Housing Limits Increased PLEASE = More money for Zenimax

Pixiepumpkin · January 9

"The furnishing limitation has more to do with what the lower-end PCs can handle per Zenimax."

This answer from Zenimax makes little sense, at least their verbiage is not consistant with their design decisions in game.

Snug Pod has a 200 slot max item with ESO+. It is also a very small instance allowing for a ton of items to be placed in close proximity, which causes a lot of computational horsepower. This has been the case since the introduction of housing when PC's were less powerful than today, but even then they were confident with a lower PC's/or consoles ability to render 200 objects in this tiny space.

Anchor Berth in High Isle has a 30 slot max witth ESO+ (no reason that home can not be raised to 100 items minimum with ESO+). This was made at a time where many older PC's are gone and have been replaced with much more powerful machines. Almost a decade later.

These two homes are very very similar in size, heck I'd argue Anchor Berth is larger.

There is no reason based on performance that Anchor Berth should not have more slots. So why such the discrepancy? It would appear to me that the answer of "The furnishing limitation has more to do with what the lower-end PCs can handle per Zenimax." is not entirely accurate.

Snug Pod 161/200

Anchor Berth 30/30

MoonPile · January 14

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

"The furnishing limitation has more to do with what the lower-end PCs can handle per Zenimax."

This answer from Zenimax makes little sense, at least their verbiage is not consistant with their design decisions in game.

Snug Pod has a 200 slot max item with ESO+. It is also a very small instance allowing for a ton of items to be placed in close proximity, which causes a lot of computational horsepower. This has been the case since the introduction of housing when PC's were less powerful than today, but even then they were confident with a lower PC's/or consoles ability to render 200 objects in this tiny space.

Anchor Berth in High Isle has a 30 slot max witth ESO+ (no reason that home can not be raised to 100 items minimum with ESO+). This was made at a time where many older PC's are gone and have been replaced with much more powerful machines. Almost a decade later.

These two homes are very very similar in size, heck I'd argue Anchor Berth is larger.

There is no reason based on performance that Anchor Berth should not have more slots. So why such the discrepancy? It would appear to me that the answer of "The furnishing limitation has more to do with what the lower-end PCs can handle per Zenimax." is not entirely accurate.

...

Your snug pod looks great!

ZOS's actual answer was in regards to the upper limits of 700/10/etc. for the various furnishing types, especially for older consoles that are usually more limited than PCs.

BUT even if that's the case, surely they could introduce something to increase limits in smaller houses like your examples? I'd love to increase Sleek Creek by even 50 slots.

Besides possible issues of too many items in close proximity, and without having seen the back end functionality, it's true that the limits for smaller homes appears to be arbitrary. Marketing, not technical limitations. I have a hard time believing even the items-in-proximity issue given how detailed some of the in-game environments are. I'm envious when I go to a delve and see all this wonderful, illustrative clutter, that's basically impossible unless you only build in a small area of a large high-limit home and don't spend too many slots closing off the rest.

An additional solution could be slot swapping:

I'm so frustrated by one of the largest manor homes right now. I did a lot of custom landscaping and building, but not as much as I wanted for actual storytelling details because I had to use a lot of slots and large items to hide parts of the base lot. It would help so much if I could just trade 10-20 of the Collectible trophy/bust slots for Traditional.

katanagirl1 · January 14

MoonPile wrote: »

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

"The furnishing limitation has more to do with what the lower-end PCs can handle per Zenimax."

This answer from Zenimax makes little sense, at least their verbiage is not consistant with their design decisions in game.

Snug Pod has a 200 slot max item with ESO+. It is also a very small instance allowing for a ton of items to be placed in close proximity, which causes a lot of computational horsepower. This has been the case since the introduction of housing when PC's were less powerful than today, but even then they were confident with a lower PC's/or consoles ability to render 200 objects in this tiny space.

Anchor Berth in High Isle has a 30 slot max witth ESO+ (no reason that home can not be raised to 100 items minimum with ESO+). This was made at a time where many older PC's are gone and have been replaced with much more powerful machines. Almost a decade later.

These two homes are very very similar in size, heck I'd argue Anchor Berth is larger.

There is no reason based on performance that Anchor Berth should not have more slots. So why such the discrepancy? It would appear to me that the answer of "The furnishing limitation has more to do with what the lower-end PCs can handle per Zenimax." is not entirely accurate.

...

Your snug pod looks great!

ZOS's actual answer was in regards to the upper limits of 700/10/etc. for the various furnishing types, especially for older consoles that are usually more limited than PCs.

BUT even if that's the case, surely they could introduce something to increase limits in smaller houses like your examples? I'd love to increase Sleek Creek by even 50 slots.

Besides possible issues of too many items in close proximity, and without having seen the back end functionality, it's true that the limits for smaller homes appears to be arbitrary. Marketing, not technical limitations. I have a hard time believing even the items-in-proximity issue given how detailed some of the in-game environments are. I'm envious when I go to a delve and see all this wonderful, illustrative clutter, that's basically impossible unless you only build in a small area of a large high-limit home and don't spend too many slots closing off the rest.

An additional solution could be slot swapping:

I'm so frustrated by one of the largest manor homes right now. I did a lot of custom landscaping and building, but not as much as I wanted for actual storytelling details because I had to use a lot of slots and large items to hide parts of the base lot. It would help so much if I could just trade 10-20 of the Collectible trophy/bust slots for Traditional.

I agree with your idea to trade one type of housing slots for another. I never use the ones for Undaunted trophies, and I thought those were the most complex items due to the number of polygons. Regardless, trading 1 for 1 with those would be useful.

AScarlato · January 22

Something needs to be done about special collectibles. We have so many pets, mounts, services and houseguests and the limit is so restraining. Once in a while I’d like to buy a houseguest but then remember it wouldn’t be an addition to my home but would make me sacrifice something to use it. So I pass. Wanting just the services in your home means you lose a lot of more personal customization since those alone take up half the spots.

Ruj · January 28

If console can't support 2k traditional furnishings per home, why don't they give it to PC players?

Console can stay with 700 furnishing item limit.

We don't have cross-play anyway.

Also, I can't understand why a home as large as Antiquarian isn't 700 slots. How was it decided that Antiquarian can't handle the extra 100 slots?

Transparency with how these decisions are made would go a long way.

Sakiri · January 29

AScarlato wrote: »

Something needs to be done about special collectibles. We have so many pets, mounts, services and houseguests and the limit is so restraining. Once in a while I’d like to buy a houseguest but then remember it wouldn’t be an addition to my home but would make me sacrifice something to use it. So I pass. Wanting just the services in your home means you lose a lot of more personal customization since those alone take up half the spots.

I don't have any services in my home. I just use a friend's house that has all the crafting stations and transmute station, service npcs etc.

I know a lot of folks use guild houses for that, too.

Freilauftomate · January 29

Ruj wrote: »

If console can't support 2k traditional furnishings per home, why don't they give it to PC players?

Console can stay with 700 furnishing item limit.

We don't have cross-play anyway.

Also, I can't understand why a home as large as Antiquarian isn't 700 slots. How was it decided that Antiquarian can't handle the extra 100 slots?

Transparency with how these decisions are made would go a long way.

Exactly. The people responsible for this game don't talk to us. They don't tell us what's really going on, and why there are so many problems that seem to be impossible to solve. All we get are vague and mysterious comments that answer absolutely nothing and have no value at all. We don't even get to know why they refuse to talk to us...

So customers start making up crazy theories about everything. Someone else repeats the theory and suddenly everyone thinks it's the truth.

With a game that claims to have over 20 millions players (about the population of Australia) you would expect better customer service and communication overall. But unfortunately it's very disappointing and frustrating. And it doesn't seem like anything is going to change.