I like UO being hard and being a game about making a lot of tough choices... it goes with your skill templates, gear, what you have in your house, what you spend your gold on... just about every aspect of the game. The same goes with deciding what to keep in your stables.
You're not entitled to 125 slots just because you want it.
1) Why? Explain why one class (and yes, no other class has its choices of methods limited to the degree tamers do) having its options limited to 24 at most, is a good choice. My real confusion here, is that you have said that you don't mind an increase of 10 or 20 but giving us 80 more would be out of the question. Why are you drawing the line there, what are your reasons, and how does that impact the gaming experience compared to say 100 slots? Have you actually thought about it?
Do you think we should make things harder for other skills? Would you support example limiting spellbooks 1/10th of total spells? Would you suggest limiting players from carrying more than one weapon? Should we get rid of stables completely, bring it back down to 5 pets max? If not? Why not? Hard choices are good on their own merit, or does the situation and it's impact on the players dictate what and how hard the choices should be?
I don't think UO
is a game about making "hard choices". Items last essentially forever, you don't lose them when you die, you can store up to like 3k items, you can carry 50 weapons if we want, you can swap out suits mid combat, you can use any weapons with any skills, you can have every spell in your spellbook, you can tailor items to your exact specifications, you can store skills on stones, on and on and on... I don't see the hard choices here. Meanwhile tamers are limited to... 24 pets. I don't think anyone would want any of these situations made any harder, perhaps not even you.
2) I was wondering when someone would throw out the "entitled" buzz word. :/ Did I ever say I "deserve" or am "owed" or anything along those lines? I did not. Expressing a desire, and arguing for it's benefits is not behaving entitled. You do the exact same thing with things you want. Are you "entitled" to the game being altered or not altered the way you like it? I somehow doubt that's how you'd frame it from your perspective.
All I
ever said was that I don't like limited slots, I don't understand
why they are limited, I don't see the
value of them being limited, and that stable slots has zero impact on gameplay. None of which is any kind of example of acting as if I were entitled to anything. I am simply arguing my point of view, just as you argue yours.
In your opinion. It's not yes or no. Others disagree.
There has to be a reason TO change it from the way it is now.
All I see at the moment is lame comparisons to bank boxes... and the demand that you want it and should have it because you say so.
I haven't seen a good reason explained from you either.
1) The reason has been stated dozens of times. Pets are added regularly, many of them are added in varieties to encourage collecting, there are hundreds of tamable creatures, we have a new system coming that will encourage taming and using more pets, and the fact that stable slots have no impact on gameplay. They actively encourage collecting of items, and it has stretched out into pets, and while you can collect thousands of items, you can't even collect 50 pets. It's pretty easy to see why people would be frustrated. Of course you don't have to agree with that.
2) I think what you mean is when people argue that stables should just be like a container, which was just an idea I think one poster had, it wasn't even an argument for it, just an idea... and again, you are
inferring a "demand" seemingly because you disagree with the idea, but no one is demanding anything, we are
asking and arguing. It's a completely different situation than what you are framing it as.
3) The pet system is being expanded and is clearly a system that is designed to encourage experimentation, as such people are going to want to go and tame more pets, a stable boost would be a natural addition with such a system alteration. It would make people happy, and would have no negative effect on game play. That is my reason.
Again, the core question here, that has yet to be answered: How would it negatively effect gameplay?
