Alternative solution to glamour log

[Lycieus]

I was just thinking about it but, all the Mako PvP gear, once bought at least once, can be rebought from the Calamity Salvager for a reasonnable amount of gils.
What if every special gear we loot, mostly dungeon, trial and raid ones, could be rebought from that NPC once we obtained them once?

This would be a fine stop-gap measure, but it is a clunky solution at best. I think a dedicated glamour log is ultimately a more elegant solution and better for the game in the long run. If SE wishes to continue saying that glamour log is either a low priority or too difficult to implement, this would be fine in the meantime.

[SokiYagami]

Exactly what evidence you have to accuse a prominent developer of lying? Just so you know "We all know" is not evidence.

From a technical standpoint, the explanation Yoshida gave appears to be perfectly sound. An item being logged as available for glamor needs to be stored into memory, and it's stored into memory in exactly the same way an item in your inventory is. From the point of view of server memory footprint, it's precisely like creating another inventory slot.

To be fair though, a glamour entity will cost far lesser data than an actual item if coded correctly. And even if we assume Yoshi-P's explanation to be true, it's still a major QoL update that players have been requesting and other games have successfully pulled off, regardless of the method they opted for.

[Lycieus]

That's not what he said, spreading misinformation isn't nice.

Yoshida never speaks in "definitive", because that's not a thing in game development, he just reiterated a glamour log is low priority.



Since all the UI and inventory related things will be solved with 4.0-4.x I'm hoping they can consider it for 5.0.

I will have long since stopped playing if it takes that long.

[savageink]

Exactly what evidence you have to accuse a prominent developer of lying? Just so you know "We all know" is not evidence.

From a technical standpoint, the explanation Yoshida gave appears to be perfectly sound. An item being logged as available for glamor needs to be stored into memory, and it's stored into server memory in exactly the same way an item in your inventory is. From the point of view of server memory footprint, it's precisely like creating another inventory slot.

well, that's true in the sense that it's going to take up space in whatever location they choose to store it, but if it's separate from on-hand inventory then it doesn't need to be accessed unless called for. So, it wouldn't need to update in the same fashion as your general inventory which they have used as an excuse not to add inventory slots before. It's more like the chest in your hotel room that you only dig in once in awhile. So, by their own examples that they have given it's about half false.

[Abriael]

To be fair though, a glamour entity will cost far lesser data than an actual item if coded correctly.

While I can't be 100% sure because I have no insight on how the inventory is coded, that is probably incorrect (almost surely, considering Yoshida's answer). An inventory item is normally stored as a numerical ID in a table that calls on a database with all the item's data. For each character only the ID is stored, not the whole item data, which is already present in the database, and is common for all characters. To store the fact that the item is available for glamoring, you'd have to store the same numerical ID in a dedicated table. This means that the memory footprint of the data would most probably be the same.

It's not that I wouldn't love a glamor log, but accusing Yoshida of lying without the slightest evidence, technical expertise, or insight on how the game is coded sounds very, very dumb, and not at all constructive.

well, that's true in the sense that it's going to take up space in whatever location they choose to store it, but if it's separate from on-hand inventory then it doesn't need to be accessed unless called for. So, it wouldn't need to update in the same fashion as your general inventory which they have used as an excuse not to add inventory slots before. It's more like the chest in your hotel room that you only dig in once in awhile. So, by their own examples that they have given it's about half false.

Server memory footprint should be the same regardless of how many times it's accessed. Lower frequency of access probably means lower server CPU load, but that normally isn't the problem.

[Arutan]

Exactly what evidence you have to accuse a prominent developer of lying? Just so you know "We all know" is not evidence.

Try telling me you can store thousands of gear within 215 slots.

[savageink]

Server memory footprint should be the same regardless of how many times it's accessed. Lower frequency of access probably means lower server CPU load, but that normally isn't the problem.

Server memory footprint wasn't the specific issue they previously used, it was network data usage, the character itself is written to the server frequently during play and it doesn't really pick and choose what it's sending. It sends the whole package. Things like your chest in your Inn room do not write to the server every few seconds.

[SokiYagami]

While I can't be 100% sure because I have no insight on how the inventory is coded, that is probably incorrect (almost surely, considering Yoshida's answer). An inventory item is normally stored as a numerical ID in a table that calls on a database with all the item's data. For each character only the ID is stored, not the whole item data, which is already present in the database, and is common for all characters. To store the fact that the item is available for glamoring, you'd have to store the same numerical ID in a dedicated table. This means that the memory footprint of the data would most probably be the same.

It's not that I wouldn't love a glamor log, but accusing Yoshida of lying without the slightest evidence, technical expertise, or insight on how the game is coded sounds very, very dumb, and not at all constructive.

Firstly, I didn't accuse Yoshi-P for lying, do not put words in my mouth. My own words was:

Wow... if there wasn't anything lost in the translation, then this is a really bad reply from Yoshi-P...

I also went further to mentioned that even if his explanation was valid, it (glamour log) can still be done somehow as proven by other games and it's in high demand from the players.

Now, with that out of the way, let's get back to the data type. Note, as I do not code the system myself, this is all purely speculations on my side based on the BRIEF knowledge I have on coding and observations from playing the game as well as some logical prediction. In no way am I claiming this is exactly how the system works, just a disclaimer before someone put words into my mouth again.

I definitely disagree that an entity in the inventory will carry the same amount of data than an entity found in the proposed glamour log. Two reasons; size of data and read/write frequency.

An entity in the glamour log should rightfully hold similar amount of data as one found in the armoire, striped down of any excess information such as color state, spiritbond amount, item condition, etc. It's basically strip the item down to the bare minimum amount of data. Meanwhile, an entity in the inventory has to cover everything that can be found in there. Be it consumable item, gear, tokens, collectible, etc. Logically deducing, (Is this a grammar mistake? Meh) a data entity found in inventory should be proportionally larger than one found in armoire, and by extension an entity in the proposed glamour log. That's one.

Next up, read/write access. We all know that FFXIV has a backup ongoing in the background every couple seconds (I forgot the exact number, someone please enlighten me), in case of data corruption and a rollback is required. I believe this is the exact reason Yoshi-P once cited to be one of the obstacle in simply increasing inventory space. Once again, I believe everything carried on the player aka anything inside inventory and armory chest, is subjected to the X seconds refresh mentioned earlier. On the other hand, an entity found in the glamour log should rightfully behave like a data entity found in the armoire and retainer's bank, they will be access only at specific locations and time, without the on-demand capability unlike inventory/armory chest.

So if logically speaking, a glamour log required lesser data and are access less frequently, I believe I'm not entirely wrong to say that Yoshi-P made a bad reply (put in bold so you can stop accusing me) if there's nothing lost in the translation to and from him in that interview.

As Captain Jack Sparrow would had say (I'm been watching Pirates):

Savvy mate?

[Riardon]

There are some issues preventing this game to expand further.
I think their dev team is not big enough for such changes and they have to come out with excuses to hide their corporate weaknesses.
It boggles my mind we can't have things other MMORPGs with way smaller budgets and teams already have and enjoying.
Their budget/team must be really limited and you can see it as they reduce the number of dungeons in 4.XX once again.
We will get 1 new dungeon every odd numbered patch now because the team wants to focus on other type of content.
This tell me that there are some issues inside the team which prevents them from implementing things like the glamour log
and other things Yoshida said coming but never made it.
Same for the character creation options. They refused more options because of "memory limitations".

[SokiYagami]

It's not that easy, even with sufficient manpower and budget, working around existing code can be a living nightmare depending on the previous coding team. This is purely speculation, but I believe some of the issues the game is currently facing is because 2.0 is leveraged upon existing 1.0 resources, I bet me rum that there's probably tons of bad codes in there but given the disastrous situation back then, it's quite possible that Yoshi-P and co didn't have much choice but to work with what they have and now the undead bugs are crawling out of their graves and biting back.