[dev1357] The Armoire

[Maxwell]

The requierments on the armoire makes it extremly annoying and borderline useless. If my retainer can hold these items with no restrictions, why should i even bother using that armoire ?

Iknowiknow some of you have a full 2 retainers + a full invenroty, but it still feels like wet fireworks, an hexagonal spare tire, 0 alchool scotch, a bag of dehydrated water (just add water!), etc.

[Enyyx]

Since there's going to be a million "I hate the item condition limit" posts I guess I'll add to the million "this is why they did it" ones.

It's not pandering to crafters, it's a lot easier system resource wise to say ITEM X in ITEM X out, rather than Item X with Y condition and Z spiritbond in same thing out.

They don't have to store the variables for each and every item for each and every character this way. Less server resources consumed does not equal pandering.

gawd

[Maxwell]

... it's a lot easier system resource wise to say ITEM X in ITEM X out, rather than Item X with Y condition and Z spiritbond in same thing out.

They don't have to store the variables for each and every item for each and every character this way. Less server resources consumed does not equal pandering.

gawd

I disagree on your justification of the restrictions. If the software backbone cant handle new features in a convinient and functionnal way from the start, why not leave it for 2.0 where so much is being promised including new server software ? I'm already storing all that not-100%/spiritbonded gear on me and my retainers. What if i had a 3rd or 4th retainer ? If adding another storage point compromises the system, dont do it.

[Molly_Millions]

I disagree on your justification of the restrictions. If the software backbone cant handle new features in a convinient and functionnal way from the start, why not leave it for 2.0 where so much is being promised including new server software ? I'm already storing all that not-100%/spiritbonded gear on me and my retainers. What if i had a 3rd or 4th retainer ? If adding another storage point compromises the system, dont do it.

I think she hit the nail on the head, actually. We may get the ability to store damaged or spiritbonded gear later, but the track record shows this games code has too much in common with a tangled mess of spaghetti for the devs to deliver anything more than the most basic features initially.

[Jinko]

Since there's going to be a million "I hate the item condition limit" posts I guess I'll add to the million "this is why they did it" ones.

It's not pandering to crafters, it's a lot easier system resource wise to say ITEM X in ITEM X out, rather than Item X with Y condition and Z spiritbond in same thing out.

They don't have to store the variables for each and every item for each and every character this way. Less server resources consumed does not equal pandering.

gawd

Seriously .. this is 2012 .. now 1990.

If WoW has no problem storing 100's of items in a bank/ guild bank with millions of players I really don't see how SE cant' do it with 20k players.

Now if your argument went something like "SE aren't competent enough to store such variables" or "SE just can't be bothered" then I would probably be more likely to believe you.

As suggested above, why not just allow us to rent a 3rd of 4th retainer, for real money like was promised at launch. (it's almost as if the people working at SE purposefully come up with convoluted idea's just to annoy everybody)

We do kinda have it but I'd like to manage all my storage in 1-place, like the Housing. I dont wanna have to run around wards, going to my retainer or calling them and losing the spot (since all wards are constantly full now)

Jackpot !!

Why can't we summon a retainer to the INN for example ? (oh oh and then replace them back in the ward after we have finished with them)

I'm guessing the INN's would melt if players started summoning retainers there though.

[Etheos]

I love the idea of the Armoire. Like stated earlier though, please revise the item condition to 99%. There is a time and a place to force repairs on a player. Putting an item in storage is NOT one of those times or places.

Understanding that you are wanting to make the crafters feel so especially special and delicious because they have been put off for over a year on their content does not suggest that you make a move where we get a storage system that forces players to find these crafters and not only sit outside in a city when our characters could be resting in the inn and getting rested XP but also having us add to the shouting fest that is indeed Costco aka Ul'dah.

Just change to 99%. Simple.

[Bizzy]

I hope they make the armoire unique for each city. The one in the picture looks to fit Uldah more then the other 2 cities.

[syntaxlies]

I hope they make the armoire unique for each city. The one in the picture looks to fit Uldah more then the other 2 cities.

they prob all get made at the carpenters guild so the prob all look the same

[Oniji]

I understand that the current infrastructure in place is somewhat shoddy.

But two extra variable calls for each item being "taxing on resources". I don't buy it. The retainer system is already in place and does it perfectly well. Adding The Armoire with the same functionality as a retainer, would have just changed the storage type, and not increased the overall server traffic, considering you cannot do both transactions at the same time.

I'm not complaining. I just think that another reason was behind them limiting it in this fashion. Maybe it has to do with how much development resources/testing they wanted to devote to this.

Either way, I don't see people using this feature very frequently beyond the initial item drop off.

[Molly_Millions]

I understand that the current infrastructure in place is somewhat shoddy.

But two extra variable calls for each item being "taxing on resources". I don't buy it. The retainer system is already in place and does it perfectly well. Adding The Armoire with the same functionality as a retainer, would have just changed the storage type, and not increased the overall server traffic, considering you cannot do both transactions at the same time.

I'm not complaining. I just think that another reason was behind them limiting it in this fashion. Maybe it has to do with how much development resources/testing they wanted to devote to this.

Either way, I don't see people using this feature very frequently beyond the initial item drop off.

If I had to guess the reason you can only store items at 100% and remove any spiritbonding is more an issue of the time it would take to add those features more than any sort of technical limitation.