UO Second Age

When OSI first setup the lockdown limits, the spirit of the rule was to limit the amount of server load in a population of several thousand. Its fair to assume that we aren't going to have that sort of issue in the immediate future (although hopefully some day?), so my question is this: Why not adjust the number of lockdowns up a bit?

It wouldn't be game breaking or allow more in the way of storage, but rather allow folks to tweak the asthetic side of their housing more. This is especially true in the case of towers, where although the surface area is about that of a keep or a castle, there's 1/2 to 1/4th the number of lockdowns. I've seen a few spots already on this server where house owners are banging up against the limit, especially the guild bases.

I'd like to see small house lockdowns up to 50, large house up to 250, tower up to 500, keep 1000, castle 1500.

Discuss.

I don't really have an opinion on the matter. With three accounts you can own three houses. If you have so many items that you need three storage houses I also assume you've been playing for a while and have a lot of gold. My point is: I don't think I could ever fill three castles.

I prefer fewer lockdowns. This not only makes people make choices about what to secure but also make them have to be vigilant about home security. After all, the possibility of loosing items has always been a part of the game. I usually run one of my characters as a thief. And to be able to do that, I'm willing to work with the same lockdown restrictions to defend my house and property.

^^^ I second that...

On the same note if I had a tower Id be pissed I couldn't decorate it all.

This doesn't have anything to do with storage capacity, folks are able use lockdown walls to create a storage area of almost any size in almost any type of house.

You can still decorate your house without locking stuff down.

Or maybe stuff decays? I just started here so I don't know.

But I do know that on OSI during t2a for a while stuff did not decay in houses even if it wasn't locked down or secured. Then they wanted to cut down on server space usage so they upped the lockdowns and secures, made it so that stuff decayed in houses if you didn't use one of those two options, and did the trash can campaign where putting stuff in there gave you points that were redeemable for special items. I got a crystal ball that made random game noises when you walked past it, but then gave it to my guildmaster because I was like 14 and had a cyber crush on her.

Anyway I guess the issue is do items decay in houses without being locked down or in secure containers here?

Re: Gilgamesh

Ya I remember back when you could drop things in houses and it wouldn't decay as well. But yeah, things here are either locked down or they decay.

Kavir wrote:Re: Gilgamesh

Ya I remember back when you could drop things in houses and it wouldn't decay as well. But yeah, things here are either locked down or they decay.

Well the people who want to be able to decorate their houses should ask for that instead of increased lockdowns. Because imo if there is an era accurate way to fix a problem (which that would be) over a non-accurate way, the era accurate way should be used.

Remember the decay in house thing was only because OSI wanted to pay for less server space. This server (or any free server) would love to have that problem. So it only makes sense to allow items to not decay in houses until it becomes a space issue, at which point you can change it back and we'll all be much happier because of the healthy population.

Gilgamesh wrote:

Kavir wrote:Re: Gilgamesh

Ya I remember back when you could drop things in houses and it wouldn't decay as well. But yeah, things here are either locked down or they decay.

Well the people who want to be able to decorate their houses should ask for that instead of increased lockdowns. Because imo if there is an era accurate way to fix a problem (which that would be) over a non-accurate way, the era accurate way should be used.

Remember the decay in house thing was only because OSI wanted to pay for less server space. This server (or any free server) would love to have that problem. So it only makes sense to allow items to not decay in houses until it becomes a space issue, at which point you can change it back and we'll all be much happier because of the healthy population.

Aye. I like this more accurate suggestion much more. Do you remember when this was changed? Was it with the house menu, or was it the clean-up campaign?

Derrick wrote:

Gilgamesh wrote:

Kavir wrote:Re: Gilgamesh

Ya I remember back when you could drop things in houses and it wouldn't decay as well. But yeah, things here are either locked down or they decay.

Well the people who want to be able to decorate their houses should ask for that instead of increased lockdowns. Because imo if there is an era accurate way to fix a problem (which that would be) over a non-accurate way, the era accurate way should be used.

Remember the decay in house thing was only because OSI wanted to pay for less server space. This server (or any free server) would love to have that problem. So it only makes sense to allow items to not decay in houses until it becomes a space issue, at which point you can change it back and we'll all be much happier because of the healthy population.

Aye. I like this more accurate suggestion much more. Do you remember when this was changed? Was it with the house menu, or was it the clean-up campaign?

I believe it was with the house menu. That way you could keep track of locked down containers.

Honestly I thought it was the clean up campaign, but I could be wrong. I remember getting rid of a lot of junky magic items I collected then for the rewards. But either way it was definitely smack in the middle t2a, well maybe a little on the later side actually.