Cities And Housing Archive
Thread: petition to rid the item limit.
Page 1 of 3
Narreem0884
Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:12 pm
#1
No item limt would oveload any server in about a week's time, if that. The item limit does need to be increased though, to about 75 items per lot would be nice.
Kinshi
Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:53 pm
#2
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)
You have:
number of lots by default + amount of storage space in a single safe deposit box + amount of storage space on your person x 400,000 people
Keep in mind the database knows nothing of 'servers'. They are just a table header to the database. They have to keep enough space free to allow more people to join the game, this is the prime reason they dont go off and give everyone all the lots they want. Also, it keep the performance at reasonable levels.
If the performance gets out of whack, you have whats going on in WoW right now, the database cannot keep up with the number of queries it is getting. Every time you step in a house, a whole series of database queries get made (A LOT of them). If the database cannot keep up, then you have lag, if the lag gets too bad, lost data and corruption will begin to occur.
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)
You have:
number of lots by default + amount of storage space in a single safe deposit box + amount of storage space on your person x 400,000 people
Keep in mind the database knows nothing of 'servers'. They are just a table header to the database. They have to keep enough space free to allow more people to join the game, this is the prime reason they dont go off and give everyone all the lots they want. Also, it keep the performance at reasonable levels.
If the performance gets out of whack, you have whats going on in WoW right now, the database cannot keep up with the number of queries it is getting. Every time you step in a house, a whole series of database queries get made (A LOT of them). If the database cannot keep up, then you have lag, if the lag gets too bad, lost data and corruption will begin to occur.
Koekoekoe
Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:59 pm
#3
Still, point is 250 items isnt much. I run a museum of my own and there is no way I can fit all my crazy collections in there, let alone build a nice decoration around it. I now have a 250items in 1 room PA hall and about 30 things that I want in my museum. And then I havent used a single piece of regular furniture.
I dont care if it would take all my 10 lots (idea, let architects experiment on this, so they can make a PA hall with a 200 item limit on 5 lots, and 400 on 10 lots for example)
I dont care if it would take all my 10 lots (idea, let architects experiment on this, so they can make a PA hall with a 200 item limit on 5 lots, and 400 on 10 lots for example)
AgekVahoba
Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:44 pm
#4
Koekoekoe wrote:
Still, point is 250 items isnt much. I run a museum of my own and there is no way I can fit all my crazy collections in there, let alone build a nice decoration around it. I now have a 250items in 1 room PA hall and about 30 things that I want in my museum. And then I havent used a single piece of regular furniture.
I dont care if it would take all my 10 lots (idea, let architects experiment on this, so they can make a PA hall with a 200 item limit on 5 lots, and 400 on 10 lots for example)
In my opinion... things such as beds or other such funature should not count towards the total item limit of the house.
_____________________________
Hakai
Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:44 pm
#5
how about a lot allotment system?
Each character has their usual number of lots with the item per lot number being the same (take the small hosues as an example, one lot= about what?> 250 items?
for example, you build a small house. It takes 1 lot initially (which gives you about 250 items on your limit). After you first go into the house to name it (set admin rights, permissions, etc) there is an option ot add more lots for item limit.
this way the item limit is still the same, but you can limit it to only one house. (and honestly i would love to do this, becuase having 6 storage houses is a pain in the ass.)
As for the mediums, large and guildhalls. The initial lot cost is going to be the same as they already have, but maybe they should increase the lot allowance per lot for these. This way the smalls are still useful, but not as nice as having a 10 lot guildhall.
A good example for a item per lot allotment:
Small: 250 per lot
Medium: 275 per lot
Large: 300 per lot
Guildhall: 300 per lot, BUT with a guildhall each member can assign their lots to the building. Allowing for more than just 10 lots (meaning guildhalls that are actually full and not empty or used for decoration only).
Die26
Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:43 pm
#6
What about letting Architects craft a storage Vendor or Vault for your home. When Items are in that it only needs to generate the 1 item instead of all items in your house. and only the house admin or owner can access this vault.
my 0.02 pence worth
dashbarron
Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:46 pm
#7
Definitely no getting rid of the item limit, increasing YES....getting rid of it NO
sevinbrain
Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:51 pm
#8
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)
You have:
number of lots by default + amount of storage space in a single safe deposit box + amount of storage space on your person x 400,000 people
Keep in mind the database knows nothing of 'servers'. They are just a table header to the database. They have to keep enough space free to allow more people to join the game, this is the prime reason they dont go off and give everyone all the lots they want. Also, it keep the performance at reasonable levels.
If the performance gets out of whack, you have whats going on in WoW right now, the database cannot keep up with the number of queries it is getting. Every time you step in a house, a whole series of database queries get made (A LOT of them). If the database cannot keep up, then you have lag, if the lag gets too bad, lost data and corruption will begin to occur.
Kinshi Desu - Rodian Riflleman/Ranger
Short, blue, and drawing a bead on YOU!
.
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.
Anjou
Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:51 pm
#9
I agree the item limit should be raised, and I like the idea of items such as paintings & furniture should not be added to the item count. But if that cannot be done, maybe having a "item count" and a "furniture count" on each house?
Nuttynoah
Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:11 am
#10
AgekVahoba wrote:
Koekoekoe wrote:
Still, point is 250 items isnt much. I run a museum of my own and there is no way I can fit all my crazy collections in there, let alone build a nice decoration around it. I now have a 250items in 1 room PA hall and about 30 things that I want in my museum. And then I havent used a single piece of regular furniture.
I dont care if it would take all my 10 lots (idea, let architects experiment on this, so they can make a PA hall with a 200 item limit on 5 lots, and 400 on 10 lots for example)
In my opinion... things such as beds or other such funature should not count towards the total item limit of the house.
HI all
i gree with the above (in blue) but at same time i have no furniture in my house, and im still almost full up,i read above about making crates hold more....i also agree with that too, another thing i do not understand is the items per house, at the moment your better off having lots of small houses than a medium or a large house, now thatswierd ! or silly programing 
NO CAPTAIN, I SEE NO SHIPS JUST HARDSHIPS
**I once ask a group if thay wanted a hand "as im a creature handler" thier reply was: no thanks we are in a hurry**
Puertoriqueno
Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:33 am
#11
How many people use vendors to store items at 9999999999 credits?
There is a reason why Artisans usually do not have this problem. It is called a vendor. Note how storing items on a vendor does not lag when you pass by the house....tried this myself. The game does not have to render the item, so it cuts down on lag.
Even if an item is stored in a container, it still has to render once the container is opened...but not on a vendor.
So, my suggestion is to offer a holographic vault like what was suggested above, similar to a vendor. The item is catagorized and stored for a certain period of time at a specific cost. This would ease up on storage problems, so all players can now store thier resources, weapons and loot and have fun decorating thier houses instead.
I truly feel the current limits would no longer be an issue if this was implemented.
sevinbrain
Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:12 am
#12
"The container is full, this container has too many items in it."
I used to have a guild hall as a house thinking it was cool, but after I found out you could only keep 250 items in it, I lost that guild hall real quick. I now have 5 small houses. 4 small generic or corellian, and 1 small naboo house/s, but I am now still overwhelmed by item storage limits with the new loot in the game. Everyone else has the same problem. No matter how many items you have, you never have enough room for storage. The problem with this is LAG....every time we go past all the houses in the game, they have to be "generated", and this causes lag, plus house clutter. Thousands of acres of land covered by small houses everywhere. Call me crazy but so what if joe bloe has 5k items....???? It only slows him down when his house has to generate all his items. Plus it makes no difference really if he hordes things.. if he has em, he's not using them and they're just sitting there. SO WHAT!
If you want to lose the lag and the "same ole house clutter" situation, the only way to accomplish this is to remove the item limit all together... This will let people have whatever kind of house they want, storage, and decoration without having more houses and get rid of tons of lag in the game. As for the lot limiit... don't change it at all. Leave the lot system the way it is and this won't let people have tons of harvesters and merchant tents.
Crafters of all sorts will also love this idea as it will help in the "storage" of mass (and I do mean mass) resources.
My 0.02 credits.
I used to have a guild hall as a house thinking it was cool, but after I found out you could only keep 250 items in it, I lost that guild hall real quick. I now have 5 small houses. 4 small generic or corellian, and 1 small naboo house/s, but I am now still overwhelmed by item storage limits with the new loot in the game. Everyone else has the same problem. No matter how many items you have, you never have enough room for storage. The problem with this is LAG....every time we go past all the houses in the game, they have to be "generated", and this causes lag, plus house clutter. Thousands of acres of land covered by small houses everywhere. Call me crazy but so what if joe bloe has 5k items....???? It only slows him down when his house has to generate all his items. Plus it makes no difference really if he hordes things.. if he has em, he's not using them and they're just sitting there. SO WHAT!
If you want to lose the lag and the "same ole house clutter" situation, the only way to accomplish this is to remove the item limit all together... This will let people have whatever kind of house they want, storage, and decoration without having more houses and get rid of tons of lag in the game. As for the lot limiit... don't change it at all. Leave the lot system the way it is and this won't let people have tons of harvesters and merchant tents.
Crafters of all sorts will also love this idea as it will help in the "storage" of mass (and I do mean mass) resources.
My 0.02 credits.
Aljebra424
Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:17 am
#13
Only if they make it where you can only have one house. I cant imagine anyone needing 5 houses, with an unlimited item limit.
Second, things would help us crafters if that a lot of things could stack better. Instead of having 25 items from a factory, no reason why they shouldn't stack all the way to the 1000 schematic limit. Just that alone would help a lot of people with storage problems.
Page 1 of 3