Cities And Housing Archive
Thread: petition to rid the item limit.
Page 3 of 3
Puertoriqueno
Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:23 am
#28
So here is the full suggestion to fix all of the problems at once.
1) Single storage vendor in every structure, same as sales vendor but with selling disabled.
2) Increase stack sizes of resources.
3) Change items in houses as follows:
tent:75 - 1 lot
small house: 150 - 2 lots
medium house: 225 - 3 lots
large house: 300 - 4 lots
PA hall : 375 - 5 lots
All item allotments would be based on lots, and lots would be changed to fit the new allotment. Note that by keeping the lots at 75 and just counting them all and reducing them for larger buildings, you still limit the item amount to a reasonable amount. People with larger homes have more to decorate and need the added lots. People with small homes have plenty of room to decorate. The medium house would get 75 more items then current levels, and the large house would get 50 more. The biggest gain will be had by the PA hall...125 items.
thegreywolfe
Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:59 am
#29
As apposed to creating a problem with the database, how about this. Set the visible item limit in a house a small amount higher. This would give those decorating the space to put everything in. Perhaps even divide the house into zones and set a player side selection to how many zones a persons computer should render at one time in a house. This would give those with weaker computers the ability to make lag easier to deal with. As far as storage goes, yes definately increase the stack size on resources and in crates. I've got over 3 million in the exact same radiation and it's taken up most of one of my storage houses space.
Finally, I don't know why this is so difficult for anyone to figure out. Every item in the games has a very basic set of information to it. Each item has one wireframe that is used to render it. It also has a list of stats and information attached to it. The wireframes for all of the items are on each players computer and thats where the game goes to render it. So, if you walk into a house with 250 items placed throughout the house and not in containers, it will take much longer to render than it does for a house with 250 items located in 4 or 5 containers with nothing decorating the house. The only time the computer needs to render the object 3 dimensionally is when it is placed out of inventory somewhere in a house or the world outside the house.
Storage space therefore should never have been the issue it is now, we should be able to fill a house with 50 chests and have 2500 items in them because it's not hitting the computer to render 2500 items.
Finally, I don't know why this is so difficult for anyone to figure out. Every item in the games has a very basic set of information to it. Each item has one wireframe that is used to render it. It also has a list of stats and information attached to it. The wireframes for all of the items are on each players computer and thats where the game goes to render it. So, if you walk into a house with 250 items placed throughout the house and not in containers, it will take much longer to render than it does for a house with 250 items located in 4 or 5 containers with nothing decorating the house. The only time the computer needs to render the object 3 dimensionally is when it is placed out of inventory somewhere in a house or the world outside the house.
Storage space therefore should never have been the issue it is now, we should be able to fill a house with 50 chests and have 2500 items in them because it's not hitting the computer to render 2500 items.
Isi-Lia
Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:27 pm
#30
I am opposed to SWG removing the limits on items completely. I do agree that more space in larger houses would be nice, but I also remember when my small round naboo house had 1500 items in it. It honestly took the house 3 minutes to load. it took the city (before player cities, way way before) I lived in almost 5 minutes to pull up houses in the area because they were so full of items. I remember a house owned by Yunalesca on Eclipse that had trees lining the walls and so much in it that it took 5 minutes to even load and another 5 to move to his vendors to purchase something. Yes pre 250 item houses are still out there but they are far and few between and the people who own them cant pick up anything because they cant put it down again.
Puertoriqueno
Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:17 am
#31
Well, they are going to raise limits on houses. It is already in testing with the intended next patch. So now, the only issues remaining are the stacking resources (which I believe, though I may be wrong, is already intended) and the vendor idea, which has received some resistance. I didn't intend the vendor idea as a workaround replacement for the stacking, but as a suppliment. It is just to give other players the same benefit that merchants have of virtually unlimited storage.
Diorchas
Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:38 am
#32
Changing the stacking caps to 500k or even 1mil would drastically increase the efficiency of storage for crafters. That would then free up database space which would help everyone else.
Kadestonebow
Tue Feb 01, 2005 9:58 am
#33
i heard they are changin the limits of houses and pa hall now...for 1 lot houses is 100, 2 lot houses 200, large and pa hall is 400...i think that will help out with some of the problems.
I8TheWorm
Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:46 am
#34
Kinshi wrote:
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.
Disagreed. As an object oriented programmer and a database administrator, I do agree with the design idea you mentioned regarding the relational table schema. However, if your code is solid, and follows a good OO methodology, making that change should not have to be spammed across many classes and other parts of the code. The one object that you wrote (serializable) would handle the difference, leaving you to change one class, three tables, and possibly a few stored procedures and/or views (finding out which ones would be a cinch as most DB's offer an automated dependency list).
I would hope that the code written for this game would have a good architecture, and follow a good methodology. Any developer who doesn't do both deserves the grief in tracking down spaghetti code.
I8TheWorm
Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:51 am
#35
Why not just make containers (bookcases, armoirs, etc...) count against the limit, but not the contents? Very similar to vendors, only you don't have to use SP on vendor skills, and the items don't have to respawn for everyone.. just instance for the owner. Am I missing something here?
FelniFosk
Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:22 pm
#36
I8TheWorm wrote:
Why not just make containers (bookcases, armoirs, etc...) count against the limit, but not the contents? Very similar to vendors, only you don't have to use SP on vendor skills, and the items don't have to respawn for everyone.. just instance for the owner. Am I missing something here?
Imagine this scenario:
I have a small house which holds 150 Items, I buy 150 Bookcases each holding 50 Items that do not count, which comes to 7,500 items I am storing in my little house. I then repeat this with another 4 small houses which comes to 37,500 items.
thegreywolfe
Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:42 pm
#37
FelniFosk wrote:
I8TheWorm wrote:
Why not just make containers (bookcases, armoirs, etc...) count against the limit, but not the contents? Very similar to vendors, only you don't have to use SP on vendor skills, and the items don't have to respawn for everyone.. just instance for the owner. Am I missing something here?Imagine this scenario:
I have a small house which holds 150 Items, I buy 150 Bookcases each holding 50 Items that do not count, which comes to 7,500 items I am storing in my little house. I then repeat this with another 4 small houses which comes to 37,500 items.
I fail to see a major problem with this. Yes, you will get the occasional person who will abuse it and fill a small house with 150 bookcases, but look at how long it will take them to fill them and what would be the point of storing so much stuff. I can see myself and my fellow crafters using this so that we have handy containers filled with nothing but the crafted sub items we need (like walls & gp modules) and keeping all of them in one room where they do there crafting, but how many combat profs are going to be keeping scores of bookcases or chests or whatever for the loot they pick up? My architect only requires around 15 to 20 different pre-crafted items to be added in for assembly of houses and buildings, my droid engineer will require a lot more, but I seriously can't see myself using more than a handfull of chests that can be stacked around the crafting station for easy access. This also means that I could decorate the house for my own aesthetic reasons and enjoy sitting in the crafting house. The load it puts on the server won't be bad because it doesn't load the contents of the house until you walk in the door and there is only a few people that go into that house.
Puertoriqueno
Wed Feb 02, 2005 6:18 am
#38
Well, I have to agree that that is totaly unacceptable. A single storage device is all that should be allowed or needed. To allow any container's contents to go uncounted would crash the server eventually. A single storage device is the key.
Page 3 of 3