Packers, if in stable, can be used to craft from, although not put items to if you are not at right stable.
Crafting can be done from all packers inventory from any stable location, no matter the location of the packer itself (again provided the packer is in a stable)
Apartment, very nice looking, lots of room, useless.
You can not use the apartment inventory to craft from like a packer, this needs fixed IMO.
Agreed on the ability to buy more packers and house them at different stables so you can put the mats on the packers.
IMO the apartments also need to have 10x the room a packer has, a packer by default (to my knowledge) has 500 'slots, and a specific amount of weight, which ever you fill first is when you can't put anything else on the packer.
An apartment storage does not equal the owning of 10 packers (same cost)
1 apartment = 1,000,000 dappers
1 mule = 100,000 dappers
(10 mules > 1 apartment) = 1,000,000 dappers either way.
So I say let everyone own 10 mules.
please vote :P
Re: please vote :P
That essay wasn't particularly well written...now, that doesn't make the points invalid, but it does mean the points are presented with less persuasiveness.
The general point is that games need newbies, and newbies like things to be either easy or like thier very first game. Throughout the entire essay is the subtext that games are being written for idiots, and if you are not one of the really smart people that played text MUDs, then you are too dumb to get it. Elitist bulls**t pisses me off.
But he does bring out some good points, challenge in games makes them interesting. I think we all get that. But too much challenge all at once makes them frustrating..and at that point, the author calls me a stupid newb and derides the state of modern online games. I don't think he is neccisarily correct, since games come out all the time that are more difficult than previous games (Shadowbane VS Everquest, etc). And he doesn't really take into account some of the more anoying behavoir traits of some of the more juvenile players.
But, back on topic, I am all for packers only being accessable in the stables where they are stored. At the same time, we should be able to buy an unlimited amount of packers. Of course, not only is there realism to consider, but we have to take actual reality into account. Given the pack rat nature of too many players, unlimited storage would mean an ever expanding amount of objects that need to be traced through the game. Eventually too many system resources would be needed to do inventory management than is practicle for the actual player base.
So, we are at an impase, realism says we should be able to buy as much as we can afford, reality says there must be a limit on how much a single player can have.
Perhaps a compromise is possible, where we can sacrifice character slots and increase storage capacity. Or maybe we could set up a system where items in storage decay over time, forcing us to keep only what is actually usefull to us in a resonable amount of time.
Personally, in a game without UberLoot (a feature for which I am thankful), I figure if I obtained something once, I can get it again, so selling stuff off or giving it away doesn't really bother me. But I know there are a lot of players who just can't get over the 'but what if I need it?' reflex...after all, I feel the same way about old computer equipment IRL.
The general point is that games need newbies, and newbies like things to be either easy or like thier very first game. Throughout the entire essay is the subtext that games are being written for idiots, and if you are not one of the really smart people that played text MUDs, then you are too dumb to get it. Elitist bulls**t pisses me off.
But he does bring out some good points, challenge in games makes them interesting. I think we all get that. But too much challenge all at once makes them frustrating..and at that point, the author calls me a stupid newb and derides the state of modern online games. I don't think he is neccisarily correct, since games come out all the time that are more difficult than previous games (Shadowbane VS Everquest, etc). And he doesn't really take into account some of the more anoying behavoir traits of some of the more juvenile players.
But, back on topic, I am all for packers only being accessable in the stables where they are stored. At the same time, we should be able to buy an unlimited amount of packers. Of course, not only is there realism to consider, but we have to take actual reality into account. Given the pack rat nature of too many players, unlimited storage would mean an ever expanding amount of objects that need to be traced through the game. Eventually too many system resources would be needed to do inventory management than is practicle for the actual player base.
So, we are at an impase, realism says we should be able to buy as much as we can afford, reality says there must be a limit on how much a single player can have.
Perhaps a compromise is possible, where we can sacrifice character slots and increase storage capacity. Or maybe we could set up a system where items in storage decay over time, forcing us to keep only what is actually usefull to us in a resonable amount of time.
Personally, in a game without UberLoot (a feature for which I am thankful), I figure if I obtained something once, I can get it again, so selling stuff off or giving it away doesn't really bother me. But I know there are a lot of players who just can't get over the 'but what if I need it?' reflex...after all, I feel the same way about old computer equipment IRL.
Re: please vote :P
Typically, I admire Zum's wisdom.zumwalt wrote:Packers, if in stable, can be used to craft from, although not put items to if you are not at right stable.
Crafting can be done from all packers inventory from any stable location, no matter the location of the packer itself (again provided the packer is in a stable)
Apartment, very nice looking, lots of room, useless.
You can not use the apartment inventory to craft from like a packer, this needs fixed IMO.
Agreed on the ability to buy more packers and house them at different stables so you can put the mats on the packers.
IMO the apartments also need to have 10x the room a packer has, a packer by default (to my knowledge) has 500 'slots, and a specific amount of weight, which ever you fill first is when you can't put anything else on the packer.
An apartment storage does not equal the owning of 10 packers (same cost)
1 apartment = 1,000,000 dappers
1 mule = 100,000 dappers
(10 mules > 1 apartment) = 1,000,000 dappers either way.
So I say let everyone own 10 mules.
But what really needs to be fixed is the fact that you can craft from mats stored on the packer, even if you are not near it. That situation needs to go away.
Apartments are largley useless in thier current manifestation. Sure, stuff can be stored there, but so what. Like Zum pointed out, packers are more cost effective, so why bother with an appartment?
Apartments need to be given character, furniture, and keys so we can invite other players there. This would sort of go back to the argument against instancing, but I have alread stated how little I care for some of Mr. Bartle's opinions. Instancing, done correctly, can really improve a game.
Re: please vote :P
Perhaps my observation were wrong, or things were change on server side since patch 26 was implimented.
In my test on patch 26 day, I could review all the mats and items stored on my 3 packers. But I could not tranfer or pull mats from a distant packer. Nor could I craft from the distant packer. Therefore, if my observations were correct, then the devs have done exactly as most here have said they wished for; a little more realism with inventory and the physical locations of the packer.
In my test on patch 26 day, I could review all the mats and items stored on my 3 packers. But I could not tranfer or pull mats from a distant packer. Nor could I craft from the distant packer. Therefore, if my observations were correct, then the devs have done exactly as most here have said they wished for; a little more realism with inventory and the physical locations of the packer.