Skip to Content
8-17-2011 @ 11:57AM
Ok, let me preface my comment with this: I am NOT comparing myself to Blizzard, so don't even go there."(Read: Silly databases!)"I've been a software developer for 7 years, developed hundreds of databases and products, and when I read this, a single thought came to mind: THIS IS SUCH A LOAD OF CRAP!YOU HAVE THE FRAMEWORK ALREADY BUILT TO STORE ITEMS IN A NON-BAG STORAGE UNIT (read: BANK!!), AND IT DOESN'T REMOVE JACK FROM MY ITEMS! THIS IS NO FREAKING DIFFERENT!So, for all you non-devs out there, let me restate this for you:"The stripping isn't tied to the lore of the game, either, but is the byproduct of a technical issue that makes this new storage system possible. (Read: LAZY DEVELOPERS!!)"
8-17-2011 @ 12:05PM
I love people who type with WALLS OF CAPS. Really I do.
8-17-2011 @ 12:04PM
More like unwilling to pay the price in money, bandwidth, etc for more sub-servers.
Some of it is definitely lazy developers, don't get me wrong, but a large portion of it is the evolution of programming thought. It's common place nowadays to build in extensible systems with absolutely no hard limits. 10 years ago when the bank and storage space was built? It wasn't at all.There's also the factor of super high-performance computing, where reducing DB reads by even 1 or 2 reads can lead to significant performance gains. Even in a caching scenario that can be huge when applied to millions of accounts. I do a fair amount of programming (and DB work), and when moving things to a high performance embedded situation, I (and everyone I know) commonly takes shortcuts by hard coding some things.So I don't think it's all bad programming. Def a combination of old coding/design standards and meeting the demands of the situation.
8-17-2011 @ 12:07PM
fingers crossed this is how sending heirlooms cross-realm will worktake a chill kelly
8-17-2011 @ 12:08PM
I'm also a software developer, and I can immediately see the issue here.If they can restrict void storage to saving the item itself, then they're significantly cutting out the space required to save an item.If you can cut it down to one integer per item (the unique ID of the item), that's a significant savings over the multiple integers required for:-Enchant ID (1 integer)-Gem ID for up to 3 slots (3 integers)-Creator ID (1-2 integers, depending on how they store this)It's not a matter of laziness or lack of capability. It's a matter of conserving storage space. Likewise, it will conserve the amount of time needed to parse the data during play.
8-17-2011 @ 12:15PM
There is no comparison of you with Blizzard, don't worry. :)From what I can tell, a lot of data is...are...is (screw it) stored on a realm-by-realm basis. Hundreds of realms. Blizzard has lately been moving things to function cross-realm (battlegroups, real ID, dungeon finder, upcoming raid finder). That tells me they're centralizing as much data as they can.I'm drawing the conclusion that Void Storage is something that will be stored independently of realm data, which when you think about it makes sense. If you faction or realm transfer, your Void Storage data won't have to be moved; it will be associated to the ID of your character, no matter where your character is.I can understand the "created by" getting stripped, as that's one more relational thing tied to the gear that they would have to manage (does the name get updated if the person changes names? what if they delete the character?). Removing enchants seems odd, but my guess is when you put something from YOUR vault on YOUR realm into Void Storage, it tells the "Void Storage server" to "create a copy of this piece of gear and place it in this character's Void Storage", then tells your realm's database "delete this piece of gear". It COULD keep the enchant on it, but it's, again, probably one more piece of relational data that they decided isn't important enough to manage.As far as lazy developers go, I have been a developer for 12 years, and yes, I am absolutely lazy. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but laziness is the catalyst for software design. :) BUT, remember the developers don't always call the shots. There are budget constraints, time constraints, physical or virtual or practical limitations, and generally someone else dictating how much they want you to do.
8-18-2011 @ 12:00AM
This is probably more work for the developers than adding 80 slots to your bank would be, since like you said they already have that system in place. They clearly didn't do it because they want to cut corners on development - they wanted to cut corners on their database storage space. 80 slots * 11 million subscribers * 50 characters (maximum) per account is a lot of data no matter how you slice it and only storing the itemID cuts down on that substantially, just like Nopunin10did said - and he didn't even mention reforge IDs.
8-18-2011 @ 11:46AM
No one has mentioned the obvious: Void storage is what they changed the key ring into, hence the limitations. As such I would be shocked and amazed if there was any cross-character or cross-realm access.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.