Idea: Merge PLD Sword and Shield into a Single Item

[Sjol]

I don't see why one has to be done before the other.

SE could develop whatever tech/code/data is necessary to glamour the two parts of a NIN, RDM, AST, MCH, etc. weapon as it's own feature, without having to deal with, say, ARR swords and shields (remember that some shields can be used by CNJ/THM/WHM/BLM).

In that scenario, PLD would still be able to glamour their sword and shield separately, just like they can do today.

I guess I also have this vision where SE cleans up a lot of the little one-offs and dead systems that ARR and HW had to make them consistent with the rest of the game. While I would have probably rather had a different systems per expansion that's not what they did, and I choose to accept that on their terms.

And it's not like it was bad that they tried stuff out and moved stuff over from 1.0. Trying stuff out is good, but we're also at the point where we're 10 years in and some clean-up may be warranted and helpful towards expanding what's capable. Removing code and systems is important for making space for new stuff (and I'm talking as a software engineer here). You can't grow complexity infinitely.

[Sjol]

I suspect the original poster's idea actually comes from a misinformed belief that rolling shield use into sword would somehow then increase inventory space, but as others have pointed out, the offhand slot is it's own independent section in the Armoury Chest and it's removal wouldn't freeup space like removing Belts did.

I'm not confused. An unused inventory slot is stuff free space in the DB. The "free space" we see is just an illusion of the UI. If there's a free slot in our inventory, it's not represented in the database as anything. Why would you when you don't have to?

Every weapon/shield pair is two inventory slots that could be one. At a minimum that's every in-progress relic, matched glamour (i.e., where the sword and shield you want are the same), etc. It's not as big a win as belts, but it's non-zero.

I'm also concerned about code complexity. Most code complexity in my career has come from exceptions -- things where everything directly, but you have to add something like the below which also is another place that can go wrong and another thing that has to be tested. So, yeah, I'd like to make things simpler, reduce the average omni-players inventory needs by a handful of slots, remove a bunch of crafting recipes, remove the PLD tax, and just makes things a little more consistent in this one area. Separate swords and shields don't get you much, especially if you can keep the asymmetric glamouring.

if (special_condition) {
  // do_special_thing
}

[Iscah]

I suspect the original poster's idea actually comes from a misinformed belief that rolling shield use into sword would somehow then increase inventory space, but as others have pointed out, the offhand slot is it's own independent section in the Armoury Chest and it's removal wouldn't freeup space like removing Belts did.

I'm not confused. An unused inventory slot is stuff free space in the DB. The "free space" we see is just an illusion of the UI. If there's a free slot in our inventory, it's not represented in the database as anything. Why would you when you don't have to?

I think you're both mistaken.

If they hypothetically could merge shields into swords and get rid of crafter/gatherers' secondary tools, they could get rid of the offhand slot and redistribute its slots to the other sections of the armoury chest, just like they did with belts. Even now it seems like they should reassign some of those slots, perhaps to the main hand weapons.

But yes, slots are "real" and actually quite restrictive or else we wouldn't have inventory issues. They could just keep expanding forever.

What you're thinking of is specifically the Key Items pouch. Those are illusory slots because the items you have in that space are derived from your active quests rather than ownership of an item in the game. You can't reorganise them or put them in other inventories like a normal item; they only exist in that one space in predetermined order. The UI has three pages just in case some madly determined person goes around collecting sidequests that put multiple key items in the pouch and never hands them in.

[Vallerie]

Most code complexity in my career has come from exceptions -- things where everything directly, but you have to add something like the below which also is another place that can go wrong and another thing that has to be tested. So, yeah, I'd like to make things simpler, reduce the average omni-players inventory needs by a handful of slots, remove a bunch of crafting recipes, remove the PLD tax, and just makes things a little more consistent in this one area. Separate swords and shields don't get you much, especially if you can keep the asymmetric glamouring.

The problem here is that your idea introduces additional complexity. Not in merging PLD sword and shield, but in the glamour the two separately despite being a single item. Like in no way is treating single item as two for purposes of the glamour system simpler than just having two items.

Reducing complexity and allowing for more glamour options would be splitting RDM, NIN, etc. weapons into two items. Less optimal in terms of storage, yeah, but a lot simpler.

[Duskane]

Capable? Sure. Willing? Questionable, otherwise we would have Coil, Alexander and old Primal weapons from ARR-HW for GnB, DnC, SGE and RPR.

benchmark seemingly shows weapons for Viper that are very close to Alexander and Bahamut so they are probably working on that anyway

for those curious

[AmiableApkallu]

Trying stuff out is good, but we're also at the point where we're 10 years in and some clean-up may be warranted and helpful towards expanding what's capable. Removing code and systems is important for making space for new stuff (and I'm talking as a software engineer here). You can't grow complexity infinitely.

As a software engineer, then, you should be very aware of the perils and sheer arrogance in trying to backseat drive someone else's codebase without any inside knowledge.

As a software engineer, I don't need my users and customers to tell me how to manage my own, well-aged codebase. I'm already well aware of all its imperfections and things that could be better. But my time and resources are not infinite, or else I would have already fixed and tidied up everything.

What I do need my users and customers to tell me is what they'd like to be able to do.

[Sjol]

But yes, slots are "real" and actually quite restrictive or else we wouldn't have inventory issues. They could just keep expanding forever.

When I say they're imaginary I'm saying the slot space isn't taken up when the item isn't present. Yes, there's a hard limit on what the game will let you put in there because I imagine there's an enumerated list of spots for the item to go into, but if there's no item in that spot, there's no data to represent them. Items take up storage because they represent data. Empty item slots don't have data associated with them, so no storage cost.

[Sjol]

The problem here is that your idea introduces additional complexity. Not in merging PLD sword and shield, but in the glamour the two separately despite being a single item. Like in no way is treating single item as two for purposes of the glamour system simpler than just having two items.

Reducing complexity and allowing for more glamour options would be splitting RDM, NIN, etc. weapons into two items. Less optimal in terms of storage, yeah, but a lot simpler.

There are a lot of consequences to the PLD item being two different items. Some examples:

1) stats are split
2) relic checks require both items to be present
3) abilities have to check to see if you have a shield equipped
4) weapon rewards have to be bundled for PLD
5) shields are the one exception to the main hand/off hand in the market categorized as armor

In my experience, one-offs consume a lot of resources compared to their benefit.

With regards to the glamour system, it's a non-trivial change to be sure since you're taking a single value and turning it into a multiple value. My guess is that there's a visual asset attached to the item data that says what to load, and there would be a need to examine window changes.

I really did like the idea that we should be glamouring plates instead of items. That would solve a lot of issues, though data migration would be awful and maybe impossible to do without information loss.

[Sjol]

As a software engineer, then, you should be very aware of the perils and sheer arrogance in trying to backseat drive someone else's codebase without any inside knowledge.

As a software engineer, I don't need my users and customers to tell me how to manage my own, well-aged codebase. I'm already well aware of all its imperfections and things that could be better. But my time and resources are not infinite, or else I would have already fixed and tidied up everything.

What I do need my users and customers to tell me is what they'd like to be able to do.

I want to not have to deal with the additional mental model/hassle of separate sword and shield. I don't want all the weird exceptions to how items work in the game in this one place. I ask this both as a customer and as someone who understands the costs of such things.

While I don't have any inside knowledge, it's also not strictly required to form a hypothesis on how things work. It's also my experience that developers want to clean things up but aren't given the opportunity because customers don't ask for things to be cleaned up and product management then doesn't prioritize it.

If I were a developer on FFXIV, I would love to be told that cleaning up older systems was a priority because customers asked for it.

[AmiableApkallu]

While I don't have any inside knowledge, it's also not strictly required to form a hypothesis on how things work. It's also my experience that developers want to clean things up but aren't given the opportunity because customers don't ask for things to be cleaned up and product management then doesn't prioritize it.

Yes. And that's as it should be. It's not the job of customer to ask a developer to clean their code up. It's the developer's job to deal with their code in whatever fashion they deem most efficient in delivering a product now and in the future.

So, pray tell, how do you propose to deal with low(er)-level casters that want a rod/stick in one hand a shield in the other?