[Revolutionary idea] Inventory congestion is over !

[TessaJalloh]

Well executed concept images, great explanation of how the system could function.

I love it, i've seen it suggested before, and suggested it myself, but not with the same amount of effort you've shown.

/signed.

[Kosmos992k]

Revolutions aside, anything that involves changing any other system already implemented is a bad idea becuase it involves so much more integration and unit testing/debugging. Rather than try for a fancy system, I think a proposal that puts no additional pressure on character data is far more likely to be implemented.

To that end, the primary issue we face is lack of inventory space. The gear system with dye, glamor, spirit bonding and the condition of each piece brings several complications when you start taking armor from inventory/armor chest and put them in deep storage, because you have to decide what to do with all those additional elements. Personally, if I could store all consumable items, including crafting materials somewhere other than my own inventory or my retainers it would help a lot.

Since FFXIV uses the concept of instances, and our house/personal/inn room chamber is already a private instance, I would propose something similar to the armoire but for materials/consumables. Call it your 'crafting trunk', and have it only accessible via these private instances. Rather than storing everything in the character data, when things are placed in the crafting trunk, they are removed from the player inventory, and therefore the player data. Ther player data only needs the unique ID for their crafting trunk in order to access the trunk via their house, chamber or inn room. Because the trunk is only accessible from these specific instances it does not require to be updated with the normal character data, putting no pressure onthe existing character data. The trunk data is stored server side separately from the character data.

In practice this would allow players to clear their inventory, and that of their retainers of any/all materials and consumables, except those that the player is currently using or wants available quickly. That would greatly free up inventory for players, without increasing the dynamically stored character data, and without having to add any special handling for the various indicators of the 'state' of a piece of gear.

OK it's not such a fancy solution as the one the OP suggests, but it has the virtue of minimal impact on existing storage and processes.

[TessaJalloh]

<snip>
OK it's not such a fancy solution as the one the OP suggests, but it has the virtue of minimal impact on existing storage and processes.

This actually doesn't resolve anything, it would need to be tied to each character, and all of the items stored within would need records. It would function exactly the same as current storage features do as far as server resources are concerned, which is a concern SE have brought up before when we've suggested the 'tackle box'. The system the OP suggested would increase data sizes, yes. but it would in the long run be much better than storing the actual gear per player, as the assets wouldn't need to be generated the same way, nor would it need to track storage levels of multiple items since it's just unlocking skins.

[Kosmos992k]

This actually doesn't resolve anything, it would need to be tied to each character, and all of the items stored within would need records. It would function exactly the same as current storage features do as far as server resources are concerned, which is a concern SE have brought up before when we've suggested the 'tackle box'. The system the OP suggested would increase data sizes, yes. but it would in the long run be much better than storing the actual gear per player, as the assets wouldn't need to be generated the same way, nor would it need to track storage levels of multiple items since it's just unlocking skins.

No, it wouldn't. The current issue relating to character data is that they have to constantly write back the character data to the database every few seconds. There is therefore a finite amount of storage that can safely be allocated per character that is handled in this manner because you can only write back a certain amount of data per second, and within that budget you have to fit everything else going on in the game at the time as well. The problem relates both to the amount of active memory used on the server as well as the bandwidth needed to write back the character data every few seconds. The amount of database space consumed is not a major consideration - assuming any semblence of a modern database was used.

If you use what is in effect an offline storage mechanism with a single pointer in the character data, it has minimal impact on the character data, and because it is effectively offline, except in very specific instances, it can be handled with a traditional 2 stage commit for changes without having to completely rewrite the character data for every change. So if access to the trunk is gated behind a 'personal' instance, the data regarding the 'trunk' storage never needs to be read or written except when the player initiates the trunk. This does an end run around the entire problem of expanding character data to enhance storage, armory or glamor.

[Rhas]

If you use what is in effect an offline storage mechanism with a single pointer in the character data, it has minimal impact on the character data, and because it is effectively offline, except in very specific instances, it can be handled with a traditional 2 stage commit for changes without having to completely rewrite the character data for every change. So if access to the trunk is gated behind a 'personal' instance, the data regarding the 'trunk' storage never needs to be read or written except when the player initiates the trunk. This does an end run around the entire problem of expanding character data to enhance storage, armory or glamor.

So to clear things up, you are asking them to store the data and do the processes on the client side instead of the server side with only occasional transfers of data to the server?

Because if so, would that then not lead to the possibility that equipment/gear could possibly be hacked and possibly cause even more problems than there are now? Just imagine if RMT/hackers managed to find a way to gain a piece of equipment without doing anything, even if its only 1 piece at a time, and then sold it repeatedly via a script.

[Kosmos992k]

So to clear things up, you are asking them to store the data and do the processes on the client side instead of the server side with only occasional transfers of data to the server?

No, absolutely not. Re-read my post. the crafting trunk would be stored on the server side, but would not have to be held in active memory along with the main character data because it does not need to be available except when the player is in the appropriate private instance and initiates the trunk. It's a very simple client/server arrangement, none of the data would be held on the client at all. I referred to it as being in effect an offline storage solution, because in system terms, the character data maintained (and constantly updating in the background) is online, or live data, but things like the armoire are effectively offline because they are only accessed through a specific interface and do not get loaded with the main character data. It's all server based, I'm not sure how you concluded otherwise.

[Rhas]

No, absolutely not. Re-read my post. the crafting trunk would be stored on the server side, but would not have to be held in active memory along with the main character data because it does not need to be available except when the player is in the appropriate private instance and initiates the trunk. It's a very simple client/server arrangement, none of the data would be held on the client at all. I referred to it as being in effect an offline storage solution, because in system terms, the character data maintained (and constantly updating in the background) is online, or live data, but things like the armoire are effectively offline because they are only accessed through a specific interface and do not get loaded with the main character data. It's all server based, I'm not sure how you concluded otherwise.

I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page Others *have* asked for it to be on the client side before and that would end in horrible disaster lol That's why I asked for clarification heheh It's better to ask than assume.

As long as its serverside, it does seem to be an interesting proposal but not something they could probably manage in the very near future since it would require a lot of coding rework. But I could actually envision it. I don't personally plan to see any rework of core systems until at least 4.0 or even 5.0 though (as my own opinion) because it can be a very involved process.

[Kosmos992k]

I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page Others *have* asked for it to be on the client side before and that would end in horrible disaster lol That's why I asked for clarification heheh It's better to ask than assume.

As long as its serverside, it does seem to be an interesting proposal but not something they could probably manage in the very near future since it would require a lot of coding rework. But I could actually envision it. I don't personally plan to see any rework of core systems until at least 4.0 or even 5.0 though (as my own opinion) because it can be a very involved process.

Thats why i think something like the crafting trunk (or whatever we call it) has a better chance, it requires minimal changes to existing code because it doesn't modify the existing inventory system. In fact it's almost the armoire, except without the complications of storing gear.

[VargasVermillion]

Been mentioned plenty of times before, DC universe online did the same thing as well. I would love the feature but apparently the game can't do it atm.

[AltanRapsied]

I guess I can make a lil up. 'cause my retainers are starting to get a bit full with the 3.0.