The amount of cognitive dissonance you’re displaying in this thread is astounding
The facts are what they are, the crates are learnt at a higher level, and require a lot of materials to craft, for a functionally lesser result.
You can find the excuse that they are meant to be decorative, which is an opinion and not a fact, but that doesn’t change the reality that they cost a lot for a sub-optimal result, that’s all.
Something being “decorative” doesn’t qualify as a “stat-wise”
I do get you’re saying the item’s stats show they aren’t reliable storage for defense, due to having low inventory size, low siege HP, and not being lockable… But the formulation make me laugh, sorry Or thank you, I don’t know
God, don’t remind me. There’s quite a few things that are rather nonsensical from an unlock perspective and I seriously have no idea why I can’t make those nice cloth awnings for doorways from the get-go. I honestly don’t see why the building-piece awnings aren’t already included in the roofing feat to begin with.
It’s stuff like this why I don’t buy the argument that just because the crates are unlocked with the vault that means they should be ‘better’ or are intended as anything other than functional decorations. While there is some rhyme and reason to the feat progression - there’s still the factor of designers thinking they need to fill it out a bit for whatever reason whether that is to force the player into some kind of feat point scarcity (which has been obsolete for a while thanks to fragments of power) or to make the player think a certain feat has more value.
That said, the Vault is a PvP item.
Other than as an RP prop, likely on a private server, it’s a collosal waste of space outside of that context.
Packaging the crates with it to get PvE players to buy the feat is bizarre. Literally who cares if someone in a PvE game spends those points?
For them to be functional decorations they would need to function on a level at least as good as the already available options (in the world of storage, good being defined as a combination of footprint, materials to make, and slots available).
Otherwise, this one considers them malfunctional.
They’re still functional. They literally serve a function.
They’re crates.
They hold things -and- they look different than chests too in case you don’t want to have a wall lined with large chests looking like the end of a department store aisle. The performative quality relative to others is totally irrelevant to that.
Frankly - if you’re going to be using those crates in the first place you’re probably not type of person too terribly worried about the footprint or utilitarian nature of that function because, hey, it’s gonna make that one corner near your smithy look just right. The simple fact they also actually work as a crate is just a bonus.
Also, as a personal anecdote: it’s the only reason why I ever take that feat. The vault is absolutely pointless and useless to me on singleplayer and I think it ugly as sin.
Don’t ask me why they stuck them with the vault. However, I still remember the before-time in the long long ago when we had to unlock building pieces individually before Funcom consolidated a lot of them. Trying to figure out how they decide this stuff is like watching birds and trying to reason why they do what it is they do.
You are aware the entire crux of this thread is exactly that a person (or people assuming low sock puppet saturation) who is using crates is concerned about how much their functionality sucks.
Also, they are in the storage menu.
They aren’t learned from placeable bling feats, they are packaged with other specific storage items.
Was there a time that they were not?
This one does not recall. This one does recall the absurdity of learning each individual build piece one at a time. Didn’t play the game much then, the effort to enjoyment ratio just wasn’t there for this one.
However, defending that something learned from a storage container feat has any functionality as “a bonus” is just a touch silly.
Should we be grateful that swords deal damage and are not just wall hangers?
I am aware and I guess the crux of my argument is that ultimately it doesn’t matter how much they suck or not. I agree with the OP - the crates are definitely something that should have the crafting reqs/level unlock looked at because of their nature. The part I came in disagreeing with was the latter supposition by others about their supposed place on a linear progression chart.
I personally don’t think they’re meant to be part of the whole ‘chest’ group for progression, they’re a side show like the cupboard.
Thematically, I get why they used shaped wood rather than plain wood, gotta shape wood to make planks for the crates and all that nonsense. From a gameplay perspective it feels to me like a slightly confused aim as an abstraction for realism and immersion with the crafting steps (at least they didn’t make us use resin and oil to act as a sealant, right?). Why they would just slap it on the crates and not others arbitrarily I have no idea but it’s not the first time and there’s plenty of downright silly level and material requirements for supposedly decorative items (like those little cloth awnings we love so much).
oh and:
The storage category is in the Decorations segment of the build hammer, so that’s neither here nor there.
Personally, this one agrees from an immersion standpoint on the materials.
Planks (read: shaped wood)
and
Nails (read: iron fittings)
This one just thinks they should either be opened earlier or have better storage, especially the larger ones.
The feat is a linear progression, it’s a line with prerequisites. It’s quite a bizarre decision to place inferior options higher in the tree, and if the crates are just garnish, they can be garnish on a lower tier.
Better questions is: why are the newer storage containers crap?
Battlepass container that you can store hide in it but no fur or chitin or silk. Container for ore but no ingots etc. pp.
They look nice together with the crates and regular storage containers but are pretty much useless because you need to put down additional storage containers to store the rest of the items of the same category. Would have be nice to just have them as additional skin variations without the limitations.
Which is why I’m all for Funcom to re-assess its placement. I just think it might be a mistake to weigh them against “proper” chests like one would compare sets of armor.
EDIT: forgot a letter and the auto-censor thought I typed in a synonym for butts. Take note - use ‘mules’ and ‘donkeys’ in the future as well.
Or thank you, I don’t know 
