I'm reserving judgement on the limit until I see how much more stable it makes the game. If it prevents more people from losing their whole town, then I'd say it's worth it.
My small maze is not as elaborate as yours, but to tear down any part of a town makes me kind of sad. I actually thought this is what TSTO was all about. I liked my towns' creation as well as seeing others who had taking time to create their masterpieces. EA must raise the cap and get better servers. Just like someone stated already, next the requirement for decorations will have us with scarecrow towns. Seems that EA just wants to end TSTO at all cost (imo).
I'm reserving judgement on the limit until I see how much more stable it makes the game. If it prevents more people from losing their whole town, then I'd say it's worth it.
I would really like to see how they tie in heavily decorated springfileds, with people loosing thier towns..... cause I just dont see the corelation
What imo doesnt make sense is the size relative to the item count, the Springfield sign vs the burning bush, there is no difference to item count they both count as one item.
What imo doesnt make sense is the size relative to the item count, the Springfield sign vs the burning bush, there is no difference to item count they both count as one item.
I'm reserving judgement on the limit until I see how much more stable it makes the game. If it prevents more people from losing their whole town, then I'd say it's worth it.
I would really like to see how they tie in heavily decorated springfileds, with people loosing thier towns..... cause I just dont see the corelation
When did it become okay to fix a problem with another problem....
EA is the reason people lost there game and to fix it (if it does help stability) the introduce a controversial 3k limit...
And it doesn't rlly help anyone get there town back either.
Fixing a problem with a problem will only make things worse in the future. The reason they did it this way is because it was the cheapest fastest solution, EA is not the type of company to go the extra mile for customer satisfaction when they are already making money.
What imo doesnt make sense is the size relative to the item count, the Springfield sign vs the burning bush, there is no difference to item count they both count as one item.
why would size matter?
This i dont know but id like to put alot of plants and currently they are only 4 spaces or smaller
What imo doesnt make sense is the size relative to the item count, the Springfield sign vs the burning bush, there is no difference to item count they both count as one item.
One thing to consider is that you can fit more smaller items on screen at a time. For example, the hedge maze was 300+ all in one space.
I've noticed in my own town that a few buildings will sometimes "vanish" if enough of it is offscreen. I'm wondering if they have logic in place that tries to limit how much the game renders at any given moment. So 300 bushes all in one spot requires resources differently than 300 buildings.
Like wise, it could be that the only thing that EA sends us when we view a city is what item should go in which coordinate, in which case it's up to the game locally to know what art assets to display.
Heck, that could be the reason for the limit. EA switched to a different means of transmitting city data to help reduce strain and thus limit lag when visiting cities. And that comes with the side effect of 3000 item max before they run into issues.
When did it become okay to fix a problem with anEA is the reason people lost there game and to fix it (if it does help stability) the introduce a controversial 3k limit...
And it doesn't rlly help anyone get there town back either.
But let me ask you this:
If server issues are what cause cities to get lost, and implementing a limit helps reduce (or stop) server issues...then shouldn't they take that action to prevent FUTURE towns from being lost?
Because, yes, you may not be able to save people who have already been hit...but at least they can help prevent it from happening again.
Even with the cap on decorations, I really don't see that the problem comes from the players. I think they want an easy target to blame. They don't want to invest in better servers. So I'm going within EA's cap, hopefully because I don't know until Homer and Lisa finish, then why the heck is Smithers and Mr Burns not doing their 60 minute task? Why is it that XP is non achievable for a lot of players? Why do I we see multiple glitches of characters/bldgs? Why do you send that dumb response letter to everyone that complains? Why are people towns being reset? I"m guessing it's the decorations :O
exactly I believe EA just streams our devices a coordinate for the buildings and decorations based off our profiles, the App its self uses the locally saved graphics to render the visable town we see based off of these coordinates... so the size of the item plays no part in server instability...
The number of items could, in the essence more items = larger profile= more server space=more bandwith when streaming data to devices as well as computing power saving/loading/streaming the profiles etc..
But still other companies with extremly simular games "U know who i refer too.." have not limited the number of decorations/buildings players can have that ive ever heard of.. other than running out of squares to place things in..
So I would sumise they dont have enough backend to support the game with the full influx of new players, and instead chose to cap the users..
Heck, that could be the reason for the limit. EA switched to a different means of transmitting city data to help reduce strain and thus limit lag when visiting cities. And that comes with the side effect of 3000 item max before they run into issues.
The only time that me and my neighbours had lag problems in my town, was when I put a happy new year message, dead center in my town. I had all my characters there greeting visitors. I reduced that quickly. Got several messages from friends that loved it, but could not move cause it crashed.
And why is it possible to keep your town the way it is? You don't have to remove anything. Only when you want to ad something new. I have friends that have to remove thousands of items. But if they decide to keep it that way. No problem. Keep on collecting, put your characters on jobs. Only thing, you can't add even one item. It makes no sense.
Let's see if they can deliver a stable game in the next few weeks. I predict several new problems.
Cap them down to 2000. That will work.
The only thing that I don't understand is why implement a restriction but provide no way of knowing where you stand on that limit and then offering up mystery boxes that give you even more crap that you would otherwise not have bought yourself. If you're going to give me premium items fine but don't hand out a bunch of decorative crap that I don't want. Sure it could go in inventory or I could sell it but it just seems counterintuitive. It could very well be a coincidence because so many people's Homer & Lisa tasks are finishing up today but I didn't start seeing eggs in my town until after I put a bunch of stuff away in inventory but really I have no idea if I was over (I truly doubt it) or if I did the right thing. That is frustrating. The design aspect I know is super annoying as well but as mentioned above eventually some changes would have had to been made in order to make room for more content. I really wouldn't rely on them making more land available for a very very very long time so this sacrifice would have been inevitable but that's just my opinion.
When did it become okay to fix a problem with anEA is the reason people lost there game and to fix it (if it does help stability) the introduce a controversial 3k limit...
And it doesn't rlly help anyone get there town back either.
But let me ask you this:
If server issues are what cause cities to get lost, and implementing a limit helps reduce (or stop) server issues...then shouldn't they take that action to prevent FUTURE towns from being lost?
Because, yes, you may not be able to save people who have already been hit...but at least they can help prevent it from happening again.
There has always been something wrong with the servers for as long as i remember, they do fix it temporarily but something always comes.. some type of problem or glitch comes and changes something, the way they fix problems is by putting on a quick fix, or so it seems. Even with this EA became aware that quite a few peoples towns were getting rolled-back and yet another quick fix to the problem, just to keep it running smooth at a bare minimum to them where they can maximize profit, With EA being such a large company... do you think they could not have stability and increase the count to 6000...
Seriously with the proper funding this game could rock.. but I fear thier trying to milk this cow for all its worth.. and I dont mean the developers or support, but the higherups.
Seriously with the proper funding this game could rock.. but I fear thier trying to milk this cow for all its worth.. and I dont mean the developers or support, but the higherups.
If server issues are what cause cities to get lost, and implementing a limit helps reduce (or stop) server issues...then shouldn't they take that action to prevent FUTURE towns from being lost?
Because, yes, you may not be able to save people who have already been hit...but at least they can help prevent it from happening again.
Cities were being lost from the beginning. Nobody had big cities then. This cap isn't going to solve anything.
The rule is definitely a problem. It may have a good reason, but it is definitely a problem for the reasons that many people already noted. The biggest issue here in my estimation is that EA does a poor job communicating major game Decisions. Wouldn't it make more sense to have explanations For all of these major decisions in the form of press releases? The PR arm of the day is deplorable. They could perhaps Sason headaches if they just took some time to create an announcement website.
Replies
I would really like to see how they tie in heavily decorated springfileds, with people loosing thier towns..... cause I just dont see the corelation
why would size matter?
When did it become okay to fix a problem with another problem....
EA is the reason people lost there game and to fix it (if it does help stability) the introduce a controversial 3k limit...
And it doesn't rlly help anyone get there town back either.
Fixing a problem with a problem will only make things worse in the future. The reason they did it this way is because it was the cheapest fastest solution, EA is not the type of company to go the extra mile for customer satisfaction when they are already making money.
This i dont know but id like to put alot of plants and currently they are only 4 spaces or smaller
One thing to consider is that you can fit more smaller items on screen at a time. For example, the hedge maze was 300+ all in one space.
I've noticed in my own town that a few buildings will sometimes "vanish" if enough of it is offscreen. I'm wondering if they have logic in place that tries to limit how much the game renders at any given moment. So 300 bushes all in one spot requires resources differently than 300 buildings.
Like wise, it could be that the only thing that EA sends us when we view a city is what item should go in which coordinate, in which case it's up to the game locally to know what art assets to display.
Heck, that could be the reason for the limit. EA switched to a different means of transmitting city data to help reduce strain and thus limit lag when visiting cities. And that comes with the side effect of 3000 item max before they run into issues.
But let me ask you this:
If server issues are what cause cities to get lost, and implementing a limit helps reduce (or stop) server issues...then shouldn't they take that action to prevent FUTURE towns from being lost?
Because, yes, you may not be able to save people who have already been hit...but at least they can help prevent it from happening again.
The number of items could, in the essence more items = larger profile= more server space=more bandwith when streaming data to devices as well as computing power saving/loading/streaming the profiles etc..
But still other companies with extremly simular games "U know who i refer too.." have not limited the number of decorations/buildings players can have that ive ever heard of.. other than running out of squares to place things in..
So I would sumise they dont have enough backend to support the game with the full influx of new players, and instead chose to cap the users..
The only time that me and my neighbours had lag problems in my town, was when I put a happy new year message, dead center in my town. I had all my characters there greeting visitors. I reduced that quickly. Got several messages from friends that loved it, but could not move cause it crashed.
And why is it possible to keep your town the way it is? You don't have to remove anything. Only when you want to ad something new. I have friends that have to remove thousands of items. But if they decide to keep it that way. No problem. Keep on collecting, put your characters on jobs. Only thing, you can't add even one item. It makes no sense.
Let's see if they can deliver a stable game in the next few weeks. I predict several new problems.
Cap them down to 2000. That will work.
There has always been something wrong with the servers for as long as i remember, they do fix it temporarily but something always comes.. some type of problem or glitch comes and changes something, the way they fix problems is by putting on a quick fix, or so it seems. Even with this EA became aware that quite a few peoples towns were getting rolled-back and yet another quick fix to the problem, just to keep it running smooth at a bare minimum to them where they can maximize profit, With EA being such a large company... do you think they could not have stability and increase the count to 6000...
:thumbup: + 1
Cities were being lost from the beginning. Nobody had big cities then. This cap isn't going to solve anything.