Architect Archive
Thread: Why don't the dev just change the storage limit? Is that really this hard?!
Page 1 of 2
Jittaba
Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:00 am
#1
Hello,
I don't get this. Why don't the dev's change the storage limet for each house?
In my opinion this is realistic:
small - 150
medium - 250
large - 400
guild hall - 550
Because 250 for a Guild Hall, eh? That ain't not realistic. It look empty if ppl like to fill it whit small stuff.
What do y'all think aboutit?
Jitt
I don't get this. Why don't the dev's change the storage limet for each house?
In my opinion this is realistic:
small - 150
medium - 250
large - 400
guild hall - 550
Because 250 for a Guild Hall, eh? That ain't not realistic. It look empty if ppl like to fill it whit small stuff.
What do y'all think aboutit?
Jitt
Mkappus
Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:03 am
#2
They don't change it for
1. Hardware issues
2. Performance issues
3. Some reason unbeknownst to us that limited storage keeps the game more balanced in their mind.
Everyone has been yelling for storage changes since last October/November. It isn't hard to code the change, but there are some reasons the devs don't want to do it.
Makkari
Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:24 am
#3
It was put in to compensate for the shortcomings of the database that drives the game.
Basically, we're being punished because of inadequate planning on the part of the Devs.
I don't have a problem with the 75 item/lot limit, BUT I think that they should either reduce the lot cost of structures to fall in line with this (i.e. 250 items = 3.33 lots) OR allow a true 75 items/lot (i.e. 9 lots = 675 items). It is for this reason that I choose to litter the landscape with small & medium houses so I can get my full allotment of 750 items rather than wasting my time on a 6 lot building that holds 200 items less.
Now let's look at the math behind the Dev's decision:
5 small houses + 750 items (the maxallowed with thisarrangement)= 755 objects in the database.
1 large house + 2 small houses + 550 items (the max allowed this way) = 553 objects in the database.
If we were to allow a true 75 item/lot limit, example #2 becomes:
1 large + 2 small + 750 items = 753 objects. That's two FEWER items than the 5 small house method.
It makes you wonder what they were thinking when they decided on the 250 item limit.
Maybe they figure that the vast majority of players are not bright enough to figure out that large houses are worthless if you're just looking for storage space.
It troubles me when game design decisions are based on player ignorance.
OckVofad
Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:25 am
#4
The bottom line is: They could but they don't want to. No amount of raging against the machine is going to change it.
Fneegan
Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:35 am
#6
I think its:
- because it *may help control the game mechanics and hoarding to some degree. Probably, the same reasoning houses, harvesters, factories, ore mining units (and some other items) don't crate.
- because it's human nature to WANT more.(more lots, more storage, more resources,higherstacks...more money..lol) and actually, whatever cap is placed, it will be reached and someone willcomplain that it's not enough.
But, I never quite understood why small houses and mediums are in essence (other than their maintenance cost) exactly the same in the number of lots they take and the number of items they hold.
Storage is mainly acrafting/crafters issue and how much should the TOTAL max storage space be available to one player/crafter ?
Makkari
Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:38 am
#7
I've recently upgraded several of my small houses to mediums.
Why? Because they don't "feel" cramped.
The beauty of them is that they fit in exactly the same space as a small house, and let's be honest here, the difference in maintenance cost is insignificant to established players.
Droopy_Doh
Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:41 am
#8
Yeah was I disappointed when I decided to splurge on a guilld hall thinking it would give me alot more room than my two houses, and getting that stupid error message at 250, lol. But, you know, it's not surpising anymore.
Makkari
Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:53 am
#9
They made their statement sometime last year.
Basically it was: Our database sucks and can't handle all these items so we're going to limit how many you can keep.
Ok, maybe they didn't exactly use the word "sucks" but that's a pretty good summation.
Jittaba
Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:55 am
#10
Err...excause me? "Our database suck" ? Uuuhmmm....what are customers for? What is the montly paidrate for? For havin' fun and drikin' bloody marry?
Well I know I am making it easy, but I belive there is some space where SOE can invest into another Databank or another Type of Datanbank, or whatever.
But I think they maybe should plan to do it??
I dunno, I am not runnig SOE nor am I developing SWG, but to make it that easy and tell the customers "Our database sucks, it's your problem. You HAVE TO BE pleased with what we provide to you." isn't the gently way.
Jittaba
Well I know I am making it easy, but I belive there is some space where SOE can invest into another Databank or another Type of Datanbank, or whatever.
But I think they maybe should plan to do it??
I dunno, I am not runnig SOE nor am I developing SWG, but to make it that easy and tell the customers "Our database sucks, it's your problem. You HAVE TO BE pleased with what we provide to you." isn't the gently way.
Jittaba
l33thaxx0rnam3
Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:08 am
#11
The Devs are clearly not addressing this issue properly.
We're gonna have to get "Bounty Hunter Forum" on them I fear to get any action.
Clearly, we're not doing enough whining an pointless cross posting.
That seems to be how we get action around here.
Ohi. The angriest Architect on Gorath.
We're gonna have to get "Bounty Hunter Forum" on them I fear to get any action.
Clearly, we're not doing enough whining an pointless cross posting.
That seems to be how we get action around here.
Ohi. The angriest Architect on Gorath.
orange-arrows
Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:24 am
#12
how about:
tiny 75 (there should be a tiny for each group, not just naboo)
small 150
medium 200 - but make medium take 3 lots*
large 250
guldhall 400
Although I thought Guildhalls are not intended to specificallybe storage spaces - they are supposed to be meeting places, in which case wouldn't the current 250 unit storage spacebeintended mostly for decore? Although it could be used for any purpose, of course.
*changing the lot size for medium houses if it could be done, would require every owner of every medium house to have one free lot space per medium house owned -- highly unlikely.
I have to suspect that somewhere along the implementation process something became confused. There is no uniform relationship of lot size to maintenance cost to storage capacity .. there should be .. but a year on, I doubt it can be reasonably done.
ButterBandit
Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:47 am
#13
The devs recently developed an immunity to even the strength of our forum's whining....not even the Bounty Hunters can save you guys this time. 
Page 1 of 2