Glamours will be needlessly annoying...

[XanderOlivieri]

They've already said it won't be separate slots. People keep saying it should be X or Y simply because they like that system better. They don't even bother to look at what issues there might be trying to implement said system. Like memory on the PS3. Yes, it really is limited.

Memory wouldn't be an issue. I fail to see why people blame the PS3 on things that the PC can just as easily fail at. DCUO is larger than FFXIV. It has a ton of content. It runs better than FFXIV for the most part and has more complicated systems installed. The PS3 is hardly worth the blame that is gets and I've seen PCs with worse schematics play FFXIV with hardly any hitches. I've also seen PCs that are supposed to be better quality than PS3's and FFXIV looks like crap on it.

Some people don't seem to care about actually making gil. I used to buy dyes from the vendor and then sell them on the MB for crazy amounts. I'd spend 200 on 5 Blood red, and then sell the set for 1-2K. And people bought them constantly. Why they bought them, I haven't a clue, as you can buy them cheap at the vendor, but the fact is, I made a few hundred K gil before people started putting the same 5 set on the MB for 220 gil. That's right, they're making a wopping 20 gil a sale! Honestly, at that point, why even do the work to buy and post the stuff? RMT maybe? I don't know, but it just goes to show that people will still sell stuff on the MB.. even if they're basically making no money by doing it.

That's extremely backwards. You sell more than the Sellback for NPCs, but if you are selling it more than an NPC, you've got some pretty stupid buyers. If the Mat is cheaper from an NPC you buy it from an NPC. You sell under the NPC's Price to sell bulk to players and if your sales price is lower than if you sell it to an NPC you sell it to the NPC because its not worth selling on the market.

[ispano]

Memory wouldn't be an issue. I fail to see why people blame the PS3 on things that the PC can just as easily fail at. DCUO is larger than FFXIV. It has a ton of content. It runs better than FFXIV for the most part and has more complicated systems installed. The PS3 is hardly worth the blame that is gets and I've seen PCs with worse schematics play FFXIV with hardly any hitches. I've also seen PCs that are supposed to be better quality than PS3's and FFXIV looks like crap on it.



That's extremely backwards. You sell more than the Sellback for NPCs, but if you are selling it more than an NPC, you've got some pretty stupid buyers. If the Mat is cheaper from an NPC you buy it from an NPC. You sell under the NPC's Price to sell bulk to players and if your sales price is lower than if you sell it to an NPC you sell it to the NPC because its not worth selling on the market.

Yes it would be, since it would have to keep track of TWO sets at a time instead of one. PS3 only has 256MB for the game and 256MB for Video. Yoshi and the devs have mentioned many times they have to be very careful about what they add since they are basically maxing out the memory on the PS3 already. If they add a ui Element, they have to remove or tone down another.

I'm not blaming the PS3 for anything, but those who ignore the real limitations, ie the ones that actually exist, not the ones in people's heads, are the ones who don't get it.

EDIT: Some more information. http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post1502985

[Macka]

Yes it would be, since it would have to keep track of TWO sets at a time instead of one. PS3 only has 256MB for the game and 256MB for Video. Yoshi and the devs have mentioned many times they have to be very careful about what they add since they are basically maxing out the memory on the PS3 already. If they add a ui Element, they have to remove or tone down another.

I'm not blaming the PS3 for anything, but those who ignore the real limitations, ie the ones that actually exist, not the ones in people's heads, are the ones who don't get it.

EDIT: Some more information. http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post1502985

after reading that PS4 seems the way to go UI and all.

[TheMax1087]

Snip

Yes, there are (mostly non gameplay related that only effect ps3 users, such as the one you linked to)limitations related to the game being available on ps3, but the issue this topic is about simply isn't one of them. The glamour system they are using is obviously a (poor)design choice, not a memory limitation issue. Only a completely incompetent or shortsighted developer would keep the look of the armor you're wearing and the look of the armour being displayed in memory at the same time when only the stats of the first one matters.

[ispano]

Yes, there are (mostly non gameplay related that only effect ps3 users, such as the one you linked to)limitations related to the game being available on ps3, but the issue this topic is about simply isn't one of them. The glamour system they are using is obviously a (poor)design choice, not a memory limitation issue. Only a completely incompetent or shortsighted developer would keep the look of the armor you're wearing and the look of the armour being displayed in memory at the same time when only the stats of the first one matters.

And yet it IS related to memory limitations. Only having to keep track of ONE set in memory, instead of two. And it has nothing to do with the look, it's not about the graphics. This is about system memory, not video memory.

[TheMax1087]

And yet it IS related to memory limitations. Only having to keep track of ONE set in memory, instead of two. And it has nothing to do with the look, it's not about the graphics. This is about system memory, not video memory.

Except you don't have to keep track of both sets, only parts of both, which would go with my "short sighted dev" comment. A memory issue like thie one you are saying caused them to use this poor system(at least the way it's been described, it could actually be good and just described poorly) would only happen if the devs originally had no plans for a vanity system and coded the armor pieces in such a way it would have to keep all of its information in memory while equipped.

[ispano]

Except you don't have to keep track of both sets, only parts of both, which would go with my "short sighted dev" comment. A memory issue like thie one you are saying caused them to use this poor system(at least the way it's been described, it could actually be good and just described poorly) would only happen if the devs originally had no plans for a vanity system and coded the armor pieces in such a way it would have to keep all of its information in memory while equipped.

Except you do. Having slots means the game needs to keep track of what's in every slot. Vanity and non Vanity. The way they're doing it, instead of the body piece you're wearing pointing to visual A, it points to visual B instead. With secondary slots, it has to keep track of those slots as well. Even if it's only a small amount of memory used to do so, when you're breaking yourself over 256MB as it is, anything helps.

[Yshnal]

Except you do. Having slots means the game needs to keep track of what's in every slot. Vanity and non Vanity. The way they're doing it, instead of the body piece you're wearing pointing to visual A, it points to visual B instead. With secondary slots, it has to keep track of those slots as well. Even if it's only a small amount of memory used to do so, when you're breaking yourself over 256MB as it is, anything helps.

That's saved server-side. It has nothing to do with the client. The only thing that the client needs to keep track of are the slots when you open your character window, and I highly doubt that that would increase the amount of memory by a lot if at all (it would be the equivalent of 12 bag slots, and it can be ignored simply by making that the client only shows either the current equiped gear slots OR the vanity gear slots, instead of showing both at once). So no, PS3 memory limitations has nothing to do with it.

[Kayo]

Except you don't have to keep track of both sets, only parts of both, which would go with my "short sighted dev" comment. A memory issue like thie one you are saying caused them to use this poor system(at least the way it's been described, it could actually be good and just described poorly) would only happen if the devs originally had no plans for a vanity system and coded the armor pieces in such a way it would have to keep all of its information in memory while equipped.

It actually makes sense. Its quite possibly a PS3 limitation thing. Theyve already admitted that they are topped off on memory with the PS3 as far as the interface goes. This is why PS3 doesnt (or didnt?) have focus target UI option. Adding another tab where you can add a whole set of new armor sounds like it'd take much more extra memory than using an item to change the appearance.

[Yshnal]

It's not about being able to see the items in the slots. It's about the client having to keep track of 2 items for each normal gear slot, instead of one.

EDIT: Also finally found where they talked about it not being slots. Not quite related to the memory issue, but they did indeed say something about it.

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post1552811

Yeah, server stress makes more sense than PS3 limitations, unless they simply changed how our equiped gear is stored in the database and added the appearance #ID to it. Then it would just need to transfer the same data as what it will have to with the glamour prisms (base item #ID + appearance #ID), unless they're simply going to give a new #ID to each and every one of the gear+appearance combinations possible (in which case it would still be possible to do a vanity tab by just storing that new #ID in the database as the current equiped set of gear+appearance). In both cases, the database wouldn't have more stress either.

Anyway, I'm speculating a bit, as we don't really know the specifics of the glamour system as to make proper deductions about how it might work code-wise. But from how it looks right now, it wouldn't really matter how they implemented it.

It actually makes sense. Its quite possibly a PS3 limitation thing. Theyve already admitted that they are topped off on memory with the PS3 as far as the interface goes. This is why PS3 doesnt (or didnt?) have focus target UI option. Adding another tab where you can add a whole set of new armor sounds like it'd take much more extra memory than using an item to change the appearance.

The problem with the interface and the memory consumption is on the amount of things that it can show (load) at once, as seen in the focus target option. If the vanity tab was independent from the gear tab it would just have the same memory requirements as just opening the current gear tab or going through the different inventory bags.