Housing Cap Explained

Nordic_Pirate

Fellow citizens of Tamriel. ZOS has already responded multiple times as to why the furniture system it is the way it is, and what they hope for in the future. Read below:

ZOS_RichLambert wrote: »

As we mentioned when the system launched, the caps are there for performance reasons. We all want the caps to be higher as well and are working to find ways to try and raise them in the future.

So we can stop posting about it 100 times a day in every possible location. They know we want it. They want it. We'll get it eventually.

TL;DR - ZOS wants furniture cap raised too, they're working on it.

ComboBreaker88

Yeah. That "reason" is utter bull crap. And does not explain why smaller houses can't have a higher limit. ZOS treats it's player base like they are incompetent. 95% of the EXCUSES they give are just that, lame reasons for not putting in the effort required to deliver a quality product. But hey, people will pay 6000 crowns for a freaking motif. So maybe the player base isn't the brightest bunch.

woe

ComboBreaker88 wrote: »

Yeah. That "reason" is utter bull crap. And does not explain why smaller houses can't have a higher limit. ZOS treats it's player base like they are incompetent. 95% of the EXCUSES they give are just that, lame reasons for not putting in the effort required to deliver a quality product. But hey, people will pay 6000 crowns for a freaking motif. So maybe the player base isn't the brightest bunch.

You should work there and fix everything since you are so smart! If you don't enjoy the game then don't play it. If you think something could be better then do something about it that doesn't involve crying on the forums.

Shadzilla

deflorate wrote: »

ComboBreaker88 wrote: »

Yeah. That "reason" is utter bull crap. And does not explain why smaller houses can't have a higher limit. ZOS treats it's player base like they are incompetent. 95% of the EXCUSES they give are just that, lame reasons for not putting in the effort required to deliver a quality product. But hey, people will pay 6000 crowns for a freaking motif. So maybe the player base isn't the brightest bunch.

You should work there and fix everything since you are so smart! If you don't enjoy the game then don't play it. If you think something could be better then do something about it that doesn't involve crying on the forums.

"Crying" on the forums is one of the only way things actually get done around here... If it wasn't for "crying" on the forums we would all still be doing 8 mag sorc dps trial runs. Take it easy bud.

ComboBreaker88

deflorate wrote: »

ComboBreaker88 wrote: »

Yeah. That "reason" is utter bull crap. And does not explain why smaller houses can't have a higher limit. ZOS treats it's player base like they are incompetent. 95% of the EXCUSES they give are just that, lame reasons for not putting in the effort required to deliver a quality product. But hey, people will pay 6000 crowns for a freaking motif. So maybe the player base isn't the brightest bunch.

You should work there and fix everything since you are so smart! If you don't enjoy the game then don't play it. If you think something could be better then do something about it that doesn't involve crying on the forums.

The whole, you don't like it leave attitude is a cancer. A cancer that is ruining the game and making quality players seek other games. I've been here since beta. ESO has more potential than any game out there but is held back by a company that doesn't understand how MMOS work or how to keep players continually returning for more. If they would simply listen to the players who have been here since the beginning and weigh their input before changes the game would be phenomenal. That's the whole point of the PTS but they don't listen to fwed back from quality players. They just listen to the ones shouting the loudest. And the louder they are, the dumber the tend to be.

starkerealm

ComboBreaker88 wrote: »

Yeah. That "reason" is utter bull crap. And does not explain why smaller houses can't have a higher limit. ZOS treats it's player base like they are incompetent. 95% of the EXCUSES they give are just that, lame reasons for not putting in the effort required to deliver a quality product. But hey, people will pay 6000 crowns for a freaking motif. So maybe the player base isn't the brightest bunch.

Or, it's possible that the performance issues are server side, meaning, it has more to do with the total number of objects placed than the rendering load... just a thought.

ComboBreaker88

starkerealm wrote: »

ComboBreaker88 wrote: »

Yeah. That "reason" is utter bull crap. And does not explain why smaller houses can't have a higher limit. ZOS treats it's player base like they are incompetent. 95% of the EXCUSES they give are just that, lame reasons for not putting in the effort required to deliver a quality product. But hey, people will pay 6000 crowns for a freaking motif. So maybe the player base isn't the brightest bunch.

Or, it's possible that the performance issues are server side, meaning, it has more to do with the total number of objects placed than the rendering load... just a thought.

This still doesn't explain why smaller houses can't have a higher limit.. the total number of objects shouldn't be an issue so long as it isn't something like 10k. Lol but a thousand or two thousand? That shouldn't be a problem. And if it is their "mega servers" are running 1980 hardware. In a game where you are hard pressed to find players who don't subscribe let alone haven't spent anything in the cash shop, I expect better. We all should. The company is worth 2.5 billion as of 2016. Yet a game which is a literal money tree can't run or have basic QoL improvements? I smell the smelly smell of something that smells smelly.

Reverb

This doesn't explain the low limit on collectibles. The cap should be a general cap, period. Fill it with books, chairs, busts, Masks, guar, wolves or whatever. Don't tell me the cap is 300 for performance reasons, but that I can only use a handful of those 300 for trophies and mounts.

Slick_007

ComboBreaker88 wrote: »

The whole, you don't like it leave attitude is a cancer. A cancer that is ruining the game and making quality players seek other games. I've been here since beta. ESO has more potential than any game out there but is held back by a company that doesn't understand how MMOS work or how to keep players continually returning for more. If they would simply listen to the players who have been here since the beginning and weigh their input before changes the game would be phenomenal. That's the whole point of the PTS but they don't listen to fwed back from quality players. They just listen to the ones shouting the loudest. And the louder they are, the dumber the tend to be.

the cancer is posts like your previous one, calling ZOS liars and calling players stupid. If all it takes to get that to stop and make you leave is a comment like 'dont like it, leave', then maybe we should repeat it more often.

there are ways to get your point across to ZOS. crying on the forums like a 5yr old is not it. Being constructive with your criticisms is a much better way. Providing information other than 'your game crashed, fix your f'n game' (which we've also seen on here, i dont think that was by you though) are not constructive and do nothing but show others your inability to be reasonable.

So you've been here 'since beta' so you think that makes you a quality player and they should just automatically listen to you? while you call them liars on their forums and call other players stupid? i'm still waiting to see signs of this 'quality player'

i find it unbelievable the abuse ZOS cop from you and people like you over a game you continue to play. I think you have 3 options.
1. learn to be constructive in your criticism of them
2. learn to give quality feedback. For an example, if the game crashes: this is what i was doing, these are the addons that were running etc. I'm not saying you personally don't do that already. I haven't seen any of your posts in the bugs forum. But i've seen plenty of others who don't and somehow magically expect ZOS knows what happened and everything about it and that they can magically fix it without any information.
3. leave. silently.

Feanor

I actually believe performance is the reason. Just load into a mansion used as guild hall when 10 other people are in there. It takes some minutes until all the textures are rendered.

altemriel

Nordicly_Responsible wrote: »

Fellow citizens of Tamriel. ZOS has already responded multiple times as to why the furniture system it is the way it is, and what they hope for in the future. Read below:

ZOS_RichLambert wrote: »

As we mentioned when the system launched, the caps are there for performance reasons. We all want the caps to be higher as well and are working to find ways to try and raise them in the future.

So we can stop posting about it 100 times a day in every possible location. They know we want it. They want it. We'll get it eventually.

TL;DR - ZOS wants furniture cap raised too, they're working on it.

no eta, hopefully in 1 or 2 years

pod88kk

RAISE THE DAMN CAP!!!!!!!

zaria

starkerealm wrote: »

ComboBreaker88 wrote: »

Yeah. That "reason" is utter bull crap. And does not explain why smaller houses can't have a higher limit. ZOS treats it's player base like they are incompetent. 95% of the EXCUSES they give are just that, lame reasons for not putting in the effort required to deliver a quality product. But hey, people will pay 6000 crowns for a freaking motif. So maybe the player base isn't the brightest bunch.

Or, it's possible that the performance issues are server side, meaning, it has more to do with the total number of objects placed than the rendering load... just a thought.

In one way it makes sense, its an item limit not an complexity limit, you can add 300 trees and 300 light sources or 600 sweetrolls

On the other hand it does not, your house differ from any other with the objects you placed in it.
This is an simple list of objects object id, position and rotation, you inventory and bank contains far more data and need to be in server memory all the time, your house is loaded on load.
Add that an player in his house does not tax the servers much as its no enemies to fight.

Cherryblossom

Nordicly_Responsible wrote: »

Fellow citizens of Tamriel. ZOS has already responded multiple times as to why the furniture system it is the way it is, and what they hope for in the future. Read below:

ZOS_RichLambert wrote: »

As we mentioned when the system launched, the caps are there for performance reasons. We all want the caps to be higher as well and are working to find ways to try and raise them in the future.

So we can stop posting about it 100 times a day in every possible location. They know we want it. They want it. We'll get it eventually.

TL;DR - ZOS wants furniture cap raised too, they're working on it.

Not seen any post about this, except yours!

Nordic_Pirate

Cherryblossom wrote: »

Nordicly_Responsible wrote: »

Fellow citizens of Tamriel. ZOS has already responded multiple times as to why the furniture system it is the way it is, and what they hope for in the future. Read below:

ZOS_RichLambert wrote: »

As we mentioned when the system launched, the caps are there for performance reasons. We all want the caps to be higher as well and are working to find ways to try and raise them in the future.

So we can stop posting about it 100 times a day in every possible location. They know we want it. They want it. We'll get it eventually.

TL;DR - ZOS wants furniture cap raised too, they're working on it.

Not seen any post about this, except yours!

I directly quoted a Zos statement, I assure you. Wouldn't spread false information about this, especially because I want higher caps as well.

As for the reason small houses can't have higher limits. It's about fairness. Why should a smaller house get the same items as a notable home right now? I think that's all there really is to that. While it might be unfair (trust me, I have a few bigger homes that need some space), I would find it less fair if someone could max their little home out with 700 items, but I can't do that in my big home

Demolitionary

That is true, people with hamster ran computers will cry about performance if they increase the poly count in housing, simple as that.


Why create another reason for self entitled kids to cry?
Because using the word cancer at stuff you don't like just proves how immature you are. End of.

Nordic_Pirate

While I see everyone is upset about this person's comments, it is their rights as a human to express them. And, while it is your right to jump on that person, that is not the point of this thread. It was merely to point out that the issue is recognized, and that everyone desires it.

let's not give each other cancer. 20 years from now none of us will care about this lmao.

reiverx

They should have raising the cap by a small amount last update. Say 25 items. It would have helped.

Instead, they spend their time ramping up the number of furnishing items for sale in the crown store.

zaria

Demolitionary wrote: »

That is true, people with hamster ran computers will cry about performance if they increase the poly count in housing, simple as that.


Why create another reason for self entitled kids to cry?
Because using the word cancer at stuff you don't like just proves how immature you are. End of.

Client performance is item complexity not item count, most would cut down on complex items like creating an dense forest if it generated too much lag.

zaria

reiverx wrote: »

They should have raising the cap by a small amount last update. Say 25 items. It would have helped.

Instead, they spend their time ramping up the number of furnishing items for sale in the crown store.

And the item cap makes the huge premium homes less attractive reducing sales.

Silufadumar

I'm not that technically minded, but don't those homes with an outside and inside have two 'cells' or loadable areas? If not, then shouldn't they have, it seems an obvious way to have the item count of one area not effect the other, and thus allow a much high item limit for such homes?

ComboBreaker88

Silufadumar wrote: »

I'm not that technically minded, but don't those homes with an outside and inside have two 'cells' or loadable areas? If not, then shouldn't they have, it seems an obvious way to have the item count of one area not effect the other, and thus allow a much high item limit for such homes?

This.

Apherius

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9oLJYM6JOs&t=189s

As you can see on my video , they just copy past the area / dungeon ARROUND your house ,there is a lot of useless detail ,for exemple from hakkvild castle you can see a Barn , in this barn, there is 40 items !! 40 useless item that you can't see from the castle but that you see once you get out of the map.

so i don't believe this excuse.

they just don't know how they could get money by doing this ,so they take their time until they find the better way to make a lot of $$$ with this.

it's like give us this thing -->


And instead of use a knife to scratch the burned parts ... they said us that it's a " Toaster issue " .

kiyoshigawa

Silufadumar wrote: »

I'm not that technically minded, but don't those homes with an outside and inside have two 'cells' or loadable areas? If not, then shouldn't they have, it seems an obvious way to have the item count of one area not effect the other, and thus allow a much high item limit for such homes?

I definitely see this as a way they could reasonably improve the homestead experience. Split the home into multiple loading areas, each with their own item limit.

For instance, the Amaya Lake Lodge as it is now could have 600 items for outside, 600 items in the shed, 600 items in the lower-mid floor, or 600 items in the upper floor with the current limits (and no items in any of the other areas as it stands now). If you made each a separate loaded zone, the whole house could have a limit of 2400 items, and it would still be effectively the same as what is possible in any one of those areas now, just with more loading screens. I feel this is a change most players would accept for the improved utility.

Another solution I keep seeing is that ZoS needs to offer more structural items, such as walls, stairs, and filled shelves in various styles, sizes, and with various contents. This would allow us to make more constructive use of our item slots, and have a full-looking house without any changes needed other than releasing new furniture recipes to the game. It's not as good of a solution as granting more item slots overall, but it's a good start, and will help with the low limits until a better workaround like the one suggested above can be achieved.

I also agree heartily that items such as trophies should count only towards a total limit, and not as special limited collectibles. They don't require any special processing power, so they should not be limited arbitrarily. I can understand special furnishings like mists of hag fen, and even NPCs and pets/mounts requiring limits due to being animated and rendered specially, but trophies are less interactive than lighting items, and should not be limited as they are. Several lighting items are animated, and interactable, and they do not count as special furnishings. This double standard is just limiting creativity and utility of housing for no discernible reason.

As for the general purpose of this thread, there's a reason so many people are constantly posting about item limits, and that's that the current setup isn't working for them. It is very frustrating given the costs of housing, both in-game gold and crown store purchases. There are so many creative ideas that aren't possible with the current limits. I think that if people stop making noise about it, it will go ignored. Housing is one of the most enjoyable aspects of the game for me and many others, and I like to support ZoS financially, I just want there to be adequate value in doing so. I probably would have spent more crowns during the recent sale on a larger home if it was even remotely possible to decorate it within the current item limits.

I hope that seeing these threads every few days full of both constructive, and not-so-constructive comments regarding the housing limits will reinforce how important this issue is to much of the player base, and will lead to swifter actions on ZoS' part, so that everyone can fully enjoy housing as it was intended.

iiYuki

You can raise your cap... by buying ESO+, sounds like a weak excuse that it affects performance to incentivise buying premium, you get to a point where there are too many slots to use.

GrimClaw

Wrong. All they need to transfer are positions of the objects in your house - the rendering is a Client side task. We are talking about 0.5-1 megabyte of additional data per house, it's just coordinates and item ids. They could even use caching, so they would have to invalidate data only if objects are placed. Sooo easy to fix.

You could create more bandwith use if you refresh the guild store 3 times per minute. Get a network monitoring tool and check for yourself.

Jayne_Doe

I think that most of us who care about housing are aware of ZOS' statement that was quoted in the OP, and I sincerely hope that they are working on it. But, I do think it's important to keep discussing the issue so that it remains something they are working on.

Smaller caps on the smaller homes presumably are just so that the caps on larger homes seem fair, even if they are still too small. If you could fit 600 items in a small home, why purchase a larger one where the spaces just look bare?

I don't currently have issues with the item caps, but I don't have anything larger than a medium home. More importantly, I'm not nearly as creative as some of my fellow housing enthusiasts. I'm not creating stairs to a newly created loft or creating additional rooms in a large open space. I'm not creating kitchens with fridges and modern looking ovens (cool, even if anachronistic) or bathrooms with sinks and toilets.

Also, there is a separate limit for trophies/busts, but for someone who doesn't want to decorate with them, why can't they have those slots for other furnishings? If I choose not to use the collectibles slots, then surely I could use those slots for regular furnishings without compromising performance? But perhaps it has something to do with the fact that collectibles aren't actual objects in your inventory? Though the Vvardenfell map is a collectible but counts toward your regular item limit (I think- someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Great suggestions have been made by other players in this thread and many others, so I won't list them all again here, but I do hope that ZOS is reading all of the feedback/suggestions and taking it to heart. Players don't just want pretty/shiny new objects to place in their homes, they actually want to build and create their own unique spaces. Plus, if ZOS wants people to purchase new stuff from the Crown Store, they need to give players a place to put it, and no, the solution is not just to buy another house. Although, perhaps that is ZOS' intention? To get people to buy more houses by limiting what they can put in their existing homes?

The cynical part of me suspects that, as with other QoL improvements, like costume dyeing, they are trying to figure out the best way to monetize it.

Malacthulhu

Blame Marketing. lol. One thing they could do is allow us to merge items into one item and have it count that way. Thus it would just be the outter dimension of the new item and not both. This would help a little for some people and a lot for others. They could also make it so you could snap a group of items as one item regardless of distance to an acceptable limit and allow it to be considered one ei. an entire room that is set up etc. It would take time for them to do this but, probably a good approach. They could either have a way to unmerge or snap or just make it permenant as a furnishing mat sink but, what do I know I'm not a scientist lol.

OmniDo

Silufadumar wrote: »

I'm not that technically minded, but don't those homes with an outside and inside have two 'cells' or loadable areas? If not, then shouldn't they have, it seems an obvious way to have the item count of one area not effect the other, and thus allow a much high item limit for such homes?

Houses do have separate "block spaces" where the interior is loaded in an obviously different location than its exterior.
This is most visibly obvious by escaping the map on Hakkvild Castle, but could also be determined by simply targeting another player in your house and then using an external location "door", for any home that has an "Exterior".
Since targeting auras persist through objects at any distance, it quickly becomes apparent that the interior spaces for homes that have an exterior space are in vastly different locations; the targeted player or dummy is visibly seen hundreds of meters above or below you, which obviously doesnt match the structure of the house itself.
Since there are no loading screens with exterior to interior doors, theyre all loaded into one space.
This is why Hakkvild castle is probably one of the largest "resource consuming" houses you can have, due to the fact that it loads almost the entire zone with it, which can be seen when one "leaves" the area with the gate/dummy trick.

lasertooth

Feedback is the second most important thing a player can give back to a gaming company. The first is money. I've given both to zos, and I will continue to do so until I lose interest in housing, and thus lose interest in the game. I had never spent money in this game prior to housing with the exception of 3 years of eso plus and the banker/merchant/occasional experience scroll. Since housing, however, I've happily found many things to support the game and spend my money on.

I'm glad there are numerous posts daily about the low item cap. It means people care enough to log in and write a complaint. Some complaints are worded more eloquently than others, but at the end of the day it's still feedback, and like our money it's a gift that I sincerely hope zos is not taking for granted.

The first day that goes by on this forum without a complaint about the housing situation will be a sad day for zos. It will mean that avid "complainers" like myself have lost interest in ESO housing and we've found something else to spend our time and money on.

So I disagree wholeheartedly with the OP. I think the complaints are a good thing, and to every player who comes on here to voice their concern about the low item cap, please do not be afraid to speak up and let zos know how you feel. The majority of the fellow housing peeps like myself support you.

Aurie

lasertooth wrote: »

Feedback is the second most important thing a player can give back to a gaming company. The first is money. I've given both to zos, and I will continue to do so until I lose interest in housing, and thus lose interest in the game. I had never spent money in this game prior to housing with the exception of 3 years of eso plus and the banker/merchant/occasional experience scroll. Since housing, however, I've happily found many things to support the game and spend my money on.

I'm glad there are numerous posts daily about the low item cap. It means people care enough to log in and write a complaint. Some complaints are worded more eloquently than others, but at the end of the day it's still feedback, and like our money it's a gift that I sincerely hope zos is not taking for granted.

The first day that goes by on this forum without a complaint about the housing situation will be a sad day for zos. It will mean that avid "complainers" like myself have lost interest in ESO housing and we've found something else to spend our time and money on.

So I disagree wholeheartedly with the OP. I think the complaints are a good thing, and to every player who comes on here to voice their concern about the low item cap, please do not be afraid to speak up and let zos know how you feel. The majority of the fellow housing peeps like myself support you.

So very much agree with this. The day that there are no posts about the item cap will be the day that ZO$ take their eye off the ball and turn to other matters.

Stating that there is no need for constant posts is extremely short-sighted.