Architect Archive
Thread: Why does furniture count against a house item limit?
Page 1 of 2
LonelyGhost
Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:59 pm
#1
I honestly dont recall this being addressed anywhere, so I thought I'd ask it. If they would just make it so that any item made in the Architect Furniture tree does NOT count against the structure item cap, everyone would be able to make nice looking homes. Seriously, are they really worried about someone storing ten thousand bookcases in a house? Lag would only be an issue for people who enter the building, and even then, it would mostly be client-side lag. This would be a nice temporary fix till they GIVE US some decent storage.
Bandola
Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:03 pm
#2
Well, there is always the problem that people who actually make furniture for sale (architects) would have unlimited storage space for their sales goods. Other crafters would almost certainly cry 'foul'. Plus the more creative interior designer types would receive no benefit (nor would their customers) as the vast majority of inventive solutions (e.g. fishtanks) are not furniture items at all but made up of other craftable items from the game.
l33thaxx0rnam3
Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:24 am
#3
Well, that's a good point but this just occured to me.
We are the only class whose product is ACTIVELY in conflict with the storage issues.
WS, AS, Musician, and Tailor: When used, their craftables go to zero inventory.
DE, CH, BE: When used, their pets go to datapad.
DOC, Chef, Smuggler: When used, their craftables reduce inventory.
Anyway. When our products are "in use" players are actively penalized in the form of less usable storage space. Given that, why would anyone in his right mind buy furniture that ONLY makes life more difficult? I think the majority of the player base approaches it this way. This gives me an idea, that I think we oughta consider getting Dvnce to propose. Seriously.
*ahem*
OHI'S BIG PROPOSAL:
1) EVERY HOUSE HAVE A SET NUMBER OF "FURNITURE" SPACES (20 or so) PER LOT
2) These slots do not count towards house item limit.
3) Furniture may be placed AFTER this limit, but that will cost you.
If decorating a toon with clothing dosen't penalise a player, then why should decorating a toons house? Not a huge change, not a huge increase in the items. But I bet it would make decorating houses a LOT more attractive for players that otherwise wouldn't, or more likely, couldn't. Since we're not getting any action on the "Hey, the house limits suck" angle, perhaps we need to keep emphasising the "Your arbitrary rules are hindering our paid for gameplay experience" side of it.
Thoughts?
We are the only class whose product is ACTIVELY in conflict with the storage issues.
WS, AS, Musician, and Tailor: When used, their craftables go to zero inventory.
DE, CH, BE: When used, their pets go to datapad.
DOC, Chef, Smuggler: When used, their craftables reduce inventory.
Anyway. When our products are "in use" players are actively penalized in the form of less usable storage space. Given that, why would anyone in his right mind buy furniture that ONLY makes life more difficult? I think the majority of the player base approaches it this way. This gives me an idea, that I think we oughta consider getting Dvnce to propose. Seriously.
*ahem*
OHI'S BIG PROPOSAL:
1) EVERY HOUSE HAVE A SET NUMBER OF "FURNITURE" SPACES (20 or so) PER LOT
2) These slots do not count towards house item limit.
3) Furniture may be placed AFTER this limit, but that will cost you.
If decorating a toon with clothing dosen't penalise a player, then why should decorating a toons house? Not a huge change, not a huge increase in the items. But I bet it would make decorating houses a LOT more attractive for players that otherwise wouldn't, or more likely, couldn't. Since we're not getting any action on the "Hey, the house limits suck" angle, perhaps we need to keep emphasising the "Your arbitrary rules are hindering our paid for gameplay experience" side of it.
Thoughts?
Message Edited by l33thaxx0rnam3 on 09-10-2004 06:33 AM
Veers_Intrepid
Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:22 am
#4
the biggest point is furnitures serve NO not even a bit of use for the person who buys it, beside decoration.
the person buying it just blocks space and many not even bother cause that reasons to buy furnitures.
they dnt decay (what is good) and nothing.
so in my opinion i would agree to let them NOT count against storage, cause it would definately imrove the game, cause ppl actually would love to decorate and our stuff would have more demand also.
bandola, i think the some architects who really make furnitures wont harm much the storage things lol.
if i make furnitures , then i want to sell them, so wont put them into a house for storing them, i would put them all into my vendor to sell them, as i do. so i realy see no big problem with it, but finally i could decorate maybe ALL rooms nicely in guildhall or such and not only main room and going already on item limit :/
plus i really wish the devs would give on all buildings finally the 75 items/lot and not hard cap it on 250!!
as far i know they were afraid of database probs with that so made hardcap, wel now vendors item limit is there (nerf bat), now i see no reason not to loosen the hard cap on item/lot.
i want to decorate nicely and not always reaching item limit in no time 
oh and while we at it, can finally maybe also the lot usage of architect factory been reduced to 1 lot as ALL other factories? i mean all whine about balance blah blah but this is since ever in and totally not balanced
Message Edited by Veers_Intrepid on 09-10-2004 04:24 AM
DMSL
Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:24 am
#5
Just increase the item limits per house type. I.e. 300 for small, 600 for medium, 1000 for large and 1200 for guild halls.
That way people don't have to buy 3-4 houses each and the planets will not be filled with structures, which is now causing the heavy lag.
Bandola
Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:50 am
#6
Veers, I see your point, but think of it like this.
If an Architect can decorate his own house with as many different varieties of furniture as he likes, then this could be considered as an advertising method. 'Hey look at all the neat things I can make - browse through and those you like you can buy from me' kinda thing.
Now if I were an armorsmith say, my reaction would be 'Hey Devs, that isn't fair, Architects can display all their furniture items in their houses for prospective customers to see before they buy - I want to be able to do the same, so you gotta let us armorsmiths put any of our suits up on display without them counting against the item count. Oh and by the way, I want to have the same rights as all other players, and be able to put furniture in my house without it counting as well'
You see where this is leading....
l33thaxx0rnam3
Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:40 am
#7
Now if I were an armorsmith say, my reaction would be 'Hey Devs, that isn't fair, Architects can display all their furniture items in their houses for prospective customers to see before they buy - I want to be able to do the same, so you gotta let us armorsmiths put any of our suits up on display without them counting against the item count. Oh and by the way, I want to have the same rights as all other players, and be able to put furniture in my house without it counting as well'
What I'm saying is, as an Architect, I want the same rights as what Armorsmiths ALREADY have, that is for players to be able to use a small amount of our product with no inventory/storage penalty. A way to "Equip" furniture in a house so to speak.
Seriously, how many people would you see runnnig around in boxers if equipped clothing took up inventory?
Heck, even 5 furniture pieces per lot would be a HUGE improvement.
(1 bed, 1 couch, 1 table, 1 lamp, 1 chair)
Message Edited by l33thaxx0rnam3 on 09-10-2004 08:46 AM
Bandola
Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:30 am
#8
And all I am saying is that whatever way you try to dress this up (and don't get me wrong, I agree with you wholeheartedly), somebody will object, and when that happens you will find it harder and harder to get any change through. The devs do not want to make changes that players want as that means they have to work on things they do not want to do. They would rather make the 'improvements' that THEY are interested in working on, so it is convenient for them to be able to say that the change is not supported by the players 
LonelyGhost
Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:02 am
#9
People will find something to object about *anything*, so we really cant use that qualifier to determine what would be a good change. Basically, this goes to the heart of the Decorators. Being able to showcase our stuff is important. I would love to be bale to craft a "holo-layout" of the different homes...basically a 3-D thumbnail of the houses so people can see what they look like. I would love to be able to decorate up all the rooms in a Hall or house. I would love to be able to set up theme's.
I can agree that a suggestion they might like better is the set limit of furniture per lot. That would be a very nice middle-ground. But I would ask for around 20 slots per lot for furniture. Only furniture, mind you. Stuff in the tree of Achitect. This is not about helping the creative people who decorate, its about helping us have a stronger market, and we will if people can decorate their storehouses and still have full item access for stashing stuff. I have a few store houses out, empty except for a few backpacks on the wall. I would love to decorate them up. But I need that space for storage.
As to the othe rprofs wanting to display things, I have always been fond of the idea to let Merchants create a "Display Case". The item (of varying sizes for different types of stuff) is made by Artisans, but used by Merchants. The Merchant "equips" the case with the desired item, and it is permenently used up in the process (cant get the item back out). So a Merchant who sells armor can put a 1-item display case up that showcases the armor...heck, maybe it even rotates continuously. Food, weapons, clothes, etc could be displayed in their own cases.
But for us, I just cant see how having furniture count against the house item limit does any good at all.
Cafa
Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:37 am
#10
Bandola wrote:
Well, there is always the problem that people who actually make furniture for sale (architects) would have unlimited storage space for their sales goods. Other crafters would almost certainly cry 'foul'. Plus the more creative interior designer types would receive no benefit (nor would their customers) as the vast majority of inventive solutions (e.g. fishtanks) are not furniture items at all but made up of other craftable items from the game.
I see no problem with this. 
Fivo Asia
Evialla
Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:21 pm
#11
I am constantly distressed and dismayed by the difficulty of being able to actually use a house as a furnished house that looks as if people live in it and do householder type things in it.
The problem arises that dedicated crafters want a crafting room within their home. That is only natural and logical. In it go their crafting stations and all that go with them, including various resources, tools, specialty skill enhancing outfits, etc.
The painfully small item allotment within the house is soon eaten away, leaving no room to furnish.
This problem with storage of items vs. item limits has been an ongoing struggle for everyone, since day 1. And yet it remains something with no correction or relief in sight. Until this problem is addressed head on at a high level by the developers with responsible input from the players, the same struggle will continue without end.
As someone who loves building furniture, and decorating, this is a dismal prospect.
My own solution idea was fairly simple (seemingly). That architects gain a schematic enabling them to build directly into each home they build, a "Storage Locker". Said locker would hold say, 200 items, or what have you. No items inside the locker would ever count against the items limits of the house, and the locker itself would not count as an item, simply as a built in part of the house.
Seems logical to me. I would dance for joy if it ever came to be.
Salore_Sokoth
Fri Sep 10, 2004 2:57 pm
#12
So why not use a second house for crafting? That is what I do. in fact, I have three. A house for decoration (medium), a house for storage (warehouse for modules, etc), a house for crafting (storage of resources also), and then my factories.
Of course, for those people who only haveone accountI can see where it might be problem.
- Tauros
MasterArchitect
Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:08 am
#13
l33thaxx0rnam3 wrote:
Well, that's a good point but this just occured to me.
We are the only class whose product is ACTIVELY in conflict with the storage issues.
WS, AS, Musician, and Tailor: When used, their craftables go to zero inventory.
DE, CH, BE: When used, their pets go to datapad.
DOC, Chef, Smuggler: When used, their craftables reduce inventory.
Anyway. When our products are "in use" players are actively penalized in the form of less usable storage space. Given that, why would anyone in his right mind buy furniture that ONLY makes life more difficult? I think the majority of the player base approaches it this way. This gives me an idea, that I think we oughta consider getting Dvnce to propose. Seriously.
*ahem*
OHI'S BIG PROPOSAL:
1) EVERY HOUSE HAVE A SET NUMBER OF "FURNITURE" SPACES (20 or so) PER LOT
2) These slots do not count towards house item limit.
3) Furniture may be placed AFTER this limit, but that will cost you.
If decorating a toon with clothing dosen't penalise a player, then why should decorating a toons house? Not a huge change, not a huge increase in the items. But I bet it would make decorating houses a LOT more attractive for players that otherwise wouldn't, or more likely, couldn't. Since we're not getting any action on the "Hey, the house limits suck" angle, perhaps we need to keep emphasising the "Your arbitrary rules are hindering our paid for gameplay experience" side of it.
Thoughts?Message Edited by l33thaxx0rnam3 on 09-10-2004 06:33 AM
I really like this furniture slot idea, to me furntiure is used to an exent but you rarely ever see a fully decorated house. Furniture could be a big business if it didnt count against the house, and it could definetly help to give us some more variety in our income.
Page 1 of 2