Strong Boxes

[Charles Darwin]

There is a target time frame for UOSA, it is between Mid 1999 to Dec, 1999.

http://wiki.uosecondage.com/index.php?t ... 11/23/1999

We have runebooks, potion kegs, and as far as I know every other change from this patch, save the strong boxes.

Exactly, let's face it. Strongboxes are ERA Accurate.

Some people have already expressed concern at the potential to abuse the co-owner secure containers (Strong Boxes). Obviously, this would happen. I couldn't agree more. But in how large of numbers? We can't confirm, nor can we determine whether or not this would significantly impact the shard(the only thing anyone can offer is speculation, which at that point it sounds biased because they want their point of view to triumph.) However, there are people who could legitimately use the co-owner Strong Box. Someone like Safir comes to mind with his newbie player housing program he has. I think you could have positive gameplay from an implementation like this. Also, when this shard allows a total of three accounts with a maximum of 15 houses, why waste a charcter on a permanent co-ownership when you could just eventually acquire another house? Strong Boxes would in no way somehow make houses any easier, or more difficult to loot. If you feel other wise, I don't think this is something that can be proven. So feel free to debate.

The idea of Strong Boxes combining "two different housing systems" can neither be supported, or argued effectively. To follow up on Xenome's argument, we can't possibly associate a strong box with an entirely secondary housing system, opposite and separate from one in which we currently have. There are no patch notes to suggest that strong boxes were a master plan devised by OSI to usher in trammel and limitless lockdowns and secures. It was a small addition to a large patch created to streamline UO and increase play friendly-ness; And yes, it was implemented in T2A! Plus, adding a strong box, and keeping the current rule set on housing, is in no way blurring the lines between an all out, lockdown every item, tons of secure storage situation. Come on guys...

Strong Boxes are era accurate. I don't understand why this creates such an uproar. It is in the target time frame, and we have 99% of that patch implemented already on UOSA. We all knew going in that

"Tampering with the era in hope of achieving balance is not something that we will do..." "...With that said, we do still continue to strive to become more correct and true to the era. Player feedback and research is a big part of this process. We don't claim to have everything perfect yet, but we do continue to actively work towards that goal."

So what have we witnessed?
A)Player research confirming strong boxes are era accurate
B) a desire "to strive to become more correct and true to the era"
C) and a continuity "to actively work towards that goal"

And that just leaves one more thing...

D) Implementation upon Derrick and staffs convenience

I'm not arguing for anyone, just simply stating that Era Accuracy should be our number one priority. Regardless of majority opinion...

[MatronDeWinter]

There are no patch notes to suggest that strong boxes were a master plan devised by OSI to usher in trammel and limitless lockdowns and secures. It was a small addition to a large patch created to streamline UO and increase play friendly-ness;

Explain.


Additionally, almost everyone will abuse strongboxes.

/Answer my question or the Beagle gets it, Mr.Darwin!

[Silverfoot]

The idea of Strong Boxes combining "two different housing systems" can neither be supported, or argued effectively.

Now, I am not going to link to all the patch notes regarding these systems you can look them up yourself, there has also been previous threads regarding this. The current housing system implemented here existed from the beginning of T2A (Fall 1998) until late 1999. So, our current system is era accurate. This is not to say the second housing system implemented after the CUB is not era accurate, it is as well, but this is what I am describing has two separate housing systems.

In the second system, anything not locked down in your house decayed, including items in locked down containers I believe, but too lazy to check at the moment. Anything put into secure containers counted against your lockdown limit (lockdown numbers and secures were increased in the new housing system). Notice in the patch note linked here it says, "Note that the strongbox is a secure container, but items in the box do not count against the total number of lockdowns for that house."

So, in short, strongboxes and our current housing system never existed at the same time. The argument should be whether you would like the housing system that was implemented at the end of the t2a era to be here.

[Charles Darwin]

A claim arguing that "Strong Boxes" were an effort by the OSI Dev team to "tram up" Ultima Online is not substantiated. There is no chat log, or blogs, forum posts from the decade, to show us here on UOSA, that Strong Boxes were a step in the direction for trammel, and to abandon the old housing rules. I just want to stay away from debating something like this, because it will lead this conversation no where.

The fact is, player research has proven that Strong Boxes are era accurate. And that their implementation would have no effect in moving our housing rule set to something post 2000 T2A.

...Also, when this shard allows a total of three accounts with a maximum of 15 houses, why waste a charcter on a permanent co-ownership when you could just eventually acquire another house?

Basically, I completely agree that players would co-own there alt. accounts, and give those chars a Strong Box. If this could be considered "abuse" - I'm not so sure that word is fitting. The idea is, that every character can own his/her own home. So you might have a char co-owned to use a strong box in its earlier years, but later, you don't think it would make more sense to just get a house? *Let the beagle go! *

The current housing system implemented here existed from the beginning of T2A (Fall 1998) until late 1999. So, our current system is era accurate. This is not to say the second housing system implemented after the CUB is not era accurate, it is as well, but this is what I am describing has two separate housing systems.

Exactly, and our Era here on UOSA is up to Dec, 1999. Strong Boxes were implemented in Nov, 1999. They also are outside of the "CUB" housing systems of the post Dec, 1999, T2A era. Meaning, the housing era ruleset of, everything has to be locked down. Which will never be implemented on this shard, as it falls out of target time frame, however, Strong Boxes do not, and they don't modify this crucial housing feature of our T2A rule set. This is why I think this following comment is tad misleading;

So, in short, strongboxes and our current housing system never existed at the same time.

They did, they really truly did Silverfoot. That's why they should be implemented. While Strong Boxes may have been implemented towards the end of our target time frame, they are very much, blatantly in fact, included. As shown in the patch notes

[Silverfoot]

So, in short, strongboxes and our current housing system never existed at the same time.

They did, they really truly did Silverfoot. That's why they should be implemented. While Strong Boxes may have been implemented towards the end of our target time frame, they are very much, blatantly in fact, included. As shown in the patch notes

Phase II (Lock downs and Secures) Nov 23 1999 2:25PM CST

Lock Down and Secure Containers

As part of Phase II, the number of secure containers and locked down items will be increased for most house types. The numbers are detailed below. The total items column is the maximum number of items that can be stored in each house. Designating a container as secure will take up 125 of your lockdowns, regardless of how many items you actually put in the secure container. Note that containers within a container do not have a weight limit. This allows players to forego secure storage for more lockdowns. Secure containers do not have weight limits.

All Small Houses have 3 and 425 lock downs for a total of 425 items.
Brick Houses have 8 secure and 1100 lock downs for a total of 1100 items.
Large Patio Houses have 8 secures and 1100 lock downs for a total of 1100 items.
Both Two Story Houses have 10 secures and 1370 lock downs for a total of 1370 items.
Towers have 15 secures and 2119 lock downs for a total of 2119 items.
Small Stone Keeps have 18 secures and 2625 lock downs for a total of 2625 items.
Castles have 28 secures and 4076 lock downs for a total of 4076 items.
These changes, along with the ability to lock down stackable items and the removal of weight restrictions from secure containers and bank boxes, should offer you adequate room to store your most valuable and useful items and decorate your home.

You will also be able to lockdown containers and the items inside of them. These items will not be subject to decay once locked down in the container. Saying "I wish to lock this down" on a container will:

Count the items that can be locked down inside the container.
Check the available number of lockdowns you have left for your house.
If you have enough lockdowns available, the system will lock all items down, including the container, and report success.
If you do not have enough lockdowns available, the system will report the failure and give the reason.
Releasing a locked down container will automatically release all of the items in it.
Locked down items can be used in the following manner:

Only the owner, co-owner, and friends of the house may use or take items from a locked down stack.

From the same patch. This should also be implemented if you want strongboxes. This is the second housing system I am refering to.

[Charles Darwin]

I'm sorry, I thought the second housing system you were referring to was the decay on items not locked down. I don't see why this implementation would hurt, it is era accurate right? Personally I like the current housing system now, and all I've ever been asserting is the need for era accuracy. But I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that the system you just posted is anymore "accurate" then the current limitations on lockdowns and secures.

However, the staff does have a window for era accuracy set, so maybe arguing implementing such a large addition to lockdowns and secures deserves its own thread?

Strong Boxes, I don't believe would drastically change the housing system, as I've previously stated. From my understanding of the forum topic, I was defending the need to shy from a majority opinion and accept era accuracy. And Strong Boxes on their own, would not drastically increase house storage.

[Silverfoot]

That IS the housing system where items will decay if not locked down.

"You will also be able to lockdown containers and the items inside of them. These items will not be subject to decay once locked down in the container."

[Charles Darwin]

I do see the ability to add in Strong Boxes, without rewriting our entire housing rules. I also think they would be a neat addition. It would be cool to add a small golden box with blue felt on the inside, prominently to be displayed next to a house plant, reading when clicked "A Strong Box".

But I understand your logic, and I'm going to have to agree with you. A Strong Box would be having your cake, and eating it to.

Well played.

[MatronDeWinter]

I do see the ability to add in Strong Boxes, without rewriting our entire housing rules. I also think they would be a neat addition. It would be cool to add a small golden box with blue felt on the inside, prominently to be displayed next to a house plant, reading when clicked "A Strong Box".

But I understand your logic, and I'm going to have to agree with you. A Strong Box would be having your cake, and eating it to.

Well played.

I have released the beagle, thank you for your cooperation.

[ArchaicSubrosa]

It falls within the timeframe we are trying to emulate and is more accurate than razor and the party/guild system we currently use and so many people enjoy.

I voted for era accuracy.

This is what I am talking about...era accuracy seems only viable if it has a certain player archetype in mind. If you don't want to stay accurate just admit it and don't get froggy when suggestions are made that weren't specific to the second age. If you want to ensure that it is 100 percent accurate that's fine too...but you can't have it both ways.

[Safir]

However, there are people who could legitimately use the co-owner Strong Box. Someone like Safir comes to mind with his newbie player housing program he has. I think you could have positive gameplay from an implementation like this.

Thank you for thinking of The Humble Village of Awesome! ;)

While this would of course be a welcome addition to the game mechanics, but I do not wish to argue neither for or against such a mechanic. I believe the staff, with the help of the community, come to wise decisions as to what is to be considered era-accurate. I think that focusing on a single patch date to follow is not the best route to take, but instead perhaps try to host features available throughout the better part of the second half of the T2A era, as most people actually remember the era to be.

On a related note, I do my best to teach new people about the current UOSA mechanics for house security, and adapt to any changes. And I'd like to believe that most new players in the Village are more than adept with housing when leaving the Village, protecting them from future house looters. ;)

[Derrick]

The only difference currently between the pre-Nov '99 housing system and our housing system is the existence of co-owners. The post Nov housing system had the 'feature' in which when you locked down a container, everything within was locked down as well, this was generally regarded as pretty undesirable.

The only real option I see here to reconcile the topic is to remove co-owners so that we do have a correct and consistent housing system.

We have originally removed co-owners when we instituted the correct housing menus from era, because co owners just weren't on the menu, but they were added back by overwhelming demand in addition to a complete lack of warning of the change. This is why they are kind of stuck onto the bottom of the menu, and why the spacing is so horrible.

[Safir]

The only real option I see here to reconcile the topic is to remove co-owners so that we do have a correct and consistent housing system.

We have originally removed co-owners when we instituted the correct housing menus from era, because co owners just weren't on the menu, but they were added back by overwhelming demand in addition to a complete lack of warning of the change. This is why they are kind of stuck onto the bottom of the menu, and why the spacing is so horrible.

This is prolli the onli era-accurate feature and/or game mechanic I'd ever try to argue against, but I'd of course accept any changes staff would implement in order to reach full era-accuracy. This would seriously hurt the Village... hehe. ;)

[Naljier]

seems 'both' systems are 'era accurate' so lets just keep the best one, the one we have now

ive counted the votes, and we keep what we got...case dismissed.

[Kaivan]

The problem with having the older lock down system and co-owners is that each system is mutually exclusive. I've kept quiet on this particular issue because I wanted Derrick to speak on it first, but the reality is that co-owners aren't accurate to the system we currently have for housing. In order for us to remain accurate, it will be necessary to remove co-owners. As a direct result, house security and the relationship that characters have with other houses owned by other characters on their account changes significantly as well.