Architect Archive
Thread: Furniture not counting towards storage limitations
Page 1 of 1
Cafa
Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:49 am
#1
With the problems we seem to have balancing storage limits to houses specifically for decoration, would it be a good initiative to ask for all furniture items placed in a house to not count against the storage of a house? I'm not talking about loot, or trophies, or resources, or even other show products (e.g., armors). Just simply take all Architect-made furniture stored in a house off the storage count and I think you solve a majority of the storage problems people have with decorating.
Carrying this conversation to the next step, I'd like to point out to the SWG producers that I'm commenting on this from the perspective of a very involvedguild leaderthat daily deals with a 390 member guild. We had a conversation in ventrilo yesterday that included over 40 people discussing the bunker house and unique ideas to personalize it. Architect products have been, and continue to be, the means to which players within the game acquire a sense of ownership and association with a community. Players spend time making something their own, by decoration or design. They do this to show off, but also just as much to develop a sense of security within a group. A house, a home, has many deep feelings tied to it, with ownership being a major one I've seen. This sense of belonging is one of the facets that makes friends game together, do things together. In many ways, we've been telling you that on the Architect forum since the beginning.
Please consider removing furniture from the storage count in structures, thus allowing more viable personaliztion of the many housing structures in the game. I believe this will add to and carry directly over to retention for a large majority of the populace.
Fivo Asia
xaldin
Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:24 am
#2
A complete removal of them from the count would be courting database disaster.
Imagine a house with 50,000 beds stacked in it. It wouldn't surprise me if it crashed the client if not the server itself.
Perhaps a different limit or counting but never a total unrestriction.
SebastianWookiee
Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:39 am
#3
I do not know what the solution is, but there needs to be one. Architects could sell more furniture and decorate their own houses if something was done. There are a lot of people who like decorating their houses and I like to go into nicely decorated houses, but it is getting more difficult to decorate with the storage limits.
Cafa
Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:09 am
#4
xaldin wrote:
A complete removal of them from the count would be courting database disaster.
Imagine a house with 50,000 beds stacked in it. It wouldn't surprise me if it crashed the client if not the server itself.
Perhaps a different limit or counting but never a total unrestriction.
Real simple then, have a furniture count and a storage count separately. Seriously, why would someone have 50,000 beds? That's an awful lot of work for what?
Fivo Asia
Elyssa
Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:37 am
#5
Oh yeah, I would TOTALLY make 1000 unit runs of every piece of furniture I can make and store it in a warehouse like that.
That way I would never have to worry about factory runs again.
When my stock ran low I'd just run to the basement and pick up a few units of what I need and put it on the vendor.
In fact, I could stack each and every one directly on top of each other and keep them in my showroom.
When my stock ran low I'd just run to the basement and pick up a few units of what I need and put it on the vendor.
In fact, I could stack each and every one directly on top of each other and keep them in my showroom.
They would appear to be a single item but they'd actually be 1000 items stacked on top of each other.
Can you imagine the lag when someone walked into my store and 50,000 items of furniture loaded into the world for them.
I'd crash everyone who tried to enter my store, probably permanently.
I'd crash everyone who tried to enter my store, probably permanently.
I'm sure the light given off by 15,000 lights and candles would blind them anyway, so they're probably better off crashing.
Message Edited by Elyssa on 10-31-2005 10:41 AM
Dazzydoodle
Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:20 am
#6
Cafa wrote:
xaldin wrote:
A complete removal of them from the count would be courting database disaster.Imagine a house with 50,000 beds stacked in it. It wouldn't surprise me if it crashed the client if not the server itself.Perhaps a different limit or counting but never a total unrestriction.
Real simple then, have a furniture count and a storage count separately. Seriously, why would someone have 50,000 beds? That's an awful lot of work for what?Fivo Asia
I have a sudden vision in my head (tight fit, even small visions are cramped) of MO in the days when the CU was new. The fumes from all those speeders wafted out of thew back of my computer...
LonelyGhost
Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:36 pm
#7
Yeah, I suppose there owuld be some moron who did that with furniture, but I doubt it would crash the server. It would probably just crash that client... and any client that tried to go in it. Bad for business. But they would still need to plan for it, so the seperate count woudl be awesome. After looking through the new Bunker, I estimate it would take at least 500 items to decorate it up nicely top to bottom. As a matter of fact, I think that would apply to every large structure in the game, including the medium Tat and Naboo houses. Its a crying shame to see so much floorspace vacant because people want to use their house for something other than a museum.
bluejanus
Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:49 pm
#8
Cafa wrote:
xaldin wrote:
A complete removal of them from the count would be courting database disaster.Imagine a house with 50,000 beds stacked in it. It wouldn't surprise me if it crashed the client if not the server itself.Perhaps a different limit or counting but never a total unrestriction.
Real simple then, have a furniture count and a storage count separately. Seriously, why would someone have 50,000 beds? That's an awful lot of work for what?Fivo Asia
The same reason why people log into game to piss off/grieve other people.
Page 1 of 1