Possible Solution to Ease Furnishing Slot Issues

Tigerseye · December 2019

I was looking at these poison bottles (below) and it occurred to me that all 3 of them must be extremely low impact on the servers, when compared with a single large light, a fountain, or a large tree.

...and yet, of course, that large light, fountain, or tree, only takes up one furnishing slot; whereas, these small, simple bottles (and even 3 tiny potatoes!) take up 3 furnishing slots in total.

This is, obviously, ridiculous.

So, it occurred to me that a possible solution would be to give you an option of how many you would like to craft, of these small, very low impact articles - like bottles, or vegetables, or a stack of plates, or bowls - to form one furnishing item in total.

This could use the same type of option you are given when you want to craft multiple (individual) items of the same type, but appear below it and be described as "Quantity in Group" (rather than just Quantity).

If you selected 3, in the "Quantity in Group" field, instead of crafting 3 Apples (for example), as 3 individual furnishing items, selecting 3 would combine those 3 apples into a 3 apple group, which would only count as one furnishing item in total.

The options could range from, say, 1 to 5, or could vary depending on the item type/size/complexity and would generally be limited to small, or tiny, non-complex items.

Obviously, this would require a staff member to group a few of the items in question artistically, so they weren't just produced in a regimented line, but I can't imagine that would take that long to do?

A few examples of items which could benefit from this suggestion:

Araneae6537 · December 2019

Some difficulties I see with this are:
1) Unless programming is going to determine how they are grouped, they would mean creating layouts for — how many different numbers of how many different items?
2) Sometimes you may want a symmetrical arrangement of items while others a more organic/chaotic arrangement works better.

It would be nice if one could create one’s own arrangements of simple items, but I do not know whether this would make the items easier to handle. I totally get your point that it seems crazy for a utensil that is essentially 2D (another issue of frustration for me when I found that Redoran knives could not be rotated to appear as chopsticks) counts the same as a large animated tree. I’m all for any way the number of slots for simple items can be increased, so long as it doesn’t take away from anything we currently have — I love my forests of Blooming Ginkgo!

Tigerseye · December 2019

Araneae6537 wrote: »

Some difficulties I see with this are:
1) Unless programming is going to determine how they are grouped, they would mean creating layouts for — how many different numbers of how many different items?

Yes, true.

However, they would already have the asset, so I would imagine rotating it a bit, to form one layout per number group. shouldn't take that long; even if it was for a couple of hundred small/tiny items?

I'm no expert in how long it would take, though - just presuming it would be a lot less time consuming than designing brand new assets from scratch and yet, would have the potential to improve things, exponentially, slot-wise.

2) Sometimes you may want a symmetrical arrangement of items while others a more organic/chaotic arrangement works better.

Yes, that is also very true, but I guess we would have to accept that, if we wanted a group, it might not be in the exact layout we wanted?

A bit like the groups, of the same items, that already exist, verses making your own group yourself.

Candles, for example.

You just have to make a decision regarding whether you want more customisation, at the cost of slots, or are prepared to accept the groups the way they come.

Generally speaking, you tend to do the latter, unless you only ever wanted one candle.

It would be nice if one could create one’s own arrangements of simple items, but I do not know whether this would make the items easier to handle.

Yes, it would be nice - ideal, even.

I (amongst many others!) have suggested this in the past.

However, since it never happened, I have more-or-less been forced to accept that it would, almost certainly, be more complicated to introduce the programming required to allow us to make our own arrangement and then save it as a group, than it would be for them to group things up themselves.

Even if the former would be the dream!

I totally get your point that it seems crazy for a utensil that is essentially 2D (another issue of frustration for me when I found that Redoran knives could not be rotated to appear as chopsticks) counts the same as a large animated tree. I’m all for any way the number of slots for simple items can be increased, so long as it doesn’t take away from anything we currently have — I love my forests of Blooming Ginkgo!

No, I wouldn't ask for anything to be changed at the other end, at this point.

I'm just thinking about all the people, who love their little details, which cause very little strain on the servers, and yet still make them run out of slots far too fast.

Meaning they are more likely to just give up on housing, altogether.

CaffeinatedMayhem · December 2019

As I've been suggesting for a year now, ZOS needs to provide us more grouped furnishings. The filled Cane Mead winerack from Elsweyr is a perfect exacmple. Giving us a few desks that include ink pot and quill, maybe a few papers or books and a light is not outrageous. If you don't like "generic" desks, you can still decorate your own with existing patterns.

There are limits with the game engine, and ESO housing was never designed to be Minecraft. It may be annoying, espeically since the houses are grossly oversized for the number of items we're allowed, but it is what it is. There are easy soltuions that can be done without a major overhaul, the devs just has to re-think how furnishing patterns are designed.

WildRaptorX · December 2019

Bethesda have the technology. I’m pretty sure that’s how the fallout furnishing works. It would ease a lot of pain points

Royaji · December 2019

I think you are underestimating the technical aspect of "little details, which cause very little strain on the servers".

All of the graphics are processed client-side on your machine. They put no strain on the server. It might take more to render a waterfall with running waterfall than a small pot for your graphics card but for the server it should be irrelevant how complex the object is. The information stored server-side are types of items and their placement. From this perspective a pot and a waterfall are nearly the same.

User made groups might seem like they can lessen the strain but they are actually more likely to increase it. When you group something up you are only adding complexity. You are just adding additional information that has to be handled. like relative position of grouped items to each other. Instead of making the client just ask the server "what are the items I have to load and where they are" you are now asking "what are the items, how they are grouped up, where each item in each group is and where the groups are located in the whole house". It's not like you can tell the game to create a new singular "object" from grouped items in your game files. It's still multiple objects the game just has to arrange in a specifc fashion.

xWarbrain · December 2019

Araneae6537 wrote: »

Some difficulties I see with this are:
1) Unless programming is going to determine how they are grouped, they would mean creating layouts for — how many different numbers of how many different items?
2) Sometimes you may want a symmetrical arrangement of items while others a more organic/chaotic arrangement works better.

It would be nice if one could create one’s own arrangements of simple items, but I do not know whether this would make the items easier to handle. I totally get your point that it seems crazy for a utensil that is essentially 2D (another issue of frustration for me when I found that Redoran knives could not be rotated to appear as chopsticks) counts the same as a large animated tree. I’m all for any way the number of slots for simple items can be increased, so long as it doesn’t take away from anything we currently have — I love my forests of Blooming Ginkgo!

When you Assign Link to Parent/Child to group items there should just be a sub-option of that to make them "bound" permanently as one item. This way you can arrange them however you want in any pattern instead of Zos programming pre-set sequences of item arrangements.

Edit: The response above mine pretty much destroys my idea

Araneae6537 · December 2019

Those are all good points. Maybe they could create more grouped furnishings and “furnished furnishings” like the filled bookcases. It would be great to have more such items for kitchen and dining areas too!

Tigerseye · December 2019

Royaji wrote: »

I think you are underestimating the technical aspect of "little details, which cause very little strain on the servers".

All of the graphics are processed client-side on your machine. They put no strain on the server. It might take more to render a waterfall with running waterfall than a small pot for your graphics card but for the server it should be irrelevant how complex the object is. The information stored server-side are types of items and their placement. From this perspective a pot and a waterfall are nearly the same.

User made groups might seem like they can lessen the strain but they are actually more likely to increase it. When you group something up you are only adding complexity. You are just adding additional information that has to be handled. like relative position of grouped items to each other. Instead of making the client just ask the server "what are the items I have to load and where they are" you are now asking "what are the items, how they are grouped up, where each item in each group is and where the groups are located in the whole house". It's not like you can tell the game to create a new singular "object" from grouped items in your game files. It's still multiple objects the game just has to arrange in a specifc fashion.

I'm not asking for the player to be able to group something up, here.

I'm asking for ZOS to group up (small/tiny) furnishings for us (in advance, like they do with other pre-grouped furnishings, already), then for us to be able to pick which group size arrangement we want at the crafting station.

Royaji · December 2019

Tigerseye wrote: »

Royaji wrote: »

I think you are underestimating the technical aspect of "little details, which cause very little strain on the servers".

All of the graphics are processed client-side on your machine. They put no strain on the server. It might take more to render a waterfall with running waterfall than a small pot for your graphics card but for the server it should be irrelevant how complex the object is. The information stored server-side are types of items and their placement. From this perspective a pot and a waterfall are nearly the same.

User made groups might seem like they can lessen the strain but they are actually more likely to increase it. When you group something up you are only adding complexity. You are just adding additional information that has to be handled. like relative position of grouped items to each other. Instead of making the client just ask the server "what are the items I have to load and where they are" you are now asking "what are the items, how they are grouped up, where each item in each group is and where the groups are located in the whole house". It's not like you can tell the game to create a new singular "object" from grouped items in your game files. It's still multiple objects the game just has to arrange in a specifc fashion.

I'm not asking for the player to be able to group something up, here.

I'm asking for ZOS to group up (small/tiny) furnishings for us (in advance, like they do with other pre-grouped furnishings, already), then for us to be able to pick which group size arrangement we want at the crafting station.

So basically 5-6 (or however many arrangements you might want) additional unique items for every furnishing? Just so you can have slightly more perfect (but still not perfect) clutter arrangment? I'm not sure if it is enough bang for the kind of investment a system like this will require. I'd just settle with more varied pre-stacked furnishings.

Tigerseye · December 2019

Royaji wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

Royaji wrote: »

I think you are underestimating the technical aspect of "little details, which cause very little strain on the servers".

All of the graphics are processed client-side on your machine. They put no strain on the server. It might take more to render a waterfall with running waterfall than a small pot for your graphics card but for the server it should be irrelevant how complex the object is. The information stored server-side are types of items and their placement. From this perspective a pot and a waterfall are nearly the same.

User made groups might seem like they can lessen the strain but they are actually more likely to increase it. When you group something up you are only adding complexity. You are just adding additional information that has to be handled. like relative position of grouped items to each other. Instead of making the client just ask the server "what are the items I have to load and where they are" you are now asking "what are the items, how they are grouped up, where each item in each group is and where the groups are located in the whole house". It's not like you can tell the game to create a new singular "object" from grouped items in your game files. It's still multiple objects the game just has to arrange in a specifc fashion.

I'm not asking for the player to be able to group something up, here.

I'm asking for ZOS to group up (small/tiny) furnishings for us (in advance, like they do with other pre-grouped furnishings, already), then for us to be able to pick which group size arrangement we want at the crafting station.

So basically 5-6 (or however many arrangements you might want) additional unique items for every furnishing? Just so you can have slightly more perfect (but still not perfect) clutter arrangment? I'm not sure if it is enough bang for the kind of investment a system like this will require. I'd just settle with more varied pre-stacked furnishings.

Well, it could be 3, or 5, versions.

Even two versions per item type - one with one item and one with a group of 3 items - would be far better than nothing.

I just thought it would give us more size options, on more existing items than we currently do.

While, at the same time, cutting down on the complication of adding loads of new furnishing plans, for what are, essentially, the same old things (just in different amounts).

This would also cut down on the number of items we have to scroll through, at the crafting stations, which are growing all the time.

Yes, we could just content ourselves with having more new furnishing plans added, some with multiple/filled items, but (going by what they have done up until now) it is unlikely that they will add more plans for groups of older items, isn't it?

They don't seem to ever do that, do they?

They only add furnishing plans for new area items, in the new racial style.

So, I imagine we are unlikely to have a new furnishing plan for a group of 3 poison bottles, or 3 potatoes, or 3 carrots, or 3 apples, added at this point.

So, all of these older, but staple, items will presumably just continue to be a drain on slots.

Royaji · December 2019

Tigerseye wrote: »

Royaji wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

Royaji wrote: »

I think you are underestimating the technical aspect of "little details, which cause very little strain on the servers".

All of the graphics are processed client-side on your machine. They put no strain on the server. It might take more to render a waterfall with running waterfall than a small pot for your graphics card but for the server it should be irrelevant how complex the object is. The information stored server-side are types of items and their placement. From this perspective a pot and a waterfall are nearly the same.

User made groups might seem like they can lessen the strain but they are actually more likely to increase it. When you group something up you are only adding complexity. You are just adding additional information that has to be handled. like relative position of grouped items to each other. Instead of making the client just ask the server "what are the items I have to load and where they are" you are now asking "what are the items, how they are grouped up, where each item in each group is and where the groups are located in the whole house". It's not like you can tell the game to create a new singular "object" from grouped items in your game files. It's still multiple objects the game just has to arrange in a specifc fashion.

I'm not asking for the player to be able to group something up, here.

I'm asking for ZOS to group up (small/tiny) furnishings for us (in advance, like they do with other pre-grouped furnishings, already), then for us to be able to pick which group size arrangement we want at the crafting station.

So basically 5-6 (or however many arrangements you might want) additional unique items for every furnishing? Just so you can have slightly more perfect (but still not perfect) clutter arrangment? I'm not sure if it is enough bang for the kind of investment a system like this will require. I'd just settle with more varied pre-stacked furnishings.

Well, it could be 3, or 5, versions.

Even two versions per item type - one with one item and one with a group of 3 items - would be far better than nothing.

I just thought it would give us more size options, on more existing items than we currently do.

While, at the same time, cutting down on the complication of adding loads of new furnishing plans, for what are, essentially, the same old things (just in different amounts).

This would also cut down on the number of items we have to scroll through, at the crafting stations, which are growing all the time.

Yes, we could just content ourselves with having more new furnishing plans added, some with multiple/filled items, but (going by what they have done up until now) it is unlikely that they will add more plans for groups of older items, isn't it?

They don't seem to ever do that, do they?

They only add furnishing plans for new area items, in the new racial style.

So, I imagine we are unlikely to have a new furnishing plan for a group of 3 poison bottles, or 3 potatoes, or 3 carrots, or 3 apples, added at this point.

So, all of these older, but staple, items will presumably just continue to be a drain on slots.

I think it will be easier for them to just add some of those simple items in bigger batches along the new furnishings. Especially in case of alchemy and food items (they already kinda do it with flowers). I'm not opposed to them adding those 3 carrots and 5 hanging carrots or a sack of potatoes and a bowl of potatoes. Or stacked poison flasks.

But I don't see a need for an additional overhang of adjustable arrangement system you are proposing.

Tigerseye · December 2019

Royaji wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

Royaji wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

Royaji wrote: »

I think you are underestimating the technical aspect of "little details, which cause very little strain on the servers".

All of the graphics are processed client-side on your machine. They put no strain on the server. It might take more to render a waterfall with running waterfall than a small pot for your graphics card but for the server it should be irrelevant how complex the object is. The information stored server-side are types of items and their placement. From this perspective a pot and a waterfall are nearly the same.

User made groups might seem like they can lessen the strain but they are actually more likely to increase it. When you group something up you are only adding complexity. You are just adding additional information that has to be handled. like relative position of grouped items to each other. Instead of making the client just ask the server "what are the items I have to load and where they are" you are now asking "what are the items, how they are grouped up, where each item in each group is and where the groups are located in the whole house". It's not like you can tell the game to create a new singular "object" from grouped items in your game files. It's still multiple objects the game just has to arrange in a specifc fashion.

I'm not asking for the player to be able to group something up, here.

I'm asking for ZOS to group up (small/tiny) furnishings for us (in advance, like they do with other pre-grouped furnishings, already), then for us to be able to pick which group size arrangement we want at the crafting station.

So basically 5-6 (or however many arrangements you might want) additional unique items for every furnishing? Just so you can have slightly more perfect (but still not perfect) clutter arrangment? I'm not sure if it is enough bang for the kind of investment a system like this will require. I'd just settle with more varied pre-stacked furnishings.

Well, it could be 3, or 5, versions.

Even two versions per item type - one with one item and one with a group of 3 items - would be far better than nothing.

I just thought it would give us more size options, on more existing items than we currently do.

While, at the same time, cutting down on the complication of adding loads of new furnishing plans, for what are, essentially, the same old things (just in different amounts).

This would also cut down on the number of items we have to scroll through, at the crafting stations, which are growing all the time.

Yes, we could just content ourselves with having more new furnishing plans added, some with multiple/filled items, but (going by what they have done up until now) it is unlikely that they will add more plans for groups of older items, isn't it?

They don't seem to ever do that, do they?

They only add furnishing plans for new area items, in the new racial style.

So, I imagine we are unlikely to have a new furnishing plan for a group of 3 poison bottles, or 3 potatoes, or 3 carrots, or 3 apples, added at this point.

So, all of these older, but staple, items will presumably just continue to be a drain on slots.

I think it will be easier for them to just add some of those simple items in bigger batches along the new furnishings. Especially in case of alchemy and food items (they already kinda do it with flowers). I'm not opposed to them adding those 3 carrots and 5 hanging carrots or a sack of potatoes and a bowl of potatoes. Or stacked poison flasks.

But I don't see a need for an additional overhang of adjustable arrangement system you are proposing.

Well, it might be slightly easier for them, but going by what they normally produce for xpacs, they simply won't do that with simple things like groups of individual potatoes, or carrots, or apples, or radishes, that is what I am saying.

...and with all due respect to them, I don't really want a Heavy Sack of Skyrim Potatoes, or a Skyrim Bowl of Potatoes, or a Stack of Skyrim Poison Flasks (presumably, in some kind of Skyrim Poison Rack).

Or, maybe I wouldn't mind all that too, but that is not what I am specifically asking for, here.

I just want (as per the screenshots) a way of placing three tiny, naked, potatoes, on their own, on a surface, without using 3 precious slots to do so.

...and if I could also do it without having to have an extra plan clogging up my provisoning station, for no good reason, all the better.

katanagirl1 · December 2019

xWarbrain wrote: »

Araneae6537 wrote: »

Some difficulties I see with this are:
1) Unless programming is going to determine how they are grouped, they would mean creating layouts for — how many different numbers of how many different items?
2) Sometimes you may want a symmetrical arrangement of items while others a more organic/chaotic arrangement works better.

It would be nice if one could create one’s own arrangements of simple items, but I do not know whether this would make the items easier to handle. I totally get your point that it seems crazy for a utensil that is essentially 2D (another issue of frustration for me when I found that Redoran knives could not be rotated to appear as chopsticks) counts the same as a large animated tree. I’m all for any way the number of slots for simple items can be increased, so long as it doesn’t take away from anything we currently have — I love my forests of Blooming Ginkgo!

When you Assign Link to Parent/Child to group items there should just be a sub-option of that to make them "bound" permanently as one item. This way you can arrange them however you want in any pattern instead of Zos programming pre-set sequences of item arrangements.

Edit: The response above mine pretty much destroys my idea

This is exactly what I was thinking, but I guess since the object the player would create is not a model that the devs came up with and exists in their library or whatever, then it still gets treated as separate objects.

These are still good ideas and suggestions, the brainstorming might lead to a solution.

chrightt · December 2019

I think I have an easier and better solution probably suggested on one of the comments on top but this is my last post tonight and I’m feeling a bit lazy reading every comment.

Increase furnishing count (maybe 2-4 times current). Larger furnishing costs more furnishing. 1 potato costs 1, 3 potato costs 3, 1 table costs 3. This way we don’t need some complex and overly specific crafting.

Tigerseye · December 2019

chrightt wrote: »

I think I have an easier and better solution probably suggested on one of the comments on top but this is my last post tonight and I’m feeling a bit lazy reading every comment.

Increase furnishing count (maybe 2-4 times current). Larger furnishing costs more furnishing. 1 potato costs 1, 3 potato costs 3, 1 table costs 3. This way we don’t need some complex and overly specific crafting.

Yeah, it's a logical enough idea, but this has all been suggested before (repeatedly) and they almost certainly won't do that, now.

They have already said they won't increase the limits, in general.

So, even if they implemented your proposed system, it would have to have roughly the same overall limit.

So, they might double the limit to 1,400 (most likely), or even triple it to 2,100 (less likely and they certainly wouldn't quadruple it, as that would definitely be an overall increase) and implement your system.

However, then, what happens to people who have already filled their homes with 700 Huge items (for 5 items each) that are now worth 3,500 slots?

Or even just 700 Large items (for 4 items each) which are now worth 2,800?

Presumably, they would have to remove, at worst, three fifths and, at best, a quarter of their stuff?

If they started it from now and let people leave 3,500 Huge items, within a 1,400 to 2,100 limit, presumably that would annoy newer players?

Would also, presumably, mean no one could move anything, if they were over the limit, without it being removed?

In the same way they can't now if they stop paying for ESO+.

If they had started off that way, which they probably should have, then of course this would be a solution.

I've always thought they probably intended to do this originally, as they labelled everything (very specifically) according to size, but it is unlikely that (having probably abandoned the idea) they would return to it, now.

The problem with conversations like this is that people come into them fresh, not knowing the history of what has gone before.

It's not their fault, they don't know, but those of us who do, know all this has been suggested and discussed to death, already.

Hence my suggestion for something that might work within the current housing slot system, which they have said they won't change/increase.

...and it wouldn't be in any way "complex", on the user side, to (if you wanted more than one potato) scroll through a couple of group option images, by clicking a + or - arrow.

Poms · December 2019

i dunno why ZOS hasn't yet made items like "stack of plates" or "groups of glasses" or "cup of kitchen utensils"

my kitchens are always so empty looking-- i guess i just like to try and make things look cozy, but it's either decorate the whole place, or one room.

Tigerseye · December 2019

Poms wrote: »

i dunno why ZOS hasn't yet made items like "stack of plates" or "groups of glasses" or "cup of kitchen utensils"

my kitchens are always so empty looking-- i guess i just like to try and make things look cozy, but it's either decorate the whole place, or one room.

I know and in response to this, they will add (if we are lucky!) Skyrim Plates, Stack, or Skyrim Glasses, Group, but that is not sufficient.

We need options for stacks and groups of all (and no) racial styles.

Not just for the racial style of the latest xpac, because that is far too limiting.

Alinhbo_Tyaka · December 2019

Poms wrote: »

i dunno why ZOS hasn't yet made items like "stack of plates" or "groups of glasses" or "cup of kitchen utensils"

my kitchens are always so empty looking-- i guess i just like to try and make things look cozy, but it's either decorate the whole place, or one room.

I'd like to see fruits, cheeses and breads available in nice serving bowls or trays. Maybe a sliced ham on a carving board. To make a basic buffet with a toast setting for eight takes 16+ slots for the plates and glasses alone. Add in food items with their serving dishes and you can easily use 50 slots or more before you're done. Not to mention it is a real pain to get the plates stacked to look right.

JJBoomer · December 2019

i still think that houses that have an inside area and an outside area should be separated by a load screen. is the lack of load screen in the homesteads that make it heavier on the server.

Take the psijic villa for example. The inside and outside are massive areas. Yet only 700 slots (with eso plus). Not a slot to furnish that kind of home. And there is no load screen between then areas. But if there was, then the game would have an easier time rendering more objects in both areas.

I would gladly give up seamless transitions in homes, for loading screens, if that meant more housing slots.

katanagirl1 · December 2019

JJBoomer wrote: »

i still think that houses that have an inside area and an outside area should be separated by a load screen. is the lack of load screen in the homesteads that make it heavier on the server.

Take the psijic villa for example. The inside and outside are massive areas. Yet only 700 slots (with eso plus). Not a slot to furnish that kind of home. And there is no load screen between then areas. But if there was, then the game would have an easier time rendering more objects in both areas.

I would gladly give up seamless transitions in homes, for loading screens, if that meant more housing slots.

Except that Hall of the Lunar Champion gave us three additional loading screens and no additional slots

MehrunesFlagon · December 2019

Araneae6537 wrote: »

Some difficulties I see with this are:
1) Unless programming is going to determine how they are grouped, they would mean creating layouts for — how many different numbers of how many different items?
2) Sometimes you may want a symmetrical arrangement of items while others a more organic/chaotic arrangement works better.

It would be nice if one could create one’s own arrangements of simple items, but I do not know whether this would make the items easier to handle. I totally get your point that it seems crazy for a utensil that is essentially 2D (another issue of frustration for me when I found that Redoran knives could not be rotated to appear as chopsticks) counts the same as a large animated tree. I’m all for any way the number of slots for simple items can be increased, so long as it doesn’t take away from anything we currently have — I love my forests of Blooming Ginkgo!

Likely the best way to do that would be in the housing editor itself.We already have the ability to link items.Allow us to create compound items form there.

Tigerseye · December 2019

JJBoomer wrote: »

i still think that houses that have an inside area and an outside area should be separated by a load screen. is the lack of load screen in the homesteads that make it heavier on the server.

Take the psijic villa for example. The inside and outside are massive areas. Yet only 700 slots (with eso plus). Not a slot to furnish that kind of home. And there is no load screen between then areas. But if there was, then the game would have an easier time rendering more objects in both areas.

I would gladly give up seamless transitions in homes, for loading screens, if that meant more housing slots.

I wouldn't want more load screens, in general.

In some very large houses (like the Hew's Bane Palace, for example) it would be OK; as long as you could set which area you ported into.

So, you could then set it to/near the crafting area, saving yourself a second load screen.

Otherwise, having to have a load screen to port you into the grounds and then (after running to the front door) having to have another one, just to enter the house, before having to then run to the crafting room, would be ridiculous.

Would take far too long.

Everyone would just end up putting their crafting area outside, meaning that most of the time they wouldn't even go inside the Palace itself, anyway.

Same would happen with the Psijic Villa and the Elsweyr Hall.

kaisernick · December 2019

They are clearly going in that direction with some items as you can get elswyer bookcases both empty and filled but they do need to do more.