Reincarnation cache (easier transfer option suggestion)

[cxviihxxi]

Could we get 1 single button that would try to put as many of our items from reincarnation cache to the bank?

This is a short suggestion but I think anyone reincarnating would agree this would be a healthy suggestion. It wouldn't affect bank slots, ddo points, etc. since it's just simply that whatever was in reincarnation cache is put into the normal bank (if possible) so like if the game sees you have 200 items and your bank accepts 100, it would put 100 of the items from reincarnation cache into the bank. (for easier reincarnation)

It's always a hassle and no matter what upgrade, etc. there is no single action I could do (even if paid) to make it faster and dragging 200+ items in and out is a lot of hassle.

So this is my suggestion and hope it will be heard.

 

[Driaza]

I truely agree - any improvement would be great

Bought some otto boxes recently and this weekend did

2 ETRs, 1 RTR, 2 ATRs and 1 ITR

The worst part of the experience was you guessed it .... managing the TR cache

 

[J1NG]

The danger is how it's implemented given how DDO can react.

Assuming if it see's free spaces, it means DDO needs to lock those spaces to prevent them from being filled and lock player interaction so they can't interact with the bank either, otherwise player activity could cause bank spots to be filled and then the auto-removal from cache system to fall over as expected space is greater than actual space. What does it do with items in such cases? If you're lucky, it stays in the cache. If you're unlucky due to the order of events, it could just go *poof*. Or of course, if an item is removed whilst the auto-remover is attempting to do the same; if it works right, it should just be one item, but if not you could end up having a duplicate item. Might sound good for the player, but it's bad for DDO. Items with identical details cause.... "problems".

Players would also not be allowed to leave the vincinity of the bank to prevent the closure of the bank and causing problems (we know for exmaple interactions between mechanics of DDO can happen whilst the bank interface is open only). This might cause confusion for players not in the know and also if they attempt to log or for whatever reason they DC, and again, we don't since we won't know what interactions are allowed, we could have a wrong order of events and then an item that should be safely removed, now is lost forever due to player interaction with the bank.

In short, the idea is sound, but whether a safe implementation is possible is a really big question as well. I'd rather NOT chance any items being lost via this route (since we know DDO can "lose" items that leave no trace either, it can be troublesome trying to get them back whilst going through support).

J1NG

 

[Visik]

The danger is how it's implemented given how DDO can react.

Assuming if it see's free spaces, it means DDO needs to lock those spaces to prevent them from being filled and lock player interaction so they can't interact with the bank either, otherwise player activity could cause bank spots to be filled and then the auto-removal from cache system to fall over as expected space is greater than actual space. What does it do with items in such cases? If you're lucky, it stays in the cache. If you're unlucky due to the order of events, it could just go *poof*. Or of course, if an item is removed whilst the auto-remover is attempting to do the same; if it works right, it should just be one item, but if not you could end up having a duplicate item. Might sound good for the player, but it's bad for DDO. Items with identical details cause.... "problems".

Players would also not be allowed to leave the vincinity of the bank to prevent the closure of the bank and causing problems (we know for exmaple interactions between mechanics of DDO can happen whilst the bank interface is open only). This might cause confusion for players not in the know and also if they attempt to log or for whatever reason they DC, and again, we don't since we won't know what interactions are allowed, we could have a wrong order of events and then an item that should be safely removed, now is lost forever due to player interaction with the bank.

In short, the idea is sound, but whether a safe implementation is possible is a really big question as well. I'd rather NOT chance any items being lost via this route (since we know DDO can "lose" items that leave no trace either, it can be troublesome trying to get them back whilst going through support).

J1NG

You're suggesting that moving a couple of hundred items internally on the server would take a significant amount of time. There's no reason it wouldn't/shouldn't be essentially instantaneous. The time and hassle in doing it manually is somewhat about connection, somewhat about the physical movements involved,.. but mostly about delays they put in to fix some historical duping issue or other (iirc). If DDO's servers are actually that slow internally.. I think I found the source of all the lag....

 

[cxviihxxi]

The danger is how it's implemented given how DDO can react.

Assuming if it see's free spaces, it means DDO needs to lock those spaces to prevent them from being filled and lock player interaction so they can't interact with the bank either, otherwise player activity could cause bank spots to be filled and then the auto-removal from cache system to fall over as expected space is greater than actual space. What does it do with items in such cases? If you're lucky, it stays in the cache. If you're unlucky due to the order of events, it could just go *poof*. Or of course, if an item is removed whilst the auto-remover is attempting to do the same; if it works right, it should just be one item, but if not you could end up having a duplicate item. Might sound good for the player, but it's bad for DDO. Items with identical details cause.... "problems".

Players would also not be allowed to leave the vincinity of the bank to prevent the closure of the bank and causing problems (we know for exmaple interactions between mechanics of DDO can happen whilst the bank interface is open only). This might cause confusion for players not in the know and also if they attempt to log or for whatever reason they DC, and again, we don't since we won't know what interactions are allowed, we could have a wrong order of events and then an item that should be safely removed, now is lost forever due to player interaction with the bank.

In short, the idea is sound, but whether a safe implementation is possible is a really big question as well. I'd rather NOT chance any items being lost via this route (since we know DDO can "lose" items that leave no trace either, it can be troublesome trying to get them back whilst going through support).

J1NG

I actually got a software developer and tester and honestly this is backend stuff.

All that would be needed is that on the frontend you press a button, which sends a request to the server, likely a simple UDP would suffice with appropriate safety features. (or just plain TCP since this is a one time action and no need for it to be realtime, but I have no experience with TCP)

Either way, when that packet is sent, it contains the info about what player then in the backend the server would just need to remove from one table the contents related to the player and move it to another.(a simple SELECT * FROM table, then an INSERT INTO if done in sql, but that's just one database type so I don't know if it's NoSQL etc.)

If done well, even for many players this should be a quicker task and if need be, make a "request limiter" so for example a player can only use this feature once per day (irl) to ensure that they are not spamming it, etc. making the server overloaded and so on.

If done well, it could be implemented, there is no stuff (at least if done well) that would check "free spaces" etc. it's just that it should happen on backend, but every backend feature is likely to be "checked 10 times" for safety reasons.

The likeliest issue is it's easier to send 1 packet for 1 item to be sent over and handled and safer, but it could be done for a batch, especially considering reincarnation cache is a 1 way bank. So using this feature couldn't happen too often and if it did, it can be optimized really well. (or just run bank, etc. things on threads that are seperate and when all the things are done they are remerged.)

 

[CherryBomb]

A few months ago someone suggested a better way to empty the TR cache within the existing game. It works for me. That is to use the level select criteria. When it is time to clear the TR cache, I systematically use the level ranges to reduce the amount of items on screen. Show level 1 items (there is a ton of stuff that identifies as level 1). Move them off. Show levels 2 through 5 and move them. This list is much shorter and there is very little lag. Show levels 6 through 10 and so on. Shorter lists on screen make for quicker transfers.

 

[Ooblagato]

Or tackle the root problem and truly improve the player experience. Get rid of the reincarnation cache and replace it with usable bank spaces without any annoying caveats.

 

[Visik]

Or tackle the root problem and truly improve the player experience. Get rid of the reincarnation cache and replace it with usable bank spaces without any annoying caveats.

Nope. Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.

The only reason the TR cache is free, unlimited* space available to everyone at no extra cost is because of its limitations. If they converted it, you can bet it'd cost, and newbies would have even fewer storage options.

This is not a valid solution.

*limited only by the total of your inventory and personal bank and paperdoll spaces

 

[festasha]

Could we get 1 single button that would try to put as many of our items from reincarnation cache to the bank?

Erm as much as I like the idea I believe the effect would be like an atom bomb going off and killing a billion hamsters .
We have all seen how long it takes to move a second item if we move it too fast yet alone 200-300 items.

 

[Visik]

Erm as much as I like the idea I believe the effect would be like an atom bomb going off and killing a billion hamsters .
We have all seen how long it takes to move a second item if we move it too fast yet alone 200-300 items.

This is a false concern on two bases.

First, the lag we encounter in doing so is at least partially deliberate. Iirc, there was once a duping exploit that took advantage of the inherent lag in bank transfers. I never learned the details; exploits aren't my thing. I just recall someone having mentioned that that was one reason why moving things suddenly got slower some years ago. They incorporated a deliberate delay between successive moves. That's why you get the message about the bank not yet being ready. Clearly your command is being processed; it's just not taking effect as you would wish... on purpose.

Second, a one-button move would take place entirely on the server end, which would eliminate both UI lag from the dragging and visual updating as well as transmission lag from sending the info from client to server and back. I don't know how the databases for the game are constructed, but moving items between them within the server should be well-nigh instantaneous.

 

[festasha]

This is a false concern on two bases.

First, the lag we encounter in doing so is at least partially deliberate. Iirc, there was once a duping exploit that took advantage of the inherent lag in bank transfers. I never learned the details; exploits aren't my thing. I just recall someone having mentioned that that was one reason why moving things suddenly got slower some years ago. They incorporated a deliberate delay between successive moves. That's why you get the message about the bank not yet being ready. Clearly your command is being processed; it's just not taking effect as you would wish... on purpose.

Second, a one-button move would take place entirely on the server end, which would eliminate both UI lag from the dragging and visual updating as well as transmission lag from sending the info from client to server and back. I don't know how the databases for the game are constructed, but moving items between them within the server should be well-nigh instantaneous.

But the poor hamsters!

I have no idea about the code side, if it can be done and I keep my stuff with no bugs then cool.

 

[Bjond]

Personally, I'd like to see the cache removed and favor-won inventory and bank made permanent.

However, you could go the other way and make the cache more useful; ie. have it never show up when you access the banker. Instead only have it available via a special cache vendor, like "attic" storage. Keep the single item withdraw. Add a feature to upload all current bank & inventory to the attic.

This would keep it from slowing regular bank access while also supporting the DDO hoarding community.

 

[cxviihxxi]

Erm as much as I like the idea I believe the effect would be like an atom bomb going off and killing a billion hamsters .
We have all seen how long it takes to move a second item if we move it too fast yet alone 200-300 items.

Not really, because there is a thing called "rate limiting" in programming. If too many requests just throw an error basically or delay it on another thread if possible. That's what happens at single items basically when trying to quickly move them over.

The reason I suggest a single button is because it could in theory be faster if properly implemented. Like instead of waiting for a request, request sent, etc. a player could just send a request saying "move all" basically and a WHERE (in sql terms) can be used to move all items from player cache to bank if possible, just check bank capacity first and properly implement it. (which could be like a few lines only afaik, depends on database structure, if it's SQL a few lines, if not then probably more)

I think it would be a QOL update, but a pretty good regardless.

I am an optimization manaiac so that's why I think it should be doable tho.

 

[Ooblagato]

Nope. Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.

The only reason the TR cache is free, unlimited* space available to everyone at no extra cost is because of its limitations. If they converted it, you can bet it'd cost, and newbies would have even fewer storage options.

This is not a valid solution.

*limited only by the total of your inventory and personal bank and paperdoll spaces

Can we stop having this terrible idea that we have to suffer in some way for our inventory or something? Find a balanced medium of 200 slots or double their bank and inventory upgrades or whatever and throw those at all characters that have reincarnated at least once. Done and done. Just because theoretically you could maybe push that to 300 slots by intentionally piling up things in your inventory or whatever doesn't mean that it would be better game design to keep it that way.
It takes hours each reincarnation to reorganize every time because of this archaic piece of garbage. Please stop defending it.

 

[Visik]

Can we stop having this terrible idea that we have to suffer in some way for our inventory or something? Find a balanced medium of 200 slots or double their bank and inventory upgrades or whatever and throw those at all characters that have reincarnated at least once. Done and done. Just because theoretically you could maybe push that to 300 slots by intentionally piling up things in your inventory or whatever doesn't mean that it would be better game design to keep it that way.
It takes hours each reincarnation to reorganize every time because of this archaic piece of garbage. Please stop defending it.

I admit I'm not privy to the financial circumstances that make the game possible, nor what changes would make it stop being viable.

But I DO know that storage and cosmetic sales have to be a huge part of what they do to make money.

Unless you have something to offer to take the place of that income, you're likely wasting your time and energy asking for something that they cannot afford to provide.

Imo, the TR storage clearing could be automated without eliminating the TR cache itself. That's a reasonable change request that they might actually be able to provide.. again, working in the dark about their financial constraints.

 

[Smokewolf]

You're suggesting that moving a couple of hundred items internally on the server would take a significant amount of time. There's no reason it wouldn't/shouldn't be essentially instantaneous. The time and hassle in doing it manually is somewhat about connection, somewhat about the physical movements involved,.. but mostly about delays they put in to fix some historical duping issue or other (iirc). If DDO's servers are actually that slow internally.. I think I found the source of all the lag....

A player doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are others in play and likely tasking the same scripts / processes you are at any given moment. Thus we have lag, the result of a server attempting to share the same resources across multiple players. Often needing to timeshare those resources between players for each server tick, just to make it work.

Besides dumping an entire TR cache into a banking space that may or may not have room for it, would create a huge number of management issues. Especially when you factor in that some items are BTA or BTC and may not be allowed in a players avaliable storage. Now do the same thing again but with 100 players. Cross your fingers and hope that the server doesn't crash, and that the TR'ing players don't lose their gear in the attempt.

 

[Visik]

A player doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are others in play and likely tasking the same scripts / processes you are at any given moment. Thus we have lag, the result of a server attempting to share the same resources across multiple players. Often needing to timeshare those resources between players for each server tick, just to make it work.

Besides dumping an entire TR cache into a banking space that may or may not have room for it, would create a huge number of management issues. Especially when you factor in that some items are BTA or BTC and may not be allowed in a players avaliable storage. Now do the same thing again but with 100 players. Cross your fingers and hope that the server doesn't crash, and that the TR'ing players don't lose their gear in the attempt.

That's a lovely theoretical argument. Based on how many people currently play DDO, how many do you think TR simultaneously?

But no.. that's all very simple logic. Yes, someone has to write the script to manage that logic. But all of that is a lot less server and connection load than the current system.

For example, binding is a false issue. Everything in your TR cache would be dumped into either your personal bank or inventory, stopping when space is full. BOTH of those storage options can handle any kind of binding status. It would only be an issue if you wanted to program it to dump into Shared Bank.. which there's no reason to do. So all they really have to check for is adequate space, which can be handled two ways: refuse to start if there isn't enough space in those two places, or move everything that's possible till they're full and then abort the remainder of the process. Neither is complex logic.

As for server crashes, systems to manage that and appropriate safeguards exist in literally hundreds of pieces of software; this is not inventing the wheel.

It may well be that there are constraints preventing them from doing an auto-dump of the TR cache into storage, but none of your objections are on the list; they'd have to be weird oddities specific to the game's coding.

 

[Weaponalpha]

Until they address the TR cache (which may never happen since it is probably a much larger endeavor than anyone realizes...) it is best to limit how much shows when removing items. Just click on "slot" and choose Weapon and empty only those and move on down the line. Can also limit by level range. I miss when you could just spend a few minutes manually dragging items over and then go make a snack and come back to an empty cache. Having to double click on every single item is rather tiresome.

 

[Smokewolf]

That's a lovely theoretical argument. Based on how many people currently play DDO, how many do you think TR simultaneously?

But no.. that's all very simple logic. Yes, someone has to write the script to manage that logic. But all of that is a lot less server and connection load than the current system.

For example, binding is a false issue. Everything in your TR cache would be dumped into either your personal bank or inventory, stopping when space is full. BOTH of those storage options can handle any kind of binding status. It would only be an issue if you wanted to program it to dump into Shared Bank.. which there's no reason to do. So all they really have to check for is adequate space, which can be handled two ways: refuse to start if there isn't enough space in those two places, or move everything that's possible till they're full and then abort the remainder of the process. Neither is complex logic.

As for server crashes, systems to manage that and appropriate safeguards exist in literally hundreds of pieces of software; this is not inventing the wheel.

It may well be that there are constraints preventing them from doing an auto-dump of the TR cache into storage, but none of your objections are on the list; they'd have to be weird oddities specific to the game's coding.

The other aspect of this is that's its deliberately done to slow player progression.

 

[Bjond]

The other aspect of this is that's its deliberately done to slow player progression.

You shouldn't need to borrow the Hubble to see the end.