Cities And Housing Archive
Thread: Why not change the items/houses limits rules
Page 1 of 1
rodav
Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:22 am
#1
Why not change the items/houses limits rules?
How about this:
- any account can store 5000 items (+ items in vendors and inventory/backpack)
- you can set for each galaxy the amount of items allowed (example I have 3 characters, I'll use 4200 on my main on Chimaera, 500 on another one on Briaand 300 on the third on Lowca)
- you can either store items in houses dropped or in the bank (limited by your galaxy's amount choice)
- any items dropped in a building of yours or in your bank counts in your total items which can never go over your max
- any previously made house keep the storage limitation
- any newly made house has virtually 5000 max items limits and the amount display on the terminal is the one for this galaxy / max for this galaxy (these houses would require a lot more resources to be made to compensate the loss in terms of number of houses for the architects)
- houses would decay over time and randomly require new components to be replaced by an architect (walls, glue, etc ...), these components would assure architect a constant market and have a quality aspect that can be experimented for their solidity (making them harder to fall appart on every day usure rolls)
That would imply:
- lower loading times in the wild (because of the end of multiple storage buildings)
- higher loading times in houses/bank (which only impact one player at a time)
- cuter building with interiors well decorated in all rooms
- museums able to show off a lot of rare items
- less lost time going from one storage to another to retrieve items
- architect profession more funny
- less cross server item storage (as player will prefer to get 5000 items on their main server if they play exclusively on 1)
- less ghost houses/players
- more time to actually play the game and get some fun
Extensively this could go the same for lots: 50 lots per account galaxies wide separated any way the player chooses (at login screen). This would help a lot in reducing cross "abuses".
BarqsRootbeer
Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:57 am
#2
i think 1000s of houses, full of 1000s of items would be too much stuff for the servers to keeptrack of.alsomost computers as well.
i already lag for 30 seconds when i walk into a house with lots of vendors and items in it. imagine how bad it would be if you walked into a house with 5000 items in it.
rodav
Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:16 am
#3
Any vendor is considered likea "light"player not able to move, if you cross one it only loads the look of it and the advertisement. It won't make much of "loading". Havin g 5000 items in a house is pretty light to load in a network view as an item is caracterised by:
-type
- x
- y
- z
This fits in 2 integers variables which is 8 bytes. This is a maximum of 40 kilo bytes uncompressed for a full house. Not to mention that : if some items are in a bag they aren't displayed at that time nor loaded. Also note that lag to get inside an house is not that annoying and the reduction of outside lag (preventing spawns to appear, etc) is a real entertainment bonus.
About item quantities it's an overall benefit as it will reduce the number of houses.
About lag in houses: items should be loaded in a parallel thread "client side" and "server side". When you enter an house or open any container it should appear empty not slowing down your movements and control on the character and a progress bar of loading should appear, when fully loaded all items should appear at once in the house/container.
ana-mo-cara
Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:33 am
#4
There are limits in the game for two reasons.
1. You give player ample room and they will fill it up result the server will lag severely. This is why many items decay. So that items can flow out of the game to prevent this.
2. The limit also is important to force players to from time to time make choices of what they want to keep. I hear alot of crafters bag for huge stack sizes while if that were the case a person could simply get the best resource and have it forever. Haveing limits keeps one player from haveing all the best stuff.
Do not get me started on vendors, and how everyone is useing them as storage. I personally think that there should be a hard cap on vendor items. Perhaps 80000 this way if your going to stockpile an item you take the risk another player might comein and snatch it up. Result players will be less prone to use vendors to horde items. I seriously cannot think of any item in the game going for more then this anyway.
The only thing I personally think should be done. Is to give architects the ability to build structures with larger lot sizes. So a player could buy a six lot house, and have that house able to store 450 items. That alone would reduce player structures, and perhaps higher lot structures could have a modestly lower main rate say 90 an hour for a six lot house. While it might generate a bit more lag in the house I would guess most players would welcome it.
Iasma
Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:37 am
#5
ana-mo-cara wrote:
There are limits in the game for two reasons.
1. You give player ample room and they will fill it up result the server will lag severely. This is why many items decay. So that items can flow out of the game to prevent this.
2. The limit also is important to force players to from time to time make choices of what they want to keep. I hear alot of crafters bag for huge stack sizes while if that were the case a person could simply get the best resource and have it forever. Haveing limits keeps one player from haveing all the best stuff.
Do not get me started on vendors, and how everyone is useing them as storage. I personally think that there should be a hard cap on vendor items. Perhaps 80000 this way if your going to stockpile an item you take the risk another player might comein and snatch it up. Result players will be less prone to use vendors to horde items. I seriously cannot think of any item in the game going for more then this anyway.
The only thing I personally think should be done. Is to give architects the ability to build structures with larger lot sizes. So a player could buy a six lot house, and have that house able to store 450 items. That alone would reduce player structures, and perhaps higher lot structures could have a modestly lower main rate say 90 an hour for a six lot house. While it might generate a bit more lag in the house I would guess most players would welcome it.
80k is nothing, I sell buffpacks for 100k and loot for millions. think of an krayted t21 with a 35% dammage slice, maybe 650 dammage w/o pup sell for 80k... ??
ana-mo-cara
Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:45 am
#6
Well I doubt you will have the issue with lootpacks for not much longer seeing as they are going to get severely nerfed in the CURB.
Asfor krayted weapons I think stuff like that an clothing attachs and so on should have an entirely new venue. We should be able to run real auctions on the bizarre in game.
The problem is players are useing the vendors to stockpile items. Even non crafters. They simply fill backpacks up with supplies and jam them on a vendor. Then they jack the price up to a billion. The result they can do this with impunity.
Perhaps master crafters could get a raised credit cap master merchant weaponsmith armorsmith DE Doctor Chef BE Tailor. This might be a better compromise.
rodav
Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:03 am
#7
ana-mo-cara wrote:
There are limits in the game for two reasons.
1. You give player ample room and they will fill it up result the server will lag severely. This is why many items decay. So that items can flow out of the game to prevent this.
2. The limit also is important to force players to from time to time make choices of what they want to keep. I hear alot of crafters bag for huge stack sizes while if that were the case a person could simply get the best resource and have it forever. Haveing limits keeps one player from haveing all the best stuff.
Do not get me started on vendors, and how everyone is useing them as storage. I personally think that there should be a hard cap on vendor items. Perhaps 80000 this way if your going to stockpile an item you take the risk another player might comein and snatch it up. Result players will be less prone to use vendors to horde items. I seriously cannot think of any item in the game going for more then this anyway.
The only thing I personally think should be done. Is to give architects the ability to build structures with larger lot sizes. So a player could buy a six lot house, and have that house able to store 450 items. That alone would reduce player structures, and perhaps higher lot structures could have a modestly lower main rate say 90 an hour for a six lot house. While it might generate a bit more lag in the house I would guess most players would welcome it.
I think you are wrong. Having a lot of unusefull building makes it even slower. Same goes for a badly designed database.
Talking about it items should be flaged as a container or not. In the database, items hold links to their container (vendor, player inventory, an itembag, a bank stock, a house, a bazaar...) which is itself an item. Any player should hold an item list with 5000 entries max. We perform our sql requests.
You need to load a house?
"select * from items where container=house_id"
simple, plain and efficient.
You trade an item to someone?
items container is switched to the other's player inventory, and removed from your own items list and added to his personal items list.
Don't tell me this would be slow. I'm developper since a lot time and kind of know these problematics. Their answer is always the same. To get things fast, make them simple.
MeciniaLua
Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:19 am
#8
You'll never get it up to 5000.
The best you can ever hope for is if they will actually give us 75 items per lot. ( right now it is capped at 250 no matter how many lots it takes. )
Also if they are spending the points in merchant to store their items on a vendor that's fine with me. To hold a substantial amount takes a good bit of Merchant. I recently moved all my vendors to a mall. I moved 3000 items that I had for sale.
I could throw my resources and stuff into the crafting station hoppers but that has been declared an exploit so I don't do that. I do have 1 vendor in my crafting house that stores what my house can't hold and I can't use. Generally I only temp store stuff there due to the factory bug that shuts down factories when they get close to 60% full in the output hopper. So like I'll run my dough...40 crates then run and store it on the vendor, run back and do a run of carbosyrub, then heavy food additives, then I'll run them back to the factory and set it to make Canape moving the dough and carbosyrub back to the factory...in this example. ( There is also a bug that if the factory input hopper is move than 80% full that it will sometimes shut down. ).
So basically to remove my storage vendor I'd need them to really just fix the factory bugs. Then I wouldn't need it 
. I keep most of my resources in packs in my house, labeled so that I know what's what .
. I keep most of my resources in packs in my house, labeled so that I know what's what .
Scoooter
Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:23 am
#9
I think what you need to do first is justify a particular limit of items.
One reason for using houses and factories is it limits item collection even further. People need to make choices of extractors and storage which is a balancing factor in itself
The one guarentee is that if the DEVS give us the ability to have X storage, players will want X+1
rodav
Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:24 am
#10
Actually you can have 75x10 + 100 = 850 items per galaxy
with 8 characters it represents 850x8 = 6800 items
A lot of people use cross server "trading" to get this storage creating some issues of ghost players/structures.
5000 is less than 6800 but a lot moreusefull in this case. Add to that the fact that collectible are useless stored in vendors there are only usefull if displayed in your house. With the current system you'll pretty fast end up with a full house very fast. Annoying.
Page 1 of 1