Glamours will be needlessly annoying...

[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.

[ispano]

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.

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

[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.

[kukurumei]

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.


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.

Sorta sorta, you still have to load character datas. They are probably more worry about exceeding the character sever. Remember 2.0. Not only were servers crashing from massive people in the world, but from people going to and from duty finder(servers).

Unless you implement and thus code very carefully, both your client side, and server side are going to be quite a mess to debug. This doesn't include how much more space is required on the character server, because they have to hold another couple of variable per character (that can get significant when you multiply it by 2million+?)

We already know SE programers aren't the most elegant of coders.

[Yshnal]

Sorta sorta, you still have to load character datas. They are probably more worry about exceeding the character sever. Remember 2.0. Not only were servers crashing from massive people in the world, but from people going to and from duty finder(servers).

Unless you implement and thus code very carefully, both your client side, and server side are going to be quite a mess to debug. This doesn't include how much more space is required on the character server, because they have to hold another couple of variable per character (that can get significant when you multiply it by 2million+?)

We already know SE programers aren't the most elegant of coders.

But they have to save&load that extra variable anyways to keep track of what appearance goes with what gear piece, similarly as how it's done with dyes (unless they give new #IDs to account for all the possible combinations, as I mentioned). So the only difference is where it would be saved and from where you would get said data with the query.

[kukurumei]

But they have to save&load that extra variable anyways to keep track of what appearance goes with what gear piece, similarly as how it's done with dyes (unless they give new #IDs to account for all the possible combinations, as I mentioned). So the only difference is where it would be saved and from where you would get said data with the query.

Depends how it's coded and then recoded for the glamor system. Doing a straight forward query ID is not an effective means when you program MMOs there's probably a lot of tricks involved to front end that.

They can do something as complex as making another server just for the glamor system (which maybe cheaper then system maintenance every-time it blows up)

There is a lot of ways to re engineer this