight Helm/Mail and some AF pieces and Morgana's Choker, also from my mage jobs, etc.).

[FrankReynolds]

WHat??? wheres all your proc weapons holy waters echos, nin tools etc? :P

Seriously though, I will gladly continue to pay for the mule, if they just move all his storage to my mog house. Maybe they could just move him to my mog house :P

[Arcon]

WHat??? wheres all your proc weapons holy waters echos, nin tools etc? :P

Speaking of proc weapons, I completely forgot to mention regular weapons: Sword and Shield (really pimp PLD even two shields). And yeah, I only use tools, food, meds, etc. before a fight, by putting one item in satchel and getting what I need then switching it back. That's also tremendously fun.

[Alhanelem]

Am I wrong in thinking you could include even more stuff if you had space and the desire, such as a few bits to optimize Sanguine Blade damage or a few MND bits to increase the TP return from Chivalry?

Which I think really drives the point home. For almost any job that isn't a straight-up melee, one can post a list of stuff that already exceeds the 80 inventory limit and somebody else can say "You could use more stuff to marginal effect if you could carry more stuff and really wanted to use more stuff."

That gear list is absurdly excessive. No normal player keeps that many sets. I also don't know anybody, even fairly elitist players, that have two different MDT sets depending on whether or not they have shell up. A lot of that gear could also be potentially ignored by receiving buffs with the same effect.

I could strike many items off that list as miniscule incrimental upgrades that are not in any way necessary or drastically helpful enough to be carried around unless you're a perfectionist completionist, not to mention few people would come close to having all of these items just because of the effort to obtain them. This is just an extreme example of maximal situational gear utilization.

[Arcon]

That gear list is absurdly excessive.

Says you. Where is the line? That's my entire point. There is none. Any line you make is arbitrary and based on your own perception of what's "needed" (a term I hate in discussions like these, btw). This is the exact same argument that people who don't gear swap at all are bringing, only their line is even lower.


No normal player keeps that many sets. I also don't know anybody, even fairly elitist players, that have two different MDT sets depending on whether or not they have shell up. A lot of that gear could also be potentially ignored by receiving buffs with the same effect.

I could strike many items off that list as miniscule incrimental upgrades that are not in any way necessary or drastically helpful enough to be carried around unless you're a perfectionist completionist [..]

Not sure what you mean by "receiving buffs with the same effect", but that again is your own perception of what's normal and what's miniscule. When would you say is an item bonus not miniscule? STR+5 on WS? Does barely anything. But stacking it all up and you will notice a significant difference. Like the enhancing items. One alone won't do me much, but all of them will not only give me a higher shield block rate on Reprisal but also put me in a new Phalanx tier.

Same for the MDT sets. If Shell isn't up you'd want to cap MDT as far as possible. If it is up, much of that gear is wasted, and MDB is actually pretty useful. So why not use both if you're capable of it? There are some situations where Shell is dispelled quite frequently, in which case having both these sets can be very useful.


This is just an extreme example of maximal situational gear utilization.

As was pointed out before, there is a lot that could be done to build upon those sets if one was going for absurd. I can tell you right now that if I had 150 inventory slots I would probably use a large portion of that. Most of the gear I listed was actually reused several times over different sets. I have no exclusive MND items for example, I just use what I get from other PLD gear. Same goes for most other things (Refresh/Regen gear, JA macro gear, enmity gear, shield gear, VIT gear, etc.). This is merely branded "extreme" because 80 is the limit. If 60 was still the limit you would call 60 items extreme. The more inventory we have, the more room we have to be marginal about our increases. If PS2 ever gets dropped and we'll have 200 inventory I assure you that many people will get over 100 items per job and having less than 60 items will be frowned upon for certain jobs.

[Shipp]

Says you. Where is the line?

At diminished returns and sanity. Also, the line is where you're never going to be able to have more gear swaps than 78 at a given time so you might as well adjust to it. That's the line. It's not just some arbitrary line. SE has made it quite clear 80 is the limit. Keep imagining that there is going to be some magical way to get around it, and keep begging for it, but with a list of gear like that, you are being excessive and you know it.



That's my entire point. There is none. Any line you make is arbitrary and based on your own perception of what's "needed" (a term I hate in discussions like these, btw). This is the exact same argument that people who don't gear swap at all are bringing, only their line is even lower.

No. There comes a point of diminished returns, especially on things like MND for stoneskin, INT for nuking, etc. It's better to stack other sets. I believe that cap is 150 mnd on Stoneskin, but I haven't checked in a while. Can't remember what it is for INT, but mages should hit it easily with atmas in Aby. All you're doing is crippling your inventory for gear that might not even be making a difference at all, and if it is, it's not by as large of an amount as you think it is. If you want to do that, fine, just don't act dumb when it comes to what most players mean when they say you don't "need" that. You know good and well that we mean "what is expected of you to perform your job at least on par with others in endgame." No, I suppose I don't literally "need" HQ staves, however it is something the playerbase deems necessary. They do not deem having every empy stave necessary. Why? It's not just some arbitrary line in the sand. It's that yes, while they boost damage significantly, it's still not as large of a boost as no staff > HQ staff.



Not sure what you mean by "receiving buffs with the same effect", but that again is your own perception of what's normal and what's miniscule. When would you say is an item bonus not miniscule? STR+5 on WS? Does barely anything. But stacking it all up and you will notice a significant difference. Like the enhancing items. One alone won't do me much, but all of them will not only give me a higher shield block rate on Reprisal but also put me in a new Phalanx tier.

Same for the MDT sets. If Shell isn't up you'd want to cap MDT as far as possible. If it is up, much of that gear is wasted, and MDB is actually pretty useful. So why not use both if you're capable of it? There are some situations where Shell is dispelled quite frequently, in which case having both these sets can be very useful.

Exactly, there are SOME situations where all that gear you listed is great. That's not every situation you're in.



As was pointed out before, there is a lot that could be done to build upon those sets if one was going for absurd. I can tell you right now that if I had 150 inventory slots I would probably use a large portion of that. Most of the gear I listed was actually reused several times over different sets. I have no exclusive MND items for example, I just use what I get from other PLD gear. Same goes for most other things (Refresh/Regen gear, JA macro gear, enmity gear, shield gear, VIT gear, etc.). This is merely branded "extreme" because 80 is the limit. If 60 was still the limit you would call 60 items extreme. The more inventory we have, the more room we have to be marginal about our increases. If PS2 ever gets dropped and we'll have 200 inventory I assure you that many people will get over 100 items per job and having less than 60 items will be frowned upon for certain jobs.
You passed absurd already. 60 items was never called absurd, because after AF, AF2, staves, hMP, and your accessories along with stuff like weskit, most BLMs were already at 50+/60. That was the norm. However, there's a big difference between 75 cap and 99 cap. A lot of gear is better itemized now. There are more out-right upgrades instead of nearly every piece being a side-grade.

I'm not saying you can't carry your equipment around with you. I'm just saying don't act like it's normal, and that those of us who don't carry 5+ sets with us at all times are the ones who are atrocities to XI.

[FrankReynolds]

Why are you still here? You already agreed that more storage is fine.

[Arcon]

At diminished returns and sanity. Also, the line is where you're never going to be able to have more gear swaps than 78 at a given time so you might as well adjust to it. That's the line. It's not just some arbitrary line. SE has made it quite clear 80 is the limit. Keep imagining that there is going to be some magical way to get around it, and keep begging for it, but with a list of gear like that, you are being excessive and you know it.

You lack serious reading comprehension. I've told (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/21193-Inventory-Increase-New-Satchel-Infinite-(sortable)-Item-box-in-MogHouse?p=288981&viewfull=1#post288981) you twice (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/21193-Inventory-Increase-New-Satchel-Infinite-(sortable)-Item-box-in-MogHouse?p=289410&viewfull=1#post289410) now why that argument is wrong. I told you that we know about the limit and we're not begging to change it (for that matter, we're not begging for anything). We're giving ideas on how to bypass those restrictions. Ideas that would work. For example, if they'd implement equipping gear from sack or satchel, we'd instantly have 240 active inventory, with no change at all to the hardware limits.


No. There comes a point of diminished returns, especially on things like MND for stoneskin, INT for nuking, etc. It's better to stack other sets. I believe that cap is 150 mnd on Stoneskin, but I haven't checked in a while. Can't remember what it is for INT, but mages should hit it easily with atmas in Aby. All you're doing is crippling your inventory for gear that might not even be making a difference at all, and if it is, it's not by as large of an amount as you think it is. If you want to do that, fine, just don't act dumb when it comes to what most players mean when they say you don't "need" that. You know good and well that we mean "what is expected of you to perform your job at least on par with others in endgame." No, I suppose I don't literally "need" HQ staves, however it is something the playerbase deems necessary. They do not deem having every empy stave necessary. Why? It's not just some arbitrary line in the sand. It's that yes, while they boost damage significantly, it's still not as large of a boost as no staff > HQ staff.

That's wrong on several issues. First of all, you have no idea what diminishing returns are. It means the bonus will get less the more you put in. Very few things in this game have diminishing returns, what you mean is diminishing utility, and even that doesn't apply here. What you're talking about are just caps, and they're something else altogether. Stoneskin caps, but the gear I listed for Stoneskin wasn't MND gear, it was gear that enhances Stoneskin past the cap. INT you mention Abyssea, but who cares about that? Do you have any idea how much INT is needed to cap dINT on a VW mob? We have no idea how much it will be on a Legion mob.

For other stats, while giving static returns they actually offer increased utility. Haste, for example, gets better the more you have, up to a cap. DT gets better the more you have, up to a cap (that's almost impossible to reach for PDT and without Shell for MDT, where the duality of those two sets comes into play again). Phalanx gets better the more you have, uncapped, and gets even better if combined with higher MDT and PDT. In fact, looking at the list I don't see any stat that goes above a cap or that offers diminishing returns. And here's the thing, even if they did offer diminishing returns it's still an approvement, even if smaller for the amount you put in.


Exactly, there are SOME situations where all that gear you listed is great. That's not every situation you're in.

Selective reading much? That only applies to my two different MDT sets (and btw, check them out when you get a chance, they're not very different). All other gear my PLD can use in pretty much every situation. And guess what, situations where Shell gets dispelled are quite frequent in endgame content. Most dangerous mobs have some form of AoE dispel, whether from a TP move or spell.


You passed absurd already. 60 items was never called absurd, because after AF, AF2, staves, hMP, and your accessories along with stuff like weskit, most BLMs were already at 50+/60. That was the norm. However, there's a big difference between 75 cap and 99 cap. A lot of gear is better itemized now. There are more out-right upgrades instead of nearly every piece being a side-grade.

Like what? Point me to it. Seriously. Because for almost all of my jobs new items that were released were situational sidegrades (even including some AF3). If anything, SE released even more situational gear recently. All those new Stoneskin enhancing items, for example, then items that increase Stoneskin casting time and Enhancing Magic casting time, Utsusemi casting time, Aquaveil casting time, etc. I think you get my point. SE has been shoving sidegrades up our ass since the beginning of time. It's true that AF3 have replaced some old items, but they have very rarely consolidated more items into less. Hell, why do you think people still use augmented sky gear for certain purposes?


I'm not saying you can't carry your equipment around with you. I'm just saying don't act like it's normal, and that those of us who don't carry 5+ sets with us at all times are the ones who are atrocities to XI.

You are hilarious. You were the one accusing us of being unable to manage our inventory which borders on insulting. I never complained about your playstyle. I even told you specifically before that I don't have anything against people who don't swap gear at all, because it seemed back then already that you were trying to put this on me. Just stop it. All we did was make suggestions (which you don't seem to understand) that hurt absolutely no one (not even you) but would help a lot of people (including you) which is a legitimate use of these forums. Then you came in and started mouthing off about how we're being excessive and we should stop begging and whining, which we never did. I have no idea why you started posting in here.

[Psxpert2011]

I think we traversed through another universe.... (around the middle of the thread but anyway...) XD

back to the subject...


Let's start talking about storage and inventory space. I know I am not alone that if you have adequate to excellent gear and macros for your jobs, we definitely need more than 80 spaces in base inventory, or a linked bag of some kind, or heck even an "infinite and sortable storage system within the moghouse wopuld be awesome. Muling is such a waste of time and even still many things can't be sent. I wind up going to VW and have to toss all my logs and ores instead of NPCing them due to lack of inventory space.

_____I know many of us are PC users because of the infamous PS2 limitations and the lack of updating the software for use on PS3( because it can be run on PS3). I'm still on my gobby-bag IX quest because I cant find the items I need or because they're to expensive or w/e. Anyway, I would guess unlimited space would cause a problem. Where would all that data be saved, on your HDD or server side?? You expect SE to shoulder the burden of all your data(gear and equipment) you want to hoard. I know I have inventory space issues too because a lot of it I don't want to get rid of but I have to manage it the best I can.

_____A idea that has been stuck in my head for 8+ years and not sure wether it's possible is event items.
Also, storage should be a place on the client side for what ever doesn't threaten the balance of the MMO could be stored there and preserved regardless of MOG-SAFE cap. Also, we need more furniture with more storage space, that is all.

[Xantavia]

As was pointed out before, there is a lot that could be done to build upon those sets if one was going for absurd. I can tell you right now that if I had 150 inventory slots I would probably use a large portion of that. This is merely branded "extreme" because 80 is the limit. If 60 was still the limit you would call 60 items extreme. The more inventory we have, the more room we have to be marginal about our increases. If PS2 ever gets dropped and we'll have 200 inventory I assure you that many people will get over 100 items per job and having less than 60 items will be frowned upon for certain jobs.
I think this actually hurts the argument for more storage. What would happen is that there would never be enough inventory room for some players. If we somehow had 500 walking around space, there would be people saying they need 600 to be efficient.

[Zinato]

I think this actually hurts the argument for more storage. What would happen is that there would never be enough inventory room for some players. If we somehow had 500 walking around space, there would be people saying they need 600 to be efficient.

While that may be true, I'm sure SE is aware of the recent upsurge of gear situational and otherwise. Periodically, as new gear/items are released new form of inventory/storage are required to contain them. While 500 space for walking around would be fantastic. (I don't think I'd ever run out of space again) I think the core of the discussion and the major factor in asking for more space/storage is Aby/VW/Sidegrade increase of the last 1-2 years. (Even if I don't speak for everyone I can still say adjusting for those 3 factors will go a long long way)

[Kristal]

Arcon, I get the impression you could cut 20%+ of those items by smarter gear selection, putting you below 78 items.


13. Patronus Ring
14. Jelly Ring
24. Merman's Ring
25. Merman's Ring


Those rings can be replaced by two Dark Rings. And what's the deal with that Enhancing set? 5-6 items to get a meager +1 on Phalanx, when 3 would suffice and RDM's Phalanx II dominates it? Magic Attack on PLD? Rutter Sabatons in DEX set?

[Arcon]

Arcon, I get the impression you could cut 20%+ of those items by smarter gear selection, putting you below 78 items.

Your impression is wrong.


Those rings can be replaced by two Dark Rings.

Yes. I don't have two Dark Rings nor will I get them, but I see your point. That's two options down.


And what's the deal with that Enhancing set? 5-6 items to get a meager +1 on Phalanx, when 3 would suffice and RDM's Phalanx II dominates it?

New Phalanx tier is at 358 Enhancing Magic, PLD's cap is at 334. That's 24 needed to break another tier, for which you need four of those items (legs and neck and two out of the five I mentioned). Also, it's not just for Phalanx, and I don't always have a RDM with me. And as I pointed out before, Phalanx has a better effect the higher it gets.


Magic Attack on PLD?

Sanguine Blade (both higher damage and higher HP recovery), DE+Holy II, Cataclysm.


Rutter Sabatons in DEX set?

I don't have (better) DEX feet and I've included them to suppress Dilaram's Sollerets from my Attack set on Vorpal/CdC. They're the best options I have for any critical WS, and that's the only use for my DEX set.

Some of the items could be replaced by gear that I don't have yet (I'm still trying for a Defending Ring, for example, which would make two of these rings obsolete), but most of it wouldn't consolidate more items into less, but just give straight upgrades. Apart from the rings, for example, PDT and MDT is near impossible to cap (outside of Shell).

Also I wanna point out that this doesn't reflect accurately how my PLD uses sets. I have a pretty complex gear macro setup, I just tried to extract and group as many pieces as possible. As I mentioned before, I still have plenty of pieces I didn't include at all (like HP set, which I macro before DT to reduce enmity loss, or before Cure IV to cheat enmity while HP is at full, etc.), party because I didn't think of them or because they're too situational to carry with me at all times. But the items I mentioned here are item sets I'd like to carry with me at all times, if that option was available, which currently isn't the case. The Magic Attack set, for example, I usually leave out as well as the Augmenting Earring (which I've sold just the other day, actually) and a few other items. Which is obvious, because well, I have to. I just made these sets to show what I would use if I had the opportunity to do so. Right now I make restrictions on my gear wherever it's needed the most, depending on the event and on the setup, which is also a pretty tedious task, but which I believe is worth it for better performance.

[Duelle]

All we did was make suggestions (which you don't seem to understand) that hurt absolutely no one (not even you) but would help a lot of people (including you) which is a legitimate use of these forums. Then you came in and started mouthing off about how we're being excessive and we should stop begging and whining, which we never did. I have no idea why you started posting in here.I'm more on the side of there being some sort of limitation, as the devs have indeed mentioned that the inventory cap is 80 items. I can see where you're coming from with the suggestions, but my own bias against gear swaps (which means yes, you and I are polar opposites) tells me that all this would do is prolong the inventory crunch a little more, because as they keep adding more and more gear and items to the game the inventory bloat continues to grow.

I mean, I guess they could find a way to record inventory client-side with a bigger cap if it was possible, with some sort of list file server-side that would crosscheck and synch with the client-side inventory. Don't know if it can be done or whether Tanaka & Co. would be willing to do it, though. Storage should really be accessible from rental rooms, too.

[Sagagemini]

With the amount of new jobs and gear players are reaching we definately need more 80 slots inventory.

[Lokithor]

Just provide 1 80 slot, field accessible storage space for every job you have at 99 and the ability to do a wholesale swap between any of those spaces and your inventory with a single command. That would do it. :)

[Tsukino_Kaji]

I myself and every other person I know in the game have 10-30 items that are always in their inventory, a whole swap feature would be bad.

[Lokithor]

I myself and every other person I know in the game have 10-30 items that are always in their inventory, a whole swap feature would be bad.
What's easier? Moving back 10-30 items after the swap or juggling around the other 50-70 items? And yes I know about items that are common to groups of jobs, etc. Picky crowd. ;)

[Shipp]

You lack serious reading comprehension. I've told you twice now why that argument is wrong. I told you that we know about the limit and we're not begging to change it (for that matter, we're not begging for anything). We're giving ideas on how to bypass those restrictions. Ideas that would work. For example, if they'd implement equipping gear from sack or satchel, we'd instantly have 240 active inventory, with no change at all to the hardware limits.
Except for the fact that you don't know whether it's even possible for gear to be equipped from the satchel, you're parroting what someone else said, and even Sarick has told you that you have misunderstood other parts of his posts. You've argued with him more than you have me. You don't know if it would work, but you're assuming it does, and SE for some reason just isn't getting with the program and fixing it. Perhaps it would require recoding a large part of the game? Did you ever think of that? No, of course not. So no, you didn't "tell me twice how I'm wrong," you spewed the same opinion at me twice, insisting it's possible when you really have no more of a clue than I do. There's a difference though, I'm talking about things people CAN do until this problem gets fixed, if it's even possible to fix, whereas you are trying to pass your idea off as a fact as if SE just isn't doing it for whatever reason when it's very easy to fix.






That's wrong on several issues. First of all, you have no idea what diminishing returns are. It means the bonus will get less the more you put in. Very few things in this game have diminishing returns, what you mean is diminishing utility, and even that doesn't apply here. What you're talking about are just caps, and they're something else altogether. Stoneskin caps, but the gear I listed for Stoneskin wasn't MND gear, it was gear that enhances Stoneskin past the cap. INT you mention Abyssea, but who cares about that? Do you have any idea how much INT is needed to cap dINT on a VW mob? We have no idea how much it will be on a Legion mob.

Example of diminishing returns with completely random numbers since I don't remember the exact INT formula for damage at the moment.

Every 2 INT boosts damage by 10 points. This lasts until 150 INT. At 150 INT, you now require 4 points of INT to boost damage by 10 points.

Example of a cap using random numbers, which might be right, but I'm not 100% sure:
Stack MND until you hit 150 MND for Stoneskin. Once you have 150MND, you will never have a more powerful Stoneskin. It will never absorb even more damage regardless of whether you add 500 more MND or not at this point.

Thanks, I know the difference between the two just fine.



For other stats, while giving static returns they actually offer increased utility. Haste, for example, gets better the more you have, up to a cap. DT gets better the more you have, up to a cap (that's almost impossible to reach for PDT and without Shell for MDT, where the duality of those two sets comes into play again). Phalanx gets better the more you have, uncapped, and gets even better if combined with higher MDT and PDT. In fact, looking at the list I don't see any stat that goes above a cap or that offers diminishing returns. And here's the thing, even if they did offer diminishing returns it's still an approvement, even if smaller for the amount you put in.

I was not talking about every single stat, obviously. For someone talking about someone else lacking reading comprehension, you sure don't seem to be a paragon of it.



Selective reading much? That only applies to my two different MDT sets (and btw, check them out when you get a chance, they're not very different). All other gear my PLD can use in pretty much every situation. And guess what, situations where Shell gets dispelled are quite frequent in endgame content. Most dangerous mobs have some form of AoE dispel, whether from a TP move or spell.
Cool story. I had no clue Shell ever gets dispelled. Thank you for letting me in on that. I guess maybe when I get into endgame someday, since I've never done it, I might be as awesome as you and have gear pouring out of every orifice.



Like what? Point me to it. Seriously. Because for almost all of my jobs new items that were released were situational sidegrades (even including some AF3). If anything, SE released even more situational gear recently. All those new Stoneskin enhancing items, for example, then items that increase Stoneskin casting time and Enhancing Magic casting time, Utsusemi casting time, Aquaveil casting time, etc. I think you get my point. SE has been shoving sidegrades up our ass since the beginning of time. It's true that AF3 have replaced some old items, but they have very rarely consolidated more items into less. Hell, why do you think people still use augmented sky gear for certain purposes?

That's the thing, situational gear is SITUATIONAL. That doesn't mean you need that situational gear for every situation.



You are hilarious. You were the one accusing us of being unable to manage our inventory which borders on insulting. I never complained about your playstyle. I even told you specifically before that I don't have anything against people who don't swap gear at all, because it seemed back then already that you were trying to put this on me. Just stop it. All we did was make suggestions (which you don't seem to understand) that hurt absolutely no one (not even you) but would help a lot of people (including you) which is a legitimate use of these forums. Then you came in and started mouthing off about how we're being excessive and we should stop begging and whining, which we never did. I have no idea why you started posting in here.
No. Just no. You implied you don't have problems with people who don't gear swap, like me. However, I do, I just do not take it to an obsessive level. I have no problems with people who have some idea of what they're talking about (Sarick's posts actually back up why he thinks the way he does, FYI) brainstorming about a fix. What I have a problem with is people armchair-programming as if they know the code and the limitations of the game. SE has already stated 80 is the limit for inventory. YOU have no way of knowing whether or not what Sarick is suggesting is possible. What is actually hilarious is that between arguing with me while pretending that you know that gear could really be equipped from the satchel and sack is that you are also arguing back and forth with the person whose idea you are claiming as some joint-idea that you actually had any part of coming up with. Please just stop.

[RAIST]

sack/satchel equipping is theroetically possible, as it is all just data stored in a database table. The catch is, you have to designate which table you are pulling from for the source. Likely, the /equip routine is set to staticly pull from say %charactername%.inventory. To change it to pull from a different source, they would need to do one of two things: assign switches to the equip command that it would parse in a subroutine and direct it to use a different source table (if /equip -sack then set VAR equip_source=%charactername%.sack, etc), or come up with new commands and right new routines (well, basically a copy/paste and edits) that pull from each table. On one hand, they have to use at least one more temp variable for declaring the source change, or they have to increase the command list with the new commands for /sack_equip and /satchel_equip designations.

Either way, there may be some resource changes that have to be accounted for and may need to be mitigated somehow, so it would take some time for them to research/flush out their options on paper to see if they really want to go this route.

[Arcon]

Except for the fact that you don't know whether it's even possible for gear to be equipped from the satchel, you're parroting what someone else said, and even Sarick has told you that you have misunderstood other parts of his posts. You've argued with him more than you have me.

That was largely due to misunderstandings, which we've cleared up. Also, that was what this thread and forum is for, discussion. We discussed and reached a consensus.


You don't know if it would work, but you're assuming it does, and SE for some reason just isn't getting with the program and fixing it.

See, this is why I said you lack reading comprehension. I've basically replied to your entire post in one of my previous posts. It's as if you've skipped most of it because it was unpleasant or something. This should answer everything you've brought up:

[..] We're suggesting something very possible from our current understanding. And yes, none of us know that it's possible because we don't know the implementation exactly. But we can give educated guesses. And I can say with reasonable certainty that certain measures could be taken. Sarick's suggestion, for example, would work to some extent and provide different options for situational storage. Another suggestion that was brought before was to let us equip gear straight from sack and satchel, thus tripling our equippable inventory. That would also work, if SE wanted to implement it.

And because we don't know, we bring it up. And if it is indeed impossible:

[..] Now we're asking for smarter inventory, and if they happen to come in and give us a valid reason for why it won't happen, we'll think of other ways it could work and we'll suggest those. And there's nothing at all wrong with it. You're calling it whining, but it's just feedback, nothing else.


Perhaps it would require recoding a large part of the game? Did you ever think of that? No, of course not.

How do you know? Because I did think about that. I've actually discussed it at length with other people here (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/15700-Gob-Sack). And it seems likely that it would require some recoding to deal with some occurring issues with item swapping and the likes, but overall it should be possible and feasible. Again, that is to our current understanding. If they come in and say no, we'll move on, as usual.


There's a difference though, I'm talking about things people CAN do until this problem gets fixed, if it's even possible to fix, whereas you are trying to pass your idea off as a fact as if SE just isn't doing it for whatever reason when it's very easy to fix.

I never saw you suggesting what people can do at all. Unless you consider telling people "stop using so many items" a solution.


Example of diminishing returns with completely random numbers since I don't remember the exact INT formula for damage at the moment.
[..]

Example of a cap using random numbers, which might be right, but I'm not 100% sure:
[..]

Thanks, I know the difference between the two just fine.

Really? Then what are you going on about? Because INT also caps, at some point. And neither of those facts have any implication on the gear selection I mentioned (or the extent of any other gear selection, for that matter), because as I pointed out before, if you actually get to a point of diminishing returns (which is very high for INT), you'll just need to replace those pieces of gear with others having other stats on them, like MAB (which is uncapped and offers constant returns) or even magic accuracy.


I was not talking about every single stat, obviously. For someone talking about someone else lacking reading comprehension, you sure don't seem to be a paragon of it.

So, you were talking about something not relevant to my post? Then why were you replying to me? Or did you just acknowledge my example but tried to say that it can be different for other people? Because I can go and list you all my SCH gear as well, if you're interested.


That's the thing, situational gear is SITUATIONAL. That doesn't mean you need that situational gear for every situation.

The gear I posted I'd like to have in every situation. Ok, admittedly without the WS gorget and belt, that one is situational.


What I have a problem with is people armchair-programming as if they know the code and the limitations of the game.

I don't and I wasn't and neither was anyone else. Reading comprehension.


SE has already stated 80 is the limit for inventory. YOU have no way of knowing whether or not what Sarick is suggesting is possible.

You have no way of knowing it isn't, because his idea has absolutely nothing to do with the inventory. Again, reading comprehension.


What is actually hilarious is that between arguing with me while pretending that you know that gear could really be equipped from the satchel and sack is that you are also arguing back and forth with the person whose idea you are claiming as some joint-idea that you actually had any part of coming up with. Please just stop.

I never said that once. I said we were both discussing it. Again, reading comprehension.

[Shipp]

Really? Then what are you going on about? Because INT also caps, at some point. And neither of those facts have any implication on the gear selection I mentioned (or the extent of any other gear selection, for that matter), because as I pointed out before, if you actually get to a point of diminishing returns (which is very high for INT), you'll just need to replace those pieces of gear with others having other stats on them, like MAB (which is uncapped and offers constant returns) or even magic accuracy.

To be honest, this is the only thing worth responding to in your entire post since you just keep stating, "READING COMPREHENSION READING COMPREHENSION" even though it's quite clear that you lack it. I'll go ahead and respond to a couple points though since I've got the time at the moment.

Yes, INT caps, but there are also diminishing returns. Now, diminishing returns aren't so bad for things like SCH helices. However, for something like nukes, there comes a point where common sense says, "I'm having inventory issues, this piece is not worth carrying around for general nuking." If you want to carry it around, do so. Until SE changes something though, no amount of complaining, of excuse me, "brainstorming" is going to change the inventory issue.



So, you were talking about something not relevant to my post? Then why were you replying to me? Or did you just acknowledge my example but tried to say that it can be different for other people? Because I can go and list you all my SCH gear as well, if you're interested.

Re-read my post. I specifically said "certain" stats. I gave examples of what I was talking about. SCH or PLD, it doesn't matter to me. There comes a point with all that gear that you're stacking that you could eliminate a few pieces or just demote them to situational. You don't have to if you don't want to. I don't care, you're the one with inventory issues, not me. I've never once in this thread said, "I don't think you should be allowed to gear swap 500 items in under 10 seconds." You have attacked me as if that's my position.

I simply said that nobody needs to carry 80 pieces of gear with them for every single event, and the list you gave IS excessive. Doesn't mean you can't use it all if you want to, I never said that. You are just pretending that "excessive" is some arbitrary line in the sand and keep skipping over what I, and others, in this thread have told you on that.



The gear I posted I'd like to have in every situation. Ok, admittedly without the WS gorget and belt, that one is situational.

If you want it, use it, I don't care, but until SE actually says that Sarick's idea is possible, you might as well stop assuming it is. I'd like to use a lot more gear than I currently am able to, especially on my mage jobs, but it is not possible at the moment, so I don't carry around situational gear in my inventory, I leave it in satchel/sack so when Iceday pops up, I can grab Hyorin out.



I don't and I wasn't and neither was anyone else. Reading comprehension.

Except where others, and I'm quite sure I recall reading a post from you, claim it is possible.



You have no way of knowing it isn't, because his idea has absolutely nothing to do with the inventory. Again, reading comprehension.

And like I said, I know I have no way of knowing it isn't possible. I also have no way of proving Santa doesn't exist. Burden of proof lies on a person spouting a claim. So far, SE has not said whether or not Sarick's idea would even be possible, therefor there is reason to believe it's not at the current time.



I never said that once. I said we were both discussing it. Again, reading comprehension.
You're discussing something that you have no knowledge whatsoever in though. You do not know the code SE is working with. You do not know the exact limitations. You can hypothesize all day for all I care. Hopefully it will cause SE to take note of this thread and actually let us gear swap from satchel/sack in some way.

Please forgive me lack of reading comprehension for thinking you said these idea would work, when you clearly never did...:

We're giving ideas on how to bypass those restrictions. Ideas that would work.