Merchant Archive
Thread: Database Fixes that we would LOVE not nerfs!
The real problem here is that we do not have the base structure of the Db to work from. If we knew that we could make more helpful suggestions. Would it be giving any secrets away to let us know the generic structure of the Db using simple field and sub field identifiers?
Redfyree wrote:
1. Have factories create ONE create of product up to a crate of 1000 items.
2. Have resources stack up to a Million units, not 100k
When this was brought up earlier, they said "no" as they didn't want us to horde large quantities of resources. But there is a compromise that reduces database size and still doesn't give us additional storage -
Let us stack same serial items in crates of 1000 and resources in stacks of unlimited size, but re-introduce volume on these stacks. For example, if stim Bs stack in 50, than I could carry a full factory run of 1000 in a single crate, but it would take up 20 inventory slots. If I have a stack of 1.5 million units of a resource, it shows as 1 stack, but takes up 15 inventory slots. If I have a stack of 89,000 units, it's 1 inventory slot, just like today.
This helps me because my inventory is better organized. I don't have to click on 30 100K stacks of wild corn to find the one single type I am looking for. I can see exactly how much of something I have much more easily. When moving components between factories (or from the output hopper to the input hopper), I don't have to make 20 moves. I avoid moving the worng subcomponent crate with a different serial number. When selling a full factory run of a subcomponent, I can stock a single crate, instead of 20 in a backpack. It does not give me the ability to store more items. SOE's objection is gone. It also reduces the number of individual database records by a huge amount.
As a rough guess, thing would reduce the individual stacks/crates that I "own" in various non-vendor inventory by around 30% based on consolidated subcomponent crates and consolidated resource stacks. There's still a lot of junk (smaller animal resource stacks, loot, clothes) that would be unaffected.
But let's take it a step farther. Let's change the vendor interface to allow per unit sales. Let me stock in full crates and full resource stacks. Let me set a per unit price. Let the customer choose the number of units to buy, splitting the crate/stack as purchase time. I benefit because I can now sell to both small time and big time purchasers. Stocking is also signifincantly easier, because I have fewer crates/stacks to deal with. And best of all,I've just reduced the database records that my vendors generate by around 60%.
There is significant upside for the crafter in ease of use (without giving us more storage ability). There is significant upside to SOE in terms of database savings. It's a win-win. Which means neither of these suggestions will ever get done.
If this was *only* a database issue, this would be a great fix and should be relatively simple.
A second fix, which is probably more work, and which would make just about EVERYONE happy: Allow vendors to break apart crates. I could put up a crate of 100 candles instead of 20 individual candles plus 8 crates of 10 candles each. That's about a factor of nearly 30 on database size. In addition, it greatly speeds up the process of purchasing crafted goods, since you no longer need to scroll through dozens of identical items.
What if this is *not* a database issue, but something else? You sometimes hear the Devs complaining about monopolies, in which a relatively small number of crafters dominate the market for armor or weapons on a server.
The devs may think that this is a solution to the 'monopoly problem'. If so, they GREATLY underestimate the determination and resourcefulness of these people. You'll make life more difficult for them and force them to spend their time dealing with tedious vendor management, and you may harass them to the point where they leave the game, but you won't stop them this way.
I don't see a lot of people who are screaming to dismantle these 'monopolies.' Certainly the 'anit-monopoly' faction(if it even exists) isn't making thousands of posts. It would be profoundly foolish to make the vast majority of crafters AND their customers unhappy in a vain attempt to solve a problem that very few players are even mildly concerned with.
Maybe the devs are concerned with people using vendors to horde huge quantities of goods. Again, the solution won't work. People who want to horde stuff will simply do cross-server lot trades and set up scads of factories, which will hurt server performance MUCH more than the current vendor exploit.
Again, it would be profoundly foolish to make the vast majority of crafters AND their customers unhappy in a vain attempt to solve a problem that is ONLY of concern to SOE.
Jagged-F3l wrote:You have to understand that making these "simple" changes would mean changing fundamental database schemes. It's not an easy task to change a database scheme, and there are always scalability issues that need to be explored with every change.
You made a blanket statement above. It's not necessarily true that the schema would need to change or scalability would be a huge factor. See my post on the technical database issues.