Secure Container Amount not correct

[Heckler]

Well i didnt look further into it BUT after looking here

http://www.uoguide.com/Publish_1


and then checking out the shards wiki page here

http://wiki.uosecondage.com/Housing



i noticed that the numbers didnt match.

[Mens Rea]

Welcome to the mystical world of the "grey area" between pre-23 Nov and post-23 Nov housing.

This issue lives right next to automated events irl.

I like these threads they sometimes get heated^_^

[Heckler]

Posts intended to derail threads or start a trash talking match between forum posters should be limited to the Trash Talk forum.

[Atraxi]

Posts intended to derail threads or start a trash talking match between forum posters should be limited to the Trash Talk forum.

I'm not sure what that was directed at. The only other post was Mens Rea's, which doesn't fall under what you quoted at all.

Welcome to the mystical world of the "grey area" between pre-23 Nov and post-23 Nov housing.

This issue lives right next to automated events irl.

I like these threads they sometimes get heated^_^

Unless I'm mistaken, what Mens Rea is saying is that this is a grey area and there's no clear answer whether the Nov 23rd patch is era accurate or not. Some parts of that patch are included (i.e. runebooks, skill management, makers mark), and some parts are not (i.e. secure/lockdown amounts, strongboxes). I believe Nov 23rd is actually our cutoff day, which creates the vagueness.

I'm sure this has been brought up and/or suggested before. Discussions about things included in the Nov 23rd patch tend to get very heated and don't really end up accomplishing anything.

I agree with Mens in that I enjoy watching these kinds of threads. They do tend to get amusing.

[Heckler]

Posts intended to derail threads or start a trash talking match between forum posters should be limited to the Trash Talk forum.

I'm not sure what that was directed at. The only other post was Mens Rea's, which doesn't fall under what you quoted at all.

was directed at the sentence where he/she/it underlyingly expresses that he/she/it is only here for the sole purpose of watching it getting heated up in here...

[Hamrlik]

was directed at the sentence where he/she/it underlyingly expresses that he/she/it is only here for the sole purpose of watching it getting heated up in here...

Read again. He didn't say that was the only reason he's here, but that he liked these threads because they tend to get heat up. You're kind of derailing your own thread by making it a thread about thread derailment, rather than a thread about the number of secure containers and/or lockdowns that are era accurate.
_____
¯¯¯¯¯
At first glance, and as a new player, I'd love to get more secure containers, especially the...

Secure containers do not have weight limits.

...part. I think everyone who owns a small house currently has to sacrifice 40% of their interior house area to their "security system", which, while acceptable, is more of an (necessary) annoyance than anything else.

However, this works both ways... As things work right now, locked down containers (including their content, which I like to refer to as "locked ins") count for a single lockdown, if we apply that publish, every single item within locked down containers will add up towards the lockdown limit, which actually means less storage, in the long run.

For example, once your "security barricade" is set up (assuming 4 tables + trash can), you can actually lock down 20 chests against the back wall of your house, all of which will be safe from being looted. Since you can put 125 items in each of those containers, that adds up to 2500 "locked in" items, or 2625*, if you add the single secure container we can actually have.

So, with 1 secure container and 20 locked down chests, you can easily have 2625* safe items which won't decay and which can't be looted unless you compromise your own home security in some way. On the other hand, with publish 1, that number would go down drastically and we'd be limited to a maximum of 375 secure/locked down/"locked in" items total, a net loss of 2250* or 86% of your potential "safe" storage.

Long story short, while it would allow us to get rid of barricades, it would also actually mean a lot less secure storage for new players. It would be good for players running a public/vendor house, but terrible for any adventurer/hoarder who can actually get 125 lockdowns at the price of one.

I won't do the math for every other house size, but here's the numbers for a large brick or patio too...

Current secures: 4 (500 items)
Current lockdowns: 86
Lockdowns required for security: 9 + trash can
Remaining lockdowns: 77
Total # of items you can put in locked down containers ("locked ins"): 9625
(edit) Total # of "safe" items: 10125

...compared with the numbers we'd get if we applied Publish 1...

Secures/lockdowns: 1100

...a net loss of 9025 items or 89% of actual storage room.

In conclusion, if Publish 1 is "a grey zone" and if *I* get to choose, I'll stick with the statu-quo. I know I didn't take strongboxes in consideration, but if we assume you give every single one of your alts a strongbox, that'd mean 14 strongboxes, each containing up to 25 secure storage, for a total of 350 additional secure storage, which, any way you look at it, is still tons less than what we can actually get.

Feel free to discuss further and correct my numbers if I overlooked something.

(Edited for typos)
(Edited to fix numbers for Large Brick / Patio, I forgot to add the 500 secure items to the 9625 "locked ins"...)

[Atraxi]

You're kind of derailing your own thread by making it a thread about thread derailment, rather than a thread about the number of secure containers and/or lockdowns that are era accurate.

Beautifully put, sir.

[Mens Rea]

Well that didn't take very long.

P.S - Hamrlik +1

[Panthor the Hated]

Phase 2 housing, yeah?

Yup, pretty sure. Theres tons of posts on it, no need to rehash this just do some searching.