Stable Spots.

[Kaivan]

For reference, this is a snapshot of the number of stable masters for most servers during early UOR. There is also evidence that suggests that there was a hard limit to the number of stable slots available across servers.

On another note, an important factor to consider is the fact that players treat stables differently here on UOSA than they did on OSI servers. On OSI servers, stable slots were not treated as a limited commodity as they are here on UOSA, which meant that the overall effect of the mechanic was different. By suggesting that we modify the base mechanics to produce a particular resulting behavior, we are ignoring the fact that the behavior is necessarily dependent on the way that players interact with the system. The same is true with increasing the number of available stable slots without any consideration for the interactions that players have with them.

[Whitley]

By suggesting that we modify the base mechanics to produce a particular resulting behavior, we are ignoring the fact that the behavior is necessarily dependent on the way that players interact with the system. The same is true with increasing the number of available stable slots without any consideration for the interactions that players have with them.

The idea that behavioral differences among players between the eras is causing the shortage is missing the point. It's not behavior that concerns us... it is the availability of slots as compared with the availability in era. That's it.

What causes differences in availability isn't a mechanical era accuracy issue, as we have show repeatedly above. Further, the availability issues can be easily remedied without violating mechanical era accuracy any more than you already have implementing solutions which do not solve the problem.

By suggesting that we modify the base mechanics to produce a particular resulting behavior, we are ignoring the fact that the behavior is necessarily dependent on the way that players interact with the system. The same is true with increasing the number of available stable slots without any consideration for the interactions that players have with them.

It is the limited nature of slots causing the change in behavior, not the other way around. If you don't believe me, make the slots unlimited and see how many fewer pets are stabled. This was the net effect of the mechanic under OSI where there were *always* sufficient slots, as we are suggesting should be implemented here.

[Kaivan]

The idea that behavior differences of players between the eras is causing the shortage is missing the point. It's not behavior that concerns us... it is the availability of slots as compared with the availability in era. That's it.

Your point is that there are no stable slots available as compared with the era, and my point is that the number of available stable slots at any time is necessarily dependent on the behavior of the players with respect to those slots. You're asking us to change the mechanics to produce the game play, and thus force a particular behavior, which is not what mechanical accuracy is about.

What causes differences in availability isn't a mechanical era accuracy issue, as we have show repeatedly above, and can be easily remedied without violating mechanical era accuracy any more than you already have through solutions which do not solve the problem.

The differences in availability are necessarily dependent on both policy and mechanics. The policy is "How many stablemasters?" and the mechanics are "Number of stable masters * 100 = total available spaces". Your proposal of changing the base mechanics to meet the effect of the era does not meet with the mechanical part of that. The only "avenue" that we have is changing the number of available stable masters, not changing other mechanics (again, stop pointing to the pets in houses, it isn't there for stabling pets), which leads me to my next point...

Ignoring the fact that there were a limited number of stable spaces, and pointing to the fact that there were stable spaces available does not invalidate the clear fact that there were was limited number of stable spaces on each server. However, even if that point was conceded, it does not immediately validate the point that some servers had more stable masters than others purely as a result of demand. To say that this difference was strictly because of demand ignores the normal distribution of skills among servers, and places the demand of a less populated server far above that of a more populated server, while ignoring the fact that much more populated servers such as Chesapeake and Lake Superior had a fraction of the total slots available when compared to servers like Napa Valley. This clearly shows that it was a policy concern for the GMs for each specific server.

Finally, if we accept that the number of stable masters is a policy concern that in turn effects a mechanical concern, we have the latitude to choose our own policy regarding stable masters and overall stable space availability. In that vein, we have chosen to keep the number of stable masters at its current level due to the way that stable slots are treated on UOSA by the player base.

[Tony Costa]

Finally, if we accept that the number of stable masters is a policy concern that in turn effects a mechanical concern, we have the latitude to choose our own policy regarding stable masters and overall stable space availability. In that vein, we have chosen to keep the number of stable masters at its current level due to the way that stable slots are treated on UOSA by the player base.

You just proved our entire argument in that last sentence. Due to the way that stable slots are treated on UOSA -BY THE PLAYER BASE -

So like I said initially, you would rather let people troll stable slots and full up stable masters with rats and dogs rather than eliminate the problem all together by implementing a slight change in the way the stables work?

Hmmm if I didnt know any better I'd say you just shot down your entire defense on this matter.

[Tony Costa]

The saddest part about this entire situation is that tamers who want to be able to safely stable their pets have to stoop to the level of griefers and trolls to be able to get taming spots by doing the same exact thing the trolls do, when in reality all we are doing is asking for a change so that we dont have to do what they do.

By keeping it the way it is you are essentially causing a snowball effect and forcing everyone to drop down to the lowest most pathetic point of UO history which is trolling and griefing.

[Elk Eater]

You don't necessarily have to make a mechanics change to fix this problem. Since you are agreeing that the number of stable masters is a policy decision, you could make the policy that you will add stable masters if they are constantly being filled.

You could then automate this part of the policy by spawning new stablemasters across the stables in the world as they fill up (and removed as they emptied), and when folks realize that there is no griefing to be had or money to be made in this endeavor I think you will find that the number of stablemasters will settle out to whatever the base number is.

Just like the auto-removal of stuck monsters, or teleportation of stuck players is there to automate GM functionality that would have normally been handled by a full time GM staff, I bet that a full time GM staff policy wise in era would fix this issue by adding more stablemasters.

Of course since this is a policy decision not an mechanical issue, it's easy to stick with what we've got and be done with it, I just think it's a bad decision.

EDIT: And I just wanted to clarify in case it came off this way -- The staff here is top-notch, the server the best there is, and a disagreement over stablemaster policy in no way lessens my respect for the staff and their hard work!

[Kaivan]

You just proved our entire argument in that last sentence. Due to the way that stable slots are treated on UOSA -BY THE PLAYER BASE -

So like I said initially, you would rather let people troll stable slots and full up stable masters with rats and dogs rather than eliminate the problem all together by implementing a slight change in the way the stables work?

Hmmm if I didnt know any better I'd say you just shot down your entire defense on this matter.

The point I made is that a policy decision is not what you're asking for, you're asking for a mechanical change.

You don't necessarily have to make a mechanics change to fix this problem. Since you are agreeing that the number of stable masters is a policy decision, you could make the policy that you will add stable masters if they are constantly being filled.

You could then automate this part of the policy by spawning new stablemasters across the stables in the world as they fill up (and removed as they emptied), and when folks realize that there is no griefing to be had or money to be made in this endeavor I think you will find that the number of stablemasters will settle out to whatever the base number is.

Just like the auto-removal of stuck monsters, or teleportation of stuck players is there to automate GM functionality that would have normally been handled by a full time GM staff, I bet that a full time GM staff policy wise in era would fix this issue by adding more stablemasters.

Of course since this is a policy decision not an mechanical issue, it's easy to stick with what we've got and be done with it, I just think it's a bad decision.

EDIT: And I just wanted to clarify in case it came off this way -- The staff here is top-notch, the server the best there is, and a disagreement over stablemaster policy in no way lessens my respect for the staff and their hard work!

The issues of stable masters are not at the granularity of a player getting stuck or spawns collecting in unreachable locations that would require micro management, nor are they the type of issues that only a GM can solve. Issues of stables are broad issues of the way that players interact with the mechanics, and at best, will be managed on an as-needed basis. Also, adding in a system that dynamically adds and removes stable masters makes the total number of available stable slots unlimited, which is not mechanically accurate, and would also be another mechanic in and of itself.

[Whitley]

Also, adding in a system that dynamically adds and removes stable masters makes the total number of available stable slots unlimited, which is not mechanically accurate, and would also be another mechanic in and of itself.

You said yourself in this very thread the number of stablemasters is not a mechanical issue, it's one of policy. If it's the dyanimic part that concerns you, simple raise the current limit 100 fold.

This creates no violation of mechanics, but the net effect is that it emulates era availability, which is all anyone is asking for here. When they fill up again, increase it again 100 fold. Just make it a *policy* to regularly address the stable shortage and the problem will necessarily diminish.

It is the combination of the current mechanics of limited slots + a policy of neglecting full stables which is creating this vast inaccuracy in availability.

[Kaivan]

We will not be adding in 100 times the current number of stable masters, despite the fact that it is a policy decision.

[Whitley]

The point was that you simply not neglect the number of stablemasters as they fill up, not the number itself. Or are you simply determined to leave stables as status quo, despite the inconsistencies we've enumerated in both mechanics and policy?

[Kaivan]

There is no inconsistency in mechanics, and we don't follow OSI policy. As for adding in new stable masters, since the way that players treat stable slots here is to intentionally fill them up and treat them as a limited commodity, adding new stable masters, up to some cap, does little good to solve that behavior, so there is little reason to change it.

[Whitley]

There is no inconsistency in mechanics

But there is... see above re: keeping pets in homes.

and we don't follow OSI policy. As for adding in new stable masters, since the way that players treat stable slots here is to intentionally fill them up and treat them as a limited commodity, adding new stable masters, up to some cap, does little good to solve that behavior, so there is little reason to change it.

I think we are finally at the heart of the matter. Throwing up your hands and ignoring the number of stablemasters is not what OSI did, nor what should be done here. If the players knew there existed a consistent policy of adding stablemasters, there would be no reason to fill them up 100% of the time. As it is, they know there is *not* such a policy, thus giving incentive to create artificial shortages.

By giving up on fixing this via "policy" you're implicitly arguing that there is no finite number of slots that players would not fill up, and that is simply inaccurate.

[Kaivan]

There is no inconsistency in mechanics

But there is... see above re: keeping pets in homes.

That isn't an inconsistency in mechanics related to stables, which is the context of the discussion. Not only that, but I have repeatedly told you that the mechanics for dealing with animals is not intended as a fix for stables, as it was added in 2008 before we even had a limit on stables. It is intended to help make the administration of the server feasible.

and we don't follow OSI policy. As for adding in new stable masters, since the way that players treat stable slots here is to intentionally fill them up and treat them as a limited commodity, adding new stable masters, up to some cap, does little good to solve that behavior, so there is little reason to change it.

I think we are finally at the heart of the matter. Throwing up your hands and ignoring the number of stablemasters is not what OSI did, nor what should be done here. If the players knew there existed a consistent policy of adding stablemasters, there would be no reason to fill them up 100% of the time. As it is, they know there is *not* such a policy, thus giving incentive to create artificial shortages.

You're arguing that we should replicate OSI policy, and we're not going to do that, or you're arguing that we should interfere with in-game behavior, which goes against our non-intervention policy.

By giving up on fixing this via "policy" you're implicitly arguing that there is no finite number of slots that players would not fill up, and that is simply inaccurate.

Our policy on stable slots is dependent on how those slots are used, not on the overall availability of open slots. Since slots are being treated as a limited commodity, and we have a non-intervention policy, we will not force a certain type of game play in order to benefit a particular group of players.

[Whitley]

That isn't an inconsistency in mechanics related to stables, which is the context of the discussion.

Of course it is. The despawning of pets in homes exacerbates the stable slot shortage problem. The two are related, which is why both were discussed in this thread.

Not only that, but I have repeatedly told you that the mechanics for dealing with animals is not intended as a fix for stables, as it was added in 2008 before we even had a limit on stables. It is intended to help make the administration of the server feasible.

I understand and appreciate the reason for it. I'm simply pointing out that there are mechanical inconsistencies, and that you're not above changing mechanics when it suits your purpose, as it apparently does with this.

You're arguing that we should replicate OSI policy, and we're not going to do that, or you're arguing that we should interfere with in-game behavior, which goes against our non-intervention policy.

Well, I suppose we can only accept your decision, it is your server after all. But it's disappointing that the answer is "we can't" on mechanical solutions and "we won't" on policy solutions. I refer you back to my status quo comment issued previously.

Since slots are being treated as a limited commodity, and we have a non-intervention policy, we will not force a certain type of game play in order to benefit a particular group of players.

"Force" is too strong a word in my opinion, but I disagree with the sentiment of your statement here. Very clearly you incentive certain behaviors and create disincentives for others through administrative policy, including those related to stables, as I pointed out in my previous post.

I suspect we can agree that with the current policy of neglecting to add stablemasters as needed, you're benefiting one group of players. And if you did add them, you would likely benefit another. And before anyone thinks I'm lobbying as a downtrodden member of that second group, I consider myself one of the players that has benefitted from the current system - I just maintain that it is both frustrating to many players and era inaccurate.

All that said, is apparent to me that this situation isn't going to change so, again, I'll accept it. I shall also give you the last word, good sir, as I see no reason to comment further on this.

Thanks again for your hard work on the shard, please be aware I'm not arguing with you just to be a jerk. You've done a commendable job with this shard, this one minor issue on which we disagree notwithstanding.

Best,

[Kaivan]

Not only that, but I have repeatedly told you that the mechanics for dealing with animals is not intended as a fix for stables, as it was added in 2008 before we even had a limit on stables. It is intended to help make the administration of the server feasible.

I understand and appreciate the reason for it. I'm simply pointing out that there are mechanical inconsistencies, and that you're not above changing mechanics when it suits your purpose, as it apparently does with this.

These mechanical inconsistencies exist as a matter of administrating a server properly. The same argument could be said about limits on connections per IP, or limits on accounts that each person can own, or even on charging for the game, but these differences from the accurate mechanics are necessary in order to properly administrate a free server. Stable slots falls very far outside of this area.

"Force" is too strong a word in my opinion, but I disagree with the sentiment of your statement here. Very clearly you incentive certain behaviors and create disincentives for others through administrative policy, including those related to stables, as I pointed out in my previous post.

I suspect we can agree that with the current policy of neglecting to add stablemasters as needed, you're benefiting one group of players. And if you did add them, you would likely benefit another. And before anyone thinks I'm lobbying as a downtrodden member of that second group, I consider myself one of the players that has benefitted from the current system - I just maintain that it is both frustrating to many players and era inaccurate.

The same could be said regarding a policy of res killing, or repeatedly stealing from someone, or looting a house, or camping someone's house to kill them, or luring monsters on to player, or any number of things. By maintaining a policy that doesn't prevent these actions, we "advantage" the players that do them, and vice versa, but the point is that we restrict the interactions between players and the mechanics and each other as little as possible, and by having a policy that effectively negates a mechanic, we directly interfere with player interaction with that mechanic.

All that said, is apparent to me that this situation isn't going to change so, again, I'll accept it. I shall also give you the last word, good sir, as I see no reason to comment further on this.

Thanks again for your hard work on the shard, please be aware I'm not arguing with you just to be a jerk. You've done a commendable job with this shard, this one minor issue on which we disagree notwithstanding.

Best,

There should be some changes to animals disappearing in houses in the near future, so that players can keep their pets in their own houses if need be. This may not be the solution everyone wants, but this will help alleviate the problem in the best way possible given the mechanics and our policies.