1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

Another request

Discussion in 'UHall' started by Lore Master, Jul 24, 2008.

?

Do you want bags of sending back to there original state?

  1. yes

    59.1%
  2. no

    22.7%
  3. only if gold farmers and scripters would stop

    18.2%
  1. Lore Master

    Lore Master Guest

    After reading a post and trying it out myself i believe the bags of sending are practically useless now. i don't think its right that decent players like me have to be punished because of the scripters and farmers. so i would like the bag of sending to be put back to the way they originally where where bags with 30 charges would send 30 items no matter what weight as long as we can hold it and as long as its an item that can be sent. ill make this a poll so please vote or comment thanks.
     
  2. Kiminality

    Kiminality Guest

    Since the design change was targeting the flow of gold into the economy, not any particular group that used them, I vote "no".
     
  3. Gildar

    Gildar Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4
    I dislike the timing of the change, and that the change was made without additional fixes to back it up... but it was a step in the right direction. It should stay in (but things to make gold and item gathering more reasonable for dungeon crawls and similar situations should be added).
     
  4. azmodanb

    azmodanb Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,912
    Likes Received:
    1,186
    Ya like a "Bank Mule" .. LOL :D
     
  5. Gildar

    Gildar Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4
    I was thinking more reducing the weight and drop-rate of gold.
     
  6. Kiminality

    Kiminality Guest

    Or, making gold not almost guaranteed to be the only valuable thing on the corpse...
     
  7. Black Sun

    Black Sun Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran Alumni

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,361
    Likes Received:
    19
    My complaint with the changes is not because I have to make extra bank runs while hunting, I've accepted that and moved on. It's not so bad after all. My complaint is that it killed half my income. I had a vendor that was sole purpose was to sell bags and tranlocation powder. After that change went through, that particular vendor was dead. Before the change I had to restock it 3 times a week. After the change, I had it up for 3 weeks and only maybe got 5 sales at most. Eventually I ended up making him a rares vendor that isn't doing much better than he did. (I'm at a bad location for rares, it's mainly a staples/hunting supplies area.)
     
  8. Basara

    Basara UO Forum Moderator
    Moderator Professional Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,469
    Likes Received:
    592
    There's another option that should be there....

    Go back to 1 charge per send, but charge 50 Gold per stone weight (coming from the player backpack if there, bank if not).

    As 50 gold = 1 stone weight, this would eliminate sending of gold while allowing leather resources to be sent from the field using loot from creatures killed (but still wouldn't cover it all). A miner using a fire beetle could send ingots rather economically (10 ingots = 1 stone), but the lumberjackers would still have some issues (but it was the script-happy frostwood-for-collection jackers that helped bring the BoS change and the location randomization on).
     
  9. canary

    canary Guest

    How can we still have scripters? The economy is so mussed up the almighty 'UO dollar' isn't worth much anymore.