Solution to inventory that no one will like

[FrankReynolds]

Why should I proofe you wrong when you allready prost that you don't have a clue.

#1 You only have 80 slots permanently loaded (your inventory)
#2 The additional 80 slots from your satchel/sack/mog safe/etc. are loaded temporarily

So in case you want to access anything other than your inventory you ask the server to transmit the items to your temp. inventory. So every additional temp. inventory will increase the serverload and now we scale - 1,000 player using 3 temp. inventories withing 1 second that would mean,
- implied that each item is only a dword (2 byte)
- each temp. inventory can contain 80 items (80 x 2 = 160)
- 3 temp inventories (160 x 3 = 480)
- 1,000 player (480 x 1,000 = 480,000)
So you would add 468 kb/s for only 1,000 player.

Now a more realistic scenario: 4,000 player, 4 temp. inventories = 2,560,000 byte/sec.

And now another problem - you have to unload/overwrite your temp.inventory cause you only can hold one additional temp. inventory (80 inventory + 80 temp. inventory).
So you have to load tem.inventory(a), unload/overwrite it with temp.inventory(b), aso. And that will take time (in relation to your overall system performance)

btw. in all cases I didn't included header, CRCs and what some people will describe as lag and packet loss aso. HAIL the INTERNET!

There is so much wrong with what you just wrote that I don't even know where to begin.

[Arcon]

There is so much wrong with what you just wrote that I don't even know where to begin.

I'll give it a shot.

#1 You only have 80 slots permanently loaded (your inventory)
#2 The additional 80 slots from your satchel/sack/mog safe/etc. are loaded temporarily

I honestly don't know if that's the case on the PS2, but it definitely isn't on the PC. On the PC your entire storage is stored locally, always. It's not loaded every time you access another inventory. That alone negates every single point you were trying to make. But let's keep going, for the sake of proving you have no idea.

So in case you want to access anything other than your inventory you ask the server to transmit the items to your temp. inventory.

Why would you need the entire inventory, and not just one item?

So every additional temp. inventory will increase the serverload and now we scale - 1,000 player using 3 temp. inventories withing 1 second that would mean,
- implied that each item is only a dword (2 byte)

Easily. You could even go less (14bit).

- each temp. inventory can contain 80 items (80 x 2 = 160)
- 3 temp inventories (160 x 3 = 480)

Why three, when you're only accessing one inventory?

- 1,000 player (480 x 1,000 = 480,000)
So you would add 468 kb/s for only 1,000 player.

That's still not much of you consider the capacity of today's servers (there's a reason why they could afford server merges).

Now a more realistic scenario: 4,000 player, 4 temp. inventories = 2,560,000 byte/sec.

4000? Remember, we're talking per server. When was the last time you've seen 4000 people on a server? Hell, even 1000 is unrealistic (at this time there's 1156 people on Leviathan), about half of which are afk.

And now another problem - you have to unload/overwrite your temp.inventory cause you only can hold one additional temp. inventory (80 inventory + 80 temp. inventory).
So you have to load tem.inventory(a), unload/overwrite it with temp.inventory(b), aso. And that will take time (in relation to your overall system performance)

No. It does nothing performance-wise client side. Loading/unloading 80 objects, no matter how inefficient it's implemented is not noticeable by any standards.

btw. in all cases I didn't included header, CRCs and what some people will describe as lag and packet loss aso. HAIL the INTERNET!

Header is minimal, CRC nonexistant, packet loss virtually nonexistant (and does nothing to performance anyway).

Now to the main point:
That's all irrelevant. You don't have to get an entire inventory, you don't even have to get a single item from the server. All you'd need to do is send the equip-string to the server (something you're doing already), only you add another two bits to specify where you'll determine it from (2 bits is enough to specify 4 storage locations, inventory, satchel, or another future location). Although even that wouldn't be needed, and it could just look the location up itself serverside (like it is now, only it doesn't only have to search the inventory, but two more locations). That, however, would disable specifying which item to choose, in case there's multiple items with the same name (see trial staves, although that issue is finally addressed with the highest upgrade form).

And the funny thing is, all of what I just said I already elaborated in that other thread I linked you to before. This entire wall of text wouldn't have been necessary if you could either read or understand. Sad to see you can do neither, but I already knew as much. Your streak for being wrong uninterrupted is ongoing.

Tl;dr stfu.

[Ihnako]

Check - 1,500 people online right now (04:11 a.m. JST) Within JST prime time you can add another 2k easily. And at weekend it's 3-4k all the time.

No, you can't go below a dword cause SE implemented everything within this range (valor gauntlets +2 = id 10696 or 29C8 or 0010 1001 1100 1000)

And we'r still talking about a multi platform game and as such you have to considder the limitations by PS2 and XBox360.

Btw. Did you tried to trade someone with your XBox at Port Jeuno lately? It's difficult even when PC players don't experience lag, those XBoxers do. And that's only a zone with 100-500 people while you only see 64 max.

PS: A CRC and header do exist. How good they are depends on what you want to do. You don't need to implement them but then you'll have to deal with misinformation or waiting on your information forever. LAG and packed loss is still part of the internet and also part of the game. Since the infrastructure is getting better and better it's less noticeable but there are still countries and states that have to deal with outdated connections such as the beloved modems in the early days or even worse.

PPS: When did you tried to claim Fafnir/Nidhogg the last? Remember that scenario is similar to what I described in the first place. Happy lagging!

PPPS: Sending strings to the server does mean that you exploit the server cause you permanently asks him to check if you have the item or not. (And I'm verry interested in hacking SEs servers cause this method will make it even easyer.)

[FrankReynolds]

Check - 1,500 people online right now (04:11 a.m. JST) Within JST prime time you can add another 2k easily. And at weekend it's 3-4k all the time.

No, you can't go below a dword cause SE implemented everything within this range (valor gauntlets +2 = id 10696 or 29C8 or 0010 1001 1100 1000)

And we'r still talking about a multi platform game and as such you have to considder the limitations by PS2 and XBox360.

Btw. Did you tried to trade someone with your XBox at Port Jeuno lately? It's difficult even when PC players don't experience lag, those XBoxers do. And that's only a zone with 100-500 people while you only see 64 max.

PS: A CRC and header do exist. How good they are depends on what you want to do. You don't need to implement them but then you'll have to deal with misinformation or waiting on your information forever. LAG and packed loss is still part of the internet and also part of the game. Since the infrastructure is getting better and better it's less noticeable but there are still countries and states that have to deal with outdated connections such as the beloved modems in the early days or even worse.

PPS: When did you tried to claim Fafnir/Nidhogg the last? Remember that scenario is similar to what I described in the first place. Happy lagging!

PPPS: Sending strings to the server does mean that you exploit the server cause you permanently asks him to check if you have the item or not. (And I'm verry interested in hacking SEs servers cause this method will make it even easyer.)

The server does not upload the entire inventory every time you hit a macro.

4000 people will never open their inventory, and shift items all at once.

A person need not know anything about programming to understand why.

[Ihnako]

Unfortunately we'r talking about FFXI and not SAP

[FrankReynolds]

Unfortunately we'r talking about FFXI and not SAP

It is unfortunate, Because if you were talking about SAP, then you would be on some other forum bothering someone else.

I can't speak for other servers, but on my server, there is 2,800 people online at peak. 50% of them are afk, and thus not calling any inventory.

Of the 1,400 that are actually playing, several are crafting, walking somewhere, doing a quest, checking the bazaars of the 1,400 AFK people etc.

The actual number of people making a gear swaps at any given time is minimal.

Of the few people hitting gear macros, a fair portion of them will be lazy people that only swap 3-4 pieces of gear at a time anyways meaning that they wont be calling anymore inventories than are currently available in game.

Last but not least, you have the complete whack jobs who still think that gear swaps are dumb / unnecessary.

Never mind the fact that at today's prices, you can build servers that will run all that complete with redundancy for a couple of grand, and any company that pedals online services to 1,000,000+ people every year should have absolutely no problems with bandwidth.

[Chriskara10]

Why not just raising the storage for gears in Mog House use only??? I running out of space!!!!
The other thing is why cant your moggle in the mog house, store the gear for you into automatically into a storage slip, bcz 90% of the time I dont even know what i can trade the moogle or what i traded him!!!

Also please make Storage access able from any Mog House and not just home nation, bcz that's so dumb!!

[Ihnako]

That's a good point. Why are we restricted to store things just in our home nation while the moogle is able to watch over our plants while we're far away.

Also the Mog Locker could be reviewed cause 60 is a bit odd. ;p

[Arcon]

Also the Mog Locker could be reviewed cause 60 is a bit odd. ;p

Care to elaborate?

And they already said they wanted to make Storage accessible from other mog houses.

[SMD111]

Also the Mog Locker could be reviewed cause 60 is a bit odd. ;p

i look at this and say you must be on something

because the mog-locker has a cap of 80 not 60
if you need proof go here