Item Count

[Dunder Mifflin Inc]

How is this possible?

[Kaivan]

I'm going to move this to the bugs section of the forum, as this bypasses the item limit on containers.

This is generally a known method for doing something like this, and operates the same way as the potential bug related to storing more than 400 stones in a secure container, but what isn't known is whether this was something that could be done during the T2A era. Until then, this will be treated as an actual bug.

[smart86]

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.

[Roser]

Vendors hold more than 125 items, when vendors die they drop one bag.

This is probably why this bag has more than 125.

[Kaivan]

If vendors hold more than 125 items, that is not accurate. Vendors should be limited to the same item count and weight limits that players are.

[Roser]

They do have a cap, not sure exactly what it is without testing. But its definitely more than 125.

[Boomland Jenkins]

I'm not sure about this backpack, but there use to be a castle in the Bloody Plains with bags well over the limits (this was a good 4-5 years ago). When I asked Derrick about it, he had to do something and bagged up everything in the castle beyond the limits.

This bag could be leftovers from that, or created some other way.

[Doogie]

You can still do this rather easily and without a vendor.

[Soma]

I thought this was a commonly known era bug much like mount stamina, there are were a few dozen houses out there with bags that exceed item/weight limits and they were not removed. The first one I ever saw was in TG land, I spent a few minutes playing around and was able to replicate it.

After all it's a similar application of allowing any container to exceed the weight limit by locking it down in your house, then unlocking it which isn't classified as a bug... but I'd rather not go into more detail as it makes house looting a sight bit harder. Just FYI there are some drawbacks to using this method.

With a bit of fiddling you can exceed both the item and weight limit on secure containers.



As for whether it was possible on OSI... I doubt the circumstances required to replicate this would have been available back then so finding evidence on it will be next to impossible. I'm happy to give it a shot on the demo when I get back.

I'm curious as to whether the administration thinks "exploiting" this bug is an issue and should be stopped, or if it's just another one of those bugs that we've decided to replicate?

P.S. look at that sexy deco