Jump to content

Welcome to Ultima Online Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account

Welcome to UOForums

If not already a member, take a moment to join our awesome community. It is free to sign up and there are no ads.

 

When you click on CREATE ACCOUNT, the sign up form will appear at the bottom of the forum.

 

If you have issues, like not receiving a validation email. Then please contact us by email help@uoforums.com and we will help you get set up.

 

If you wish to contact us about our site for other reasons, then please contact us by using the contact form in top right corner of the forum


Photo

Increased storage for small houses.

- - - - - houses increased small storage

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1
XCodes

XCodes

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts
The title pretty much says it all. There's a laundry list of reasons why smaller houses should get a storage increase and there has been for a long time.

1) The housing limit. Back in the day, there really wasn't a reason to worry about the cap house storage because if you ran out of storage you could just place/buy another house. A more pertinent concern was the massive amounts of lag caused by huge stockpiles of junk in people's houses, and caps placed on house size ensured that the density of items never reached the point where the lag would persist. Today, however, there are better servers and other software measures in place that take care of the lag issue, and even if they were not satisfactory on their own then the limits on the number of lockdowns that can be present in a house can remain relatively unchanged; the limit on items would mostly go to the amount of secure storage available which would have considerably smaller impact on load times.

2) Wide open areas that could host towns are instead getting eaten up by keeps and castles for the storage capacity. Even people who are fans of customizable houses can find it difficult to "downgrade" to an 18x18 because they'd have to lose up to half of the items in their castle in order to make the changeover.

3) It'd make more potential plots viable. The <1000 storage sizes of the smallest house plots are a joke, and yet at the same time they're the only plots that can fit into so many tight island or forest locations. Because of the house limit, however, few people will actually wind up using these plots because of the incredibly limiting nature of them compared to larger plots and keeps/castles.

Simple Change-

Simply re-do the storage/lockdown tables. Castles keep their same storage limit, but everything else gets an upgrade:

Small Plots (7x7 and larger): ~2.5k
Medium Plots (10x13, 11x12, and larger): ~3k
Large Plots (13x17, 14x16, 15x15, and larger): ~3.5k
Keep: ~4k
Castle: 4688

Complicated Change-

Allow secondary houses. Each account gets two houses, but must abide by the following rules:

-Each of the two houses must be designated as either the account's primary house or secondary house, except Keeps or Castles. An owner of a Keep or Castle may not place a second house. Keep owners will get 800-1000 more items of secure storage.
-Primary houses can be of any size other than Keep or Castle, and can be set to be either public or private. The amount of storage they have is unchanged, but they can *always* host 42 vendors independent of the size of their plot.
-Secondary houses must have a small plot size (log cabin and smaller classic houses; 13x8, 12x9, 11x10 custom house plots and smaller). They must always remain private houses.
-Secondary houses gain a bonus to their storage space. This bonus will make it such that the combined storage of the Primary house and the Secondary house will be better than keeps are now, but not as good as keeps would be after this idea was implemented. If the owner of a secondary house doesn't also own a primary house, then this bonus is determined as if the primary house had a 7x7 plot size. This bonus is checked and reset daily at server up, so a player that owns a secondary house and it about to place a primary house can do so early in the day and then move goods from his secondary house to his primary house without risk of losing items when the storage of the secondary house shrinks.

In all likelyhood, this method will actually increase the amount of housing space. The combined space taken up by a 11x10 and an 18x18 is a little less than 20% smaller than that of a 24x24 keep, and each of the said houses can fit into tighter corners of the world which makes more space usable. Whats more, there will still be advantages to each ownership option of two houses (flexibility in buying/selling plots and moving your houses around), a castle (ultimate in storage and vendor space), and a keep (middle ground between the two).

I know this is a giant wall of text and could be fairly hard to read, but I put time and effort into my post so put at least a little effort into any given reply.

#2
Silverfoot

Silverfoot

    UOForums Central ManagerMith'quessir

  • Members
  • 3,882 posts
I doubt you'll see it in game as they sell an option to have a 20% increase in storage space for $19.99

Some folks got it with the purchase of a past expansion if I remember correctly.

UO Store

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"Send lawyers, guns and money
The crap has hit the fan
!"


#3
XCodes

XCodes

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts

I doubt you'll see it in game as they sell an option to have a 20% increase in storage space for $19.99

Some folks got it with the purchase of a past expansion if I remember correctly.

UO Store

A 20% increase of 489 storage slots is a pittance and not worth the investment of $20, therefore giving the guy ~2000 storage slots instead of 489 would make him that much more likely to also grab the 20% storage increase since it's a plain better deal.

Besides, I know many veteran players that have already bought all the way up to the 40% storage space increase and still have problems fitting everything into their 18x18. Giving away some storage for free doesn't mean people won't pay for even more.

#4
Tancred RedStar

Tancred RedStar

    Balron Snack

  • Members
  • 5,379 posts
Why should they give people secondary houses for free if they can just charge them to open another account? That seems to be working the past 10 years.

#5
Corvak

Corvak

    Huzzah!!

  • Members
  • 3,808 posts
You get a 20% bonus for having ML, and another 20% you can buy.

Why not change it so that the 20% adds X storage or 20% whichever is higher.

#6
XCodes

XCodes

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts

Why should they give people secondary houses for free if they can just charge them to open another account? That seems to be working the past 10 years.

Who says people won't do both? People with multiple accounts often own multiple keeps/castles anyway, so they won't be affected by this change unless they drop the Castle for 2 houses and, consequently, lose about 1/4 of their storage space which could then prompt them to open another account

Also, this will create more housing space which means more accounts can get houses easily which means that more people will buy more accounts for the purposes of getting additional houses.

You get a 20% bonus for having ML, and another 20% you can buy.

Why not change it so that the 20% adds X storage or 20% whichever is higher.

This could work, but the disparity between small and large houses would still be pretty big. Maybe something like this and something like the simple method listed above could work together to satisfy EA's greed and still give decent storage space to owners of small houses.

#7
Silverfoot

Silverfoot

    UOForums Central ManagerMith'quessir

  • Members
  • 3,882 posts

. Maybe something like this and something like the simple method listed above could work together to satisfy EA's greed


/ start mini-rant

God I dislike statements like that. EA is a business, their in it to make money period, as are all game companies out there. They are NOT in business to satisfy our whims in a nonprofitable way.

Profit = staying in business and a longer customer/business relationship.

XCodes, this isn't a personal bash, just something I read from forum users on multiple gaming sites and it's totally non-realistic. I'd prefer to read how we can come up with ideas that help us enjoy our gaming experience while assuring the company indeed stays in business.

/end mini-rant :shots:

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"Send lawyers, guns and money
The crap has hit the fan
!"


#8
Corvak

Corvak

    Huzzah!!

  • Members
  • 3,808 posts
If it was World of Warcraft, greed would definitely be the right term there, however.

#9
XCodes

XCodes

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts

XCodes, this isn't a personal bash, just something I read from forum users on multiple gaming sites and it's totally non-realistic. I'd prefer to read how we can come up with ideas that help us enjoy our gaming experience while assuring the company indeed stays in business.

Then come up with some of those ideas instead of going into rant mode. So far all you've contributed to this thread is "Give EA money for something that you're not really talking about!" You don't get to come in here and piss all over ideas without actually coming up with a few yourself!





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: houses, increased, small, storage