House item limit is way to low.

SydneyGrey

Remathilis wrote: »

I just want the houseguest limit to raise. You can't create the illusion of a bar/market/public space with only 10 houseguests (and that includes pets, mounts, and assistants). Everything looks vacant.

Same here. They can keep the normal furnishing limit where it is, but I want more houseguests/pets in each home. No point in buying more houseguests if there's no room to place them in the houses.

furiouslog

NoTimeToWait wrote: »

This is a good post. But this doesn't change the fact that most houses are too large to be properly filled with the current item limit.

Additionally, while ZOS's (possible) adherence to their minimum requirements is commendable, it's not like PC or console will explode if FPS gets lower in some houses. ZOS could make the limit higher, while also adding a visible warning when you go above a threshold (say, 1200 items is the limit and 700 items is the treshold), so that the owner and visitors would know that the game performance may decline.

It would be acceptable, because a lot of houses don't involve much action and don't require stable high framerates.

As previously discussed in this thread, the minimum specs are a legal matter - the game has to work as expected, which means it needs to hit 30 fps. Yes, PC's won't literally explode, but they can lock up. ZOS also places limitations and design features in game as anti-griefing measures. Someone with ill intentions could make a house available with max animations and items in it, and then open their house up, deliberately trying to make potato PC owners crash when they enter. ZOS can't have a situation like that.

Also, as previously discussed, ZOS is legally required to have a fully functional game at the stated minimum specifications, so anything that undermined that functionality has to be mitigated.

Finally, the owner of the card that was posting his benchmark results for poly count for the 960 reported that it was a tipping point, meaning that once it went past a certain count, it dropped sharply from 60 fps to 2 fps, so it might not be a matter of declining performance, but a complete loss of performance, which then goes back to ZOS's legal obligations.

The best and most accommodating solution I've seen in this thread is to categorize furnishings and assets on the basis of their technical overhead budget, which would allow home designers to reach the true technical limitations rather than an approximation based on simplistic counts, but that limitation can't be messed with. It's a hard line in the sand due to ZOS's legal obligations to their paying customers.

Any other ideas?

SerafinaWaterstar

Or perhaps have different instances for inside & outside? I would not mind a short wait if it meant I could have 700 items outside & 700 inside.

Scaletho

Dragonnord wrote: »

ZOS explained in the past, on several occasions, here in the forums and also on live streams and interviews, that the space limit can't be increased because it would lead to serious performance issues inside the houses.
 
It'd be kind of long to explain here, but you may want to do a search and find out exact explanation and details from ZOS.

Also, there are several other threads in this forum regarding the same matter.
 
 

At least small or medium houses could have some increase of items without any risk of performance problems.

spartaxoxo

furiouslog wrote: »

Any other ideas?

They need to make more cheap and easy to get furniture that allows people to condense multiple furnishings into 1 furnishings.

For example, large structures that make it so you don't need walls and ceilings to make an addition like the Greenhouse. Tables and shelves that already have food, library items, or knick knacks on/in them. Etc etc

These items are few and expensive, limiting their usefulness in savings slots.

Edit: Also hard to get e.g. the greenhouse is only available one weekend a year.

vsrs_au

SerafinaWaterstar wrote: »

Or perhaps have different instances for inside & outside? I would not mind a short wait if it meant I could have 700 items outside & 700 inside.

I thought they were separate instances already, because we have loading screens whenever using doors between the house(s) and the courtyard(s).

Paramedicus

low furnishing limit is the reason i dont bother with big houses

spartaxoxo

vsrs_au wrote: »

SerafinaWaterstar wrote: »

Or perhaps have different instances for inside & outside? I would not mind a short wait if it meant I could have 700 items outside & 700 inside.

I thought they were separate instances already, because we have loading screens whenever using doors between the house(s) and the courtyard(s).

They're the same. You can use the retrieve function to grab items between the two, unlike grabbing items between two different houses. You can also use this to path a companion between the two. I think the loading screen is because they move you to a very different elevation. But that's just my best guess based off how the companions/retrieval functions work.

NoTimeToWait

furiouslog wrote: »

NoTimeToWait wrote: »

This is a good post. But this doesn't change the fact that most houses are too large to be properly filled with the current item limit.

Additionally, while ZOS's (possible) adherence to their minimum requirements is commendable, it's not like PC or console will explode if FPS gets lower in some houses. ZOS could make the limit higher, while also adding a visible warning when you go above a threshold (say, 1200 items is the limit and 700 items is the treshold), so that the owner and visitors would know that the game performance may decline.

It would be acceptable, because a lot of houses don't involve much action and don't require stable high framerates.

Also, as previously discussed, ZOS is legally required to have a fully functional game at the stated minimum specifications, so anything that undermined that functionality has to be mitigated.

First time I hear that a game developer is legally required to meet minimum specifications. It would be insane to require that, because the variety of hardware (and software too, namely drivers and systems to run on) is such, that it is impossible to guarantee that the game will run on a capable machine (again, driver issues is always a possibility).

That would also put indie devs into a tight spot, because they don't have resources to allocate for extensive performance optimization

Sakiri

furiouslog wrote: »

NoTimeToWait wrote: »

This is a good post. But this doesn't change the fact that most houses are too large to be properly filled with the current item limit.

Additionally, while ZOS's (possible) adherence to their minimum requirements is commendable, it's not like PC or console will explode if FPS gets lower in some houses. ZOS could make the limit higher, while also adding a visible warning when you go above a threshold (say, 1200 items is the limit and 700 items is the treshold), so that the owner and visitors would know that the game performance may decline.

It would be acceptable, because a lot of houses don't involve much action and don't require stable high framerates.

As previously discussed in this thread, the minimum specs are a legal matter - the game has to work as expected, which means it needs to hit 30 fps. Yes, PC's won't literally explode, but they can lock up. ZOS also places limitations and design features in game as anti-griefing measures. Someone with ill intentions could make a house available with max animations and items in it, and then open their house up, deliberately trying to make potato PC owners crash when they enter. ZOS can't have a situation like that.

Also, as previously discussed, ZOS is legally required to have a fully functional game at the stated minimum specifications, so anything that undermined that functionality has to be mitigated.

Finally, the owner of the card that was posting his benchmark results for poly count for the 960 reported that it was a tipping point, meaning that once it went past a certain count, it dropped sharply from 60 fps to 2 fps, so it might not be a matter of declining performance, but a complete loss of performance, which then goes back to ZOS's legal obligations.

The best and most accommodating solution I've seen in this thread is to categorize furnishings and assets on the basis of their technical overhead budget, which would allow home designers to reach the true technical limitations rather than an approximation based on simplistic counts, but that limitation can't be messed with. It's a hard line in the sand due to ZOS's legal obligations to their paying customers.

Any other ideas?

They can change the system requirements without legal repurcussions.

If they couldn't, most software would have major, major issues, and every other MMO company would have been taken to court years ago.

And the min specs is NOT a 960. It's a 500 series. An 11 year old card.

Lags

LucyferLightbringer wrote: »

It is insane how little we can put in our houses, even the biggest ones with ESO+. Even in Star WARS Galaxies, a game from 2003 we could have placed up to 1200 items in houses. The ESO limits in current times are a joke. I suggest at least doubling them.

on my xbox account i have my main house with like 700 furnishings in it. When i try to load into the house on my old xbox the game crashes. hundreds of times ive tried it. I have not been able to enter my house that i paid hundreds of dollars for, for years, and zos doesnt care in the slightest. I bring this up because, the reason they dont add in more slots is because of people who play on older consoles. The fact that they still support older consoles leaves me speechless. Like i dont even know how to describe how big of a mistake i think this is for the game. So i guess ill say its a catastrophic mistake.

And it doesnt even help the people on these older consoles. Like i said, i cannot load into my house. And i asked zos to transfer 1 of my radiant apex mounts from my xbox account (which is basically useless to me now) to my PC account, because i can no longer even access my own house, or do many other things on xbox, and they told me to kick rocks. They simply dont care.

So basically we are left with this. Players on the old consoles can barely play as it is, and zos wont add more slots because it will only make it worse. The answer is to stop supporting older consoles, or just say screw it and add more slots anyway, but they wont. They have put themselves in a very bad situation because of console. And everyone gets screwed because of it.

ive been on pc for years now, but nothing has changed when it comes to my house on xbox.