Architect Archive
Thread: PETITION FOR 200 ITEMS IN A MEDIUM HOUSE AND A CLIENT SIDE STORAGE SYSTEM FOR UNLIMITED ITEMS
EnigmaBSc wrote:
Client-side storage is perfectly possible without opening the door for exploits. Imagine the following scenario: A new type of building as added, a warehouse, which uses 1 lot and can store 1250 items, without using more than the 75 database items that the developers have decided upon as a limit per lot. How would this work?
The warehouse contains 25 crates. Each crate can hold 50 items. Only one crate can be open at any one time. To store items the player opens a crate and drops the items they wish to store in to it. They then close the crate. At this point the server creates a serialized list of the items and sends it to the client. At the same this it computes a hash of these items and stores it in the database. Now the player might open another crate and store more items, e.t.c.
...
Basically you're proposing security on the client side items. People can andwill get around security systems.
If you have client side storage of items then people WILL find a way to exploit it. There isn't a shadow of a doubt in my mind about that. It might be an easy detected exploit but people would do it. It would be a nightmare for SOE to regulate and everyone in the world would have maxed out stats on everything.
Some things flow from that:
- the devs can't make any meaningful queries on the server about the distribution of objects
- when patches are put in for particular things (e.g., when they mucked with the stats on harvesters a few patches ago), they can't do everything just server side in one batch; instead they have to put the "conversion" code live in the game code such that whenever an old-style XXX is accessed, they convert it to the new-style XXX
- someone already pointed out the issue if you run from other machines - you don't have your warehouse available
- two words: disk failure - to think that a warehouse full of resources would go poof if something bad happens to your local disk is a guarenteed non-starter
Sorry - if they have database problems then it is likely that a better database schema, synchronization, and/or implementation is the appropriate solution. Client-side storage has some *fundamental* problems, I think.
Vorc wrote:
I would prefer that storage in houses be experimentable. Keep the current values as a base and allow them to be improved upon. This would actually provide a market for top quality houses.
Vorc, Master Architect, Kettemoor.
I don't like it. What about already establish homes/shops? Too much of a hassle. A home takes enough as it is to build, not to mention component into component into component.
Home's should be static all around. I only believe that they should be customizable. Architects should have some options when building it to change the colors/wall/floor. Or the ability to refloor a home or hang up wall paper. Anything to make them more expressive of indivual tastes and styles.
Varying storage though I don't like.
I don't understand why you think its ok to improve homes with colors but not ok to improve them by letting people experiment them to get more storage.
You said its "too much of a hassle". Do you mean too much hassle to make them? I don't get it.
Client side storage??? No way...I'd have myself a full set of just about everything good in the game given nothing more than a week...there are others out there much better at cracking these types of things than I. Bad, bad idea...you won't be selling anything, because everyone will just run 'HackSWG.exe' and have it all.
David
More storage might be OK, but we don't have the data the Devs have on how their database is holding up.
In Beta everything came to a grinding halt when the Devs realized that 250-max-units resource containers had the database chugging away into oblivion. Me, I'd like to see larger containers on thngs we use alot of (which would have no negativeeffect on the database, and might help).
Client-side storage is just not gonna happen.