Cities And Housing Archive
Thread: petition to rid the item limit.
Koekoekoe
Fri Jan 21, 2005 2:04 am
#14
That would solve the storage house isue but not the problem that you are limited in your creativity while decorating a house with 250 items. It really isnt much for a PA hall with the large amount of rooms (I only decorated the main hall with 250 items, go figure)
Gooney
Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:48 am
#15
Really I think the solution could be solved in an elegant way by simply adding a new "Module" for Architects to create.
This module would be added to an already existing house and hold 75 items.
Each module would take one "lot" space from the person but would increase storage in that persons house.
Each module would add the maintenance cost of a "small naboo house -1 lot" to the maintenance cost of the house in which it is installed.
The modules would be "Removable" so if the person wanted to free up lots for something they could simply empty the module and remove the item using the exact same /destroy command that a normal structure uses.
Essentially this item would be like a "House Backpack".
You could either use a graphic outside the house, say attached to the back wall looking like an attached storage shed. The attachment would effectivly swap out house models in such a way that the house would still have the exact same footprint.
OR, and I think this is the better solution. Have each module look like a Metal Storage closet, really no reason that they couldnt use any number of models for it, have it look like a piece of furnature if you wish.
Anyhow there are solutions is someone wished to adress the issue.
There are a couple advantages to this type of solution:
-This solution would reduce dramatically the amount of "storage" houses dotting the landscape and allow for a more accurate representation of player cities.
-It would simplify the players manual maintenance runs
-It would provide a highly desireable item for Architects to craft
-Gooney
theoden-flurry
Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:12 am
#16
at the person who said about medium houses they use 2 lots and have 150 storage only diferance from a small is rent and space inside with 75 items per lot you could store enough the main problem is with large houses and guildhalls taking 6 and 7 lots and both only allowing 250 items so you get about 42 items per lot in a large house and 36 items per lot in a guildhall this needs looking at as far as i can see 75 items pe lot is enougn considering you could have 750 items in structures 100 in the bank and 110 in your inventory/backpack adding up to 960 items total and that isnt including factorys now add them in and look how high that is compaired to large houses and guildhalls.
mikedealer
Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:32 am
#17
There is a Much "Quicker" / "Easier" answer to this, at least for crafters, Increase Stack size to 250k or 500k. I have probably 10-15 houses full of resources alone, plus a bunch of factories for storage. Plus i have 2 master merchant accounts i use for partial storage and i am still outta space
BleuDestiny
Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:25 am
#18
Absolutely, not only would it improve the overall storage problem, but it would also improve the enjoyment of the game 100-fold, because we spend so much effort and displeasure all the time trying to manage around this issue. It's a huge, burdensome, consistent problem that svcks enjoyment from the game on a daily basis.
mikedealer wrote:
There is a Much "Quicker" / "Easier" answer to this, at least for crafters, Increase Stack size to 250k or 500k. I have probably 10-15 houses full of resources alone, plus a bunch of factories for storage. Plus i have 2 master merchant accounts i use for partial storage and i am still outta space
BleuDestiny
Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:29 am
#19
No the answer is above... you don't have to change the schema significantly, just increase the stack size on resources and crates from their current limits. From the house's point of view, the limit is still 150 items, etc., but the amount of resources in the single stack could be 500k units instead of the current 100k units, or the crates could be manufactured in counts of 500, and the factory schematics could be increased to 5,000. All workable within the existing schema of house counts.
sevinbrain wrote:
someone much more intelligent than myself wrote: Server overload is the result of the problem yes
Think of it this way, each 'house' is a table in a relational database, each item is a entry in that database, and each container is a sub-table that relates to the main table.
The problem is the orginal database design (schema) said there are only 150 table enteries for a particular class of table. Its not just a simple matter of slapping on more entry slots in the table because all the other programming code that relates to reading entries in that table has to be changed to account for the new, higher number of entry slots.
If they miss just one, if a mismatch occurs, this can cause loss of data (aka items) and could be irrecoverable. Worst case is it could corrupt the database by making huge amounts of data invalid because the table counts are wrong. That would force a server rollback.
Its VERY tricky and risky to change a database schema after its in operation, especially one as big as what drives SWG. About all they can do safely is give you new tables (like they did with the Sorosuub 3000 yacht)
Also, the database schema on a big scale, has a fixed item limit that is the same for every player, that cannot be crossed (the number of lots you get is a base component of that)
Hmmm....This puts it all into perspective. I never thought about the item limit in this sort of way.I guess it is a mandatory thing, however I do agree the item limit does need to be increased in some way though.
theoden-flurry
Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:31 am
#20
making 250k stacks would sort teh problem for crafters but no1 else im a chef i have all my resorces in one small house now my museum is in a guild hall and that decorated with a few things stored is well over 200 items so how does increasing stack size help the entire game? were as increasing item storage would improve storage to all guild owners or people who want large houses for decorating or keeping more items together.
BleuDestiny
Fri Jan 21, 2005 2:59 pm
#21
Yes you're right, there is a broader issue with storage beyond stacking amounts. But if we had to prioritize, at least from the crafters' perspective, and if it were easier to implement rapidly a stack size increase, then I'd say clearly the stack size issue quickly improved is a 10-star improvement to the game, fundamentally, while the increase in storage per lot for decorating purposes is a 5-star improvement, nice to have, but not crippling the game if the stack size could be remedied here and now.
Jagged-F3l
Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:00 am
#22
You can't just eliminate the item limit. This is not practical given SOE's current database limitations. If these limitations weren't so encumbering, the merchant changes that went into effect before JTL went live would never have been implemented.
theoden-flurry
Sat Jan 22, 2005 4:17 am
#23
BleuDestiny wrote:
Yes you're right, there is a broader issue with storage beyond stacking amounts. But if we had to prioritize, at least from the crafters' perspective, and if it were easier to implement rapidly a stack size increase, then I'd say clearly the stack size issue quickly improved is a 10-star improvement to the game, fundamentally, while the increase in storage per lot for decorating purposes is a 5-star improvement, nice to have, but not crippling the game if the stack size could be remedied here and now.
explain how stack size afecting only crafters and resorce sellers is more important than afeting the entire player base by alowing us more room also giving you the ability to hold more stacks of resorces.
Mordrack
Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:47 am
#24
I like the idea of a kind of special "mechant" storing the items. Maybe change the bank interface so you can store items (at a cost) for a long time. I would not even mind if the data base that stores these items would be possibly slower, like, if you access the bank storage you have to wait up to a couple minutes until the item list will be generated (something I´d happily do for a large item storage thing).
It could even act as a money drain, like for each 100 items you want to store (except the first 100) you have to pay an ever increasing amount of money per item per day, but it should store up to 1000 items. If the player runs out of money, he gets 2 online hours to solve the problem, otherwise *poof* some free database space (except for 100 random items :-).
Well, just playing around with ideas...
Cheers,
Mord*
Puertoriqueno
Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:44 am
#25
Yes, well, I was thinking, for simplicity's sake, to simply use the same code that is used for a Vendor, with the same setup, but disable public access to the sale radial. That way the terminal basically acts like a vendor does for a merchant now....you place an item up for sale and it is held for 30 days or so. If you need the item you withdraw it into the stockroom and then retrieve it into your inventory. I usually keep the count in the backpacks low (below 30) so that I can pull a few if need be when I need mulitple items.
I also have a method down where when I craft, I have the vendor window open. I pull a pack with what I need, choose my resource lets say from inside the pack, pull that block of resource into an external container removing it from the pack, and immediately turn around and resell the pack while keeping the crafting window open. I then retrieve the resource block from the container and continue grabbing and reselling packs until I have everything I need to make the item I want.
I actually decided to write a tuturial on this, since alot of people ask me how I do it. At any rate, this makes it easy for me to store my items and retrieve them when crafting.
The cost is in maintenance of the vendor overall, which it draws on an hourly basis.
BleuDestiny
Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:46 pm
#26
Because crafting produces just about everything in the game, so crafters are fundamental to the game. More higher level, as I said, the stack size change would be a functional change, meaning impacts the way we interact with the game functionally, rather than cosmetically. That's a big difference IMHO.
theoden-flurry wrote:
BleuDestiny wrote:
Yes you're right, there is a broader issue with storage beyond stacking amounts. But if we had to prioritize, at least from the crafters' perspective, and if it were easier to implement rapidly a stack size increase, then I'd say clearly the stack size issue quickly improved is a 10-star improvement to the game, fundamentally, while the increase in storage per lot for decorating purposes is a 5-star improvement, nice to have, but not crippling the game if the stack size could be remedied here and now.
explain how stack size afecting only crafters and resorce sellers is more important than afeting the entire player base by alowing us more room also giving you the ability to hold more stacks of resorces.