We are currently investigating issues some players are having regarding logging into the European PC/Mac megaserver. We will update as new information becomes available.

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

Woefulmonkey
Woefulmonkey
✭✭✭
Zos has stated on more than one occasion that adding housing slots is a performance issue but many players will not believe them and some people even claim they are lying for some unknown reason.

I hesitate to even try to explain this because it will get technical and most will not read it. Additionally the people who don’t want to believe there is an issue are unlikely to be swayed by ‘any’ explanation since it is not what they ‘want’ to hear.

I understand the skepticism because games have come so far in the last 20 years they it seems like this kind of issue should be ‘solved’. However, in reality the root cause of this issue has been around for that entire time and no one has ‘solved’ it, they just found ways to work around it and benefited from ‘hardware’ improvements over time. However, the days of hardware doubling in performance every 3 years is long gone so things have been stagnant in this area for about 10 years now.

The ‘Explanation’:

This is going to be a bit of a long and winding road involving math but I will try to keep it is simple as possible.

Lets start by conceptualizing the ‘Game World’ as a ‘Turn Based Board Game’ where each ‘Round' is 1 ‘Frame’ based on the games ‘Fames Per Second’.

Then let’s examine a vary ‘naive’ view of how many object calculations ‘need’ to be performed to track the positions of all objects in a game world for each ‘frame’.

Based on our view of the ‘real’ world to know the positions of every object you must examine how each object in the world moves and how it interacts with every other object in the world because of that movement. That is because all objects are always ‘moving’ due to ‘gravity’ and even if 2 unique objects do not interact at all you need to verify they do not interact.

This leads us to a very bad number of required movement calculations N * (N -1) where N is the total number of objects in the world.

This calculations can be simplified to N squared – N which is what is known as a geometric progression that is very bad in terms of calculation growth.

If N is 5 the number of calculations required is 20

If N is 10 the number of calculations goes to 90

If N is 15 the number of calculations goes to 210

As you can see the number of calculations needed goes up much faster than the total number of object added.

If N is 700 the number of calculations goes to 489,300 which I guarantee not even the most powerful gaming computer could handle.

But games work, so how do they get around this issue?

Well they find ways to ‘cheat’ the math.

So, let’s start ‘cheating’.

We start by realizing that the ‘Game’ world is not a ‘Real’ world so we not bound by real world physics conditions like ‘gravity’.

Most objects in the game will ‘never’ move. So we can restate N as the number of ‘Moving’ objects M plus the number of ‘Collidable’ object C.

Then we can restate that original equation as M * (M + C - 1).

This can be simplified to M squared + M * C – M.
This may look ‘worse’ but M is a much smaller number than N so the number of calculations does not grow as fast as it did before.

That is good, but we still have a geometric progression algorithm which is still bad.

So, lets look at M.

M is now only the moving objects which are basically ‘Players’ P and ‘Other AI Controlled Objects’ A.

So M = P + A

Ok, so now lets ‘cheat’ some more. What if we could say that AI Controlled objects were not part of M but instead were part of C.

What does that mean?

Well, it turns out that if we manage AI movement at the ‘Server’ level and say AI objects always win any collision detection operation then the ‘Client’ machine can treat all AI controlled objects as if they were ‘stationary’ at least during each individual frame of movement.

Think of it this way. Imagine that the game is a ‘Turn Based’ table top game and all NPC’s get to move first in each round. Now when all ‘Players’ move the ‘Board’ is set so they know where all the NPCs are during this round and they are guaranteed not to ‘move’ again until the next round.

So M = P and C now becomes C + A

Ok so what does our formula look like now?

It would be P * (P + C + A -1)

Which can be simplified to P squred + ((C + A) * P) – P.

Again, this looks more complex but again P is an even smaller number than M so the number of calculations grows even slower than the last time. However, P squared still means we have a geometric progression.

Time to cheat again.

Ok so P is now just ‘Players’ right. Well what if we said every ‘Player’ managed their own world movement calculations and ‘Players’ could not ‘Collide’ with one another.

What does that mean?

Well think of it this way. Imaging you are the only ‘real’ player in your world and all other players were ‘ghosts’ you can see but cannot actually touch.

If we do that then P = 1.

So what happens to that equations now?

P squred + (C + A) * P – P becomes 1 squred + (C + A) * 1 – 1

That simplifies to C + A.

OMG the square is gone. We no longer have a geometric progression.

Problem solved!

Zos must be a bunch of liars after all… right?

Sorry, no…

It is great that we now have a linear progression for the ‘number’ of calculation required for each fame of movement. But that is just a count of how many unique ‘collision’ calculation need to be perform at each frame every time a player moves.

Those ‘calculation’ have a cost measured in milliseconds.

So here is the second half of the ‘object count’ problem.

To give you smooth movement in the game you really need to process at least 10 ‘moves’ per second or movement begins to feel jerky and unresponsive to the player.

That means you only have 100 milliseconds to process ‘ALL’ collision operation for each ‘move’ frame.

Imaging that turn based game again but now you have a timer and you have to move in a set time each round or you are penalized. However, before you can move you have to perform a calculation in your head for each object on the board. The more objects the less time you have for each calculation you need to make before you can move.

The time needed to perform all collision calculations is then (C + A) * t.

Now lets also simplify the calculation by saying C + A is just C.

So the calculation is now just C * t.

Lets say each ‘collision’ calculation takes 5 milliseconds (I am pretty sure they take longer than that even today).

Ok how many calculations can you perform in 100 milliseconds if t is 5 milliseconds?

C = 100 / 5 = 20

WTF!

So even if the time required to perform a collision operation is only 5 millisecond you can only process 20 objects for each frame of movement!

How the F can any game possibly function?


Well they use things like BSP trees and Occlusion operations to further reduce the size of C so you don’t perform calculations on ‘All’ objects in the game world but instead only perform them on a small sub set of objects near the player.

What does that mean?

Think of the table top game again. Now you have to move in a set time frame but instead of having to perform a calculation in your head of all objects on the board you just have to perform the calculations for the set of objects that are within say 3 squares of the object you are moving.

I am not going to describe the processes for deciding ‘which’ objects you ‘need’ to perform collision calculations on but know those processes also have a time cost that goes up as the number of total objects go up.

However, no matter what they do, they can’t escape the limit of how many objects that can effectively perform collision calculations on before hitting performance issues and that number is actually pretty small.

So they do everything they can to ‘avoid’ those calculations.

In the ‘Dev’ controlled game world they ensure objects are placed far enough apart that you are basically guaranteed that you will never have ‘too many’ objects close enough to a player that it causes significant performance issues.

However, in a ‘House’ players are placing the objects, which means they can do ‘bad’ things, like building a house out of bottles, that can cause serious issues with performance because they have place way too many small objects close enough to each other that the value of C goes way beyond 20 even after performing all ‘limiting’ operations.

If you still don’t believe this I suggest you try a test I have posted several times already.

NOTE: This test may cause your player to get ‘stuck’ in your house or if you perform the test too close to the entrance cause you to not be able to ‘enter’ your house.

1. ) From a test server acquire a large home capable of the deploying the max furniture count which I believe is 700 items the new ‘Coldharbor’ house would probably be good.
2. ) From the test server acquire 700 items based on the items types described at the beginning of the test notes. (Make sure all lights have been turned on)
3. ) Place all 700 items in a pile somewhere in the center close enough that they are not overlapping and you can see all objects.
4. ) Log out of your house, then log back in and note the ‘load time’
5. ) Now move around the object while trying to keep them all in your view window and note the ‘Frame Per Second’ you are getting. (I believe there are PC addons that will give you slash command to see the FPS)
6. ) Now move so you will collide with the object, jumping on top of them would be good the more objects you can hit at once the better. Again note your Frames Per Second.

NOTE: I have another thread in which I describe ways Zos CAN increase the slot count in some way, but I am not really a fan of the solutions described since they are not ‘fair’ and can lead to other issues customers would like even less than the current slot limits.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/418234/examples-of-how-zos-can-increase-house-furniture-slots#latest
Edited by Woefulmonkey on June 19, 2018 9:02PM
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @ak_pvp


    It is obvious you did not read the original post, but it was long an boring so I don't blame you.

    You are correct, the item cap on non subscribers is not a 'technical' limitation, it is a 'monetary' incentive to give subscriptions 'value'.


    When you say just give 'all' players the same slot limits, you are basically saying is that you want Zos to give you something for 'free' that all their existing subscribers have been 'paying' for and continue to 'pay' for.


    So for you the solution is easy. Pony up the 15$ a month for a subscription and double your slots.


    However, the 'slot count' issue is real even for non subscribers. If you don't believe it try the test I describe at the end of the post.


    I am willing to bet you will have problems even with 'half' the amount of items used if you use items that are actually collidible in the test.

    All you should really have to do is get about 100 items very close together so that you can collide with them all if you try to jump on them for you to start seeing performance issues.


    If you are on PC you should be able to create a account on the 'Test' server so you don't do anything to screw up your existing character or home and don't have to pay for the items used in the test.


    The real question is why is 700 that max limit they worry about going over instead of 20 items?


    To give you a smooth movement experience in game they need to perform 10 collision passes ever 1 second.

    That means they have to do 'All Required' collision calculations in 100 milliseconds or less before performance begins to be impacted.

    If it takes 5 milliseconds to do 1 calculations (which is being optimistic) then you can do collision calculations for 20 object in 100 milliseconds.


    However, things will still function to some degree even if it is poor performance if the they can finish the calculation in say under 3 seconds at which point they would basically push you away form cluster of objects that are screwing with your performance.


    That means if you have a cluster of say 600 objects close together they can still do something to get you out of trouble even if it has a impact on performance for a few seconds.

    I would expect you would see a sudden period of movement unresponsiveness and shuddering until you were ejected from the object cluster.

    You would still have problems at 400 items but not a severe as you would at 700 items.


    What 'Zos' banks on is that most customer are not going to do something like pile 700 candles in a big pile and then jump on them.


    However, they also know that 'some' customers are going to end up doing something like that or very similar and they don't want them to get into a state where performance is so bad their character either gets locked in or locked out of their home just because of how they happened to place items.
  • ak_pvp
    ak_pvp
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    @ak_pvp


    It is obvious you did not read the original post, but it was long an boring so I don't blame you.

    You are correct, the item cap on non subscribers is not a 'technical' limitation, it is a 'monetary' incentive to give subscriptions 'value'.


    When you say just give 'all' players the same slot limits, you are basically saying is that you want Zos to give you something for 'free' that all their existing subscribers have been 'paying' for and continue to 'pay' for.


    So for you the solution is easy. Pony up the 15$ a month for a subscription and double your slots.


    However, the 'slot count' issue is real even for non subscribers. If you don't believe it try the test I describe at the end of the post.


    I am willing to bet you will have problems even with 'half' the amount of items used if you use items that are actually collidible in the test.

    All you should really have to do is get about 100 items very close together so that you can collide with them all if you try to jump on them for you to start seeing performance issues.


    If you are on PC you should be able to create a account on the 'Test' server so you don't do anything to screw up your existing character or home and don't have to pay for the items used in the test.


    The real question is why is 700 that max limit they worry about going over instead of 20 items?


    To give you a smooth movement experience in game they need to perform 10 collision passes ever 1 second.

    That means they have to do 'All Required' collision calculations in 100 milliseconds or less before performance begins to be impacted.

    If it takes 5 milliseconds to do 1 calculations (which is being optimistic) then you can do collision calculations for 20 object in 100 milliseconds.


    However, things will still function to some degree even if it is poor performance if the they can finish the calculation in say under 3 seconds at which point they would basically push you away form cluster of objects that are screwing with your performance.


    That means if you have a cluster of say 600 objects close together they can still do something to get you out of trouble even if it has a impact on performance for a few seconds.

    I would expect you would see a sudden period of movement unresponsiveness and shuddering until you were ejected from the object cluster.

    You would still have problems at 400 items but not a severe as you would at 700 items.


    What 'Zos' banks on is that most customer are not going to do something like pile 700 candles in a big pile and then jump on them.


    However, they also know that 'some' customers are going to end up doing something like that or very similar and they don't want them to get into a state where performance is so bad their character either gets locked in or locked out of their home just because of how they happened to place items.

    I heard the technical part, and honestly its a very limited issue only if people do something stupid, which they should be able to do. Even if they get performance issues, doesn;t matter, you get booted from homes when you log.
    MagDK main. PC/EU @AK-ESO
    Best houseknight EU.
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @ak_pvp

    You are correct that the 'reality' of this issue occurring with 'normal' player behavior is probably pretty small as most players are not going to just pile up 700 objects in a small area of the map.

    Zos counts on that because even at 700 items, I guarantee you can cause performance issues today. Although I am also sure that Zos has examined an mitigated the effects that can occur even if you did place 700 items to close together.

    The question is how would you feel if you got 'locked' out of your home because you placed to many bushes to near the entrance?

    Object overload can lead to persistent game crashes. If you place to many objects at the 'entry point' of the home then it could end up persistently crashing any time to travel their. Making it inaccessible.

    What happens when a player allows their furniture to be moveable by other players and then some other malicious players purposely locks the original player out of their home just by placing items in this way?


    Are those things the rest of the community should just accept because a small subset are screaming for more slots rather than looking for an alternative solutions like having Zos provide better items that allow you to decorate using less slots to begin with?
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @MLGProPlayer

    I did not start this post to 'resolve' this issue.

    I concede that 'slot limits' are a real issue. Their are creative players out there that want to be 'more creative' an that is a 'good' goal for the game.

    I posted this to describe the difficulty of solving the issue not to discount the desires of people asking for more slots.

    That being said, 'Saying' that 'Most' players want this really means a 'Few' players you speak to also want this which is no more valid than an argument than when I said 'A Small Subset' of player want this.

    Neither of us have any proof of the actual number of players who want this or care about it. Even if either of us had actual statistics indicating player desires that does not magically make game resource limitations go away.

    I am a player, I have a house, and game breaking changes for something that has clear alternative that do not break the game are not acceptable to me nor should any player have to accept changes of that nature.

    You 'Think' that the issue is gradual in nature and you are wrong. Increasing slot counts in any 'meaningful' way or removing limits all together without other significant development changes can cause catastrophic game failures.

    Blaming those failures on 'stupid' users is a cop out and I don't believe for a second anyone who gets 'locked' out of the home they just paid 100$ for because they placed objects in an unexpected way is going to accept they just lost their home not care.

    The 'root' of this issue not even about 'slot limits' it is 'how to allow players to build more custom structures'.

    Increasing 'Slot Count' is not the 'only' solution to that issue, it is just the most 'obvious' solution and only if you don't understand or care about it's consequences.

    You don't want to believe this is a real performance issue not because you understand the issue and it's consequences but because you don't care about them, and that is only because you don't think they will affect you directly.
    Edited by Woefulmonkey on June 20, 2018 9:02AM
  • Ajaxandriel
    Ajaxandriel
    ✭✭✭✭
    Well, nice thread, I was starting to argue some ""obvious"" solutions but then I noticed your link and saw that you already got the job done :smiley:

    About the extent of the "issue"

    I think you're right when you estimate that "most players aren't crying for more slots", that's because most player haven't got a homestead yet, or have got a "innroom/small/medium" house that is furnishable "decently" within their limits. They are not concerned by the issue.
    Like if we speak about a very specific problem like PvP balancing and then saying "I don't understand, look, most players don't complain"
    Where @MLGProPlayer is right is that almost every player who does have bought a classical/notable house is upset, at certain degree, about the item cap


    About the ideas

    - Your interior/exterior separation thing is the point
    => I'm pretty sure this is what is infuriating the core part of the "item-cap-complainers": the notable houses are almost unfurnishable. Anybody who has bought the Serenity Falls knows this! Currently one have to chose: to furnish the manor interior and let the park as a desert, or to make a nice exterior and thus barricade the entrance of the ghost-manor...

    It's merely a design issue... As noticed, items that you put through a wall doesn't appear on the other side, and more blatantly the interior and exterior parts of the houses does not even match ! :lol:
    Besides, the devs are having questionable decisions like creating "the Colossal Aldmeri Grotto" with no interior at all....

    => Medium houses could benefit from this by adding doors - thus phasing - between some rooms, where there is an obvious threshold.


    - Diversify the items will be great too. People are looking for construction parts but most of them doesn't fit...
    => More diverse sizes for Floor parts, Wall parts, complete bookshelf, complete tableware, and so on


    - Another idea, is a bit like your solution with a segment grid of the places, but maybe without forbidding out-of-manor furnishing.

    Add a "stacking threshold for interwoven items"

    The editor will require not to stack furniture within a same "hitbox" space over a certain amount of items (let's say: 2), in order to let the player place his item.

    For example if one wants to place a "book" inside a "bookshelf" (inside the hitbox of it), then he can. If he is placing another book somewhere else within the shelf, he still can.
    But if he's trying to put a "flower" or "spoon" within the "book" hitbox that is already interwoven into the "shelf" hitbox, the stack threshold of 2 is exceeded, then the editor will display a red aura (right like when you try to place item near the entrance) and will prevent him from doing this.
    I must confess I don't know how far it's doable code-wise. The "hitbox" of each item must exist though, since the Character cannot pass through it, so the dev would just have to add the threshold system itself.
    This would limit the item amount locally a bit (and also avoid people doing ugly things anymore hahahaha *evil laugh*)

    TESO:Triskelion - forum RP, guilde francophone
    Dorguldun gro-Arash - orque sorcier 50
    Tahajmi - khajiit sorcière 50
    Artémidore de Corbeaulieu - bréton lame noire 50
    Altarya - haute-elfe templière 50
    Hjarnar - nordique sorcier 50
    Jendaya al-Gilane - rougegarde chevalier-dragon 50
    Zandoga - rougegarde chevalier-dragon 50
    Ajaxandriel - haut-elfe gardien 50
    Angelith - elfe des bois gardienne 50
    Sabbathnazar Ullikummi - elfe noir chevalier-dragon 50

  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @Ajaxandriel

    Just to be clear I am in no way saying that the 'slot count' issue is not a problem especially for people with the large and notable homes.

    All I am trying to do is give people an idea of why this is a difficult problem to solve.


    With regards to your 'interwoven' idea I was just thinking of something very similar. The problem there is that it requires the creation of a dynamic hit box to be calculated based on overlapping objects. Additionally there would be issues to resolve if you had a lot of object that were overlaped then you moved them apart again. Basically lets say you are at your cap of 700 items and you have 20 items that are 'interwoven' what happens when you move one object out of the 'interwoven' set that would cause your item count to go to 701.

    Making that work with existing objects would be costly and add complexity to the existing design.


    However, their is a 'in-between' solution that could also work.


    Lets say you could place a 'invisible hitbox container' where any objects that overlap that hit box were made 'non-collidable' and then removed from your 'item counter'.

    What does that mean?

    Think of it as a big invisible box that counts a 1 furniture item. You could not see the box but you could collide with it similar to home boundary walls.

    Then any objects you place inside that 'box' doesn't need to be part of the collision set because they are already 'inside' an existing collideable object.

    Once an object is placed 'inside' that box, it would then not be able to be 'moved' outside of the box although they could be removed from the environment if needed.

    Additionally if the user removes the 'box' all objects inside the box would also be removed from the environment.


    This then allow you to combine a large set of small individual objects and have them treated as one large compound object.

    This would be good for making customs walls and structures but it would also be good for things like tables with completely custom place settings.

    This requires the ability to mark objects as 'not' collideable and remove them from the slot counter and the new 'box' would have to be able to track the objects inside of it, but it would be doable without changing existing collision logic significantly and it would not create new performance issues as a result.

    The biggest hurdle would be in defining the 'box'. Ideally they would give you a new UI that allowed you to define the boxes dimensions so you ensure the 'box' fits the area needed.

    However adding UI can be expensive in terms of development and testing design.

    Alternatively they could give you several 'predefined boxes' that would still work but would be less customizable.


    One other consequence would be that players could create 'invisible walls' in their house. I can't think of an 'exploit' for that off the top of my head but I suspect it could lead to some players making 'traps' in their house for visitors, but I think that is a small annoyance not a real risk.

    A solution like that might actually improve over all performance or at least move any performance issue for 'collision' issue to 'rendering' issues, and 'rendering' has way more tricks up it's sleeve for dealing with triangle pushing.
    Edited by Woefulmonkey on June 20, 2018 6:05PM
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @MLGProPlayer

    Are you saying this is not a problem or that you just don't care about the problem or something else entirely?

    Actually I don't care. This really just seems like a 'Toll' post so I am done responding to it.

    If you don't want to believe their is a problem or don't care about the problem, nothing I am going to say is going to change your mind and I am not wasting any further effort engaging with you.

    If you feel it is productive to just scream 'give me more slots and F everyone who does not like it', that is you right.

    I prefer to examine the issue and try to discover feasible solutions to the real underlying problem that don't compromise the games performance or system integrity.
    Edited by Woefulmonkey on June 20, 2018 6:33PM
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @Ajaxandriel

    One quick note. I believe 'The Colossal Aldmeri Grotto' does have an interior.


    If I remember correctly the 'ship' you arrive on as the entrance has a hold and cabin areas that are 'interiors'.


    However, it certainly has a ton of 'exterior' area that would be hard to fill form one end to the other with only 700 items.
  • Luciferazazell
    Luciferazazell
    ✭✭✭
    I own a few homes notable homes and i cant speak for everyone that has a home but to me 700 sounds like alot but its not enough even if they raised it from 700 to 1000 it would make a world of difference
    Edited by Luciferazazell on June 20, 2018 7:16PM
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @Luciferazazell

    Just to be clear, I am not discounting the issue with populating a large home, nor am I discounting the desires of creative users to build completely custom structures.


    I am just describing the technical difficulty involved in just increasing the slot item limit.

    Can they just arbitrarily increase the item slots?

    Sure, but it would almost certainly increase the risk of catastrophic game failures for users, and 'someone' would eventually to hit that issue I guarantee it.

    Can the slot item limit be increased in some way that is 'safe'?

    Probably, but it is not 'easy' and their are trade offs for different viable solutions.

    (In another thread mentioned at the bottom of the main discussion segment I provide links to other threads where I describe possible ways to increase the slot count in some meaningful way)

    However, saying 'We Need More Item Slots' is not actually are description of a problem, it is a demand for implementing a specific solution to the 'real' problem.

    The best thing to do is discuss the 'real' problem so the developers can devise a 'safe' solution based on their expert knowledge of the actual games design.

    So... What are the 'real' problems.

    1. ) Some homes are so large that even when populated with 700 items they still look very 'sparse'.
    2. ) For homes with large interior and exterior areas you have to choose between fully decorating one area a then just blocking off the other area.
    3. ) Some users want to create complete custom structures but the items provided require them to waste hundreds of slots just to build a wall or a doorway.
    4. ) Making your house looked lived in by placing food and drinks on table tops and counters or books knickknacks on shelves forces the user to waste dozens to hundreds of slots on very small focus areas.


    Their are definitely ways to address those problems that would not require any changes to existing item slot limits.
    Edited by Woefulmonkey on June 20, 2018 8:30PM
  • ixie
    ixie
    ✭✭✭✭
    If they increase the amount of slots available would they be putting people's hardware at risk? I ask because when the lighting patch first came out I was in an area where there were a ton of people casting aoe skills, it fried my gpu and motherboard.
    PC EU

    Xelwen - Bosmer Warden
    Ixie - Breton Nightblade
    Paints-With-Frogs - Argonian Nightblade
    Swee Troll - Crafter Dragonknight
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @ixie

    I don't want to claim I am an expert in hardware by any means, but I seriously doubt it would kill hardware and almost certainly not the GPU.


    Unless things have changed a lot in the past 10 years or so, collision detection is usually done on the CPU since it a critical operations that has to be supported even on a min spec system where the graphic card that may not have a GPU.

    It would be more likely to run into a memory overrun issue which could 'blue screen' your system which is not good but also not likely to cause permanent damage.

    However what is more likely, would bet that it will encounter some kind of timeout condition in the code that will 'safely kill' the game without a blue screen.

    In the case where this causes a persistent issue near the entry point of your home, it could still mean you are 'locked out' of your house as you would not be able to load successfully before the timeout occurred but we are not talking about a fried mother board or cpu scenario.
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @Luciferazazell


    I could not say what 'actual' affect adding 100 or 200 more slots would have. Based on what I described above it would theoretically reduce frame calculations by 1 second for every 200 objects.

    So 20 objects would take 100 milliseconds to process, 200 would take 1 second, 1000 would take 5 seconds.

    5 second my not sound long, but think about what a movie would look like if it was running at 1 frame every 5 seconds. It would be a slide show not a movie.

    If your player were 'stuck' in an area causing that kind of performance your controls would basically be unusable.

    The game almost certainly has timeouts that will kick you if an issue like this persists since the game play is degraded to an unusable state.

    All that being said, what I am referring to is increasing the slot count in a 'significant' way by doubling or tripling the slots 2000 or 3000 slots which is what I think people actually want.

    And the odds of the average player placing objects so close together they encounter the 'worst case' scenario is very small. What is more likely is that they will place 50 to 100 objects to close together an experience lag like stuttering which is totally possible with todays limits.


    However the more slots they allow the more likely it is that a player will place objects too close together and the 'possible' worst case becomes significantly worse.


    Dev's don't plan for just the 'best case' or even the 'average case' scenarios, they have to plan and adapt for the 'worst case' scenarios to avoid 'catastrophic' failures.

    I believe 'Consoles' have deployment requirements that include statements from the publisher that they are not knowingly deploying code that can result in 'catastrophic' game failures based on standard user actions. That is because 'Consoles' want to ensure a quality level for all games they support.

    Edited by Woefulmonkey on June 20, 2018 10:18PM
  • G1Countdown
    G1Countdown
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    You are basing this on the assumption that ZOS cannot afford to increase the housing slots what so ever - that any increase will be catastrophic.

    I believe that assumption is false. Incorrect. Wrong.

    These increases do not need to be gigantic. I don't believe we're at cap for server performance. They left a wider than wide margin of error. Eat 5% of that margin. Give us 5 slots for small inn rooms and up to 25 slots for the larger homes. We all want 100s of more slots. I can see where that would put undo strain on the servers and in some cases the consoles/PCs. Start small. Use that over abundance of room in that margin of error they have.
    Edited by G1Countdown on June 20, 2018 11:33PM
  • Woefulmonkey
    Woefulmonkey
    ✭✭✭
    @G1Countdown

    Again, no I am not saying they can't increase the slot limit at all. I am saying that doubling it or more is not a simple thing to do.

    Would you care if they increase the limit by 10 objects how about 50 or even 100?

    (Some people might be appeased by a very small increase of say 5% but I don't think most will and as soon as they get that 5% they will want 5% more and always us the same argument to justify continual small increases over time.)

    They 'already' allow you to place objects in such a way that it can cause trouble...

    because the performance issue are related to the 'number' of object that you can 'collide' with in one movement frame not the total of number of objects on the map and the Hardware limitations are 'YOUR' Hardware not Zos's Hardware because collision detection is happening on the client side..

    You don't have to take my word for it, just run the test I described (At your own risk).

    Why does any 'limit' exist then? (The 'We are already screwed so who cares!' argument)

    Because Zos has tested performance with cases involving the current limit and has processes in place to 'protect' you from catastrophic failures even if you exceed tolerances for normal object proximity.

    Increasing the 'limit' of object you can place is not going to instantly cause failures, it just provides more opportunities for users exceeding tolerances and allows for conditions that can lead to catastrophic failures that Zos has not anticipated or have code to mitigate in place.

    Additionally, saying 'We Need More Item Slots' is not actually are description of a problem, it is a demand for implementing a specific solution to the 'real' problem.

    The best thing to do is discuss the 'real' problem so the developers can devise a 'safe' solution based on their expert knowledge of the actual games design.

    So... What are the 'real' problems.

    1. ) Some homes are so large that even when populated with 700 items they still look very 'sparse'.
    2. ) For homes with large interior and exterior areas you have to choose between fully decorating one area a then just blocking off the other area.
    3. ) Some users want to create complete custom structures but the items provided require them to waste hundreds of slots just to build a wall or a doorway.
    4. ) Making your house looked lived in by placing food and drinks on table tops and counters or books knickknacks on shelves forces the user to waste dozens to hundreds of slots on very small focus areas.

    AND based on the idea that small homes also have issues

    5. ) In a small home the limits are so low that you can't give your house a 'custom' appearance.


    Their are definitely ways to address those problems that would not require any changes to existing item slot limits.

    Edited by Woefulmonkey on June 21, 2018 10:54PM
  • TelvanniWizard
    TelvanniWizard
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    1. I wouldn´t make a big pile ob 700 items.
    2. It seems to me a problem for weak machines. Give the option of more slots to those who can stand it.
    3. I need more item slots to finish me home. Please! >:)
    Si hoc imprimis intellegis, nolli dubitare, scribe me ad latine loquendum. Lingua est colenda.

    PAWS - Say NO to crown crates!

  • TankinatorFR
    TankinatorFR
    ✭✭✭
    2. It seems to me a problem for weak machines. Give the option of more slots to those who can stand it.

    Not so easy, because if someone with a low-end computer decide to visit your home, it might became his problem...
    This is the major problem on PC.
    At some point, of course, they will drop support on these old materials (they have already done it in the past), solving the problem, but until there...

    This is the problem with PC, they range from "overpowered" to "underpowered", and ESO Devs, prefer to index themself on low-end rather than high-end. Not unusual for MMO.

    A solution could be to forbid access to theses homes to low-specs, but forbiding is a sore point.
  • TelvanniWizard
    TelvanniWizard
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    2. It seems to me a problem for weak machines. Give the option of more slots to those who can stand it.

    Not so easy, because if someone with a low-end computer decide to visit your home, it might became his problem...
    This is the major problem on PC.
    At some point, of course, they will drop support on these old materials (they have already done it in the past), solving the problem, but until there...

    This is the problem with PC, they range from "overpowered" to "underpowered", and ESO Devs, prefer to index themself on low-end rather than high-end. Not unusual for MMO.

    A solution could be to forbid access to theses homes to low-specs, but forbiding is a sore point.

    They could just give you a warning before you enter to a heavily cluttered home. Enter at your own peril!
    Si hoc imprimis intellegis, nolli dubitare, scribe me ad latine loquendum. Lingua est colenda.

    PAWS - Say NO to crown crates!

  • TankinatorFR
    TankinatorFR
    ✭✭✭
    If the problem is effectively on our side, not server, it would be the same as simply forbidding them to access (so still a sore point), except that they would be allowed to crash their game if they wish.

    Just look at how peoples react when a content is locked behind something they are not good enough to beat or don't have the free time to achieve.
    And we are just talking about the game itself.
    Now imagine locking content behind the acquisition of expensive gaming material in real life.
    That would be a whole new scale.

    The "good" news is that, at some point, they will probably up the minimal config, because a lot of online game do that. TESO itself already did it. So even if they can't solve the problem represented by low-end config, it might disappear at some point.
    Edited by TankinatorFR on June 22, 2018 12:10PM
  • hiyde
    hiyde
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I want more slots sooooo bad. We've had to gut the interior of our guild house in favor of all the craft tables and decoration on the outside.

    If random extra slots dropped in Crown Crates i'd turn into a CrateWhale in 0.1 seconds.

    But...
    they do need to provide a consistent experience for the lowest system requirements that the game currently supports.
    Opening up the limits and having the lower end machines crash or encounter serious issues would be a customer service nightmare.

    One idea I've heard mentioned, and I don't know how technically feasable this is:

    What about being able to combine many items into one?

    Let's say I make a brick wall out of 100 bricks. When I'm done, they could be "combined" or "flattened" into a single item, never to be deconstructed back to the original bricks.

    Or I make the perfect dining table feast..and then merge it into 1 item.

    Again, I'm not a programmer and don't know what's possible, just curious.

    The talk of separating inside & outside into separate instances also seemed interesting. Like having 2 different houses connect to each other via the doors.

    These gigantic properties are awesome but end up looking so sparse due to limits. :(

    I sure do hope they find a way. There's a lot of upside for ESO if they can.
    @Hiyde
    GM/Founder - Bleakrock Barter Co (Trade Guild - PC/NA) | Founder/Officer - Blackbriar Barter Co (Trade Guild-PC/NA)
Sign In or Register to comment.