MLGProPlayer wrote: »Besides, you frame rate wouldn't suddenly crash if you added over 700 items. It would drop slowly over time, as more and more items are added. I average 100+ FPS in my house. If you feel your FPS is getting uncomfortably low, you can stop adding furnishings. I'd be perfectly fine letting my 100+ FPS drop to 60 FPS with another 700 items.
Woefulmonkey wrote: »@Dragonnord
I would say you did not actually read the post or you would know we are not taking about a slight FPS drop.
The problem is not that if they double your item counts your FPS will drop a few frames per second.
What we are talking about is critical game failure cause persistent game crashes every time you try to load into your house, that can lock you out of your house due to bad object placement.
NOT TRUE - There are hundred of places around Tamriel, Summerset for example, where there are more than 700 items loading at the same time if you count buildings, lights, furniture, vendors, stands, items in stands, streets, grass, flowers, water, plants, birds, all the parts used to create just one building, building decoration, hidden lights, light effects, people running around, skills used, rapids, actions, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. and game DOES NOT persistently crash.
Same in trials or PvP for example, with zerg vs. zerg vs. zerg battling with hundreds of people, all using skills and actions, plus all the environment (grass, flowers, items, keeps, guards, flags, lights, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.) loading at the same time and the game DOES NOT persistently crash.
Also 'YOU' may not care about that but making that change does not just affect 'YOU' it effects 'EVERYONE' who owns a house.
IF IT AFFECTS them, then why putting more than 700 items in their houses if they see their computers cannot support it? Do you swim in deep water, even if the ocean is there and you can enter the water, if you don't know how to swim? Do you go to vet Asylum Sanctorium +2 if you are CP160 or your group stinks? If there are dumb players out there it's not ZOS fault.
So even if 'YOU' don't care that you 'could' do something bad that ends up making it so you can't enter the house you paid 100$ for, 'YOU" don't speak for 'EVERYONE'.
READ ABOVE - Houses are instanced. If other people don't want (or CAN'T) do it in their houses good for them. There are thousands and thousands of players that want and can bare more slots.
I for one would not be 'OK' with that result.
If you want to see what kind of 'issue' I am talking about here just try the test I specified earlier in the post. (At your own risk)
If you are on PC just start an account on the Test server and then place 700 candles very close together in a pile so you can collide with as many of them as possible if you were to jump on the pile. Make sure to turn them all on.
WHY IN THIS WORLD will someone put 700 candles very close together? There is really someone so stupid in this world? Why would anyone ever do something like that? It they do that, then they deserve to crash forever.
If you are able to even place the objects, the next step is you move you character on to the pile and start jumping on it.
Then log our and back into the house while standing on the pile.
If you are able to load back into the house in 2 seconds and have 60pfs the entire time then you are right Zos if full of crap and they can increase the slots in a significant way.
Now, this is not something the average player would do but here are 2 explicit examples that Zos does not want to happen.
1. ) A player paces too many shrubs to close to the entrance of their house and end up locking them selves out because they placed objects to many objects.
2. ) A malicious player who has a falling out with one of their fiends who gave them permission to place objects decides to purposely move 700 candles to the entrance of the house and locks another player out of their home.
AGAIN - If people are that dumb is not ZOS fault. There are many other stuff in the game that people can do to be banned and stuff is still there, however, 99% of players do not exploit it. You really want to lock a player/friend so then ZOS has to manually unlock him/her and then ban you for your extremely trolling action?
I know that 'YOU' don't care about those issues but Zos has to because, believe it or not, they did not make this game just for 'YOU'.
Dragonnord wrote: »Exactly this. It's my house, even instanced (so it DOES NOT affect the outer world performance), and so it should be my decision if I want to have lower fps or not.
Woefulmonkey wrote: »@MornaBaine
Let me just say first I can't say for sure how Zos handles housing I am just going by my knowledge of software development in general and my black box observation.
However, I am almost certain base my observations that houses are 'client' hosted.
Here is why Zos would have done that
1. ) Money would be the first reason. Not because they are cheap but because of the erratic nature of how houses instances need to be spun up for customer use. Thing like Dungeons are also instanced but likely instanced on Zos Virtual Machine hardware, because Zos can anticipate the average volume requirements for servicing Dudgeon instances and they have a queue system with wait times that ensures they don't run out of hardware. However, houses must be instanced immediately on request and their is no way to effectively know how much hardware would be need to support instance access for all users at all times. If they were to instance things on their end they would need a massive set of hardware that grows and shrinks with the number of users (active or inactive). But each user always has a client, and if they leverage the client they don't need to buy any hardware and they always have enough to support all user requests.
2. ) Service availability. I basically just explained this in the 'money' section. If Zos supplied the hardware it would be very difficult to ensure users could load houses instantly on demand. It would require Zos to have tones of idle hardware just waiting for users or that the introduce a dudgeon like queue system to ensure they did not run out of instances for user requests. By using client hardware they ensure you can always load your house since your hardware is always available.
There are more reasons to instance on client hardware for a service like this but these would have likely been the most compelling reasons.
Now, as for way you can't have more people in a larger house. Well that is because the network traffic issues don't change with the size of the house. What matters is bandwidth and the ability of the client to process the message and upload data. Upload speed is the real 'limiter' when the client is used as the 'server'. Real Game Servers are using T3 and above network backbone connections because they have to have massive upload speeds to communicate with literally millions of users. Your home connection likely has an upload speed of 5mbps or less. Which is normally more than enough of almost all home users needs, but it not nearly enough to be a gamer server host for 100 users in 3d game.
I actually wrote an post about the need for 'Guild Event' services a while back.
Guilds need the ability to host large events at time, and houses are not providing that ability.
So what I had suggested was basically isolating a 'town' on the actual game server then allowing guilds to 'schedule' times kind of like a chucky cheese party then only members of that guild would be allowed to access the town for a certain amount of time. This would allow guilds plan mass activities with hundreds of members because now they would be on the actual game server using Zos servers.
Woefulmonkey wrote: »@MornaBaine
Let me just say first I can't say for sure how Zos handles housing I am just going by my knowledge of software development in general and my black box observation.
However, I am almost certain base my observations that houses are 'client' hosted.
Here is why Zos would have done that
1. ) Money would be the first reason. Not because they are cheap but because of the erratic nature of how houses instances need to be spun up for customer use. Thing like Dungeons are also instanced but likely instanced on Zos Virtual Machine hardware, because Zos can anticipate the average volume requirements for servicing Dudgeon instances and they have a queue system with wait times that ensures they don't run out of hardware. However, houses must be instanced immediately on request and their is no way to effectively know how much hardware would be need to support instance access for all users at all times. If they were to instance things on their end they would need a massive set of hardware that grows and shrinks with the number of users (active or inactive). But each user always has a client, and if they leverage the client they don't need to buy any hardware and they always have enough to support all user requests.
2. ) Service availability. I basically just explained this in the 'money' section. If Zos supplied the hardware it would be very difficult to ensure users could load houses instantly on demand. It would require Zos to have tones of idle hardware just waiting for users or that the introduce a dudgeon like queue system to ensure they did not run out of instances for user requests. By using client hardware they ensure you can always load your house since your hardware is always available.
There are more reasons to instance on client hardware for a service like this but these would have likely been the most compelling reasons.
Now, as for way you can't have more people in a larger house. Well that is because the network traffic issues don't change with the size of the house. What matters is bandwidth and the ability of the client to process the message and upload data. Upload speed is the real 'limiter' when the client is used as the 'server'. Real Game Servers are using T3 and above network backbone connections because they have to have massive upload speeds to communicate with literally millions of users. Your home connection likely has an upload speed of 5mbps or less. Which is normally more than enough of almost all home users needs, but it not nearly enough to be a gamer server host for 100 users in 3d game.
I actually wrote an post about the need for 'Guild Event' services a while back.
Guilds need the ability to host large events at time, and houses are not providing that ability.
So what I had suggested was basically isolating a 'town' on the actual game server then allowing guilds to 'schedule' times kind of like a chucky cheese party then only members of that guild would be allowed to access the town for a certain amount of time. This would allow guilds plan mass activities with hundreds of members because now they would be on the actual game server using Zos servers.
Woefulmonkey wrote: »Removed,
I decided it is better not to engage with obvious tolls.
MornaBaine wrote: »Woefulmonkey wrote: »@MornaBaine
Let me just say first I can't say for sure how Zos handles housing I am just going by my knowledge of software development in general and my black box observation.
However, I am almost certain base my observations that houses are 'client' hosted.
Here is why Zos would have done that
1. ) Money would be the first reason. Not because they are cheap but because of the erratic nature of how houses instances need to be spun up for customer use. Thing like Dungeons are also instanced but likely instanced on Zos Virtual Machine hardware, because Zos can anticipate the average volume requirements for servicing Dudgeon instances and they have a queue system with wait times that ensures they don't run out of hardware. However, houses must be instanced immediately on request and their is no way to effectively know how much hardware would be need to support instance access for all users at all times. If they were to instance things on their end they would need a massive set of hardware that grows and shrinks with the number of users (active or inactive). But each user always has a client, and if they leverage the client they don't need to buy any hardware and they always have enough to support all user requests.
2. ) Service availability. I basically just explained this in the 'money' section. If Zos supplied the hardware it would be very difficult to ensure users could load houses instantly on demand. It would require Zos to have tones of idle hardware just waiting for users or that the introduce a dudgeon like queue system to ensure they did not run out of instances for user requests. By using client hardware they ensure you can always load your house since your hardware is always available.
There are more reasons to instance on client hardware for a service like this but these would have likely been the most compelling reasons.
Now, as for way you can't have more people in a larger house. Well that is because the network traffic issues don't change with the size of the house. What matters is bandwidth and the ability of the client to process the message and upload data. Upload speed is the real 'limiter' when the client is used as the 'server'. Real Game Servers are using T3 and above network backbone connections because they have to have massive upload speeds to communicate with literally millions of users. Your home connection likely has an upload speed of 5mbps or less. Which is normally more than enough of almost all home users needs, but it not nearly enough to be a gamer server host for 100 users in 3d game.
I actually wrote an post about the need for 'Guild Event' services a while back.
Guilds need the ability to host large events at time, and houses are not providing that ability.
So what I had suggested was basically isolating a 'town' on the actual game server then allowing guilds to 'schedule' times kind of like a chucky cheese party then only members of that guild would be allowed to access the town for a certain amount of time. This would allow guilds plan mass activities with hundreds of members because now they would be on the actual game server using Zos servers.Woefulmonkey wrote: »@MornaBaine
Let me just say first I can't say for sure how Zos handles housing I am just going by my knowledge of software development in general and my black box observation.
However, I am almost certain base my observations that houses are 'client' hosted.
Here is why Zos would have done that
1. ) Money would be the first reason. Not because they are cheap but because of the erratic nature of how houses instances need to be spun up for customer use. Thing like Dungeons are also instanced but likely instanced on Zos Virtual Machine hardware, because Zos can anticipate the average volume requirements for servicing Dudgeon instances and they have a queue system with wait times that ensures they don't run out of hardware. However, houses must be instanced immediately on request and their is no way to effectively know how much hardware would be need to support instance access for all users at all times. If they were to instance things on their end they would need a massive set of hardware that grows and shrinks with the number of users (active or inactive). But each user always has a client, and if they leverage the client they don't need to buy any hardware and they always have enough to support all user requests.
2. ) Service availability. I basically just explained this in the 'money' section. If Zos supplied the hardware it would be very difficult to ensure users could load houses instantly on demand. It would require Zos to have tones of idle hardware just waiting for users or that the introduce a dudgeon like queue system to ensure they did not run out of instances for user requests. By using client hardware they ensure you can always load your house since your hardware is always available.
There are more reasons to instance on client hardware for a service like this but these would have likely been the most compelling reasons.
Now, as for way you can't have more people in a larger house. Well that is because the network traffic issues don't change with the size of the house. What matters is bandwidth and the ability of the client to process the message and upload data. Upload speed is the real 'limiter' when the client is used as the 'server'. Real Game Servers are using T3 and above network backbone connections because they have to have massive upload speeds to communicate with literally millions of users. Your home connection likely has an upload speed of 5mbps or less. Which is normally more than enough of almost all home users needs, but it not nearly enough to be a gamer server host for 100 users in 3d game.
I actually wrote an post about the need for 'Guild Event' services a while back.
Guilds need the ability to host large events at time, and houses are not providing that ability.
So what I had suggested was basically isolating a 'town' on the actual game server then allowing guilds to 'schedule' times kind of like a chucky cheese party then only members of that guild would be allowed to access the town for a certain amount of time. This would allow guilds plan mass activities with hundreds of members because now they would be on the actual game server using Zos servers.
Thank you so very much for taking the time to explain all this... even knowing many will be ungrateful for your efforts. I, however, do very much appreciate them. I think I'm still a little unclear as to why a 12 player house could not actually hold 24 players though, assuming that 24 remains the hard limit.
I'd be really curious to know the player caps of other games with player housing, especially games built on the same engine ESO is. I'm not sure how to go about researching that but if you have an idea please let me know!
MLGProPlayer wrote: »MornaBaine wrote: »Woefulmonkey wrote: »
ESO's engine sucks. The only other game made with it is SWTOR.
I have a sinking feeling this is the case, so unless it is easily portable to another engine I'm afraid we are SoL on a LOT of things.
Woefulmonkey wrote: »@Wreuntzylla
Exactly, there many ways to address the 'furniture limit' issues that lead to players not being able to decorate they way they want and it does not 'have to' involve increasing that limit.
All this post is trying to do is explain why doing the most obvious thing to 'fix' this issue is actually problematic from a technical stand point.
The hope here was this post would help get people to describe the actual specific use cases that they are having problems with rather than just demanding that Zos implement a specific 'solution' they happened to believe will solve their issue.
I had not considered just making some objects like 'attuneable stations' more efficient so you only need one table instead of 80. That is a great idea that should be promoted.
I was also somewhat disappointed with the ball room floor because of the edges and the rough 'top' surface. However it did work for my needs because all edges are either embedded in geometry or covered by 'stairs'. So for me it did eliminate some items and allowed me to make a better looking area for my 'fence' to hang out.
However, if Zos's plan is to address the item limit issue by providing better object, then they need to start doing a much better job in object design.
Woefulmonkey wrote: »@MornaBaine
Some of Zos's limits are not 'technical' limitations but 'objective value' limitations.
For instance housing slot limits are 'doubled' for subscribers. Meaning there is definitely no technical limitation to the 'allowed' slots in a 'Non-Subscriber' house. But Zos want to give subscriptions 'value' and one of they ways they do that is by giving subscribers 'more' furniture slots.
Similarly smaller houses have less slots. Now this is both technical and value based. The technical limitation is that the smaller the house the more likely you are to perform 'bad object placements' that can lead to performance issue. However, these limits also give larger homes 'more value' in the eyes of players.
Similarly they likely place some limits on the number of players allowed in smaller houses so that larger houses have more 'value' to players.
As for games built on the same 'engine', well an 'engine' is really just a set of tools and even if 2 people use the same tools to build something similar they don't always produce the same quality result. Zos may have made some design tradeoffs that caused them to not be able to achieve maximum networking capabilities. Or they may just be artificially limiting to 12 players to they can up it to 24 some time in the future as an 'upgrade'. That would be another example of a value decision rather than a technical one. (Many recent games have kept 'already implemented' features held back so they can release them later as a 'value add' to their product later in the games life cycle.)
After reading this thread I have nothing intelligent to add but a question.
Is there a reason they cannot add a wayshire in a home so we can choose where we jump to instead of simply walking out the door. This is the main thing I would love to see added to homes.
Thanks
Woefulmonkey wrote: »@Hotdog_23
From what I have observed there should be no significant technical barrier to providing a 'wayshrine' in homes.
I says that because you can 'teleport' out of your house using the map which is basically the same interface and feature as a 'wayshrine' it just 'charges' you for doing so.
I assume they don't provide that feature on purpose because anyone who buys a house would be able to teleport for free by using 2 hops once they owned a home (since you can already teleport to your house for free).
That is a 'policy' decision and one I disagree with. I don't necessarily think they should allow 'free' travel from your home by default, but I do think they should allow you to acquire a wayshrine furniture service items similar to the 'banker' or 'merchant' that allows for free travel.