EA Forums - Banner

Opinion on the new Decorations Cap

Prev1
I think if they need to have a cap, it should be raised to at least 5 or 6000.

Replies

  • VxMarmitex9
    956 posts
    edited April 2013
    I was just thinking, this might be out of order, but there must be loads of people taking up server space who don't even play anymore, why don't they just wipe any freemium towns that havent been logged into for 6 months or something?
  • lll3lucky
    543 posts Member
    edited April 2013
    Truthfully, I want no cap. I'd rather EA find better servers. If it is a must they should have not sprung it upon us at the last minute. They do need to raise the limit. I wasn't sure if my town was going to be affected, but I knew I had lot's of decorations, so while I was waiting to participate in the Whacking event I stored things that may be a little easy to put back. There should be a counter so we can know when we are at the limit. I just think they took an easy route as to blame the decorations for the mass of problems with this game. If you look at the 'OTHER SPRINGFIELD' it's just missing a few bldgs but it has a lot of decorations.
  • murdoc158
    17 posts
    edited April 2013
    VOTED: NO CAP

    I realize this is a huge update and you expect server issues. I realize you just brought thousands of new players online with Origin on Android. You knew this was in the pipeline. Why have you not upgraded sever capacity?

    I've been an EA user since Sega Genesis days. Between the rampant hacking in BF3, the server issues with Sim City, and now this I'm about done with EA forever. If the cap is not lifted after Wacking Day I'm done! EA will not see a single penny from me until the cap is lifted. You would think after being voted The Worst Company 2 years running that a stunt like this would not happen. If EA does not change direction they are truly doomed.
  • jarci1
    89 posts
    edited April 2013
    The cap is too low!!!
  • direwolf987
    7465 posts Member
    edited April 2013
    hmm, only 24 votes total. The Decoration Cap must not be as big of a slap in the face as I thought
  • SirLew1s
    197 posts
    edited April 2013
    They just need a grouping system, for instance if you place 20 hedges or fences in a row next to each other, they merge and form 1 fence. This will save each fence needing to be loaded and would save untold server space.
  • Hurleybird10
    65 posts
    edited April 2013
    i voted no cap!! think its a bit stupid being told that we cant decorate our towns in a way we would like to
  • TRTX84
    556 posts
    edited April 2013
    Of course "No cap" is going to win when you put it on a forum full of people who have built massive cities.
    The real question should be:

    Which would you rather have:
    1) Smooth server connections.
    2) Unlimited cities.
  • shaunareid
    721 posts
    edited April 2013
    I hate it, even though I was only 308 over it! But I had a huge house farm (450 blue's) which I was using for free donuts which I had to sell to bring me nicely under! I still got rid of some unnecessary decorations like flowers in gardens etc. Not a huge problem since they changed the XP goal and I did get $180,000 for the houses! :D

    It's mainly annoying because now I've got all the land available, with a huge chunk empty since the Blue house sale but with all the awesome new buildings I'm going to have to limit my designs moving forwards as I don't have much item space left which isn't fair really... :cry::cry:
  • TRTX84
    556 posts
    edited April 2013
    What's funny about house farming is somebody figured out you can build an "All House Farm" town and still be under the cap by about 1000 decorations.
  • ThorButtockth
    190 posts
    edited April 2013
    In a perfect world, I'd prefer no cap. The fun of the game, for me and for many others, comes from the creative ways we can use our decorations. Anybody can build a regular city with minimal decorations, so what's the fun in that? So it often takes a lot of decorations to be creative, therefore, no cap is best.

    With that said, I can also understand that EA has server issues. I'd love it if they didn't, but I can imagine just how hard it is to create a stable and non-lagging game when you have millions of players, a lot of whom have these incredibly elaborate and decorative towns, and another large group who like to house farm. The cap seems to effect decorators a LOT more than house farmers though... I still see cities with almost all their land filled with houses and buildings and they're still under 3000.

    So... I dunno. I just voted for a cap of 5000, but that might be kinda pointless and hurt both sides, as it probably isn't strict enough for the game to run smoother but also isn't enough for some players to go crazy with creativity. All in all, I'll just make the argument that it's possible to be creative with a 3000 limit -- the creativity is just harder, I guess.
  • XBL-Heretic
    1228 posts Member
    edited April 2013
    Sorry this is so long. It's based on my experience in IT, think it's a worthwhile to read, and I hope it sheds some light on the complexities of a mmol game like TSTO. There are a fair number of other IT folks in this forum so I'm interested in their thoughts as well.

    I voted "no cap", but if I think about it, I know it's probably unreasonable. If you think about it, TSTO is a fairly complex game requiring a lot of inter-server communications and low latency communications with the app running on our iOS/Android devices. I don't think it's as simple as how much space is used in EA servers for a town, or the size of the data stream between their servers and our devices.

    Think about it... How often have you made a change - say move a hedge one square - have your game crash, and when you reloaded it had lost your change? For me, it's only happened a few times and the crash had to happen within (milli)seconds of placing the item, which indicates just how quickly your changes are being uploaded to the EA servers.

    Have you ever been in your town when all of a sudden a building is vandalized that wasn't vandalized a second ago? It doesn't appear before your eyes... You scroll one screen away from Moe's, immediately scroll back to Moe's, and it's been vandalized. So a friend on the other side of the globe had a copy of your town loaded on their device when they visited you, did something to your town, and that something was immediately uploaded to the EA servers and then downloaded to your device. You saw the change the next time your device had to render that item on your screen. The opposite is occurring as well - other friends see Moe's has been vandalized so they can't vandalize it, but they can clean Moe's at the same time you may be cleaning Moe's.

    Now think about placing eggs in a friend's town. An egg is an item, a decoration that can be placed by someone else in any open area of your town. Think about that. Your friend on the other side of the globe is running a copy of your town on their device. S/he decides to place an egg. What would happen if, during the time the egg was being placed, you decided to move a hedge into the same space? That would be a problem since two items can't occupy the same space at the same time, so very fast low latency real time communications are occurring between your device, EA's servers, and your friend's device, to insure that conflict doesn't occur.

    Now consider if two (or more) friends happen to visit your town at the same time...

    All of the above is occurring in the background unbeknownst to you. Every movement one or more friends make placing an egg in your town needs to be checked against the current state of your town on all devices running your town. Is that one single square one or more friends see as available in your town now being used by something you did? Every change you make in your town needs to be *very* quickly uploaded to EA servers and be made available for any other players in or entering your town. And the more items in your town, the more data that must be updated and sent back and forth between you, the servers, and your friends who are in your town. The more items you have, the more likelihood that something may change while your friends are in your town. And with an event like this, many more players will be more frequently visiting their friends for longer periods of time.

    These complexities do not justify the issues we see with TSTO. Poor software design and coding along with an obvious lack of QA and regression testing is the likely culprit of EA's problems. But in reality, TSTO is a very complex mmol game implemented partly on relatively low end client hardware over sometimes relatively high latency network connections. Although I condemn the manner in which EA implemented the cap (no customer notice, during a large highly-anticipated event), I can understand why they needed to put a cap on the number of items in a town. I just wish EA had given us a "bulk move" feature so some players didn't have to spend the first couple days of this limited time event storing up to several thousand items. But then I guess it is consistent to EA's "user hateful" manner of dealing with their customers...

    Edit: grammar & spelling
  • PhenomTT
    478 posts
    edited April 2013
    Sorry this is so long. It's based on my experience in IT, think it's a worthwhile to read, and I hope it sheds some light on the complexities of a mmol game like TSTO. There are a fair number of other IT folks in this forum so I'm interested in their thoughts as well.

    I voted "no cap". If you think about it, TSTO is a fairly complex game requiring a lot of inter-server communications and low latency communications with the app running on our iOS/Android devices. I don't think it's as simple as how much space is used in EA servers for a town, or the side of the data stream between their servers and our devices.

    Think about it... How often have you made a change - say move a hedge one square - have your game crash, and when you reloaded it had lost your change? For me, it's only happened a few times and the crash had to happen within (milli)seconds of placing the item, which indicates just how quickly your changes are being uploaded to the EA servers.

    Have you ever been in your town when all of a sudden a building is vandalized that wasn't vandalized a second ago? It doesn't appear before your eyes... You scroll one screen away from Moe's, immediately scroll back to Moe's, and it's been vandalized. So a friend on the other side of the globe had a copy of your town loaded on their device when they visited you, did something to your town, and that something was immediately uploaded to the EA servers and then downloaded to your device. You saw the change the next time your device had to render that item on your screen. The opposite is occurring as well - other friends see Moe's has been vandalized so they can't vandalize it, but they can clean Moe's at the same time you may be cleaning Moe's.

    Now think about placing eggs in a friend's town. An egg is an item, a decoration that can be placed by someone else in any open area of your town. Think about that. Your friend on the other side of the globe is running a copy of your town on their device. S/he decides to place an egg. What would happen if, during the time the egg was being placed, you decided to move a hedge into the same space? That would be a problem since two items can't occupy the same space at the same time, so very fast low latency real time communications are occurring between your device, EA's servers, and your friend's device, to insure that conflict doesn't occur.

    Now consider if two (or more) friends happen to visit your town at the same time...

    All of the above is occurring in the background unbeknownst to you. Every movement one or more friends make placing an egg in your town needs to be checked against the current state of your town on all devices running your town. Is that one single square one or more friends see as available in your town now being used by something you did? Every change you make in your town needs to be *very* quickly uploaded to EA servers and be made available for any other players in or entering your town. And the more items in your town, the more data that must be updated and sent back and forth between you, the servers, and your friends who are in your town. The more items you have, the more likelihood that something may change while your friends are in your town. And with an event like this, many more players will be more frequently visiting their friends for longer periods of time.

    These complexities do not justify the issues we see with TSTO. Poor software design and coding along with an obvious lack of QA and regression testing is the likely culprit of EA's problems. But in reality, TSTO is a very complex mmol game implemented partly on relatively low end client hardware over sometimes relatively high latency network connections. Although I condemn the manner in which EA implemented the cap (no customer notice, during a large highly-anticipated event), I can understand why they needed to put a cap on the number of items in a town. I just wish EA had given us a "bulk move" feature so some players didn't have to spend the first couple days of this limited time event storing up to several thousand items. But then I guess it is consistent to EA's "user hateful" manner of dealing with their customers...


    While ur Theory is valid..

    I would like to indicate that this type of MMOl has been achieved before by other companies with no necessity for a cap on decorations, so it is not like a new never been done before style of game they couldn't have foreseen the server and bandwidth requirements.

    It would indicate to me that they chose to cap the data to make room for a huge influx of players from a new OS, instead of delegating more resources for the huge events that unfolded this week.

    I seriously doubt one of the largest gaming companies in the world went in to this toaly un-prepared..and were blind sided.



    **EDIT**

    considering they have already tried an totally online based game (the latest Simcity) I would think they would have atleast gleaned a bit of knowledge of the do's and donts as well as what would be require in terms of computing power, resources .etc...
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • XBL-Heretic
    1228 posts Member
    edited April 2013
    PhenomTT wrote:
    While ur Theory is valid..

    I would like to indicate that this type of MMOl has been achieved before by other companies with no necessity for a cap on decorations, so it is not like a new never been done before style of game they couldn't have foreseen the server and bandwidth requirements.

    It would indicate to me that they chose to cap the data to make room for a huge influx of players from a new OS, instead of delegating more resources for the huge events that unfolded this week.

    I seriously doubt one of the largest gaming companies in the world went in to this toaly un-prepared..and were blind sided.

    **EDIT**

    considering they have already tried an totally online based game (the latest Simcity) I would think they would have atleast gleaned a bit of knowledge of the do's and donts as well as what would be require in terms of computing power, resources .etc...

    I absolutely agree with your comments. IMHO the SimCity debacle proves lack of knowledge or commitment to deploying a complex MMOL. It's certainly always easier and cheaper to restrict functionality as opposed to adding resources. And of course one poorly designed outer join resulting from an inefficiently-designed schema can cause the whole thing to crash down around you.

    My goal was to describe at a high level just how complex a game like TSTO can be. Not justify the ongoing problems introduced by EA's poor implementation.

    The one thing I'm not as experienced with is deploying such MMOLs on mobile devices. The MMOLs I have experience with all run on intel-based hardware or the console platforms to a lesser degree. Is anyone aware of any other large MMOL deployed on the mobile platform?
  • PhenomTT
    478 posts
    edited April 2013
    Farmville is one of the many Mobile MMOLs available.. I will add that my farmville "3D farm", is more intense than the best of towns seen here, and it ran flawlessly on my Ipod touch..
  • bendermac
    265 posts Member
    edited April 2013
    no cap. ea should get better/more servers.
  • vercettitx
    116 posts
    edited April 2013
    Too much of that "Im not affected so who gives a sh it" attitude from some of these players.
  • XBL-Heretic
    1228 posts Member
    edited April 2013
    PhenomTT wrote:
    Farmville is one of the many Mobile MMOLs available.. I will add that my farmville , 3D farm is more intense than the best of towns seen here, and it ran flawlessly..

    We're definitely OT here now. But interesting... I was under the impression Farmville and 3D Farm were centralized web-based apps. Is there a mobile app-based component you need to download and install onto your mobile device to play those games? In my experience anyway, concurrency and referential integrity of the data is much more manageable for a multi-user centralized application than it is for a multi-user distributed application.
  • PhenomTT
    478 posts
    edited April 2013
    PhenomTT wrote:
    I was under the impression Farmville and 3D Farm were centralized web-based apps. Is there a mobile app-based component you need to download and install onto your mobile device to play those games?




    Yes they have a FV mobile app you can download from itunes, it has almost all the feature's of the web based game..visiting/collecting from friends,collecting from items in your own farm,shopping from the store, decorating etc..

    the Ui is slightly different but the app actually runs in conjunction to your web based farm ,changes on either are immediately seen on the other..

    As far as I can tell the graphics are stored locally, the server just streams all the coordinates and other player profile data to the app which renders the map and items in realtime..

    In my experience anyway, concurrency and referential integrity of the data is much more manageable for a multi-user centralized application than it is for a multi-user distributed application.


    agreed..some more than others..
  • A_Bad_Exampl3
    916 posts
    edited April 2013
    TRTX84 wrote:
    Of course "No cap" is going to win when you put it on a forum full of people who have built massive cities.
    The real question should be:

    Which would you rather have:
    1) Smooth server connections.
    2) Unlimited cities.

    Right now, we have neither. I've crashed more times since the cap was imposed than I had in the preceding 3 months.

    And yes, that is after I removed a couple thousand items. Which was a bit* to do with several crashes Wed night/Thursday morning.
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!