ESO Plus furniture inventory

antoniotf5 · September 2018

So i watched the Quakecon 2018 ESO keynote and someone on the team said that they were looking for better ESO Plus rewards, and while he mentioned things like more crowns per month, he also said they were looking for suggestions... So how about adding a furniture inventory (just like the crafting bag) for ESO Plus members?
Would make leveling faster, just like the crafting bag does, since you don't have to stop at the bank and store (or sell) your furniture drops.

Do you think this is a good idea?

Sylvermynx · September 2018

I do!

Apache_Kid · September 2018

Good idea. Add a siege bag while we are at it

Danikat · September 2018

How many furnishings you do normally acquire during levelling? I think the most common ones are paintings from treasure chests and items from fishing and stealing and even those are rare. I can't remember ever getting back to town and finding more than two or three furnishings in my bag.

And for stuff you're keeping long-term to put into a house you don't get have there's the free inn rooms. (3 in the base game, 1 in Morrowind and 1 in Summerset.) With ESO+ they hold up to 30 normal items, so between them you can store 150 furnishings.

It wouldn't be a bad thing exactly but for me it would be like the XP and gold boost - bonuses that aren't even worth mentioning when discussing the pros and cons of subscribing.

Maggi12 · September 2018

It is a part of big system. Which can be called as Private/Guild Library. Maybe we will see it in the future.

arasysb14_ESO · September 2018

They really need to increase furniture limit for ESO Plus members.

Kiralyn2000 · September 2018

Yeah, doesn't double bank (plus being able to place double the limit of storage chests in houses) hold your furniture?

Tyralbin · September 2018

Nice ideas here

Runs · September 2018

arasysb14_ESO wrote: »

They really need to increase furniture limit for ESO Plus members.

It already is.

They really need to increase furniture limit for everybody.

-edit to add- As far as furnishing inventory, this would be a big selling point for people who are into homes. Although, most people who are already are subbed because of the double limit. So the real question is would ZOS actually see increased subs because of it.

Recremen · September 2018

The problem with furniture versus mats, as it was explained to me, is that the list of crafting materials is smallish and expands slowly while the list of furniture is bigish and expands much more quickly.

[informed_speculation]

Now I would still absolutely LOVE if they created a furniture storage system with the same kind of setup as the craft bag, but they need to secure enough data storage for an ever-increasing number of (ID, count) pairs for EVERY account, and there's over 10 million accounts. They ALSO need to effectively double the number of (ID, count) pairs that they store because they'd have to store info on account-bound items (read : cash shop furniture) in additional to tradeable items.

Let's say that (reasonably) a furniture item ID only needs to be two bytes. That's 65,536 available IDs, cut it about in half to get around 32k IDs for regular items and 33k for account-bound items. I know we have a lot of furniture but I'm pretty sure we're never going to have THAT much so this feels safe to me. But now we have to store 65k (ID, count) pairs, and that's where it gets tricky. What's a safe amount of storage for the count? is 65k enough? Or should we go for four bytes at 4,294,967,296? There's a lot of apples in the world but that looks a lot more reasonable, for those edge-cases of people intentionally trying to break the system or something.

Okay so that's 6 bytes per (ID, count) pair at 65,536 which means, per account, we've got a bare-minimum of 393,216 bytes of storage needed per account. Times 12 million accounts (and growing) and that comes out to about 4.7 terabytes of data storage needed just for some lowball idealized storage requirements.

Except NOW you need multiple redundancies in case something goes wrong, so that's 4.7 terabytes times the number of backups, plus realistically they're not likely to architect their own bare-bones system so all those previous data estimates for ID size and count are just about thrown out the window because commercial architecture tends to run things more robust than lean. Now you have to factor in multiple frequent access attempts across those 12 million accounts, which as I understand tends to require something a little more specialized in the hardware department. And of course there's the development time needed actually MAKE the magic happen. Suddenly your extremely cool system has a real, larger-than-expected cost estimate and is competing with other very important systems concerns for scarce resources. It still might happen, but you can't just wish it into being, you have to justify choosing that system over another.

I personally still TOTALLY want a furniture storage system like the craft bag, though, even with a reasonable understanding of its difficulty. Now that the crafting mat problem is solved, furniture is my #1 inventory management issue by an enormous margin. Sometimes I'm even skipping out on some luxury vendor items just because I'm not reaaaaaaaally sure I'll use it before it comes around again next year and I can't justify the use of space. I want a furniture bag sooooooo badly.

[/informed_speculation]

arasysb14_ESO · September 2018

Runs wrote: »

arasysb14_ESO wrote: »

They really need to increase furniture limit for ESO Plus members.

It already is.

They really need to increase furniture limit for everybody.

-edit to add- As far as furnishing inventory, this would be a big selling point for people who are into homes. Although, most people who are already are subbed because of the double limit. So the real question is would ZOS actually see increased subs because of it.

They could always offer extra furnishing slots on crown store, that way those who sub and still want more can get those as well. Same goes for players who don't want to subscribe. It's a win win for both players and ZOS

Vrany69 · September 2018

"ehm winning winning" CSheem

notyuu · September 2018

ALL OF THE YES

but srsly, i've suggested this every single time this topic has come up....

Minyassa · September 2018

I'd love this. I'd also love if your furnishing inventory was trackable even after you've placed items, so that if you own multiple homes you do not have to go visit every single one trying to track down where you left that dang ______.

Nerdrage9000 · September 2018

This is one of the better ideas I’ve head all day.

I’d know, because I work at an ideas factory. We harvest ideas and place them in recyclable jars, and then ship them worldwide when people need them.

We should make this furniture thing happen.

antoniotf5 · September 2018

Recremen wrote: »

The problem with furniture versus mats, as it was explained to me, is that the list of crafting materials is smallish and expands slowly while the list of furniture is bigish and expands much more quickly.

[informed_speculation]
Let's say that (reasonably) a furniture item ID only needs to be two bytes. That's 65,536 available IDs, cut it about in half to get around 32k IDs for regular items and 33k for account-bound items. I know we have a lot of furniture but I'm pretty sure we're never going to have THAT much so this feels safe to me. But now we have to store 65k (ID, count) pairs, and that's where it gets tricky. What's a safe amount of storage for the count? is 65k enough? Or should we go for four bytes at 4,294,967,296? There's a lot of apples in the world but that looks a lot more reasonable, for those edge-cases of people intentionally trying to break the system or something.

Okay so that's 6 bytes per (ID, count) pair at 65,536 which means, per account, we've got a bare-minimum of 393,216 bytes of storage needed per account. Times 12 million accounts (and growing) and that comes out to about 4.7 terabytes of data storage needed just for some lowball idealized storage requirements.
[/informed_speculation]

This is so irrelevant, we're talking about one of many AAA mmorpgs on the market today; World of Warcraft runs on a 32 bit architecture and it is able of achieving so much more and beyond of what you just mentioned. Zenimax is no indie company, and blizzard with WoW alone puts it to shame when it comes to technicalities.

Also, why pull the 12 million accounts out of nowhere? It's an ESO Plus feature, it activates for each user when they sub, so there's no need to calculate it for every account ever created (which btw i doubt they even have 2 million active, let alone subbed to eso+). And that 4gb for every ESO+ account?sounds totally fine for 12$ a month, shouldn't be a problem for them.

EvilAutoTech · September 2018

I would think that double character inventory for plus members would be a more universally coveted feature.

Up to 200 extra slots per character would help me more than a furnishing bag. I usually craft my furniture at home and install it immediately.

For those that think double would be OP, maybe an additional 50%.

Troneon · September 2018

I wish they would give us an Armory.

For storing full sets because I am sick of playing inventory management online every single bloody day for an hour anytime I want to do something different or a few activities and boom, bags full...

Even with paying for max storage, housing storage, eso plus etc....YOU STILL HAVE TO PLAY INVENTORY EVERY BLOODY DAY...

It's just stupid system and too many items in the game.

Maggi12 · September 2018

is it hard to implement furnishing recipes library and make it account wide? (no more "i suddenly learned expensive alinor recipe xD")
there is no need for the system, which stores a lot of unused trash data.

learn or sell or destroy.

Leogon · September 2018

arasysb14_ESO wrote: »

They really need to increase furniture limit for ESO Plus members.

For everyone. Non-ESO+ members should get what ESO+ members currently have and ESO+ members should get more.

Recremen · September 2018

antoniotf5 wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

The problem with furniture versus mats, as it was explained to me, is that the list of crafting materials is smallish and expands slowly while the list of furniture is bigish and expands much more quickly.

[informed_speculation]
Let's say that (reasonably) a furniture item ID only needs to be two bytes. That's 65,536 available IDs, cut it about in half to get around 32k IDs for regular items and 33k for account-bound items. I know we have a lot of furniture but I'm pretty sure we're never going to have THAT much so this feels safe to me. But now we have to store 65k (ID, count) pairs, and that's where it gets tricky. What's a safe amount of storage for the count? is 65k enough? Or should we go for four bytes at 4,294,967,296? There's a lot of apples in the world but that looks a lot more reasonable, for those edge-cases of people intentionally trying to break the system or something.

Okay so that's 6 bytes per (ID, count) pair at 65,536 which means, per account, we've got a bare-minimum of 393,216 bytes of storage needed per account. Times 12 million accounts (and growing) and that comes out to about 4.7 terabytes of data storage needed just for some lowball idealized storage requirements.
[/informed_speculation]

This is so irrelevant, we're talking about one of many AAA mmorpgs on the market today; World of Warcraft runs on a 32 bit architecture and it is able of achieving so much more and beyond of what you just mentioned. Zenimax is no indie company, and blizzard with WoW alone puts it to shame when it comes to technicalities.

Also, why pull the 12 million accounts out of nowhere? It's an ESO Plus feature, it activates for each user when they sub, so there's no need to calculate it for every account ever created (which btw i doubt they even have 2 million active, let alone subbed to eso+). And that 4gb for every ESO+ account?sounds totally fine for 12$ a month, shouldn't be a problem for them.

@antoniotf5

If you know so much about the architecture that both ZOS and WoW use then why not give a line-item breakdown for how much better they do things at Blizzard? You could just back up your claims with a simple high-level overview. You know, unless you're talking out of your ass, but I can wait.

The 12 million accounts isn't out of nowhere, that's straight from ZOS's own claims on one of their recent Twitch appearances. And I'm sorry, would YOU want to be the one to explain to your higher-ups that you didn't secure the hardware to make sure every account had this as an option, with room to grow? You want to be the guy that takes the fall for if you accidentally go over the number of people the system can handle before you're able to make emergency requisition of additional storage? You also want to explain what's supposed to happen to everyone's stored furniture if their sub ever lapses? It all disappears and they don't track it anymore? No, you need to have the space available for everyone with room to grow, and you need to keep tracking it even for accounts that are (for all they know) only temporarily inactive.

And again, the $12 a month isn't the issue, it's that they only have so much of their gross income that can be reinvested back into the game, and thus all of their proposed system changes need to compete for dev time and budgeting resources. I highly doubt that a AAA developer can just go make a system without justifying its cost and putting it on the schedule, no matter how small that cost might seem to you personally. You really can not just magic a system into being, you have to allocate resources to it. And as I said, I hope they DO allocate resources to it, but I recognize that it's a process and that laypeople just saying it's simple doesn't actually put it on the roadmap.

Saucy_Jack · September 2018

I mean, they already tried to mitigate furniture storage with the eight storage chests, but I do hope they institute a craft-bag-esque feature for furniture.

Granted, that would make the storage chests completely obsolete, but I'm fine with that if it means infinite furniture storage.

Recremen · September 2018

Saucy_Jack wrote: »

I mean, they already tried to mitigate furniture storage with the eight storage chests, but I do hope they institute a craft-bag-esque feature for furniture.

Granted, that would make the storage chests completely obsolete, but I'm fine with that if it means infinite furniture storage.

The chests can then hold your ever-expanding list of set gear in various traits! It's a win-win in my book!

Lasinagol · September 2018

I love this idea...it would make moving from house to house so much easier...instead of storing as much as you can on mules and furniture in the bank with the storage chests...

Spent millions of gold into the housing and thousands of crowns. If Zos were to implement an increase in item limit I sincerely hope there would be a gold purchase option.

Hotdog_23 · September 2018

Recremen wrote: »

The problem with furniture versus mats, as it was explained to me, is that the list of crafting materials is smallish and expands slowly while the list of furniture is bigish and expands much more quickly.

[informed_speculation]

Now I would still absolutely LOVE if they created a furniture storage system with the same kind of setup as the craft bag, but they need to secure enough data storage for an ever-increasing number of (ID, count) pairs for EVERY account, and there's over 10 million accounts. They ALSO need to effectively double the number of (ID, count) pairs that they store because they'd have to store info on account-bound items (read : cash shop furniture) in additional to tradeable items.

Let's say that (reasonably) a furniture item ID only needs to be two bytes. That's 65,536 available IDs, cut it about in half to get around 32k IDs for regular items and 33k for account-bound items. I know we have a lot of furniture but I'm pretty sure we're never going to have THAT much so this feels safe to me. But now we have to store 65k (ID, count) pairs, and that's where it gets tricky. What's a safe amount of storage for the count? is 65k enough? Or should we go for four bytes at 4,294,967,296? There's a lot of apples in the world but that looks a lot more reasonable, for those edge-cases of people intentionally trying to break the system or something.

Okay so that's 6 bytes per (ID, count) pair at 65,536 which means, per account, we've got a bare-minimum of 393,216 bytes of storage needed per account. Times 12 million accounts (and growing) and that comes out to about 4.7 terabytes of data storage needed just for some lowball idealized storage requirements.

Except NOW you need multiple redundancies in case something goes wrong, so that's 4.7 terabytes times the number of backups, plus realistically they're not likely to architect their own bare-bones system so all those previous data estimates for ID size and count are just about thrown out the window because commercial architecture tends to run things more robust than lean. Now you have to factor in multiple frequent access attempts across those 12 million accounts, which as I understand tends to require something a little more specialized in the hardware department. And of course there's the development time needed actually MAKE the magic happen. Suddenly your extremely cool system has a real, larger-than-expected cost estimate and is competing with other very important systems concerns for scarce resources. It still might happen, but you can't just wish it into being, you have to justify choosing that system over another.

I personally still TOTALLY want a furniture storage system like the craft bag, though, even with a reasonable understanding of its difficulty. Now that the crafting mat problem is solved, furniture is my #1 inventory management issue by an enormous margin. Sometimes I'm even skipping out on some luxury vendor items just because I'm not reaaaaaaaally sure I'll use it before it comes around again next year and I can't justify the use of space. I want a furniture bag sooooooo badly.

[/informed_speculation]

If this is the case then say a 240 -480 furniture bag just like our regular bank account and a unlimited siege bag since there is a limited number of items like the crafting bag.

antoniotf5 · September 2018

@Recremen
Alright chill out buddy, the 12 million thing was not turned against you, i mentioned it because when you make a system that affects only the subbed population you don't have to account for all 12 million accounts immediately. Instead you first calculate a safe estimate of the current sub population + inflation. That safe estimate will ensure a smooth transition on patch day so servers don't crash. At least that would reasonable planning.
You brought up the storage issue 2 times, and the first time you made all the calculations that resulted in that final 4.7tb of data. I can safely say that all that, even globalized on both EU and NA realms it won't be an issue. Storage isn't an issue, not for mmorpgs.

p.s: try being more civil next time

lagrue · September 2018

Seems kinda.... pointless? Most people aren't running around lugging furnishings with them.

Recremen · September 2018

antoniotf5 wrote: »

@Recremen
Alright chill out buddy, the 12 million thing was not turned against you, i mentioned it because when you make a system that affects only the subbed population you don't have to account for all 12 million accounts immediately. Instead you first calculate a safe estimate of the current sub population + inflation. That safe estimate will ensure a smooth transition on patch day so servers don't crash. At least that would reasonable planning.
You brought up the storage issue 2 times, and the first time you made all the calculations that resulted in that final 4.7tb of data. I can safely say that all that, even globalized on both EU and NA realms it won't be an issue. Storage isn't an issue, not for mmorpgs.

p.s: try being more civil next time

@antoniof5

I'm sorry that I was overly aggressive in my response, that was uncalled for. As for the 12 million, I've never had to requisition a system like this but it really doesn't seem like the kind of thing you'd want to make an estimate for that's lower than your existing population. I would think you'd want to get more than what's needed for your existing pop, even if they aren't all subbed, simply because you can't control your player growth and you can't guarantee that the system you bought will still even be available or scalable in the future. Either way, you'd still need to put up a price estimate, even if it's lower than I'm making it out to be, and argue for why it should go on the schedule.

And the issue isn't just the storage. Like if it were as simple as buying a few 1TB flash drives (and again, extra for redundancy) then it wouldn't be so bad. But what you actually would probably need is more specialized hardware with certain access speeds and which meets certain architectural requirements, and you still have the dev portion to consider. It's not a "problem", they can of course afford such things, but you still need to justify the dev time and cost for it versus other systems they might want to implement. That's really the core of the argument : resources are scarce and things compete, even relatively simple-sounding systems.