Architect Archive
Thread: ARCHITECTS OF THE UNIVERSE UNITE! WE NEED MORE SPACE!
Page 1 of 2
Alleric
Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:42 pm
#1
I know Im not the only one who thinks that houses need more space and PA halls need more room! Now is the time to react! If this is going to change we all have to agree! I know there are decoraters out there who would kill to be able to put an extra fish tank, or fireplace, or display in the house but only have 5 items left! And Im sure there are Architects who need more room to store those pesky componants or extra resources. And Im certian for all of those loot fiends that they could use some extra room to drop the other days loot. PLEASE If you think that houses need more space reply to this post and rant and rave your opinions! We architects have been quite too long! WE NEED TO SPEAK UP! WE NEED MORE SPACE! THE TIME IS NOW!
This has been a post from your friendly wanderhome architect Alleric Easyvain.
Iannyen
Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:10 pm
#3
I'll sign with a caveat. I think that Smalls need to remain the same, mediums need to go up to 250 items and 4 lots, and Larges remain at 6 lots, with 350 storage.
That being said, I think that Cabinets and Chests should be able to hold any non-armor item, up to a qty of 10, and only count as 1 against the house total, with a maximum of 10 storage items allowed to be filled per house, or any combination totalling 100 hiden items. Armoires should act the same, but only accept clothing and armor, the 2 types that chests/cabinets won't.
Curxcha
Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:19 pm
#4
I'll bump that. It aint realistic to hope for. But I'd sure as hell love it. Its on my top before any new structures and furniture color or... whatever.
LukeBorgman
Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:42 pm
#5
Yes. To be nice to the database, they should at least remove the large-structure caps. If you let the 75 items/lot rule apply universally, you have not really increased item storage potential per character, you have simply removed the large structure owner's penalty. Start there!
Rikilii
Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:43 pm
#6
Alleric wrote:
I know Im not the only one who thinks that houses need more space and PA halls need more room! Now is the time to react! If this is going to change we all have to agree! I know there are decoraters out there who would kill to be able to put an extra fish tank, or fireplace, or display in the house but only have 5 items left! And Im sure there are Architects who need more room to store those pesky componants or extra resources. And Im certian for all of those loot fiends that they could use some extra room to drop the other days loot. PLEASE If you think that houses need more space reply to this post and rant and rave your opinions! We architects have been quite too long! WE NEED TO SPEAK UP! WE NEED MORE SPACE! THE TIME IS NOW!
This has been a post from your friendly wanderhome architect Alleric Easyvain.
I generally agree. We should still be limited to 75-100 items per lot, but there is no good reason to limit large houses to much less than this.
Actually increasing the amount of storage to 75/lot on all house might even reduce the server loads, because it would reduce the total number of houses that people place. Instead of placing 3small houseson 6 of our lots, we could simply place 1 large to get the same storage space.
zuljin321
Wed Aug 04, 2004 6:06 pm
#7
Hi all i dont post that often but being a new architect i thought i would throw out my thoughts on this topic. What bout this concept... leave the houses and all with the amount of items they can hold to what they are however if u place a chest in your house and it can say hold 50 items it should only count as one item ( the chest) and not whats inside the chest. A book case say holds 10 items, a chest holds 50 items, a cabinet holds 20 items, your closet holds 100 items, so the house should only count this as being 4 slots full but u would already have well over 180 items inside these units for storage. Or other thought would be allow us to create things like storage bunkers that would take up 2 or 4 slots that would only show 5 percent above ground and the rest underground but are able to hold 500- 1000 items or maybe increase the slots from 10 to 25 so we could place more buildings for storage, well anyway that was my 2 cents worth
Sirglenos
Thu Aug 05, 2004 4:50 am
#8
Personally I believe in a strict cap of items per lot, although it would be nice if it could be bumped up to 100. Although having chests and the like holding items does sound cool, it should not "hide" the items from the count. This applies to guild halls and large houses too, there should not be the cap of 250 items per house, it should always be number of lots x lot cap (at least 75, preferably 100).
Catfood
Fat Fish of Bria
Catfood
Fat Fish of Bria
Crimsonsplat
Thu Aug 05, 2004 7:26 am
#9
zuljin321 wrote:
What bout this concept... leave the houses and all with the amount of items they can hold to what they are however if u place a chest in your house and it can say hold 50 items it should only count as one item ( the chest) and not whats inside the chest. A book case say holds 10 items, a chest holds 50 items, a cabinet holds 20 items, your closet holds 100 items, so the house should only count this as being 4 slots full but u would already have well over 180 items inside these units for storage.
The problem with this suggestion (which I see again and again and again) is that it does nothing to address the database size. (And if I see one more ignorant fool say "buy a bigger hard drive," I'm probably going to get reported for abuse. GRRRR.) It doesn't matter to the database whether the items count against the house or not, they still have to be accounted for. That means more entries and a bigger database. It might be that removing the cap would reduce the need for extra houses, thereby offsetting the load, but I doubt it. In the end, whats one house entry vs. 100 extra items?
Besides, the cynic in me says: once all the "dead lots" are purged in October, we won't need the extra storage space anyway, because we won't have the resources to store (or to make items to be stored).
d0qtrX
Thu Aug 05, 2004 10:18 am
#10
This has been brought up about 20 times, and it has always been shot down.
My proposal. I would very much enjoy anyone of these to actually happen someday but I know it bever will 
Houses shouldhold 100 Items per lot (like factories). NO cap. 9-lot PA Hall? 900 items.
ALL factory crates to stack to (at least) 100, and allow re-stacking of the same serial numbers. Some stuff goes to 10, 15, 25, 100,and the OMU doesn't crate at all!? Why the madness? Just make it SIMPLE!
Up the inventory spaceto 100 slots.
Implement experimentation on backpacks to allow them to hold more items. Base 25, Max 75.
Resources stack to 1M units. What's better for the database?75 stacks of varying sizes, or250 100k stacks cluttering up my quickly-filling storage space? Just give me 1 more damn zero!
Reorganize loot drops into single-slot stacks. Don't toss seven power cubes into my inventory. Give me 1 item with a little 7 next to it, so I don't lose my mind organizing these for factory runs.
Locs
Thu Aug 05, 2004 1:45 pm
#11
I think that housing experimentation should make a difference unlike it does at the moment,
Do you not agree that there should be a storage capacity experimentation line and that goes with all sub components?
this will do 2 things
1. put ALOT more demand on housing for sales
2. actualy be more fun to build and practice with if you are new because it isnt such a waste of materials as finding your way round by making BER7 and 8 harvestors, which NEVER SELL
If this takes off i think that the end product should be a rounded number of storage like 200 instead of 176..
Please post your veiws on this :-)
Do you not agree that there should be a storage capacity experimentation line and that goes with all sub components?
this will do 2 things
1. put ALOT more demand on housing for sales
2. actualy be more fun to build and practice with if you are new because it isnt such a waste of materials as finding your way round by making BER7 and 8 harvestors, which NEVER SELL
If this takes off i think that the end product should be a rounded number of storage like 200 instead of 176..
Please post your veiws on this :-)
Iseabeil
Thu Aug 05, 2004 3:20 pm
#12
as all others, id love more space.. id cherish the ground the devs walk on for it.
im 99% certain it wont happen tho. SWG is too complex, everything has too much info on it, science limits the database etc.
i doubt the purge thats commin will do more than remove lag, wich is badly needed. if they raises storage limits, we'll just get the lag back.
only thing i could imagine would be possible is to destroy as many attributes as possible. say ye put down a chair, ye want it to remain permanent, so ye use a 'perm button' wich removes all stuff like serial number, creator etc and unchangeable ie. ye have to redeed to remove it, thus making it a smaller post, and have that make it count as a half item or so. would only work on static items, as furniture tho, clothings etc wouldnt do. doubt even that would happen tho, not enough reason to justify the amount of work itd be.
Melpomyne
Thu Aug 05, 2004 3:42 pm
#13
/sign
I like Iannyen's idea. The houses need to be staggered more. So a small house has less lots and space than a medium etc. And that armoirs and chests should hold items appropriate to them.
Another idea is that you have a certain amount of lots for a house that has a standard storage, but that you could trade in lots for more space in that same house.
Eg. small house normally 2 lots, 150spaces, but you could spend an extra lot on it to get 250 storage in 3 lots.
Just an idea, obviously needs to be fleshed out, but an idea 
Page 1 of 2