Please remove gil cap

[Limecat]

I treat it like a high score in lieu of any other truly long-term or horizontal content. It's not there to spend, it's there for the number to improve a bit more every day.

[CainCrimson]

the struggle is...

[Lunaxia]

I'm not going to pretend to try and understand the desire to get more money when you already have a ridiculously vast amount you could never hope to spend purely so you can watch a number on a screen go up, and SE will never do it anyway. It's a "problem" that affects very, very few and isn't their responsibility to change an entire system because of the hoarding tendencies of a very small minority.

[-BlueGreen-]

I don't see the gil cap ever going up, for two reasons:

1. Technical reasons, as others have stated. When you go beyond a standard long value in software, the way you do even simple math with such numbers changes significantly.
2. Practical reasons. Raising the gil cap now would only be a temporary fix. If you've already earned several billion already, I doubt doing it another 9 times would be that much of a problem. What then, ask for another gil cap increase?

To be fair, you did point out that the stack size on most items went from 99 -> 999, a whole order of magnitude up. I can imagine that took some effort on their part (especially if they had opted for maximum space efficiency and previously used an unsigned byte to store quantity), but the change does serve significant practical purposes.

For instance, if you want to craft a full set of crafter/gather gear + tools from the newest recipes, many of the material requirements go well beyond 99 meaning it'd take more than one slot for each distinct raw material item if we were still working with a 99 cap. This is just to craft *one* set of gear, not mass produce the stuff to sell on the MB or anything meaning that many players were likely impacted by the old cap of 99. This makes it much easier to deal with most crafting projects I can conceive of and at worst I have material requirements going into the 200-300s for even my most ambitious project yet. I don't really foresee ever needing to hold 1000 or more of anything unless it's from Eureka, and even then, I usually spend/open them before too long.

In other words, yes they increased the item cap from 99 to 999, but unless they do something like "1 leather = 30 skins", I doubt there will be a whole lot of practical reasons to raise it beyond 999. Gil on the other hand largely loses meaning beyond 100M as I doubt there's much you can do day-to-day differently with 1B vs. 100M.

Edit: For fun, I can't help but to think of this.

[NessaWyvern]

Do what people do in other MMOs. Buy the expensive exclusives off the MB, and store it away like a gil token. Most of these just keep going up in price anyway. It'll be like an investment

[UkcsAlias]

When you go beyond a standard long value in software

A (edit: this is actualy wrong, but there is a double long format that supports 8 bytes just like a 64bit int. but still, 64bit ints are widely supported) long is 8 bytes and can store values up to: 9223372036854775807. Its more likely that its stored as a 32bit int which can store up to: 2147483647
(these values are with sign bit, and for calcultion its better to preserve that bit)

With 64bit CPU's being the standard for a long time, i dont see any issues into converting those integers to longs. CPU's handle these natively without any strange code (as longs are 64bits), so in code management this should be a relatively small change. The real problem is that it still takes a lot of testing time, is still a big risk to alter (bugs can easily show), and helps barely any player. Technicaly there is not realy a limit here. Its more about costs vs the number of players that gain anything here.

Still, the better way would be having more and better money sinks for those people, but this will always be a race to such people and be content only accessible to a few.

Do what people do in other MMOs. Buy the expensive exclusives off the MB, and store it away like a gil token. Most of these just keep going up in price anyway. It'll be like an investment

This happened in tf2 before, where people hoarded valuable items. Until the devs did something that caused a crash in value (rerelease of such item). Its no guarantee to be a proper investment.

Adding a tax would still be the most efficient gil sink that can exist since there is no gain, and only punishes the richest people. Maybe this is what should have been done on the teleport costs?

[GoofballRat]

I just read through the whole thread and while I don't have anything to add but my opinion, here's a tldr of the best points:

Gil is like highscore for some people, they simply get enjoyment from amassing it.

Technical difficulties stand in the way of increasing gil cap directly, but you could do it indirectly by introducing a stacking item that costs at least 1-10 million per one.

However, being able to amass any more gil would mean even a bigger liability to market board, people have already potential to crash it at will. I'm not sure how though, because you can only sell 20 items at a time per retainer so I can only see the ability to make items rise in price, which'd be good for crafters. But what do I know, maybe someone will explain how they can actually crash the market because I don't get it.

If they can crash the market, I don't think gil cap should be raised in any form, instead it could be lowered perhaps. But if they can't crash the market, I dont see why you couldn't introduce a pricey vendor stackable item.

[SmokeyTheSequel]

Need to introduce ffxiv tokens... pay your sub with in game gil like wow. Put RMT out of business xD

[Alistaire]

Need to introduce ffxiv tokens... pay your sub with in game gil like wow. Put RMT out of business xD

Wait, add the ability to pay your sub in gil and you think that'd take business away from gilsellers? Only 1 of 2 situations can happen here: it becomes either more efficient or less/just as efficient to pay your sub by buying gil. If it becomes more efficient, gilseller business goes up. If it's less efficient, they're completely unaffected, unless of course gil becomes more scarce ingame because of people paying thru legit-gained gil, and then again gilseller business goes up.

[Liam_Harper]

Wait, add the ability to pay your sub in gil and you think that'd take business away from gilsellers?

Yes, they get competition from a source that is completely safe and risk free. No chance of being scammed, hacked or getting your account banned.

The WoW token worked on a demand/supply basis, if demand was low the price dropped, if demand was high the price was higher. Therefore if the RMT sellers were giving a much better deal, the Token market would adjust and push them out.

Basically it worked like this. You pay 20 euro for a token. You sell it on the MB for gil. The buyer can then exchange the token for 14 euro in crysta or a month sub. Enix makes profit (which is better for the game) and both players involved benefit from something they couldn't get otherwise. It actually worked fine in WoW. It would also give gil a purpose.