Maintenance for the week of May 20:
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®4: NA megaserver for maintenance – May 24, 1:00PM EDT (17:00 UTC) – 3:00PM EDT (19:00 UTC)

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/475853/
Maintenance for the week of May 27:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – May 27
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – May 28, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) – 8:00AM EDT (12:00 UTC)

Explaining The ‘House Slot’ Problem And Why It Is Difficult To Solve.

  • Merlin13KAGL
    Merlin13KAGL
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    @Merlin13KAGL

    So I hate saying this because people seem to get upset when I question if the actually read the thread.

    But, did you read even my original post?

    I specifically describe 'static' objects in the and how they are used to reduce calculation requirement as well as many other techniques to even get close to an ability to handle object collision detection in a real time game of any kind.

    Eliminating the need to calculate for gravity for every object is actually the first improvement I describe.

    So yes, I do understand that as well as the many other ways that you address movement and collision in the game to 'cheat physics'.

    I am not going to re-explain the entire original post here, however here are the key take always.

    Even after you take all those reductions into account the 'best' you can do is reduce the number of calculations required for collision detection to N where the number of objects you can possibly interact with in a single move fame. If you do anything less that that you cannot determine proper object movement and sliding and you 'will' have major game play issue.


    If, N is the number of causation you must perform in movement cycle, you then need to know what the maximum time you have to perform calculation in 1 cycle. Well in order to have smooth fluid movement you need to be able to do 10 move calculations per second (This is not the same as FPS, you can still render at 60 FPS but your moves are likely only calculated at 10 Moves Per Second).

    So, if you have to calculate all collisions in every Move how many object can you support if it take only 5 milliseconds in order to have no performance issue?

    N = Max Frame Time / Calculation Time

    Which is

    N = 100 millsec / 5 millsec = 20

    So, what does that mean?

    It means that as soon as you start going over 20 object very close together that you player can possibly collide with in one move frame you start having performance issues.

    Now just because you have 40 objects does not mean performance goes to crap.


    However I guarantee you will start to notice the 'slow down' as soon as you get to 100 object if you are an observant player and even if you are a unobservant player you will notice when the count gets to 200.


    If you manage to get up to 600 poorly placed objects you are talking to each move frame taking 3 seconds to complete. The game may still function at that point but it will be very hard to play and you will start to have risks of catastrophic game failure occurring.

    I have posted a 'test' you can perform several times on this thread if you don't believe these calculations and want to see what I am talking about in a 'real' scenario.



    As for 'instancing' I also speak about that in length in the original post and you are right house are instanced.


    They are almost certainly instanced on 'Your' hardware not any Zos game servers. Again I have explain the reasons I believe that to be true in many placed on this thread if you are interested in more background.


    However, even if they were instanced on Zos hardware that does not matter.


    The problem lies in how close objects are placed to one another not how many objects are on the map in total.

    The problem with houses is that 'you' control where objects are place not Zos. For the game and dungeons Zos controls all object placement and they ensure that objects are not placed in a way that least to catastrophic game failure.


    When 'you' control object placement it means you can cause such a failure. So Zos has to limit what you can do so they can limit that risk (Notice I say limit not eliminate).


    You can already do bad things they just try to ensure odds of you doing such bad things is small and that even if you do they can handle them without causing catastrophic failures.
    I did read the post. I also have personal experience with many of the major engines available to date.

    If they're using mesh colliders, then that's a huge part of the problem. Primitives (spheres, cubes, planes) will suffice for almost all objects and give reasonably convincing results.

    There are also levels of interaction that can be defined. Restricting a table from 'interacting' with another table (via colliders or whatever the case may be) only needs to be a check when an item is placed or moved. if it violates the design, placement is simply not allowed - problem solved. (Much the same way as you cannot meld your armchair into your coffee table, the 'physical' restriction would be the same in game.) Some games also get by with optimizing this by having limits to the angles and such you can place something, splitting the difference between functionality and desired visual look.

    (A home owner doesn't need the full breadth of placement options available to a level designer, merely a subset that produces acceptable results.)

    After that, the only collisions that matter are between player and item, not from item to item. The second should never take place if the placement algorithm was successful, and even if it wasn't, the game can simply disregard the result.

    It may end up with some items visually overlapping and looking unpleasant, but again, the physics engine and the collisions simply do not care at that point.

    For that matter, once placed, meshes could be combined into a single object on everything but an interactable.

    Decent modern engines on a reasonable rig can process and handle thousands, if not millions of unique objects. Unless the design is code so poorly, there is no reason why the item limit couldn't be increased a reasonable amount.

    Just because you don't like the way something is doesn't necessarily make it wrong...

    Earn it.
    I am neither warm, nor fuzzy...
    Probably has checkbox on Customer Service profile that say High Aggro, 99% immunity to BS
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @Merlin13KAGL

    I am sorry to say this again but either you are not reading my post or you don't understand it. NOTE: I am not saying that not understanding it is your fault, if I am not explaining it well enough that is my fault.

    However your statement 'After that, the only collisions that matter are between player and item, not from item to item. ' shows their is a definite misunderstanding somewhere because I spend a long time explaining exactly that statement by breaking down the collision calculation process and showing how dev's cheat physics to find ways to get to an N calculation where 'N is ONLY the objects that a player can collide with in a single move frame' not 'ALL' object in the environment

    You clearly do understand how collision operations are reduceable, but you also seem to think solving that issue means there is no problem. So I am going to try to explain the critical issue that result in performance degradation again.

    First, although I do not explicitly cover the 'sliding' logic I worked on the assumption that they were not doing triangle by triangle collision on objects. Even thought that is 'required' to do correct 'sliding' logic if you don't want to get 'stuck on geometry' because of a 0 .00001 variation of positioning between 2 objects like 'floors' or 'walls' or even just a table you can walk on top of.

    Using the tools form a 'game' engine means you are using operations that 'hide' the low level physics calculations, because the purpose of these engines is to 'simplify' these operations. (NOTE: I am saying your experience is not valid or lessor I am just saying that tools hide low level logic on purpose). Sure engines will present objects to you as 'spheroids' if they are good, (sometimes as spheres or cubes but those are much less efficient). However, they usually still perform 'mesh' collision on a simplified structures under the hood and hide that from you to ensure appropriate slide movements occurs.

    Regardless of weather or not you use an engine or write the collision logic yourself you can't escape 2 things.

    1. ) Each object that the player can collide with in a single move frame needs to be 'handled' or you risk passing though object or getting stuck inside of objects.
    2. ) Each collision calculation takes 'time' and even if that time is very small like 5 milliseconds that work still has to be done. You can't just 'skip' some objects or you would be constantly falling though the floor or moving though objects and walls unexpectedly.

    That bring us back to the original problem.

    If it take 5 milliseconds on average to do 1 collision calculation how many object can you handle in 100 milliseconds so you can maintain movement that appears fluid to the user?

    The answer is still 20 anything more than that starts impacting performance an if you get to 100 you will start having a pretty noticeable impact on performance.


    The only thing you can do is perform those collisions faster which means either a major breakthrough in calculus that reduces algorithm complexity or a major increase in CPU speed. (NOTE: Distribution does not help here and I have explain why on another response in this thread.)

    Since there have been no breakthroughs in math and CPU speeds have stopped increasing due to heat constrains nothing has really changed here in almost 20 years.

    If you don't believe these statement or think they are exaggerated, I suggest you try the 'test' that I have described several times involving placing many small but collidable objects very close to one another than then moving so you collide with as many object as possible.
    Edited by Woefulmonkey on July 17, 2018 6:39PM
  • Merlin13KAGL
    Merlin13KAGL
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    • Lighting could be averaged over certain points/zones. There is no practical need for multiple shadow producing light sources in a given area. The fake sources could be visible, with the actual scene light sources (limited to a reasonable number) placed accordingly. Changes to individual fixtures would always affect the resultant average real source.
      I have seen incredible level designs with no more than 6-7 actual true light sources.
    • Checks can be in place to limit close proximity of items. If the check exceeds a certain value, item either doesn't get to get placed, or item is placed with no collider whatsover. It's not intended to be a simulator. Small items without collision will have little effect on the overall immersion.
    • Of items that do need colliders (larger pieces of furniture and interactables), those can be closely approximated by primitives or small combinations of primitives. Again, it doesn't matter that you technically stop 3" away from the dresser in front of you, so long as it's relatively believable.
    • Upon exiting the house, further optimization of colliders (the mesh combination equivalent) for all non interactables could even take place. This only changes when an object is moved. Large changes could be processed via loading screen (same as they are now in overland when a certain number of world objects are not 'ready') or after departure from the house. This would be a substantial amount of code, and as such, is unlikely to be implemented.

      This could be further approximated by having different version of the collider for a given object based on whether other objects were near. (The collider for an empty table would be smaller than a collider for a table with items placed on it. In both cases, the collider would still be a primitive, only the size would change.)
    • Only the interactables need to respond to ray traces, and then simply enough to validate distance and produce the associated UI response.
    • Performance could be further increased by only activating objects within interaction distance limitations. Additionally, rather than have individual objects check for collision with the user/guests, it is more reasonable for the user/guest collider to check for interaction with the objects.
    • With this in mind, even with the possibility of multiple collisions taking place in a given frame, one of the collisions will always come first. Once that collision takes place, is processed, and character (user) position is adjusted ("back up a bit"), remaining collisions can be disregarded entirely for the remainder of the frame.
    • Beyond this (the collision detection), the rest of it is just rendering. That comes down to model and texture optimization and the understanding that one can still likely place items in such a way that they visually clip.

    Unless someone goes out of their way to 'break' the setup, trying to jump into the middle of items that would essentially bounce them back and forth continuously, there are still many ways to make the current system more capable than it currently is.

    It would take creative object design, creative coding and checks, and the understanding of the user that it's not intended to be a full simulation, nor is it impossible to find a way to wreck the system.

    If such an even takes place, all present parties kicked from the instance, and a previously valid instance gets loaded.

    For the record, I suspect the 'guest limit' is more about income than hardware limits.
    Just because you don't like the way something is doesn't necessarily make it wrong...

    Earn it.
    I am neither warm, nor fuzzy...
    Probably has checkbox on Customer Service profile that say High Aggro, 99% immunity to BS
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @Merlin13KAGL

    This will be my last response to you as it is clear you are not bothering to read more than a few lines of what I post which makes it basically pointless to try to carry on a meaningful conversation on a forum.

    You continue to repeat things that have already been covered not only in the first post but in many responses since, and rather than responding to anything in the thread you just appear to what to 'show' the knowledge that you DO have.

    Your goals appear to be to belittle other peoples ideas and opinions in an effort to elevate your own. That is an unworthy objective, especially when you don't need to use that tactic.

    You clearly have a decent understanding of game physics and many of your suggestions are actually ways games do handle object proximity issues and lighting. However, you are also clearly not interested in discussing the actual issue and rightly or wrongly believe your ideas are reasonable ways to allow for more item slots. I do not agree. Not because they are not achievable but because they are not practical.

    Again however, they do have merit.

    I will say that just about everything you have proposed is doable, especially for tools being created for actual in game level design in a Dev Controlled environment.

    However, almost none of them are 'good' for tools targeting 'players', because many of the solutions provided put significant restrictions on player behavior just to allow for more objects to be placed and some remove existing feature customers are accustom to, which are not good trade offs.

    You also use the 'who cares about stupid users' argument which is not a good approach to developing tools for any customer base.

    Further they do not appear to be 'cheap' to or even 'moderately expensive' to implement in an already delivered produce like existing housing system.

    Development has costs, it is not free, and just because you can conceptualize something doe snot mean it is 'easy' to implement.


    In closing if you believe your solutions are actually workable as a real game deliverable for the housing system, why not make post and describe how they could be true benefits to players if they were implemented.

    Again I am not saying your ideas are 'bad' I am saying they are 'expensive' and do take into account the 'target users' of the tools or the 'customer experience' Zos is trying to deliver with houses.

    Even if your exact ideas are not used, they are good starting points for conversations that cold lead to a reasonable technical solution to this issue.

    Believe it or not Zos has from time to time done things the first showed up suggestions on these forums.

    Don't let my lack or response stop you from posting here either, I will probably still read your posts as they do contain some interesting information.
  • Merlin13KAGL
    Merlin13KAGL
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    @Merlin13KAGL

    This will be my last response to you as it is clear you are not bothering to read more than a few lines of what I post which makes it basically pointless to try to carry on a meaningful conversation on a forum.

    You continue to repeat things that have already been covered not only in the first post but in many responses since, and rather than responding to anything in the thread you just appear to what to 'show' the knowledge that you DO have.

    Your goals appear to be to belittle other peoples ideas and opinions in an effort to elevate your own. That is an unworthy objective, especially when you don't need to use that tactic.
    You've seem to have taken my responses as a personal affront or an attack on your credibility. Mine is not the first you have indicated you presumed to be a 'troll' post and intend to cease reply. That's fine.
    My comment about 'trolls' was directed as a specific poster. For the most part the community has been much less toxic than I have experienced on other forums. However occasionally you get someone who clearly just want to 'taunt' someone into a name calling contents and I find it is best not to engage when them. If you don't feed the trolls they eventually move on.

    Some posters are just angry (which I get) and some just really don't care about understanding the issue since they know what would work for them and it 'seems' easy so they don't want to hear anything that contradicts that view. To be clear they are entitled to have that attitude, I just don't agree with it. I still try to respond to those posts, because sometimes they will actually read a direct response and I try to make it clear I am not saying that item limits are not an issue that needs to be addressed in some way.

    I do have strong opinion. I can be coarse, sometimes even abrasive. I am generally always to the point. Different people receive that in different ways.
    Looking back through my last 60 comments, I personally find nothing that would lead you to the character assumption you've posted above. I'm not belittling your ideas. And I fully expect any I make to stand on their own merit, or not stand at all. My perspective does not lessen your own, and vice versa.

    In any instance, if you feel a response is belittling or otherwise inappropriate, I urge you to use the Report function.

    If I've been out of line at any point, I fully expect the Mods to let me know.

    Fortunately, one thing I am not is fragile. (That's a statement about myself and not intended to apply or not apply to anyone else.)

    Again, I have read every response, though you assume I and several others have not.
    Sorry I am not meaning to be disrespectful and you are right saying 'you did not read the post' is a passive aggressive way of taking a dig a someone so I apologize for that.

    However, almost none of them are 'good' for tools targeting 'players', because many of the solutions provided put significant restrictions on player behavior just to allow for more objects to be placed and some remove existing feature customers are accustom to, which are not good trade offs.

    You also use the 'who cares about stupid users' argument which is not a good approach to developing tools for any customer base.
    You indicate two decades of software experience. It is not reasonable to 'user proof' every possible scenario. People push limits (which is fine, it's part of what creativity is) and will try to use things in ways not originally intended.

    Any piece of software, especially something not intended to be a full simulation has restrictions and trade offs. The key is finding the balance that provide acceptable results at acceptable cost. This is true of any engineering.

    There is an saying in engineering:
    I can make it cheap. I can make it good. I can make it fast.

    Pick two.

    It's also reasonable that any tool will be used by someone reasonably familiar with the purpose, function, and intent of the tool. It's not unreasonable to place limits, both hard coded and self applied so the tool will get used as intended, producing results similar to what the designer intended. If such limits were in place, no software would ever get finished.
    Your test, for instance, intentionally creates a scenario intended to 'break' the system, a scenario that any reasonable individual will not go out of their way to produce in a normal circumstance.

    Open virtually any users manual for anything and you'll find a disclaimer about intended use by someone familiar with purpose and function. This is not an unreasonable requirement. When 'stupid users' (your words, not mine) go out of their way to circumvent something, it is not necessarily the dev's job to save them from themselves.
    Programmers for the autopilot on a 747 can make the reasonable assumption that the pilot won't invert the plane and shut off the engines. It's an extreme example, but it drives the point home.

    Further they do not appear to be 'cheap' to or even 'moderately expensive' to implement in an already delivered produce like existing housing system.

    Development has costs, it is not free, and just because you can conceptualize something doe snot mean it is 'easy' to implement.
    Of course they do. That is ultimately the deciding factor in any feature, change, or upgrade.

    It was never my intent to imply these are 10 minutes fixes. Neither are they impossibilities, simply impossibilities within the given design. Clearly there is tremendous distance between high level concept and actual implementation. I've never indicated otherwise. The process begins with "There is a problem" (what you've pointed out here) and proceeds to high level proposal of how to 'fix' it.

    I do not disagree with your thread that there are restrictions. I do not disagree that there are technical limitations in the current design.

    If your intent for the thread was only to say "Things are broken/limited, and these might be some reasons why," without wanting to hear possible alternatives, then I misunderstood the purpose behind your post.
    This thread is about the 'difficulties' in extending item counts from a technical perspective not a claim that item limits are not restrictive and causing problems with housing especially for very large homes.

    The reason I said you had not read the post is because I try to make that very clear several times even in the post header. I even discuss possible solutions that 'can' extend house item limits. I just don't thinks those 'solutions' are 'good' for all users and that 'better Items' is a more viable universal solution.

    If such is the case, for that, and only that, I apologize.

    It is my personal and professional belief that there is always a better way. Outside perspective is generally the only way that happens, because people get set in a certain way of thinking. It's one of the key reasons why safety systems are designed by multiple people, so the same (sometimes flawed) line of thinking doesn't repeat itself in two different parts of a system.

    I am not under the premise that mine is the only way, or even the right way sometimes. Understand that applies both directions. Improvements (or lack thereof) usually come down to cost, vs actual capability.
    Don't let my lack or response stop you from posting here either, I will probably still read your posts as they do contain some interesting information.
    While I appreciate the prospect, I am neither here to troll, nor to entertain.

    TL;DR;
    • There are limits within the current system
    • It is not impossible to improve the system
    • There is a development and possibly feature cost of doing so.
    • It is not as simple as increasing a number within the code.
    • If your thread has enlightened some to a bit more of the depth involved as to why it's not a simple fix, I would call it a success.
    I will leave you to your thread. Best of luck, truly.
    Just because you don't like the way something is doesn't necessarily make it wrong...

    Earn it.
    I am neither warm, nor fuzzy...
    Probably has checkbox on Customer Service profile that say High Aggro, 99% immunity to BS
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @Merlin13KAGL

    I am breaking my rule here but I think I this case it is merited.

    Let me be clear, I don't think you are a troll. A troll is someone who is just trying to wind someone up because the enjoy chaos. I do to think you are doing that. I just think that 'we' are not communicating well.

    So far their has only been 1 poster on this thread who was clearly a troll and I do not respond to that 1 person. I did not even accuse that person of being a troll by name.

    The reason I was not going to respond to you is very different. It is so that whatever animosity you appear to have form my posts can be removed from the equation. Maybe I am imagining the animosity, but it does seem to exist from my perspective, even in your last post.

    I am also not trying to impugn your ideas or kick you out of this thread.

    I welcome your point of view, I just wish 'we' were able to communicate about them in a less adversarial way.

    I agree with many of the things you have said and I think they are valid ways to look at the slot limit problem. Where I disagree is in whether or not they are 'feasible' solutions for the existing service.

    I do not want you to disengage I just don't want 'our' communication issues to muddy the water. So my intent was to let you have your say and not 'interfere'. Which is still my intent.

    What I said on the last post still stands. You have some interesting points. They would make a good 'topic' on their own especially if you flesh out some specific ways you believe those ideas could be 'deployed' to the existing housing service. Even if they are not directly applied by Zos threads like that can spark conversations about this issue that both expose the actual underlying 'customer needs' as well as unexpected compromise solutions .

    PS:

    I apologize for lumping you into the 'let stupid users beware' camp. You definitely never said that and it was an unfair comparison to your statements about changes that would impact the customer UI experience.
    Edited by Woefulmonkey on July 18, 2018 10:01PM
  • My_Treehawk
    @Woefulmonkey

    First off thanks for the post. As a Mod author I fully understand what you are trying to explain to everyone and appreciated your taking the time to try to summarize it.

    One of the solutions that occurred to me was simply creating a object-merge option (we used something similar in modding to reduce FPS hits from heavily detailed areas).

    Of course it could not be applied to all possible combinations or objects, but some very basic items could be offered such a feature allowing the player to "link" two (or more) objects together so that the engine is only viewing them as a single piece. For instance, a bookcase/book merge, tables and dishware, or (in cases of repetitive items such as using multiple pieces for creating a wall/stairs) an option to merge all items of a single type (that are connected) to create a single item once merged.

    This should serve to reduce the strain on the engine, and would surely improve FPS, and if done right, while there would be no increase to the number of slots, at least some things could be coupled together to reduce how many objects count towards the current limit. I realize that in most cases (taking my own homes for example) I might only be able to gain 20 or so slots this way, however, that is 20 slots that I did not have - so I'll take it with the understanding that if I got creative and planned properly, I could increase that even more.

    For example, I could place those 400 candles in a group, and then choose to "merge" them, they should be viewed from that point on as a single object for rendering and collisions, rather than 400 individuals - effectively recovering 399 slots. Please realize that this is horrible example, but it should serve to illustrate the concept.

    Removing and moving merged objects should be straight-forward. Once merged they move as one piece (making placement MUCH easier), and when removing, the object is un-merged and all pieces return to inventory as individuals.

    Just a thought.

    edit: I realized after posting that the candles might have been a bad idea for an example. There are going to be some objects that cannot be merged, and those with an interaction should be near the top of that list unless the Dev can also merge the activators for all of the items. While we can do something like that in the mods (NOT ESO Mods in case someone is thinking that), I am not sure how you could do it here (ESO) without some very serious coding.

    However, even if we eliminated these types, that still leaves a very large pool of items that could be applied to this theory, and with some imagination I am sure some of you can see where it would make the difference in what you are trying to achieve with the homes without having to increase (or surpass) the current limits.
    Edited by My_Treehawk on August 14, 2018 2:03AM
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @My_Treehawk

    Yes, that is a interesting idea. I actually posted a similar idea for allowing players to create a custom bounding area where all objects inside are 'excluded' from collision calculations.

    I think this is one of the more plausible ways to reclaim slots for completely custom object placement.

    It does require new UI elements to control the 'bounding box' and to add/remove objects to the box which requires Dev work, but not cost as much as other solutions and it give mores control to the user.

    It also has a draw back in that the bounding area may not match the actual shape of the objects that it contains, however it is the 'user' who gets to decide if they are willing to make that trade off.

    I have another post where I described several ways that they 'could' increase slot counts in some way. I think I will create a new similar post compiling a new list because I don't think this was on my last one.

    Although I sill feel that 90% of player issues could be resolved if Zos just had a artist generate a slew of basic 'construction' objects like wall, doorways, floors, ceilings, stairways, with a variety of sizes and styles. Then followed that with a set of fully populated furniture items like bookshelves full of book, pantries covered in food, desks with books and papers on them, dining tables complete with food and dishes. Those would not reduce the need for more slots, they would also make decorating your house faster and easier.

    Ultimately item placement limitation are a problem for houses and it needs to be solved in some way, so it is important that the discussion continue.
  • RedGirl41
    RedGirl41
    ✭✭✭
    All math and coding aside (yes it all makes sense why item slots haven't been increased yet) The housing community pours TONS of IRL money into the game. from micro transactions to the limited edition houses. I know players that even buy houses with crowns that you can easily buy in game with gold. I think people just want zos to try harder and work faster on creating more item slots. This new houses they release for an insane dollar amount are awesome but 700 items leaves it looking bare. Either do more item slots now or just release smaller homes.

    The psijic villa alone looks about double the size of the dawnlight palace ….

    I agree its not a quick fix for them... but housing has been out for over a year, and people spend insane amounts of money on it. Might as well give them what they want.
  • lasertooth
    lasertooth
    ✭✭✭✭
    @Woefulmonkey thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed, well written post. I found this thread to be very helpful.

    I really like this game and so I hope zos can figure out a solution for us.
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @RedGirl41

    To be clear I 100% agree that Zos should be doing more to solve this issue.

    If their plan is to provide 'better' objects that allow users to do more with the slots they have, then they need to start spending some money on artist to create more content specifically for houses instead of just re-using existing resources.


    If they have something else in mind they should at least give us an idea of what they intend to do and how long they think it would take.
  • MornaBaine
    MornaBaine
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    @RedGirl41

    To be clear I 100% agree that Zos should be doing more to solve this issue.

    If their plan is to provide 'better' objects that allow users to do more with the slots they have, then they need to start spending some money on artist to create more content specifically for houses instead of just re-using existing resources.


    If they have something else in mind they should at least give us an idea of what they intend to do and how long they think it would take.

    Except they literally never do that. Meanwhile I keep passing up those huge and expensive limited time houses I would otherwise seriously consider buying. But I refuse to do so and cling to the hope that ONE DAY they will figure out how to increase both item slots and PLAYER slots! I have no faith at this point that they are even trying.
    Edited by MornaBaine on August 27, 2018 4:21AM
    PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!

  • My_Treehawk
    This comes from one of my guild members..

    If the problem (as I explained it to them) is having too many items slows down the game, then let me choose to remove the pet/mount/collectable slots and re-appropriate those to furnishings since I do not wish to ever put any of those in my home.

    I really had no way to argue with that..

    Could they allow us to (as a slider?) decrease from one category to increase another? Even if one type requires more/less processing than another (which they do), then build that into the exchange (2 pets = 1 furnishing, etc.). At least it would allow me to gain items I want in exchange for those I do not.
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @MornaBaine

    First let me be clear I don't think Zos is doing enough about this issue.

    However, Zos has done 'something' and recently. Just a month ago the added a bunch of large floor and wall sections as well as several fully populated book shelves and tables with food on them. They even added a fireplace you can embed in a wall.

    These objects alone lowed me to create much nicer looking environment and reduce my slot usage by 50 slots. And I was not one of the players who was even close to reaching their slot limit.

    The problem is that all the objects were the same 'style' so they don't fit well in every house and it was still not nearly enough to deal with the vast set of specific issues players face when trying to decorate.

    Worse it does nothing to help 'Guild Houses' who need to dedicate hundreds of slots just to place crafting tables and mundus stones.

    The best message you can send to Zos is not spending money on houses you simply can't decorate.

    Now, that is not going to give them the ability to wave their hand and give you unlimited slots, but it may get to put more resources on solving the problem.

    This is 'solvable'. It may not come in the forma of unlimited slot count or even just doubling the existing counts, but their are definitely ways to address this issue.


    The real key here is not 'rewarding' them for doing nothing, and continuing to try to give them a clear description of the problems you actually want to solve.

    1. ) Guilds not being able to both provide all service objects that make a guild house valuable to the guild.
    2. ) Not being able to decorate both the inside and outside of your house fully.
    2. ) Having to use hundreds of slots to segregate rooms and create doorways
    3. ) Having to use ugly planks to reach 'hidden' areas of the house map.
    4. ) Having to waste dozens to hundreds of slots to populate a library room or Kitchen since you have to manually place every fing nichnack as an individual object.
    5. ) Having to use hundreds of blocks to create simple structures in exterior areas.
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @My_Treehawk

    The issue is not just that too many items slows down the game, item counts cause many issue some of which involve catastrophic game failures.

    1. ) A high number of distinct objects increases the load times when to travel into your house. If it took 10 min to load into your home you would never go there. Most of the time developers try to ensure load times are less then 10 seconds, because that is about the time players become very frustrated.
    2. ) Large number of objects with complex models can lead to framerate performance issue depending on the quality of your graphics card. This varies a lot so developer focus on ensuring performance for the 'lowest' hardware they allow. Trust me if your frame rate dropped to even 10 frames per second then just stayed there you would notice an not like it.
    3. ) Placing too many 'collideable' objects too close together can lead to sever game play issue and possible catastrophic game failure. (We are talking about not being able to control your character because the UI is unresponsive, or things like falling though the floor or imbedded in another object so you cant move all the way to complete system crashes)

    That being said, this is a 'solvable' issue. It may not come in the form of 'more slots' but their are definitely things Zos can do to make thing better for its customers and they are not doing enough in my opinion.
  • Grayfax
    Grayfax
    ✭✭✭
    @Woefulmonkey Thanks for both this and the other post explaining in detail what is likely happening behind the scenes and possible options that could help.

    I'll go ahead and step up and say I AM THE CULPRIT!!!

    Yep. I am one of a group of people that own an older (bought used) Xbox One. Your Screaming Fast Computer with High Octane Graphics Cards are being limited to 700 Item Slots because I no longer purchase top of the line hardware. I enjoy sitting on the couch and using a controller instead of getting tense doing MMO content in a desk chair at the aforementioned top of the line computer. Until ZOS phases out support for my Xbox One (without HDR), you are likely stuck with this limit. To be honest... I'm having so much fun, that if the limitation became Xbox One X, that I would upgrade.

    But for now, I'll take your blame and your heated words because I'm your weak link. Not ZOS Servers. Not YOUR high-end PC and your physics card. Now, I might share the blame with general network latency, but I'm at least half responsible if not wholly responsible.

    Thanks... and have a nice day...
    Edited by Grayfax on September 6, 2018 8:14PM
  • Tommy_The_Gun
    Tommy_The_Gun
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Sorry OP... Wall of text... with math equations... Nuff said...
  • MornaBaine
    MornaBaine
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sorry OP... Wall of text... with math equations... Nuff said...

    "Nuff said..." about you, most certainly.
    PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!

  • MornaBaine
    MornaBaine
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    @MornaBaine

    First let me be clear I don't think Zos is doing enough about this issue.

    However, Zos has done 'something' and recently. Just a month ago the added a bunch of large floor and wall sections as well as several fully populated book shelves and tables with food on them. They even added a fireplace you can embed in a wall.

    These objects alone lowed me to create much nicer looking environment and reduce my slot usage by 50 slots. And I was not one of the players who was even close to reaching their slot limit.

    The problem is that all the objects were the same 'style' so they don't fit well in every house and it was still not nearly enough to deal with the vast set of specific issues players face when trying to decorate.

    Worse it does nothing to help 'Guild Houses' who need to dedicate hundreds of slots just to place crafting tables and mundus stones.

    The best message you can send to Zos is not spending money on houses you simply can't decorate.

    Now, that is not going to give them the ability to wave their hand and give you unlimited slots, but it may get to put more resources on solving the problem.

    This is 'solvable'. It may not come in the forma of unlimited slot count or even just doubling the existing counts, but their are definitely ways to address this issue.


    The real key here is not 'rewarding' them for doing nothing, and continuing to try to give them a clear description of the problems you actually want to solve.

    1. ) Guilds not being able to both provide all service objects that make a guild house valuable to the guild.
    2. ) Not being able to decorate both the inside and outside of your house fully.
    2. ) Having to use hundreds of slots to segregate rooms and create doorways
    3. ) Having to use ugly planks to reach 'hidden' areas of the house map.
    4. ) Having to waste dozens to hundreds of slots to populate a library room or Kitchen since you have to manually place every fing nichnack as an individual object.
    5. ) Having to use hundreds of blocks to create simple structures in exterior areas.

    I agree wholeheartedly with the above... even as I eye that damn Linchal... LOL

    But I DO wonder if it might be possible for ZO$ to add a feature that will allow US to create a "populated" object. For instance, to fill an empty bookcase with the variety of objects WE would like, or to do the same with a table, counter or shelf, and then press a button that makes this ONE item. The objects placed would be, of course, permanently gone from our inventory at that point but this would also help ZOS make yet more $$ off us so it's definitely a win for them. Seem feasible?
    PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!

  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @Grayfax

    I know many people blame low end hardware for this issue, but I am not one of them.

    As a matter of fact let me explain why you are 'Not The Culprit'

    1. ) If are running an Xbox One or Even A 360 or a PlayStation, that is not the lowest end hardware the game supports. The lowest end hardware support is for PCs not consoles. So the limits based on 'Min Specs' are based on PC 'Min Specs'
    2. ) PC's are no longer doubling in power every year the way they did in the 80s and 90s. PC specs in terms of CPU speeds have been pretty stable over the last 12 years or so. So it is not like have a 5 year old computer means you have significantly worse hardware anymore. As a matter of fact CPU performance on average is lower than it was 5 years ago in terms of speed and the average number of processors.
    3. ) The only real difference in 'High End' game PCs involve memory speeds, bus speeds, and specialized graphics cards with GPUs. All of which have little to nothing to do with these slot limitations. The memory and bus speeds improve load times and the graphics cares improve how many tringles can be pushed to a display but those are not the things that cause limits to be let for object counts.
    4. ) The real critical issue here has to do with 'collision detection' which is a CPU driven operation that is not really feasible to be distributed to many CPUs even if a computer has multiple available. That means those operations are limited by the lowest single CPU speed supported which I think is like 2.5 GHz . However, even the top end Gaming PCs will have CPUs with speeds under 4 GHz. What that means is that even the highest end Game PCs are going to have issues if you place even just 100 collisideable objects too close together in the game world.

    So.. You are not the Problem.

    The problem is that Zos allows users to place objects anywhere they want in a house.
  • Grayfax
    Grayfax
    ✭✭✭
    Thanks. I haven't done a deep dive into the hardware requirements, and as I got it used, I didn't have basic information.

    Mostly, I was speaking tongue in cheek and saying, "Hey... I'll take the blame... and I don't care... cause I'm having a great time and understand that there have to be limitations." Once again, you provide great information and I'm sorry I made you do that.
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @MornaBaine


    Yes, something that would allow you to create your own custom 'populated' objects is possible.

    Somewhere buried in this thread I even have some discussions about that kind of approach.

    Basically you would create a custom 'bounding box' then place other objects inside of that box. All the object inside the box would be removed from the collision list and the player would only 'collide' with the outer 'invisible' collision box.

    This basically allows you to combine a custom set of object as 1 object.

    The problem is that it also requires significant User Interface work which tends to be expensive in terms of dev and testing time.

    It also has some draw backs in that the 'invisible' box does not conform to the actual shape of the objects it contains which can lead to weird movement issues.


    And it allows user to create 'invisible walls' what could be used to create 'traps' inside of a house for unsuspecting visitors. Although as long as you can always just 'leave' the house I don't think that is a real concern.
  • Ertosi
    Ertosi
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Awesome thread! Appreciate the in-depth explanations for the core issues faced with furnishing large houses.


    The core issue seems to be collision, specifically the more items you have, the greater the strain and greater potential for "horrible things" to happen if one were to pile everything in a corner and jump up and down on it.

    So why not make a new furnishing category for the many items that don't have collision? Stuff like curtains, vines, grasses and many other small plants which can all be walked through. Trophies and Collectables already have their own categories, so why not a new one to separate out items that wouldn't add to this core issue.

    They could call the new category anything... names are all arbitrary anyways, so for this example lets call the non-collidables "Decorative Furnishings". They could then separate them out from the larger set of Traditional Furnishing category items and then increase their limit to whatever they felt would be appropriate. Just throwing random numbers out as an example, but they could decrease the max Traditional Furnishing from say 700 to 600, then add the new Decorative Furnishings category with 200 items, with smaller houses scaled appropriately. This would allow them to give the masses a bit of what they want without causing an undue amount of extra strain, and in a way that wouldn't necessitate a lot of dev work to implement.

    This is pretty similar to what they've already done with the "Special Furnishings" category which currently just has a couple of items in it like the Mists of the Hag Fen. Special Furnishings have a max limit of only 10 items in the big houses and no one really knows why a few items have been placed in this category. My theory has been that it was made for the couple of cool items they wanted to make but had extra-fancy particle effects which have a high load, and which would cause quite a bit of extra strain if a player loaded their house up with them.

    If this suggestion has already been suggested, please forgive me as its a long thread, but I wanted to put it out there just in case it hasn't.


    Edit for Clarification: There is a difference between Special Furnishings and Special Collectibles. Mists of hag fen is a special furnishing, but pets, mounts, banker, etc. are special collectibles, not special furnishing.
    Edited by Ertosi on September 16, 2018 8:57PM
    PC NA @Ertosi
    ♠♦ My Team ♥♣
    GoanJabsplar [Grand Master Crafter, Master Angler, Tamriel Hero, Explorer]
    DruStamplar
    TicklesHealplar
    DixieMagplar
    FigsStamblade Sneakthief [Master Thief]
    Sir PriceStamblade Bow Ganker [Daedric Lord Slayer]
    MayaStamblade Speedster
    AhmedMagblade Bomber
    BalzarStamSorc Blitzer
    WinniePetSorc Thunder Mage
    TanksStamDK Tank
    MonaMagDK Fire Mage
    DawnHPDK
    BearlyStamden Tank
    IvanaMagden Ice Mage

    CP 950+
    ♌ DC Loyalist ♌
    ✄ Grand Master Crafter
    No new crafting or game systems for 2019? "Season of the Dragon" would be better named "The Year of no New Major Features"
    https://i.imgur.com/TPscgS9.jpg to see major features of the last few years compared.
    https://i.imgur.com/X8qY0gP.jpg to see a detailed comparison of this year's Q1 to the last two Q1s.
    https://i.imgur.com/4z71cK8.jpg to see a detailed comparison of each years' first two quarters combined.
    https://i.imgur.com/aUmqDeH.jpg to see a projected comparison of the full years and what 2019's Q3 & Q4 will need to catch up.
    Unsubbed January 15th, 2019 due to the lack of any new substantial features shown to be coming in 2019.
  • MacCait
    MacCait
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    If 700 is trully the MAX limit, the issue can still be resolved by releasing larger building materials such as blocks, walls, floors, boulders etc (meaning people can use less items) AND by releasing items such as the 'full table' suggested elsewhere in this thread (like the library shelves with books already on them, tables with fruit already on them etc.)

    Not sure if its possible, but if a whole set of items could be 'merged' to create one item, that may solve issues... Though that suggestion may be impossible for all i Know
    PS4 EU server - Valenwood Vanguard

    Engissu the Shadow-Titan - AD 810 Argonian NightbladeTank
    Abzuki-Ti-Nasaru - AD 810 Argonian Warden Tank
    Guardian of the Dawn - AD 810 Imperial Templar Tank
    Commander Thayd - AD 810 Imperial Nightblade Tank
    Deimos the Terryfying - AD 810 Redguard Sorceror Tank
    Xerxes-the-Indomitable - AD 810 Argonian Dragonknight GOD mode trial Tank (that a 5 year old can use)

    Aeodyn mac Cait - AD 780 Breton Magicka Templar DPS - Master Crafter
    Astraeus Deathstalker - AD 810 High Elf Magicka Nightblade DPS
    An'sharr Do'Nidarra - AD 810 Khajiit Stamina Nightblade DPS
    Dark Fae of Vengenace - AD 810 Wood Elf Stamina PvP Nightblade DPS
    Archaeon of Valenwood - AD 810 Dark Elf Warden DPS
    Aslan the Swordstorm - AD 810 Redguard Stamina Sorceror DPS

    P.A.W.S (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say NO to gambling, say NO to Crown Crates!
  • Ertosi
    Ertosi
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    MacCait wrote: »
    Not sure if its possible, but if a whole set of items could be 'merged' to create one item, that may solve issues... Though that suggestion may be impossible for all i Know

    What's interesting is this exact feature is being added in the Mirkmire update, and has already hit the PTS. It allows the items to be linked together and even move together. Sadly they still count individually towards your item limit.

    All they would need to do is make them share the same collision box, then they would avoid the major issues that cause the need for such a low upper limit to begin with.

    They could still easily keep a hard upper limit by making Linked Furniture a new furnishing category, then set that limit to whatever they want. Random numbers for an example, Linked Furniture could be 10 linked sets max with 200 individual components max. That would give people the option to have several different intricately decorated items without adding a bunch more undue collision calculations.
    PC NA @Ertosi
    ♠♦ My Team ♥♣
    GoanJabsplar [Grand Master Crafter, Master Angler, Tamriel Hero, Explorer]
    DruStamplar
    TicklesHealplar
    DixieMagplar
    FigsStamblade Sneakthief [Master Thief]
    Sir PriceStamblade Bow Ganker [Daedric Lord Slayer]
    MayaStamblade Speedster
    AhmedMagblade Bomber
    BalzarStamSorc Blitzer
    WinniePetSorc Thunder Mage
    TanksStamDK Tank
    MonaMagDK Fire Mage
    DawnHPDK
    BearlyStamden Tank
    IvanaMagden Ice Mage

    CP 950+
    ♌ DC Loyalist ♌
    ✄ Grand Master Crafter
    No new crafting or game systems for 2019? "Season of the Dragon" would be better named "The Year of no New Major Features"
    https://i.imgur.com/TPscgS9.jpg to see major features of the last few years compared.
    https://i.imgur.com/X8qY0gP.jpg to see a detailed comparison of this year's Q1 to the last two Q1s.
    https://i.imgur.com/4z71cK8.jpg to see a detailed comparison of each years' first two quarters combined.
    https://i.imgur.com/aUmqDeH.jpg to see a projected comparison of the full years and what 2019's Q3 & Q4 will need to catch up.
    Unsubbed January 15th, 2019 due to the lack of any new substantial features shown to be coming in 2019.
  • MacCait
    MacCait
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    What I do not understand in this explanation of why the limit cannot be changes is that they keep upping the limit on collectibles. With Murkmire the limit is increasing once again. So that seems to contradict this explanation.

    I would much prefer the ability to choose between collectibles and extra item placement
    PS4 EU server - Valenwood Vanguard

    Engissu the Shadow-Titan - AD 810 Argonian NightbladeTank
    Abzuki-Ti-Nasaru - AD 810 Argonian Warden Tank
    Guardian of the Dawn - AD 810 Imperial Templar Tank
    Commander Thayd - AD 810 Imperial Nightblade Tank
    Deimos the Terryfying - AD 810 Redguard Sorceror Tank
    Xerxes-the-Indomitable - AD 810 Argonian Dragonknight GOD mode trial Tank (that a 5 year old can use)

    Aeodyn mac Cait - AD 780 Breton Magicka Templar DPS - Master Crafter
    Astraeus Deathstalker - AD 810 High Elf Magicka Nightblade DPS
    An'sharr Do'Nidarra - AD 810 Khajiit Stamina Nightblade DPS
    Dark Fae of Vengenace - AD 810 Wood Elf Stamina PvP Nightblade DPS
    Archaeon of Valenwood - AD 810 Dark Elf Warden DPS
    Aslan the Swordstorm - AD 810 Redguard Stamina Sorceror DPS

    P.A.W.S (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say NO to gambling, say NO to Crown Crates!
  • Mavor
    Mavor
    ✭✭✭
    If consoles are holding back the limit in any way - I say tough shite. Let PC players have whatever limit PC affords us and console players will have to deal with the fact that their chosen platform is limited in what it can handle.
  • MornaBaine
    MornaBaine
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Mavor wrote: »
    If consoles are holding back the limit in any way - I say tough shite. Let PC players have whatever limit PC affords us and console players will have to deal with the fact that their chosen platform is limited in what it can handle.

    I really do believe that trying to add consles to their platforms invariably "dumbs down" the PC version of the game. Which is reallllly not fair. There genuinely should be TWO versions of the game, similar, sure, but wherein PC is not held back because consoles can't handle something PCs can. I didn't support this game from beta and buy 5 copies of the Imperial Edition just to see it stunted so ZOS could make a few quick extra bucks.
    PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!

  • AlboMalefica
    AlboMalefica
    ✭✭✭✭
    MornaBaine wrote: »
    Mavor wrote: »
    If consoles are holding back the limit in any way - I say tough shite. Let PC players have whatever limit PC affords us and console players will have to deal with the fact that their chosen platform is limited in what it can handle.

    I really do believe that trying to add consles to their platforms invariably "dumbs down" the PC version of the game. Which is reallllly not fair. There genuinely should be TWO versions of the game, similar, sure, but wherein PC is not held back because consoles can't handle something PCs can. I didn't support this game from beta and buy 5 copies of the Imperial Edition just to see it stunted so ZOS could make a few quick extra bucks.

    The entitlement is strong in this one! You should be thanking console players for making the game much bigger than it would be otherwise, as console players should thank pc players for helping make this game as great as it is today. I would love more furnishing slots for the Pariahs pinnacle I purchased when it first came out (been playing since launch on console btw) but I would never dream of being this toxic towards a sub community of this grand community because I can’t get what I want!

    Finally, I know you feel buying 5 copies of the imperial edition makes you special, it does but not in the way you believe
    Edited by AlboMalefica on October 25, 2018 4:35PM
  • MornaBaine
    MornaBaine
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    MornaBaine wrote: »
    Mavor wrote: »
    If consoles are holding back the limit in any way - I say tough shite. Let PC players have whatever limit PC affords us and console players will have to deal with the fact that their chosen platform is limited in what it can handle.

    I really do believe that trying to add consles to their platforms invariably "dumbs down" the PC version of the game. Which is reallllly not fair. There genuinely should be TWO versions of the game, similar, sure, but wherein PC is not held back because consoles can't handle something PCs can. I didn't support this game from beta and buy 5 copies of the Imperial Edition just to see it stunted so ZOS could make a few quick extra bucks.

    The entitlement is strong in this one! You should be thanking console players for making the game much bigger than it would be otherwise, as console players should thank pc players for helping make this game as great as it is today. I would love more furnishing slots for the Pariahs pinnacle I purchased when it first came out (been playing since launch on console btw) but I would never dream of being this toxic towards a sub community of this grand community because I can’t get what I want!

    Finally, I know you feel buying 5 copies of the imperial edition makes you special, it does but not in the way you believe

    I get that you feel slighted. But I'm not saying there should NOT be a console ESO. I AM saying that it should be developed separately from the PC version and that there should never be the mindset of, "Well we can't do X thing for consoles so even though we COULD do it for PC we aren't going to because then the console people will be mad at us." The 2 platforms are wildly different. Trying to make ONE game for both of them, with the tech currently available, is folly. There are also probably things they could do for console that they cannot for PC. So the game would then have 2 different iterations and people would buy the one that most suits their playstyle. Pretty simple really.
    PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!

Sign In or Register to comment.