Brainstorming: Partial DB Standard

[Damilis]

So CaveDudes and Angelox's DBs are based on PEQ?

[GeorgeS]

Originally Posted by Damilis

So CaveDudes and Angelox's DBs are based on PEQ?

That's correct

[Damilis]

Well thats certainly good news to hear. Is this 'standard' documented anywhere, or perhaps, rules for contributing to PEQ?

[bushman77]

you can always go checkout <link>http://www.projecteq.net/</link> as they are the ones working on this database.

[John Adams]

The ProjectEQ forums have a place to post SQL updates that are then considered for inclusion. I am not sure they come here to get them.

[cavedude]

Originally Posted by GeorgeS

That's correct

No it isn't, not starting anything here but my database is my own. I started it from scratch.

As for a standard, that is something DRP is working on. I have already begun stripping my database apart and re-organizing all IDs to fit a standard. Duplicate mobs, loot, and faction entries will all be removed as well. The problem is there are essentionally 3 different databases out there (and yes, they are all quite different and have their own strengths/weaknesses) so the other two databases would need to go through the same perging mine is to fit a standard. Any database built from EQBuilder follow the zonenumberid*1000 standard but as Sesmar and I were discussing on our forum, after the zone is initially built, new entries either get tacked on to the end of the db, or somewhere in the middle causing a mess. Our db editing tools will need to be updated to follow the standard. Again, with 3 different databases and multiple people making cool editors how will that work? While I'll continue work on my own database, I am all for a standard and I'll work with whomever I need to to create and follow one.

[Damilis]

Well, my issue is with linking NPCs with zones is that many NPCs can exists in many different zones... so what then? I am thinking that simply blocking off the first two or three hundred thousand NPCID's and just having the NPCs there, in no particular order. If you attempt to order in any way, then you introduce ambiguity to your standardizing system. Just make it so that all non-custom NPCs are ID <300,000 and standardized from db variant to db variant.

[cavedude]

We thought about that, too. I like having the NPC ID being based on the zone ID because then you can look at its entry and say hey, this guy is in Overthere. It makes world building MUCH easier. Part of the purge I am doing to my database involves deleting duplicate identical mobs and updating their spawn entries to the single NPC entry. Those mobs that are "universal" and are found in multiple zones I feel should have their own block of reserved IDs, possibly in the 800-900k range (or some other obscure number that will probably not get a zone assigned to it any time soon by SOE) That way, when world builders look at a tree snake for example, they can automatically tell by its ID that hey, this guy is a roamer.

[John Adams]

That's pretty much exactly how I picture it, Cavedude. One question though - regarding memory utilization. I [assume] with items, the higher the item ID, the more memory it takes to load them all in... I assume this because of the 100k cap. Now, do NPCs have this same memory issue when a zone boots or is made static? Say you have 900 NPCs in zone 123, so NPC id 123000 - 123900. Then add 500 roamers (totally exaggerated populations, i agree) starting at 800000-800500. What will happen to that zones memory consumption? Will the zone allocate RAM for all the empty (but possible) spaces between 123900 and 800000?

I'm having a brain fart, so forgive me if I am totally on crack at the moment. I love publicly humiliating myself. Chicks dig it, too.

[Rhodan]

I'd like to know too.

If the database has two items, #1 and #2,426,333,000, will that use enough ram for 2,426,333,000 items or will it use enough for two items?

The whole idea of cutomized/allocated ID numbers flies out the window if the former is the case.