Not arguing for or against as I am just pointing out what Zos has said before concerning special collectibles. They to create more of a load which is why they have a small number that we can place in a home.

Outside of that, it is obvious that Zos would sell more crown items, hence make more money, if they did raise the cap.

Versispellis wrote: »

Raideen wrote: »

When the Markarth DLC update introduced invisible walls into Stillwaters Retreat, it also introduced the ability to walk though some of the walls. I came across this by accident but it allowed me to see all the various parts used to put homes together. Among my observations, one thing that stood out to me is that there were quite a few "unused" (meaning not visible) high poly assets that littered the property. These assets are still rendered (if I am not mistaken) as I do not think the ESO engine uses occlusion culling. If it did then the amount of furniture players place down would have less relevance, or frankly would be irrelevant.

Removing these unseen rendered assets would lower the poly count allowing for more furnishing items to be placed.

This is of course based on the notion that the reason for the low furnishing limit is to "ensure all players have a good experience" with FPS in any home they may visit. I do think this "official" reason for keeping furnishing limits low is problematic because there is nothing stopping a player from slamming 700 lights in the entry way of a house, which would bring most computers to a standstill. That itself interrupts the idea that the furnishing limit is for the players sake.
Seems to me that ZOS would be more concerned with the cost of data transfer and or storage that an increased furnishing limit would incur.

This, all of this.

I never thought the limit on special collectibles in particular made sense when I can place down as many of the celestial nimbus as I want. 20 house cats is less taxing than 20 nimbi.

Excellent point. Some folks have said that ONE nimbus was dropping their frame rate significantly. Imagine placing 10 in the same space.

I have always had an issue with the "official" excuse reason for the furniture limits. My feeling is that it has less to do with "giving every player a good experience" and more to do with the cost increase in their internet plan/server data.

I was playing a different game that had furniture, lighting furniture and where the assets could overlap/collide/clip with other assets. The game also had the ability to create logic gates by using on/off switches. I made a "lag bomb" that was the size of a single player. I could turn it on and drop a PC running at 120 FPS to literally 2-5 FPS. All inside the space of a player AND it not only affected my space to build in, but all of the plots for other players around me. If I recall correctly I used 100 lights to make the lag bomb. I have not tested this in ESO simply because I do not want to craft 100 lights but I bet a similar result would occur, of course one of the primary differences is that all the lights would have to be activated manually.

Secondly. If this was about every player getting a good experience. How come we all get a good experience standing in the middle of Markarth. That place is loaded with furnishing assets, loaded with players AND NPC's. It is a very dense and decorated area. All of the cities in game are.

I would think the ludicrous pricing the housing community spends on the game that this should fund for more server data storage/and internet data. We are constantly told the health of the game is in a stellar state, there are tons of players and income is not an issue. How about then taking a small margin hit to their bottom line, increase their capacities and give the player a better experience. I mean surely there is no way that upping the furnishing limits in game is going to cause them to go bankrupt, not with as much money as the housing community throws at the game.