A consern about space efficieny since stormblood is not getting enough space increase

[Alleo]

We do not have one because the devs never found it important to put effort in one yet. It needs to be demanded enough for them to change something.

The question is: How many more people need to post that they want something like that to make it a high priority for them? I mean in older interviews there was always the stance that it was not possible to do so and suddenly it is but not on high priority? Really somehow I get the feeling like they simply dont want or dont know how to do that thus the talk about player demand..because they could always just post that the demand was not high enough and we could not say anything about it.

[Hamada]

The question is: How many more people need to post that they want something like that to make it a high priority for them? I mean in older interviews there was always the stance that it was not possible to do so and suddenly it is but not on high priority? Really somehow I get the feeling like they simply dont want or dont know how to do that thus the talk about player demand..because they could always just post that the demand was not high enough and we could not say anything about it.

Maybe it was a ps3 limitation? no idea. We need them to comment about this, all there is to it. Same with your sig, it be nice for them to comment on that now that they are expanding the game.

[Naunet]

The question is: How many more people need to post that they want something like that to make it a high priority for them? I mean in older interviews there was always the stance that it was not possible to do so and suddenly it is but not on high priority? Really somehow I get the feeling like they simply dont want or dont know how to do that thus the talk about player demand..because they could always just post that the demand was not high enough and we could not say anything about it.

It's obvious they're just looking for excuses not to do it, but I think that's silly and we need to not let up pressure on them at all.

[Lycieus]

It's obvious they're just looking for excuses not to do it, but I think that's silly and we need to not let up pressure on them at all.

They have a financial incentive to do nothing about it. Of course they are going to drag their feet.

[Shurrikhan]

No, that would mean I wouldn't be able to glamour it until I'm willing to part with it. Glamour log doesn't have to destroy the item.

This. There's no need for an ultimatum here.

As soon as you spirit-bind the item in any way, it's added to the glamour.

If you have an item you've not yet spirit-bound and do not yet have in your glamour log, you can right-click on it and select "add appearance". You will be given a warning saying "To add this item's appearance to your glamour log, you must bind it to you. Do you want to spirit-bind this item now?"

Done. No buy, add, refund exploits, but otherwise purely automatic.

(Like in every other MMO that has a glamour log.)

[GrizzlyTank]

I't still baffles me how they are preaching about having storage issues, and then go straight forward to expand on the system they have in place. I'm no expert in mass storage management, but one thing is certain and that is that you can tie a lot glamours to a single bit (1/8 byte), that one inventory slot which has to be multible bytes.
Item id, quantity, durability, dye, materia each of these things needs byte for storage. Yet with a glamour archive/wardrobe/log or whatever yo want to call it, one could add one item to a bit, an entire set to a bit which you now have saved 4 bits, or even an entire tier in which you go as far as 4 byte/64 bits saved!

The retainer/banking system is an absolute resource hog in comparison.

[GrizzlyTank]

Also the damn mog station states that you can have 4 retainers for free (or 1$ activation fee) 2 you get ingame and 2 additional for no fee. I have even sent their support team 3 mails that have pointed out the faulty information on the mogstation and nothing have been done about it... All they have to do is to remove 1 word at the table which very clearly states.

"Number of Additional Retainers"
"1: No additional fee"
"2: No additional fee"

Remove additional from the title and the problem is gone.

[Lycieus]

I't still baffles me how they are preaching about having storage issues, and then go straight forward to expand on the system they have in place...The retainer/banking system is an absolute resource hog in comparison.

This is the most baffling part of all of this.

[Nezerius]

I't still baffles me how they are preaching about having storage issues, and then go straight forward to expand on the system they have in place.

That was before the NA datacenter move, which also involved an upgrade to better servers.

[Lycieus]

That was before the NA datacenter move, which also involved an upgrade to better servers.

I think the point being made was that upgraded servers might not have been necessary if Square had better coding practices.