Architect Archive
Thread: An idea to increase demand for architect items.
Page 1 of 1
R-ade
Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:23 pm
#1
I had a thought about a possible way to deal with the "I want to decorate my house but it uses up all my inventory" issue. It's one of the things that irritates me, I have my house allbeautiflydecorated for my shop but now I cant store anything in it because... I have my house decorated. 
I'm sure that this, or a similar idea, has been posted before but I thought that I would throw it out here and see what the response is.
Right now if you decorate your house all of the decorations count towards the item limit of your house. Which... sucks!
What if you were able to decorate your house and then once you have placed an Item in the location that you want it, you "set" it. Kinda like you do with vendors right now. Once it's set it no longer counts towards the item limit on the house, but it can never be retreived again. If you wish to redecorate you select the item and delete it. If it's something that is to precious to destroy when your done with it then don't set it and it functions exactly as we have it now.
One of the best side effects would becreating planned obselesence for architect items and upping demand again.
Pawlin
Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:19 pm
#2
I think the key reason cited for the limits on inventory space is the load on the database and the effects it can have on the game. Unfortnately if you implemented this idea then it would not alleviate the database usage. So if someone decorated their house up to the gills with 2-3 hundred items and then 'set' those items then they would still have to be accounted for in the database.
R-ade
Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:45 am
#3
Forgive me but I find that to be a rather lazy excuse.
First of all you maintain a cap on the amount of decorating items able to be "set" in a house. I would say that that number shouldany greater thanthe number of storeableitems in a house. If there is still a concern over database load then you need to look at how the data servers are balanced as well as how the code accesses them. Do this and the "load" issue can be reduced.
Add to that that not everyone will use up their alotted "set" spaces for decoration. People will still decorate with inventory consuming items because of their rarity and value.
Eventually, SOE will need to address the database load issue. As I see it they have 3 options;
- Do nothing. This will incite players to laeve for games that will take actions to solve problems.
- Do enough to get by. This just results in a short term fix and then the issue has to ba addressed again.
- Take the time and really work out a long term solution to the problem.
Really, I'm most partial to option 3. It won't take care of the problem forever but it greatly affects the amount of time in between needing to re-address it. To me it makes the most sense.
maybe I'm completely off my rocker but thats the way I see it 
Pawlin
Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:41 pm
#5
First let me say that I certainly agree that it would be nice if they took the time to revamp how storage works in buildings and make it more rational and easier in general. But it probably doesn't fall too high on their list of priorities.
And I definitely don't think your idea is bad, I'd love for it to be implemented and I did not mean to knock the idea. I just don't think its at all likely SOE would do it.
People have been campaigning for increased inventory limits for well overa year and it falls on deaf ears. So my expectations that they'd change something with inventory is pretty low. SOE does not seem at all receptive to increasing inventory. Making furniture not count towards inventory would be a net effect of increasing usable inventory so it is likely to be something SOE is not open to either.
I mentioned the database. Personally I don't know the real details behind the database issue for sure since SOE doesn't elaborate but the database has been cited by SOE as an issue. I'm sure they havea real limit to the size of their database and they have to plan so that they dont hit that limit. The database concernmay not be as simple as simply filling the database up. It could cause server performance issues if the database gets too full. And additional items in the game could cause additional lag that makes the game less playable for everyone. Those may be their bigger concerns as far as database usage and those are not easily fixed by simply adding more database space. Course this is just me guessing.
I had campaigned a while ago for them to increase the resource stack sizes and increase the crate sizes. If they made it so resources stacked up to 500k or 1M units then it would consolidate a lot of 100k stacks and therefore reduce a lot of the objects in the database and make inventory management easier for crafters and miners. SOE gave a flat NO answer to that idea.I guess it is a game design issue for them, they are probably purposefully limiting stack sizes to try and make it more difficult to horde resources.
They did seem open to the idea of increasing crate sizes. However that was a while ago and I haven't heard anything about it for months. /shrug
I think SOE also seems to want to put the breaks on the power gamers who run big businesses. The more storage space people have easy access to, then the easier it is to setup a big operation. This point is more guesswork on my part based on things I've heard cited about SOEs concerns about alleged monopolies and reasoning for curtailing some things.
R-ade
Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:00 pm
#6
Allow me to appologize if I came offsounding defensive towards your reply or acting like a troll sincethat is not my intention.
I will confess that I have a slight knee-jerk reaction when someone says "I'll hurt server load". You may very well be right when you say that there are unknown factors as to why SOE is unwilling to increase inventory limits or even place more load on the databases in general. But, without presenting a concise and valid explanation players will always be confused and angered as to why a popular request is ignored.
Maybe they have already made a statementwhythey won't do this and I've just missed it, but I personally hope that if we keep addressing the issue in conversations like this, that eventually they will look into the issue and address it. But maybe I'm just too optomistic though.
Pawlin
Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:10 pm
#7
Ya I'm just saying why I don't think they'll do anything about inventory space given what little I've seen from them about the topic in the past.
R-ade wrote:
...But, without presenting a concise and valid explanation players will always be confused and angered as to why a popular request is ignored....
Ya that pretty much sums up SOE"s public communications on the topic so far.
I'm pretty sure there has been a reference to the database being an issue. And I am also sure that they said (either directly or via a correspondent) that they would NO to increasing resource stack sizes. But thats about all I know that they've said on the topic.
Page 1 of 1