Housing slots limit - easy solution

RussianAsgard

I propose to remove such a category as collectible furnishings. And transfer the number of its slots to traditional furnishings. In the future - there must be increase the size of traditional furnishings in proportion to the new content, which implied a collection items (like new dungeons reward busts and etc). just as it happens now for collectible furnishings.

this will not solve the problem completely, but at least a little ease the situation.

Jayne_Doe

Except that collectible furnishings can be placed in all your homes. Completely eliminating the function of collectible furnishings isn't the solution, though I suppose you could view it as a temporary one. While most players wouldn't necessarily want to display all their trophies (or some of them) in multiple homes, others would. And statuettes also fall into that category, and there are several of my Dunmer homes where I have Azura placed, for example.

I agree that a slot increase is desirable, esp. for the notable homes, but I don't like the idea of removing the functionality of collectible furnishings.

Perhaps, though, if collectible furnishings were still able to function as such, so that they can be placed in multiple homes, but then just count toward an overall cap, then that would be ideal.

RussianAsgard

Jayne_Doe wrote: »

Except that collectible furnishings can be placed in all your homes. Completely eliminating the function of collectible furnishings isn't the solution, though I suppose you could view it as a temporary one. While most players wouldn't necessarily want to display all their trophies (or some of them) in multiple homes, others would. And statuettes also fall into that category, and there are several of my Dunmer homes where I have Azura placed, for example.

I agree that a slot increase is desirable, esp. for the notable homes, but I don't like the idea of removing the functionality of collectible furnishings.

Perhaps, though, if collectible furnishings were still able to function as such, so that they can be placed in multiple homes, but then just count toward an overall cap, then that would be ideal.

even if we have to abandon the features of this group, it seems to me that this will be a better solution in this situation.

Kittytravel

Linblack wrote: »

even if we have to abandon the features of this group, it seems to me that this will be a better solution in this situation.

The idea I've brought up before but if we lose the function of the collectible furnishings being placed in multiple houses then nah, I like having those statues in multiple homes.
I'd prefer seeing those slots merged with traditional but maintain that special items/collectibles can be placed in multiple houses as traditional slots get used up by placing them.

Alinhbo_Tyaka

Jayne_Doe wrote: »

Except that collectible furnishings can be placed in all your homes. Completely eliminating the function of collectible furnishings isn't the solution, though I suppose you could view it as a temporary one. While most players wouldn't necessarily want to display all their trophies (or some of them) in multiple homes, others would. And statuettes also fall into that category, and there are several of my Dunmer homes where I have Azura placed, for example.

I agree that a slot increase is desirable, esp. for the notable homes, but I don't like the idea of removing the functionality of collectible furnishings.

Perhaps, though, if collectible furnishings were still able to function as such, so that they can be placed in multiple homes, but then just count toward an overall cap, then that would be ideal.

I don't see why they would not allow collectable furnishings to remain as they are. They could even leave the cap. You just need to make them a subset of the traditional furnishings and its increased item count. This would allow more items for those folks who do not use many collectables and not stop anyone who use a lot of collectables. For me even the limited extra slots would help me get those last few finishing touches into the house to make it feel complete.

idk

I understand Zos setting a limit on max number of furnishings as there is a server load per house times the number of houses active at the time. But I do not understand why they limit certain items like this.

RussianAsgard

Alinhbo_Tyaka wrote: »

Jayne_Doe wrote: »

Except that collectible furnishings can be placed in all your homes. Completely eliminating the function of collectible furnishings isn't the solution, though I suppose you could view it as a temporary one. While most players wouldn't necessarily want to display all their trophies (or some of them) in multiple homes, others would. And statuettes also fall into that category, and there are several of my Dunmer homes where I have Azura placed, for example.

I agree that a slot increase is desirable, esp. for the notable homes, but I don't like the idea of removing the functionality of collectible furnishings.

Perhaps, though, if collectible furnishings were still able to function as such, so that they can be placed in multiple homes, but then just count toward an overall cap, then that would be ideal.

I don't see why they would not allow collectable furnishings to remain as they are. They could even leave the cap. You just need to make them a subset of the traditional furnishings and its increased item count. This would allow more items for those folks who do not use many collectables and not stop anyone who use a lot of collectables. For me even the limited extra slots would help me get those last few finishing touches into the house to make it feel complete.

++ literally 50-100 slots are not enough each time to get a complete picture.

Enemoriana

Put all slots in one big cathegory can be good idea. But changing types of items - no.

Anotherone773

Or they could discontinue support for the original PS4 and Xbox one which are apparently holding us up on that. OR they could make houses more like Halls of the Lunar Champion and each section of the house is treated as a different house which is what i thought they were going to do with that one.

Example: A typical house like Mournoth Keep would be considered, to the game, two houses. One the outdoor area and the other the indoor area. And you would have a brief load screen between them which you basically do now anyway.

Making such changes to existing houses is not really appealing to ZOS from a labor stand point( I mean who cares about good PR with your customers, amiright?) . Many players are not interested in these super large houses because you either have to sparsely furnish them or only furnish a small percent of them. Like the Aldmeri Grotto that is part of summerset, i could use that limit on the ship alone and another 4 times that limit minimum on the land. And now with all these building components i could build my own little castle/city if i was allowed.

ghastley

The decision to have lower limits for smaller homes is harder to justify on technical grounds. That must be pure marketing. You need a certain amount of memory to instantiate a home, and a larger one has greater static requirements, so you'd expect less room for the variable (per-account) data. The current division of collectables from the rest makes sense, as does separating animated/interactable from static, even if that is done rather vaguely. But all that is the same for any size of home.

The exception may be the population limit, as crowding a large number of players into a small space drives a higher rate of interactions, so smaller is actually more in that respect. That's a server-side issue as well as a client one, as all the players need feedback.

So I see the issue as really one of the large "houses" being too big for the limits, which is almost certainly marketing-driven. "Look how big it is!"

Anotherone773

ghastley wrote: »

The decision to have lower limits for smaller homes is harder to justify on technical grounds. That must be pure marketing. You need a certain amount of memory to instantiate a home, and a larger one has greater static requirements, so you'd expect less room for the variable (per-account) data. The current division of collectables from the rest makes sense, as does separating animated/interactable from static, even if that is done rather vaguely. But all that is the same for any size of home.

The exception may be the population limit, as crowding a large number of players into a small space drives a higher rate of interactions, so smaller is actually more in that respect. That's a server-side issue as well as a client one, as all the players need feedback.

So I see the issue as really one of the large "houses" being too big for the limits, which is almost certainly marketing-driven. "Look how big it is!"

This is a problem i have with that "official" argument as well. I get it. Large houses can only have so many slots and less expensive houses need to have less slots so they can justify the bigger price tag on mostly useless space of the notables. BUT, why cant we buy to upgrade the number of slots on our smaller houses? Why cant i get double the space in small house for double or even triple the price?


You will spend 1/4 of your slots just to light some of these homes and thats just on the inside.

Pinoh

Anotherone773 wrote: »

Or they could discontinue support for the original PS4 and Xbox one which are apparently holding us up on that. OR they could make houses more like Halls of the Lunar Champion and each section of the house is treated as a different house which is what i thought they were going to do with that one.

idk if they need to discontinue support for those platforms. But if they are really holding back development, then perhaps it's time to fork the development trees. I am sure they do already to a certain extent.

Anotherone773

Pinoh wrote: »

Anotherone773 wrote: »

Or they could discontinue support for the original PS4 and Xbox one which are apparently holding us up on that. OR they could make houses more like Halls of the Lunar Champion and each section of the house is treated as a different house which is what i thought they were going to do with that one.

idk if they need to discontinue support for those platforms. But if they are really holding back development, then perhaps it's time to fork the development trees. I am sure they do already to a certain extent.

Something else that bothers me. There are areas of the game that have far more "objects" than what you could get in a house and that is just on screen. On my computer standing at the wayshrine in the major city of one of the last 3 chapters is far more taxing on system resources than being in a filled house.

Also i cannot recall anyone complaining of crashing in housing...ever. I bet on the older versions of PS4 that a full plus members notable house is just fine or at least performs better than zones. I think what it really is, is coding that they havent deemed profitable enough to mess with yet.

They keep selling us these huge homes that you can only decorate one room in. I actually feel like they are building the demand for increasing limits and then are going to sell us furnishing slots increases for more than it would cost you to have an addition on a real home.

katanagirl1

I have thought about this a bit, and it might have to do with then number of instances for housing compared to the number of instances for the zones. The zones are shared among many players, but each house has a completely separate instance for each player. That could really add up.

Pinoh

Well if you mean server side performance. Servers are cheaper and more powerfull than ever, storage being way less costly than it was 5 years ago. Put some more servers in, just to run housing instances. It doesn't matter for most houses if they load slowly. I'd rather have a slow loading house, than be constrained by small furnishing limits.

kaisernick

well since some have 110 in larger homes cutting that in half would be a nice soloutiuon, i mean are people really going to place 110 special furnishings in their homes?