Merchant Archive
Thread: When did DEVs Begin going back on thier words?
Page 2 of 2
DocSavag
Wed Sep 01, 2004 4:38 am
#14
The problem Aeja is that he never made a statement even remotely like "until we fix storage" He simply said that it was more efficient..i.e. the lesser of two evils. Thats all he said. I've searched in vain for this quote if you have it copied I would love to review it because we are debating over text that is a year old and from someone who is no longer even on the team.
I have said that it is illogical for the devs to leave in a way for you to store 200k items on your vendor after going through the effort to limit them to 4k. I am just not capable of pretending that it makes sense for them to do that. I never wanted item limits anyway but I'm also not capable of pretending that I can't see that unlimited is BAD in a database storage sense and for other economic reasons.
I have stated that I think we need more storage and perhaps we can get some relief on that but if we don't we don't. You have to find a way to play within the confines of the rules you have. I pass along all rational ideas that come up here that have any support among merchants, but I also warn you that massive storage increases are not likely and have been shot down time and time again by the dev team.
I have said that it is illogical for the devs to leave in a way for you to store 200k items on your vendor after going through the effort to limit them to 4k. I am just not capable of pretending that it makes sense for them to do that. I never wanted item limits anyway but I'm also not capable of pretending that I can't see that unlimited is BAD in a database storage sense and for other economic reasons.
I have stated that I think we need more storage and perhaps we can get some relief on that but if we don't we don't. You have to find a way to play within the confines of the rules you have. I pass along all rational ideas that come up here that have any support among merchants, but I also warn you that massive storage increases are not likely and have been shot down time and time again by the dev team.
Kylania
Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:32 am
#15
I also can't just pretend that it makes any sense to limit the item storage on a vendor to 4k and then leave in a loophole that allows you to store 50x that. That was never going to fly for very long there is no point in a 200k item limit that is effetively unlimited so begging for it to stay defies logic. I have been working with the devs to get relief on some of the situations that item limits brings to the merchant community.
I'm still confused at WHY we can't have 200k or even unlimited storage. 200k items on a vendor with 4k backpacks is STILL only accessing 100 items at a time. And you don't individually access the 50 items inside the backpack till you retrieve it from the vendor, so your 200k items is really only "51" items at once. Storing the 200k items takes database space sure, assuming 500k players (ha! right!) each with 200k items and average field length of 20 char maybe? And you're at about 2-3GB data or so? Well, that's SWG's problem. Limiting database storage isn't something the players should be directly infulenced by, nerfed by or responsible for.
Vendors as storage does limit the data access more than keeping crap on the floors in houses. However taking away the extra layer of backpacks just means even MORE database pounding. To skim through 4k items would take 40 'Next Page' hits. If you allow backpack storage those same 40 page hits (DB queries) gives you access to 200k items instead of just 4k. Seems a pretty logical way of doing things, especially considering how god awful annoying having to move things around to be able to pull off a 50 item back pack really is.
Also limiting things by making people destroy items isn't gonna help the database any anyway. Remember the Practice Mode "fix"? They added that because even deleted items were takiing up database space. So you've already GOT the 200k items. But also remember it's only 200k items for players who make a master merchant and dont' actually BE a merchant with them, so the numbers you're looking at are even smaller and more manageable.
I'm just sick of SWG's utter lack of database skillscausing problems for players while at the same time making it out to be the players fault. Just look at the new "full inventory = can't move" nonsense. They have a bug which allows you to go over your inventory cap. Rather than find and fix that bug, they add in a "feature" that makes it look like it's the PLAYERS fault their inventory is overlimit when really it's the developers.
They demand that
Aeja
Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:47 am
#16
DocSavag wrote:
The problem Aeja is that he never made a statement even remotely like "until we fix storage" He simply said that it was more efficient..i.e. the lesser of two evils. Thats all he said. I've searched in vain for this quote if you have it copied I would love to review it because we are debating over text that is a year old and from someone who is no longer even on the team.
I have said that it is illogical for the devs to leave in a way for you to store 200k items on your vendor after going through the effort to limit them to 4k. I am just not capable of pretending that it makes sense for them to do that. I never wanted item limits anyway but I'm also not capable of pretending that I can't see that unlimited is BAD in a database storage sense and for other economic reasons.
I have stated that I think we need more storage and perhaps we can get some relief on that but if we don't we don't. You have to find a way to play within the confines of the rules you have. I pass along all rational ideas that come up here that have any support among merchants, but I also warn you that massive storage increases are not likely and have been shot down time and time again by the dev team.
Well Doc I dont have it and cant find it either and probly gotten deleted when they decided to screw us for the storage. So I say it did say "till we fix the KNOWN storage issue" and you say they didnt. But either way if its a KNOWN issue then perhaps they should fix it LOL.
As for playing within within the confines of this game is simple many will cross trade lots. So they are now choosing the more evils of the 2. So perhaps this is the latest acceptable workaround now. Some might clain that this will be considered an exploit but unless they only allow 1 character per acct. no other way they can stop it. Well Im done I guess since they deleted the thread neither one is going to change the others mind on what they said and how they said it. Its just a shame since they are suposedly adults who cant carry through with what they said they would.
Vastar
Wed May 04, 2005 1:29 am
#17
I believe I first noticed it pre-release. I had decided to become a Hutt thief, which was to be supported by the game mechanics. Of course, we can all see how that worked out as I'm now a Tailor. (=
[Insert constructive dialogue here]
[Insert constructive dialogue here]
Page 2 of 2