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

[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. 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.