@Lyserus; @Ellimist_Entreri -

Here’s the latest from ZOS on why they’re not raising the furnishing cap limit:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/512076/february-2020-furnishing-limit-status-update#latest

I’m sure we all know what’s going to happen when a player tries to build a “town” in one instance.

Ilumia wrote: »

@Taleof2Cities

thanks for linking that I was sure I had read that from official ZOS at some point.

But in conclusion: I can't build with more house guests or pets (or overall item cap for that matter) - because a bunch of people have potato rigs

That can be your conclusion, sure.

Whether that’s ZOS’s conclusion we really don’t know.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

The reason for the cap and categories has been stated as (to my knowledge) system limitations due to the performance strain from items, their effects and pathing.

That being said I completely agree the limit that encompasses house-guests, assistants, mounts & non-combat pets is entirely too low considering the number of available items that are counted in that specific category. Were I able to place more of the aforementioned objects about I would still have some incentive to continue purchasing them as they are released, as the situation currently stands I am discouraged from such purchases in the future!

Agreed. I have suggested in other posts that houseguests should come with their own slot, a slot that increases the total slots of that category by 1.

If the limits are truly about a performance issue, its directed towards PS and or Xbox, this is not an issue on PC. How about an "addon" that allows PC players to have more furnishing slots.

Secondly. I have often pondered if they "official reasons" have less to do with an individuals "performance" and more to do with data storage cost (servers) and or data transmission cost (internet). Remember when you came by my still waters house and we could see all the unused assets around the property? All of that is still loaded into memory, all those polygons that a player will never see are still put into memory affecting the players performance. If this TRULY was a performance issue, as we are told, then how come ZOS allows for unused assets to litter these homes?

It does not add up.

Cap should be 20 tbh. Also the excuse that adding more furniture slots will impact performance isn’t really relevant since performance is already abysmal.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

For this, you may not see them walking around at ground level, that doesn't mean someone who builds a stairway or tower in the available exterior of the home would be unable to do so as well. Those details are what give each house character, instead of just being a literal box to build in with no background...

You can not see the Nord arch when at max height. You can BARELY see the two tops of the dwemer buildings which look like rocks in the distance. Nothing about them creates atmosphere and I would argue that the poly cost is unnecessary for the lack of impact they have on the player, again because as I initially stated, you cant see them....

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

This is standard kitbashing and is common practice in the gaming industry regardless of engine used. Believe me when I say the memory it would take for 30 variants of the same rock cut to different points (each likely with their own unique textures and subsequently materials that would have to be loaded as well) as you suggested would be far worse than having 1 rock rotated and placed at different angles/depths into the ground.

Interesting...because I did not see a lot of that in WOW. I fact glitching in wow you often dont see objects rendered. But perhaps this is in part why that game runs smoother with a larger non instanced world. And you are right, there is no question that 1 rock rendered 100 times is less taxing on the system than 100 different rocks. But then that should apply to players as well. Using the same furnishing item over and over should "cost less", therefore allow for more instances of that furniture item.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

In the quote you are replying to with this, I may have been slightly unclear with my phrasing. The houses basic layout/housing items/rocks/trees/structures/landscape (basically anything the player is unable to alter in the home) are never transmitted outside of you initially downloading the game. When you enter the house those items are loaded into memory from .dat files already on your hard drive that tell the game what the home should look like. The only data transmission that occurs is the server telling your game client which user placed items (likely via item-ID) to place at what x,y,z coordinates in the worldspace once it has been loaded into memory.

Ohh no, my reply was specifically to what you just talked about. I understand the base game files are already on the system, the only data transmitted is the furnishing items placed in a house because obviously what I do on my client is not going to be seen by another client machine until the data is uploaded.

and that being said. I was able to place more furniture items, in fact over double than we can do in ESO, on a 2012 average PC in a voxel game that allowed for dual contouring (or there version of it at least) and maintained good performance.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

Back to the actual topic -

My entire post is on topic, as it is all related. There are no reasons why each additional purchased house guest can not come with its own slot that is added to the overall slot of the NPC list. No ones machine is going to break by adding additional house guests.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

while these things you speak of do contribute to the memory load for a home they are factored in prior to the housing item limits.

Except if you take 200 lights and plant them in the doorway of snug pod, you WILL affect another players machine which goes against ZOS reason for "housing limits".

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

The reasons for the limits have been discussed in another thread linked above. Additional limits per area would only hinder user creativity and build potential.

I am not suggesting that we have more housing limits that limit creativity (which itself can be argued because in the case of Still Waters if 700 slots works inside with no issues, than instancing the outside with an additional 700 slots would in fact INCREASE player creativity, by a LARGE margin), what I am trying to decipher is why the official excuse does not add up in game.

As they say, actions speak louder than words.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

Raideen wrote: »

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

For this, you may not see them walking around at ground level, that doesn't mean someone who builds a stairway or tower in the available exterior of the home would be unable to do so as well. Those details are what give each house character, instead of just being a literal box to build in with no background...

You can not see the Nord arch when at max height. You can BARELY see the two tops of the dwemer buildings which look like rocks in the distance. Nothing about them creates atmosphere and I would argue that the poly cost is unnecessary for the lack of impact they have on the player, again because as I initially stated, you cant see them....

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

This is standard kitbashing and is common practice in the gaming industry regardless of engine used. Believe me when I say the memory it would take for 30 variants of the same rock cut to different points (each likely with their own unique textures and subsequently materials that would have to be loaded as well) as you suggested would be far worse than having 1 rock rotated and placed at different angles/depths into the ground.

Interesting...because I did not see a lot of that in WOW. I fact glitching in wow you often dont see objects rendered. But perhaps this is in part why that game runs smoother with a larger non instanced world. And you are right, there is no question that 1 rock rendered 100 times is less taxing on the system than 100 different rocks. But then that should apply to players as well. Using the same furnishing item over and over should "cost less", therefore allow for more instances of that furniture item.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

In the quote you are replying to with this, I may have been slightly unclear with my phrasing. The houses basic layout/housing items/rocks/trees/structures/landscape (basically anything the player is unable to alter in the home) are never transmitted outside of you initially downloading the game. When you enter the house those items are loaded into memory from .dat files already on your hard drive that tell the game what the home should look like. The only data transmission that occurs is the server telling your game client which user placed items (likely via item-ID) to place at what x,y,z coordinates in the worldspace once it has been loaded into memory.

Ohh no, my reply was specifically to what you just talked about. I understand the base game files are already on the system, the only data transmitted is the furnishing items placed in a house because obviously what I do on my client is not going to be seen by another client machine until the data is uploaded.

and that being said. I was able to place more furniture items, in fact over double than we can do in ESO, on a 2012 average PC in a voxel game that allowed for dual contouring (or there version of it at least) and maintained good performance.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

Back to the actual topic -

My entire post is on topic, as it is all related. There are no reasons why each additional purchased house guest can not come with its own slot that is added to the overall slot of the NPC list. No ones machine is going to break by adding additional house guests.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

while these things you speak of do contribute to the memory load for a home they are factored in prior to the housing item limits.

Except if you take 200 lights and plant them in the doorway of snug pod, you WILL affect another players machine which goes against ZOS reason for "housing limits".

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

The reasons for the limits have been discussed in another thread linked above. Additional limits per area would only hinder user creativity and build potential.

I am not suggesting that we have more housing limits that limit creativity (which itself can be argued because in the case of Still Waters if 700 slots works inside with no issues, than instancing the outside with an additional 700 slots would in fact INCREASE player creativity, by a LARGE margin), what I am trying to decipher is why the official excuse does not add up in game.

As they say, actions speak louder than words.

I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics with you about unrelated details while this thread gets derailed. Much of what you are talking about has nothing to do with the furnishing limits let alone the special collectible limit - If you want to make a thread to discuss how much more performant houses could be if the devs didn't waste resources making backgrounds that may or may not be seen depending on how players choose to build by all means do so.

But they are not unrelated. Additional house slots are tied to housing and their limits are they not? I mean they are directly related. Our conversation may have segued into other avenues of housing in regards to limits, but at the end of the day we are talking about increasing limits and in that regard, the regard of the op, I am 100% on topic.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

Also, I was directly replying to the quoted portions of text with what I said, so quoting me and then reiterating something you previously said I didn't respond directly too makes no sense.

Because your reply was based on a false assumption, I simply corrected that.

Ellimist_Entreri wrote: »

This thread as stated by OP is about house-guests, the slots they take, and the impact the slot limit has on users opinions with regards to those aspects and potential purposes.

And I am discussing house limits and how they can be increased because in the small amounts we are talking, it's not going to affect anyone's computers or their performance, not in any negatively meaningful way.