Houseguests take special furniture slot?? (Capped at 10 with manor ESO+)

Lyserus

That is utmost unreasonable! Even for the biggest houses with ESO+ you are still only able to place 10 special "'furniture" and that includes assistants, house guests and mounts and pets!

Please remove the furniture slot categories, the furniture cap is bad enough as it is, we don't need to be more specific on what we cannot place.

Lyserus

What is even the point of buying them all then

All I wanted was to use them to create a town, now you tell me you can't place more than 10 (again, this cap is for the biggest house with ESO+ and with assistant pets mounts combined)

Ellimist_Entreri

The reason for the cap and categories has been stated as (to my knowledge) system limitations due to the performance strain from items, their effects and pathing.

That being said I completely agree the limit that encompasses house-guests, assistants, mounts & non-combat pets is entirely too low considering the number of available items that are counted in that specific category. Were I able to place more of the aforementioned objects about I would still have some incentive to continue purchasing them as they are released, as the situation currently stands I am discouraged from such purchases in the future!

Taleof2Cities

@Lyserus; @Ellimist_Entreri -

Here’s the latest from ZOS on why they’re not raising the furnishing cap limit:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/512076/february-2020-furnishing-limit-status-update#latest

I’m sure we all know what’s going to happen when a player tries to build a “town” in one instance.

Ilumia

I completely agree, the limit isn't all that reasonable.

I was completely discouraged from continueing furnishing my house after I couldn't place anymore house guests and pets. All my ideas revolved around making some kind of cozy living scenes; library setups with a scholar studying biologi with moths and insects, inn setting with a full bar, Some kind of garden with the goats and pigs and suchlike.

I get that there is a perfomance issue with some peoples systems, but it does feel a lot like an excuse for servers that can't handle it, as people with weaker rigs could choose to scale back. I mean, my pc could not cope with maxing every setting in every game, so I just tweak until I get to the sweet spot, same thing with placing furnishings. And should you go to someones residence and have trouble loading it - leave. Right?

Lyserus

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

@Lyserus; @Ellimist_Entreri -

Here’s the latest from ZOS on why they’re not raising the furnishing cap limit:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/512076/february-2020-furnishing-limit-status-update#latest

I’m sure we all know what’s going to happen when a player tries to build a “town” in one instance.

still 10 is way too small, I can't imagine for the other smaller houses what a pain must it be

Ilumia

@Taleof2Cities

thanks for linking that I was sure I had read that from official ZOS at some point.

But in conclusion: I can't build with more house guests or pets (or overall item cap for that matter) - because a bunch of people have potato rigs

Taleof2Cities

Ilumia wrote: »

@Taleof2Cities

thanks for linking that I was sure I had read that from official ZOS at some point.

But in conclusion: I can't build with more house guests or pets (or overall item cap for that matter) - because a bunch of people have potato rigs

That can be your conclusion, sure.

Whether that’s ZOS’s conclusion we really don’t know.

Sheezabeast

I wish we could summon them to follow us. No real purpose, just click for dialogue if I was bored, but it would be neat to have them kind of like our follower.

Raideen

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

The reason for the cap and categories has been stated as (to my knowledge) system limitations due to the performance strain from items, their effects and pathing.

That being said I completely agree the limit that encompasses house-guests, assistants, mounts & non-combat pets is entirely too low considering the number of available items that are counted in that specific category. Were I able to place more of the aforementioned objects about I would still have some incentive to continue purchasing them as they are released, as the situation currently stands I am discouraged from such purchases in the future!

Agreed. I have suggested in other posts that houseguests should come with their own slot, a slot that increases the total slots of that category by 1.

If the limits are truly about a performance issue, its directed towards PS and or Xbox, this is not an issue on PC. How about an "addon" that allows PC players to have more furnishing slots.

Secondly. I have often pondered if they "official reasons" have less to do with an individuals "performance" and more to do with data storage cost (servers) and or data transmission cost (internet). Remember when you came by my still waters house and we could see all the unused assets around the property? All of that is still loaded into memory, all those polygons that a player will never see are still put into memory affecting the players performance. If this TRULY was a performance issue, as we are told, then how come ZOS allows for unused assets to litter these homes?

It does not add up.

Taleof2Cities

Raideen wrote: »

If the limits are truly about a performance issue, its directed towards PS and or Xbox, this is not an issue on PC. How about an "addon" that allows PC players to have more furnishing slots.

It does not add up.

Again ... your conclusion.

We really don't know what the key points of ZOS's discussion were when the cap was instituted.

Vlad9425

Cap should be 20 tbh. Also the excuse that adding more furniture slots will impact performance isn’t really relevant since performance is already abysmal.

Raideen

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

Raideen wrote: »

If the limits are truly about a performance issue, its directed towards PS and or Xbox, this is not an issue on PC. How about an "addon" that allows PC players to have more furnishing slots.

It does not add up.

Again ... your conclusion.

We really don't know what the key points of ZOS's discussion were when the cap was instituted.

It's not my conclusion, it' an observation based on math.

Assets that get loaded into memory, assets that the player can not see reduce the players performance. If their goal was to improve player performance, or to ensure that the player performance was good, they would clean up these unused assets.

So it's not an opinion, not a "conclusion", but it is an observation, an observation that does not fall inline with the "official" story.

Ellimist_Entreri

Raideen wrote: »

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

The reason for the cap and categories has been stated as (to my knowledge) system limitations due to the performance strain from items, their effects and pathing.

That being said I completely agree the limit that encompasses house-guests, assistants, mounts & non-combat pets is entirely too low considering the number of available items that are counted in that specific category. Were I able to place more of the aforementioned objects about I would still have some incentive to continue purchasing them as they are released, as the situation currently stands I am discouraged from such purchases in the future!

Agreed. I have suggested in other posts that houseguests should come with their own slot, a slot that increases the total slots of that category by 1.

If the limits are truly about a performance issue, its directed towards PS and or Xbox, this is not an issue on PC. How about an "addon" that allows PC players to have more furnishing slots.

Secondly. I have often pondered if they "official reasons" have less to do with an individuals "performance" and more to do with data storage cost (servers) and or data transmission cost (internet). Remember when you came by my still waters house and we could see all the unused assets around the property? All of that is still loaded into memory, all those polygons that a player will never see are still put into memory affecting the players performance. If this TRULY was a performance issue, as we are told, then how come ZOS allows for unused assets to litter these homes?

It does not add up.

Those "unused assets" you speak of are from what I could tell actually the exterior cells of the home & the background for it - which depending on what a player builds in that exterior area it would be quite possible to see much if not all of what you are referring to through typical gameplay.

The interior as you saw was a separate box underneath the primary heightmap (landscape), however it is still included in the same worldspace and cells as the exterior of the home.

To be honest, the memory footprint from a heightmap with a scattering of trees and rocks as well as other background scenery is not as bad as you might think as long as the textures are scaled properly and the materials used to display them are somewhat optimized. That combined with LoD's (Level of Detail variations depending on view distance) & collision adjustments to the meshes used allows for incredibly complex scenery with a relatively low strain on resources.

All of the assets for the homes themselves are automatically loaded upon entering, so the only data transmission that is relevant would be the user placed housing items - which are loaded initially upon entering the home. The strain for performance comes from users placing dozens or hundreds of different items, all having their own textures and effects that need to be rendered. This makes for a cumulative strain when trying to render a scene that gets worse the greater variety of textures, effects and other lighting factors present.

Raideen

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

Those "unused assets" you speak of are from what I could tell actually the exterior cells of the home & the background for it - which depending on what a player builds in that exterior area it would be quite possible to see much if not all of what you are referring to through typical gameplay.

Not entirely. There was a "nord arch" on the west side of the property that is not viewable from the map. There were also two entire dwemer/dwarven buildings on the opposite side that again can not be seen by the player. There is also all the rocks that are placed through the property, the bottoms of which are put into memory. It would be better to create all of them with open backs much like the plum (I think they are plums) food provisioning asset.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

The interior as you saw was a separate box underneath the primary heightmap (landscape), however it is still included in the same worldspace and cells as the exterior of the home.

Yes and there is a fair amount of unseen polygons being loaded into memory that the player will never see. The homes are made by cobbling assets together without modifying them to improve performance.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

To be honest, the memory footprint from a heightmap with a scattering of trees and rocks as well as other background scenery is not as bad as you might think as long as the textures are scaled properly and the materials used to display them are somewhat optimized. That combined with LoD's (Level of Detail variations depending on view distance) & collision adjustments to the meshes used allows for incredibly complex scenery with a relatively low strain on resources.

This is true, but many of the assets are close, up front, right outside of the back door. Also the areas of these assets that are not visible are still put into memory.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

All of the assets for the homes themselves are automatically loaded upon entering, so the only data transmission that is relevant would be the user placed housing items - which are loaded initially upon entering the home. The strain for performance comes from users placing dozens or hundreds of different items, all having their own textures and effects that need to be rendered. This makes for a cumulative strain when trying to render a scene that gets worse the greater variety of textures, effects and other lighting factors present.

And that is my point. The more assets placed in a home, the more that need to be transmitted and loaded into memory of the visitor. All of those unseen polygons throughout the rest of the map would allow for more furnishing assets to be loaded, maybe not a ton, but definitely more.

If ZOS actually cared about player performance, they would limit each area with a furnishing amount. There is nothing stopping a player from placing 700 lanterns/lights in the entry way of a home which could kill even the best of computers. Snug Pod is a great example. 200 limit furnishing amount in a very tiny space. The amount of stuff you can cram in there is insane. Possibly one of the most dense furnishing homes in game. This density can ruin a "players performance", and yet it exists.

The furnishing limits based on any given home are arbitrary.


I spent years in Landmark, which was the "asset building tool" for Everquest Next. On a 2012 machine in 2016 I could get a solid 50 FPS in a voxel based world with 1500+ "furniture" assets placed inside of a 5 million voxel build. The amount of calculations any PC would have to deal with FAR FAR exceeds what is asked by this game, and yet it was doable on older hardware in more extreme circumstances.

Ellimist_Entreri

Raideen wrote: »

Not entirely. There was a "nord arch" on the west side of the property that is not viewable from the map. There were also two entire dwemer/dwarven buildings on the opposite side that again can not be seen by the player. There is also all the rocks that are placed through the property, the bottoms of which are put into memory. It would be better to create all of them with open backs much like the plum (I think they are plums) food provisioning asset.

For this, you may not see them walking around at ground level, that doesn't mean someone who builds a stairway or tower in the available exterior of the home would be unable to do so as well. Those details are what give each house character, instead of just being a literal box to build in with no background...

Raideen wrote: »

Yes and there is a fair amount of unseen polygons being loaded into memory that the player will never see. The homes are made by cobbling assets together without modifying them to improve performance.

This is standard kitbashing and is common practice in the gaming industry regardless of engine used. Believe me when I say the memory it would take for 30 variants of the same rock cut to different points (each likely with their own unique textures and subsequently materials that would have to be loaded as well) as you suggested would be far worse than having 1 rock rotated and placed at different angles/depths into the ground.

Raideen wrote: »

And that is my point. The more assets placed in a home, the more that need to be transmitted and loaded into memory of the visitor. All of those unseen polygons throughout the rest of the map would allow for more furnishing assets to be loaded, maybe not a ton, but definitely more.

In the quote you are replying to with this, I may have been slightly unclear with my phrasing. The houses basic layout/housing items/rocks/trees/structures/landscape (basically anything the player is unable to alter in the home) are never transmitted outside of you initially downloading the game. When you enter the house those items are loaded into memory from .dat files already on your hard drive that tell the game what the home should look like. The only data transmission that occurs is the server telling your game client which user placed items (likely via item-ID) to place at what x,y,z coordinates in the worldspace once it has been loaded into memory.

Back to the actual topic - while these things you speak of do contribute to the memory load for a home they are factored in prior to the housing item limits. The reasons for the limits have been discussed in another thread linked above. Additional limits per area would only hinder user creativity and build potential.

Bucky_13

Yeah that's why I generally don't buy them, only the alfiq one. Doubt I'll buy more unless they increase the amount we can place in our houses, prefer the pets since they're cuter and are cheaper to obtain anyway.

Raideen

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

For this, you may not see them walking around at ground level, that doesn't mean someone who builds a stairway or tower in the available exterior of the home would be unable to do so as well. Those details are what give each house character, instead of just being a literal box to build in with no background...

You can not see the Nord arch when at max height. You can BARELY see the two tops of the dwemer buildings which look like rocks in the distance. Nothing about them creates atmosphere and I would argue that the poly cost is unnecessary for the lack of impact they have on the player, again because as I initially stated, you cant see them....

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

This is standard kitbashing and is common practice in the gaming industry regardless of engine used. Believe me when I say the memory it would take for 30 variants of the same rock cut to different points (each likely with their own unique textures and subsequently materials that would have to be loaded as well) as you suggested would be far worse than having 1 rock rotated and placed at different angles/depths into the ground.

Interesting...because I did not see a lot of that in WOW. I fact glitching in wow you often dont see objects rendered. But perhaps this is in part why that game runs smoother with a larger non instanced world. And you are right, there is no question that 1 rock rendered 100 times is less taxing on the system than 100 different rocks. But then that should apply to players as well. Using the same furnishing item over and over should "cost less", therefore allow for more instances of that furniture item.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

In the quote you are replying to with this, I may have been slightly unclear with my phrasing. The houses basic layout/housing items/rocks/trees/structures/landscape (basically anything the player is unable to alter in the home) are never transmitted outside of you initially downloading the game. When you enter the house those items are loaded into memory from .dat files already on your hard drive that tell the game what the home should look like. The only data transmission that occurs is the server telling your game client which user placed items (likely via item-ID) to place at what x,y,z coordinates in the worldspace once it has been loaded into memory.

Ohh no, my reply was specifically to what you just talked about. I understand the base game files are already on the system, the only data transmitted is the furnishing items placed in a house because obviously what I do on my client is not going to be seen by another client machine until the data is uploaded.

and that being said. I was able to place more furniture items, in fact over double than we can do in ESO, on a 2012 average PC in a voxel game that allowed for dual contouring (or there version of it at least) and maintained good performance.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

Back to the actual topic -

My entire post is on topic, as it is all related. There are no reasons why each additional purchased house guest can not come with its own slot that is added to the overall slot of the NPC list. No ones machine is going to break by adding additional house guests.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

while these things you speak of do contribute to the memory load for a home they are factored in prior to the housing item limits.

Except if you take 200 lights and plant them in the doorway of snug pod, you WILL affect another players machine which goes against ZOS reason for "housing limits".

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

The reasons for the limits have been discussed in another thread linked above. Additional limits per area would only hinder user creativity and build potential.

I am not suggesting that we have more housing limits that limit creativity (which itself can be argued because in the case of Still Waters if 700 slots works inside with no issues, than instancing the outside with an additional 700 slots would in fact INCREASE player creativity, by a LARGE margin), what I am trying to decipher is why the official excuse does not add up in game.

As they say, actions speak louder than words.

Ellimist_Entreri

Raideen wrote: »

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

For this, you may not see them walking around at ground level, that doesn't mean someone who builds a stairway or tower in the available exterior of the home would be unable to do so as well. Those details are what give each house character, instead of just being a literal box to build in with no background...

You can not see the Nord arch when at max height. You can BARELY see the two tops of the dwemer buildings which look like rocks in the distance. Nothing about them creates atmosphere and I would argue that the poly cost is unnecessary for the lack of impact they have on the player, again because as I initially stated, you cant see them....

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

This is standard kitbashing and is common practice in the gaming industry regardless of engine used. Believe me when I say the memory it would take for 30 variants of the same rock cut to different points (each likely with their own unique textures and subsequently materials that would have to be loaded as well) as you suggested would be far worse than having 1 rock rotated and placed at different angles/depths into the ground.

Interesting...because I did not see a lot of that in WOW. I fact glitching in wow you often dont see objects rendered. But perhaps this is in part why that game runs smoother with a larger non instanced world. And you are right, there is no question that 1 rock rendered 100 times is less taxing on the system than 100 different rocks. But then that should apply to players as well. Using the same furnishing item over and over should "cost less", therefore allow for more instances of that furniture item.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

In the quote you are replying to with this, I may have been slightly unclear with my phrasing. The houses basic layout/housing items/rocks/trees/structures/landscape (basically anything the player is unable to alter in the home) are never transmitted outside of you initially downloading the game. When you enter the house those items are loaded into memory from .dat files already on your hard drive that tell the game what the home should look like. The only data transmission that occurs is the server telling your game client which user placed items (likely via item-ID) to place at what x,y,z coordinates in the worldspace once it has been loaded into memory.

Ohh no, my reply was specifically to what you just talked about. I understand the base game files are already on the system, the only data transmitted is the furnishing items placed in a house because obviously what I do on my client is not going to be seen by another client machine until the data is uploaded.

and that being said. I was able to place more furniture items, in fact over double than we can do in ESO, on a 2012 average PC in a voxel game that allowed for dual contouring (or there version of it at least) and maintained good performance.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

Back to the actual topic -

My entire post is on topic, as it is all related. There are no reasons why each additional purchased house guest can not come with its own slot that is added to the overall slot of the NPC list. No ones machine is going to break by adding additional house guests.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

while these things you speak of do contribute to the memory load for a home they are factored in prior to the housing item limits.

Except if you take 200 lights and plant them in the doorway of snug pod, you WILL affect another players machine which goes against ZOS reason for "housing limits".

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

The reasons for the limits have been discussed in another thread linked above. Additional limits per area would only hinder user creativity and build potential.

I am not suggesting that we have more housing limits that limit creativity (which itself can be argued because in the case of Still Waters if 700 slots works inside with no issues, than instancing the outside with an additional 700 slots would in fact INCREASE player creativity, by a LARGE margin), what I am trying to decipher is why the official excuse does not add up in game.

As they say, actions speak louder than words.

I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics with you about unrelated details while this thread gets derailed. Much of what you are talking about has nothing to do with the furnishing limits let alone the special collectible limit - If you want to make a thread to discuss how much more performant houses could be if the devs didn't waste resources making backgrounds that may or may not be seen depending on how players choose to build by all means do so.

Also, I was directly replying to the portions of text I quoted with what I said, so quoting me and then reiterating something you previously said I didn't respond directly to makes no sense.

This thread as stated by OP is about house-guests, the slots they take, and the impact the slot limit has on users opinions with regards to those aspects and potential purchases.

Raideen

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

Raideen wrote: »

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

For this, you may not see them walking around at ground level, that doesn't mean someone who builds a stairway or tower in the available exterior of the home would be unable to do so as well. Those details are what give each house character, instead of just being a literal box to build in with no background...

You can not see the Nord arch when at max height. You can BARELY see the two tops of the dwemer buildings which look like rocks in the distance. Nothing about them creates atmosphere and I would argue that the poly cost is unnecessary for the lack of impact they have on the player, again because as I initially stated, you cant see them....

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

This is standard kitbashing and is common practice in the gaming industry regardless of engine used. Believe me when I say the memory it would take for 30 variants of the same rock cut to different points (each likely with their own unique textures and subsequently materials that would have to be loaded as well) as you suggested would be far worse than having 1 rock rotated and placed at different angles/depths into the ground.

Interesting...because I did not see a lot of that in WOW. I fact glitching in wow you often dont see objects rendered. But perhaps this is in part why that game runs smoother with a larger non instanced world. And you are right, there is no question that 1 rock rendered 100 times is less taxing on the system than 100 different rocks. But then that should apply to players as well. Using the same furnishing item over and over should "cost less", therefore allow for more instances of that furniture item.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

In the quote you are replying to with this, I may have been slightly unclear with my phrasing. The houses basic layout/housing items/rocks/trees/structures/landscape (basically anything the player is unable to alter in the home) are never transmitted outside of you initially downloading the game. When you enter the house those items are loaded into memory from .dat files already on your hard drive that tell the game what the home should look like. The only data transmission that occurs is the server telling your game client which user placed items (likely via item-ID) to place at what x,y,z coordinates in the worldspace once it has been loaded into memory.

Ohh no, my reply was specifically to what you just talked about. I understand the base game files are already on the system, the only data transmitted is the furnishing items placed in a house because obviously what I do on my client is not going to be seen by another client machine until the data is uploaded.

and that being said. I was able to place more furniture items, in fact over double than we can do in ESO, on a 2012 average PC in a voxel game that allowed for dual contouring (or there version of it at least) and maintained good performance.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

Back to the actual topic -

My entire post is on topic, as it is all related. There are no reasons why each additional purchased house guest can not come with its own slot that is added to the overall slot of the NPC list. No ones machine is going to break by adding additional house guests.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

while these things you speak of do contribute to the memory load for a home they are factored in prior to the housing item limits.

Except if you take 200 lights and plant them in the doorway of snug pod, you WILL affect another players machine which goes against ZOS reason for "housing limits".

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

The reasons for the limits have been discussed in another thread linked above. Additional limits per area would only hinder user creativity and build potential.

I am not suggesting that we have more housing limits that limit creativity (which itself can be argued because in the case of Still Waters if 700 slots works inside with no issues, than instancing the outside with an additional 700 slots would in fact INCREASE player creativity, by a LARGE margin), what I am trying to decipher is why the official excuse does not add up in game.

As they say, actions speak louder than words.

I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics with you about unrelated details while this thread gets derailed. Much of what you are talking about has nothing to do with the furnishing limits let alone the special collectible limit - If you want to make a thread to discuss how much more performant houses could be if the devs didn't waste resources making backgrounds that may or may not be seen depending on how players choose to build by all means do so.

But they are not unrelated. Additional house slots are tied to housing and their limits are they not? I mean they are directly related. Our conversation may have segued into other avenues of housing in regards to limits, but at the end of the day we are talking about increasing limits and in that regard, the regard of the op, I am 100% on topic.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

Also, I was directly replying to the quoted portions of text with what I said, so quoting me and then reiterating something you previously said I didn't respond directly too makes no sense.

Because your reply was based on a false assumption, I simply corrected that.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

This thread as stated by OP is about house-guests, the slots they take, and the impact the slot limit has on users opinions with regards to those aspects and potential purposes.

And I am discussing house limits and how they can be increased because in the small amounts we are talking, it's not going to affect anyone's computers or their performance, not in any negatively meaningful way.

SerasWhip

Vlad9425 wrote: »

Cap should be 20 tbh. Also the excuse that adding more furniture slots will impact performance isn’t really relevant since performance is already abysmal.

it should be 20 without ESO plus

FeedbackOnly

It's not reasonable that pets, houseguests and assistants are tied to one category. Time to at least separate them.

Jim_Pipp

I know it's not charitable, but just increase the cap on PC... If you can't do it for old consoles that's sad, but you absolutely can increase the cap on PC, and you should because the cap feels too low.

SerafinaWaterstar

It may not just be consoles but older pcs too.

There could be a solution of sorts, which is to make the inside & outside of the houses different instances with their own item limit.

But then you would get people whinging about load times going in and out of the buildings.😐

AcadianPaladin

I had what I thought was a great idea when I got decon assistant. Small house near a wayshrine, banker, merchant, decon = full service quick stop. I was disappointed to realize that you can only put 2 assistants in the small houses. *sad panda*

Alinhbo_Tyaka

I see we have a new necromancer in the group.

NettleCarrier

Necro or not, it's still a valid complaint. When houseguests released I was very happy about them, wanting to make my guild hall more "lively". Unfortunately it was short-lived as once I had Banker, Merchant, Smuggler, and now Decon Assistant and Armory (yes I realize the last two could be replaced with furniture), that leaves me 5 spaces to pick among the 10+ houseguests, 80+ mounts, and 160+ non-combat pets. They will not sell me another house guest as it stands, as much as I might want one.

Arunei

Special furnishing are, from what I understand, ones that have some sort of effect to them that make them have more of a performance drain. While I can see that with certain things like a number of Radiant Apex Mounts, I'm having a much harder time understanding why Houseguests and "normal" Pets and Mounts are in that category. There are normal furnishing that likely have a bigger performance impact and we can have up to 700 of those in the larger Houses and with ESO+.

NettleCarrier

Arunei wrote: »

Special furnishing are, from what I understand, ones that have some sort of effect to them that make them have more of a performance drain. While I can see that with certain things like a number of Radiant Apex Mounts, I'm having a much harder time understanding why Houseguests and "normal" Pets and Mounts are in that category. There are normal furnishing that likely have a bigger performance impact and we can have up to 700 of those in the larger Houses and with ESO+.

Yep, I complained about this exact thing the other day. A giant fire breathing dragon statue counts the same as an extra fork on the table. Makes no sense! Lol. Every furniture should just have a "value" to them that counts towards a cap of some sort, so if you want 25 houseguests in the house you can, but you do so at the cost of all your furniture slots.

Jaimeh

That's the reason I stopped getting house guests, there's no point since we can't display all of them, and have to make decisions between them and the mounts/pets/assistants. It would be better if they treated them as a separate category (with its own limit--it still would be more than what we have) or even like traditional furnishings so they would count as normal slots.

ZOS_Hadeostry

Greetings,

We've closed this thread given its age and given that some information may be out of date. If you wish to continue discussing this topic please create a new thread. Thank you for your understanding.