Whats going on with SE ?

[Ruf]

You're right, there is a difference: searching each time is far less efficient in the long run.

The server doesn't know where your item is, so it has to search blindly. In a bag with 140 items, assuming you have one stack of the item, it's going to have to load an average of 70 items to find the one you need.

Oh please, its 2018, i dont believe in that statement at all whatsoever, with the spaghetti code maybe, but with a proper code, it should be much faster to pinpoint one item right away as long as the route to the search is flawless. (I in no way bite to that argument) well coded the search shouldnt even happen.

Indexes and fast search algorithms exist for just that.

saying that a proper code isnt possible is a lame excuse & its a pretty poor excuse for this game obviously with the programming power & catering this game have recieved already years ago, & now what do we get? crumbs for our money

[Tridus]

Oh please, its 2018, i dont believe in that statement at all whatsoever, with the spaghetti code maybe, but with a proper code, it should be much faster to pinpoint one item right away as long as the route to the search is flawless. (I in no way bite to that argument) well coded the search shouldnt even happen.

Except that it's actually not. If you have the whole inventory client side, you can search it in memory, locally, with no network IO at all. Nothing will be faster than that.

If you only actually needed one item client side, a search would be faster than retrieving the whole inventory, yes. But inventory is used so often that it doesn't make sense to do that 80 times when you could sync the whole thing on login and then do things locally (and send update events to the server). When something is needed so frequently, it becomes more efficient to eager load it and cache it than it does to load it on demand every time you need it.

For fishing, ruf is right in that GP is useless for gig fishing. But for normal fishing, gp is worthless beyond a certain point. You only need 650ish or so for that, or even less if you just straight up ignore fish that you know are worthless to you. GP even is a bit worthless for miner and botanist, 600 GP is all you need for collectables, and you can't really raise it enough to where it would help past that.

Higher tier nodes often penalize you if you only have 600 GP, like the 70 one star nodes IIRC need at least 650 to have any HQ chance whatsoever.

[Ruf]

Except that it's actually not. If you have the whole inventory client side, you can search it in memory, locally, with no network IO at all. Nothing will be faster than that.

If you only actually needed one item client side, a search would be faster than retrieving the whole inventory, yes. But inventory is used so often that it doesn't make sense to do that 80 times when you could sync the whole thing on login and then do things locally (and send update events to the server). When something is needed so frequently, it becomes more efficient to eager load it and cache it than it does to load it on demand every time you need it.




Higher tier nodes often penalize you if you only have 600 GP, like the 70 one star nodes IIRC need at least 650 to have any HQ chance whatsoever.

Have i said to not load the inventory completly at all? but everytime? no, it should be loaded one time completly then held, + to be honest, im not even sure,,, do you know how many items are useless in your inventory into the dungeons? In other terms, a slice&dice image could be created to cut half of the issue already imo & if that can be done, then yes, the search is minimized & so i really dont see why it cant be pinpointed, cache is a good point

[Talraen]

Oh please, its 2018, i dont believe in that statement at all whatsoever, with the spaghetti code maybe, but with a proper code, it should be much faster to pinpoint one item right away as long as the route to the search is flawless. (I in no way bite to that argument) well coded the search shouldnt even happen.

This isn't about how well-coded the search is, it's simple math and very simple theory. The server knows absolutely nothing about your inventory, because it hasn't loaded it. The inventory is not sorted or indexed, so you can't take advantage of any kind of tree searching or any other fancy methods. I would love to see your pseudocode for how you're finding something in a set you know absolutely nothing about faster than looking at each item in turn.

There's lots of reasons why loading the entire inventory client side is a good idea. It just doesn't need to be resynced constantly.

I couldn't agree more. I am baffled by why the data needs to be sent so often. I've only been responding to suggestions which I am qualified to point out the specific flaws in. As a programmer myself, armchair programmers make my life more difficult so I am biased against them.

[Ruf]

This isn't about how well-coded the search is, it's simple math and very simple theory. The server knows absolutely nothing about your inventory, because it hasn't loaded it. The inventory is not sorted or indexed, so you can't take advantage of any kind of tree searching or any other fancy methods. I would love to see your pseudocode for how you're finding something in a set you know absolutely nothing about faster than looking at each item in turn.



I couldn't agree more. I am baffled by why the data needs to be sent so often. I've only been responding to suggestions which I am qualified to point out the specific flaws in. As a programmer myself, armchair programmers make my life more difficult so I am biased against them.

Did you miss the part where i said core need to be fixed? If you say server this blablabla, then the server FAIL, simple as that, you keep reaching for excuses where as tridus & others said, it could be indexed, datas could be stored on client side to some extent so on so on, no matter how many excuses you come up with, how theres data centers issues & so on so on, the change is not impossible, if we went by impossible then nothing would be moving into society.

P.s: As far as the armchair programmers comment, are you programming while standing up?

[Talraen]

Did you miss the part where i said core need to be fixed? If you say server this blablabla, then the server FAIL, simple as that, you keep reaching for excuses where as tridus & others said, it could be indexed, datas could be stored on client side to some extent so on so on, no matter how many excuses you come up with, how theres data centers issues & so on so on, the change is not impossible, if we went by impossible then nothing would be moving into society.

Ah so the reality of how data works is an "excuse," I see. Uh, no. What you are actually proposing is literally impossible, because you don't appear to understand what you're proposing.

The specifics of the claims I was responding to notwithstanding, yes, there are ways they could make things more efficient. (Well, more than likely - I don't actually know enough about the system to be certain of that, but in as much as no system is perfectly optimized it's a very safe assumption.) They could, as you suggest, use your local storage to figure out where on the server the item you're accessing is most likely to be. That's not a bad idea for the reasons I laid out in my post; it's a bad idea for entirely different reasons which I addressed earlier in the thread. To sum up: it adds a lot of complexity for a small potential gain and a large potential loss. Loading everything up front is just a better idea for many reasons that myself and others have laid out in this thread. As Tridus and others have pointed out, the inefficiency here is the constant syncing, which you're not addressing at all.

[Ruf]

Ah so the reality of how data works is an "excuse," I see. Uh, no. What you are actually proposing is literally impossible, because you don't appear to understand what you're proposing.

The specifics of the claims I was responding to notwithstanding, yes, there are ways they could make things more efficient. (Well, more than likely - I don't actually know enough about the system to be certain of that, but in as much as no system is perfectly optimized it's a very safe assumption.) They could, as you suggest, use your local storage to figure out where on the server the item you're accessing is most likely to be. That's not a bad idea for the reasons I laid out in my post; it's a bad idea for entirely different reasons which I addressed earlier in the thread. To sum up: it adds a lot of complexity for a small potential gain and a large potential loss. Loading everything up front is just a better idea for many reasons that myself and others have laid out in this thread. As Tridus and others have pointed out, the inefficiency here is the constant syncing, which you're not addressing at all.

What i understand from what you are saying is that cutting down on the inventory load upon that constant syncing you are speaking of (by reducing the amount of items that are part of it) wouldnt change anything , then remove medicines & food use 'inside" & make everyone naked, problem solved, while im going extremly far with my sarcasm & comment, no what im suggesting isnt impossible, that was shit design & it will stay shit design unless it get changed but you know...

Personally, given the way the narrative seems to be leaning towards an eventual "confrontation" with the Garleans on their own turf (as well as probably some ultimate confrontation with the Ascians to foil their plot to bring their papa big dark bad back), I'd rather see them eventually wrap the story up and make a fresh start taking lessons learned from XIV than see them unintentionally break and twist the game we have now and potentially just make it worse in the process. With a fresh start there's at least a feeling of "breaking away" and the past can be left as it was instead of risking burning it down before sending it off.

keeping up with that type of mentality wont help it any