Locked Down Containers:

[archaicsubrosa77]

Is someone carpet bombing you?

[Pirul]

Can't put this in and leave the rest of the housing part of the patch out. Locked down containers IN houses are part of the house. If you want to change that, might as well go full patch.

It has been stated MANY times here that the housing portion of the patch is viewed as a temporary fix to some issues, and as such it has been excluded here. In other words: Ain't gonna happen. Give it a rest.

/thread

[nightshark]

Nobody wants to remove lock down containers, only stop them being filled with more than 400 stones.

What is temporary? This shard is 4 years old. It's era accurate or not. Things don't just get left in because they are convenient...?

[Pirul]

Staff view the Housing part of OSI's patch as a temporary fix, and that is why it is not here...or so I think I recall having read.

[Faust]

If the housing patch for phase II was deemed temporary given the reason it's not here... why do we have co-owners from that patch?

The issue pointed out here in the first place isn't really even about phase II housing. The current mechanic is not era accurate for any phase or the game period when it comes to locked down containers.

[Kaivan]

I've moved this thread to a more appropriate forum, as this isn't really a 'bug', since lock downs operate this way intentionally.

Also, a few comments on this:

Up until now, no due diligence has been put in to investigate this question, and the unlimited storage in unsecured lock downs has been taken for granted. In that vein, I have done some research to see if I can find information supporting our current mechanics, and thus far I have not been able to find anything that directly supports our current mechanics. This means that unless some compelling evidence comes forward, it looks as if the weight limit on locked down containers is accurate, as it is the last known mechanic for containers in general.

Additionally, regarding UOSA's current housing mechanics, we have not really taken a well-defined stance on the housing rules that we have on UOSA, which has led to some complicated and unsatisfactory mechanics. In reality, we should be taking a pre-November 23 stance regarding housing based on the fact that the housing system at the time of the publish was intended as a temporary circumstance, while players adjusted to the new lock down limits. In fact, there are many other housing fixes that need to be pushed through based solely on known mechanics during the era, and correcting some of our own bugs. This should ideally be pushed through as a major housing patch, and has been something that we have tossed around at times, but other priorities have gotten in the way, pushing this back with many of the other fixes.

[Robbbb]

I've moved this thread to a more appropriate forum, as this isn't really a 'bug', since lock downs operate this way intentionally.

Also, a few comments on this:

Up until now, no due diligence has been put in to investigate this question, and the unlimited storage in unsecured lock downs has been taken for granted. In that vein, I have done some research to see if I can find information supporting our current mechanics, and thus far I have not been able to find anything that directly supports our current mechanics. This means that unless some compelling evidence comes forward, it looks as if the weight limit on locked down containers is accurate, as it is the last known mechanic for containers in general.

Additionally, regarding UOSA's current housing mechanics, we have not really taken a well-defined stance on the housing rules that we have on UOSA, which has led to some complicated and unsatisfactory mechanics. In reality, we should be taking a pre-November 23 stance regarding housing based on the fact that the housing system at the time of the publish was intended as a temporary circumstance, while players adjusted to the new lock down limits. In fact, there are many other housing fixes that need to be pushed through based solely on known mechanics during the era, and correcting some of our own bugs. This should ideally be pushed through as a major housing patch, and has been something that we have tossed around at times, but other priorities have gotten in the way, pushing this back with many of the other fixes.

I'm all for this... http://update.uo.com/design_37.html

[iamreallysquall]

I've moved this thread to a more appropriate forum, as this isn't really a 'bug', since lock downs operate this way intentionally.

Also, a few comments on this:

Up until now, no due diligence has been put in to investigate this question, and the unlimited storage in unsecured lock downs has been taken for granted. In that vein, I have done some research to see if I can find information supporting our current mechanics, and thus far I have not been able to find anything that directly supports our current mechanics. This means that unless some compelling evidence comes forward, it looks as if the weight limit on locked down containers is accurate, as it is the last known mechanic for containers in general.

Additionally, regarding UOSA's current housing mechanics, we have not really taken a well-defined stance on the housing rules that we have on UOSA, which has led to some complicated and unsatisfactory mechanics. In reality, we should be taking a pre-November 23 stance regarding housing based on the fact that the housing system at the time of the publish was intended as a temporary circumstance, while players adjusted to the new lock down limits. In fact, there are many other housing fixes that need to be pushed through based solely on known mechanics during the era, and correcting some of our own bugs. This should ideally be pushed through as a major housing patch, and has been something that we have tossed around at times, but other priorities have gotten in the way, pushing this back with many of the other fixes.

I'm all for this... http://update.uo.com/design_37.html

eww no way

[Jupiter]

This could have some very interesting implications...

Jupiter predicts

1). Mass hysteria and a hoarding of all truly rare non-stackable items which will cause an increase in value (true value) and more frequent display of such items (since they can't be packratted).


2). Acceptance, and people adjusting in the following ways
PK's out farming on alts for good weapons since they won't be able to keep an unlimited stockpile
new methods of stacking items in houses (rooms dedicated to piles of stacked regs/weapons/items)

* bites nails *

- Jupiter

[SCCLBR]

I'm all for this... http://update.uo.com/design_37.html

That's the way I remember most of my time pre UOR.

[iamreallysquall]

I've moved this thread to a more appropriate forum, as this isn't really a 'bug', since lock downs operate this way intentionally.

Also, a few comments on this:

Up until now, no due diligence has been put in to investigate this question, and the unlimited storage in unsecured lock downs has been taken for granted. In that vein, I have done some research to see if I can find information supporting our current mechanics, and thus far I have not been able to find anything that directly supports our current mechanics. This means that unless some compelling evidence comes forward, it looks as if the weight limit on locked down containers is accurate, as it is the last known mechanic for containers in general.

Additionally, regarding UOSA's current housing mechanics, we have not really taken a well-defined stance on the housing rules that we have on UOSA, which has led to some complicated and unsatisfactory mechanics. In reality, we should be taking a pre-November 23 stance regarding housing based on the fact that the housing system at the time of the publish was intended as a temporary circumstance, while players adjusted to the new lock down limits. In fact, there are many other housing fixes that need to be pushed through based solely on known mechanics during the era, and correcting some of our own bugs. This should ideally be pushed through as a major housing patch, and has been something that we have tossed around at times, but other priorities have gotten in the way, pushing this back with many of the other fixes.

did no one read that ? you guys want phase 2 housing? really ? are you nuts ? i agree with kaivan on this and we should be aiming for housing before phase 2 i am more in favor of the idea we should move the cut off date back slightly not push closer to uor

[Wonko the Sane]

Item decay for items not locked down... DO NOT WANT!!!!

[Robbbb]

I've moved this thread to a more appropriate forum, as this isn't really a 'bug', since lock downs operate this way intentionally.

Also, a few comments on this:

Up until now, no due diligence has been put in to investigate this question, and the unlimited storage in unsecured lock downs has been taken for granted. In that vein, I have done some research to see if I can find information supporting our current mechanics, and thus far I have not been able to find anything that directly supports our current mechanics. This means that unless some compelling evidence comes forward, it looks as if the weight limit on locked down containers is accurate, as it is the last known mechanic for containers in general.

Additionally, regarding UOSA's current housing mechanics, we have not really taken a well-defined stance on the housing rules that we have on UOSA, which has led to some complicated and unsatisfactory mechanics. In reality, we should be taking a pre-November 23 stance regarding housing based on the fact that the housing system at the time of the publish was intended as a temporary circumstance, while players adjusted to the new lock down limits. In fact, there are many other housing fixes that need to be pushed through based solely on known mechanics during the era, and correcting some of our own bugs. This should ideally be pushed through as a major housing patch, and has been something that we have tossed around at times, but other priorities have gotten in the way, pushing this back with many of the other fixes.

did no one read that ? you guys want phase 2 housing? really ? are you nuts ? i agree with kaivan on this and we should be aiming for housing before phase 2 i am more in favor of the idea we should move the cut off date back slightly not push closer to uor

IF you agree with Kaivan then you also agree with the statement in RED which will KILL housing if its the only change AND if you agree with his 'pre Nov 23rd' stance on housing THEN co-owners will no longer be allowed http://update.uo.com/design_20.html...So basically EVERY container in your house will have to be 400 stones...where are you going to keep your regs? Lock them down? Have to unlock and relock everytime you have to re-equip? No co-owner? Then what?

At least with what I said secure containers dont have a limit and it would increase secures of a small to 3 instead of 1...I wasnt talking about items not locked down decaying...

[iamreallysquall]

I've moved this thread to a more appropriate forum, as this isn't really a 'bug', since lock downs operate this way intentionally.

Also, a few comments on this:

Up until now, no due diligence has been put in to investigate this question, and the unlimited storage in unsecured lock downs has been taken for granted. In that vein, I have done some research to see if I can find information supporting our current mechanics, and thus far I have not been able to find anything that directly supports our current mechanics. This means that unless some compelling evidence comes forward, it looks as if the weight limit on locked down containers is accurate, as it is the last known mechanic for containers in general.

Additionally, regarding UOSA's current housing mechanics, we have not really taken a well-defined stance on the housing rules that we have on UOSA, which has led to some complicated and unsatisfactory mechanics. In reality, we should be taking a pre-November 23 stance regarding housing based on the fact that the housing system at the time of the publish was intended as a temporary circumstance, while players adjusted to the new lock down limits. In fact, there are many other housing fixes that need to be pushed through based solely on known mechanics during the era, and correcting some of our own bugs. This should ideally be pushed through as a major housing patch, and has been something that we have tossed around at times, but other priorities have gotten in the way, pushing this back with many of the other fixes.

did no one read that ? you guys want phase 2 housing? really ? are you nuts ? i agree with kaivan on this and we should be aiming for housing before phase 2 i am more in favor of the idea we should move the cut off date back slightly not push closer to uor

IF you agree with Kaivan then you also agree with the statement in RED which will KILL housing if its the only change AND if you agree with his 'pre Nov 23rd' stance on housing THEN co-owners will no longer be allowed http://update.uo.com/design_20.html...So basically EVERY container in your house will have to be 400 stones...where are you going to keep your regs? Lock them down? Have to unlock and relock everytime you have to re-equip? No co-owner? Then what?

At least with what I said secure containers dont have a limit and it would increase secures of a small to 3 instead of 1...I wasnt talking about items not locked down decaying...

i am fully aware hence you know "i agree" part

[Faust]

The part that bothers me with the pre-november 23rd housing choice is that we are cherry picking the other additions of that SAME patch. That patch added potions kegs, runebooks, player vendor menus, skill management, healing/vet changes, maker's marks enhancements that included the long awaited addition of GM made quarterstaves for macers, etc... We are cherry picking this patch to death. If we are going to stick to a 'cutffoff' date than make that cutoff date stand firm instead of making it not era accurate no matter the case. I don't care what direction is chosen personally so long as it's accurate one way or the other.

Also, I don't buy the "this was a temporary addition" argument on phase II housing... all the phases were temporary until the final phase was implemented. Phase I was temporary no differently than phase II being the same. The difference is that phase I was mostly in the first half of t2a and phase II was the second half. I have heard the argument that it makes no sense to add something that significant that only existed in the amount of time that it did during the later half of t2a too... skill management, potion kegs, and runebooks are pretty significant implications as well that could hold that same argument.