February 2020 Furnishing Limit Status Update

GaldorP

I know this is probably a complex problem, but wouldn't it be possible to put the item cap at a value of - let's say - 50,000 points and then assign individual point values between 10 and 100 to each specific furniture item, depending on its complexity/the amount of resources it takes? (Or is there a technical reason why more than 700 items will always cause problems, no matter how "simple/low resource" the items are?)

MajThorax

So, no status update, just the same old excuses we are told over and over again. I hope with the performance improvements this year, zos will upper the system requirements and we will get more furnishing slots.

Jaraal

MajThorax wrote: »

So, no status update, just the same old excuses we are told over and over again. I hope with the performance improvements this year, zos will upper the system requirements and we will get more furnishing slots.

PS5 and Xbox2 won't be releasing until December of this year, so they can't raise the system requirements until then. And even then, they know not everybody is going to run out and buy the new systems immediately, as many won't be able to afford it. There's no way they're going to tell millions of people that they can no longer play on their PS4 or Xbox1 because they are too low spec.

VaranisArano

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

What makes no sense is this excuse that they can not increase the item limit yet continue to release these overly large homes that players can not imagine to fully furnish under the current limits. So either there is a hypocritical approach here in regards to housing where its okay to sell us mega-mansions even though we cant possibly furnish it. Or its an intentional limitation with the hope of creating an artificial demand for larger limits so they can sell it at top dollar in the future.

I don't buy for one moment that they are limited by as much as they claim. The fact that players are given a sizeable difference in limitations based on their monetary involvement in the game is a pretty good indication that they aren't being completely honest with us. But if you want to see prime examples of the game showing off the ability to host a large number of furnishing being rendered go look at Scarp Keep or the Thieves Den. The Thieves Den alone has well over 100 items laying about in the first area you enter in if you were to take the entrance from outside the city.

The argument that the limitation is to maintain stability may be true at a certain value. But we are no where near that point if we look closely at instanced areas that ZOS has gladly shown off as examples of how much filler you can pack into.

Something to consider is that the furnishings ZOS uses as filler for scenes or buildings likely aren't the exact same as players do. This doesn't excuse the hypocrisy of Housing loading screens, but may help explain the normal buildings like Outlaw's Refuges.

This is something you see with Skyrim modding. You build a scene with objects, and then you simplify it for rendering. You essentially "group" your objects into one object, which enormously simplifies what you have to render. It works great with clutter that's non-interactable because now the server/client only has to render whatever is visible. All the nonvisible parts that may be buried in other objects no longer have to be rendered.

That's something players can't do yet. We can group objects for movement purposes, but we can't group, say, a shelf full of items into one single item. The server/client have to render each item discretely. If you make your own basket of yarn, each yarn ball has to be rendered individually including the parts no one can see.

In other words, ZOS developers almost certainly don't use the vanilla housing interface as the be all, end all of decorating the interior of their DLC buildings. That would be impractical, at best. They've almost certainly got better tools that let them create scenes from items and then simplify it enormously so only the visible portions have to be rendered.

This is one reason I want ZOS to release more "pre-grouped" items because they've got the tools to do it. Its the most effective way to create large conglomerations of items with minimal performance impacts.

littlefireball

Thank you for updating us.

I would of course love to be able to place more items in my home. That said I really enjoy housing and will continue to make the most beautiful homes within the item limit.

MornaBaine

VaranisArano wrote: »

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

What makes no sense is this excuse that they can not increase the item limit yet continue to release these overly large homes that players can not imagine to fully furnish under the current limits. So either there is a hypocritical approach here in regards to housing where its okay to sell us mega-mansions even though we cant possibly furnish it. Or its an intentional limitation with the hope of creating an artificial demand for larger limits so they can sell it at top dollar in the future.

I don't buy for one moment that they are limited by as much as they claim. The fact that players are given a sizeable difference in limitations based on their monetary involvement in the game is a pretty good indication that they aren't being completely honest with us. But if you want to see prime examples of the game showing off the ability to host a large number of furnishing being rendered go look at Scarp Keep or the Thieves Den. The Thieves Den alone has well over 100 items laying about in the first area you enter in if you were to take the entrance from outside the city.

The argument that the limitation is to maintain stability may be true at a certain value. But we are no where near that point if we look closely at instanced areas that ZOS has gladly shown off as examples of how much filler you can pack into.

Something to consider is that the furnishings ZOS uses as filler for scenes or buildings likely aren't the exact same as players do. This doesn't excuse the hypocrisy of Housing loading screens, but may help explain the normal buildings like Outlaw's Refuges.

This is something you see with Skyrim modding. You build a scene with objects, and then you simplify it for rendering. You essentially "group" your objects into one object, which enormously simplifies what you have to render. It works great with clutter that's non-interactable because now the server/client only has to render whatever is visible. All the nonvisible parts that may be buried in other objects no longer have to be rendered.

That's something players can't do yet. We can group objects for movement purposes, but we can't group, say, a shelf full of items into one single item. The server/client have to render each item discretely. If you make your own basket of yarn, each yarn ball has to be rendered individually including the parts no one can see.

In other words, ZOS developers almost certainly don't use the vanilla housing interface as the be all, end all of decorating the interior of their DLC buildings. That would be impractical, at best. They've almost certainly got better tools that let them create scenes from items and then simplify it enormously so only the visible portions have to be rendered.

This is one reason I want ZOS to release more "pre-grouped" items because they've got the tools to do it. Its the most effective way to create large conglomerations of items with minimal performance impacts.

I think we all are in agreement that more "pre-cluttered" items are a must. But surely there must also be a way for us to do exactly what you are saying ZOS most likely does. Group things like items on a table and use a command to "fuse" them, creating a single object. It would be fine if these items are then "consumed" and cannot be broken apart again and can only be used in the house you created the item for. Though it would be nice if you'd be able to move it around inside that house. Or even have a special storage box for JUST these types of items that would then let you move them from house to house but they'd be bound to you and you couldn't sell them. It'd be great if we could but then we probably couldn't use bound items as part of these creations and I think the complexity would be beyond what the trade system can handle. However I'm fairly certain ZOS COULD give us this functionality if they tried.

VaranisArano

MornaBaine wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

What makes no sense is this excuse that they can not increase the item limit yet continue to release these overly large homes that players can not imagine to fully furnish under the current limits. So either there is a hypocritical approach here in regards to housing where its okay to sell us mega-mansions even though we cant possibly furnish it. Or its an intentional limitation with the hope of creating an artificial demand for larger limits so they can sell it at top dollar in the future.

I don't buy for one moment that they are limited by as much as they claim. The fact that players are given a sizeable difference in limitations based on their monetary involvement in the game is a pretty good indication that they aren't being completely honest with us. But if you want to see prime examples of the game showing off the ability to host a large number of furnishing being rendered go look at Scarp Keep or the Thieves Den. The Thieves Den alone has well over 100 items laying about in the first area you enter in if you were to take the entrance from outside the city.

The argument that the limitation is to maintain stability may be true at a certain value. But we are no where near that point if we look closely at instanced areas that ZOS has gladly shown off as examples of how much filler you can pack into.

Something to consider is that the furnishings ZOS uses as filler for scenes or buildings likely aren't the exact same as players do. This doesn't excuse the hypocrisy of Housing loading screens, but may help explain the normal buildings like Outlaw's Refuges.

This is something you see with Skyrim modding. You build a scene with objects, and then you simplify it for rendering. You essentially "group" your objects into one object, which enormously simplifies what you have to render. It works great with clutter that's non-interactable because now the server/client only has to render whatever is visible. All the nonvisible parts that may be buried in other objects no longer have to be rendered.

That's something players can't do yet. We can group objects for movement purposes, but we can't group, say, a shelf full of items into one single item. The server/client have to render each item discretely. If you make your own basket of yarn, each yarn ball has to be rendered individually including the parts no one can see.

In other words, ZOS developers almost certainly don't use the vanilla housing interface as the be all, end all of decorating the interior of their DLC buildings. That would be impractical, at best. They've almost certainly got better tools that let them create scenes from items and then simplify it enormously so only the visible portions have to be rendered.

This is one reason I want ZOS to release more "pre-grouped" items because they've got the tools to do it. Its the most effective way to create large conglomerations of items with minimal performance impacts.

I think we all are in agreement that more "pre-cluttered" items are a must. But surely there must also be a way for us to do exactly what you are saying ZOS most likely does. Group things like items on a table and use a command to "fuse" them, creating a single object. It would be fine if these items are then "consumed" and cannot be broken apart again and can only be used in the house you created the item for. Though it would be nice if you'd be able to move it around inside that house. Or even have a special storage box for JUST these types of items that would then let you move them from house to house but they'd be bound to you and you couldn't sell them. It'd be great if we could but then we probably couldn't use bound items as part of these creations and I think the complexity would be beyond what the trade system can handle. However I'm fairly certain ZOS COULD give us this functionality if they tried.

I think getting that functionality for players would be amazing! I dunno if ZOS would/could do it, since their updates to the vanilla housing interface lag far behind the advances that addon creators were able to make. But it would be really nice.

Jaraal

MornaBaine wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

What makes no sense is this excuse that they can not increase the item limit yet continue to release these overly large homes that players can not imagine to fully furnish under the current limits. So either there is a hypocritical approach here in regards to housing where its okay to sell us mega-mansions even though we cant possibly furnish it. Or its an intentional limitation with the hope of creating an artificial demand for larger limits so they can sell it at top dollar in the future.

I don't buy for one moment that they are limited by as much as they claim. The fact that players are given a sizeable difference in limitations based on their monetary involvement in the game is a pretty good indication that they aren't being completely honest with us. But if you want to see prime examples of the game showing off the ability to host a large number of furnishing being rendered go look at Scarp Keep or the Thieves Den. The Thieves Den alone has well over 100 items laying about in the first area you enter in if you were to take the entrance from outside the city.

The argument that the limitation is to maintain stability may be true at a certain value. But we are no where near that point if we look closely at instanced areas that ZOS has gladly shown off as examples of how much filler you can pack into.

Something to consider is that the furnishings ZOS uses as filler for scenes or buildings likely aren't the exact same as players do. This doesn't excuse the hypocrisy of Housing loading screens, but may help explain the normal buildings like Outlaw's Refuges.

This is something you see with Skyrim modding. You build a scene with objects, and then you simplify it for rendering. You essentially "group" your objects into one object, which enormously simplifies what you have to render. It works great with clutter that's non-interactable because now the server/client only has to render whatever is visible. All the nonvisible parts that may be buried in other objects no longer have to be rendered.

That's something players can't do yet. We can group objects for movement purposes, but we can't group, say, a shelf full of items into one single item. The server/client have to render each item discretely. If you make your own basket of yarn, each yarn ball has to be rendered individually including the parts no one can see.

In other words, ZOS developers almost certainly don't use the vanilla housing interface as the be all, end all of decorating the interior of their DLC buildings. That would be impractical, at best. They've almost certainly got better tools that let them create scenes from items and then simplify it enormously so only the visible portions have to be rendered.

This is one reason I want ZOS to release more "pre-grouped" items because they've got the tools to do it. Its the most effective way to create large conglomerations of items with minimal performance impacts.

I think we all are in agreement that more "pre-cluttered" items are a must. But surely there must also be a way for us to do exactly what you are saying ZOS most likely does. Group things like items on a table and use a command to "fuse" them, creating a single object. It would be fine if these items are then "consumed" and cannot be broken apart again and can only be used in the house you created the item for. Though it would be nice if you'd be able to move it around inside that house. Or even have a special storage box for JUST these types of items that would then let you move them from house to house but they'd be bound to you and you couldn't sell them. It'd be great if we could but then we probably couldn't use bound items as part of these creations and I think the complexity would be beyond what the trade system can handle. However I'm fairly certain ZOS COULD give us this functionality if they tried.

I'm no coding expert, but there are tens of thousands of unique items in the game as it is, and what you propose would include adding thousands more player created items, each with their own unique data signature. And as it is, they probably have a backlog of collision and other bugs to work on involving items they have the experience of many players using, let alone a vast array of unique, one off items created by players.

I mean, the idea sounds fantastic..... but I could see some problems with the implementation that they wouldn't have the time or desire to address.

TheImperfect

I am glad that you responded to the housing community and in essence said not now. You didn't say you would never increase the caps and maybe new technology or working on the way its implemented might in future lead to it being possible. I really hope so as it's probably the number one thing most people want as well as more creative options and additions. I definitely want the caps increased, preferably doubled but will take any increase positively. Me personally I'd like portals from one point in a home to another point in the home and vertical ladders and steps also.

I do think that you are making more furniture that makes homes feel fuller and it's possible to use furniture well to make homes feel filled out. So that's positive.

Homes with space that people want to build onto need the highest limits, it enables maximum creativity.

Pinoh

ZOS_CullenLee wrote: »

Howdy everyone,

One of the most frequent requests we receive in regards to housing is the desire to increase the furnishing cap. While we have touched on this before, we just wanted to reiterate that the upper-most furnishing limits are in place to avoid serious performance issues. While the core design philosophy behind housing is to give you the creative freedom to decorate the way you want to, we have to ensure that it is a stable experience for you and your visitors as well, regardless of anyone’s platform or hardware specifications.

That being said, improving performance is not a magic bullet solution for raising the furnishing cap in houses. “Performance” is a blanket term that encompasses frame rate, stability, memory usage, and other metrics related to how the game runs. Right now, setups that hit the minimum specifications can still struggle with homes that are fully decorated with relatively high impact furnishings.

Thanks for making a post. But sadly most of this makes literally no sense, seems more like a lengthy excuse for the status quo on your part.

Why do the limits have to be so small in the apartments and small homes. Even your justifications don't explain this.

But more importantly, the game is clearly capable of displaying hundreds of people in vast areas with thousands of objects. I see it literally, every time I play the game. And so does everyone 'regardless of anyone’s platform or hardware specifications'. So the game can display thousands of items to hundreds of people, just not in local instances that people pay literally more than the entire games costs?

Jaguar7Mx

Hi.. one day we can put some of our characthers in the home? really mus be great that we can see the rest of our characters (off line) in ur home if we have one acive in the game (online). cheers

Brandathorbel

So, @ZOS_CullenLee are you going to bother to come back and respond to many of the ideas posted here or was your post just the, hey we should say something to make it look like we actually listen post. So now that the post is done you go back to ignoring us?

If you want to prove you listen and value us as customers, you should have already been back in this thread. It is called communication. I know communication is a bit of a unknown to Zos but you should give it a your best try since we spend a crapload of money on your game which keeps you and everyone there employed.

Shadow_Akula

xbobx15 wrote: »

So, @ZOS_CullenLee are you going to bother to come back and respond to many of the ideas posted here or was your post just the, hey we should say something to make it look like we actually listen post. So now that the post is done you go back to ignoring us?

If you want to prove you listen and value us as customers, you should have already been back in this thread. It is called communication. I know communication is a bit of a unknown to Zos but you should give it a your best try since we spend a crapload of money on your game which keeps you and everyone there employed.

Save your time and energy mate, Cullen doesn’t respond to anything at all. Only “lurks” and “reads” posts, never responds not even a “sounds cool we’ll see about it” or a “no current plans at this time” response to anyone’s suggestion - these responses take less than a minute to type up not too much time to ask. Could even copy & paste it for all we care, a response least makes us feel like we’ve been heard. Only ZoS communication in the house section is moderator actions with only 1-2 comments on a people’s houses.

Asking for better communication for a long time. This post was an okay-ish start even if it was just a copy and paste of what he said in a previous stream. But then it’s been ruined by lack of responses.

S.A.96

Nomadic_Atmoran

VaranisArano wrote: »

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

What makes no sense is this excuse that they can not increase the item limit yet continue to release these overly large homes that players can not imagine to fully furnish under the current limits. So either there is a hypocritical approach here in regards to housing where its okay to sell us mega-mansions even though we cant possibly furnish it. Or its an intentional limitation with the hope of creating an artificial demand for larger limits so they can sell it at top dollar in the future.

I don't buy for one moment that they are limited by as much as they claim. The fact that players are given a sizeable difference in limitations based on their monetary involvement in the game is a pretty good indication that they aren't being completely honest with us. But if you want to see prime examples of the game showing off the ability to host a large number of furnishing being rendered go look at Scarp Keep or the Thieves Den. The Thieves Den alone has well over 100 items laying about in the first area you enter in if you were to take the entrance from outside the city.

The argument that the limitation is to maintain stability may be true at a certain value. But we are no where near that point if we look closely at instanced areas that ZOS has gladly shown off as examples of how much filler you can pack into.

Something to consider is that the furnishings ZOS uses as filler for scenes or buildings likely aren't the exact same as players do. This doesn't excuse the hypocrisy of Housing loading screens, but may help explain the normal buildings like Outlaw's Refuges.

This is something you see with Skyrim modding. You build a scene with objects, and then you simplify it for rendering. You essentially "group" your objects into one object, which enormously simplifies what you have to render. It works great with clutter that's non-interactable because now the server/client only has to render whatever is visible. All the nonvisible parts that may be buried in other objects no longer have to be rendered.

That's something players can't do yet. We can group objects for movement purposes, but we can't group, say, a shelf full of items into one single item. The server/client have to render each item discretely. If you make your own basket of yarn, each yarn ball has to be rendered individually including the parts no one can see.

In other words, ZOS developers almost certainly don't use the vanilla housing interface as the be all, end all of decorating the interior of their DLC buildings. That would be impractical, at best. They've almost certainly got better tools that let them create scenes from items and then simplify it enormously so only the visible portions have to be rendered.

This is one reason I want ZOS to release more "pre-grouped" items because they've got the tools to do it. Its the most effective way to create large conglomerations of items with minimal performance impacts.

If the limitations are real then the cold hard fact is that they are cashing in on their communities hopes for a furnishing slot increase. Players continue to buy these mega-mansions on the hope that eventually ZOS does something about the limitations. But this post is telling us that this is not going to happen.

Jaraal

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

What makes no sense is this excuse that they can not increase the item limit yet continue to release these overly large homes that players can not imagine to fully furnish under the current limits. So either there is a hypocritical approach here in regards to housing where its okay to sell us mega-mansions even though we cant possibly furnish it. Or its an intentional limitation with the hope of creating an artificial demand for larger limits so they can sell it at top dollar in the future.

I don't buy for one moment that they are limited by as much as they claim. The fact that players are given a sizeable difference in limitations based on their monetary involvement in the game is a pretty good indication that they aren't being completely honest with us. But if you want to see prime examples of the game showing off the ability to host a large number of furnishing being rendered go look at Scarp Keep or the Thieves Den. The Thieves Den alone has well over 100 items laying about in the first area you enter in if you were to take the entrance from outside the city.

The argument that the limitation is to maintain stability may be true at a certain value. But we are no where near that point if we look closely at instanced areas that ZOS has gladly shown off as examples of how much filler you can pack into.

Something to consider is that the furnishings ZOS uses as filler for scenes or buildings likely aren't the exact same as players do. This doesn't excuse the hypocrisy of Housing loading screens, but may help explain the normal buildings like Outlaw's Refuges.

This is something you see with Skyrim modding. You build a scene with objects, and then you simplify it for rendering. You essentially "group" your objects into one object, which enormously simplifies what you have to render. It works great with clutter that's non-interactable because now the server/client only has to render whatever is visible. All the nonvisible parts that may be buried in other objects no longer have to be rendered.

That's something players can't do yet. We can group objects for movement purposes, but we can't group, say, a shelf full of items into one single item. The server/client have to render each item discretely. If you make your own basket of yarn, each yarn ball has to be rendered individually including the parts no one can see.

In other words, ZOS developers almost certainly don't use the vanilla housing interface as the be all, end all of decorating the interior of their DLC buildings. That would be impractical, at best. They've almost certainly got better tools that let them create scenes from items and then simplify it enormously so only the visible portions have to be rendered.

This is one reason I want ZOS to release more "pre-grouped" items because they've got the tools to do it. Its the most effective way to create large conglomerations of items with minimal performance impacts.

If the limitations are real then the cold hard fact is that they are cashing in on their communities hopes for a furnishing slot increase. Players continue to buy these mega-mansions on the hope that eventually ZOS does something about the limitations. But this post is telling us that this is not going to happen.

Exactly. It's the ZOS version of Lucy yanking the football away from Charlie Brown every single time.

LadyNalcarya

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

What makes no sense is this excuse that they can not increase the item limit yet continue to release these overly large homes that players can not imagine to fully furnish under the current limits. So either there is a hypocritical approach here in regards to housing where its okay to sell us mega-mansions even though we cant possibly furnish it. Or its an intentional limitation with the hope of creating an artificial demand for larger limits so they can sell it at top dollar in the future.

I don't buy for one moment that they are limited by as much as they claim. The fact that players are given a sizeable difference in limitations based on their monetary involvement in the game is a pretty good indication that they aren't being completely honest with us. But if you want to see prime examples of the game showing off the ability to host a large number of furnishing being rendered go look at Scarp Keep or the Thieves Den. The Thieves Den alone has well over 100 items laying about in the first area you enter in if you were to take the entrance from outside the city.

The argument that the limitation is to maintain stability may be true at a certain value. But we are no where near that point if we look closely at instanced areas that ZOS has gladly shown off as examples of how much filler you can pack into.

Something to consider is that the furnishings ZOS uses as filler for scenes or buildings likely aren't the exact same as players do. This doesn't excuse the hypocrisy of Housing loading screens, but may help explain the normal buildings like Outlaw's Refuges.

This is something you see with Skyrim modding. You build a scene with objects, and then you simplify it for rendering. You essentially "group" your objects into one object, which enormously simplifies what you have to render. It works great with clutter that's non-interactable because now the server/client only has to render whatever is visible. All the nonvisible parts that may be buried in other objects no longer have to be rendered.

That's something players can't do yet. We can group objects for movement purposes, but we can't group, say, a shelf full of items into one single item. The server/client have to render each item discretely. If you make your own basket of yarn, each yarn ball has to be rendered individually including the parts no one can see.

In other words, ZOS developers almost certainly don't use the vanilla housing interface as the be all, end all of decorating the interior of their DLC buildings. That would be impractical, at best. They've almost certainly got better tools that let them create scenes from items and then simplify it enormously so only the visible portions have to be rendered.

This is one reason I want ZOS to release more "pre-grouped" items because they've got the tools to do it. Its the most effective way to create large conglomerations of items with minimal performance impacts.

If the limitations are real then the cold hard fact is that they are cashing in on their communities hopes for a furnishing slot increase. Players continue to buy these mega-mansions on the hope that eventually ZOS does something about the limitations. But this post is telling us that this is not going to happen.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that many more people just don't buy those giant mansions because of slot limitations. They're pretty expensive, and buying a $100 digital item that you can maybe use some time in the future is stupid.
Then again, Star Citizen is a thing so I guess there's audience for this kind of stuff.

VaranisArano

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

What makes no sense is this excuse that they can not increase the item limit yet continue to release these overly large homes that players can not imagine to fully furnish under the current limits. So either there is a hypocritical approach here in regards to housing where its okay to sell us mega-mansions even though we cant possibly furnish it. Or its an intentional limitation with the hope of creating an artificial demand for larger limits so they can sell it at top dollar in the future.

I don't buy for one moment that they are limited by as much as they claim. The fact that players are given a sizeable difference in limitations based on their monetary involvement in the game is a pretty good indication that they aren't being completely honest with us. But if you want to see prime examples of the game showing off the ability to host a large number of furnishing being rendered go look at Scarp Keep or the Thieves Den. The Thieves Den alone has well over 100 items laying about in the first area you enter in if you were to take the entrance from outside the city.

The argument that the limitation is to maintain stability may be true at a certain value. But we are no where near that point if we look closely at instanced areas that ZOS has gladly shown off as examples of how much filler you can pack into.

Something to consider is that the furnishings ZOS uses as filler for scenes or buildings likely aren't the exact same as players do. This doesn't excuse the hypocrisy of Housing loading screens, but may help explain the normal buildings like Outlaw's Refuges.

This is something you see with Skyrim modding. You build a scene with objects, and then you simplify it for rendering. You essentially "group" your objects into one object, which enormously simplifies what you have to render. It works great with clutter that's non-interactable because now the server/client only has to render whatever is visible. All the nonvisible parts that may be buried in other objects no longer have to be rendered.

That's something players can't do yet. We can group objects for movement purposes, but we can't group, say, a shelf full of items into one single item. The server/client have to render each item discretely. If you make your own basket of yarn, each yarn ball has to be rendered individually including the parts no one can see.

In other words, ZOS developers almost certainly don't use the vanilla housing interface as the be all, end all of decorating the interior of their DLC buildings. That would be impractical, at best. They've almost certainly got better tools that let them create scenes from items and then simplify it enormously so only the visible portions have to be rendered.

This is one reason I want ZOS to release more "pre-grouped" items because they've got the tools to do it. Its the most effective way to create large conglomerations of items with minimal performance impacts.

If the limitations are real then the cold hard fact is that they are cashing in on their communities hopes for a furnishing slot increase. Players continue to buy these mega-mansions on the hope that eventually ZOS does something about the limitations. But this post is telling us that this is not going to happen.

I guess I'm a little surprised that this is being treated as a surprise. To be entirely fair to ZOS, the answers they gave here are pretty much the same as what they said about a year ago in the April 2019 ESO Live. The only thing new is the official "nothing's changed since the last time we spoke, and yeah, we gotta fix the whole game before you see any trickle-down benefits to housing so prepare for the long haul."

If after April, players were still buying those huge houses in the hopes that ZOS was going to raise the housing limits, I think the hopes were being generated by the players themselves.

Nomadic_Atmoran

LadyNalcarya wrote: »

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

What makes no sense is this excuse that they can not increase the item limit yet continue to release these overly large homes that players can not imagine to fully furnish under the current limits. So either there is a hypocritical approach here in regards to housing where its okay to sell us mega-mansions even though we cant possibly furnish it. Or its an intentional limitation with the hope of creating an artificial demand for larger limits so they can sell it at top dollar in the future.

I don't buy for one moment that they are limited by as much as they claim. The fact that players are given a sizeable difference in limitations based on their monetary involvement in the game is a pretty good indication that they aren't being completely honest with us. But if you want to see prime examples of the game showing off the ability to host a large number of furnishing being rendered go look at Scarp Keep or the Thieves Den. The Thieves Den alone has well over 100 items laying about in the first area you enter in if you were to take the entrance from outside the city.

The argument that the limitation is to maintain stability may be true at a certain value. But we are no where near that point if we look closely at instanced areas that ZOS has gladly shown off as examples of how much filler you can pack into.

Something to consider is that the furnishings ZOS uses as filler for scenes or buildings likely aren't the exact same as players do. This doesn't excuse the hypocrisy of Housing loading screens, but may help explain the normal buildings like Outlaw's Refuges.

This is something you see with Skyrim modding. You build a scene with objects, and then you simplify it for rendering. You essentially "group" your objects into one object, which enormously simplifies what you have to render. It works great with clutter that's non-interactable because now the server/client only has to render whatever is visible. All the nonvisible parts that may be buried in other objects no longer have to be rendered.

That's something players can't do yet. We can group objects for movement purposes, but we can't group, say, a shelf full of items into one single item. The server/client have to render each item discretely. If you make your own basket of yarn, each yarn ball has to be rendered individually including the parts no one can see.

In other words, ZOS developers almost certainly don't use the vanilla housing interface as the be all, end all of decorating the interior of their DLC buildings. That would be impractical, at best. They've almost certainly got better tools that let them create scenes from items and then simplify it enormously so only the visible portions have to be rendered.

This is one reason I want ZOS to release more "pre-grouped" items because they've got the tools to do it. Its the most effective way to create large conglomerations of items with minimal performance impacts.

If the limitations are real then the cold hard fact is that they are cashing in on their communities hopes for a furnishing slot increase. Players continue to buy these mega-mansions on the hope that eventually ZOS does something about the limitations. But this post is telling us that this is not going to happen.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that many more people just don't buy those giant mansions because of slot limitations. They're pretty expensive, and buying a $100 digital item that you can maybe use some time in the future is stupid.
Then again, Star Citizen is a thing so I guess there's audience for this kind of stuff.

When is the last time that you saw a new house up for sale that was not extremely large? This isn't ZOS slamming their heads against the wall and just hoping we will take the bait. If mega-mansions weren't selling they wouldnt continue to invest resources into it. They would move to whatever was actually making a profit.

nyarasha

Please keep working on updating performance and optimizing. It is impossible to actually furnish the Notable homes and such that people spend money on. I get that you need to tune things to make sure houses are usable - that comes first - but it's sad that it's still a problem to have enough furnishings to barely make an impact in big houses.

Also - please make it an option to have a guild house selected so that guild leaders or whoever don't have to always have their primary set to the guild's house!

LadyNalcarya

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

LadyNalcarya wrote: »

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Nomadic_Atmoran wrote: »

What makes no sense is this excuse that they can not increase the item limit yet continue to release these overly large homes that players can not imagine to fully furnish under the current limits. So either there is a hypocritical approach here in regards to housing where its okay to sell us mega-mansions even though we cant possibly furnish it. Or its an intentional limitation with the hope of creating an artificial demand for larger limits so they can sell it at top dollar in the future.

I don't buy for one moment that they are limited by as much as they claim. The fact that players are given a sizeable difference in limitations based on their monetary involvement in the game is a pretty good indication that they aren't being completely honest with us. But if you want to see prime examples of the game showing off the ability to host a large number of furnishing being rendered go look at Scarp Keep or the Thieves Den. The Thieves Den alone has well over 100 items laying about in the first area you enter in if you were to take the entrance from outside the city.

The argument that the limitation is to maintain stability may be true at a certain value. But we are no where near that point if we look closely at instanced areas that ZOS has gladly shown off as examples of how much filler you can pack into.

Something to consider is that the furnishings ZOS uses as filler for scenes or buildings likely aren't the exact same as players do. This doesn't excuse the hypocrisy of Housing loading screens, but may help explain the normal buildings like Outlaw's Refuges.

This is something you see with Skyrim modding. You build a scene with objects, and then you simplify it for rendering. You essentially "group" your objects into one object, which enormously simplifies what you have to render. It works great with clutter that's non-interactable because now the server/client only has to render whatever is visible. All the nonvisible parts that may be buried in other objects no longer have to be rendered.

That's something players can't do yet. We can group objects for movement purposes, but we can't group, say, a shelf full of items into one single item. The server/client have to render each item discretely. If you make your own basket of yarn, each yarn ball has to be rendered individually including the parts no one can see.

In other words, ZOS developers almost certainly don't use the vanilla housing interface as the be all, end all of decorating the interior of their DLC buildings. That would be impractical, at best. They've almost certainly got better tools that let them create scenes from items and then simplify it enormously so only the visible portions have to be rendered.

This is one reason I want ZOS to release more "pre-grouped" items because they've got the tools to do it. Its the most effective way to create large conglomerations of items with minimal performance impacts.

If the limitations are real then the cold hard fact is that they are cashing in on their communities hopes for a furnishing slot increase. Players continue to buy these mega-mansions on the hope that eventually ZOS does something about the limitations. But this post is telling us that this is not going to happen.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that many more people just don't buy those giant mansions because of slot limitations. They're pretty expensive, and buying a $100 digital item that you can maybe use some time in the future is stupid.
Then again, Star Citizen is a thing so I guess there's audience for this kind of stuff.

When is the last time that you saw a new house up for sale that was not extremely large? This isn't ZOS slamming their heads against the wall and just hoping we will take the bait. If mega-mansions weren't selling they wouldnt continue to invest resources into it. They would move to whatever was actually making a profit.

Well, ZOS does have a history of weird and unpopular decisions... I still love the game, but it's pretty obviously mismanaged.

Feendish

My recommendation is to stop selling the extremely large notable houses if there will not be a concurrent increase in the item limit. I bought Princely Dawnlight on sale, and gave up in frustration when I had to choose between either decorating the interior, or working on the exterior, because I can't do both--or I could, but both areas would be half-empty. As expensive as these houses normally are, it is unrealistic to expect someone to pay to increase the item limit beyond 700 pieces. I couldn't imagine trying to decorate one with 350. I read about people being willing to pay for stepped increases, I am not. Not for the notables, the item limit of those houses for the costs expected to pay should already be at least 1000. For the smaller houses that can be bought with gold, that may be a different story, but most of them are sized pretty appropriately for the item limit.

I love the open landscape houses--Coldharbour and Meadow--but mashing together existing pieces to make something approximating an actual building is very item intensive and some of us (I mean me), do not have the creativity required to make something beautiful, functional, and only take 3 pieces.

PLEASE make more items that are building components, NOT stuck behind an expensive Crown paywall, NOT hideously expensive to craft, and NOT bent, broken, chipped, dirty, and misaligned. I realize that might be a bit much to ask for, but there it is.

More cluttered items could help with some interior decorating--crowded bookshelves, plates with food, etc, as have already been mentioned. There are any number of items already in game that would meet this requirement. Basic stove/ovens, and other household items would also help, and there are also many of these items already in game, so the assets exist. Crafting clusters would also be very helpful--such as one item that could do multiple crafts, also already mentioned.

More houses of the 400-600 variety--that can be purchased with gold or via achievement--would be much appreciated. Also, having more than one of each house without having to create a second account would be appreciated.

MornaBaine

[quote="Feendish;c-6610071

More houses of the 400-600 variety--that can be purchased with gold or via achievement--would be much appreciated. Also, having more than one of each house without having to create a second account would be appreciated.[/quote]

AND that will hold 24 players, not 6 or 12. MANY of the "medium" sized homes have interiors and some even exteriors that are pretty close to many of the "notable" homes. There's no excuse for the HALVED players limits or worse in these homes. It's infuriating.

sixdollarshoe

I understand the limitations, however, I feel like the furniture cap would be more realistic if:

1. There were more structure/building items so that we didn't have to piece together smaller items to make something decent looking. Honestly, a couple walls, windows and door pieces in the different styles shouldn't be a big deal to render considering the whole game is populated.

2. As many have already said, you provide more versions of items that have details already on them. (Like you've done with book shelves.) Or offer combinations of items such as table spreads for food etc.

I feel like these would be easily accommodated and make a huge difference.

MacMurroughTheFirst

I came to the forums tonight after finally giving up in frustration at trying to adequately cover and fill my Grand Psijic Villa for the last couple of weeks. After reading this post, I'm sad and still slightly frustrated but I at least understand situation better.

And sure, maybe I can't turn the whole western side of the villa into an elaborate cave system ; I can live without that level of building realism for a while longer. But getting the large empty plots of land now feels like putting the cart before the horse cause without a variety of building materials, types and color selections, etc, it just seems daunting, especially if I might still run into decorating problems after building it all myself. Or I'd probably using it as a really big closet to store all my furnishings. Which doesn't sound like a bad idea actually...

I'm glad I took the time to browse this thread, though, cause there's some great ideas here that I pray by the eight find their way into the right hands. I didn't even know I needed NPCs wandering around til I read the suggestion and now it's all I can think about!

RMerlin

MacMurroughTheFirst wrote: »

I'm glad I took the time to browse this thread, though, cause there's some great ideas here that I pray by the eight find their way into the right hands. I didn't even know I needed NPCs wandering around til I read the suggestion and now it's all I can think about!

The MMO I'm referring to also had Guild Halls. In ours we had a roaming pet that was shaped like a rolling D20 gaming dice. You could name the NPCs/pets, and the nametag would show above them like any regular NPC. We named our rolling dice "Thaco"

SantieClaws

This one has another idea. Maybe she has mentioned it before?

There are presently furnished and unfurnished options for most properties.

Why not a third option where we just get the landmass? Basically the house with the house removed and obviously the empty ground covered with a suitable something so we do not fall through into a big endless empty space.

This one can think of a few places she would have additionally enjoyed purchasing if this option has been there but which she did not purchase because mostly the house was too dark inside.

Not a stay indoors sort of house cat this one ...

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

MornaBaine

SantieClaws wrote: »

This one has another idea. Maybe she has mentioned it before?

There are presently furnished and unfurnished options for most properties.

Why not a third option where we just get the landmass? Basically the house with the house removed and obviously the empty ground covered with a suitable something so we do not fall through into a big endless empty space.

This one can think of a few places she would have additionally enjoyed purchasing if this option has been there but which she did not purchase because mostly the house was too dark inside.

Not a stay indoors sort of house cat this one ...

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

This is an awesome idea. Especially as we (hopefully) get more building piece options! I know another thing that would be popular but would be more work for them to implement at first would be these "empty" places with your choice of of buildings that would fit. Buildings like inns, mages guild halls and fighters guild halls.

Also, when it comes to furnished homes...please ZOS, for the love of Dibella, STOP padding the furnishings with crates and bags like you think a house is just a warehouse! Almost no one actually WANTS these and if they do they are incredibly easy and cheap to obtain already. It's kind of insulting that you stick them in literally every "furnished" house. Be better than that.

SantieClaws

SantieClaws wrote: »

This one has another idea. Maybe she has mentioned it before?

There are presently furnished and unfurnished options for most properties.

Why not a third option where we just get the landmass? Basically the house with the house removed and obviously the empty ground covered with a suitable something so we do not fall through into a big endless empty space.

This one can think of a few places she would have additionally enjoyed purchasing if this option has been there but which she did not purchase because mostly the house was too dark inside.

Not a stay indoors sort of house cat this one ...

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

Khajiit would add that she knows it would not work for all properties and that many houses have magical time and space properties which make them much bigger inside.

For the upcoming orc settlement it could possibly work - the buildings could be removed there perhaps just leaving us with the lovely rocky landscape and the waterfalls and some nice flat space in which to put up our own tents.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

Sallymen

Can there be a compromise? Maybe after the performance patch raise the cap by 100 to test the waters. If everything seems fine add 100 more?

MacMurroughTheFirst

SantieClaws wrote: »

This one has another idea. Maybe she has mentioned it before?

There are presently furnished and unfurnished options for most properties.

Why not a third option where we just get the landmass? Basically the house with the house removed and obviously the empty ground covered with a suitable something so we do not fall through into a big endless empty space.

This one can think of a few places she would have additionally enjoyed purchasing if this option has been there but which she did not purchase because mostly the house was too dark inside.

Not a stay indoors sort of house cat this one ...

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

This is an amazing idea. As much as I love places like HPH, it would have been just as nice to make a shack by the ocean and decorate all around it in a 'fisherman's shanty' style or something.

For what it's worth to this discussion in general, I liked unlocking Lunar Champion through progression and think it could be a cool future feature to housing but I have to agree that the separate wings would need their own caps. However, having to unlock them in stages would give me an additional incentive to finish the story.