Is it maybe time for a full infrastructure rebuild? (Re: Database and netcode issues)

[Tridus]

I don't see 200 as being their final number though. This looks like an initial foray into their glamour idea with possible expansion as they see its impact. Yes it still has a limitation, but we aren't aware of what the "final cap" is. I remain optimistic about this particular feature and see it as a good start. I would LOVE a GW2 type solution for dyes and wardrobe with items being unlocked account wide and forever as long as you've touched something that used that model once, but that's a whole other system and would have to be coded in as such..

There's no reason to assume 200 isn't the final number, either. This is a new thing, they had the chance to do it right (having apparently abandoned the armoire), and what they came up with has what is an already low limit and will continue to feel lower as they keep adding more stuff to the game.

What restriction is in place on the backend that would necessitate a 200 limit right now that won't still exist in a year? None of us can answer that question, and until someone can, the idea that the limit is a temporary "new system" thing and not the actual limit is just optimistic speculation. With how restrictive SE is on server resources, I have a hard time finding anything to suggest we'll see that limit change in the medium term.

[Krotoan]

There's no reason to assume 200 isn't the final number, either. This is a new thing, they had the chance to do it right (having apparently abandoned the armoire), and what they came up with has what is an already low limit and will continue to feel lower as they keep adding more stuff to the game.

What restriction is in place on the backend that would necessitate a 200 limit right now that won't still exist in a year? None of us can answer that question, and until someone can, the idea that the limit is a temporary "new system" thing and not the actual limit is just optimistic speculation. With how restrictive SE is on server resources, I have a hard time finding anything to suggest we'll see that limit change in the medium term.

As your statement is pessimistic doomsaying. I'll walk in hope while you wallow in negativity.

You are correct though, we don't know their developmental decisions or reasons and can either hope or condemn. I DO however know that if you introduce a new feature that uses bandwidth, you do it a bit at a time. It's a bad idea to just open the gates and just hope it doesn't break anything. This is what I base my assessment on.
Lets say the conversion of items to simpler flags of model, color and restrictions instead of tracking stats, soulbinding , and durability reduces the average bandwidth used by each player by 5%. Using this knowledge they may be able to adjust our glamour dresser to have a higher capacity since it uses less bandwidth. Once they know the server can handle it, estimates and projected numbers hold nothing on actual live implementation.

[Tridus]

As your statement is pessimistic doomsaying. I'll walk in hope while you wallow in negativity.

Could be. I'd be pretty happy to be wrong in this case.

You are correct though, we don't know their developmental decisions or reasons and can either hope or condemn. I DO however know that if you introduce a new feature that uses bandwidth, you do it a bit at a time. It's a bad idea to just open the gates and just hope it doesn't break anything. This is what I base my assessment on.

If you plan to scale it, you also design it to scale. In this case, the UI doesn't look suitable to holding 3000 items since it'll be a giant collection of icons on display you have to find, rather than a list with text and icons (like the crafting log, which covers a huge amount of recipes if you're an omnicrafter). Maybe it'll work better in practice, we'll see. A search box would certainly be nice.

Lets say the conversion of items to simpler flags of model, color and restrictions instead of tracking stats, soulbinding , and durability reduces the average bandwidth used by each player by 5%. Using this knowledge they may be able to adjust our glamour dresser to have a higher capacity since it uses less bandwidth. Once they know the server can handle it, estimates and projected numbers hold nothing on actual live implementation.

To me, knowing what they've said about how their backend works, this looks like a glamour themed version of the chocobo saddlebags we're also getting. Both of them are restricted availability inventory, in that they're inventory that isn't always accessible and for which the server (and client) doesn't have to keep data loaded all the time.

The primary value in that approach is that when you transfer data to an instance server (because you're doing a roulette or something), none of that data has to go with you. Your saddlebags and glamour closet are both unavailable in that zone, so there's no need to use bandwidth or RAM on them. That means they don't have to worry about the instance server load changing at all, aside from wherever inn rooms are handled, and even then it's only if you specifically interact with it (ditto with housing if there's one you can put in your house, but it's still an on demand load).

They've called out character data transfer requirements more than once as a reason to not expand things like base inventory, and this approach avoids that problem. That doesn't mean they can scale it up infinitely the way WoW's system does (in that it covers basically every item in the game), but if the on demand loading requirements prove to be manageable then there could be room to grow it.

Hey look at that, I ended up talking myself into agreeing with you!

[Krotoan]

Could be. I'd be pretty happy to be wrong in this case.

Sounds like you have hope for this game yet. We'll hope it all turns out for the better together. Meanwhile, happy adventuring. =]