It is time to get a 3rd free Retainer

[kimoi]

Yes, after reading the notes from the recent live letter, it is clear we need an extra retainer.

They said expanding the inventory "has created more stress load on the servers than we assumed, so we would need to rethink our method before expanding any further."

If this is the case, then we need another retainer.

(Also a style log/glamour log would alleviate things.)

[Snow_Princess]

Yes, after reading the notes from the recent live letter, it is clear we need an extra retainer.

They said expanding the inventory "has created more stress load on the servers than we assumed, so we would need to rethink our method before expanding any further."

If this is the case, then we need another retainer.

(Also a style log/glamour log would alleviate things.)

No, that means they need to do what they said, make a new method of storing items. It is no choice now after saying that. This means getting rid of item management from retainers completely, have players put stuff on the MB themselves, and give us an item bank. That is how you alleviate server stress.

[Claviusnex]

No, that means they need to do what they said, make a new method of storing items. It is no choice now after saying that. This means getting rid of item management from retainers completely, have players put stuff on the MB themselves, and give us an item bank. That is how you alleviate server stress.

The retainers are just a UI so don't really need to go anywhere. The problem is the underlying implementation that passes all of this information around in structures as opposed to database keys that could be referenced only when needed for processing. I also suspect from the various SE statements I've read that all of it is processed on the server side when to be honest some would be better off if it was passed to the client to handle. None of this is insurmountable to resolve just boils down to SE deciding it is in their best interest to do so.

[DarkDedede]

This would be great! For whatever reason, it never dawned on me to just simplify the bait/lure options in that manner. The only potentially iffy part would be the scrip bait, but perhaps they could work that in as well.

I'd imagine they could either limit "inventory bait" to just those baits that are purchased with scrips. The "not premium" bait could be repurposed to act similar to spear heads.

The other option, as I suggested before, would be require the purchase of a key item using scrips, to unlock a more premium bait/lure (similar to mounts, minions, books, etc).

[Moonlite]

The retainers are just a UI so don't really need to go anywhere. The problem is the underlying implementation that passes all of this information around in structures as opposed to database keys that could be referenced only when needed for processing. I also suspect from the various SE statements I've read that all of it is processed on the server side when to be honest some would be better off if it was passed to the client to handle. None of this is insurmountable to resolve just boils down to SE deciding it is in their best interest to do so.

Are you sure they are just a UI? I was sure they are a workaround of 1.0 system and still retain the core 1.0. It is just not visible. That is why when you summon retainers you get the message no longer selling. I was not playing when retainers were hidden so maybe this is wrong. But why keep them then?

I'd imagine they could either limit "inventory bait" to just those baits that are purchased with scrips. The "not premium" bait could be repurposed to act similar to spear heads.

Since we have so many levels of fishers and not a lot of skills compared to other DoL. Why not make the bait/lure into skills? Use the appropriate skill/buff for fishing type. Not optimal.

But SE has failed in space expansion. If 4.1 is out of the question that probably means half a year 4.2 at the earliest. They should design within the limitations to make the game a better experience.

[Snow_Princess]

Are you sure they are just a UI? I was sure they are a workaround of 1.0 system and still retain the core 1.0. It is just not visible. That is why when you summon retainers you get the message no longer selling. I was not playing when retainers were hidden so maybe this is wrong. But why keep them then?

Since we have so many levels of fishers and not a lot of skills compared to other DoL. Why not make the bait/lure into skills? Use the appropriate skill/buff for fishing type. Not optimal.

But SE has failed in space expansion. If 4.1 is out of the question that probably means half a year 4.2 at the earliest. They should design within the limitations to make the game a better experience.

It is 1.0, the reason they do that is because in 1.0 you could actually go to them in the wards and if you did that, there was no taking them off the ability to sell things. So you could trade items without interfering with that. They should did more changing for item management for 2.0+ so that is how old this problem is, it is a 2.0+ old problem, except 2 retainers during the start of 2.0 was fine, near the end it was getting strained. The reason for that is THE SAME AS NOW! item currency bloat, gear being outdated too quickly, and glam system (with 5 grades of prisms) was made. So people started to glam collect and really strained the 2 retainers.

So for 1.0 the reason they did that is because it had to, it fit the system, to interact remotely with the retainer you had to pull them off the wards, and you had the option to go to them in the wards so you would not have to take them down off the listing if you simply needed to exchange items. But in 2.0 + there is no reason for it, other then keeping the old code. So this is a problem that should of been addressed for the release of 2.0 and they kept ignoring it and ignoring it, making the problem bigger and bigger till now it is at the breaking point. (chaning the coding/ updating the UI)

[Moonlite]

snip

I remember the search feature added to the wards. But I wasn't sure if they had scrapped it and just kept a UI for lore (what a waste). Or if the old system is still present in the background.

It is funny. How hard is it to build an auction house? Yet SE tries to make it harder. I remember the reason from 1.0 for no AH. It stops gil sellers. Delusional at best, detrimental to player base at worst.

[Berethos]

It's nice to see people still like to misrepresent positions and arguments and act as though we, the customer, should roll over and be happy with whatever SE deigns to give us.

Accuses others of misrepresenting...

Counts the "appearance log" that functionally acts in a similar manner to achievements - it's a check mark that you've unlocked/completed something that can then be accessed at a specific NPC to change appearance data on a single item, not an actual inventory slot - and tries to pass it off in a hilariously disingenuous "inventory" count.

Come on, you're better than that.

[Snow_Princess]

I remember the search feature added to the wards. But I wasn't sure if they had scrapped it and just kept a UI for lore (what a waste). Or if the old system is still present in the background.

It is funny. How hard is it to build an auction house? Yet SE tries to make it harder. I remember the reason from 1.0 for no AH. It stops gil sellers. Delusional at best, detrimental to player base at worst.

When 1.0 first released they had 1 ward.. best way I can explain it that was not in 1.0 is housing now. Picture hosing with 1 ward, no sub ward, you just enter it, there be no reason for a search. After a while they added more wards, just like our housing. Now after that came out, you got a list to what ward to go to, metal , heavy armor, etc (forgot all the ward names) and the search fuction was for finding retainers that was selling the item you where looking for. So you type in what you are looking for, or search it (like our mb pretty much) and ill tell you where the retainer was that sold the item, then you physically go to the retainer to buy it. Same way for your retainers, if you physically go to them, you trade them without taking them off the search. The only way items was pulled down from it, if you where interacting with the retainer's bazzar to put more items up. If you where simply trading items with your retainer, it did not pull your sales off the search.

That is why 2.0+ the retainer UI makes no sense, it fit 1.0's system, but that is no longer true.

Also the place/hallway/path (whatever you want to call it) to enter the wards to an extent still exist, except uladh. Now the little hallway path branch that went to them does not exist, while uldah's GC is in part of that area. (where the GC is, if that wall was not there where the FC chest is, that would be the entrance to the wards in uldah.)

that used to be the zone to uldah's selling wards

[Claviusnex]

Are you sure they are just a UI? I was sure they are a workaround of 1.0 system and still retain the core 1.0. It is just not visible. That is why when you summon retainers you get the message no longer selling. I was not playing when retainers were hidden so maybe this is wrong. But why keep them then?

We might be thinking the same thing with just a different way of how we see the program structure. I look at the retainer as the UI to a set of processes. Retainers could just as well be a chair or a stuffed animal. The problem isn't the retainer UI concept itself but the processes they spawn. In fact I rather like the interactive character ability they bring. If my understanding is close to correct the processes the retainers spawn all run on the server side and the data structures are copied and passed around between the various servers that perform each of the different functions. This is the problem that as the retainer inventory and character profiles grow they send more data between servers clogging up the communications stack and taking up more memory with replicated data. It is straight forward to resolve in multiple ways from a high level design viewpoint and should be able to be done in stages but SE has to be willing to assign the human resources to do it. When I was still working one of the things I did on projects I led was have the team bring in problem areas with old code. It could be a problem for many reasons such as too many code bugs, poor code structure that made modification risky, poor performance, etc. We would pick one or two to fix in addition to the new functions we were adding. To me the inventory issue is one of those areas I would have said let's fix for this next release.