Cancelling My UOSA Subscription

[Bull]

I agree here.

[Bull]

might i add the stamina loss and all follow me for mounts is a bunch of horse too.

[Bull]

Their will have to somewhat of a compromise in order to maintain donators. I can easily afford to donate monthly, but I simply refuse to send any positive reinforcement this shards direction. The object delay patch and patches thereafter have been killing this shard.

A quick rememdy will simply be to sort of "stretch" the era accuracy thing. It's been proven for 4 years now that an era accurate shard isn't possible. Might as well make the shard entertaining and ultimately boost donations and the player base.

I don't mean to sound resentful by any means, and I hope my post won't be taken to a personal level.

this is exactly right.

[Mikel123]

First and foremost, it is important to note that the goal of UOSA is to achieve the best level of mechanical accuracy possible to a specific point in time. Modifying a mechanic compromises that goal. Second, the way that OSI handled the specific issue of stable masters during the T2A era was essentially the same across all shards: add more stable masters. However, this approach was taken to different degrees depending on the server that you were on. This is evidenced by Reena Dae's old taming archive. Thus, the actual availability of stable spaces varied a significant amount depending on the server that you were on. This invariably led to a different experience with stable availability depending on the server you played, and it was even possible that players were doing the exact same thing on OSI servers that we see going on here: they were acquiring as much of a limited resources as they possibly could.

The *mechanic* is: Stablemasters have a finite inventory of X slots.

Anything beyond that is a judgment/policy/gameplay decision.

I'm still confused about why there haven't been more stablemasters added to this shard, given the recent crunch. It's not a mechanical issue; clearly the mechanics of UO in 1999 allowed for stablemasters to be added, as it happened. It's not a gameplay or experiential issue, as indeed it did happen in 1999 and would thus ADD to the historical gameplay and look-and-feel accuracy.

I understand the argument for not increasing the stable slots of a stablemaster; that was a hard-coded number (as far as I can tell) much like combat calculations, damage from the Fireball spell, and your chance to successfully poison a cake at various Poisoning skill levels. I don't understand why more stablemasters aren't being added - it seems like a poor policy decision, because it's neutral on mechanics but it's negative on game experience accuracy.

[Kaivan]

First and foremost, it is important to note that the goal of UOSA is to achieve the best level of mechanical accuracy possible to a specific point in time. Modifying a mechanic compromises that goal. Second, the way that OSI handled the specific issue of stable masters during the T2A era was essentially the same across all shards: add more stable masters. However, this approach was taken to different degrees depending on the server that you were on. This is evidenced by Reena Dae's old taming archive. Thus, the actual availability of stable spaces varied a significant amount depending on the server that you were on. This invariably led to a different experience with stable availability depending on the server you played, and it was even possible that players were doing the exact same thing on OSI servers that we see going on here: they were acquiring as much of a limited resources as they possibly could.

The *mechanic* is: Stablemasters have a finite inventory of X slots.

Anything beyond that is a judgment/policy/gameplay decision.

I'm still confused about why there haven't been more stablemasters added to this shard, given the recent crunch. It's not a mechanical issue; clearly the mechanics of UO in 1999 allowed for stablemasters to be added, as it happened. It's not a gameplay or experiential issue, as indeed it did happen in 1999 and would thus ADD to the historical gameplay and look-and-feel accuracy.

I understand the argument for not increasing the stable slots of a stablemaster; that was a hard-coded number (as far as I can tell) much like combat calculations, damage from the Fireball spell, and your chance to successfully poison a cake at various Poisoning skill levels. I don't understand why more stablemasters aren't being added - it seems like a poor policy decision, because it's neutral on mechanics but it's negative on game experience accuracy.

We currently do not have an increased number of stable masters because we have not yet moved over to a system where animals are stored on each stable master. Currently, animals are still stored at each stable region, and can be accessed from any stable master in that region.

On that note, our current stable capacity is extremely high. We have an effective total of 39 stable masters worth of slots, which is greater than the second highest quantity of stable masters recorded in the taming archive. This shows that increasing the total number of stable slots (regardless of how it's done) does little good to make room for players, so players should expect that the numbers will not increase any further.

[BlackFoot]

will adding more stable masters fix the problem, or just have more stable masters for people to jack up with rats and kitty cats

[Mikel123]

This shows that increasing the total number of stable slots (regardless of how it's done) does little good to make room for players, so players should expect that the numbers will not increase any further.

That's quite a leap.

Stabling pets is a fixed cost, say 100 gp for the rabbit and 35 gp/week to have it stabled. Plus there is some opportunity cost to spending playtime ****ing around with stable slots. Surely this isn't the preferred thing to do in UO.

The market value of stable slots will only go down as slots are increased, so at some point it will reach the point at which the costs outweigh the benefit.

It's a bubble. There's a ton of speculative stable slot investors, and I don't see the point in making policy decisions about some other point on a curve based on the behavior at this current point on a curve. It's a curve, not a line.

[Kaivan]

This shows that increasing the total number of stable slots (regardless of how it's done) does little good to make room for players, so players should expect that the numbers will not increase any further.

That's quite a leap.

Stabling pets is a fixed cost, say 100 gp for the rabbit and 35 gp/week to have it stabled. Plus there is some opportunity cost to spending playtime ****ing around with stable slots. Surely this isn't the preferred thing to do in UO.

The time spent holding on to stable slots is a drop in the bucket in terms of play time. Beyond that, the weekly investment for a single person to hold all of the stable slots in the world is only 117k, which is not a large sum of money for many players, and that assumes that all slots are held by one player.

The market value of stable slots will only go down as slots are increased, so at some point it will reach the point at which the costs outweigh the benefit.

This may be true, but only occurs as the total number of available slots reaches extreme numbers. The point at which it becomes a detriment to attempt to hold all of the stable slots is very far from what we have now.

It's a bubble. There's a ton of speculative stable slot investors, and I don't see the point in making policy decisions about some other point on a curve based on the behavior at this current point on a curve. It's a curve, not a line.

The problem is that this isn't being looked at from the perspective of a line. Since this has been brought up as an issue nearly a year ago, stable slots have increased a good amount, yet stables are still full all the time. This shows that increasing the stable limit has had little to no real effect on the problem, and is unlikely to do so unless we increase the stable limits by such a large number that we have effectively created unlimited stable limits.

[Casey]

I definitely agree with the decision to implement the delay, albeit annoying, will give more players an opportunity to get a few stable slots for themselves.

Raising the number of stable slots available is a horrendous idea, and the outcome will be the same...players hoarding them up. I'm really disappointed in the way the vets are acting about this...a bunch of little cry babies who want to own everything. If that's the case, then go away and play on a shard by yourself, where you can own everything. This shard will be a much better place.

[Tiwstacain]

make it 1k to stable pets and then ppl will only stable stuff they really want




TC



i mean if u have 1 drag and tame him he drops 700gp, and to go kill 1 eg, 1 blood etc, u payed for his stable. and then ppl won't wanna put cats etc. in them

[Casey]

make it 1k to stable pets and then ppl will only stable stuff they really want
TC
i mean if u have 1 drag and tame him he drops 700gp, and to go kill 1 eg, 1 blood etc, u payed for his stable. and then ppl won't wanna put cats etc. in them

Good idea...so the 3 day old miner who wants to stable his pack horse will have to pay more than it's worth to do so.

Keep catering to the rich...

[Mikel123]

Re: the way stables are handled here, thanks for sharing.

The problem is that this isn't being looked at from the perspective of a line. Since this has been brought up as an issue nearly a year ago, stable slots have increased a good amount, yet stables are still full all the time. This shows that increasing the stable limit has had little to no real effect on the problem, and is unlikely to do so unless we increase the stable limits by such a large number that we have effectively created unlimited stable limits.

You're saying it's not being looked at from the perspective of a line, and then you're taking results at one point and extrapolating them out... linearly. Until we reach this "large number", which we have no idea what it is. 2x? 10x?

Again though, I don't understand what mechanic would be broken with additional stablemasters (policy), each having a finite stable size (mechanics). That was exactly what happened in-era.

It seems like you're using player behavior as a rationale for policy: "We can't do X because then players will do Y". To be clear, I am as well... the difference as I see it though is that my proposed policy more closely mimics in-era policy and gameplay.

I cannot understand why we know exactly how something operated in 1999, but refuse to implement it as such.

[Derrick]

I cannot understand why we know exactly how something operated in 1999, but refuse to implement it as such.

Certainly not refusing to implement it, we're working on implementing it.

[Kaivan]

Re: the way stables are handled here, thanks for sharing.

The problem is that this isn't being looked at from the perspective of a line. Since this has been brought up as an issue nearly a year ago, stable slots have increased a good amount, yet stables are still full all the time. This shows that increasing the stable limit has had little to no real effect on the problem, and is unlikely to do so unless we increase the stable limits by such a large number that we have effectively created unlimited stable limits.

You're saying it's not being looked at from the perspective of a line, and then you're taking results at one point and extrapolating them out... linearly. Until we reach this "large number", which we have no idea what it is. 2x? 10x?

I'm saying that on whatever curve we have at seen thus far, the increase in stables has not outpaced demand for those stable slots. When we account for the possible factors that may contribute to why this is the case, we have only a few factors: cost and time. Since an increase in stable slots will not produce a huge increase in time, we can disregard that issue as a moot point and focus on gold. Factually speaking, the cost in gold to control the entire server's worth of stables is a very small amount, and would not become a problem for one player to control all of the slots until a much higher total cost is achieved. Combine this with the fact that you have multiple players who are attempting to acquire these spots, and you multiply that effect a sizable amount.

Again though, I don't understand what mechanic would be broken with additional stablemasters (policy), each having a finite stable size (mechanics). That was exactly what happened in-era.

There is no argument regarding the mechanical and policy decisions of the era, however we cannot argue that because extra stable masters were put in place on OSI servers, that we should do the same to an extreme degree on UOSA. If we follow that practice and end up with over 100 stable masters to deal with players locking up limited reousrces, then the entire concept of limited stables is useless, and would be better managed by having unlimited stable space. This is in the same ballpark as allowing unlimited simultaneous connections because that's what OSI did mechanically.

It seems like you're using player behavior as a rationale for policy: "We can't do X because then players will do Y". To be clear, I am as well... the difference as I see it though is that my proposed policy more closely mimics in-era policy and gameplay.

I'm not using a player rationale for this debate, I'm using the historical evidence as a projection of the future. What's more is that short of actually having the animals stabled 100 per stable master as they did on OSI servers, we have practiced the same policy of increasing stable limits as was done in era, and we have done so in excess of all but one server in terms of total available slots for the end of T2A.

[Mikel123]

Certainly not refusing to implement it, we're working on implementing it.

My assumption is that in the near term, it would be easy to (a) add a few stablemasters, for looks, and (b) increase the stable slot limit, as a near-term bandaid until the system is implemented as it was in 1999. I'm certainly not trying to rush you guys. And from what I can tell from Kaivan, it doesn't seem like that's something being considered, for the reasons he's putting forth in his posts here. Which I don't find compelling

however we cannot argue that because extra stable masters were put in place on OSI servers, that we should do the same to an extreme degree on UOSA. If we follow that practice and end up with over 100 stable masters to deal with players locking up limited reousrces, then the entire concept of limited stables is useless, and would be better managed by having unlimited stable space.

I think you can argue that. It's not an "extreme" degree... on OSI, stablemasters were added as needed. Adding them here as needed would be the same degree, IMO.

My hunch is that the limit on stabled pets had nothing to do with an actual game design decision... I assume it was because of server resources, since stablemasters were incrementally increased as needed. I guess this is an opinion, but I can't imagine it was a "concept", since the concept was constantly - on every single shard - mitigated. Now, whether "as needed" on this shard is 100x or 1/100th of what it was on OSI, I couldn't care less. The actions of the GMs, plus the reality of the hardware back then, indicates to me that it wasn't intended as a concept, since when it became a consequence it was mitigated/eliminated in short order. Unless there's some UOHoC chat somewhere in which one of the devs was asked about stable slots and said something like, "Stable slots are limited; deal with it", I just don't believe it was intended. And given the lack of an aftermarket for the slots, I don't think it occurred.