Inventory 80 Limitations aren't real, heres why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel_Hatcher

No, because games move on. The people stuck in the 56kbps area are probably less than 0.5% of the playerbase if that, limiting the remaining 99.5% of players by that is a terrible way to run a MMO and even worse for a company.

---

I don't think the 56k thing is as limiting as the latency. I bet if SE increased the cap al hell would break lose and the servers would practically die like they do when we're downloading the updates. Not only that I don't think the clients are designed to handle/buffer that much data. A lot of excess packets would be dropped or the client would freeze up do to the buffers overfilling. The extra data transfer would put a burden on the servers I can't imagine. 56k to 1 megabit or even 8 megabit per second is a huge jump in bandwidth.

I've actually crashed and locked GM's up on Sierras SOLD OFF The Realm just walking back and forth or taking a bunch of tiny steps (enough to not show animation) (NOT HACKING). They would become back buffered so bad that I could log off log back on and have 2 of me on screen at the same time. The developers couldn't figure it out however I gave the devs all my findings and they fixed the issues by dropping excess packets and gave me free subscriptions for it.

Now days I just play the games for fun.

No servers would die if they just added a few new mirrors for the version updates. You know, like they have for when you download other games from them. I downloaded the test server client at 3 MB/s, while even many days after FF11 version updates, I am only getting 10 kB/s. They clearly have the network capacity to do this.

Alternatively, they could start offering torrent downloads for the FF11 updates, which you'd install by running a small program that came with the update and detected your FF11 install directory, then extracted the files there. This has even been done in the past, by a single person in his spare time. There is no way SE doesn't have the knowledge required to do this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarick

I don't think the 56k thing is as limiting as the latency. I bet if SE increased the cap al hell would break lose and the servers would practically die like they do when we're downloading the updates. Not only that I don't think the clients are designed to handle/buffer that much data. A lot of excess packets would be dropped or the client would freeze up do to the buffers overfilling. The extra data transfer would put a burden on the servers I can't imagine. 56k to 1 megabit or even 8 megabit per second is a huge jump in bandwidth.

I've actually crashed and locked GM's up on Sierras SOLD OFF The Realm just walking back and forth or taking a bunch of tiny steps (enough to not show animation) (NOT HACKING). They would become back buffered so bad that I could log off log back on and have 2 of me on screen at the same time. The developers couldn't figure it out however I gave the devs all my findings and they fixed the issues by dropping excess packets and gave me free subscriptions for it.

Now days I just play the games for fun.

---

It was believable up until: and gave me free subscriptions for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

No servers would die if they just added a few new mirrors for the version updates. You know, like they have for when you download other games from them. I downloaded the test server client at 3 MB/s, while even many days after FF11 version updates, I am only getting 10 kB/s. They clearly have the network capacity to do this.

Alternatively, they could start offering torrent downloads for the FF11 updates, which you'd install by running a small program that came with the update and detected your FF11 install directory, then extracted the files there. This has even been done in the past, by a single person in his spare time. There is no way SE doesn't have the knowledge required to do this.

---

To bad they didn't so what wow dis and give access to torrenting (sp) the updates. This would've given everyone some quick updates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel_Hatcher

It was believable up until: and gave me free subscriptions for it.

---

Seriously, No Joke. There where a few other things. THe Producer offered me two boxed games from their software lineup I just said no thanks gimme another years subscription for each account. Anyway a few hackers was crashing the game to duplicate items and the data based got nerfed causing my account and the gm's etc to lose subscripion registrations for a few days. It unique to company updated subscriptions.

The producers name was Mark, the Devs where Stephen, Konnon, Jayrod, and the head GM was Paula. I spoke to each of them a lot in game on the phone etc. Can't make this stuff up if you want to research it go ahead it was one of the first mmos before ultima online etc. It's an antique now glorified chat room IMHO. It spurred off the TSN later changed to INN network and sold.

So believe what you will, Look a few things up and you'll figure it out. Those where the days. Back in TSN you'd pay $17 a month to play 30 hours! So we're lucky that AOL pay by the hour stuff dropped.

I best get back on topic, F I derailed my own topic lol.:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarick

For the record PS2 has a an hdd and swap files aren't a rocket science. Everything isn't needing loaded at once. If your in White gate you don't need music loaded from Jeuno.

---

This may be why some aren't getting it......the PS2 in no way, shape, or form works like the OS's commonly found on a PC.

The PS2 continuously streams the FFXI data...it doesn't take advantage of things like resident memory or virtual memory like a PC does, so you can't load a TSR, save off data to a swap file, and so forth. More or less, EVERYTHING needed for FFXI has to fit within it's available physical memory locations so it can be streamed through it's buses continuously. Because of this requirement, some space is reserved for use even if it isn't currently being displayed/used---because depending on user input or a request/response from the server it may be needed at any given moment.

That is what the issue is with displaying more inventory options---in order to do something so "simple" like adding a tab to the UI for the PS2, they have to FIRST clear a memory space for it within the stream(s). If there is no available space within the targeted stream, then something must first be removed so it can be replaced with the new item. Apparently, they have run up against a serious limit in this area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAIST

This may be why some aren't getting it......the PS2 in no way, shape, or form works like the OS's commonly found on a PC.

The PS2 continuously streams the FFXI data...it doesn't take advantage of things like resident memory or virtual memory like a PC does, so you can't load a TSR, save off data to a swap file, and so forth. More or less, EVERYTHING needed for FFXI has to fit within it's available physical memory locations so it can be streamed through it's buses continuously. Because of this requirement, some space is reserved for use even if it isn't currently being displayed/used---because depending on user input or a request/response from the server it may be needed at any given moment.

That is what the issue is with displaying more inventory options---in order to do something so "simple" like adding a tab to the UI for the PS2, they have to FIRST clear a memory space for it within the stream(s). If there is no available space within the targeted stream, then something must first be removed so it can be replaced with the new item. Apparently, they have run up against a serious limit in this area.

---

This is what causes the black screen of death when loading some large cut scenes that SE hasn't fixed or even acknowledges. Thank you for explaining this to everyone. When zoning to a new area it did clear out a lot of data and re-load content from the HDD but, it eventually would cause a lot of memory fragmentation. This in turn appeared to create a few memory leaks that eventually would crash the console.

This would cause some NPCS with large text blocks to stall when chatting with them. Eventually these freezes where to much a hassle. As each expansion was added they became worse. They started when the first Abbysea areas where added. Go figure. Anyway the graphics would slow to a halt after a while do to this streaming.

Also something to note the Japanese client has more available capacity then the US because the English text uses more space to communicate the same information when compared to Japanese. Spells list, items list etc in the menus are sometimes 1/8 to 1/2 the size of English words. This is one of the problems NES and SNES had when they translated the games. They had to find ways to pack the English dialog because it was so much bigger compared to the original Japanese dialogs.

Here are the specs for the PS2..

Apparently it has 32 megabytes of ram, 4 megabytes of VRAM, and 2 megabytes of dedicated sound ram.

The PS2 has any OS, a pocket calculator has an OS. It may not have a complicated monolithic kernel that provides multiple layers of device abstraction, but there is still code controlling memory allocation, bus arbitration and I/O access. It loads this code from it's firmware when it's turned on, and this code is used to boot from a disk or other storage medium. That medium contains code that is loaded and executed exactly like any other automated processing system on the planet.

FFXI is no different on the PS2 then it is on the PC or 360, just tighter resource constraints. Check out the size of FFXI's memory pool on the PC sometimes, it's not huge by today's standards but it's eight times or more the size of the entire PS2's memory pool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel_Hatcher

No, because games move on. The people stuck in the 56kbps area are probably less than 0.5% of the playerbase if that, limiting the remaining 99.5% of players by that is a terrible way to run a MMO and even worse for a company.

---

That's easy to say when your best friend isn't part of that 0.5%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camiie

That's easy to say when your best friend isn't part of that 0.5%

---

No, It's not. Even if they were my friend I still don't believe that the 0.5% should in turn force the remaining 99.5% into a crippled game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel_Hatcher

No, It's not. Even if they were my friend I still don't believe that the 0.5% should in turn force the remaining 99.5% into a crippled game.

---

FFXI without friends is as crippled as a game can possibly be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camiie

That's easy to say when your best friend isn't part of that 0.5%

---

I tend to agree with her on this Daniel, Not everyone can get a high speed connection. I don't see where these Numbers are coming from though. I looked around and only found this

Other then that nothing stood out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CapriciousOne

Well there isnt much of an algoritm needed to do so as i've seen on other games. There need not be an algorithm at all to determine anything at all to be honest. just put up a listing of the items, the quantitiy, and the asking price and just let us peruse the list and PICK which stack WE find reasonably priced to purchase. I dont need an algorithm to do that FOR me do you? Make the sellers compete for buyers more directly.

For example,

Light crystal 12 3600g(300/crystal)
Light crystal 36 7200g(200/crystal)

Obviously you would by the stack of 36 in pursuit of a stack of 99. And yes you would be correct it would require an overhaul of the AH in its current state to accomplish that level of efficiency. None the less would be awesome but so would being able to list more than 7 items since there are 10 slots in the ah sell list.

---

I suggested more AH slots and they said it would create too much stress on the server. I replied "How is me placing XXX items on sale on one account more stressful than me placing XXX Items for sale over multiple accounts and then usually leaving them logged in 24/7 to bazaar the items that still wouldn't fit on the AH?"

They responded with ..............

Could you imagine sorting through 99 different sized stacks of fire crystals trying to find the cheapest one? They would have to either show all prices (no more bidding) or allow you to post as many as you want and just set the price per individual item. Ie you post 27 fire crystals at 100g each and then one guy buys 5 of em, another guy buys 3, some other guy buys 250 and cleans you and a few other people out etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarick

Keep in mind they're also in the busyness to make money. If players suddenly can hold 30,000 items or something on one character they would be less likely to buy all the extra content ID's for mules etc. If you have 1000 players with 3 or more mules that's a lot of lost cash.

When they opened up the ability to transfer RARE-EX items to mules it helped create/maintain extra content ID's.

I feel if they do add a super storage they'll link it's capacity/inventory globally to all your characters on that account. Secondly base it's capacity on the number of content id's you maintain. No matter what character you're on common items could be stored or removed from any character on your account unless you lose capacity (id's) then they could only be removed. I'm taking about the items you can mail to yourself, trade etc, not the EMPS and things that can't be mailed.

This would be win win win for everyone because SE would get extra money for content id's and "I'm muling gear would be something from the past!"

---

Personally I would love to delete the mules I have and just keep as much as I can on one content ID I don't dual box or anything so if it wasn't for the storage and crafting limitations I wouldn't even have the mules. Even now I'm thinking about just selling off all my mules stuff and just deleting them all now. Personally it is inconvenience to have too keep logging in and out between mules especially when you can only transfer 8 items at a time when you have like maybe 80 items to toss at your mule. I mean I really just hate the extreme means SE goes to just to make us spend more money or time than is otherwise justified. Realistically a person can store more than 80 items in any storage compartment and master as many crafts as their hearts desired. I feel artificial limitations is just insulting to the client base but unfortunately this isn't my company so (shrugs)(sighs)

You know if we could level all crafts to 100 on one character I would totally be for an add-on account service that doubled the slots capacity for each storage type on a tiered bases in line with the cost of an addition content ID. For instance, the first storage upgrade would double all mog house storage options to 160 for 1 dollar. The second upgrade would cost 2x the first and would double it to say either 240 or 320 slots per type. Its a great idea but I don't realistically expect it to come to fruition and it would eliminate the need of mules for storage. Or they could still do that and make it an option where instead of being able to make additional content Ids you can just pay for the additional storage if you havent already skilled up a craft on your mule(which I haven't but i'm sure others have) or you can create additional content ids but you cant upgrade your storage unless they are deleted first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saevel

Maybe not for you two but for myself the occupation that provides me with the money to play this game does. Performance profiling and engineering is what I do and that's why I can easily spot exactly where the problems are. It isn't just FFXI that has these problems, all software has limitations in one way or another. By passing those limitations is a game of compromises, for every additional feature or concept you implement there is a price to pay. Sometimes those prices are acceptable, sometimes their not. In the case of anything related to consoles (or other application devices) adding more HW resources isn't an option most of the time. You must learn to work within the constraints your giving, and in this case their stuck with 32MB of system memory and 4MB of video memory. When you have so little yet are trying to pack in the complexity of a MMO your quickly reduced to counting kilobytes and cutting corners to squeeze out as much as possible. Some things can be kept on the HDD and dynamically loaded, some things can be kept on the server, others must remain in memory. If you want to add to one thing you must first take away from something else, removing a bunch of auto-translate would free up enough memory for bigger storage, possibly reducing the maximum number of PC / NPCs displayable at once could also do this. Resources like audio / textures / models are all loaded dynamically yet there needs to be a place for them to load to, so you've gotta keep a region free at all times to handle data your working with.

Ultimately, consoles are not a good place for dynamically growing games, aka MMO's.

---

Ultimately I agree with you about consoles as they generally are not dynamic in nature but at the same time I feel like the static nature of consoles is the very thing that should allow programmers shorter turn around times because they are programming to specific hardware instead of the lowest common denominator like PCs
Most of the software limitations are usually the hardware that is running it, and the other is usually the programmers creativity. The difference with PC and console games is the performance is usually scalable to the hardware it is being executed in PCs. Even with the same outdated code, better hardware still usually equals better performance of the same application. Keyword: USUALLY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcon

Only that bottleneck isn't real and never was. 56kbps is plenty for any MMORPG connection. And items don't have to be transferred all the time but only after zoning and log on. This is nothing compared to other data that has to be sent constantly. I presented an example here.

---

Well I only tried playing one game online using a 56k modem and that was Midnight Club 2 and that was horrible with the disconnecting constantly, so I completely disagree with you. I dare say you must be delusional in terms of MMO.

In this day and age of technology and high speed internet upwards of what 10mbps, really? In addition, PS2 hard drives at best where only capable of transfer speeds of like 100megabits/s(12.5megabytes/s) combined with a 56k ps2 modem which I think also had LAN as well compared to PS3s that are running SATA HDD at speeds from 1.5 to 6 Gigabits/s (187.5megabytes to 750 megabytes/s) over at least 3mgpbs connections and you think the only bottleneck was 56k and it wasn't real? I take it you never tried downloading a DVD image of anything over a 56k modem that took like 3-4 hours before and you're talking about a MMO that is constantly sending data even if you are just standing in place on bazaar? Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarick

This is why people have these misconceptions is stupid post like this. The PS3 loaded FFXI has no real techical advantage memory wise over the PS2. The PS3 are either using PS2 chips, Partal emulation or full emulation of the FFXI client.

You are playing the exact same client as the PS2. Also, the PS3s with Backwards compatibility are no longer being produced. I suppose you should follow your own advice and UPDATE that outdated hardware with a spiffy new slimline model. After all, you're one of the reasons (IN YOUR OWN TERMS) SE makes excuses to support a bunch of lazy and cheap a$$ PS2 users.

Also PS3 doesn't have 1 GB of ram. It has 2 separated banks of 256MB one is fast ram the other is slower. Details aren't needed just look up the frenken specs.

---

Sorry I mispoke about the the actual amount of ram and video ram on the ps3 while I was contemplating the actual throughput of said memory and that gap between ps2 and ps3. I am well aware of the fact the fact that PS2 compatibility units aren't being produced as well because I am out of warranty and have to pay 150 for each repair for my fatty.

I suppose I can elaborate more for clarity sake. In the same way your typical pc manufacturer makes 32bit and 64bit versions of the same driver, and how SE installs updates of the same client for pc, xbox, ps2, I was just thinking it would be great if there was a ps3/360 version done by the same teams that produce content for those systems anyway. In other words just because ps2 has those limitations, doesnt mean I on ps3 should be limited or slowed down by them as a result. Just like there is typically a “slow” lane for people turning off on the highway, the same should be done for the client as well as the game itself. Personally if SE was to deliver “PS3 driver” version of the client with all the changes we requestion I would be more than willing to pay a higher monthly fee to compensate for said adjustments and improvements if it would stop all this excuse making for this and that other. Xbox/PS2 is technically the 32 bit version and ps3/360 is the 64bit version of the same software. I would even pay for a re-release version like they did with some of the ps1 games that had even more limited resources for the ps1 but are now on the ps3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oliveira

Sheesh all that vitriol is baseless, useless and will not cause SE to drop the PS2.
Square Enix stopped putting the blame on the PS2 and decided to fix things properly.

Every time people talk about the game problems, the PS2 is the culprit. Every single time.

---

Im sorry if it sound like I'm blaming the ps2 itself but as me rant above just described there is nothing preventing se from creating a “64bit version” of the game for 360/PS3 hardware. Just like when an update is released for pc, ps2 and xbox there is a point where it detects the hardware and dowloads the appropriate update version the same could and should be done for our consoles. Hell I would even be for giving those features only to ps3/360 users myself so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarick

People who hate the horse and buggy shouldn't complain because others use them. It's not going to make the the road crews repave the roads for highway use if they outlaw them on low traffic public roads.


Directed at PS2 haters who blame everything on old hardware.

Why do people keep doing this its because they want a 2001 game to be updated to a 2012 game and see the consoles as a threat. It's obvious that the easiest solution is get rid of consoles. Hate to break it to you people but this game is old too. You talk about people still using old PS2's yet you play a game that was created around the PS2 about the same time. You're playing something originally created 10 years ago telling people MOVE on is hypocrisy. A few of the newer systems have trouble playing this game right because it's so old. So, should those players be told they should move on because their system is too advanced?

hypocrisy at it finest.

As for them saying all our storage woes comment I think a rep starting with C said that on the FAT Chocobo topic. Makes you think doesn't it? NO I don't know the link half the people wouldn't see/accknowlege it even If I did.

---

This is exactly why we do it but I DON'T see consoles as a threat. One thing I do notice particularly during the Besieged and Campaign battles is the amount of lag that DESPITE being on PS3 and running a 25mbps internet connection. Either I am too fast or the server is too slow or bogged down by other slow users.

Essentially most the ideas people are coming up with for jobs, storage etc would seriously impact the performance of the ps2 at one point or another, whether you admit or not. In its current state with the content that exists now, I've had buddies of my who consoles COMPLETELY SHUT OFF during these events and sometimes even outside of those events. So admit it or not the old 32 bit systems are clearly pushing its limitations as is even before new content arrives.

I'm not telling people to move on form the game it self but the console that they are running it only. Technically it not hypocrisy because I play this game mostly for my buddies and hanging out with them and I do like the way SE develops the storylines of the missions for those who actually read the dialogs in cutscenes or replay them afterwards I also DO pay for a 2012 mmo in DC Universe Online while still paying to play this one. Oh and for the record with the way consoles are designed they also capable as serving as a pc of sorts as well according to a friend who used his ps3 to turn in his term paper when his actual pc broke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CapriciousOne

Well I only tried playing one game online using a 56k modem and that was Midnight Club 2 and that was horrible with the disconnecting constantly, so I completely disagree with you. I dare say you must be delusional in terms of MMO.

---

I dare say you must be delusional when it comes to technology. Connection speed and disconnecting issues are unrelated. I had a shitty ISP a while ago and I was disconnecting constantly on a 50Mbps connecting. And I was playing this on 128kbps a long time ago, with no issues, because it was a stable connection. Not like it's hard to check for yourself, go and monitor your network activity during a busy Voidwatch fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CapriciousOne

In this day and age of technology and high speed internet upwards of what 10mbps, really? In addition, PS2 hard drives at best where only capable of transfer speeds of like 100megabits/s(12.5megabytes/s) combined with a 56k ps2 modem which I think also had LAN as well compared to PS3s that are running SATA HDD at speeds from 1.5 to 6 Gigabits/s (187.5megabytes to 750 megabytes/s) over at least 3mgpbs connections and you think the only bottleneck was 56k and it wasn't real? I take it you never tried downloading a DVD image of anything over a 56k modem that took like 3-4 hours before and you're talking about a MMO that is constantly sending data even if you are just standing in place on bazaar? Really?

---

What are you talking about? This entire blob is completely off-topic. Yes, I did download a 571MB file on a 56kbps connection and it took me weeks because I couldn't stay logged in too much at a time. How is that in any way, shape or form relevant? If the inventory size was doubled, it would not be 571MB. It would take exactly twice as long to load upon zoning, completely regardless of the connection. So instead of 5 seconds it would take 10 seconds. How quickly after zoning somewhere do you need all your items? If the 5 seconds make a difference, then yes, this may be inconvenient to some people. Otherwise it would be completely unnoticeable. Connection plays no role in this equation. Hence, this bottleneck is not real.

Most data is not sent from the servers. Servers send surprisingly small amounts of data, which is all translated client-side. Run into a full Voidwatch battle and I still doubt you'll see it go anywhere near 56kbps. Yet the battle runs just fine. Online games simply don't need to run on fast connections, they need to run on responsive connections. Latency always matters more than speed for games. Hence the 56kbps bottleneck isn't real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarick

Spells list, items list etc in the menus are sometimes 1/8 to 1/2 the size of English words. This is one of the problems NES and SNES had when they translated the games. They had to find ways to pack the English dialog because it was so much bigger compared to the original Japanese dialogs.

---

For Seiken Densetsu III, the fan translation team rewrote half the code to get proper English translation (adding their own compression/decompression code), upgraded the fonts to look better AND fixed a dozen bugs from the original.

I'm +1ing that just cause I love SD3.

They're still making sales with mules and security key-chains. If people are still buying/supporting them, why would a company spend money to lose potential-money from these sales?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plasticleg

They're still making sales with mules and security key-chains. If people are still buying/supporting them, why would a company spend money to lose potential-money from these sales?

---

The charged $9.99 for a security token that most people bought just for the extra storage. I'm sure they can find a way to make a buck or two off this if they feel the need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankReynolds

The charged $9.99 for a security token that most people bought just for the extra storage. I'm sure they can find a way to make a buck or two off this if they feel the need.

---

By spending money, getting off their asses to raise the 80 limit or add another storage unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAIST

This may be why some aren't getting it......the PS2 in no way, shape, or form works like the OS's commonly found on a PC.

---

You are 100% correct! It's not a PC! Or at least it's not until you obtain the fabulous Linux kit for PS2!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laraul

You are 100% correct! It's not a PC! Or at least it's not until you obtain the fabulous Linux kit for PS2!

---

And while the operating system then may be similar, the underlying hardware still isn't, neither is communication with the hardware.

Just a random comment out of humor...

PS2 is a 64 bit system so the PS2 FFXI is already a 64 bit program (lol)...

PS2 CPU is a custom upgrade of the MIPS64 core (as seen on the Nintendo 64 and other systems like the PSP, for example) with a lot of custom stuff from Toshiba packed in. It's so specific it got a special numbering for itself "R5900" as it has a lot of the R5000 features in it.

It's old but it's still quite powerful and if SONY wanted they could easily make a real PS2 handheld today if they felt like it.
They don't, simply because the feeling of "old is bad" is soo strong on our society. SONY and other companies actually spent 40 years to create this feeling on the society, they won't stop that trend now.

SE is being victim of making a product "so good" (yes FFXI is still good) people don't want to stop using it ... lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarick

Inventory 80 Limitations aren't real, heres why.

---

Yes. The dev teams are just screwing with you, thats all. They just dont want us going out and getting new items... -_-

i say do it lol let this game go the way of skyrim on the ps3 >.>

incase no one knows how bad it is for skyrim (a game with memory issues just look) for ps3
http://forums.bethsoft.com/forum/182-playstation-3/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Godofgods

Yes. The dev teams are just screwing with you, thats all. They just dont want us going out and getting new items... -_-

---

Did you see the age of the original post? Why are you posting sarcasm at this point? Did you read the whole topic? The post just before yours contains technical info. The second post in the topic says SE is working on a better inventory method. :p

Oh wait, your bumping the post because you agree with everything in the topic that says I'm right. Hows that sarcasm?

Thank you for your support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zataz

incase no one knows how bad it is for skyrim (a game with memory issues just look) for ps3
http://forums.bethsoft.com/forum/182-playstation-3/

---

What does this have to do with PS3? If you're going to add to the topic at least post on this forum the technical reasons for PC/PS2/PS3 limitations. The FFXI BC on PS3 is PS2 based not using the PS3 potential.

Personally i'd rather have 10 (namable) sacks with 80 slots than 1 sack with 800 slots cause then i can sort things by sacks (like consumable, Melee gear, DRK OCD gear, Mage gear and so on)

Imo 80 items per sack or w/e is enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rezeak

Personally i'd rather have 10 (namable) sacks with 80 slots than 1 sack with 800 slots cause then i can sort things by sacks (like consumable, Melee gear, DRK OCD gear, Mage gear and so on)

Imo 80 items per sack or w/e is enough.

---

I kind of agree with this but, the real solution is a different "storage" method. Eight named spaces would be awesome but having another storage space that holds AH levels of items (IE: a real mog house) would enable players to store stuff without the mini systems we have today. The slips are nice, the key items are nice. No matter how we put it these items are limited to what the developers choose. This makes them cumbersome and inefficient to store/retrieve.

I stand by the AH menu like warehouse storage system that is linked to all content ID's on the account. The problem I have is explaining it to the community/development bros. It's like trying to explain how one men can lift ten tun monolithic stones using only fulcrums.

http://www.youtube.com

The Phantasy Star Portable games (Based on Phantasy Star Universe) for PSP have such a feature, which is called "shared storage". You can have up to 4 characters and all of them have access to that shared storage while at the equivalent of "mog house" into that game. You can at any time push items to that shared storage but you can only pull the items if you are at "your room".

And it has 1000 spaces, I think.

In PSU it was 250, I have no idea about PSP though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oliveira

The Phantasy Star Portable games (Based on Phantasy Star Universe) for PSP have such a feature, which is called "shared storage". You can have up to 4 characters and all of them have access to that shared storage while at the equivalent of "mog house" into that game. You can at any time push items to that shared storage but you can only pull the items if you are at "your room".

And it has 1000 spaces, I think.

---

I don't think it'd be fair to have this shared storage if it was accessible anywhere. :P This is one half of what I'm talking about. The limits are a lot larger, stored differently then the 80 slots we're used to seeing. They'd be more like looking at the AH list pulling or putting items up. The only differences would be you own all the items in it and they're listed categorically like the AH with the amounts stored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rezeak

Personally i'd rather have 10 (namable) sacks with 80 slots than 1 sack with 800 slots cause then i can sort things by sacks (like consumable, Melee gear, DRK OCD gear, Mage gear and so on)

Imo 80 items per sack or w/e is enough.

---

That's sort of a false dilemma. Why can't you have one sack with 800 items where you can organize items by type while still keeping them all in the active inventory so that it works with macros?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

That's sort of a false dilemma. Why can't you have one sack with 800 items where you can organize items by type while still keeping them all in the active inventory so that it works with macros?

---

That got answered eons ago, memory limitations forced the 80 item limit, which is why you can't use items or equipment directly from satchel/sack.

Short of overhauling and allowing over 80 items in a single inventory cache, having multiple, customizable satchels would be the easiest way of storing and organizing gear. And the satchel items should be KIs, not inventory -1 moogle slips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

That's sort of a false dilemma. Why can't you have one sack with 800 items where you can organize items by type while still keeping them all in the active inventory so that it works with macros?

---

Server space is much cheaper and near infinite (as far as this game is concerned) vs PS2 system memory. To actively manipulate items they need to he loaded into local memory, each entry in your item's list is just a 1D array that contains a set of values (Unique item ID, ID DB #, bit flags, special text / indicators). They have allocated enough memory to hold 160 of those entries, 80 for inventory 0 and 80 for whatever other inventory you have open (1,2,3,4,5,6,7). Adding another inventory is easy, it's just larger character data on the server but locally the character data is the same.

If we wanted inventories bigger then 80 one of two things needs to happen. Not apply to PS2, or remove something else that is loaded into main memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Llana_Virren

That got answered eons ago, memory limitations forced the 80 item limit, which is why you can't use items or equipment directly from satchel/sack.

Short of overhauling and allowing over 80 items in a single inventory cache, having multiple, customizable satchels would be the easiest way of storing and organizing gear. And the satchel items should be KIs, not inventory -1 moogle slips.

---

I'm not convinced it couldn't be worked around as long as they didn't care about keeping the PS2 and PC clients identical.

Easy, make it part of the new UI that wont be on PS2 or 360.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

I'm not convinced it couldn't be worked around as long as they didn't care about keeping the PS2 and PC clients identical.

---

That is ultimately the problem. It could easily be done on the PC and 360, more then enough local memory to add a bigger array. There comes one slight problem, once someone has "upgraded" their account to this they could never ever load that character onto a PS2 system. One of two things would happen, one is the console would crash and / or possibly corrupt server side data, of it they actually did good programming it would refuse to load the character.

Yeah. I mentioned that in an earlier post somewhere. I don't think that would ever become a real problem, though. Just make it so each player needs to change the setting manually, along with a notice that clearly tells us that it would kill PS2 compatibility for that account.