Backpacks on Test: Now Bigger

Eveningsong wrote:

Just got back from KJ and nearly 600 redwoods = 0 mahogany (with FSSD harvesting gear/Moors boots +5 bountiful harvest AA).

My carpenter in FSSD instances = 9 mahogany lumber from innovations.

Easier to do the FSSD instances and get mahogany and hidebound than harvesting them.

Hidebound is going to be the problem, I can pull silicate more than it.

DominoDev wrote:

I don't like either. Reduced slots for backpacks is still a mage only penalty and just reducing the weight of strongboxes makes them just another backpack. I'd rather not have either short term fix in place of a better long term one even if that long term one is going to take time.

Are there any flat out no options for the boxes besides what you've already rejected?

DominoDev wrote:

How about an exchange then? Exchange redwood strongboxes of current weight and size for a bank weight and size strong box? Then folks can get to it on their schedule. Add the NPC by the city merchants even. Smoother transition.
Would prefer the bags to tell the truth, because even now when mentoring, with 6 strongboxes I get the encumbered effect (about 20% @ level 10-19).

DominoDev wrote:

At this point it seems like you should just make bags and boxes as identical items with a different graphic. People who care can go to the trouble of putting boxes in the bank and bags in inventory (I would do this). People who don't care can just get whichever is cheaper off the broker.
Or possibly you could have boxes get an extra small number of slots when used in the bank, and bags get extra slots when used in inventory.

Might be too much work right now..but I'd like to see recipes added for different types of boxes capable of holding different types of material. Armor boxes that only hold armor, jewelry boxes that only hold jewelry, harvesting boxes for harvested items, etc.
Give the regular boxes 8 extra slots and the rare boxes 16 extra slots in exchange for the restriction of certain item types.

While it seems you made up your mind already. I think a 10% movement speed reduction, non cumulative would entice people to use backpacks instead of boxes. Without causing them an undo annoyance since its only a minor penalty.

Foolsfolly wrote:

Not bad. Sales displays are a great model to use.

Gungo wrote:

Why? Who would buy them when you can get a backpack without weight issues? Everyone will jsut exchange inventory ones for the equivalent backpack, and any boxes they swap out in the bank.
We already exchanged all of the boxes for backpacks, including most of the banked ones. Boxes in their current form are pretty much obsolete to us.

How about making the boxes the same weight as the backpacks, and give them +5 to harvesting wood.
And change the backpacks so they are +5 to traps.
Then call it a day. Who really cares which one people use where? Just make the tradeskillers happy.

I personally dont really care what you do to "even" them out if you really think that is necessary. Just PLZ dont put a penalty on a player for using them instead of backpacks. Its bad enough that my strong boxes wont sell at all anymore but adding a penalty besides !!!! OMG

DominoDev wrote:

In essence, the only current differences are a) size and b) weight. Weight only matters to low-level chars and some mages/priests. That pretty much means that any 'negative' to strongboxes, if it is to be universal, has to be a new mechanic, since the existing penalty (weight) is irrelevant to a hefty chunk of people. And new negatives don't tend to go over well :/
The idea of reducing the size difference appeals to me. Before shard gear and/or before Str AAs (if relevant for your class), weight can be an annoyance even in the 70s, so backpacks would have a degree of value. The current 14 slot difference is enough to generally make the strongboxes more worthwhile despite the weight, but reducing that to a small difference (like the 2 slots mentioned) would preserve some level of backpack appeal (especially for lower-level chars) without denting the ultimate supremacy of strongboxes. It also keeps them as distinct and different, unlike simply setting them equal to each other with the only value differences deriving from the classes and materials used to create them.

I think this is a good thing. Can't see why this is a problem. Initially, everyone carried bags becasue there was a significant weight hit to carrying boxes, as would be logical. While you might have carreid 1 or 2 because they had more slots, for the rest, youi carreid bags. Crates were in the bank. Then they upped the str of the toons (gear, AA, etc) and suddenly everyone is carrying boxes and tailors are out of business.
It makes complete sense for tailors to be allowed to ply their trade, storage never was, no whould it be, the sole provence of the carpenter. The carpenter can sell plenty, they won't be significantly impacted.
If you swap things out regularly, keep a bag in the bank with that stuff instead of a box.
From a RP aspect this change makes all kinds of sense. It brings back the original intent of the items, and all my toons, including my scouts, will be happy to switch out some boxes for bags and stop worrying about emcumberace when mentored or broken.

options, seems to me:
1) make boxes / bags identical with each having a 'different perk' bags weight reduction. introduce 'death decay' on items in inventory and gear in strongboxes is immune. (for instance) ... oh i'm gonna hear about making that suggestion, i know.
2) make guild banks able to hold boxes/bags. (wishful thinking, i know) it'll take forever to flood the market
3) have strongboxes filled with milk and cookies once a week.
4) make bags 'slightly smaller' AND include the 'debuff' for strongboxes so there is a give/take penalty for either choice.

and all the stuff other people have suggested too

clarification on 1) the example i used was pertaining to the notion of:
the perspective of gear degrades when you die. expand that to gear in inventory and make it immune in strongboxes...

Jrral@Unrest wrote:

Why would you bump both bags and boxes up in size when its easier to just bump bags less? I.E. 26 slots instead of 36 for bags.
Lets not get out of control with the mudflation of bags, we want some room to grow!

Hopefully have bags and boxes the same.

No one really uses backpacks as it is, and this way tailor's would have some of the action that the carpenters are getting.

Plus I hate carrying around boxes right now but I want as much space as possible.

Maybe do restrictions for T9 only. But for now I would make both equivalent size.

1st it would be nice to know if it is possible to have an option to SHIFT-Drag containers to move the content of one container to an other one.
If that is possible I would keep all old bags and chests as they are now and change all new crafted items:
- bigger boxes that are bank / brocker only containers. (boxes could have 4 additional slots then bags and rare boxes could be used as saleman crates inside your house.)
- the above mentioned backpacks for inventory slots only.
If that feature is not possible to implement in a short time all items should still be useable everywhere. I think the comon bags and boxes would at about the same demand, but there would be no reason to use rare boxes, as the bags a lot lighter, have the same space and have 20% wight reduction. Also as rare pelts are actually in a lower demand to to heirloom items and void shards and rare wood is still in higher demand due to salesman containers rare wood is actually more expensive then rare pelts. Some ways to help could be:
- reduce the weight of all boxes to 10 instead of 100
- common boxes and bags should have the same size
- rare bags have the high weight reduction (20%)
- rare boxes have two additional slots compared to rare bags.
So normal bags would actually be better then normal boxes but rare boxes have a slight advantage over rare bags if weight is not an issue. I think that would be fair for both sides.

I don't understand these arguments where people say how immersion breaking it is to carry around six strongboxes. It is no less immersion breaking to carry around SIX backpacks. In carrying capacity, immersion never existed from day one.
Just make backpacks and strongboxes the same size, different weight, no weight reduction on any of them. Mages can use the bags that weigh far less than the strongboxes and people currently using strongboxes don't have to worry about doing any switching. Yes, redundant items - the world will not end.

Ele~

I soooo agree with Elessara. Just get rid of the weight reductions on the bags and leave the weights of the boxes at what they are now.. And let ppl decide what they want to carry.

DominoDev wrote:

Do an in-place swap, then. Two options: if you're going to expand the existing bag/box items to a larger capacity, then just in-place swap strongboxes in inventory slots for a new-size crafted bag of the same tier. No overflow problem since the new bags are the same size as the old strongboxes were. If you're going to introduce new bag/box items with the larger size but leave existing ones alone, then just replace strongboxes in inventory slots with the new-size bag closest in capacity to the old box without being smaller and flag the old boxes as no-inventory-use.
With the new sizes I don't see bags vs. boxes as a capacity issue anymore. It's more a matter of whether or not both tailors and carpenters have something to make that players want to buy.