If UO wanted you to be able to use these as a rental then they would have made them that way or do you think the DEVs are so stupid not to have thought about that. Commission Vendors were made for players on smaller shards to help with the vendor fees and who in their right mind would ever rent you a vendor at their house.
Who in their right mind would rent to another player a Vendor at their House ?
Are we playing the same UO ?
There is plenty players running Rental Vendors across all Shards on fellow players' UO Houses....
It is possible, for an Account, to ONLY have a House on 1 Shard, and one Shard only with the exception of Siege Perilous and Muegen, aside from the Test Server, of course.
Which it means, that if a player with 1 Account plays more then 1 Shard, they can ONLY and solely have a Commission Vendor on the Account where they own a House, NOT on any other Shard where they cannot have a House but need to be friended or co-owners to someone else's House.
And that is why, in UO, there is PLENTY of players using rented Vendors.... yet, for some odd reasons, these rented Vendors cannot be rented "Commission" Vendors since, on those Shards other then their Main, they cannot be house owners and, thus, place any....
I do not see any valid reason for not making Commission Vendors also be possible to be made Rental "Commission" Vendors.
The only 1 possible reason could be the use of "lockdowns" which Commission Vendors use as compared to the regular Vendors.
Since Commission Vendors use Lockdowns, having another player using a Commission Vendor in someone else's House
could cause them trouble with their lockdowns availability if they were to put on that rented Commission Vendor a whole lot of low value items taking up a large number of Lockdowns.
I used the conditional "
could ", because, I think this is a "non" issue since the Design of "Rental" Commission Vendors could be set up with the 2 players, the House Owner and the friended player renting the Commission Vendor space, negotiating "how many lockdowns" that Rented Commission Vendor would be allowe as MAX to hold.
Once the agreed upon number of lockdowns for that rented Commission Vendor was agreed upon by the 2 players, that number of lockdowns would be "subtracted" from the entire available number of lockdowns of the House, as a safety measure to avoid "exceeding" the House MAX number of lock downs.
At that point, the player who rented the Commission Vendor, would be allowed to place items on that Vendor ONLY up to the agreed upon max number of lockdowns. Not 1 item more.
If the House has room, and the Rental Commission Vendor has reached the max number of lockdowns, the 2 players, the House owner and the friended player, for that Vendor, could "re-negotiate" the number of lockdowns available if the player was to need more room on that Commission Vendor and the House owner agreed to conceede this availability.
It can be done, me thinks, and I do not understand WHY it is not being done, since it would enhance the enjoyment of players' Vendors within UO players making them available also to friended players, not just the House owners.
Honestly, I do not understand why there is UO players so "conservative" about Ultima Online's gameplay.... I get told this so often, that it is getting old.... UO is what it is, deal with it.
How so ?
Why ain't it possible, if there is room, to enhance gameplay aspects of UO to make it more players' friendly, more enjoyable ?
Why does it HAVE TO BE what it is, stay what it is, and never get bettered even when it
could be bettered ?
I do not get it.