Dear Mesanna & Developers... RE: Players' Storage needs....
I saw the Meet & Greet from last night in Atlantic, and saw that you answered no to requests for more ways to players to be able to handle their storage needs with more containers (like what players have been asking for a while such as Weapon Racks, Armor Armoires, Bulk Order Deeds Books having their item count be further reduced from what it is now ... see thread https://forum.uo.com/discussion/6943/a-discussion-for-the-change-to-bulk-order-books-yes-again etc. etc.).
Now, since I need to think that it is in the best interest of Ultima Online to provide to players what they need to enhance and better their gameplay, and lack of storage certainly does not improve players' gameplay nor makes it more enjoyable, I need to think that it is not increasing the storage capability to players which might hold you to do it but something else....
Is this perhaps the worry that these new containers might be used by players to "dupe" the items contained inside ?
If this is the concern that might hold wanting to come forward to players and provide to them new items' containers, a further reduced item count for Bulk Order Deeds Books as players have been asking for a long time now, perhaps there could be a compromise solution that would be possible ?
How about, you make these Containers, Bulk Order Deeds Books, Weapons' Racks, Armor Armoires etc. etc. count as only 1 item regardless of the many items which they could keep inside BUT still leave their weight in stones be the ones from the many items stored inside of that container ?
As we know, weight does not matter when the container is in a secured or locked down container in a House or Bank Box so, regardless of their high weight, players would still be able to enjoy the 1 item count of that container regardless of the heavy weight that the multiple items inside of it woud add up to.
YET, this would make such a container impossible to be worn inside of a backpack because of the heavy weight.... it would be 1 item towards items' count BUT, its weight would easily exceed the Max allowed by a character's backpack if too many items are stored inside and, voila', you have achieved the goal of reducing to players their items' count and thus have come forward to come help and ease their storage issues which limit their gameplay BUT, AT THE SAME ONE TIME, you have also taken care of the issue of not allowing players to have in their backpacks too many items which could be a risk from seeing them duped....
Would this be an acceptable compromise for you ?
The issues that players have is about Items' count, not weight.
In their Homes and Bank boxes players can have as much weight they want, their storage limits are dictated by their items' count, not weight.
In this way, you could solve BOTH issues, come forward to help players towards their storage problems (which is good to have more players actively play Ultima Online as storage issues CAN limit players' gameplay....) AND take care of your concerns about some players exploting these containers to dupe too many items...
Could you please kindly think over this @Mesanna , @Bleak , @Kyronix ?
Most new and returning players, I noticed, tend to go to Atlantic because of its higher population. Now, while Shards with a Higher Population is certainly a good thing, it does have the downside that these players there, most of the time, can only get a small House with limited items' count.....
Providing to players more ways to reduce their items' count, like reducing the current items' count for Bulk Order Deeds to 1, or introducing new Containers like Weapons' Racks, Armor Armoires that could store 500 of these items but only count as 1 item, could permit to these players with small Houses to STILL be able to play extensively without seeing their gameplay be severely limited and impacted by their House reduced items count because of its small size.
This, if the concern is about duping, of course.
If it is another the concern that is holding you, it is difficult, without knowing what this is, to think about a solution that could take care of both needs, the players' who need and could greatly enjoy MORE storage capabilities, and the Developers' who need to consider also other aspects of that.
It would greatly help, if the main concern is not duping which I imagine this solution could well adress suiting both parties' needs, to know what might hold you from providing to players more and better ways to enhance and increase their storage abilities.
Thanks.
Now, since I need to think that it is in the best interest of Ultima Online to provide to players what they need to enhance and better their gameplay, and lack of storage certainly does not improve players' gameplay nor makes it more enjoyable, I need to think that it is not increasing the storage capability to players which might hold you to do it but something else....
Is this perhaps the worry that these new containers might be used by players to "dupe" the items contained inside ?
If this is the concern that might hold wanting to come forward to players and provide to them new items' containers, a further reduced item count for Bulk Order Deeds Books as players have been asking for a long time now, perhaps there could be a compromise solution that would be possible ?
How about, you make these Containers, Bulk Order Deeds Books, Weapons' Racks, Armor Armoires etc. etc. count as only 1 item regardless of the many items which they could keep inside BUT still leave their weight in stones be the ones from the many items stored inside of that container ?
As we know, weight does not matter when the container is in a secured or locked down container in a House or Bank Box so, regardless of their high weight, players would still be able to enjoy the 1 item count of that container regardless of the heavy weight that the multiple items inside of it woud add up to.
YET, this would make such a container impossible to be worn inside of a backpack because of the heavy weight.... it would be 1 item towards items' count BUT, its weight would easily exceed the Max allowed by a character's backpack if too many items are stored inside and, voila', you have achieved the goal of reducing to players their items' count and thus have come forward to come help and ease their storage issues which limit their gameplay BUT, AT THE SAME ONE TIME, you have also taken care of the issue of not allowing players to have in their backpacks too many items which could be a risk from seeing them duped....
Would this be an acceptable compromise for you ?
The issues that players have is about Items' count, not weight.
In their Homes and Bank boxes players can have as much weight they want, their storage limits are dictated by their items' count, not weight.
In this way, you could solve BOTH issues, come forward to help players towards their storage problems (which is good to have more players actively play Ultima Online as storage issues CAN limit players' gameplay....) AND take care of your concerns about some players exploting these containers to dupe too many items...
Could you please kindly think over this @Mesanna , @Bleak , @Kyronix ?
Most new and returning players, I noticed, tend to go to Atlantic because of its higher population. Now, while Shards with a Higher Population is certainly a good thing, it does have the downside that these players there, most of the time, can only get a small House with limited items' count.....
Providing to players more ways to reduce their items' count, like reducing the current items' count for Bulk Order Deeds to 1, or introducing new Containers like Weapons' Racks, Armor Armoires that could store 500 of these items but only count as 1 item, could permit to these players with small Houses to STILL be able to play extensively without seeing their gameplay be severely limited and impacted by their House reduced items count because of its small size.
This, if the concern is about duping, of course.
If it is another the concern that is holding you, it is difficult, without knowing what this is, to think about a solution that could take care of both needs, the players' who need and could greatly enjoy MORE storage capabilities, and the Developers' who need to consider also other aspects of that.
It would greatly help, if the main concern is not duping which I imagine this solution could well adress suiting both parties' needs, to know what might hold you from providing to players more and better ways to enhance and increase their storage abilities.
Thanks.
Comments
Jack is right! You need to be SUCCINCT!
ESRB warning: Some Blood. LOTS of Alcohol. Some Violence. LOTS of Bugs
I mean, Books are make of hundreds, sometimes thousands of pages and lots of people read through them up to the very last page.... I would be surprised to think that a few paragraphs reading might be intimidating when LOTs of stuff we need to read,daily, for study, work or leisure is made of way, but way longer readings....
Hell, many TV manuals or even the dishwasher or laundry machines manuals have more pages to read as the OP of this Thread....
ESRB warning: Some Blood. LOTS of Alcohol. Some Violence. LOTS of Bugs
What I mean is......
At least, thats as I see it.........
Enough please
ESRB warning: Some Blood. LOTS of Alcohol. Some Violence. LOTS of Bugs
Can you please increase storage options for players, and reduce the item weight of BoD books..
thanks
I am just trying to understand the "why" of the Developers' non availability on this issue....
Because, that no was not explained by what reasoning was behind it, at least to my understanding....
And since I remember from the Bulk Order Deeds books rejection to reduce their item count that someone (not sure who and when) might have mentioned the risk for "duping" could have been at the basis of the refusal for BODs books to be reduced their item count to 1, I thought that "perhaps" the issue for any container, be them BOD books, Weapons Racks, Armor Armoires, whatever, could be the goal to try as much as possible to avoid duping done through them....
Now, if "this" is the Developers' concern, the risk of duping that is, I tried to offer a different point of view and try to argument how these containers perhaps can STILL be given to players but without risking having them be used for duping....
I need to imagine, that the ultimate goal for the Developers is that of players be happy about the game they play, right ?
Storage (or lack thereof), when it becomes an issue CAN get into the way of playing, right ?
Therefore, following such a logic, it would be expectable that the Developers were to do anything they possibly could to ease up any and all issues that players might have with storage in their game. At least, that's the way I think about it.
Now, "if" the Developers have issues with coming forward to players on this topic, I need to imagine that they must have very good reasons. These reasons have not beed explained, I am just trying to imagine what they can be in the hope that they might explain them at some point so as to see whether a viable and acceptable solution other then a "no" can be found to still accomodate players needs.
A compromise to still offer more ample and generous ways to players to deal with their storage issues in the game but without having those consequences which are currently holding back the Developers to offer this more ample and generous storage solutions.
Clear enough ?
If both is done and still need storage, then open new account. EJ as a storage is also an option, but some may find it inconvenient.
What I did for the Tokuno and Invasion when my castle overflowed with loots was to do cleanup. There are simply too much non stackable junks lying around.
In conclusion, if there is no new storage solution, can the Dev entice us with new and better cleanup rewards such as those suggestions mentioned in other threads by many players.
ESRB warning: Some Blood. LOTS of Alcohol. Some Violence. LOTS of Bugs
People do not even buy Soulstones on the UOStore, they buy them with gold, in-game, from someone who can buy them cheaper due to regionalization different pricing....
Not to mention those who do the 3 months inactive and 1 month active of their accounts...
I seriously doubt that a significant number of players would spend the monthly subscription just for storage.... my understanding is that most players try to cut on their UO expenses as much as they can....
Therefore, not addressing players' expanded storage needs for that reason would simply hurt most players' gameplay finding themselves battling with their storage hurdles in the "hope" that these players would pay for an additional account for storage ?
I am sorry, but this makes no sense to me.
You make a whole bunch of players unhappy with their gameplay (and thus risk losing the as paying customers) only with a tiny chance that a miniscule percentage among them would pay for an additional account for storage ?
Really ?
No, sorry, but that cannot be the reason behind the Developers' no to increased storage for players... it got to be something else, to my opinion.
Yet, this does not mean that, Developers willing, there "could be" new storage solutions given to players.....
- Have the Origin Store sell an additional House and Bank Storage Upgrade (the last one was in 2010 with High Seas which gave +20%)
- Bulk Order Books having reduced their item count ;
- Weapons Racks counting as 1 item but holding 500 Weapons ;
- Armor Armoires counting as 1 item but holding 500 Armor pieces;
- More items be made as stackables ;
- Fixing the bugs which often prevent current stackables to sometimes not stack ;
etcetera etcetera etcetera....
And THIS is my argument.
What I am trying to say is, that the Developers could do PLENTY to come forward to players with their increased storage needs due to all new items coming out from new Events and such, and I frankly cannot understand "why" they say no.
Having storage issues can really be detrimental to gameplay, as the Bulk Order Deeds Thread here https://forum.uo.com/discussion/6943/a-discussion-for-the-change-to-bulk-order-books-yes-again , just one example among several possible, shows.... so, I really do not understand what such important reasons could be prompting the Developers to say no to enhanced and increased storage solutions for players to better their Ultima Online gameplay when this no risks losing to them paying customers who have had it enough to be limited in their UO gameplay by their storage issues....
Take the Atlantic Shard as just another possible example....
Most New or Returning players usually play there because of the increased Population.... this increased Population, unfortunately, has a downside, these players quite always can only get a small House with very limited storage space.
Of course that then such limited storage space would limit their gameplay !!
Wouldn't it be better to offer to them increased storage options with more containers like the ones mentioned up above which would enable them to keep more stuff in their small UO Houses?
Frankly, I do not understand why the Developers seem to not want to offer more expanded storage solutions to those currently available which, to many players' viewing, are far too limited....
and
Aside from the annoyance to have to pay rent (and the costs related), it can well happen that someone forgets, does not log for an extended period of time, whatever...
The fact that there is the risk for loss of items, as well as their rental cost, makes them not interesting, at least to me.
Side note - I would disagree with with spending more time on "storage" as there are at least a dozen other things (like new content) that I'd much rather DEVs spend their time on.
Did we get Boxes for Jewellery with a reduced item count ? Yes Sir.
Did we get Boxes for Seeds with a reduced item count ? Yes Sir.
Did we get Books for Bulk Order Deeds with a reduced item count (albeit having a too high item count, still) ? Yes Sir.
Why cannot we then also get similar Boxes for the Weapons and the Armor we get ?
Especially now, it is quite a hurdle to "mix-match" the various pieces to make a viable suit that does not waste on redundant properties and stuff like that.
In order to be able to better match the various pieces, the more one has to choose from, the better and more efficient the suit can come.
But that means, having to stock up on lots of pieces, more for armor as for weapons but still....
Imagine having an Armor Armoire and a Weapons' Rack with a search function....
One is looking for a weapon or a piece of armor with given properties, enter the data in the search function and get the piece one needs to nicely match with the suit one is making....
I do not understand why having this enhanced and bettered Storage options to make players gameplay more enjoyable might be seen as "unlimited storage for life"........
To me it looks not, it is only giving to players some other tools to make their gameplay more enjoyable.
And the more players are happy with their gameplay, the more they keep playing or come to the game, I would guess.
All joking aside, they have something similar to what you are asking for... it's a vet reward called a garden shed. Store 125 items in your house without using up your house lockdowns.
Side note: I think the reason everyone is coming at you (not just on this thread) is because you need to spend less time posting and more time actually figuring out the game mechanics (much of what you post exists and works fine) and let the DEVs focus on things that the vast majority of UO is asking for like new content or bug fixes. Stop jamming up the queue asking for things we already have that only YOU are asking for simply because you don't want to spend time in the game learning how things actually work and acquiring those things (like a garden shed).
ESRB warning: Some Blood. LOTS of Alcohol. Some Violence. LOTS of Bugs
How much realistic is it MOST of what we get in the game ?
I do not think that the realism card can be played with UO where most is pretty much not realistic.... what matters, at least as I see it, is players enjoyment of the game and, I think, players could enjoy the game quite a lot better if they could have better and enhanced storage solutions...
How much time does the average player spend to find "that" right piece or armor or weapon among all those they have stacked up somewhere ?
Containers reducing Weapons and Armor item count and providing a good search function could, to my viewing, greatly enhance players' enjoyment of the game....
Is it better that a player spends half an hour looking for an item or that they actually spend that half hour playing the game ?