Why it would be a bad decission if we could store Bolders in House-Chests

[Anabolic Man]

I think Bolders should not be able to be stored inside House Chests. A Player could put 30 Chests inside his house and put a Bolder in every Slot. That would be a bad game-design decission, becuase all Landowners would siege the houses, instead of benefiting from the taxes, as it should be. They would see them as a thread for their Castle. The Inhabitants of your region should defend the King of their Area, if he is not too greedy or a tyrant.
The homeowners should get along with the guild that owns a castle in their region and help their King, if the Castle get attacked.
Who knows which tyrant will take the castle, and whether he might raise taxes.

The Guild that is owning an area should defend the Houses of their Residents.
They pay taxes to fill the war chest.

I think Bolders should only be able to be stored in Banks.
These would be classified as a thread, but they are not strictly necessary to be build. Players that want to build a small village don't have to build a bank, becuase you can also store items in their house.

If bolders can be stored in House chests, then only one bolder per box, please.

I think this would be the most important feature, so that the Terretory Control System will make more sense this time.

 

[Anabolic Man]

Second possebilty would be to make it possible restrict a Bank to Landowners from the region, to specific Guilds and to the guild owning the Land.
So that the landowners can set up a public banks, which are under their controll in the settlement, without foreign players from other regions being able to store bolders in there.

If there is a traitor among the landowners, the storage facilities would still be quite limited. After all, he can't put hundreds of bolders in the public Player bank. The player banks should offer less storage capacity than the banks in the city.
The weight of the bolder and the weight of one bank per player would have to be balanced, so that a Player cannot store too many bolders inside a palyer build Bank,
so that it makes sense for the guild owning the land to place public banks in the sattlement, and to prevent that a single traitor can store hundreds of Bolders inside those Banks.


If other players want to siege a castle, they should have to build their own bank building nearby,
which they have to defend or have to rebuild before the siege.

 

[Necromantic]

Simple solution, add weight and size restrictions to containers and make them properties of items.

 

[Rorry]

Simple solution, add weight and size restrictions to containers and make them properties of items.

This would have a wide (negative) affect beyond boulders, unless you mean to single out boulders in some way.

We don't actually have enough information about what the siege system will be like, however, if it were to be just like it was in MO1 the OP's suggestion would seriously hinder sieging. Remember, before we were able to use houses for boulders, everyone mostly used boulder holders. In MO2 we have only 1 character. As for banks, guilds could already build ones that only their members and allies could use, but you can't build them in someone else's territory so that isn't very helpful in a siege as you have to haul them from your keep/area anyway.

I suspect that your true desire is to have it be so difficult to siege that no one bothers so that you never have to worry about defending your assets, so if that is your aim then your ideas are good ones.

 

[Eldrath]

Siege camps. Wagons.

 

[Floky]

Siege camps. Wagons.

second

 

[Necromantic]

This would have a wide (negative) affect beyond boulders, unless you mean to single out boulders in some way.

We don't actually have enough information about what the siege system will be like, however, if it were to be just like it was in MO1 the OP's suggestion would seriously hinder sieging. Remember, before we were able to use houses for boulders, everyone mostly used boulder holders. In MO2 we have only 1 character. As for banks, guilds could already build ones that only their members and allies could use, but you can't build them in someone else's territory so that isn't very helpful in a siege as you have to haul them from your keep/area anyway.

I suspect that your true desire is to have it be so difficult to siege that no one bothers so that you never have to worry about defending your assets, so if that is your aim then your ideas are good ones.

lol
Yes, because people had boulder holders in the past, which was an abuse of systems, we need to have more space with one character as to still have the same possibilities we had when we could abuse the systems. One of the arguments for a single character is that these kind of things don't happen, and you are using the loss of that as an argument for this.

Why would it have negative effects outside of boulders? Because people couldn't just hoard gazillions of items without managing space? I am all for expandable containers etc. but for that people should be able to place more physical chests in which to store things, each having a reasonable amount of space and weight. You just won't fit 100 giant boulders in your small house without it crushing your house under the load.

 

[Rorry]

Stacks of granum, etc. are heavier than boulders, though, and I always like to mine up a huge number of stacks in order to process a bunch at once.

You couldn't place boulders in a bag or anything so you already couldn't store as many boulders as you could other stuff.

It would be hard for SV to expand the amount of bank space enough to allow for holding boulders for a big siege. With the amount of walls you had to go through to get to a keep by the end of MO you needed a tremendous number of boulders.