Tackle Box- Sign the Fisherman secondary tool petition!

[Capattac]

Why is it so illogical for most of you to simply argue your points for wanting a feature added to a game WITHOUT proclaiming how easy and simple it is? You all talk like your game developers with extensive backgrounds developing games in this industry.

Here's a suggestion: Try saying that you want a Tacklebox for your fisher class. STOP THERE. that's all that is needed. Do you really think programers at SE are reading this thread and thinking "Well gosh, those guys on the forum said it's easy. What are we waiting for? Hit a few keys and presto!"

/endrant

[Yurimi]

Why is it so illogical for most of you to simply argue your points for wanting a feature added to a game WITHOUT proclaiming how easy and simple it is? You all talk like your game developers with extensive backgrounds developing games in this industry.

Here's a suggestion: Try saying that you want a Tacklebox for your fisher class. STOP THERE. that's all that is needed. Do you really think programers at SE are reading this thread and thinking "Well gosh, those guys on the forum said it's easy. What are we waiting for? Hit a few keys and presto!"

/endrant

I wont say its easy and I wont say it wont take up some server resources I will say however that it is not massively difficult, while I dont know how they code this game itself I do have some experience in database and backend coding and I would say its more than possible as long as they didnt foolishly back themselves into a corner by shortcutting during coding. While some may think its as easy as copy and paste I will admit its not that simple however the fact we already have a menu system used (fishing ability to select the lure) should mean that they could with some but not a lot of effort direct that to attach to a database (think an armory slot but for fishing tackles only) rather than link to the inventory database to pull the tackle data. Would it take time and a bit of resources server side yes but they could limit it the same as the armory in spaces so that it restricts it to 25 slots to prevent massive overtaxation of server resources. If 25 spaces per character is going to massively burden the server then I dont really know what to say other than get new servers, this should not even if all people on a server use it take up more than 50gb based on the way we have an understanding of their database structure from the whole item duplication and manipulation fiasco that happened on release. As far as client side stress they have have some grounds there as I do not at this time know the limits of the PS3 hardware against the UI data burden this would create.

[Triston]

snip

As a followup, while it WOULD take up more server resources, it's not the same as outright adding 30 or whatever inventory slots to each player. Creating a short database of each fishing tackle by ID and quantity takes literally 2 bytes per tackle variety, maybe 3 or 4 if you insist on keeping track of if a player owns any or whatever. ID:quantity is genuinely all that's needed for a tacklebox, with a simple UI showing a grid of all possible tackle varieties and a number for how many you have. Normal inventory slots need to track unique/untradeable/binding/spiritbond/item type/item id/quantity/ etc etc etc etc. A specialized tacklebox would take up maybe a tenth the space; they could easily give us one as a UI element like the Armory Chest and make it on the order of 2-bytes per tackle * maybe 40 varieties of tackle in the game is 80 bytes per person?
Duplicated across say 10 million player characters is a whopping 800 MB. Unless SE finds some mystical way to bloat such a simple database tenfold, (which would still be 8 GB, yawn) it's impossible for it to be the colossal game-ruining space sink ispano seems to think.

There might be other reasons SE has for not wanting to free up 40 slots for fishers, not that I can fathom them, but "it'll take up too much server space" is reaching very far.

[ispano]

As a followup, while it WOULD take up more server resources, it's not the same as outright adding 30 or whatever inventory slots to each player. Creating a short database of each fishing tackle by ID and quantity takes literally 2 bytes per tackle variety, maybe 3 or 4 if you insist on keeping track of if a player owns any or whatever. ID:quantity is genuinely all that's needed for a tacklebox, with a simple UI showing a grid of all possible tackle varieties and a number for how many you have. Normal inventory slots need to track unique/untradeable/binding/spiritbond/item type/item id/quantity/ etc etc etc etc. A specialized tacklebox would take up maybe a tenth the space; they could easily give us one as a UI element like the Armory Chest and make it on the order of 2-bytes per tackle * maybe 40 varieties of tackle in the game is 80 bytes per person?
Duplicated across say 10 million player characters is a whopping 800 MB. Unless SE finds some mystical way to bloat such a simple database tenfold, (which would still be 8 GB, yawn) it's impossible for it to be the colossal game-ruining space sink ispano seems to think.

There might be other reasons SE has for not wanting to free up 40 slots for fishers, not that I can fathom them, but "it'll take up too much server space" is reaching very far.

It's not about physical disk space. If i'm not mistaken, an mmo server has to keep the whole thing in ram, and only writes out to disk when you logout or something similar. Or perhaps at certain time frames. I never said it was the space alone that was the issue, if you think so, you should re-read what I said.

It's more data, for all characters no less, that each server has to keep in memory, not to mention it adds a slight bit more overhead to everything since there's more data to parse through. Especially since this storage would be effectively on your character's person so to speak, ie not separated like retainers.

[Markas]

Stuff

Still do not understand what it is you're defending. Are you on SE's payroll? Somehow I doubt it, so let this thread get back to its original intention. If you don't like it, don't reply. I'm sure these replies are taking up space on a server of some sort somewhere, and we wouldn't want lodestone performance to drop.

[Capattac]

Still do not understand what it is you're defending. Are you on SE's payroll? Somehow I doubt it, so let this thread get back to its original intention. If you don't like it, don't reply. I'm sure these replies are taking up space on a server of some sort somewhere, and we wouldn't want lodestone performance to drop.

^^This completely. And here is another vote for having a Tackle box added from me!

[Yurimi]

It's not about physical disk space. If i'm not mistaken, an mmo server has to keep the whole thing in ram, and only writes out to disk when you logout or something similar. Or perhaps at certain time frames. I never said it was the space alone that was the issue, if you think so, you should re-read what I said.

It's more data, for all characters no less, that each server has to keep in memory, not to mention it adds a slight bit more overhead to everything since there's more data to parse through. Especially since this storage would be effectively on your character's person so to speak, ie not separated like retainers.

this is only true to an extent they do not actually run the entire game in memory they do however hold a queried set of data in memory and adjust it until such a time you log off where it is then saved again in the storage side. Now lets figure that SE went with a mid range data center, they are probably using a blade system for speed (as opposed to a rack or tower system) with mid teir server blades (think HP ProLiant460 series or higher), now I dont know how they coded it but with a server maximum set somewhere in the neighborhood of 6000 users online at a time while the rest sit in storage, that is at most if limited to a 25 item slot witha value of pulling an item ID and quantity value around 600 bytes or around 3.5MB in total if ALL 6000 characters online had 25 items sitting in their 25 item tackle box. Now a single mid range blade server will usually have 32GB of memory (while its more common to have them sitting at 64GB for corporate use) and I assume for an MMO architecture they went the higher end route as far as that to avoid rapid DB querying so that data in RAM for characters remains intact for a certain ammount of time in case of a relog in within a certain time. Now this is a single blade server, we know that these are in clusters and everything is not running on a single blade, now if they didnt shortcut like I said in my earlier post the characters data is going to be bumped around between the current blade housing the areas/zones (its quite expected that its split up this way since they can take individual zones down which they have done before) that you are standing in meaning at no point is everyones maximum 600 bytes is taking up space on a single blade. Now however if they shortcut it and had a specific single blade running the entire servers character data in ram and that cluster being effectively mass querying that single blade for every single item change that occurs (which is incredibly foolish and anyone with sense wouldnt do) then yes I would agree it would be hard onto the system. However I doubt any programmer would be that stupid to program a route that would have a cluster of blades all querying a single blade for every minute change as that would cause so many issues especially if that single blade is the one in the cluster that ends up having issues. But if this is the route they went they could simply ghost the blade onto a more powerful blade and upgrade the memory as its probably still running on the tech set put forward under assumption of a lot lower population count.