Gob Sack

[Arcon]

In short, PS2 limitations.

No, no one ever said that. And it's wrong. It would work.

[Greatguardian]

No, no one ever said that. And it's wrong. It would work.

Care to elaborate? It's my impression that the Dev team has already said on more than one occasion that they can't access more than 160 items in two locations in the PS2 RAM at a time. That's why inventories are limited to 80 slots apiece, and you can only look at two of them at a time. Adding a new equip-ready storage option would require the game to hold 3 locations with 176 items at a time, which should be impossible based on what they've told us.

The only half-plausible solution I can think of off the top of my head is the introduction of an /equipsack command, which would only work on items in your mog sack rather than your inventory. This way, the game would still just be opening 76 items in two locations. However, you'd have to design your macros as well as your sack/inventory around which command you're going to be using for each piece. That would be a bit cumbersome.

[Arcon]

Care to elaborate?

The only half-plausible solution I can think of off the top of my head is the introduction of an /equipsack command, which would only work on items in your mog sack rather than your inventory.

Elaborated. That was exactly what the OP said (if I understood it correctly, only he called it /equip1 and /equip2 for satchel and sack respectively), and it has nothing at all to do with memory. The query, as is, could be sent to the server, where it would be decided if it's equippable or not. That's the way it currently works with items anyway. The client doesn't perform a check, whether or not the item exists in your inventory, it just sends the raw string to the server. You can test that semi-easily, if you equip an item before it drops to your inventory, if you press it a second before it drops. On the server, the item has already dropped, and it will equip it, before it says so on the client. This shows, that the client itself does not perform a check for the item, but just sends the command to the server, where the inventory-presence of said item is checked. So /equip1 or /equip2 would only really need to do the same thing, only the server checks for the satchel- or sack-presence.

[Ashay]

That's exactly what I meant. /equip1 being for the existing Gobbie Bag, /equip2 being for Mog Satchel, Mog Sack, or for something new, which was my idea of the Gob Sack. An additional 80 inventory slots that's specifically for equipment and items to be used when you select items or are in the equipment menu.

[Divinius]

Care to elaborate? It's my impression that the Dev team has already said on more than one occasion that they can't access more than 160 items in two locations in the PS2 RAM at a time. That's why inventories are limited to 80 slots apiece, and you can only look at two of them at a time. Adding a new equip-ready storage option would require the game to hold 3 locations with 176 items at a time, which should be impossible based on what they've told us.

The only half-plausible solution I can think of off the top of my head is the introduction of an /equipsack command, which would only work on items in your mog sack rather than your inventory. This way, the game would still just be opening 76 items in two locations. However, you'd have to design your macros as well as your sack/inventory around which command you're going to be using for each piece. That would be a bit cumbersome.

This was the impression I was under as well, since the devs have commented countless times on why things like this (and using consumable items directly from sack/satchel) could not be implemented. People have been requesting stuff like this since the implementation of the new storage areas. If it were easy to do, I would think they would have done it already.

But Arcon told me I was wrong, and since he obviously knows exactly how the game is coded and that it would be simplistic to implement, I just backed off and let him run with it. After all, I don't know either, all I have to go by is what the devs have said before. I'm not the expert that Arcon is.

[Defiledsickness]

in order for us to equip something that's not in our inventory they have to deal with codes that are specifically made to NOT let us do this. then they have to code the new gob sack as it was inventory yet have it not conflict with our normal inventory.

you cant swap stuff from your bag to character without trading an item unless you made it the same as player inventory or messed with a ton of codes.

i really doubt we'll ever get any further then we already are. the only thing i could see is a macro to swap your items for items from the sack or satchel. then you could macro to swap hMP set with MAB set and hit the next macro to equip.

[Arcon]

I'm not the expert that Arcon is.

Not many people recognize it. Thank you.

As I said, I think you just misinterpreted the OP. What he said isn't limited by the PS2, because it doesn't affect the client at all. All it would have to do is send a chat line to the server, something the PS2 client is more than capable of doing.

in order for us to equip something that's not in our inventory they have to deal with codes that are specifically made to NOT let us do this.

How do you know that? How do you know they ever made code like that? Do you think they check if the item is in your satchel, and if that's true, they won't let you equip it? Why would they do that, if there's no interface for us to equip from the satchel in the first place?

you cant swap stuff from your bag to character without trading an item unless you made it the same as player inventory or messed with a ton of codes.

Again, how do you know that? How do you know it's a ton, and not just one line, that would exist with or without satchels and sacks? Because that's how I would have done it. And if I could do it, SE can too. People need to stop insulting SE by repeating over and over again that their code could have been done better by a three year old disabled kid. Because if you're assuming what you do of their code, you're pretty much saying that.

i really doubt we'll ever get any further then we already are. the only thing i could see is a macro to swap your items for items from the sack or satchel. then you could macro to swap hMP set with MAB set and hit the next macro to equip.

This, on the other hand, would actually require a lot of changes to the code, the part of the code that allows only one item to switch places at a time. Ever notice that it takes twelve years, give or take, to swap out gear for different jobs from your Mog Safe? That's because the server prevents item transfer while another transfer is in progress. So if they gave us that option, gearing up from your satchel or sack would take ages, but it would work as it does now, or it would require them to change that particular piece of code (which would also be appreciated, but that, I believe, they won't ever touch, because it require looking at a lot of other things too, like trading and item drops from mobs, receiving rewards from NPCs, anything that involves the inventory in any way).

[Greatguardian]

As I said, I think you just misinterpreted the OP. What he said isn't limited by the PS2, because it doesn't affect the client at all. All it would have to do is send a chat line to the server, something the PS2 client is more than capable of doing.

Yes.

How do you know that? How do you know they ever made code like that? Do you think they check if the item is in your satchel, and if that's true, they won't let you equip it? Why would they do that, if there's no interface for us to equip from the satchel in the first place?

A good programmer would do this. Regardless of what the designer thinks the client SHOULD be doing, there's no telling how the client might decide to try to do things anyways. Why should a simple calculator block any input that isn't a number? Do people really try to add Z + leet * awesome? Well, yes. They could. And it would break their calculator. So even though adding words is retarded, the programmer has to allow for completely retarded/unanticipated input and make sure to restrict it from screwing up the program.

In an ideal program, you only allow exactly what you want to allow through, and block out everything else. If you only want your inventory to be equipable, you add catches to ensure that items in any other area cannot be used as equipment. I would be sincerely disappointed if SE's professional coders were so lax in designing fundamental code for use in a worldwide MMO.

Again, how do you know that? How do you know it's a ton, and not just one line, that would exist with or without satchels and sacks? Because that's how I would have done it. And if I could do it, SE can too. People need to stop insulting SE by repeating over and over again that their code could have been done better by a three year old disabled kid. Because if you're assuming what you do of their code, you're pretty much saying that.

I'm not even really sure what he (DefiledSickness) is even trying to say here. Though personally, even if I had implemented a block/catch with only one or two lines to prevent equipping items from non-Inventory areas, I would still have to do more than just delete that line. If I had a restriction in the first place, it was for security reasons (anti-exploit). Simply removing an anti-exploit measure and letting that be that would be an enormous breach of security. Even after removing the potential limitation to inventory-only equipment, they would have to redesign the code in such a way that players are able to equip from 2 sources but unable to find ways to trick the server into letting them equip from other sources.

It is just plain dumb as a coder to assume that either: A) No client is smarter/more savvy than you are, or B) No client will intentionally try to break/exploit/hijack your code. If the possibility exists, someone will pursue it. Taj made that abundantly clear when he still played.

This, on the other hand, would actually require a lot of changes to the code, the part of the code that allows only one item to switch places at a time. Ever notice that it takes twelve years, give or take, to swap out gear for different jobs from your Mog Safe? That's because the server prevents item transfer while another transfer is in progress. So if they gave us that option, gearing up from your satchel or sack would take ages, but it would work as it does now, or it would require them to change that particular piece of code (which would also be appreciated, but that, I believe, they won't ever touch, because it require looking at a lot of other things too, like trading and item drops from mobs, receiving rewards from NPCs, anything that involves the inventory in any way).

Ironically, this is also a simplistic security fix. There used to be no delay in moving items, and people exploited this in order to dupe items in their delivery boxes and other systems. They could remove the limitation, but that would require a significantly more sophisticated anti-cheating fix to the code which I highly doubt they'll pursue.

[Arcon]

A good programmer would do this. Regardless of what the designer thinks the client SHOULD be doing, there's no telling how the client might decide to try to do things anyways. Why should a simple calculator block any input that isn't a number? Do people really try to add Z + leet * awesome? Well, yes. They could. And it would break their calculator. So even though adding words is retarded, the programmer has to allow for completely retarded/unanticipated input and make sure to restrict it from screwing up the program.

In an ideal program, you only allow exactly what you want to allow through, and block out everything else. If you only want your inventory to be equipable, you add catches to ensure that items in any other area cannot be used as equipment. I would be sincerely disappointed if SE's professional coders were so lax in designing fundamental code for use in a worldwide MMO.

[..]

I'm not even really sure what he (DefiledSickness) is even trying to say here. Though personally, even if I had implemented a block/catch with only one or two lines to prevent equipping items from non-Inventory areas, I would still have to do more than just delete that line. If I had a restriction in the first place, it was for security reasons (anti-exploit). Simply removing an anti-exploit measure and letting that be that would be an enormous breach of security. Even after removing the potential limitation to inventory-only equipment, they would have to redesign the code in such a way that players are able to equip from 2 sources but unable to find ways to trick the server into letting them equip from other sources.

While in general that's all true, and security measures should be sure to catch all exceptions, in this particular system, what does it actually do? When I said interface, I meant a serverside interface. Right now, there's no possible way to send a query to the server to equip something from other places, because the server decides where it's equipped from. So having a catch for people trying to equip from their satchel is pointless, because there's no way for them to actually do it. So, no, the server doesn't have any code in place specifically restricting people from doing that. It has only code in place, that allows people to do certain things. And they simply don't have code to allow gearing from /satchel or /sack yet.

So they wouldn't have to worry about any restrictions, or violating some code that they have to revisit, they basically just have to copy the current code they have in place for the /equip command, and copy it for the /equipsatchel and /equipsack commands.

Although now thinking about it, it might not be quite as easy as this. They'd also have to make the equipped gear from /sack or /satchel show green, so they'd have to add a reference to where the gear is equipped from (and also restrict moving that gear around, although a mechanism for that is already in place, which they could also copy from the regular inventory). So maybe not quite as easy after all, at least not considering the surrounding features.

It is just plain dumb as a coder to assume that either: A) No client is smarter/more savvy than you are, or B) No client will intentionally try to break/exploit/hijack your code. If the possibility exists, someone will pursue it. Taj made that abundantly clear when he still played.

Very true, and SE is still behind on that part. See dead/invisible monsters still being transmitted to the client, as well as TP/MP of party/alliance members. All those things cry for abuse by any semi-talented coder. As I explained, I just don't think they allowed equips from everywhere, and then have a servercheck to make sure it equips from inventory only, but the other way around. So there would be no need for such restrictions in the first place, and invalid commands would never be executed at all.

Ironically, this is also a simplistic security fix. There used to be no delay in moving items, and people exploited this in order to dupe items in their delivery boxes and other systems. They could remove the limitation, but that would require a significantly more sophisticated anti-cheating fix to the code which I highly doubt they'll pursue.

I didn't know that, thanks for the info. And yes, unlikely they'd pursue such options, which kinda hints at lazy coding and half-assed fixes, but as long as it works, it's unlikely they'll touch it.