So about that Glamour Log...

[Nephera]

Because the way I see it, glamor is sort of like a privilege that requires work if you want to look good. You should have to farm the item you want to use for glamor, and you should have to hold onto it if you want to use it for future glamor(...)

it's weird when someone wants to be inconvenienced as much as possible

[GalkaBikini]

First thing to note, FFXIV has wayyyy more pieces of equipment than most MMOs do, even some old MMOs. Second, they've mentioned giving us a 3rd free retainer in Heavensward as well as increasing the armoury chest capacity.

[Tiggy]

I'm sorry, you were saying? In case you didn't catch me the first time, a glamour log CAN reduce the character data size if implemented correctly.

Not in the examples shown. In each example it's exists separate from inventory meaning it's more data for every character in the game.

Sacrificing half of a retainers inventory to unlock such a feature as optional would go further to maintaining character data than each suggestion here.

[SokiYagami]

Not in the examples shown. In each example it's exists separate from inventory meaning it's more data for every character in the game.

Sacrificing half of a retainers inventory to unlock such a feature as optional would go further to maintaining character data than each suggestion here.

Ah, I get what you meant now. Are you trying to say that whatever inventory space reclaim by the glamour log will be replaced by another non-equipment items instead? Indeed, that thought never came across my mind. It's a reasonable argument, but what are the odds that those reclaim space will be fully utilized by non-equipment item? Right off my mind, the other two major factors of inventory hogs would be crafting mats and furniture. Housing are limited and not all players are interested in crafting, only SE have access to the numbers among those. Still, it's a sound argument which can greatly affect the decision of implementing a glamour log.

[Catwho]

For those who are unfamiliar with how relational databases work, pulling out all possible equipment that a character can equip and creating a whole new separate table for it will, in fact, require more data storage space. Right now your character is a series of tables that includes your attributes - your appearance in one table, your jobs levels and all their equipped gear AND the glamours on those gear in another table, every quest in the game and whether you've completed it or not in the journal table, and then other things like your chocobo and its stats, your FC connection (with the FC itself and its attributes in another database entirely), in their own tables.

Adding in a "glamour log" will, in fact, require another table entirely that is partially a duplicate of the inventory and armory tables.

It's not the server space they're concerned about this, it's character load times. Those on a fast connection with an SSD don't see much of a problem, but when you stuff too many character attributes server side that need to be sent to each client each time you open the menus.... it can add up fast.

So yes, a "glamour log" will in fact cause the servers and your connections more stress than the existing system. Calamity Salvager does not because that table is only accessed at certain locations, much like the armory. What they would have to do to make this viable is add a Mog Wardrobe (borrowed from XI) and have that be a clothing only system similar to the armory. Doing that negates the convenience of having it in log form, however.

[SokiYagami]

Regarding a new table in the database, yes, there will be a new table, which can be extremely small. I do not know how SE code the system, but I doubt the achievement data are loaded until the player access it manually or a variable data is modified. With this in mind, it might be possible to code the glamour system in a similar fashion so there is minimum impact on character load time.

I don't know how the Mog Wardrobe in FFXI works, but a forum user did suggested in another glamour thread that we can trade a little player's convenience for the sake of reclaiming inventory space by limiting access of glamouring to specific location such as the inn. So it can still be done, the bigger problem now is what Tiggy pointed out, if I understood correctly, is that since the glamour system is (as suggested) an isolated system, whatever inventory space reclaim by glamour log might be used for another non-equipment items instead. So the data pool might increase at the end of the day instead of decreasing. It's a delicate balance, though personally I still wish it can come through someday in one form or another.

[DarkDedede]

It's also worth noting that, with the expansion coming up, I'm sure they have more of a budget to invest in improvements. Whether it's a feature like this, or something else, I would hope that we get more than just jobs, dungeons and gear. At least we better be getting more than that. Besides glamour, I'd say the retainer interface is next for an overhaul.

[GenJoe]

Yes, let's blame the players for saving items they like and don't wanna farm again in the future for glamour. Add all drops to calamity salvager that can be obtained again if you delete them(obviously restrictions in place to restrict GC seal farming etc)

You do realize, adding all the items to calamity salvager would just cause the same problem as adding a glamour log would? It's the same table of data.. At that point, they might as well just add a glamour log for the same amount of data stored

Personally, I don't understand why SE is so stingy with character data either, maybe it has something to do with PS3 limitations like the TP bar? Or it's just their server storage that they wish to free up for other things.. But it is ultimately their decision and it looks like anything that'll take up more data, SE is not willing to do..

4 million players (probably counts inactive accounts too), 2.5 characters per account, 10 million characters.. Each character takes up an extra 100 bytes of data, 1 gigabyte, 100kb, 1terabyte, 100mb, 1 peta? I doubt character data would increase by much more than a megabyte, probably even less.. and they can't afford 10 terabytes of server space?? Or is it a matter of making that much data accessible? Who knows, one would hope SE has a handle on this, but in the mean time, we just play the game as we're dealt.. One thing is clear, SE needs to figure this out, too much of the game's features are not being implemented because of this one bottleneck.

[Felis]

How about a limited glamour catalogue?
where only # amount of gears can saved in the catalogue and once it is full something have to get removing again to make space for the new gear.
Maybe so around 50 slots for every gear categorie.

4 million players (probably counts inactive accounts too), 2.5 characters per account, 10 million characters.. Each character takes up an extra 100 bytes of data, 1 gigabyte, 100kb, 1terabyte, 100mb, 1 peta? I doubt character data would increase by much more than a megabyte, probably even less.. and they can't afford 10 terabytes of server space?? Or is it a matter of making that much data accessible? Who knows, one would hope SE has a handle on this, but in the mean time, we just play the game as we're dealt.. One thing is clear, SE needs to figure this out, too much of the game's features are not being implemented because of this one bottleneck.

The max. amount of possible characters is 40, not 2.5

Also if I remember it right, it have nothing to do with data space, but about the speed of backup savings. The bigger the files, the more time it need. And they want it as short as possible, so the times between the character backups are counted in seconds and not in minutes.

[GenJoe]

The max. amount of possible characters is 40, not 2.5

I just wanted to come up with a nice round number because I wasn't gonna do any multiplications that didn't end in zeros :P Besides, I think 2.5 is a decent number for average characters per account, no? Then 5 per account? double the numbers?

Also if I remember it right, it have nothing to do with data space, but about the speed of backup savings. The bigger the files, the more time it need. And they want it as short as possible, so the times between the character backups are counted in seconds and not in minutes.

Thanks for clearing that up, makes more sense now..