Sit Down Strike!!!!

[Uvtha]

Any reason Broadsword gives people to need less accounts is a bad idea for the present business model! You dont sell a person something for a one time fee of 8 bucks that might encourage them to cancel an account that generates 150 bucks a year indefinitely!
That is just bad business....and you better believe that they dont want to lose a single existing account....that is why there is such poor enforcement of present rules!

Artificially limiting the gaming experience in order to make people open more unwanted accounts for simple day to day utility (which I really don't think is common) is even worse business.

 

[Merus]

It isnt lame.....it exists!!! People already have multiple accounts, some expressly to have more more tamers. Like some have multiple accounts to have Spell weavers on multiple accounts to help with focuses. This goes on in game now....this isnt imagined, this isnt something you are rationalizing it equates too....this is real!

Any reason Broadsword gives people to need less accounts is a bad idea for the present business model! You dont sell a person something for a one time fee of 8 bucks that might encourage them to cancel an account that generates 150 bucks a year indefinitely!
That is just bad business....and you better believe that they dont want to lose a single existing account....that is why there is such poor enforcement of present rules!

1. The fact that something exists has no relevance to whether it is lame or awesome.
2. The fact that people make additional tamers or spellweavers on seperate accounts is not evidence that those extra characters are the sole reason they pay for an extra account. Much, much, much more likely the extra account is paid for for an additional house than for an additional tamer/weaver.
3. Providing a "poor" product for the sole reason of making customers purchase more of the poor product to meet their needs is what makes for poor business.
4. UO has lost far more accounts due to stupid crap that never gets fixed than it would lose if the stable slot limit was treated as any other container. UO should focus on improving their product so people enjoy and want to play.

 

[TimberWolf]

Artificially limiting the gaming experience in order to make people open more unwanted accounts for simple day to day utility (which I really don't think is common) is even worse business.

Not if the advantages outweigh the negatives! But give players unlimited stable slots....remove the need to have a 6 players to get a focus...get rid of checks that eat up lots of lock-downs... There are a bunch of reasons why people have multiple accounts! Give people one less reason to have them.....and the balance slowly begins to shift.

and good gawd Uvtha you cant be telling me that Broadsword makes good business decisions routinely??? LOL

Bonnie is like a little boy sticking their fingers in a dike.....

 

[TimberWolf]

1. The fact that something exists has no relevance to whether it is lame or awesome.
2. The fact that people make additional tamers or spellweavers on seperate accounts is not evidence that those extra characters are the sole reason they pay for an extra account. Much, much, much more likely the extra account is paid for for an additional house than for an additional tamer/weaver.
3. Providing a "poor" product for the sole reason of making customers purchase more of the poor product to meet their needs is what makes for poor business.
4. UO has lost far more accounts due to stupid crap that never gets fixed than it would lose if the stable slot limit was treated as any other container. UO should focus on improving their product so people enjoy and want to play.

I think you have your head buried so deep ( in the sand of course) you mistakenly believe that I am defending this......no I am simply giving a plausible explanation for why it is the way it is. But a lot of what you say is correct.....but every little reason adds up. Removing checks for most players is like adding 1000 more lock-downs to each house. So now I might not need as many houses....and I might not need as many tamers....and I might not need as many SWers... and...and ...and... and I really dont need 4 accounts I can now live with 2-3!

 

[Merus]

I think you have your head buried so deep ( in the sand of course) you mistakenly believe that I am defending this......no I am simply giving a plausible explanation for why it is the way it is. But a lot of what you say is correct.....but every little reason adds up. Removing checks for most players is like adding 1000 more lock-downs to each house. So now I might not need as many houses....and I might not need as many tamers....and I might not need as many SWers... and...and ...and... and I really dont need 4 accounts I can now live with 2-3!

Except we are loosing accounts to this very methodology right now because people are tired of cumbersome game mechanics.

I would bet we have lost more accounts from people who just got plain sick and tired of never being able to get a focus than were ever opened for the sole and dedicated purpose of training up a new weaver to get one.

IMO that vast majority of extra accounts are for housing... Everything else we as players do with those accounts is gravy. Yes, some of us with a vast array of character would keep them open even without the house (I fall into that group). I have probably a dozen spellweavers and at least 6 tamers. And I wouldn't close any of my accounts just because I got more stable slots or could get the focus easier... In fact I would probably be MORE apt to play because I have less time to waste trying to get a focus or a renewed interest in looking for rare colored pets.

 

[Riyana]

Do people really use alternate tamers for extra stable slots? My main is a tamer, but I don't want to work up another tamer on a secondary account for the sole purpose of being able to hold and stable more pets. Another random character can't hold my dragons or mares or other high end pets. I mean, I guess I could put a bunch of packhorses and squirrels on a secondary, but... why?

I'd love more stable slots for more versatility--combine more stable slots with a few more options for viable fighting pets and we'd probably see fewer obnoxious dragon masses at events, something people complain about all the time. I don't think I need 125 (can you imagine what your claim list would look like?) but more than we have now would definitely be welcome. The only time my tamer actually tames anything anymore is when someone needs a beetle.

Something else that might help would be a vanity pet system like in WoW, where the pet is actually an item. We already have the basis for this with ethys and the heralds. Maybe a craftable item that could be applied to low level tamed pets to turn them into "ethereal" pets that don't fight or pull aggro... something just for looks. This would keep at least a few of the vanity/sentimental/RP pets out of the stables and give crafters and tamers a little something extra to do.

 

[TimberWolf]

I would suggest there are people like Malagaste who might not need 16 accounts full of tamers if one tamer could hold all her pets. Or my friend who has 6 accounts all with a SW so he can get a focus all by himself when ever he wants. Surprisingly those people arent that rare. Yes housing is a big reason to have multiple accounts.....yet people let houses fall every day. Imagine if houses had unlimited storage I know I would have a hard time rationalizing multiple accounts....Just wait since reds have been removed from the game practically, next people will want a way to train justice that doesnt involve reds.... and that will remove another reason for multiple accounts.

Dont get me wrong broadsword doesnt require you to have multiple accounts....our play styles do! But a smart business doesnt do anything that will reduce revenue and encourage people they dont need that 4-5-6-12 accounts!

 

[TimberWolf]

Do people really use alternate tamers for extra stable slots? My main is a tamer, but I don't want to work up another tamer on a secondary account for the sole purpose of being able to hold and stable more pets. Another random character can't hold my dragons or mares or other high end pets. I mean, I guess I could put a bunch of packhorses and squirrels on a secondary, but... why?

I created my last legendary tamer in under 5 minutes. Not a huge difficulty like the old days. And if you believe some regulars here....we have tamers created just to hold every possible coloured of cushide...or hiryu...or...or...or

 

[Riyana]

I created my last legendary tamer in under 5 minutes. Not a huge difficulty like the old days. And if you believe some regulars here....we have tamers created just to hold every possible coloured of cushide...or hiryu...or...or...or

Guess I'm still old school about my tamers. Mythic token + jewels (or sots) is just meh. Not that I haven't done it, but I just can't see doing it for the sole purpose of holding a few more pets.

 

[Merlin]

I was gonna reply point by point but figured why bother. This guy is getting a rep as the board troll so I won't bother feeding him.

That's just a weak reply from someone who isn't capable of putting together a coherent response. Most of your original post was a rather childish cry of 'I want it now, so give it to me'.

I call it like I see it. I'm not trolling anyone. When I see something I disagree with, I speak out. I see a lot of bad suggestions on here on a frequent basis and I have no problem being the one to call them out.

 

[TimberWolf]

Guess I'm still old school about my tamers. Mythic token + jewels is just meh.

Snobby oldschool players are just meh

 

[Uvtha]

Not if the advantages outweigh the negatives! But give players unlimited stable slots....remove the need to have a 6 players to get a focus...get rid of checks that eat up lots of lock-downs... There are a bunch of reasons why people have multiple accounts! Give people one less reason to have them.....and the balance slowly begins to shift.

Honestly, I think the only limitation that actually keeps unwanted accounts open is the one house per account rule. Maybe siege 1 character per account, but that's a smaller population. There may be a handful of people willing to pay for extra accounts JUST for stable slots, or JUST for getting focus... but it's not substantial, and the positive effect on the game would be far greater than the loss in income.

 

[Merlin]

There is no logical reason that storing 125 pets is any more of a load on anything than storing 125 bows or pairs of leggings. This STORAGE is 0's and 1's. It is NOT a physical thing. I could understand it if it was 'real life' and we were trying to stuff full sized elephants into a stable, but we're not, we are storing text.

I see we're still peddling the 'animals are same as weapons' nonsense. All the time when we see people request something they have a simpleton answer of 'just change the code', 'its just text code, it should be easy'. Clearly, just up and changing decades old code isn't as simple as 1, 2 , 3.

I HATE stuff that is not logical, and frankly, I see no logic here at all.

I don't see any logical reason why you can't open another account where you can make multiple tamers and increase your animal storage space that way. You know... like the way everyone else has to deal with it.

The logical reason is simply really: Revenue. Broadsword would need a much better reason than 'I want more slots now!' to potentially limit additional revenue streams.

 

[Merlin]

Players who enjoy playing Pet Merchants at the New Magincia bazaar should have room in the stables to store stock for their bazaar vendor. This is a NEED, not a WANT, no hoarding involved Merlin.

If you wanted to increase the pet vendors by a nominal amount, that would be one thing.

But going all the way to 125 is a horse of a different color.

 

[Merlin]

All houses, bank boxes and character backpacks will now be limited to 21 items because everyone is affected by storage issues. /end ridiculous logic

The ridiculous logic is the implication that stables are some how the same as houses, bank boxes, or other storage containers.

Option A:
10 slots for base character.

+1 slot for every 10 points of real skill in taming, lore, and vet.

+4 slots for taming mastery.

Max slots 50.

Option B:

Stable slot upgrade token: increases all characters on the account stable slot capacity to 50. $7.99

Even though I disagree with changing stable storage at all, this post is a lot more reasonable (noting I would see 35-40 a more reasonable max).

I can understand that 16 might feel limited to some, but 125 slots per toon is insane. At 7 toons per account, we're talking about 875 stable slots for one account. Am I so wrong to suggest that this is excessive?

 

[Uvtha]

I call it like I see it. I'm not trolling anyone. When I see something I disagree with, I speak out. I see a lot of bad suggestions on here on a frequent basis and I have no problem being the one to call them out.

Although the only reason you seem to be against it is that people WANT it rather than NEED it, which is silly as honestly could apply to 90% of anything anyone wants in the game. It's a bad idea to you because you don't like it for personal reasons, not because if any impact it would have on the game.

No one yet has given a functional reason why increased slots would be a bad idea, and there have been plenty of functional reasons and examples why it would be good.

 

[Uvtha]

If you wanted to increase the pet vendors by a nominal amount, that would be one thing.

But going all the way to 125 is a horse of a different color.

What is the functional difference between +10 and +100? There is none. UNLESS there is a technical reason that we don't know about, but that seems pretty far-fetched to me.

You just don't want people to have it.

 

[Uvtha]

I can understand that 16 might feel limited to some, but 125 slots per toon is insane. At 7 toons per account, we're talking about 875 stable slots for one account. Am I so wrong to suggest that this is excessive?

Make it shard based then, whatever. But if there is no technical reason the difference between 1 stabled pet and a million is absolutely nothing to anyone outside of the person stabling them. You wouldn't even know about it.

 

[Lord Frodo]

I won't be joining your strike because I disagree that 125 slots are a necessity. With the additional slots from ToL, taming mastery active and 120 taming I shall have 21 slots. I agree that people who use animal packs may find it helpful to have more, but there's a big gap between 21 and 125.

On the other hand I respect your right, as paying customers, to attempt to force your view on developers.

So we are only getting 3 more slots for the Taming Mastery. TY for the info.

 

[Merus]

The ridiculous logic is the implication that stables are some how the same as houses, bank boxes, or other storage containers.



Even though I disagree with changing stable storage at all, this post is a lot more reasonable (noting I would see 35-40 a more reasonable max).

I can understand that 16 might feel limited to some, but 125 slots per toon is insane. At 7 toons per account, we're talking about 875 stable slots for one account. Am I so wrong to suggest that this is excessive?

There are a couple issues related to pets that make them unique when it comes to having them on multiple characters and storage.

1. Pets require bonding. Tamers can't just store a pet on one character and hand it off to a different character to use later.
2. Pets require addional skill to store. Unlike a bank box or backpack where my archer could store some extra spellbooks for a Mage, it would require an actual character with taming.
3. Tamed pets can not really be transferred between characters of the same account without the use of multiple accounts.

Personally, I much would prefer a way to actually "store" or display pets like any other item... Such as putting them inside a crystal (think squirrel, etc). I think it would still require a small bump in slots (say 10 for non-tamers and 25ish for tamers) for actively used pets... But would allow the mostly vanity pets to be stored and counted as a lockdown in a house.

 

[Merlin]

Although the only reason you seem to be against it is that people WANT it rather than NEED it, which is silly as honestly could apply to 90% of anything anyone wants in the game. It's a bad idea to you because you don't like it for personal reasons, not because if any impact it would have on the game.

No one yet has given a functional reason why increased slots would be a bad idea, and there have been plenty of functional reasons and examples why it would be good.

I don't see the logic in how increasing stable slots nearly 10 fold doesn't have any impact on the game.

Merus posted a reasonable suggestion that didn't involve an absurd 125 slot limit per toon.

What is the functional difference between +10 and +100? There is none. UNLESS there is a technical reason that we don't know about, but that seems pretty far-fetched to me.

You just don't want people to have it.

Tamers are already a strong enough class.

I just don't want to see Broadsword lose revenue. That's far more important than this 'want' by a few tamers of having nearly an unlimited amount of stable slots.

Make it shard based then, whatever. But if there is no technical reason the difference between 1 stabled pet and a million is absolutely nothing to anyone outside of the person stabling them. You wouldn't even know about it.

Is there a technical difference in housing storage? What about storage of regular containers? Should they increase all of those by nearly 10 fold as well just because people want them?

I wouldn't know about what - the technical difference? Pot meet kettle.

 

[Uvtha]

I don't see the logic in how increasing stable slots nearly 10 fold doesn't have any impact on the game.

Give me a way it would impact the game.

Tamers are already a strong enough class.

Give me one example of how increased stable slots would make a tamer more powerful.

I just don't want to see Broadsword lose revenue. That's far more important than this 'want' by a few tamers of having nearly an unlimited amount of stable slots.

So the reason we shouldn't have a reasonable amount of slots is so that the tiny fraction of people who have extra accounts open JUST for more stable slots can continue to get bilked by BS. That's not a good reason.

Is there a technical difference in housing storage? What about storage of regular containers? Should they increase all of those by nearly 10 fold as well just because people want them?

I wouldn't know about what - the technical difference? Pot meet kettle.

Yes, if there were no technical reason people should have unlimited storage. Why? Why not? It's the exact same issue. The things you possess make really no impact on the game until they are used, and there are hard limitation to how items and pets can be used, so it would have no effect on gameplay.

Obviously there is SOME technical limitation to the amount of data individuals can have on their accounts but here's the crucial difference between housing and stables: You can have over 2000 blocks of storage in your home (and that's ignoring your bank), you can have at most 21 stabled pets. In that light is 125 such a crazy number? Like I said I would be happy to trade item data for pet data, or limit it across the account to keep it in check if there were an actual danger of data issues. Technical reasons are valid reasons, that said, they can be mitigated.

Nothing hypocritical about it.

 

[Lord Frodo]

I see we're still peddling the 'animals are same as weapons' nonsense. All the time when we see people request something they have a simpleton answer of 'just change the code', 'its just text code, it should be easy'. Clearly, just up and changing decades old code isn't as simple as 1, 2 , 3.

How many weapons can you have in your backpack, 125. How many pets can a Tamer have out at the same time, 5. Now that is a huge difference, how about we regulate you to one maybe 2 great/good weapons or 5 GM only weps the next time you go hunt. You do realize that Tamers are not asking for more control slots, just stable slots, there is one huge difference.
As far as coding this, if they can increase it from 16 to 21 then they could do it to 125 easily. Ends that BS argument.
As far as storage is concerned that went away when we moved to the cloud. Ends that BS argument.

 

[Merlin]

As far as coding this, if they can increase it from 16 to 21 then they could do it to 125 easily. Ends that BS argument.
As far as storage is concerned that went away when we moved to the cloud. Ends that BS argument.

You have no way of knowing the two things you claim "ends that BS argument". None of us do.

I maintain 125 is completely unreasonable and have yet to hear a valid reason why this needs to be increased exponentially.

So the reason we shouldn't have a reasonable amount of slots is so that the tiny fraction of people who have extra accounts open JUST for more stable slots can continue to get bilked by BS. That's not a good reason.

Yes, if there were no technical reason people should have unlimited storage. Why? Why not? It's the exact same issue. The things you possess make really no impact on the game until they are used, and there are hard limitation to how items and pets can be used, so it would have no effect on gameplay.

Obviously there is SOME technical limitation to the amount of data individuals can have on their accounts but here's the crucial difference between housing and stables: You can have over 2000 blocks of storage in your home (and that's ignoring your bank), you can have at most 21 stabled pets. In that light is 125 such a crazy number? Like I said I would be happy to trade item data for pet data, or limit it across the account to keep it in check if there were an actual danger of data issues. Technical reasons are valid reasons, that said, they can be mitigated.

Revenue is the biggest reason... and a good one, if not the best. By your logic, anyone who has to open a second account for housing storage must be getting bilked then too. I mean really, why not also allow us to create an unlimited amount of toons? Are we getting bilked because we have to open a second account if we want to be able to play more than 7 different templates? This list can go on endlessly.

Simply because a technical barrier can be mitigated, doesn't mean it should necessarily be done. Again, this is a WANT, not a NEED.

 

[Lord Frodo]

You have no way of knowing the two things you claim "ends that BS argument". None of us do.

LMAO So you think that there is a limit now that we are on the CLOUD, NO THERE IS NOT. They have already proven that they can increase to amount of storage anywhere in the game so you are totally clueless in you statements. How many items can a Castle hold, it is a whole hell of a lot more than you think, How many items can a char hold, again a lot more than you think. You think that they have proven in the past that they can increase storage that they somehow have lost that ability, LMAO. Stables are no different than any other storage areas in UO.

 

[SlayerofBunnys]

There are people collecting rare color bunnies? How can one not love this game lol

I've done my best to stamp 'em out but the dang tings keep wepwoducin'

(the bunnies that is not the collectors)

 

[MalagAste]

It isnt lame.....it exists!!! People already have multiple accounts, some expressly to have more more tamers. Like some have multiple accounts to have Spell weavers on multiple accounts to help with focuses. This goes on in game now....this isnt imagined, this isnt something you are rationalizing it equates too....this is real!

Any reason Broadsword gives people to need less accounts is a bad idea for the present business model! You dont sell a person something for a one time fee of 8 bucks that might encourage them to cancel an account that generates 150 bucks a year indefinitely!
That is just bad business....and you better believe that they dont want to lose a single existing account....that is why there is such poor enforcement of present rules!

I can assure you that NO ONE I know would do that ..... nor do they do that. No one I know has more accounts just for another 16 pets. NO ONE. I have 12 accounts active with at LEAST 10 tamers on my home shard... and I can guarantee that I won't shut down a single one if I get more pet slots.

 

[Tanivar]

So we are only getting 3 more slots for the Taming Mastery. TY for the info.

And of course if you use those 3 mastery stable slots and change your mastery to something else to have fun, I suspect if you pull your pack horse out of the stables you won't be able to put it back in the stables without switching your mastery back to Taming first because you won't have the extra room in the stables without it. Got to keep the senseless irritations to tick off the customers you understand.

 

[Lord Frodo]

And of course if you use those 3 mastery stable slots and change your mastery to something else to have fun, I suspect if you pull your pack horse out of the stables you won't be able to put it back in the stables without switching your mastery back to Taming first because you won't have the extra room in the stables without it. Got to keep the senseless irritations to tick off the customers you understand.

On this the only one I worry about is my 120 tame/lore Tamer. All the others I work with what I have and 6 stable slots will be nice for them.

 

[Uvtha]

You have no way of knowing the two things you claim "ends that BS argument". None of us do.

I maintain 125 is completely unreasonable and have yet to hear a valid reason why this needs to be increased exponentially.



Revenue is the biggest reason... and a good one, if not the best. By your logic, anyone who has to open a second account for housing storage must be getting bilked then too. I mean really, why not also allow us to create an unlimited amount of toons? Are we getting bilked because we have to open a second account if we want to be able to play more than 7 different templates? This list can go on endlessly.

Simply because a technical barrier can be mitigated, doesn't mean it should necessarily be done. Again, this is a WANT, not a NEED.

There is a reason to limit housing, beyond charging people extra. I would be all for unlimited characters. Again, people with extra accounts for houses and to a lesser extent characters are obviously common, extra accounts JUST for stsble slots... are pretty rare, and there is no in game reason to limit it.

As I said before, there is no reason to be critical of an idea because it isn't crucial. Pretty much all ideas or desires are wanted not needed. It's a game we play for fun, more slots would have no effect on the power of a player, only the potential fun they would have.

I really feel like you are just reaching to justify your personal/emotional rather than functional dislike of the idea which I am guessing stemmed from the fact that op used the term "strike" in their post. No one bit on your hashtag so you went on.

Anyway its all been said 100 times, and still there have been no negative in game effects listed, tired of going on about it.

 

[Old Vet Back Again]

How many weapons can you have in your backpack, 125.

Well, to be frank, depending on the weight of the weapon I would say that you cannot hold anywhere near 125...And in this reasoning with 125 weapons all insured you would loose well over 100k per death. Tamers don't lose anything when their pets die...

 

[MalagAste]

Well, to be frank, depending on the weight of the weapon I would say that you cannot hold anywhere near 125...And in this reasoning with 125 weapons all insured you would loose well over 100k per death. Tamers don't lose anything when their pets die...

YES they do. The pet loses skills and stats. EACH and EVERY time it dies. Which the tamer then has to work back up and some of them DON'T work back up that easy. Not to mention without their pet the tamer is not doing damage and vulnerable.

 

[Old Vet Back Again]

YES they do. The pet loses skills and stats. EACH and EVERY time it dies. Which the tamer then has to work back up and some of them DON'T work back up that easy. Not to mention without their pet the tamer is not doing damage and vulnerable.

Good thing for the new mastery then, ay?

 

[Merlin]

YES they do. The pet loses skills and stats. EACH and EVERY time it dies. Which the tamer then has to work back up and some of them DON'T work back up that easy. Not to mention without their pet the tamer is not doing damage and vulnerable.

It loses what... like a few tenths of a point worth of skills? Not a big deal. Sure maybe it doesn't tame up RIGHT AWAY, but its not like it loses an egregious amount to make it unusable.

And there are plenty of folks who have mage tamers or other skills in their template that allow them to do damage. Stealth tamers who hide. Even at natural 120x3 taming skills, you still have plenty of other skill points to work with.

 

[Kirthag]

Solution: let tamers BUY extra stable storage for their zoos! But they can only have certain animals out at a time (as it is now). If a Tamer wants to tame every creature in the game - and do the whole "gotta catch them all" thing.... let them! I'm sure the database can handle it (since everything is cloud based, right?)
I think $60 for 60 slots should do it. No, not $10/slot... they gotta buy in bulk so as to help justify the coding cost.

muwaaahahahaha! (stuck on $60 I be)

 

[TimberWolf]

Solution: let tamers BUY extra stable storage for their zoos! But they can only have certain animals out at a time (as it is now). If a Tamer wants to tame every creature in the game - and do the whole "gotta catch them all" thing.... let them! I'm sure the database can handle it (since everything is cloud based, right?)
I think $60 for 60 slots should do it. No, not $10/slot... they gotta buy in bulk so as to help justify the coding cost.

muwaaahahahaha! (stuck on $60 I be)

Wait a minute....cant they basically do that now already? Throw a pet vendor on MAGINCIA AND FILL IT WITH PETS.....instant extra stable slots.....your rare bunny collection can even be seen and displayed....strangers and lore them and view them!

it is perfect! I am surprised one of these smart, slot hungry, tamers never tried this......it cant be that simple can it?

 

[Merus]

Wait a minute....cant they basically do that now already? Throw a pet vendor on MAGINCIA AND FILL IT WITH PETS.....instant extra stable slots.....your rare bunny collection can even be seen and displayed....strangers and lore them and view them!

it is perfect! I am surprised one of these smart, slot hungry, tamers never tried this......it cant be that simple can it?

Except they would be for sale.... Who wants to risk their special pet by putting it on a vendor???

Not to mention that the magincia vendors require an add on from the origin store and have a real pita process for bidding to keep the stall slot.

Not an acceptable option in my book.

 

[TimberWolf]

pretty sure you can set the prices as NA.....most of the options recommended here involve the purchase of an add-on of stable slots.

and they could be shown off and lored....something present stables cant do! ....And my understand is the bidding process isnt an issue once you have a spot

 

[Tanivar]

....And my understand is the bidding process isnt an issue once you have a spot

You can be outbid at every lease renewal by anyone willing to bid more than you have placed as a bid amount to hold the location. Items that had been for sale when you had the location get stashed in storage for a while for pickup, pets may be handled the same but you wouldn't have stable space to store them. Houses and bank boxes can handle hundreds of items from a lost bazaar location, your space in the stables can't.

 

[Kirthag]

*cough* I know of a tamer who lost 3 GD on a rather popular shard due to losing his new mag spot by being out bid and his stable was full so yeah, using the bazaar is a risk most tamers won't want to make with their precious zoo collection.

maybe a magic potion that will "shrink" said collectible pet statue form would work, particularly for those who want to show off their zoo. ahh, yes, and this special potion only have say, 30 uses - and can only be bought from the online store (or future micro-purchase in game?) for say... $60! (there i go again) Oh, and you will need the potion to "unshrink" said pet. When pet is in shrunken form, cannot lore it - so it is essentially a deco. OR, maybe make it lore-able but cannot put it on vendors in that state.

so many options, but since this is a relatively moot point (for the coding would be interesting i believe) I wouldn't just "give" the ability to shrink or "give" the extra stable slots.... make it a pay-for thing.

 

[MalagAste]

Wait a minute....cant they basically do that now already? Throw a pet vendor on MAGINCIA AND FILL IT WITH PETS.....instant extra stable slots.....your rare bunny collection can even be seen and displayed....strangers and lore them and view them!

it is perfect! I am surprised one of these smart, slot hungry, tamers never tried this......it cant be that simple can it?

Because you have to PRICE them..... And pay a FEE to do so... and someone could infact then come and BUY your pet. So it doesn't work.