Alternative solution to glamour log

[Nix]

Rift, WildStar, Blade and Soul, SWTOR, DCUO, and I think Champions though I'm not sure.

[edit] Oops, meant to edit and add, not double post.

WoW added one too - it's pretty spiffy!

[Nixxe]

Marketable items seem to have a fairly small role to play in glamour in the first place and I can't imagine there would be a drastic decrease in item value simply because you only need to acquire it once. If anything, I'd expect the price on most items to go up, especially initially, as collectors rush to fill the log. Unless there are far more alts people care enough about to invest greatly in glamour than I'd ever expect, the economic impact likely wouldn't be large.

[TaranTatsuuchi]

Exactly what evidence you have to accuse a prominent developer of lying? Just so you know "We all know" is not evidence.

From a technical standpoint, the explanation Yoshida gave appears to be perfectly sound. An item being logged as available for glamor needs to be stored into memory, and it's stored into server memory in exactly the same way an item in your inventory is. From the point of view of server memory footprint, it's precisely like creating another inventory slot.

While I can't be 100% sure because I have no insight on how the inventory is coded, that is probably incorrect (almost surely, considering Yoshida's answer). An inventory item is normally stored as a numerical ID in a table that calls on a database with all the item's data. For each character only the ID is stored, not the whole item data, which is already present in the database, and is common for all characters. To store the fact that the item is available for glamoring, you'd have to store the same numerical ID in a dedicated table. This means that the memory footprint of the data would most probably be the same.

It's not that I wouldn't love a glamor log, but accusing Yoshida of lying without the slightest evidence, technical expertise, or insight on how the game is coded sounds very, very dumb, and not at all constructive.



Server memory footprint should be the same regardless of how many times it's accessed. Lower frequency of access probably means lower server CPU load, but that normally isn't the problem.

I was going to say some stuff...
But thig guy here said practically everything I wanted to say, so I'll just defer to his post.

A gear item in inventory has not just its own item ID, but the item ID of it's glamour, another for its dye, 5 item IDs for what materia is on it, a character ID for who crafted it, a counter for tracking spiritbond, and another for tracking its condition. And while we don't know details like how many bytes each of those identifiers is, we do know that they all have to be multi-byte fields, since there are a lot more than 256 items in the game, characters on a server, and actions towards spiritbonding or dropping condition to 0.

A tick in a log, on the other hand, takes one bit. That's nowhere near the same size as an item.

A glamour log of the 9099 visible gear items currently in the game would take up 1138 bytes of storage, though of course they'd need room for new items being added, so it would probably be more like 2kb or so (which would be enough to hold 16,384 items). At a reasonable guess at the size of gear in inventory as 44 bytes each, that would be enough space to hold 46 of them.

Out of all of that, the only parts I was estimating without knowledge of their specific coding practices are:
1) I guessed 4 bytes per item ID, character ID, or counter.
2) That an an 80% increase from the amount of current gear allows them enough room for adding new items through the next couple expansions or so.

While either of those guesses could be a little off, it's unlikely that either would be off by more than a factor of two, so that 16384 to 46 ratio is reasonably close, no matter how their system is set up.


Besides which, there was the other interview, where Yoshi pointed out that it was possible, but that it was their UI team that was too busy for it at the time. That's an explanation from him that actually makes sense. I'm perfectly willing to accept what he says when he makes sense, but not when he doesn't.




The issue on this is the transfer between the game servers and backup servers. *Active* data, the kind that can change while playing, is backed up every few seconds that you're logged in. Our characters also have other data, though, (like armoire storage or retainer inventory) that can only change while interacting with that feature and isn't accessible while out adventuring. That data is only backed up when we interact with it, and not all the rest of the time.

There have been multiple suggestions regarding a glamour log, and while some (like automatic inclusion of items whenever we get them) would require it to be classified as active data, others (where we manually place items there, like the armoire) would allow it to be backed up only on access and not the rest of the time. (Note: the limited access would only need to be on adding new items to the log. Using them for glamour could still be available from anywhere, since that doesn't change the contents of the log so doesn't require additional backups.)

[Naunet]

Dozens of times compared by hundreds of thousand of users. Without mentioning that the number of requests has absolutely no influence in how challenging a features it is to implement.

It's not really our obligation to worry about the challenge of something. Though again I think it does not speak highly of SE's devs if they cannot handle something like this. I like to think they are at least as skilled as others and willing to implement a feature that has been requested by the broader player base for a LONG time.

[Ama_Hamada]

Oh I already am. I don't demand developers to follow my "suggestions" and call them liars or accuse them to pull excuses if they don't.



You may have not noticed it (people tend not to), but by following your definition of "Toxic" you're being rather Toxic to Yoshida and the development team, accusing them with absolutely zero evidence of giving "excuses" and not implementing a feature with the objective of making players "spend more on retainers."

You're entirely free to offer feedback, but don't expect everyone to offer smiles and a pat on the back if you're not able to do it respectfully. Considering how hard this development team worked to steer a completely failed game into a successful one, and how hard they still work, the negativity they receive from some is absolutely stifling, and deserves a pushback.

Do you see them actually speaking to us about inventory space? No they joke about selling us more retainers. So yes I get frustrated from overpaying for a shortcoming, they make it feel they want to keep overcharging us for inventory rental. You tell me show respect, but how come I get none? waiting for 2 years to actually put some effort in this issue or say something? not joke about selling us more retainers?

The only toxicity here is you attacking me for no reason. I should not have my concerns snuffed out by toxic people such as yourself because I am not a programmer. My friend had to put up with crap all throughout of 2.0 saying she needed to deal with it when it came to the bad maps and look they are finally doing something about it. Maybe if it was not people like your self or those people that attack my friend, they can hear our voices.

Take that interview in the OP, if they can't do that, where is the efforts in alternatives? I am so sick of the problems with retainers. (slow menus, etc) Even if you saw my first post on the strong end, you had no right to walk over me and "deserves a pushback." I am frustrated with no response in 2 years + jokes about selling us more retainers (maybe) to deal with storage issues. No discussion on alternatives (assuming this excuse is true) why?

Besides which, there was the other interview, where Yoshi pointed out that it was possible, but that it was their UI team that was too busy for it at the time. That's an explanation from him that actually makes sense. I'm perfectly willing to accept what he says when he makes sense, but not when he doesn't.




The issue on this is the transfer between the game servers and backup servers. *Active* data, the kind that can change while playing, is backed up every few seconds that you're logged in. Our characters also have other data, though, (like armoire storage or retainer inventory) that can only change while interacting with that feature and isn't accessible while out adventuring. That data is only backed up when we interact with it, and not all the rest of the time.

There have been multiple suggestions regarding a glamour log, and while some (like automatic inclusion of items whenever we get them) would require it to be classified as active data, others (where we manually place items there, like the armoire) would allow it to be backed up only on access and not the rest of the time. (Note: the limited access would only need to be on adding new items to the log. Using them for glamour could still be available from anywhere, since that doesn't change the contents of the log so doesn't require additional backups.)

Marketable items seem to have a fairly small role to play in glamour in the first place and I can't imagine there would be a drastic decrease in item value simply because you only need to acquire it once. If anything, I'd expect the price on most items to go up, especially initially, as collectors rush to fill the log. Unless there are far more alts people care enough about to invest greatly in glamour than I'd ever expect, the economic impact likely wouldn't be large.

Explain how there is an impact at all?I think he simply does not know economics, since the game's economy is poor to begin with. If a log soulbounds like glam does when you image it then what is the problem?

[Abriael]

It's not really our obligation to worry about the challenge of something. Though again I think it does not speak highly of SE's devs if they cannot handle something like this. I like to think they are at least as skilled as others and willing to implement a feature that has been requested by the broader player base for a LONG time.

You're confusing yourself, or a bunch of people in a forum with "the broader player base." That's a common mistake to make. You're not "the broader player base." You speak for yourself, not for anyone else.

Do you see them actually speaking to us about inventory space?

Besides how they spoke at length in a segment of a recent letter from the producer live and during the keynote at one of the fanfests on how they're adding inventory space in two weeks from now (40 inventory slots, plus 10 slots for each job in the armory chest), and they're experimenting to add more down the line?

The only toxicity here is you attacking me for no reason.

Quite convenient to call out others on "toxicity" while ignoring your own. You're directly attacking developers, accusing them of using "excuses" without any evidence whatsoever. You really don't have any high horse to stand on.

That said, you should probably be made aware of the fact that "toxicity" doesn't just mean "he disagrees with me." It appears you're confusing the two.

I should not have my concerns snuffed out by toxic people such as yourself because I am not a programmer

First of all, no one is "snuffing out" your concerns. Your posts aren't being deleted. If you post in a public discussion forum, people have the right and privilege to disagree with you. That's what "discussion" means.

Secondly, if you want to express your concerns, go right ahead. Yet, if you can't do it respectfully, then don't be surprised if people react. You seem to be very keen on dishing it out, but not on being on the receiving end.

[DarkDedede]

Marketable items seem to have a fairly small role to play in glamour in the first place and I can't imagine there would be a drastic decrease in item value simply because you only need to acquire it once.

Exactly. It's not like PotD doesn't already do a fine enough job of ruining the glamour economy (unless their intent there was to help the desynth economy). Having a reason for more people to want to purchase the gear would only increase demand. I can't imagine demand tapering off that quickly either, as there are always new players starting the game and new characters being made. At the very least, I'd imagine the demand for glamours would be more stable than the demand for housing items.

Edit: The demand for AF augment items would go up too.

[alimdia]

You're confusing yourself, or a bunch of people in a forum with "the broader player base." That's a common mistake to make. You're not "the broader player base." You speak for yourself, not for anyone else.

Do a quick survey in any main city, speak with your friends, linkshells or free company, I'd be surprised if the majority didn't answer that they do in fact want a glamour log.

[Deceptus]

"Moreover, if we were enabling players to keep their glamour, this could affect the game's economy because gears would fastly lose their value as you would need to obtain them only once."

This is the most BS answer I have ever heard. I have NEVER in the years playing this game bought an extra item just to reglamour it.

[Ama_Hamada]

"Moreover, if we were enabling players to keep their glamour, this could affect the game's economy because gears would fastly lose their value as you would need to obtain them only once."This is the most BS answer I have ever heard. I have NEVER in the years playing this game bought an extra item just to reglamour it.

Some do, but it is rare and it has to do with rare dyes. Even then all the times I heard doing that was npc items or mog station. One example is how a friend bought 2 swimming tops, one to be pure black dye, one to be pure white dye and put them on different retainers. Saves money in the long run when you keep needing to redye say pure black stuff when the base is pure white...

But I really wondered what he meant and assumed something like , buy glam item, log it, then sell it and that is prevented easily by making it work like glam prisms, log it? becomes bound to you, really need better interviewers =/ to keep suggesting alternatives and see what can be done with inventory bloat. We are not given enough communication to offer something they are willing to do.