Merchant Archive
Thread: There won't be any change in crate and resource stack size
Agreed, but what part of the process should be hard? Gathering the resources should be reasonably hard (which it is to find good resources). Mastering your profession should be hard (which it is - or at least it's terribly painful). Figuring out how much of 4 different types of fiberplast I have when they are mixed in the same backpack shouldn't be hard. Moving the 1000 subcomponents you made in factory A to factory B shouldn't be hard. Those are simple annoyances that don't add to the challenge of playing the game at all - they simply make it less fun to play.
rexan wrote:
But then again, I don't think making 2 sets of 100 rocket launchersshould be easy.
LonelyGhost wrote:
I just dont understand why they feel the need to restrict how much we can have. Is it a gameplay issue to them or a technology issue? Why not just come clean with it!
Storage is a major issue in the game. I'd like to have more storage as well. But were stuck with what we have.
The reason is the resource and crafting model in SWG.Resources in SWG are constantly changing. Every week we see a new set of resources introduced. Thats a new set of Copper, Steel, Iron, Aluminum, Polymers, Oils, Perto Chem, Ore, Gems, Radioactive....etc. In addition there are the planet specific resources. Each planet will haveunique resources like berries, fruits, greens, vegis, fiberplast, hides, meat, bone, wind power, solar power.... etc.Plus the fact that each crafter uses these unique resources to makes unique items, the potential amount of database space needed to store everything would become astronomical.
What the developers did to limit the potential database size is to limit the maximum amount of storage each player has. You get 10 lots. With 10 lots you can store a maximum of 1000 unique items. (2000 if you consider the output hopper if your factories). We asplayers have to work inside of these constraints. We can have an almost unlimited variety if objects in the game, however, we only have a limited about or storage to hold these items.
Message Edited by rexan on 05-27-2004 03:29 PM
rexan wrote:
What the developers did to limit the potential database size is to limit the maximum amount of storage each player has. You get 10 lots. With 10 lots you can store a maximum of 1000 unique items. (2000 if you consider the output hopper if your factories). We asplayers have to work inside of these constraints. We can have an almost unlimited variety if objects in the game, however, we only have a limited about or storage to hold these items.
Here's where the logic falls down, though.
There's no reason that a single stack of resources containing 1000k units should take up 10x as much database space as a single stack of resources containing 100k units.
If that were true, the single stack of resources containing 100k units would logically take up 100,000x as much space as those single-unit stacks we find in treasure chests.
Therefore, database space will only be conserved by letting crates/resources stack up higher. The amount of database space taken up is (as far as anyone can tell) directly related to the number of inventory items. Fewer inventory items equals less database space.
Now, I can understand how they might want to keep stacks small for game balance reasons, to make things more difficult for high-volume crafters that are trying to establish monopolies (thoughfrom a game balance perspective,it still illogically and unfairlypenalizes the classes that tend to require bulky stacks of resources, like architects).
The supposedly-technical "database space" reasoning, however,holds less water than a cracked colander.
I remember 250 unit max resource stacks......
That being said, if the game already has factory crates of varying sizes (10 for power-ups, 50 for armor segments, 25 for droid brains etc) then the Dev's can set it up so that components needed for a final product (Power conditioners, deflector shield emitter assemblies, advanced frame units, etc) stack as units of 1000 (the max a schematic can be) while finished product (PSG Mk III's, composite armor helmets, R3's) remain at 10, 25 or 50...
There is no good reason to force a player to store 40 crates of a component factory run, especially when so many schematics call for "identical units from a factory crate". I do it because I am forced to do it, but it would save database space that could be used in other ways (such as making medium houses meaningful again).
Factory crates were once explained as "instant crafting", that is, crates had a potential. This potential was defined by the number of "charges" in the crate. When you pulled an item from the crate it was "insta-crafted". This means that a crate is always 1 item in the database no matter how much potential it has, whether it be 10 or 1000.
As a Master of Armorsmithing, Droid Engineering and Artisan, I always have plenty of factory crates around. So many that I have 4 houses to hold them and my resource containers. I don't think resource containers need increasing, but crates sure do. I think it was TH that said crate sizes wouldn't be increased because schematic runs of 100 are supposed to be the max, and that 1000 was a bug that was never fixed, but we all know that now schematics have been legitimately made to run between 1 and 1000, so this argument no longer holds true.
At least fix the crates, Dev's...
rexan wrote:
LonelyGhost wrote:
I just dont understand why they feel the need to restrict how much we can have. Is it a gameplay issue to them or a technology issue? Why not just come clean with it!
Storage is a major issue in the game. I'd like to have more storage as well. But were stuck with what we have.
The reason is the resource and crafting model in SWG.Resources in SWG are constantly changing. Every week we see a new set of resources introduced. Thats a new set of Copper, Steel, Iron, Aluminum, Polymers, Oils, Perto Chem, Ore, Gems, Radioactive....etc. In addition there are the planet specific resources. Each planet will haveunique resources like berries, fruits, greens, vegis, fiberplast, hides, meat, bone, wind power, solar power.... etc.Plus the fact that each crafter uses these unique resources to makes unique items, the potential amount of database space needed to store everything would become astronomical.
What the developers did to limit the potential database size is to limit the maximum amount of storage each player has. You get 10 lots. With 10 lots you can store a maximum of 1000 unique items. (2000 if you consider the output hopper if your factories). We asplayers have to work inside of these constraints. We can have an almost unlimited variety if objects in the game, however, we only have a limited about or storage to hold these items.
Message Edited by rexan on 05-27-2004 03:29 PM
Do you understand Oracle database structures at all? It doesn't appear so by your insights.
Again I say that storage is NOT an issue. Management of storage is the issue. If you only have 10 lots to work with it is not my fault. I worked to develop one of the largest guilds on Tempest. 100K stacks do nothing but make ME spend more time managing the stacks. They do not stop storage increasing and certainly do not prevent us from collecting and storing the most rare spawns at a tune of 10 million units+.
Just because you agree with the public perceptions you stated does not mean we have to also.
Fivo Asia
Message Edited by Cafa on 06-01-2004 02:00 PM
Anybody who has ever made a factory run of personal shield generators will tell you they need to increase the crate size. I had to throw up another small house for the sole purpose of storing factory crates. Making abour 300 imperial PSGs in one run, took enough crates that the factory's 100 item limit was almost completly full.
I could live with components being at 100 and finished products being limited to crates of 25. 10 crates of 10 is a lot better then 40 crates of 25. And I don't normally have runs of a thousand pieces of armor at a time.