|
On February 02 2012 06:50 Sek-Kuar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 06:29 Shodanss wrote:On February 02 2012 06:07 Sek-Kuar wrote:On February 02 2012 05:47 Assault_1 wrote:On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke. a bit more than what? they're already storing a large amount. Obviously there has to be a limit, and the more u store the more expensive it is (ie. more servers or w/e). I must agree with rezoacken, how much are we really talking here about? Unique item number, durability, defense, variables... maybe 20-30 B per item? So about 10-15 kB for stash full of (405) swords? For gods sake on my totally free email adress I have over 600 MB of data and its unlimited anyway, it for sure does sound kinda ridiculous. You forget that many other variables might exist that they are not telling us.. it should not be only 30b per item. Also you do not access your 600mb of data from your email at once. I think its safe to assume that variables like "found in daytime/nightime" are not going to exist - no reason for some unrealistic conspiracy theories - so list should be pretty small. Unique number, iLVL, defense, current & max durability, color, socket 0/1 + gem inside, variables + random mod. No reason for more than 20-30 B, its really simple actually.
+Location, who killed the mob that dropped it, hardcore or softcore, and i bet 4-5 we do not know.Do not forget that they must have a way to see dupes etc..
|
On February 02 2012 06:45 Tula wrote:
3) Considering that Blizzard cannot charge for the battlenet (at least without loosing a ton of buisness) that service needs to be provided almost for free, or at least covered within their profit margin from buying the box.
you forgot their main source of revenue, taking a cut off each transaction in the auction house
this game will probably make more money for them than WoW
|
On February 02 2012 07:05 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 06:45 Tula wrote:
3) Considering that Blizzard cannot charge for the battlenet (at least without loosing a ton of buisness) that service needs to be provided almost for free, or at least covered within their profit margin from buying the box. you forgot their main source of revenue, taking a cut off each transaction in the auction house this game will probably make more money for them than WoW
Most of people in here just throw out some personal assumptions without real data supporting their claims.
Yes there is a possibility that D3 will be more profitable than WoW, but it is not like those profits just happen to get to them the first day, hence I do understand if they want to play safe and make 100% sure they have storage enough and then eventually increasing it over time. You are right that the RMAH will be their main revenue from this game, because of the success of mini-transactions, but the profits from RMAH will probably show after some time, since it needs to be used alot.
|
How come that wasn't a problem in D2?
|
On February 02 2012 06:54 Shodanss wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 06:50 Sek-Kuar wrote:On February 02 2012 06:29 Shodanss wrote:On February 02 2012 06:07 Sek-Kuar wrote:On February 02 2012 05:47 Assault_1 wrote:On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke. a bit more than what? they're already storing a large amount. Obviously there has to be a limit, and the more u store the more expensive it is (ie. more servers or w/e). I must agree with rezoacken, how much are we really talking here about? Unique item number, durability, defense, variables... maybe 20-30 B per item? So about 10-15 kB for stash full of (405) swords? For gods sake on my totally free email adress I have over 600 MB of data and its unlimited anyway, it for sure does sound kinda ridiculous. You forget that many other variables might exist that they are not telling us.. it should not be only 30b per item. Also you do not access your 600mb of data from your email at once. I think its safe to assume that variables like "found in daytime/nightime" are not going to exist - no reason for some unrealistic conspiracy theories - so list should be pretty small. Unique number, iLVL, defense, current & max durability, color, socket 0/1 + gem inside, variables + random mod. No reason for more than 20-30 B, its really simple actually. +Location, who killed the mob that dropped it, hardcore or softcore, and i bet 4-5 we do not know.Do not forget that they must have a way to see dupes etc..
Dude you have seriously no idea what you are talking about.
They dont keep location or who killed mob, only iLVL (or at least thats how it worked in D2), there is absolutely no reason to have HC/SC variable because SC char obviously can not have HC items, and to see dupes only thing they have is unique item code. They dont have 4-5 variables like "was this item duped 0/1" LOL.
Seriously stop this conspiracy theories about so many things we dont know about, it is pretty clear what variables items have.
|
On February 02 2012 07:12 Dagobert wrote:
How come that wasn't a problem in D2?
it was, they were gonna increase stash size in a patch then had to abandon it because all the servers became laggy
and this is like 100x bigger than d2's
|
Your stash probably gets loaded to server ram on login. The limiting factor is not the database/harddiskspace.
Also every item on the AH, on ground and wherever is probably an object in ram on some server.
So it should be easy to see why a big stash could be costly.
|
Id much more like to see them to reduce amount of useless common drops and rather keep bigger stash.
Its really sad, couple days ago they turned common items useless for no reason, so they are now literally nothing but loads of useless crap on servers nobody is going to pick anyway... and now they are reducing stash size because there is too much crap.
This last couple of weeks is just joke.
|
On February 02 2012 07:18 Sek-Kuar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 06:54 Shodanss wrote:On February 02 2012 06:50 Sek-Kuar wrote:On February 02 2012 06:29 Shodanss wrote:On February 02 2012 06:07 Sek-Kuar wrote:On February 02 2012 05:47 Assault_1 wrote:On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke. a bit more than what? they're already storing a large amount. Obviously there has to be a limit, and the more u store the more expensive it is (ie. more servers or w/e). I must agree with rezoacken, how much are we really talking here about? Unique item number, durability, defense, variables... maybe 20-30 B per item? So about 10-15 kB for stash full of (405) swords? For gods sake on my totally free email adress I have over 600 MB of data and its unlimited anyway, it for sure does sound kinda ridiculous. You forget that many other variables might exist that they are not telling us.. it should not be only 30b per item. Also you do not access your 600mb of data from your email at once. I think its safe to assume that variables like "found in daytime/nightime" are not going to exist - no reason for some unrealistic conspiracy theories - so list should be pretty small. Unique number, iLVL, defense, current & max durability, color, socket 0/1 + gem inside, variables + random mod. No reason for more than 20-30 B, its really simple actually. +Location, who killed the mob that dropped it, hardcore or softcore, and i bet 4-5 we do not know.Do not forget that they must have a way to see dupes etc.. Dude you have seriously no idea what you are talking about. They dont keep location or who killed mob, only iLVL (or at least thats how it worked in D2), there is absolutely no reason to have HC/SC variable because SC char obviously can not have HC items, and to see dupes only thing they have is unique item code. They dont have 4-5 variables like "was this item duped 0/1" LOL. Seriously stop this conspiracy theories about so many things we dont know about, it is pretty clear what variables items have.
I am not only talking about the kbs per item on the id... i am talking about kbs on item +server +the info that need to be exchanged from server to pc and back.We do not know all the variables and i know that what i say is my unsophisticated observation-idea-knowhow or whatever you want to call it, but i think way more kb go to items than what we think.
|
On February 02 2012 06:00 Maekchu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke. Obviously you don't know how data is stored. In this wondrous age of IT and IT-minded societies, I think the real joke here is you. You should know better than thinking data is just stored in pure air. Also, I think this is more of a precaution than anything. It's better to increase the storing space over time, than have their servers crash during the starting period. But then again, I'm just a naive optimist. I'm actually running on double rainbows, surrounded by dancing pink fluffy unicorns now...
No the real joke is you ! See what i did there ?
Please... don't try to put adjectives on me for no reason and without any real source to back it up.
You don't agree with my comment, fine. And yeah I understand we can't have unlimited space obviously duh.
Reasons for why I'm doubtful ? Other games do with more space, this is XX years into development that is the kind of things you can think before, 3 pages and multiple mules (need to store character data) is better than less mules and 5 pages ? what ? Really an item doesn't need more than 100b to be stored, overall a character is probably not even 1Mb... and stash is for your whole account.
Unless someone comes here with real numbers I guess we can keep trying though and evolve into a fanboy vs pessimist war.
|
You guys are over calculating the space, imo. You need the item ID. You need the current durability, but not the max, don't need the color, don't need how many sockets, only what would be inside of them. Basically, a way to find the original item (the ID), and the data that has modified the original. The rest can be found locally (on your machine, or the server) and does not have to be sent back and forth between client and server. The exact item can be constructed from the original with the changes applied.
Considering WoW and all the bandwidth that would use, I can't really say why they would do this. Obviously they can let the count stay at 5. Maybe they just don't want that initial load on the servers and they will increase it after a few weeks/months. If they make having 5 slots a micro transaction, fuck them.
|
But its not like WoW thats the point(its even the example in the blue post).
You need to store a lot more information because item properties are random and items are customizable.
|
The actual size of an item is irrelevant. Bashiok states two things.
1. The storage space required for WoW-items is huge.
2. An item in D3 require much more data than and item in WoW.
It is very understandable if they don´t want to take a risk of server overload at the release of the game. He does also say this is an initial precaution so they can evaluate what is required as the community develops.
|
On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke.
Blizzard is not Google, alright
Storing is not a problem, but accessible storage is a problem. Networking a large amount of HDD space with high bandwidth connection is very very costly. I'm sure you don't want to wait 3-5 seconds every time you open your stash, do you? Bash didn't go into technical aspects, but the truth is the bandwidth is still a precious commodity in 2012, even if the actually HDD space is nearly unlimited.
|
Blizzard is doing this to force hardcore players to purchase multiple accounts. I urge every one of you to go onto twitter @diablo @blizzardcs and write a complaint. Storage is a database problem, increasing storage will not change data flow rather change the space requirements. This is purely to force people to purchase more than one copy of the game.
|
On February 02 2012 15:56 Appendix wrote:
The actual size of an item is irrelevant. Bashiok states two things.
1. The storage space required for WoW-items is huge.
2. An item in D3 require much more data than and item in WoW.
It is very understandable if they don´t want to take a risk of server overload at the release of the game. He does also say this is an initial precaution so they can evaluate what is required as the community develops.
Yeah, I am not sure why some people read portions of what is stated, but never the entire point. It is like when the letter about the changes went out. Many people were fussing over the Mystic when they did mention they wish to still work on it and hopefully patch it later.
WoW originally had a limited space. As the game progressed, so did the space. I do not see why this would be any different. Diablo III has a lot riding on it, so Blizzard will be keeping the game updated and working well. Content patches will be included, for new items and such (later on). So, when the game is released, I honestly do not feel that this will be an issue at all. Later on, when we have more characters that are much higher level, than I will start worrying. But hopefully by than, the issue will be settled and Blizzard will add more space.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
I don't think this has to do with disk storage space but rather server RAM and bandwidth requirements, thus the amount of servers required. WoW's server maintenance costs are absurd and only make sense because of the even more absurd revenue from subscriptions. Diablo III will not be subscription based, but the required server infrastructure is probably comparable to WoW in complexity, so it makes sense to optimise it a bit, especially for the launch, when the RMAH will not yet be generating enough money to offset the server costs.
|
On February 02 2012 04:41 Sek-Kuar wrote:
This is becoming interesting... Every couple days, we lose one or more features or something is restricted or nerfed in size.
I just hope final version will have at least 3 playable character classes and at least 2 acts.
LOL, c'mon man. They are just trimming the fat... I hope. They do it with all their games, although it does seem like a little more trimming with D3 lately compared to their other games.
|
I wonder what the total maximum of slots of the stash is now? I bet it's less than a full account in Diablo 2 now... and there it was easy to have mule accounts, now you have to pay another copy for a mule account...
If you play HC PvP you can die anytime with your chars, so you will not store items on your characters. I surely want every class and probably some low lvl pvp chars, so my charlimit is already more than exhausted..
I don't know, those limitations feel really harsh to me. I knew I was gonna need two D3 accounts, but it might even be 3 or 4 now... :/ They should just let us get an increase for char/bank slots for a few $ if hardware is a concern... still better than another account.
As for storage requirements, you need:
- item id (8 byte more than fine)
- position (x/y/bag, each 1 or 2 byte)
- base item type (4 byte should be more than fine)
- item quality (1 byte should be fine)
- stack count (2 bytes should be fine)
For items with durability:
- current durability (1 byte)
For socketable items:
- sockets (1 byte should be fine)
For legendary/set items:
- original item id (4 byte should be more than fine)
For blues/rares/unique items with varying stats:
- affix id (4 byte should be more than fine)
- affix modifier (4 byte should be more than fine)
For rares:
- item name (20-30 byte should be fine as maximum) - since the potential names are limited, it might be even worth to have a lookup table for them to reduce this to 4 byte per item
For each socketed item:
- foreign key to socketed item id (8 byte more than fine) - same stuff again for the socketed item
Even in the worst case, it's less than 100-150 byte per item. Storage and bandwidth are surely not the argument here.
Maybe IOPS on oracle servers or database scaling, maybe license costs, maybe bad implementation at some place..
Maybe a reason to charge money for more D3 keys or an extension of slots or an incentive to get the addons. >.<
Edit:
The change basically cut the total stash storage from 350 spots to 210 (105 pieces of equipment)
210 slots.. 105 equipment items..
One Character in D2 had 88. That means one mule account had 704. Even calculating with the worst possible size (8), it's basically the same, a lot more for small items.
Seriously, that's ridiculous. I had 10+ full accounts in my prime times.. and that was without duping or botting... I realize that stacking makes it better but there is also new stuff to store...
And I hope they implement that earring thing! I had 3 accounts full of hc pvp ears in 1.09...
|
On February 02 2012 07:05 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 06:45 Tula wrote:
3) Considering that Blizzard cannot charge for the battlenet (at least without loosing a ton of buisness) that service needs to be provided almost for free, or at least covered within their profit margin from buying the box. you forgot their main source of revenue, taking a cut off each transaction in the auction house this game will probably make more money for them than WoW
I am not so sure how much that will actually bring in. We don't know how high the cut is and in addition they will accrue quite a few additional costs to administer the RMAH properly (and keep it secure from hack attempts).
It might make more money than WoW for a short period of time, but frankly I seriously doubt that this game will come even close to WoW in the long run.
Consider how many users will not use the RMAH much, if at all. I might spend the money on the box for the game, and maybe i will trade around inside the game, but frankly i am not planning to spend a single real dollar in the Auction House, and almost every gamer i know plans to do the same.
Yes there are some people who want it (the same people who bought Gold in WoW obviously) and will use it, but compared to the millions of subscribers in WoW who pay a monthly fee i don't think the revenue from the RMAH will come close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
