New glamour system please!

[Shurrikhan]

It's limitations with there server and memory iirc.

Just look at past live letters yoshi says limitation like every other question

It's just a check for whether or not you have access to that particular item's appearance. At the worst, it's the same amount of data as adding a ton of 0/1 achievements. It doesn't need to be accessible at all times either, much like the storage of one's armoire.

They can do it, they just won't. Given the money they're making from selling extra retainers I have to agree that it is in their interest to pretend it's not possible.

This.

[Cromi_Jobly]

Please find me an MMO that stores player data clientside. Seriously. Find me ANY MMO that does this.

The original Diablo stored everything client side and just used Battlenet to link clients together. Not contributing to the conversation, just had to answer the all cap challenge.

[Kling-Klang]

Why cant we just put in more things in the armory? Even AF2 or upgraded AF1 doesnt go inside, its annoying!!

[Terrini]

While I think that having a glamour Wardrobe in inn rooms would be an awesome solution but foiled by the fact you cannot glamour in inn rooms, so either the allow glamour in inn rooms, make the Wardrobe an instance like the Aesthetician that allows you to process glamour

[Lone-wolfe-02]

Limitations excuse is a load of bull they can do it but they want you to buy retainers instead.

[Alberel]

The original Diablo stored everything client side and just used Battlenet to link clients together. Not contributing to the conversation, just had to answer the all cap challenge.

Heh, Diablo wasn't really an MMO. It was an ARPG that had some sophisticated multiplayer features. The fact that the multiplayer became as big as it did was something of a surprise to Blizzard I think, hence why it was so much better fleshed out and supported in D2.

I see this thread has been moved to the User Interface board to die. This is a primary game feature discussion, not UI! /sigh

[Niwashi]

It's limitations with there server and memory iirc.

Just look at past live letters yoshi says limitation like every other question

Features that take up active memory are severely restricted by their servers, but this feature only takes up a bit of database storage, and a rather trivial amount at that. Their crappy old servers don't account for not having it. They just haven't bothered to write the code for it yet.

Unlike other MMOs, FFXIV does not store player data clientside, it is stored on the servers.

All MMOs store their important data server side. In the case of glamour, the server says which items (or which glamour appearances) you have available and which you're currently wearing. Your client software says how to display those items on your screen. (Which items/glamours you're currently wearing, in fact, HAS to be server side in any online game. Otherwise the server wouldn't be able to tell other people's clients how to display your character when you're in their field of vision.)

That is incredibly naive understanding of how databases work.

First off, an empty variable contains as much data as a full variable. This means that a brand new empty character contains as much data as a maxed out character with a full inventory. An empty inventory is just full of blank/neutral data. The same is true for retainer inventories.

This would only be true if SE is really terrible at designing efficient databases. More typically, an empty slot would only hold a null pointer, whereas a slot that's used would hold a pointer to another record of whatever is there. If it's something like a crafting ingredient, that record would contain just an item ID and stack size. If it's a gear item, it would be a larger record, with fields for item id, durability, spiritbond, materia, color, and glamour.

The creation of a "Glamour Log" would add a massive amount of new data to every character. Every character's data would need to include a yes/no variable for every single piece of gear included in the Glamour Log, even if the character never even uses it. That is somewhere around 6500 new variables and their database addresses for each character currently as of 3.1 and that number will only grow as more and more patches come out. That is increasing each character's data by a massive amount.

Only if you regard 813 bytes per character as "a massive amount" since that's how much space it would take to store 6500 items in a glamour log. (They'd probably give it an entire kilobyte though to allow expansion room. A kilobyte would allow for 8192 items.) They could even set it so that it only allocates that killobyte or so of space when you unlock glamours at level 50, so new or trial characters wouldn't be taking up even that little amount of space, only characters at level 50 or above.

A yes/no would still be taking up 1 byte of storage.

If there were only 1 yes/no, then you're right that it takes up at least a byte (or possibly more). But 8 yes/no values can be stored in that same byte. (And they generally would be whenever you're dealing with a system of lots of yes/no answers like a glamour log or armoire. It's a simple bitmap.) When you actually select an item from your log to use, then the system would have to translate that bit into its corresponding item ID, but it wouldn't be storing the item IDs per character.

[Laraul]

It's not do to limitations to do the hardware or the servers. That's ridiculous. How they can constantly be adding content to the game and then blame it on hardware? Yoshi isn't a programmer. Nor is the UI lead developer Hiroshi Minagawa. All the coders are probably busy working on other projects. And my guess is by now the existing code has been updated with a lot of "quick" fixes that going back and updating it would require a huge amount of time just to sort thru, find and correct those "quick" fixes to work with any major changes made to the UI.

For example, you'll find that the various interface listings are all capped at a 100 items. Like the when you talk to a repair NPC, you can select between currently equipped, then your armory slit over three different pages, then your inventory. Why they capped this list at a hundred items is anyone's guess. If they added a hundred more inventory slots, they would need to go and either double the amount each page can show at one time to 200, or split the inventory over two pages. Of course it only shows your inventory that needs to be repaired. Which would be rare and thus the second page would always usually be empty, so splitting it over two pages would be bizarre and confusing.

The point is, the existing code has no doubt become very hard to maintain. And no one whom works at SE wants to touch it.

[Sida]

For example, you'll find that the various interface listings are all capped at a 100 items. Like the when you talk to a repair NPC, you can select between currently equipped, then your armory slit over three different pages, then your inventory. Why they capped this list at a hundred items is anyone's guess.

While "PS3 limitations" has become a bit of a run of joke for every sort of UI limitations, I believe that's what is at work here. For reasons I'm not claiming I fully understand since I haven't coded for playstation, having to do something with how graphic memory handled ui objects or some sort, having too long lists would have not worked on that platform. Or something like that. Roughly the same reason we lost the TP number when we got the bars for while party.

[Laraul]

While "PS3 limitations" has become a bit of a run of joke for every sort of UI limitations, I believe that's what is at work here. For reasons I'm not claiming I fully understand since I haven't coded for playstation, having to do something with how graphic memory handled ui objects or some sort, having too long lists would have not worked on that platform. Or something like that. Roughly the same reason we lost the TP number when we got the bars for while party.

I assure you, the PS3 is not limited to lists of 100 items. Just like how the PS3 can display TP numbers. The PS3 includes all the other UI adjustments/improvements in 3.2. In all seriousness, you do realize how powerful the PS3 is right? It was released late 2006, not 1976. Why do people assume hardware is to blame when it's the software that's the issue?

The TP numbers were removed because they obfuscated the tops of the status icons. Not because the hardware was incapable.