Inventory 80 Limitations aren't real, heres why.

[Sarick]

First off let me explain something. The developers made the statement that the maximum display inventory is 80 items or 2 stacked list. They also stated they could create more sacks etc. but they'd be limited to 80 items each.

With those two limitations listed above how can there be a limit on inventory?

The 80 limit sacks are because the menus can't display or load more then 160 items on the screen at the same time.

Well, The logical fix his is to limit the items loaded per display page. If you have a limit of 80 items it doesn't mean you can't make a sack that can hold 320 items!

All you need to do is split them into separate blocks/pages. When you get to the end of the first 80 items it loads the next 80 items and so on. The limit becomes transparent because you can load multiple 80 item pages.

Who needs all 80 items displayed on the screen at the same time anyway. The screen only shows 10 items per scroll page but it's loading 80 at a time. This is the misconception about inventory limitations.

It's the same thing one of the representatives recently announced. They said the PS2 wasn't limiting new area expansion.

I hope people reading this figure it out.

[Daniel_Hatcher]

They stated they were in the process of looking to increase past 80 spaces.

There is several ways to do this, another way it simply to allow moving via the menus.

So for example:

Up the space to 160

On inventory when you click the item add a Move to... command that opens a menu with the options: Sack, Satchel, Storage, etc.... (also add a keyboard command to do it such as:
/move "Fire Crystal" "12" "inventory" "sack")

When you click Mog Sack, Satchel etc the same rules apply.

By removing the dual display you open up additional space.

[Cabalabob]

They should do inventory more like What they did with macro books. Give us 20 pages of 30(up to 80 with the gobbiebag quests) then on that little sort menu they should add "pages" and under sort add "move to". When you press "pages" it could open up a page similar to the 20 macro books labelled inv01, inv02, inv03 etc. which you could rename so you could keep your stuff organised into those categories and when you press "move to" it would go to selection similar to manual sorting, when you select something it would open up the inv pages and you'd pick one to drop it into.

It would all still be one inventory(for the sake of macros, equipment and the items quick menu) but just split into pages with a lot more space to work with.

[Arcon]

That looked like it was working to me.

Then you were watching something else or have never played the game before. A private server tries to emulate the game. It's not just a server that responds with some packets here and there that the client can somehow interpret. To make a working private server, you need to know the server code, which you don't. We don't know many of the calculations done server side and how they're applied. Drop rate distribution, monster spawn rate/distribution, damage formulas, etc. Like this video, dancing Edge did 9000 damage and the mob gave 1500 EXP, so we know that damage formula and EXP formula didn't work. It showed that search wasn't working, as it showed 16 results when only one was found. It showed WS list wasn't working as it displayed Mercy Stroke without him having a Mandau equipped.

And that's just the bugs in one video. How does it handle missions/quests? How does it handle NPC interactions? How does it handle key item management? How does it handle mob behavior? I'm willing to bet the answer to all of those is "not at all". But I haven't tried it, so if you can correct me in that statement, go ahead.

How many bugs do you tolerate? How do you define working? A script that responds with a few select packets? Because that's pretty much all it is. If that's what you call a working server, then good for you, why don't you go play there for free instead of paying to play the real FFXI?

The people who wrote that obviously know a lot about the client and server relationship.

Only the client/server relationship has nothing to do with code. The people who wrote it analyzed packets and saw what the client was sending and what the server was responding with, and they emulated that. They don't need to look at neither the client nor the server code, ever. Most of what we know about the FFXI code is not from looking at the code, but from figuring out how things work in-game. Finding memory locations and sniffing packets is not code, it's looking up values and interpreting them. That's entirely unrelated. I can change my HP value in any game without ever looking at the (source or machine) code, just by finding the current value in memory and editing it.

[Sarick]

Arcon as usual grasping at straws as a defense for your short comings. So this is your defense "over analyzing" what you saw in the video? You're totally missing the point by trying to lose focus on the original intent of my arguments. It still doesn't validate your argument because they have nothing to do with the original points I was trying to convey.

My first point was people figured things out without source code that allowed them to use/understand the game client. The second point was a client was functional on a private server.

The video clearly disproves your jaded outlook on what people know and don't know. The link provided enough evidence to counter the "without source code everything is speculation" arguments. It also invalidated that "There are no working private servers." I don't have to argue about the points you mentioned in the last post you made because they aren't relevant to those arguments.

Post insignificant arguments outside the point all you want. It doesn't make you any more an expert when you try to flip the subject material, It just makes you look desperate to change the subject to something irrelevant you can argue against. It's already been proven you don't not know what you're talking about and you can't concede to any form of evidence. Why do I need to beat a dead horse?

Suck it up, I'm going to move on about inventory limitations because there is no sense arguing with you about what has already been proven.

[Arcon]

Arcon as usual grasping at straws as a defense for your short comings. So this is your defense "over analyzing" what you saw in the video? You're totally missing the point by trying to lose focus on the original intent of my argument. It still doesn't make your argument valid because it has nothing to do with the original point.

What is my argument?

My point was people figured things out without source code that allowed them to use/understand the game client.

If that was your point you neglected to mention it anywhere. You went on for several paragraphs about how you can get game details from machine code, which is bullshit. All I did was debunk that one statement.

The second point was a client was functional on a private server.

Yes, you know why the client was functional? Because it was the regular client. They didn't build a new client for this, they use POL to connect to their server instead of the real one. So of course the client is functional, unless they fucked it up in the process. They didn't make anything, they just used what SE made for their purposes. The server was functional if you consider being able to send certain specific packets functional. It wasn't if you consider functional "being able to emulate FFXI".

The video disproves your jaded outlook on what people know and don't know. The link provided enough evidence to counter the "without source code everything is speculation" arguments.

I don't have a jaded outlook in that regard. I know very well what people know and what they don't. I fully disagree with what Mifaco said (which I said before), but your explanation was incorrect. You went on to counter his statement with saying that you don't need source code if you have machine code. Which is bullshit, because machine code is of no use for any sophisticated program such as this. Pretty much all we know about the code is from in-game behavior (which I also said before).

[Sarick]

What is my argument?

I hope you understand this.

In defense of what Sarick said, you absolutely don't need to have the source code of anything to be able to understand how it works.

She figured it out.

[Kaisha]

Who needs all 80 items displayed on the screen at the same time anyway. The screen only shows 10 items per scroll page but it's loading 80 at a time. This is the misconception about inventory limitations.

Sorting would be buggered to all hell for one since you'd only be sorting the current 'block' in the space. Macros wouldn't work for gear in the other block of your inventory since that information wouldn't be fetched into memory from the server.

The compromise we got is having multiple storage bags (Satchel/Sack) years ago.

[Sarick]

Sorting would be buggered to all hell for one since you'd only be sorting the current 'block' in the space. Macros wouldn't work for gear in the other block of your inventory since that information wouldn't be fetched into memory from the server.

The compromise we got is having multiple storage bags (Satchel/Sack) years ago.

I don't deny this is true. However, this sorting might be done sever side anyway. If that's the case the client wouldn't be restricted.

The sort option shouldn't stop the pages from being contiguous if they are sorted separately.

[CapriciousOne]

I don't deny this is true. However, this sorting might be done sever side anyway. If that's the case the client wouldn't be restricted.

The sort option shouldn't stop the pages from being contiguous if they are sorted separately.

Well personally I would think it would be best to sort the entire inventory prior to loading it anyway. So if the mog sack was say 240 items in capacity then loaded like 10 items at a time like a buffer anyway. I also felt that part of the problem with storage was the fact that items all stackable items werent made stackable to 99 to start with in the first place. Seriously why would i want to waste 8 storage slots for wind crystals when 1x99 slot would get the job done, just so inefficient.