Development Cycle Archive
Thread: Schematics limited to 100
Arkkanon wrote:
Now had they come to you with an idea of 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048 etc at least they could have told you they were trying to make better use of diskspace and depending on the size of the block in the sectors on your drive they might have even been right.
Since a database is a single file, typically thousands or millions of times larger than a single block, you merely exhibit your ignorance by saying things like this.
You "database experts" should really give it a rest. You don't have the information to comment on how their database backend operates, and I seriously doubt any of you have any real experience in enterprise level database implementations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually Andal thats really just binary math. Since everything is represented by 1's and 0's the number 100 is an inefficent artificial cap number to represent both in terms of storage space on the disk and in terms of pretty much all items created in the game. While true the DB is a file and/or files are larger than any block on the disk Based on the total number of items for all characters in the game ineffieciency in the way you represent your data will lead to larger files. Since any request for data involves 2 components seek and read time where read is in a random access database (vs. a batch request) in most cases trivial in comparison to seek time.This makesa larger file is slower than a smaller file. This simply being due to the time it takes the read head tomove to the correct spot on the disk. While I"m not an expert on databases I will admit to a more than passing familiarity with the way data storage devices work.
What I'm really interested in is are you just working hard to defend the developers or are you one of those guys with an Oracle for Dummies book on your desk wondering when you are going to get laid off?
Arkkanon, I think the one (or more) of the guys your quote refers to is (are) currently working for Sony on SWG. :-)
Arkkanon wrote:
This makesa larger file is slower than a smaller file. This simply being due to the time it takes the read head tomove to the correct spot on the disk.
The person to whom I replied suggested that efficiency of disk utilization would be improved if disk block size was taken into consideration. I pointed out the error of that logic.
You are attempting to suggest that a larger file is "slower" than a smaller file. How this relates to databases is a mystery to me. Databases use indexes which point to information within a large file. A great deal of the index information, and the data being accessed, is held in memory. The network operating systems upon which these databases run use "hash tables" to store disk location information in memory.
File transfer at the system level are always faster for larger files, with respect to disk access, as there is less overhead in the issueance of "file open" and "file close" commands. Anyone who's worked with network operating systems understands this instinctively.
Before you attempt to "educate" me, it would be prudent for you to know who I am and what I do. Since you will never know that, you should simply operate from the understanding that you will never know as much about computers than I do. Not in your wildest imagination, or your most colorful drug-induced fantasies.
I have been a computer networking professional for 18 years. You are not old enough to match me, and I am a constantly moving target.
None of us knows the design of the database for this game. We do not know the table structure, the index structure, or the queries.Therefore, we cannot rationally argue the impact any change will have on the database backend.
But this misses the point. That point being anyone who is changing Schematics to have 1000 uses is exploiting. Any rationale justifying that exploit is the self-serving rationalization of a person who likes to cheat and cares little for the intentions of the game designer.
My personal preference is that schematics remain limited. Not to conserve whatever may need conserving in the database, but to deter dabblersfrom crafting.
Holo,
Architects will be devestated by this. We need tons and tons and tons of ore and structural modules to make an endless amount of walls. The only way to keep our sanity is to keep it at 1000.
But then again...not to sound detrimental...but you guys don't really do anything specific for architects anyway 
Smaller schematics mean more database load, not less.
As a Weapon Smith I make one schematic for 1000 BPH (Blaster Power Handlers) and use that one in all my weapon schematics. I only make as many as I need that day in the factory.
If the 100 limit on schematics was enforced, I would make a separateBPH schematic for each weapon schematic. I would have to run each BPH schematic right away or bump into the 50 schematic factory limits. So instead of having 3 or 4 crates of BPH in stock, I would have 30 or 40 crates in stock.
I would have to do the same for Blaster Pistol Barrels, Projectile Pistol Barrels, Feeds, etc. So now I would be stocking 100's more crates than I was before.
Ex: stim-B requires 1xBEC, 1xCDRM, 1xLS. So count size is only 100 to make 100 stim-Bs, plus 1 for the stim-b schematic. Compare to the stim-D, which requires 2xBEC... To make 100 stim-ds, you need 202 BECs from one factory run. So the limit is now 202 count on schematics. I believe I've seen 3xBEC (or 4xBEC?) so the logical limit should be around 303-404. The end result of this should be able to make one full factory run of 100 items, of ANY given finished product.
B) Fix the factories so they can actually use crated materials reliably in the input hopper. If I'm making a stim-B run, I can't just drop six crates in the hopper with one stack of organic and one stack of inorganic (2xBEC crates of 50 each, 2xCDRM crates of 50 each, 2xLS crates of 50 each, 1 stack of 1200 count organic resoure, 1 stack of 1200 count inorganic resource). Instead, I have to manually uncrate the sub-components, and the input hopper limit of 100 means I can do 32. 32. 32. 3. With the factory often eating a set when it starts/stops for no apparent reason and one set of components consumed to make the initial factory schematic). Having to manually uncrate and shift from window to window is plainly stupid, especially given that the factories CAN and DO -sometimes- use crated input materials. They just stop at random points, and refuse to use any more crating, and it always varies (I can get 90 done.. or I might get zero. And every time it aborts, I lose one or more sub assemblies completely, reducing my batch size).
Typical. You Devs, as usual, are more worried about a schematic size rather than fixing the factory.
Thanks.
I sure do love having to manually take 90 structure modules out of the crate inside my inventory and placing them back into the factory to make walls.
You go right ahead and continue to look for ways to make my job harder. God forbid you fix some bugs and actually make factories work properly. :rolleyes:
I am a Doc / Combat medic. I run one, sometimes two factories. I sell 75 % of what I produce. Being a casual gamer I play an hour or two every 2 or 3 days. If this change is made there is no economic sense for me running my factories leaving me with the options of either quitting crafting or quitting the game.
Best regards,
Nemorov
Tarquinas
Just a note/suggestion.
If this is a weight on the server.. why do you have to do the calculations on the fly? I mean wouldn't it make more sence to just time stamp the 'start' time on the factory .. and dump nothing in the output hopper until it is either Manually stopped or the run finishes.
So for example lets say I'm making 1000itemsso lets say the components workout to 1 minute per component. So I manually stop it later on . .lets say 240 minutes later (4 hours later) .. when I stop it the game should beable to easily do a simple calculation that 240 minutes from the 'start' time passed .. with 1 item per minute.. I have 240 completed items then assign those to crates.
I think this would almost completely remove any server 'bog' with larger schematics as the only clock time needed would be while doing the actual calculations.
Just my 2 credits
It sounds like 300 (or a multiple of 300) would satisfy almost every need for dealing with multiple components:
300= 2x150 = 3x100 = 4x75 = 5x60 = 6x50 = 12x25.
So, for schematics requiring 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 of a particular component, a crate run of 300 will ensure that no items are 'left hanging' after the run.
Tormud
I've got a bad feeling about this...
If you are looking into ways to ease the strain that is already on the database, then you might want to consider some other things first. Sub components are a big pain to deal with (when dealing with a limited number as is being suggested) and a few items that need many subs will be very painful for crafters to make. The only way that the database would be helped out would be by the number of crafters quitting if this went into place. I think that the way I craft that this would cause me to make many more items and I would have to do much more work than I do currently.
If you are looking for suggestions on what to do about the database then I will volunteer a few here...
1. make factory crates hold more items... some items like power ups, only hold 10 items, pistols and food come in 25 items per crate, and stims come in 50 per crate. I see no reason not to just put 100 items into ONE single crate. (not very realistic perhaps, but I am able walk around with 8 harvesters and 40k in energy in my backpack too.)
2. make sub components schematics infinately usable... as suggested in a post above 
... while limiting final manufacturing runs to 100 items. This way I could see schematics for decent subs possibly being marketable, if I sit around and make a new one I could then pass the old one and the old materials off to another crafter that could use it possibly!(if that is even considered as an end goal.) This solves a good number of problems for crafters, subs are a pain... if I can make one good one with the materials I have and use it for as long as I have the materials then that would be awesome. This would make the best use of factory production since we wouldn't have to worry about wasting sub components on the final product.
3. slow down the amount of resources shifting, make them last a few days longer. Not everyone would like this one. When I see new resources I sample them all and carry them with me until they are gone or until I write them down so I know if I want to harvest them or not. I guess others are doing the same, I end up with dozensof stacks of 1-8 resources that just sit in my inventory as a reminder to me that I don't need to sample them again 
Resources lasting 5-7 days longer would really cut into this, and I could keep up with this stuff and delete the junk I don't want. This would mean less shifts, and less of the specific materials, but it would be a sacrifice I would willingly make.
4. this one may be out on a limb because I'm not sure how your DB keeps track of loot drops... make commonly dropped items to not be unique... scout pistols, dh 17 carbines, clothing, jewelry, etc... make these items all the exact same item (again, not sure if this is possible due to decay on weapons or if this would or wouldn't cause a change in your database size anyway.)
5. completely remove all garbage loot drops from game! I specifically mean CDEF weapons and skill enchancing items with negative modifiers as the only modifier... these are totally useless even for noobs. Even removing the broken control panels and sandstat decorations would probably help...these are really only useful decorations if you have a house with stairs!
6. consider a new database or a newcrew that works on your database problems. These problems will only get worse. Ships and vehicles... people will want/expect to be able to have some storage ability. As the game goes on and players visit more and more places they collect more items...
...we are only a few months into the game. What will things be like next year? How much space can you spare for each player in your database? How many players can be supported by your database? How much space does a player need? How much more space are you going to take back from players? Where will it end? 
Like a leaf blowing in a hurricane, I just lived through Isabel, I’m going to add my opinion to this thread. Though to be fair I’m so close to quitting anyway that I really don’t know if this change will be the one that puts me out of the game or not.
I use 1,000 item schematics to reduce the tedium of an already largely tedious process, without them my time wasted factor goes up by an order of magnitude. But, set my boredom level aside and look at how I actually use them, then tell me how that interferes with other crafters or adds load to the DB, if anything it REDUCES load on the DB.
Bear with me here, this description is a bit long but necessary to make my main points.
Let me say up front, the only thing I now play SWG for is the fun I get out of making better weapons. I look forward to the resource shifts, and I have a huge database of my own that tells me exactly what qualities affect what weapons from which resources. Every time there is a resource shift I survey every planet in the galaxy, and sample every resource that applies to weaponsmithing. I then compare these to my database and mine the ones that improve on what I currently have. I keep 14 days of power and maint in everything I own so I have no need, nor wish, to make daily harvester runs.
If the new resources improve on my existing schematics then my earlier schematic, no matter what size it is, becomes invalidated. I never make factory runs for more parts then I will sell between when I create them and when the next resource shift will occur. Making 1,000 of something when I will only use 200 of it is a waste of my space, time, and credits. But if, as has been the case with power couplers for close to 5 weeks now, no resource appears that improves on my current power coupler, then I do not go through the long, boring, tedious, process of making a new power coupler schematic. I rarely run more then 100 - 200 of anything off, but if the schematics change to 100 max, then I have to re-build the exact same schematic every 100 units worth, even though there is no chance of getting any improvement over the last 100. This goes beyond dull and into the realm of, “time to quit like the other 10 or 20 master weaponsmiths on my shard have already done.” Not that that is a big deal, there are still another 100 of them out there, still little by little it will eat away at the games foundations.
Final point, there aren’t enough skill points in the game for me to learn to do anything else, I capped so long ago it’s not even worth mentioning. Other then this process there is NOTHING in SWG for me to do. I have ZERO hope of doing anything other then leeching in combat so PvE, PvP, and the “events”, are not available to me. As it is, I now find that I play SWG for only a few minutes each day and for a few hours once every 8 or 9 days, when the resources shift, other then that I go and play Horizons. If what little fun there is available to me in SWG is made even more inaccessible, by adding to the work / tedium, then it just hastens the day when I move my account, which started at 3 months pre-paid, then went to 1 month pre-paid, to simply canceled.
Johnny-Umah Starglow
Master Weaponsmith
Naboo, Chilastra