EA Forums - Banner

Because of the 3000 limit....

Replies

  • hokieborn
    171 posts Member
    edited April 2013
    Assuming that the 3k limit resolves all stability / lost town / etc issues...

    The problem is that it doesn't actually solve the problem, it solves the symptom. Putting a number on it (like 3k) implies that their servers / bandwidth / infrastructure, can only handle a certain amount of usage, and that with the current user base, that usage has already been eclipsed. So they've imposed a cap. Fine, from there we have to make some assumptions, but the underlying concepts are going to be the same.

    Let's say it turns out that the regular user has 2000 items (remember this is an assumption, but also know that the average number of items per user is going to grow over time as they add new content). And new users continue to come on, this has been a top 10 app for 8+ months in ITunes, and android just came on. So just to STAY EVEN, for each new user that signs up and becomes a regular player, they will need 4 people with 3500 items now to get under 3k, and for regular players to continue to replace stuff, instead of grow as content comes online That's an untenable position. It means that an infrastructure that is already stressed, needs a critical mass of users to down grade their system so others can grow. This is the start down a very slippery slope that will probably result in tighter restrictions down the line as they need to accommodate more users.

    They need to look at what's causing the symptom, are they sending that much over the wire each time you connect, are they storing a copy of each fence piece on their system that you place? How are they delivering this game to you in such a way that they can't deliver more intricate towns?
  • PhenomTT
    478 posts
    edited April 2013
    hokieborn wrote:
    Assuming that the 3k limit resolves all stability / lost town / etc issues...

    The problem is that it doesn't actually solve the problem, it solves the symptom. Putting a number on it (like 3k) implies that their servers / bandwidth / infrastructure, can only handle a certain amount of usage, and that with the current user base, that usage has already been eclipsed. So they've imposed a cap. Fine, from there we have to make some assumptions, but the underlying concepts are going to be the same.

    Let's say it turns out that the regular user has 2000 items (remember this is an assumption, but also know that the average number of items per user is going to grow over time as they add new content). And new users continue to come on, this has been a top 10 app for 8+ months in ITunes, and android just came on. So just to STAY EVEN, for each new user that signs up and becomes a regular player, they will need 4 people with 3500 items now to get under 3k, and for regular players to continue to replace stuff, instead of grow as content comes online That's an untenable position. It means that an infrastructure that is already stressed, needs a critical mass of users to down grade their system so others can grow. This is the start down a very slippery slope that will probably result in tighter restrictions down the line as they need to accommodate more users.

    They need to look at what's causing the symptom, are they sending that much over the wire each time you connect, are they storing a copy of each fence piece on their system that you place? How are they delivering this game to you in such a way that they can't deliver more intricate towns?


    exactly even if the cap did resolve the issues currently being seen. Which I cant fathom it has...

    reducing the players options to keep a maxed out system running is only a bandaid,, as you add more players you will inevitably have to reduce game play further or grow a pair and buy some equipment.. but the way things are going, I seriously doubt the latter..
  • brenner_yes
    1156 posts
    edited April 2013
    PhenomTT wrote:
    hokieborn wrote:
    Assuming that the 3k limit resolves all stability / lost town / etc issues...

    The problem is that it doesn't actually solve the problem, it solves the symptom. Putting a number on it (like 3k) implies that their servers / bandwidth / infrastructure, can only handle a certain amount of usage, and that with the current user base, that usage has already been eclipsed. So they've imposed a cap. Fine, from there we have to make some assumptions, but the underlying concepts are going to be the same.

    Let's say it turns out that the regular user has 2000 items (remember this is an assumption, but also know that the average number of items per user is going to grow over time as they add new content). And new users continue to come on, this has been a top 10 app for 8+ months in ITunes, and android just came on. So just to STAY EVEN, for each new user that signs up and becomes a regular player, they will need 4 people with 3500 items now to get under 3k, and for regular players to continue to replace stuff, instead of grow as content comes online That's an untenable position. It means that an infrastructure that is already stressed, needs a critical mass of users to down grade their system so others can grow. This is the start down a very slippery slope that will probably result in tighter restrictions down the line as they need to accommodate more users.

    They need to look at what's causing the symptom, are they sending that much over the wire each time you connect, are they storing a copy of each fence piece on their system that you place? How are they delivering this game to you in such a way that they can't deliver more intricate towns?


    exactly even if the cap did resolve the issues currently being seen. Which I cant fathom it has...

    reducing the players options to keep a maxed out system running is only a bandaid,, as you add more players you will inevitably have to reduce game play further or grow a pair and buy some equipment.. but the way things are going, I seriously doubt the latter..

    Yes this is what i was trying to say but i suck at getting my point across when im distracted lol
  • capnfatback
    71 posts Member
    edited April 2013
    I don't know. I'd be a little skeptical about that dichotomy, for it implies that EA's willing to let the game die in short order. Considering what a popular game it is, and how much money they must be making in the form of virtual donuts, I can't imagine that they'd keep putting off updating the servers– if that is what the issue is.
  • punkymcmilli
    292 posts
    edited April 2013
    My decos are under 2k, but that's because I have 1613 white houses, taking up most of my grid. Lol.
  • mwdalton
    11545 posts Member
    edited April 2013
    Lift The Dome!

    vlcsnap805188ye2.png
  • PhenomTT
    478 posts
    edited April 2013
    I don't know. I'd be a little skeptical about that dichotomy, for it implies that EA's willing to let the game die in short order. Considering what a popular game it is, and how much money they must be making in the form of virtual donuts, I can't imagine that they'd keep putting off updating the servers– if that is what the issue is.

    it's not that they will let the game die in short order, but that instead of delving out the resources to make this game rock, they will keep bandaiding it till the core players are gone, then they will pump out the extras to try and entice them back, usually a little too late..

    And again i don't refer to the developers or support, they get stuck taking the brunt of the flack for the decisions the corporate suits make...
  • petergeenen
    948 posts Member
    edited April 2013
    I don't know. I'd be a little skeptical about that dichotomy, for it implies that EA's willing to let the game die in short order. Considering what a popular game it is, and how much money they must be making in the form of virtual donuts, I can't imagine that they'd keep putting off updating the servers– if that is what the issue is.

    Think about it this way. New players come in, get exited, start spending money, towns growing, become older players, get turned off by new problems with every update, spending less money. Hey, new players come in, start spending money. Do we realy need those guys who's money we already have?
  • brenner_yes
    1156 posts
    edited April 2013
    So here it is finally attained 3000, thought it would take longer, homer still has 16 hours of wacking snakes lefts before i can start in my main town.
    1Gnx1Lg.png

    R3At1pJ.png

    I actually have to store more im exactly at 3000 now /sigh :(
  • chelsea0790
    407 posts
    edited April 2013
    I guess this thread will be deleted, just like one I had made about 9 hours ago :roll:
  • dromtsul
    1169 posts
    edited April 2013
    I guess this thread will be deleted, just like one I had made about 9 hours ago :roll:
    http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/9435931.page
  • PhenomTT
    478 posts
    edited April 2013
    I guess this thread will be deleted, just like one I had made about 9 hours ago :roll:

    oh so it was ur thread...it got hidden because someone used a offensive avatar and wouldn't remove it apparently.
  • chelsea0790
    407 posts
    edited April 2013
    PhenomTT wrote:
    I guess this thread will be deleted, just like one I had made about 9 hours ago :roll:

    oh so it was ur thread...it got hidden because someone used a offensive avatar and wouldn't remove it apparently.

    lol, that makes sense

    I don't even know how long the thread got, or what was said, I was really curious to see what happened =\

    thanks for letting me know though!

    **2nd edit

    So it was my thread that was deleted, and the offending poster who caused it to be deleted still has his avatar

    http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/user/profile/8345236.page

    Not having a go at the mods, but that is not how you moderate a forum. I know they don't have banning privileges, but it is really lame to delete a thread just because of a users avatar. *fuming*
  • Land0fComedy
    1110 posts
    edited April 2013
    mwdalton wrote:
    Lift The Dome!

    vlcsnap805188ye2.png

    I want that drill :mrgreen:
  • dromtsul
    1169 posts
    edited April 2013
    It says the OP had an offensive avatar, and I have never had a different avatar than this one so maybe it's not the thread I was talking about LOL
    No, it was, but there was a little confusion. This member: http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/user/profile/8345236.page posted in it a few times which caused the thread to be hidden.
  • chelsea0790
    407 posts
    edited April 2013
    dromtsul wrote:
    It says the OP had an offensive avatar, and I have never had a different avatar than this one so maybe it's not the thread I was talking about LOL
    No, it was, but there was a little confusion. This member: http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/user/profile/8345236.page posted in it a few times which caused the thread to be hidden.

    I just reaslised this, thankyou for telling me though

    It is pathetic to see he still has an 'offending' avatar... I would say this guy has more power than mods do in essence, his posts can lock and delete threads wherever he passes by!

    *I didn't even get a pm about my thread being deleted or anything, no message no warning!
  • PhenomTT
    478 posts
    edited April 2013
    well most likely if he did a random post in a thread the post would be hidden.. as it probably would not have been really all that itegral to the thread..tho in this case the avatar was changed to the offending one after many posts and quoted replies, so not only his posts but the posts of others would have been hidden or altered..thus making the thread a jumble of half posts and replies to no one..destroying the continuity of the thread as it were.

    I feel the Mod did thier best under the circumstances..
  • chelsea0790
    407 posts
    edited April 2013
    PhenomTT wrote:
    in this case the avatar was changed to the offending one after many posts and quoted replies, so not only his posts but the posts of others would have been hidden or altered..thus making the thread a jumble of half posts and replies to no one..destroying the continuity of the thread as it were.

    I feel the Mod did thier best under the circumstances..

    Yeah but, on this forum quoting someone doesn't quote their avatar as well. I personally don't think a thread should be deleted just because the continuity has been comprised slightly

    *shrugs* it just gives more power to this guy, he now knows he can get any thread deleted.
  • PhenomTT
    478 posts
    edited April 2013
    PhenomTT wrote:
    in this case the avatar was changed to the offending one after many posts and quoted replies, so not only his posts but the posts of others would have been hidden or altered..thus making the thread a jumble of half posts and replies to no one..destroying the continuity of the thread as it were.

    I feel the Mod did thier best under the circumstances..

    Yeah but, on this forum quoting someone doesn't quote their avatar as well. I personally don't think a thread should be deleted just because the continuity has been comprised slightly

    *shrugs* it just gives more power to this guy, he now knows he can get any thread deleted.


    Well not really as with any forums the mods report to the admins, the admin may have already removed his posting privileges or banned him.

    Could be the mod had the power to remove posting privileges. typically by the time a mod feels the need to step in, the offender can expect a warning or have his posting privileges removed till they agree to behave, or in the ultimate case be banned..

    Being a mod and admin on a number of sites I know first hand how these things work, tho the specifics of the mod powers here I am not privy to.


    In any case being a volunteer moderator is a thankless job, especially when one has to make the occasional unpopular decision.. You can be assured they generally do it out of love for the community and the willingness to take a bashing for the sake total strangers..
  • Mjr1124
    654 posts
    edited April 2013
    Chelsea should have at least had an explaination as to why a thread she creates and did nothing wrong in herself was deleted. They should have just nuked the posts by the person with the offending avatar, people would have figured out the conversation.

    Good thing all the trolls know how to get threads shut down though....
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.