Backpacks on Test: Now Bigger

Discussion in 'Tradeskill Discussion' started by ARCHIVED-Xalmat, Nov 6, 2009.

  1. ARCHIVED-Xalmat Guest

    Thank you Domino! This is a wonderful change.
    Waxed (T1 rare) - 12, 20%
    Cured (T2 Rare) - 16, 20%
    Cuirboilli (T3 Rare) - 20, 20%
    Engraved (T4 Rare) - 24, 20%
    Augmented (T5 Rare) - 28, 20%
    Scaled (T6 Rare) - 32, 20%
    Dragonhide (T7 Rare) - 36, 20%
    Hidebound (T8 Rare) - 40, 20%
    Rawhide (T1 Common) - 8, 10%
    Tanned (T2 Common) - 12, 10%
    Boiled (T3 Common) - 16, 10%
    Etched (T4 Common) - 20, 10%
    Strengthened (T5 Common) - 24, 10%
    Stonehide (T6 Common) - 28, 10%
    Horned (T7 Common) - 32, 10%
    Bristled (T8 Common) - 36, 10%
    If the trend holds true, T9 Common backpack will be 40 slot, 10%. T9 Rare backpack will be 44 slot, 20%.
    My only concern is that this effectively kills the strong box market. They're the same size as backpacks but they carry none of the weight reduction.
  2. ARCHIVED-Domino Guest

    As Meirril pointed out here, it's likely that the price of strong boxes/ease of gathering material will still give them a slight advantage, as pelts are generally a bit harder to find and more in demand than wood. Also, given that nobody except a couple of mage classes has any use for weight reduction now, I don't think that really gives backpacks any advantage (and strong boxes are still totally fine for a bank anyway).

    I'm expecting people will just buy whichever one happens to be cheapest or more available, and probably only those couple of mages who tend to be low on strength will have a strong preference either way. However, I'll definitely be listening to the feedback from test server and if it seems to be called for, some tweaks to the weight or weight reduction of strong boxes isn't out of the question if there seems to be a need for it.
  3. ARCHIVED-Xalmat Guest

    Fair enough. Leather is definitely the more rare harvest than wood.
  4. ARCHIVED-Kigneer Guest

    DominoDev wrote:
    It used to be, Domino. It used to be bristle backpacks and redwood strongboxes would sell for around 10g a piece. Now both are 20+g a piece and rising. Was shocked when my carpenter put 80 strongboxes on the market to see the price doubled in a couple days (insider trader tip?).
  5. ARCHIVED-Pervis Guest

    Kigneer wrote:
    I was assuming Domino was talking about rares, not common raws.
    With this change, its fairly safe to assume a large portion of the population will be using rare backpacks or boxes. I know I have 114 to buy, though I may wait for the expansion for all but 30 of them.
  6. ARCHIVED-Kigneer Guest

    Pervis wrote:
    Good luck in trying to find 114 mahogany lumber and/or hidebound leather (hidebound is notorious to pull) to do so. When the harvest boxes are full of redwood and bristle pelts, there will be even less folks harvesting the T8 rares, as well (harvesters just can't destroy 200 stacks of mats, a pure waste).
    No one sells the rare strongboxes as that lumber is used for other speciality containers. For mahogany the salesmans' crates are top sellers (and their price has jumped to 5p now). So let's see, 20x5 mahogany strongboxes=100p for 80 extra slots (personal bank+shared slots)...better to just make another alt, it's cheaper.
  7. ARCHIVED-Pervis Guest

    Kigneer wrote:
    I have 80 in my bank.
    I never sell rares, its a habit. I've stockpiled about 100 of most rares, and several stacks of most T5 rares (I have about 750 rubies).
    That said, with this change, I may be better off selling my T8 wood and leather, and just waiting till I have T9 rares.
  8. ARCHIVED-Kigneer Guest

    Pervis wrote:
    Won't sell for much, the market will be flooded.
    750 rubies? Not 750 Bonded loam??? Someone hasn't been mining for Ebon!
  9. ARCHIVED-Pervis Guest

    Kigneer wrote:
    No it won't.
    Bigger backpacks. People will buy them.
    I'd say the market for rare T8 wood and leather will be fairly dry until the expansion.
  10. ARCHIVED-Rijacki Guest

    Xalmat wrote:
    And other than for mages, players might actually have a reason to buy backpacks where they don't now? oh the horrors! To think my tailor might actually have a reason to craft other than to attain level.
    Sorry for the sarcastic remark, but there should be a choice and mages (and some priests) shouldn't be penalised or have to choose gear to carry stuff while most priest, scouts, and fighters can carry 6 strong boxes with nary a twitch.
    That it might sell a few more backpacks than are being sold now, I can't see that as a bad thing. Carpenters already do have recipes that sell in every level range (and can sell stuff for several gold that costs silver to make) while other classes don't. Strong boxes aren't a carpenter's sole selling item.
  11. ARCHIVED-Jrral Guest

    DominoDev wrote:
    Suggestion: give the boxes a size increase, say 2 more rows than the equivalent backpack, and make them usable only in bank slots. That'd neatly segment the market, preserving demand for both. And it'd end the somewhat amusing picture of J running around with a stack of steamer trunks taller than he is strapped to his back and towering over him.
  12. ARCHIVED-Deson Guest

    DominoDev wrote:
    I missed that and disagree with her argument. Straight to the point here however, it's a bad idea to have two classes making effectively the same product when one is inherently inferior.Perhaps the best thing to do for strong boxes is to make them a non-rare sales crate that's placeable.
    The relative rarity of a harvest crafted item is directly related to how many people actually are looking for that item in this game and if pelts end up being the better deal, the price advantage to be had there decreases from its already neglible price point. The argument of two classes making the same product also doesn't work here because 1. it's exactly the same product in the case of woodworkers and weaponsmiths and 2. it was completely by accident of design; Beghn half executed an idea and you partially fixed it while trying to avoid "hurting" anyone.
  13. ARCHIVED-PurrceyPurespirit007 Guest

    They could make broker/vault/bank require boxes and inventory require bags/packs. IMHO that is how they were intended to be used anyhow. Gives a good market to both crafters. I always thought it seemed funny you could run around with so many 100 pound boxes on your back...unless you had a pack mule.
  14. ARCHIVED-Xalmat Guest

    I like the idea of allowing regular strong boxes usable as sales displays.
  15. ARCHIVED-Purr Guest

    Xalmat wrote:
    Me too.
    I don't know how much work it would cause to have them flagged as display containers and still make them work in inventory and bank, but it would keep the strongboxes at a logical weight and provide an alternative to the sales crates/sales containers that require rares. I find it preferable to making bags only inventory and boxes only bank usable because this would open another huge can of worms: not being able to switch out one inventory container for a bank container etc. when for example going for a crafting spin or loading up the raid equipment stored in the bank after coming from a harvesting spree..
    And because this kind of relates to it:
    I hope you, Domino, can push the idea of emptying one container into another by dragging the full one over an empty one to >the powers who can make it happen<. With containers getting bigger and bigger it would provide so much time and clicking savings.
    Thanks for reading.
  16. ARCHIVED-DukeOccam Guest

    Perhaps instead of just being heavy, which is made trivial by having lots of strength, a box could have a -x% runspeed penalty or something. Something inescapable. From an immersion point of view, I don't like the idea of people running around with a bunch of 100-pound boxes (but then again, who carries 6 backpacks?).

    I think it's reasonable to have a penalty for using boxes in your inventory, but also to leave that possibility open if someone really still wants to do it.
  17. ARCHIVED-Kigneer Guest

    Jrral@Unrest wrote:
    Crates are best suited for long term storage, and due to their size and weight are bank items. In turn for being bank only, let them have more slots (like 48 for redwoods). Bags can have the weight reduction and best for traveling, strong boxes best for bank containers.
    Win-win. It is because the worry of people being upset about the switch would be soften that their banks will now have more room, for the exchange of using bags for adventuring, instead.
  18. ARCHIVED-Trellium Guest

    Kigneer wrote:
    No, absolutely not. It would be a dismal idea. I have tons of harvestables in boxes that I swap out between tradeskilling and hunting. Turning that into the thrill of moving all those items to inventory one at a time, and then back again is terrible. Bank and personal slots need to be interchangeable.
    And, this will be implemented all at once? So, people with boxes will just find everything on overflow? No thanks.
    They could consider increasing the weight slightly on the boxes, say to 125. It does give a reason not to have them. Or the idea of a -5% run speed is good too. Its a hinderance, but not a deal breaker.
    I expect I will probably use a combination of boxes/backpacks as I have money to convert. With a choice I would have boxes in teh bank and light weight backpacks in inventory.
  19. ARCHIVED-hellfire Guest

    Trellium wrote:
    Dont give any weight to boxes...just have a debuff attached to them if you use them in your become encumbured if use box as personal storage .
  20. ARCHIVED-Trellium Guest

    Bigron@Unrest wrote:
    I also said "Or the idea of a -5% run speed is good too."
    Two boxes and a 10% run speed loss is acceptable. Rooting a person in place, for example, wouldn't be. We still need to get from the bank to the tradeskill areas.

Share This Page