Merchant Archive
Thread: Is this really a database issue?
Page 1 of 2
Ybagi
Sat Aug 07, 2004 5:57 am
#1
DocSavag wrote:
SeismicEdge wrote:
Well, the first thing is, they need to give us more warning than this. Although I can understand a limit (not this bad), I can't understand why they shot this at us with such a short notice. Publish 10 is a matter of weeks away. Why did we get no other warning than this?
If they are going to place a limit on vendors, they need to tell us months in advance so we can prepare. Give us time to sell off our stock. What happens as my stock begins to expire and I can't resell it? Think I have room for 1,500+ items?
Give us more time than this.
As far as how much of a limit they should put on our vendors. I say multiply their numbers AT LEAST by a factor of 10. And 20 makes more sense.
That isn't realistic. It simply isn't. 20x 660 is 13,200 items. Come on..please try to give me realistic suggestions. I know you WANT unlimited items but what can you LIVE with.
Why isn't this realistic?
We have unlimited now and things are working fine. That is a fact.
Once all the empty vendors/unused vendors are deleted things will be more fine.
Once the 6 month cancelled charachters are purged things will be even more fine.
Blaming this on database issues is a nothing more than an excuse.
JudoKnight
Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:15 am
#3
Oh but this is a database issue. When's the last time you looted a melon, a satchel, a cargo pocket?
Anytime they make item limit changes then it is about the database. If their intention to stop the storage use of vendor...then why not go the opposite route and cap the price? How many people are going to store stuff on a vendor with a sale price of 150K? No, the selling to a vendor would not have to be affected because it not a general sale, but a specific one to the owner.
I want to know more about this decision because it is simply the most assinine one I ever heard of.
Ybagi
Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:21 am
#4
JudoKnight wrote:
Oh but this is a database issue. When's the last time you looted a melon, a satchel, a cargo pocket?
Exactly, if this was a database issue why not get rid of all the useless loots in the game.
At any one time the bazaar has thousands and thousands of items that will never sell at any price.
Get rid of this
JudoKnight
Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:31 am
#5
Yes, we agree the useless crap needs to be gotten ridof. The problem is...they haven't figured out to do this! Remember after CoA, the disks that dropped were not supposed to anymore...and they still do! This is a beast they created because of a database flawed in implementation and execution.
So instead of doing something on their end they will put a hurt on most of us who do have vendors, have a good steady business going, and actually still PAY the vendor maintenance fee (why I do this I have no idea).
I can't see any rationale for this decision...composite armor is 9 pieces, at 20 units per piece, that's 180 pieces...what are they thinking?
burgerking
Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:37 am
#6
shargus wrote:
Maybe they are making room for all the JTL data to come.
You know that actually occured to me too.
JudoKnight
Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:44 am
#7
burgerking wrote:
shargus wrote:
Maybe they are making room for all the JTL data to come.
You know that actually occured to me too.
If this is true, then why aren't they creating additional storage and servers to handle this?
MouseBot
Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:48 am
#8
I still suspect that it has more to do with players making a profit while being afk than anything else. Kind of the same thing as removing recursive macros.
wyrwulf
Sat Aug 07, 2004 7:05 am
#9
OK it should not be a data base issue, with the increased size and lowering cost of hard drives this should not be an issue, if they think it is then they should take a hard look at there data base. This is just someones miss guided idea of what they think is a good thing. It is not good and shouldnt go live.
Deex
LXB
mattygb
Sat Aug 07, 2004 7:17 am
#10
Now that I've settled a bit, maybe this is their low end offer. Kind of like buying a car, you shoot low and hope to end somewhere in the middle where everyone's happy.
I work with databases daily, and if their's is set up correctly there shouldn't be an issue. As long as they keep the analyzed, and partitioned etc...... there shouldn't be speed issues. Plus, with JTL, they should have tons o money for more storage. It's part of any project where more data will be generated. If not, please hire a new project manager who would have thought of that.
Xconxors
Sat Aug 07, 2004 7:30 am
#11
I seriously doubt that I will be the only one to quit if this comes to pass. I hope SOE considers the lost revenue in the decision to nerf half the population...
Songe
Sat Aug 07, 2004 7:33 am
#12
It's a database issue... and a way of prevening monopolies. Poorly implemented though...
HalasterTheBlack
Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:01 am
#13
They have database issues, but it's bad design and nothing more.
To give you an example of what I mean, let me relate my own experience.
Back in Beta, when they brought the 2nd server online, I immediately created a character on it. I named that character exactly as I named my toon on the 1st beta server. Mind you, both servers are online at the same time.
So I log in my toon on the 2nd server and *bam* all sorts of problems, including cross-linked inventory with my toon on the 1st server.
I try to work through it and submit bug reports.
Then I delete my toon on the 2nd server... and *bam* my toon on the 1st server is gone too.
My 20 years experience as a professional software developer tells me that this happened because they did not key characters on server ID + character ID, but only on Character ID. This is a rookie mistake. Nobody who's programmed to a database for even a year makes this mistake. If they made that rookie mistake, you can be certain they made more.
SW:G's dataset isn't that large when you compare it to something like a search engine. Search engines get hit harder by more concurrentusers than SW:G's database does. Hell, Google runs on an open-source database and SW:G runs on Oracle and Google kicks SW:G's ass.
Take a look at all that and you have to surmise that there really *is* a database problem - it was designed by a rookie. Instead of fixing their bad design, they're choosing to yet again remove features and functionality from the game.
Message Edited by HalasterTheBlack on 08-07-2004 11:03 AM
Page 1 of 2