Suggestions: Quality of Life Stuff and other suggestions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Immortal

Is there a reason we cant be on mounts indefinitely? I would like to AFK on my mount thnx

---

All I can imagine is the fact that under normal circumstances you're mostly invulnerable while mounted. FFXIV has no time limit but you also aren't immune to being attacked.

Because it's a buff and all buffs have a duration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pixela

Because it's a buff and all buffs have a duration.

---

well just make the duration 99h59m59s. We already have the ambuscade seals which last for 48 hours.


While we're at it, make signet etc. last that long too.

It's to prevent people from being pl'd on a mount. An account can follow a bot on a mount and never die. That's why you can't stay on a mount.

(you could just write a code to remount every hour)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uriah

It's to prevent people from being pl'd on a mount. An account can follow a bot on a mount and never die. That's why you can't stay on a mount.

(you could just write a code to remount every hour)

---

I'm not sure that really has anything to do with it, for one it's really easy to circumvent as you noted, and second, it is probably a trivial matter to disable EXP gain while mounted. They would just do that if it really mattered.

Spoken like you've never played XI before. lol

They do everything the least easy and reasonable way possible. Every time. Always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uriah

Spoken like you've never played XI before. lol

They do everything the least easy and reasonable way possible. Every time. Always.

---

Spoken like i've played FFXI for most of the last 20 years.
Easy? You think "Mounted buff = no EXP": is hard? there's already buffs that modify or prevent EXP gain.

Even SE wouldn't come up with some crazy convoluted way of doiing it when they ALREADY have a way to do it. Shouldn't even require any native code whatsoever. And yet, I don't see how the duration of a buff, which is just as easily changed, could possibly be the reason.

A better question is why would you want to be mounted for more than an hour, when you can just remount.

If the argument is to avoid aggro and afk, well just find a spot without aggro monsters and stand there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pixela

A better question is why would you want to be mounted for more than an hour, when you can just remount.

If the argument is to avoid aggro and afk, well just find a spot without aggro monsters and stand there.

---

In FFXIV, where there are many more mounts and some are accomplishments to get, people like to show them off, it really isn't that unusual for people to be AFK on mounts. There's no real benefit to doing so otherwise.e In FFXI, all they relaly need to do is not allow any kind of point gain while mounted and there's no reason they can't remove the time limit. it's not really a big deal.

Granted, most mounts in FFXI come from campaigns, except for the personal chocobo, the one you get from unlocking the mount command, and fenrir, so there isn't really any noteworthy accomplishments to show off. But I always say "you do you..."

Its the same idea as to why people like to use lockstyle. Just a little thing that adds to the game is all. I like to afk on my Iron Giant because he look cool, when I'm waiting outside an escha zone or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

Granted, most mounts in FFXI come from campaigns, except for the personal chocobo, the one you get from unlocking the mount command, and fenrir, so there isn't really any noteworthy accomplishments to show off. But I always say "you do you..."

---

And that flying machine from the other quest, Omega from Vana'versary RoE, and my personal favorite the spectral chair from Halloween.

It'd be nice to see more mounts that take effort besides logging in and trading in the points, though. This month's Byakko mount could have been nifty as a rare drop from original-recipe Byakko and guaranteed from Escha - Ru'aun's extra-spicy version.

I would love if they added mounts with passive buffs like regen, refresh, tp gain while mounted.

Link them to MR rank to unlock or some RoE objective.

I would do near anything in the game to get a black armored chocobo as a proper collectable mount.

I'm sure that isn't far off, they seem to be adding more and more. I am waiting for them to add the Delve NMs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenion

And that flying machine from the other quest, Omega from Vana'versary RoE, and my personal favorite the spectral chair from Halloween.

It'd be nice to see more mounts that take effort besides logging in and trading in the points, though. This month's Byakko mount could have been nifty as a rare drop from original-recipe Byakko and guaranteed from Escha - Ru'aun's extra-spicy version.

---

It seems I've missed a few....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pixela

I would love if they added mounts with passive buffs like regen, refresh, tp gain while mounted.

Link them to MR rank to unlock or some RoE objective.

I would do near anything in the game to get a black armored chocobo as a proper collectable mount.

---

that stuff about buffs on a mount is silly, mounts are not supposed to be beneficial to combat in any way, particularly considering you can't fight on them.

That aside... I'm pretty sure they promised us being able to obtain those armored chocobos, but that never happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

that stuff about buffs on a mount is silly, mounts are not supposed to be beneficial to combat in any way, particularly considering you can't fight on them.

That aside... I'm pretty sure they promised us being able to obtain those armored chocobos, but that never happened.

---

Ooh, ooh, two birds with one stone! I know this is a super silly idea but what if mounted combat? Make combat mounts that are slower (because mount speed would be a major balance issue otherwise), maybe reduce but don't fully eliminate mob aggro, but have some kind of benefit - geo-style buffs for the rider, additional attacks, damage transference (you take 80% and your mount takes 20% or something like that?)

Also it would be cool setup for a new job, Chocobo Knight maybe? I mean, no, there's no way we're ever getting more new jobs but hey none of this is gonna happen so why not dream big. Not sure if you'd want to make combat mounts usable in dungeon zones, or use this to encourage more outdoor fighting. Given there are no outdoor areas worth doing content in I guess you'd have to allow it inside if there's a job based around it?

Oh yeah and you know while we're looking at a whole mount system to make it combat friendly, somebody could maybe, like, I dunno, maybe look at doing a thing where summoners can ride on their avatars' shoulders, maybe? Just, you know, just as a little bit of a fun thing? ... no? Shut up, summoner? Okay, I'll get back in the box now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenion

Ooh, ooh, two birds with one stone! I know this is a super silly idea but what if mounted combat? Make combat mounts that are slower (because mount speed would be a major balance issue otherwise), maybe reduce but don't fully eliminate mob aggro, but have some kind of benefit - geo-style buffs for the rider, additional attacks, damage transference (you take 80% and your mount takes 20% or something like that?)

Also it would be cool setup for a new job, Chocobo Knight maybe? I mean, no, there's no way we're ever getting more new jobs but hey none of this is gonna happen so why not dream big. Not sure if you'd want to make combat mounts usable in dungeon zones, or use this to encourage more outdoor fighting. Given there are no outdoor areas worth doing content in I guess you'd have to allow it inside if there's a job based around it?

Oh yeah and you know while we're looking at a whole mount system to make it combat friendly, somebody could maybe, like, I dunno, maybe look at doing a thing where summoners can ride on their avatars' shoulders, maybe? Just, you know, just as a little bit of a fun thing? ... no? Shut up, summoner? Okay, I'll get back in the box now.

---

Mouinted combat would require the movement speed of being mounted to be negated during combat or it would require all monsters to run faster to balance the fact that we can now deal damage while also avoiding it by running around on mounts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

Mouinted combat would require the movement speed of being mounted to be negated during combat or it would require all monsters to run faster to balance the fact that we can now deal damage while also avoiding it by running around on mounts.

---

Yup, that was touched on in the suggestion. You'd need combat mounts to be slower because you can't increase mob speed without it causing just all kinds of extra trouble (kiting would be all but impossible, to start; ranged actions and magic could be devalued due to things moving out of range. So you'd have to have fast mounts, that work the way mounts do now (no aggro, no fighting, no benefit besides fast and avoiding combat), and then fighting mounts, which move at player movement speed but facilitate mounted combat.

Oh, but you know what else would be really, really nice to see in a combat mount? No spell interruption for movement while mounted. Maybe another one that prevents "you moved and interrupted your aim". I'd do whatever nonsense it took to unlock those, for sure.

But again, this is daydreaming more than a real suggestion. So much would need to be revamped to make it actually worth the effort.

(... hey, what if instead of new mounts, it was like an augment slot thing, you pick one ability to give to any one of your current mounts and then it can do that thing but only if you're using it as a war mount instead of a standard one...)

Buff mounts are mainly as a hook to do content, many mmorpgs use mounts in this way.

Giving so many mounts away from login points is kind of silly imo, they should be from roe rewards for doing easier content or something.

Currently there are 15 total mog safe/storage slots (Mog Safe -> Mog Wardrobe 8), they were able to add Mog Wadrobe 5 through Mog Wardrobe 8 so is there any reason why they are all still capped at 80? Please consider increasing the cap for Mog Safe, Mog Safe 2, Storage, Mog Locker, Mog Satchel, Mog Sack, Mog Case, Mog Wardrobe to 99 if possible.

Sorry for cutting in on the mount suggestions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tekrave

Currently there are 15 total mog safe/storage slots (Mog Safe -> Mog Wardrobe 8), they were able to add Mog Wadrobe 5 through Mog Wardrobe 8 so is there any reason why they are all still capped at 80? Please consider increasing the cap for Mog Safe, Mog Safe 2, Storage, Mog Locker, Mog Satchel, Mog Sack, Mog Case, Mog Wardrobe to 99 if possible.

Sorry for cutting in on the mount suggestions.

---

It's a long-standing technical limitation. It's easier for them to have more seperate 80 slot spaces than it is for them to have fewer spaces with more slots in them. And the bigger each individual space is, the longer it takes to load in. They already seperated the always-acessible normal inventory spaces from the wardrobe spaces for loading purposes in order to get your inventory accessible more quickly (as equipped gear is always ready server-side and you don't need to wait for equipped gear to load in before it's useable). If they were able to increase the capacity of those spaces, it would definitely increase loading times.

I would love if they could add a bank system to mog garden or something, bank would be account wide.

You can put something in your bank and take it out on your alt on that same account, we already have a ghetto version of this by being able to send r/e to alts on the same account but this would be so much more useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pixela

I would love if they could add a bank system to mog garden or something, bank would be account wide.

You can put something in your bank and take it out on your alt on that same account, we already have a ghetto version of this by being able to send r/e to alts on the same account but this would be so much more useful.

---

This sure sounds a lot like the Delivery Box to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pixela

I would love if they could add a bank system to mog garden or something, bank would be account wide.

You can put something in your bank and take it out on your alt on that same account, we already have a ghetto version of this by being able to send r/e to alts on the same account but this would be so much more useful.

---

This sure sounds a lot like the Delivery Box to me.

---

If you had to log out and back in twice to make a deposit or withdrawal, and could only move a million gil at a time, yes. Exactly like the Delivery Box.

That said, this feels like a workaround to a different problem. The only reason I can think of that this should be needful is if you have multiple crafting shield characters. Otherwise, it's "we should have more AH slots" in different clothes. Which... yeah. We should have more AH slots. We won't, can't, because PS2 limitations are still a thing in 2022, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Quote:

---

If you had to log out and back in twice to make a deposit or withdrawal, and could only move a million gil at a time, yes. Exactly like the Delivery Box.

---

I don't see how your idea changes that. Your other character is still going to have to move items out of this magic new space of yours.

If you're actually proposing that you're able to directly access another character's inventory while that character isn't logged in, their system likely isn't capable of this.

Your original sentence in your proposal post would still require you to log in and out on both characters. So... just like the delivery box.

Quote:

---

We should have more AH slots. We won't, can't, because PS2 limitations are still a thing in 2022,

---

It's not a PS2 limitation, it's a server stress limitation. They have explained this in the past, that it would increase the load on the server if they added more slots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

It's not a PS2 limitation, it's a server stress limitation. They have explained this in the past, that it would increase the load on the server if they added more slots.

---

It's a limitation tied to the game not being able to change to take advantage of technological advances. I'm gonna keep calling it PS2 limitations until I see an interview where someone explicitly says "actually, we don't need to find old PS2 devkits to work with any more, which is nice."

As to the server load problem itself though, when there were four separate auction houses that didn't seem to cause any trouble. Seems to me that the issue isn't the number of items in total, it's the number of items at once. Maybe we can't have 8 auction slots, but what's stopping us having a second sales ledger with another 7 slots, which has to be accessed separately?

As to Pixela's idea on the shared bank system... yeah, there's likely nothing in place, short of POL account, which shares data between characters, so it'd be a little difficult to track gil between them. Especially when you consider characters across multiple servers; should I be able to access my gil from Fenrir if I set up a mule on Asura? I don't think I can move items that way, not without paying a world transfer fee. But it would still be nice to, say, be able to move more than a million gil at a time, at least if it's between characters on one POL account.

There's probably some server stress reason why we can't do that either, though.

Stop saying everything is a server / engine limitation, some things are a design choice.

There are limitations on auction house slots to encourage you to undercut, this stops massive price bloating.

Quote:

---

It's a limitation tied to the game not being able to change to take advantage of technological advances. I'm gonna keep calling it PS2 limitations until I see an interview where someone explicitly says "actually, we don't need to find old PS2 devkits to work with any more, which is nice."

---

A server limitation is not a PS2 limitation. Call it what you want, that doesn't make it true. And the dev kits are/were only needed in any way for the clients, not the servers. But them not being dependent on the PS2 doesn't mean they can just magically change everything about them. We could have had more slots even during the PS2 era, it was a design decision to limit server stress and this has been said in the past.

The game not adapting to technological advances is also not entirely the fault of the PS2, either. A fault of poor decisions, perhaps. Anything you call a "PS2 limiatiion is really "we don't have the budget/people/resources to do it" limitation. The PS2 version doesn't exist anymore. Any such limitation that remains is entirely due to how much it would cost to change it. It's not that they can't change it because of the PS2.

Quote:

---

Stop saying everything is a server / engine limitation, some things are a design choice.

There are limitations on auction house slots to encourage you to undercut, this stops massive price bloating.

---

lol "to encourage undercutting."
Dude, they aren't that smart. And I don't mean that to be offensive. They wouldn't implement something like this for a reason like that.

And in fact it was a design choice, yes. A design choice made because of how the server that handles the AH works.

I don't say "everything" is a server limitation (I've never said engine, that would be at least partly ps2 related). But if it has something to do with network traffic, that isn't device specific. They could send network traffic to a Game Boy if they wanted (with a little hacking or a special device). The game having PS2 has no bearing on whether they can or can't do something networking related.

Quote:

---

There's probably some server stress reason why we can't do that either, though.

---

Well, they can certainly do it because I still don't see how his idea is different from the delivery box.
Any issue with creating whatever-it-is would most likely just be a time and effort of implementation thing rather than a server issue.

Already a thread for this, but it is crazy players must change servers for a name change, as-well as no option to edit, or in XI's case, change your character's pre-set.

One of the reasons WoW was dominate for so long, and XI kind of fell to the side was how WoW's team always kept the game modernized (The good and the bad). Not discussing Blizzard's internal issues, but how they maintained the game's features with today's standards (Outdated visuals and crappy game-play aside........Those are like, overhauls as opposed to minor quality of life changes).

Male Elvaan are the $hits. Been stuck with this nerd's awkward animations because I have relics and whatnot on him lol. Wanted to go female for the longest, without doing everything over but that may be the "Charm" of XI sadly....

Could we please have some kind update/replacement to the delivery system? Only being able to send off 8 item at a time to my mule is really painful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenion

It's a limitation tied to the game not being able to change to take advantage of technological advances. I'm gonna keep calling it PS2 limitations until I see an interview where someone explicitly says "actually, we don't need to find old PS2 devkits to work with any more, which is nice."

As to the server load problem itself though, when there were four separate auction houses that didn't seem to cause any trouble. Seems to me that the issue isn't the number of items in total, it's the number of items at once. Maybe we can't have 8 auction slots, but what's stopping us having a second sales ledger with another 7 slots, which has to be accessed separately?

---

I mean, the game is in maintenance mode and they have a scaled back development team so they probably don't have the manpower to do something like that. When there were 4 separate auction houses, it was still the same number of items though.

I don't see where there would be an advantage to expanding any of the storage spaces beyond 80 slots. Yeah you get more inventory, but people have wanted more inventory for 20 years and they never seem to be satisfied. Junk would just expand to fill the additional space.

The game isn't in maintence mode... they even increased our monthly sub with the wardrobes. They are adding content super slowly and barely paying attention to the game tho, so maybe youre right and we're just paying for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Immortal

The game isn't in maintence mode... they even increased our monthly sub with the wardrobes. They are adding content super slowly and barely paying attention to the game tho, so maybe youre right and we're just paying for it.

---

That's disingenuous. They didn't increase the subscription fee. The wardrobes are optional extras for one man armies. The two wardobes included for all have proven plenty sufficient for me as I don't play that many jobs with regularity.

I'm still paying the same $12.95 I have since shortly after NA launch, which is a steal compared to 19 years ago, and I'm quite thankful that they decided to offer these optional extras only some people need rather than just raise prices, even though with inflation, the sub fee back then might be closer to $20 in today's money. Maybe more than that.

Quote:

---

I mean, the game is in maintenance mode

---

We still get content updates, maybe slower than way back when, but "maintenance mode" would imply there are no updates at all and they're simply counting the days til they have to close it down. Which many of us thought was going to happen several years ago and it didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

I'm still paying the same $12.95 I have since shortly after NA launch, which is a steal compared to 19 years ago, and I'm quite thankful that they decided to offer these optional extras only some people need rather than just raise prices, even though with inflation, the sub fee back then might be closer to $20 in today's money. Maybe more than that.

---

I always seem to have to point out that just because it was $12.95 in 2002, the equivalent today isn't $12.95 plus inflation.

On one side, you have disparity in Yen, Dollar, Pound and Euro; the exchange rates are very different today. Then, you have consumers' net personal income less cost of living leaving disposable income available, which differs all over the world.

On the flip side, you have a reduction in the number and cost of staff, hardware and resources; a particular piece of hardware purchased to last five years which is now running after ten will have been budgeted with five in mind. When new types of content were introduced and new ways of delivering the service there would have been an investment in R&D.

Balance that with the number of subscribers, which feels like (from the attitude of any SE staff interviewed in the last few years) it's a lot higher today than they anticipated it would be in 2015, thanks in no small part to streamers.

All of this of course is restricted by the market; even just looking at S-E FFXIV costs £8.99 a month and so does FFXI. Raising FFXI to £14.99 a month as per direct inflation is completely unfeasible - that fee would be just about acceptable if it included 8 character slots per server, conversion to a new engine with modern graphics, current-gen console release and a new, full expansion with a bi-annual commitment to new ones for the foreseeable future, like it's little sister.

(which, by the way, I would throw money at. Give me £150 PS5 CE, £30 expacs, £40 lorebooks and £30 soundtracks and I wouldn't hesitate to preorder)

The people who decide the future of FFXI are not game developers who work on the game, they are accountants that work for the company.

The producer has to goto these accountants and show them the finances and ask for more money, in advance (for the next 1-3 years) to keep the game running. Those accountants have to decide if the PROFITS the game will bring in is worth spending that money. It's that simple, they don't care about covering costs they care about returns on an investment.

If they give 1 million dollars to run the game for the next 1-3 years (idk how much they spend, random number), they want 2-3 million back minimum. If they won't get that, why bother spending money? close it down. It's that simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pixela

If they give 1 million dollars to run the game for the next 1-3 years (idk how much they spend, random number), they want 2-3 million back minimum. If they won't get that, why bother spending money? close it down. It's that simple.

---

I think it's a little more complex than that. If this were, say, Runescape or Everquest, where the MMO is the brand, sure. It's all about the raw numbers. But Final Fantasy is a franchise that, at this point, trades primarily on the power of its brand. Having a mainline member of the series disappear just because it was an MMO that stopped being profitable kind of hurts that brand a little. I doubt that would save FFXI if it ever cost more to run than it brought in, but I suspect it'll keep the game afloat as long as it can just break even.

Quote:

---

I always seem to have to point out that just because it was $12.95 in 2002, the equivalent today isn't $12.95 plus inflation.

---

I stopped reading here. Yes, I know that different people place different values on their money and their game experience.

However, I would disagree with your implication that we're getting less for the technically smaller amount of money we're paying them. The structure of updates was changed considerably a long time ago, instead of big patches a few times a year that have tons of stuff, we get small updates on a monthly basis with the ocasional bigger thing thrown in. It really isn't that far off in the end from how things used to be.

We've gotten not just one but two new storylines that were never planned. We've gotten multiple new progression systems, multiple new and/or improved battle contents.... I'd say for the most part, im about just as happy with what I get for paying as I was back in the day. Maybe a little bit less because of certain ongoing issues with botting and the like. but not way off.

Ultimately, my point remains, I don't need those extra mog wardrobes. Sure, if you do, you might view it as a sub fee increase instead of an optional extra, but it's little different than XI's system of paying $1 per character slot (which I agree is silly and outdated though)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Immortal

The game isn't in maintence mode... they even increased our monthly sub with the wardrobes. They are adding content super slowly and barely paying attention to the game tho, so maybe youre right and we're just paying for it.

---

First off, they didn't increase anybody's subscription costs. They added a completely optional service So do not tell outright lies.

And what I mean by maintenance mode is that they aren't adding anything big or new. No new zones. No new monster types. They're using existing monster types and increasing stats, adding new moves, and changing colors. It's all low effort stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarmarkvar

First off, they didn't increase anybody's subscription costs. They added a completely optional service So do not tell outright lies.

And what I mean by maintenance mode is that they aren't adding anything big or new. No new zones. No new monster types. They're using existing monster types and increasing stats, adding new moves, and changing colors. It's all low effort stuff.

---

"new zones and mosnters" is expansion level stuff. Not simply updates. "Maintenance mode" means simply "keeping it running." And no updates whatsoever aside from keeping it working. Your opinion about the amount of effort put in (by a team of a handful of people) is irrelevant to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

"new zones and mosnters" is expansion level stuff. Not simply updates. "Maintenance mode" means simply "keeping it running." And no updates whatsoever aside from keeping it working. Your opinion about the amount of effort put in (by a team of a handful of people) is irrelevant to this.

---

My point is that they had the big grand finale in 2016 and scaled back operations, so that means they just don't have the stuff to do big stuff like expand the auction house or the number of slots per inventory box and such.