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.

As per usual. Far too long. No one is going to bore through all that.  

Jack is right! You need to be SUCCINCT!

Yeah, hell right, that was a long post... did someone pay u to write so much...

Well, I guess that longer readings might still be read by those who consider the subject as important... those who instead do not consider the topic at hand as worthy of being read, well, they can sure skip it...

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....

Maybe first para to introduce what is the topic about, then a final para to summarise.

Everything you write Popps is LOOOOOOONG. Sadly you make even the most important topic irrelevent with you drawn out posts.

What I mean is......

At least, thats as I see it......... 

Enough please

I always see a Popps post and scroll to see how long it is. More then two paragraphs,  I move on.

popps said:

I mean, Books are make of hundreds, sometimes thousands of pages and lots of people read through them up to the very last page....

Can we possibly concentrate on the topic rather than the posting style? Attacks on the poster are not helpful.

I dunno what the topic is anymore? Was lost on the second paragraph 🙂

Mariah said:

Can we possibly concentrate on the topic rather than the posting style? Attacks on the poster are not helpful.

Marge said:

popps said:

I mean, Books are make of hundreds, sometimes thousands of pages and lots of people read through them up to the very last page....

Please don't tell me you consider your post as worthy of being read or as enjoyable as Charles Dickens or Stephen King? Huge difference!

You want people to read your post here - MAKE IT SUCCINCT!

Yeah, but my post if not even 0.0001 % of the length of any of those books....

Hi Devs,

Can you please increase storage options for players, and reduce the item weight of  BoD books..

thanks

I only read a couple of sentences.  I think the Devs said NO to a question but Popps wants whatever they said no to so he wrote an essay.

Pawain said:

I only read a couple of sentences.  I think the Devs said NO to a question but Popps wants whatever they said no to so he wrote an essay.

Not really...

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 ?

TOO LONG POPPS

If you are not reading the posts, please resist replying.

Their reason(s) is to make money. Buy another freaking account and place side by side houses. Make 100 EJ accounts and store whatever it is on those characters. Play the game...smh

I agree with Jelinidas, in that the game is such that if you require more storage then get a larger house, or buy the storage expansion. 

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. 

Yeah you can make another account and deal with the hassle of that or there could just be containers that reduce item count, which is easier and much needed. There are so many possible suit combinations to try and storing weapons and armor to explore these different ideas does come at a toll after a while. 

jelinidas said:

Their reason(s) is to make money. Buy another freaking account and place side by side houses. Make 100 EJ accounts and store whatever it is on those characters. Play the game...smh

That would make no sense...

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.

Seth said:

I agree with Jelinidas, in that the game is such that if you require more storage then get a larger house, or buy the storage expansion. 

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. 

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. 

That there currently "is" no new storage solution is under the eyes of all players I guess....

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....

Mariah said:

There is another option:

https://uo.com/wiki/ultima-online-wiki/gameplay/npc-commercial-transactions/vaults/

Unfortunately, dues to these 2 features combined, personally, I think that Vaults are not worth to bother with....

Failure to pay vault rent will result in a player’s vault going into default which sends the player an in-game message stating that “Rent is past due for your Vault and your items will be lost after 168 hours unless you claim your Vault from the Vault Manager.”

and 

Do nothing which will result in the loss of their items.

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.

Pretty much the ask here is to have unlimited storage, for life, for free? Is that what we have concluded?

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.

keven2002 said:

Pretty much the ask here is to have unlimited storage, for life, for free? Is that what we have concluded?

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.

Not at all.

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.

Agree to disagree then. A weapon rack sounds like a great idea as a new container type but doesn't make any sense that everything stored in it would be 1 item. So all I need to do is lockdown 2-3 weapon racks and I'll have 1500 weapons locked down while only actually using 3 spots in my bank or house?? Come on now, you know that is pretty unrealistic.  

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). 

popps said:

That would make no sense...

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....

keven2002 said:

Agree to disagree then. A weapon rack sounds like a great idea as a new container type but doesn't make any sense that everything stored in it would be 1 item. So all I need to do is lockdown 2-3 weapon racks and I'll have 1500 weapons locked down while only actually using 3 spots in my bank or house?? Come on now, you know that is pretty unrealistic.  

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). 

A weapon rack sounds like a great idea as a new container type but doesn't make any sense that everything stored in it would be 1 item. So all I need to do is lockdown 2-3 weapon racks and I'll have 1500 weapons locked down while only actually using 3 spots in my bank or house?? Come on now, you know that is pretty unrealistic.  

Since when in Ultima Online things need to be "realistic" in order to exist ?

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 ?

STOP PADDING OUT YOUR POSTS

"at least as I see it", "I think" "to my viewing".  How much game time do YOU lose with all this padding out.  Just speak your piece and be done with it. 

You are not a t school anymore, you dont have to pad out your essays to reach 400,500 words etc.

It is virtually impossible to actually read your posts Popps, This is prob why the devs never reply to you either.

keven2002 said: to 

Agree to disagree then. A weapon rack sounds like a great idea as a new container type but doesn't make any sense that everything stored in it would be 1 item. So all I need to do is lockdown 2-3 weapon racks and I'll have 1500 weapons locked down while only actually using 3 spots in my bank or house?? Come on now, you know that is pretty unrealistic.  

Jewelry box and seed box work like this. You can have 1500 pieces of jewelry taking up 3 items in a house. It’s not a far fetched concept. 

I have been wanting a weapons rack for awhile.
but even more I want an armor box.

An armor box would have lot less categories than a weapons rack.
head, neck, chest, sleeves, arms, legs, gloves, shoes, shields

And weapons rack ...
archery, throwing, swords, fencing, mace fighting,
and then people would want that divided up into 
axes, bashing, etc

I really would love the armor chest.
I have one home that i use to store armor.
Any time i have to look for one piece, it takes me at least an hour or two to find it.
If i had special chest to put it in, then with one click I could find it.

======================

when the jewelry box came out, I had rings, bracelets, necklaces & talismans everywhere.
Now I can go to the exact container and with a few clicks find exactly what i'm looking for.
I would love to be able to do that with clothing.

Cinderella said:

I have been wanting a weapons rack for awhile.
but even more I want an armor box.

An armor box would have lot less categories than a weapons rack.
head, neck, chest, sleeves, arms, legs, gloves, shoes, shields

And weapons rack ...
archery, throwing, swords, fencing, mace fighting,
and then people would want that divided up into 
axes, bashing, etc

I really would love the armor chest.
I have one home that i use to store armor.
Any time i have to look for one piece, it takes me at least an hour or two to find it.
If i had special chest to put it in, then with one click I could find it.

======================

when the jewelry box came out, I had rings, bracelets, necklaces & talismans everywhere.
Now I can go to the exact container and with a few clicks find exactly what i'm looking for.
I would love to be able to do that with clothing.

Precisely.

And it is inexplicable to me why the Developers have trouble making such items (a Weapons' Rack and an Armor Armoire) which could enhance and make enormously more enjoyable players' gameplay, available in Ultima Online.

Whatever cons such items might have (in the eyes of the Developers), I think that the pros for players would far, but FAR outdo those cons.

As far as I can see the only pros would be an easy button for some players and storage for more junk I'm never going to sort, look at or use. Weapons and armor from even 3 years ago are under powered and not going to be used by anyone so why are you holding on to them? If you're not going to fill and submit BODs why are you collecting them?
Yes I do BODs and have 20-30 books waiting for the right small. I also have a collection of artifacts and collectibles but I don't have more than 1 or 2 of each. All of which fit on 1 account.

Developers please don't waste you time. No mater how much storage you make available it won't be enough for this crowd. If you do decide to create some of the items mentioned make them a complicated quest reward and ACOUNT bound. If you don't they will quickly become a web site sale item and you wasted you time. Can we say scripted items to be complained about.

^^^ This

Plus 1 to Tim

Tim said:

As far as I can see the only pros would be an easy button for some players and storage for more junk I'm never going to sort, look at or use. Weapons and armor from even 3 years ago are under powered and not going to be used by anyone so why are you holding on to them? If you're not going to fill and submit BODs why are you collecting them?
Yes I do BODs and have 20-30 books waiting for the right small. I also have a collection of artifacts and collectibles but I don't have more than 1 or 2 of each. All of which fit on 1 account.

Developers please don't waste you time. No mater how much storage you make available it won't be enough for this crowd. If you do decide to create some of the items mentioned make them a complicated quest reward and ACOUNT bound. If you don't they will quickly become a web site sale item and you wasted you time. Can we say scripted items to be complained about.

Just because you and some other players don’t hang onto much gear and weapons doesn’t make your perspective more valid. You have your way of going about things in UO and other players have their own ways. 

dvvid said:

Tim said:

As far as I can see the only pros would be an easy button for some players and storage for more junk I'm never going to sort, look at or use. Weapons and armor from even 3 years ago are under powered and not going to be used by anyone so why are you holding on to them? If you're not going to fill and submit BODs why are you collecting them?
Yes I do BODs and have 20-30 books waiting for the right small. I also have a collection of artifacts and collectibles but I don't have more than 1 or 2 of each. All of which fit on 1 account.

Developers please don't waste you time. No mater how much storage you make available it won't be enough for this crowd. If you do decide to create some of the items mentioned make them a complicated quest reward and ACOUNT bound. If you don't they will quickly become a web site sale item and you wasted you time. Can we say scripted items to be complained about.

Just because you and some other players don’t hang onto much gear and weapons doesn’t make your perspective more valid. You have your way of going about things in UO and other players have their own ways. 

I don’t hang onto junk loot from a decade ago. I keep all of the interesting legendaries and some of the majors. I also have some artifact pieces too. That’s it... but it adds up. I like trying different weapons when I go out hunting. I like trying different combinations of armor and making armor suits (mannequins have helped with this a bit).  My house is rather small due to availability, so storage is tricky.  

I also do BODs every time I’m on my crafters and work to keep the count down as low as I can while saving the ones that go into large BODs. Still, it adds up. 

No one seems to have a problem with the jewelry boxes existing or the seed boxes, so I’m not sure why there’s a negative reaction to armor and weapon containers that function similarly. 

I disagree that “there will never be enough for this crowd”. It’s reasonable just as the other containers mentioned. 

Make them hard to get and account bound? Sounds good to me. 

I have same thoughts as you. But I am not targeting anyone or purposely siding someone, its about the topic. Its all about reason and making life easier for all of us in this game. 

I feel like we can stop pretending, in 2020, that the ultimate decision making authority rests with the people the players have access to. I think the people we talk to do, absolutely, want to give us the best and most "fun" experience they can. But the people above THEM are not surprisingly only concerned about profit margins when it comes to a 23 year old video game. 

Developers and programmers have, in the past, slipped in things that reduce item count in houses. Will we see more? Absolutely not, because the only thing those previous items proved was that they allowed people to spend less money on this game. Everything being advocated by a "make it easier to hoard lots of stuff" argument flies directly against the exact reasons this game is addictive, and therefore profitable. Absolutely the game requires you to stockpile a lot of different items so you can slowly build up (or craft) better and better suits; that is a deliberate design element of this game. Making it EASIER to stockpile stuff REDUCES the addictive element, and therefore the profitability, and so won't happen again. 

It is naive to think that UO is being grown towards new customers in 2020. How many other MMORPG's have completely shut down in the last 23 years? Most of them? Why is UO still keeping the lights on? Because it launched with, and maintained, a finite resource: land. Why do a lot of, if not most, long term players keep their accounts active even if they don't play that much anymore? Because they have a house, and that house is PRESENT IN THE GAME even when they are not.

So the bottom line is, it's the houses that keep UO profitable in 2020; if you doubt that, just look at how many forum threads are about people cheating at taking over IDOCs. Bitching about IDOCs is exactly the reason the people above the developers don't do anything about the problem: it's keeping their profit stream relevant. 

Seth said:

Whatever the decision, please make these containers searchable by specs.

There are many old players like me, and it is very tiring and time consuming to search through 500 items in a box, or 2000 items in 4 boxes.

Being able to put say 500 pcs into one box has its advantage, in that it is easier for a single search to go through 500 items. Rather than search 4 chests (each 125 items) separately.

It is all about convenience for an aging population. 😂 If it isn't for convenience sake, why introduce so many artifacts for easy access or teleport to so many places, like the moonstone, jaw, etc.

Whatever the decision, please make these containers searchable by specs.

Oh, this is a MUST !!

It is such an obvious feature, that it should not even need to be mentioned....

Personally, I would LOVE to see them with a feature like the Global Vendor Search has....

Where one can enter various paramethers as wanted and come with the one piece one needs if it is on a Vendor...

I like it so much (the Vendor Search feature), that quite often, rather then spending countless time to look through my containers (and this, mind you, ALSO for jewellery), I find myself going to Vendor Search, enter the properties I need for that piece with the set amount and, if I find it, I BUY IT !!

I mean, I may have that piece and possibly even more then one in some of my containers with those properties I need with those numbers, but, rather then to waste my time to search through my containers, I prefer to just go straight to Vendor Search, do a quick search and if I find it I spend the gold on it....

And so, I hardly even use my stuff..... only if I do not come up with a finding on Vendor Search then I take a huge breath and dig myself into my containers to look for that piece....

Having a GOOD searching function like the one that Global Vendor Search has is definitively a MUST for these containers, and it should be added to the Jewellery Box too !!

Marge said:

"It is all about convenience for an aging population. "

On that note - Make the gems bigger!!!   I hate amethysts and citrines!  😂

That is a topic worthy of its own post!

Do you use the Classic or Enhanced Client ?

The reason for asking this, is that in the Enhanced Client, unless one zooms in the container's contents, the default setting has everything SO small I do not understand how anyone might be able to see it....

Even a Soulstone, which is quite large, with the default settings looks as small as a seed in the Enhanced Client.... it is ridicolous how small they appear !!

Gyb said:

I feel like we can stop pretending, in 2020, that the ultimate decision making authority rests with the people the players have access to. I think the people we talk to do, absolutely, want to give us the best and most "fun" experience they can. But the people above THEM are not surprisingly only concerned about profit margins when it comes to a 23 year old video game. 

Developers and programmers have, in the past, slipped in things that reduce item count in houses. Will we see more? Absolutely not, because the only thing those previous items proved was that they allowed people to spend less money on this game. Everything being advocated by a "make it easier to hoard lots of stuff" argument flies directly against the exact reasons this game is addictive, and therefore profitable. Absolutely the game requires you to stockpile a lot of different items so you can slowly build up (or craft) better and better suits; that is a deliberate design element of this game. Making it EASIER to stockpile stuff REDUCES the addictive element, and therefore the profitability, and so won't happen again. 

It is naive to think that UO is being grown towards new customers in 2020. How many other MMORPG's have completely shut down in the last 23 years? Most of them? Why is UO still keeping the lights on? Because it launched with, and maintained, a finite resource: land. Why do a lot of, if not most, long term players keep their accounts active even if they don't play that much anymore? Because they have a house, and that house is PRESENT IN THE GAME even when they are not.

So the bottom line is, it's the houses that keep UO profitable in 2020; if you doubt that, just look at how many forum threads are about people cheating at taking over IDOCs. Bitching about IDOCs is exactly the reason the people above the developers don't do anything about the problem: it's keeping their profit stream relevant. 

Developers and programmers have, in the past, slipped in things that reduce item count in houses. Will we see more? Absolutely not, because the only thing those previous items proved was that they allowed people to spend less money on this game. 

I need to disagree with that.

A game that becomes unfun sees its players to stop playing it, not continue playing it.

When storage becomes an issue, and it DOES when new stuff is added to the game over and over and players become increasingly challenged in how and where to store it, players start questioning themseves about what might be the point to keep playing when they then need to spend countless time in reviewing their stuff and what to discard and what not.

An old item might have become a rare and have some value, another might remember of a particular Hunt with some good friends no longer playing and so one might want to keep it, not to mention with the current Weapons and Armor often one needs to mix-match pieces in order to come up with a functional and workable suit where properties are not wasted somewhere because exceeding their CAPs.... and this needs LOTs of weapons and armor to be stocked up, really LOTs, especially if one needs to so it for Medable armor, non-medable armor which also comes in different flavours, studded which has the LMC bonus but plate etc. which also gives the better stamina protections, and then there is Gargoyle armor if one has Gargoyles or Elves' if one also has Elves etc. etc. etc.

It all adds up !!!

And what about weapons ? With better properties but not slayers or then those with slayers but fewer properties etc. etc.

It all adds up !!

Want to talk Bulk Order Deeds and how they are needed in HUGE, not Large, but HUGE quantities since the banking of points only gives too little points ?

If one goes for Larges and to fill them, Larges are quite a rare drop so, you need to pile up TONS of smalls for when that Large finally drops.... 

And it all adds up !!

Storage issues and having to deal with them can become so cumbersome that they CAN get a player to want to stop playing althougether when they find themselves spending more of their time in the game dealing with storage issues (reviewing and deciding what to keep and what to discard) rather then actually playing the game....

Is it better for Ultima Online to LOOSE playing customers deterred by whatever storage issue they might be experiencing ?

I would think not BUT, this is the path onto which the Developers are leading UO to unless they change their current stance about not wanting to further help players with their storage hurdles, issues and troubles....

Not to mention New and Returning players who mostly go to the Atlantic Shard on which they likely can have a small House with very limited storage capacity... new containers to hold Weapons and Armor could GREATLY benefit them and enormously enhance their enjoyment of the game and, thus, have them stay to play, not stop playing when their home becomes filled up....

At least, that is how I see it.

P.S. in regards to : 

It is naive to think that UO is being grown towards new customers in 2020. How many other MMORPG's have completely shut down in the last 23 years? Most of them? Why is UO still keeping the lights on? Because it launched with, and maintained, a finite resource: land. Why do a lot of, if not most, long term players keep their accounts active even if they don't play that much anymore? Because they have a house, and that house is PRESENT IN THE GAME even when they are not.

I would not take this for granted...

JUST the other day, across the Shards, hundreds upon hundreds of Houses fell, some say even like 600 Houses (which it means accounts gone for good....) and, at least to my opinion, such a number is quite a heavy blow to Ultima Online's number of accounts....

The Developers need to find more and better ways to convince players to keep PLAYING the game because inactive accounts, eventually, DO GET terminated....

At least, that is the way I see it.

The more storage they give per account. The less need you have for a second account. That’s bad for business. Maybe add “storage lockers” to the Store for $2.99 each and they add 50-100 lockdowns that don’t take up housing lockdowns. Maybe have 4-5 different styles, animations.

Added. They could give out a Reward box that can only hold holiday rewards. That doesn’t count towards housing lockdowns and has no item limit. So for all you random gingerbread man hoarders you can collect at your hearts content. I likely wouldn’t drop mine at Luna if they didn’t take up space.

For those that didn't understand what I meant when I said getting those containers was "not realistic"... I meant that the odds are slim that the DEVs will actually go for it. I understand it's a fantasy game and we have jewelry boxes that do the same but that doesn't mean the DEVs will agree nor should they. Many of you are neglecting the fact that UO makes money off expanded storage. I think @Gyb pretty much nailed what I was trying to say.

@Tim - I couldn't agree more.It's fine if new container types are made (like weapon rack etc) but making them function like a jewelry box only helps the hoarders collect more junk that will sit around forever. 

@Seth - I'd agree with applying the BOD type filters to "organization" containers like weapon rack / jewelry box etc. This would add some convenience for players for organization purposes while leaving things overall very much the same...plus if they put the "weapon rack" in the UO store it would be added revenue for UO.

popps said:

When storage becomes an issue, and it DOES when new stuff is added to the game over and over and players become increasingly challenged in how and where to store it, players start questioning themseves about what might be the point to keep playing when they then need to spend countless time in reviewing their stuff and what to discard and what not.

An old item might have become a rare and have some value, another might remember of a particular Hunt with some good friends no longer playing and so one might want to keep it, not to mention with the current Weapons and Armor often one needs to mix-match pieces in order to come up with a functional and workable suit where properties are not wasted somewhere because exceeding their CAPs.... and this needs LOTs of weapons and armor to be stocked up, really LOTs, especially if one needs to so it for Medable armor, non-medable armor which also comes in different flavours, studded which has the LMC bonus but plate etc. which also gives the better stamina protections, and then there is Gargoyle armor if one has Gargoyles or Elves' if one also has Elves etc. etc. etc.

Respectfully disagree. What you are describing in all of your posts is not the process by which a player eventually becomes compelled to quit UO, but rather the very mechanism the game uses to keep hoarders from cancelling their multiple accounts. As they say in programming circles, "it's not a bug, it's a feature."

Gyb said:

popps said:

When storage becomes an issue, and it DOES when new stuff is added to the game over and over and players become increasingly challenged in how and where to store it, players start questioning themseves about what might be the point to keep playing when they then need to spend countless time in reviewing their stuff and what to discard and what not.

An old item might have become a rare and have some value, another might remember of a particular Hunt with some good friends no longer playing and so one might want to keep it, not to mention with the current Weapons and Armor often one needs to mix-match pieces in order to come up with a functional and workable suit where properties are not wasted somewhere because exceeding their CAPs.... and this needs LOTs of weapons and armor to be stocked up, really LOTs, especially if one needs to so it for Medable armor, non-medable armor which also comes in different flavours, studded which has the LMC bonus but plate etc. which also gives the better stamina protections, and then there is Gargoyle armor if one has Gargoyles or Elves' if one also has Elves etc. etc. etc.

Respectfully disagree. What you are describing in all of your posts is not the process by which a player eventually becomes compelled to quit UO, but rather the very mechanism the game uses to keep hoarders from cancelling their multiple accounts. As they say in programming circles, "it's not a bug, it's a feature."

Maybe I failed to explain myself well enough....

What I am trying to point out is, that when storage becomes short, and thus reviewing one's older stuff pops up in being a priority, this reviewing TAKES TIME, and, depending on what one may have, also a lot of time if a decision needs to be taken on whether to keep or discard this or that item.

Time, that is spent JUST to sort out stuff and not to really play the game....

Eventually, if shortage is tight and this "waste" of time comes up too often, players might decide that they are no longer "playing" the game for the most part but only doing "chores" in it and, thus, stop playing it, move to other games until they no longer feel to come back, stop paying for their account, house falls, they do not turn back to UO.

My point being, that rather then "hoping" to cash in on players spending for extra storage, which for a game as old as Ultima Online players think WELL before doing it, I would imagine, I would think that a better choice for those who run the game would be to have players HAPPY about it, KEEP playing it and havefun playing the game rather then doing "chores" in it....

And that would include, to my viewing, helping players do better with their storage needs which it would mean, coming forward to them with Bulk Order Deeds Books taking LESS items' counts, release NEW containers for Weapons and Armor to store 500 of each, respectively, but only counting as 1 item as for jewels, etc. etc.

Having players HAPPY to play the game because having fun with it I think, it is much better then having paying customers end up doing "chores" in the game that stop them enjoying spending their free time in it.

But that is only my opinion, of course.

My opinion is that you are reaching @popps and not just a little bit. Sorting through junk does take time but I hardly doubt that simply sorting through stuff is going to make them unhappy enough to quit. Honestly sometimes it's cool because you find something you don't even remember having. That said, do I look forward to "cleaning" my houses/bank boxes? No. Have I ever considered quitting because I don't want to clean? Never. That's when you throw a yard sale and make some gold.

On the other hand, I CAN see people becoming unhappy and quitting over the lack of new content in the game because the DEVs are spending time on something like this for unlimited armor/weapons containers. We have been waiting on new playable content (like global arcs last year) for 8 months now and I've seen countless posts about people being bored. THAT is what will make people unhappy.

keven2002 said:

My opinion is that you are reaching @ popps and not just a little bit. Sorting through junk does take time but I hardly doubt that simply sorting through stuff is going to make them unhappy enough to quit. Honestly sometimes it's cool because you find something you don't even remember having. That said, do I look forward to "cleaning" my houses/bank boxes? No. Have I ever considered quitting because I don't want to clean? Never. That's when you throw a yard sale and make some gold.

On the other hand, I CAN see people becoming unhappy and quitting over the lack of new content in the game because the DEVs are spending time on something like this for unlimited armor/weapons containers. We have been waiting on new playable content (like global arcs last year) for 8 months now and I've seen countless posts about people being bored. THAT is what will make people unhappy.

Well, my understanding is, that the changes undergoing and in Testing are to provide to the Developers faster tools to provide to players that New content which you are talking about.

From this post https://forum.uo.com/discussion/comment/43245/#Comment_43245

As I mentioned in a previous response specific to Treasures, the main benefit of the dynamic Treasures/Champ systems are in the implementation time.  This system has reduced the core implementation time of a Treasures event from about 5 days into about an hour.  Little bit less for a champ spawn, but equally as quick now. 

So, while the work for new content before would take 5 days, I understand that, with the new tools, now it will take 1 hour.

Perhaps in so much freed up time, it could be possible to fit in also some work to make BOD books take less items count and new Weapons' Racks and Armor Armoires containers that hold 500 items but count as 1, as well as other things which players have been asking for long, like more bugs fixed, more items made stackbles etc. etc.

At least, that is my hope.

If you think the players will settle for endless Treasure/Champs systems being new content you are crazy. These are fine once in a while, but we need NEW content. Yes, it has been about 8 months.

Popps, if you have that much armor and weapons stored you have no clue whats good/bad and must save everything. Sort the crap for turn in points.. You have one account, correct? Seven toons. How many times a day do you play dress up with your characters? Play the game! 

jelinidas said:

Popps, if you have that much armor and weapons stored you have no clue whats good/bad...

 😂 

popps said:

keven2002 said:

My opinion is that you are reaching @ popps and not just a little bit. Sorting through junk does take time but I hardly doubt that simply sorting through stuff is going to make them unhappy enough to quit. Honestly sometimes it's cool because you find something you don't even remember having. That said, do I look forward to "cleaning" my houses/bank boxes? No. Have I ever considered quitting because I don't want to clean? Never. That's when you throw a yard sale and make some gold.

On the other hand, I CAN see people becoming unhappy and quitting over the lack of new content in the game because the DEVs are spending time on something like this for unlimited armor/weapons containers. We have been waiting on new playable content (like global arcs last year) for 8 months now and I've seen countless posts about people being bored. THAT is what will make people unhappy.

Well, my understanding is, that the changes undergoing and in Testing are to provide to the Developers faster tools to provide to players that New content which you are talking about.

From this post https://forum.uo.com/discussion/comment/43245/#Comment_43245

As I mentioned in a previous response specific to Treasures, the main benefit of the dynamic Treasures/Champ systems are in the implementation time.  This system has reduced the core implementation time of a Treasures event from about 5 days into about an hour.  Little bit less for a champ spawn, but equally as quick now. 

So, while the work for new content before would take 5 days, I understand that, with the new tools, now it will take 1 hour.

Perhaps in so much freed up time, it could be possible to fit in also some work to make BOD books take less items count and new Weapons' Racks and Armor Armoires containers that hold 500 items but count as 1, as well as other things which players have been asking for long, like more bugs fixed, more items made stackbles etc. etc.

At least, that is my hope.

@Seth I like your list above for priorities. Search for jewelry box might be easiest to implement. 

I think they put a lot of effort "finally" into the Mannequin changes, and they lowered the cost of them by making them a clean up item. I did a simple test and checked my storage before placing the mannequin, 2570, I placed the mannequin, 2570 and I put an entire suit and weapon on him minus footware 12 items....2570. All @Kyronix needs to do is add Switch Weapons, Switch Jewelry or even Switch Slot lines on the mannequins context menu.

you all can use steward in house for free storage

..............

Fortis said:

you all can use steward in house for free storage

Can't no longer edit my posting above because of time limit, but i had to correct a little: You can open the Stewards bag with each char of the same account - i'have tested this once again.

jelinidas said:

If you think the players will settle for endless Treasure/Champs systems being new content you are crazy. These are fine once in a while, but we need NEW content. Yes, it has been about 8 months.

^^^ this.

I think the "Treasures Of ..." will be something cool to allow some mindless farming to collect items and turn in items for rewards (as long as the rewards are worth it) but I agree that after a couple weeks of farming I become completely bored with it. These type of events I think are perfect to implement for a month in between new event arcs like an invasion where things get switched up a bit.

Some of the most fun I can remember having in UO was during the invasions like the Titan invasion we just had again (and ones like the lizardman invasion WAY back where every shard got a statue near west brit bank for their efforts). Ideally the dynamic tools free up time on those Treasures Of type events (used as filler content) to allow work on fresh challenges with brand new rewards.

understand how to use it and you will have free storage

Fortis said:

understand how to use it and you will have free storage

What is that supposed to mean if I may ask ?

Garden Sheds

@Bilbo - I already gave examples like this of how to "expand" storage but some people want more time and effort put into additional "things" created that do the exact same thing. 🙂 

garden shed are nice for one on roof but after one too bigguer and the top of the shed over the next floor is really bad design

Let them make different designs/sizes to the Garden Shed and sell them in the UO Store

Shed is ugly and takes up too many tiles

Learn to read

Bilbo said:

Let them make different designs/sizes to the Garden Shed and sell them in the UO Store

This would be nice. 

What If you Actually put things on vendors so returning players have things to purchase instead of having to go to ATL for everything? That fixes both issues.