NEWS Developer Meet and Greet Transcript ~ Origin Shard 1/11/16

[Tabby Kapak]

Whisper: Few questions for you. Some questions go with Sir's apple question. Is there a way to make the apple only remove 1 curse at a time, or raise it's timer?
Mesanna - We do not have an answer for the enchanted apple yet. We will discuss it.
Whisper: alright I have more question
Mesanna - wait, I am a little confused. Can you answer this for me? Enchanted apples have been out for awhile now, you are just now saying you want it nerfed? Is that correct?
Whisper: have you ever pvp'd as a necro mage? And someone eats one apple and all your curses are gone?
Mesanna - I get that, but this is the first time anyone has asked this. I am just a little confused as to why it has taken so long, that is all. We will discuss it.
Bleak - Currently have no plans to add Mortal Strike to any archery weapon, anymore
Whisper: That's not my question sir. Mortal Strike with archery there is no cooldown, but there is a cooldown on apples. So an archer can spam mortal strike and you can't do anything about it but die.
Bleak - Mortal Strike has diminishing returns on duration
Whisper: It doesn't matter if you can spam it you do not become immune.
Bleak - We can take another look at the effectiveness of the DR
Whisper: Or you can take timers off apples Have a good night

Feeling a bit puzzled about Whisper's views, he starts off saying the timer on the apples should be raised, and then ends with saying the timers should be removed?! Was he just being cynical saying different templates want different things?

And thanks for posting Larisa!!

 

[drcossack]

Feeling a bit puzzled about Whisper's views, he starts off saying the timer on the apples should be raised, and then ends with saying the timers should be removed?! Was he just being cynical saying different templates want different things?

And thanks for posting Larisa!!

The timer is fine. The problems are a) them failing to remove ANYTHING/failing entirely and b) only removing certain debuffs. In the case of the former, I may have to hit my macro multiple times. I'm not sure on the specifics of B, but if I'm under the effect of multiple debuffs, it should remove them all.

Mortal spam sucks. We've all been there. I had asked about it in an earlier m&g - I wasn't aware of diminishing returns on it, but when you're in the middle of a fight you're probably not going to notice that it doesn't last as long. I fight a guild with a lot of archers, and there's a lot of mortal strike/para blow going on. If it's just one it isn't too bad, but when there's a large group (and it usually is), it's going to hurt.

 

[Smoot]

After re-reading the transcript, I am really thinking that there is no reason for the devs to continue doing meet and greets. Questions are generally met with dismissal, and suggestions are summarily tossed out. It is nice to interact with them, but maybe in the future, they can come to the populous with their agenda and topics, and let US inquire on those - as opposed to some kind of supposed open forum. They are clearly not open for serious discussion on topics that they are not willing to embrace.

ive often thought that the devs could learn alot more if they spent those couple hours just playing the game. Do a champ spawn one day. Stick around Yew gate another. Attend and EM event one night so they can see for themselves what goes on there. All these questions being asked are things all over stratics. nothing new. and your right the most pivotal questions for the game are usually dismissed. I just think the time investment could be used much more efficiently, with just playing the game (still casual hours, and probably more "fun" for the devs than a meet and greet too)

i stopped attending meet and greets when i would get one answer on one shard, and a totally different answer on another the next month. not worth the wait in line.

 

[Merlin]

Well the Rares crowd does and it's obvious that Mesanna coddles them...

There's always these accusations about collusion of EM's with this shadowy mysterious rares crowd. And the overwhelming majority of it is hogwash.

She is 100% against clickies...

They do still do them once in a while, despite the fact the nine out of ten of them are usually worthless.

After re-reading the transcript, I am really thinking that there is no reason for the devs to continue doing meet and greets. Questions are generally met with dismissal, and suggestions are summarily tossed out. It is nice to interact with them, but maybe in the future, they can come to the populous with their agenda and topics, and let US inquire on those - as opposed to some kind of supposed open forum. They are clearly not open for serious discussion on topics that they are not willing to embrace.

Then don't do them. But the rest of us want to have the opportunity to atleast ask questions. Not everyone in UO comes to Stratics and for those other folks, this is an opportunity to get their voices heard and questions answered. If nothing else, it's atleast an opportunity to vent. What other games send their lead developers out as regularly to do this with the community? Not too many others.

Ya unfortunately it makes a huge difference.....because an existing player will create an account,,,,,place a castle. deactivate account for 88 days....reactivate acount for 1 month...rinse and repeat. there is no benefit to the game....no increase in traffic, no new players....

$14.99 every 90 days isnt an incentive I am sorry. Hey dont get me wrong I agree many players would love to see more castles allowed....but it isnt gonna happen.

Reminds me of a funny story of someone who joined UO and really wanted a castle.....so they training up lumberjacking so they could harvest trees and clear land to place a castle.....they spent over a week trying to figure out why their plan wasnt working....

Imagine that if you and a few friends could go clear a spot in a forest...level the land and place a castle.....

It is 100% time to do away with this "I'm going to pay once every 90 days" horsedung. And I am so sick and tired of the response to this being "but but... then I would close my account and the game would lose income". In most cases, I call absolute hogwash on that. People around here threaten to close their accounts every single time they see something they don't like, and more often then not, they don't.

All Atlantic accounts and ANY accounts with castles or keeps ESPECIALLY should not be able to do this. No other game or business in history would tolerate this.

@Mesanna @Bleak @Kyronix - Please consider doing away with this practice immediately.

 

[Hannes Erich]

It is 100% time to do away with this "I'm going to pay once every 90 days" horsedung. No other game or business in history would tolerate this.

This is false. There aren't too many open-world, subscription-only examples to draw from to begin with, as opposed to F2P (which is beside the point, but perhaps worth a footnote). Most open-world housing out there simply drops or deactivates when the owner runs out of in-game currency, not real-world cash. Really, after a statement like "No other game or business in history would tolerate this", I could probably just drop a [citation needed] and move on. The burden of proof is not on me after reading a statement like that.

There were some dark periods over the past 18 years when $10 or $12 was not going to be spent on a video game. That was no one's problem but my own, but has EA made more money off of me than if I had lost my house during those times? Of course they have.

But we may have actually agreed about this ten or fifteen years ago, when paying, playing players experienced a constant land shortage across every shard. I never felt too bad because I prefer out of the way spots (and I've never owned a castle). But to see this big and bold complaint in 2016 is weird. The housing policies were always a balance, based on data that players can only speculate about. It isn't your job to know how often players can pay their subs to keep things fiscally equitable. Obviously they do find it tolerable.

 

[Lord Nabin]

I agree that the 90 days till your house drops on end of payment is not really needed. Costs uo a ton

Besides you get an email when your account time is up.

Send another once a week as a reminder for 30 days and then let it drop.

If there's a major disaster somewhere you can shut housing down for a bit like it has been done in the past.

Personally it bugs me when people play the 90 day game and when they screw up and loose a house it's everyone else's fault.

I've never done nor ever will.

I don't hold it against people who do. They are just working the system no different then maxing out an in game template etc.

I would like to see this loop hole closed

 

[Merlin]

I could probably just drop a [citation needed] and move on. The burden of proof is not on me after reading a statement like that.

I know of no other business that allows you to pay 25% of the time but keep 100% of your stuff. The burden IS on you to provide citation.

This is false.

No, that's an opinion.

There aren't too many open-world, subscription-only examples to draw from to begin with.

Which is why I didn't specify sub-only MMO's.

There were some dark periods over the past 18 years when $10 or $12 was not going to be spent on a video game. That was no one's problem but my own, but has EA made more money off of me than if I had lost my house during those times? Of course they have.

The overwhelming majority of UO players are adults over 30 years of age. Not little children with no money. While I do emphasize with the fact that money can become tight at times, but that in no way entitles any one to getting free stuff, in this case, free subscription time. If you can't afford the $13 bucks, you probably have bigger RL problems than your pixel house in UO. Time to find a friend who can hold it for you.

But we may have actually agreed about this ten or fifteen years ago, when paying, playing players experienced a constant land shortage across every shard. I never felt too bad because I prefer out of the way spots (and I've never owned a castle). But to see this ALL CAPS (Edit: OK, big and bold) complaint in 2016 is weird. The housing policies were always a balance, based on data that players can only speculate about. It isn't your job to know how often players can pay their subs to keep things fiscally equitable. Obviously they do find it tolerable.

Admittedly, I am a major stickler when it comes to money. I am a CPA and work in the profession of financial reporting and auditing. I work with clients from major hedge funds and private equity firms to Bernie Madoff victims. I have little tolerance for financial dishonesty - and that's what this is, IMHO.

The way to keep things fiscally equitable is to make everyone pay their subs on time and not allow others to pay 25% of the time while others always maintain full payment.

Also, I specified the Atlantic shard in particular and castle/keep owners to some degree because they are the ones doing damage. For some of these Castle owners or people with Luna houses to be sitting on property that isn't paid for regularly is really unfair to the rest of the community. If you want to do this for some little 14x14 remote shack you've had over on Lake Austin since the days of the Clinton administration, maybe I would turn a blind eye... but not for people holding onto the most valuable property areas in game.

 

[Hannes Erich]

Better be careful, you're going to hurt my feelings posting like that.

Skipping past all the "no u", why don't you just send in a suggestion for castles to require a monthly subscription? People like me wouldn't be nuts about it, people like you wouldn't be nuts about it, but it seems like it would solve your chief complaint. That's compromise. All of your eloquence aside, something tells me you'll never be able to throw your weight around at EA or call all the shots regarding Broadsword's fiscal policies.

Here's a beer.

 

[Lord Nabin]

Better be careful, you're going to hurt my feelings posting like that.

Skipping past all the "no u", why don't you just send in a suggestion for castles to require a monthly subscription? People like me wouldn't be nuts about it, people like you wouldn't be nuts about it, but it seems like it would solve your chief complaint. That's compromise. All of your eloquence aside, something tells me you'll never be able to throw your weight around at EA or call all the shots regarding Broadsword's fiscal policies.

Here's a beer. int:

I think you missed the part about most of us are over 30 and are adults.

 

[Merlin]

Better be careful, you're going to hurt my feelings posting like that.

Skipping past all the "no u", why don't you just send in a suggestion for castles to require a monthly subscription? People like me wouldn't be nuts about it, people like you wouldn't be nuts about it, but it seems like it would solve your chief complaint. That's compromise. All of your eloquence aside, something tells me you'll never be able to throw your weight around at EA or call all the shots regarding Broadsword's fiscal policies.

Here's a beer.

By all means - I don't mean to rant about it or sound all uppity and high on myself... but when I heard a particular person with a Keep at Fel Yew Gate and a corner house in Luna walls doing this 90-day BS on Atlantic (and bragging about it), I was pretty annoyed. Maybe its because I'm a cheap accountant type, but I don't think it's a radical concept that those folks be expected to pay timely.

I would even be willing to make a further compromise... rather than it be an every 90 loop hole, make it a 30 day loop hole so that those folks would atleast have to pay every other month. UO would double the income from those accounts and I doubt they would lose any subs since those people KNOW FULL WELL what they're doing and would still be getting a pretty good deal.

 

[Hannes Erich]

I guess I have selective hearing Nabin.

Good reply Merlin. I wouldn't complain about any of that at all. (May as well leave Luna houses out of it though, honestly, post-vendor search.)

It's still weird in 2016 though. Not because of my obvious bias; rather because I don't predict Broadsword will change something like this now, if they didn't do it earlier, when things were real bad. In fact I would feel this way even if I held your stickler bias (something you can't always depend on the rest of the world to care about, obviously); if their data told them their numbers were fine back then, then it certainly does now (one could reasonably imagine). Also, beyond whatever you or I believe is both equitable and responsible, subscription policy changes are always delicate PR matters. What might be equitable for a handful of players isn't always good for the brand as a whole.

 

[Lord Nabin]

I guess I have selective hearing Nabin.

Good reply Merlin. I wouldn't complain about any of that at all. (May as well leave Luna houses out of it though, honestly, post-vendor search.)

It's still weird in 2016 though. Not because of my obvious bias; rather because I don't predict Broadsword will change something like this now, if they didn't do it earlier, when things were real bad. In fact I would feel this way even if I held your stickler bias; if their data told them their numbers were fine back then, then it certainly does now (one could reasonably imagine). Also, beyond whatever you or I believe is both equitable and responsible, subscription policy changes are always delicate PR matters. What might be equitable for a handful of players isn't always good for the brand as a whole.

I think the change would bring reality and then a good baseline to make solid decisions in regards to how to proceed in the future

If you are not clear about where you truely are you can not make solid vision goals and objectives that bring you to success

This change I feel would have minor effect on the overall business.

Seriously not like we have had an army of people object here in this thread so far.....

Must not be a major issue

 

[Hannes Erich]

I don't think their policies result primarily from forum threads on Stratics.

Sometimes, in fact most of the time, a suggestion needs to be valuable from more than my angle or your angle. So sometimes it's not the implied value of a suggestion I'm arguing; but whether or not that suggestion stands a chance in one of their (Broadsword's) meetings. And it has nothing to do with their ability to plan versus ours. Many of their daily considerations (and thus their perspective) aren't known to us; financial obligations, etc. Who can know, right? Well, we ought to have gained some skill in that over the past couple of decades. Our suggestions can matter. But we will never have the entire picture to comment on. If we did, it would be easy to comment on why they do this, or don't do that, wouldn't it?

 

[MalagAste]

I don't think it's right or fair to play the 90 day roulette with accounts. ... but then I have about a dozen give or take fully paid for 100% of the time...now that said if others are wanting to risk losing the game and all that's on them. .. I don't know what they expect. I also think it's none of my business. Sure I'd like to have another Castle but I'll be there when they lose the roulette.
As for other games and such very few have housing. ... I think in Final Fantasy XIV if you don't pay it's gone... in Landmark they are still in beta and there is no fee you at first we were paying with in-game copper or stuff like that but then they dropped that and now it's based on how much you logged in in a row. So I built mine up to the max 90 days and now log in about once a week or so.

 

[Uvtha]

There's always these accusations about collusion of EM's with this shadowy mysterious rares crowd. And the overwhelming majority of it is hogwash.



They do still do them once in a while, despite the fact the nine out of ten of them are usually worthless.



Then don't do them. But the rest of us want to have the opportunity to atleast ask questions. Not everyone in UO comes to Stratics and for those other folks, this is an opportunity to get their voices heard and questions answered. If nothing else, it's atleast an opportunity to vent. What other games send their lead developers out as regularly to do this with the community? Not too many others.



It is 100% time to do away with this "I'm going to pay once every 90 days" horsedung. And I am so sick and tired of the response to this being "but but... then I would close my account and the game would lose income". In most cases, I call absolute hogwash on that. People around here threaten to close their accounts every single time they see something they don't like, and more often then not, they don't.

All Atlantic accounts and ANY accounts with castles or keeps ESPECIALLY should not be able to do this. No other game or business in history would tolerate this.

@Mesanna @Bleak @Kyronix - Please consider doing away with this practice immediately.

I would definetly quit, but I think they probably should do away with the 90 day buffer.

 

[Lord Nabin]

I would definetly quit, but I think they probably should do away with the 90 day buffer.

You would be right here !

Your not going anywhere lol

 

[Obsidian]

I wish someone would ask about the level 3 primer drop rate. It is far worse than the 120 power scroll rate. Any chance they could at least make the two rates equal?

 

[Uvtha]

You would be right here !

Your not going anywhere lol

Hah, I'd probably still be on stratics, you're right, but as for UO I functionally quit years ago, and the only reason I ever come back and play at all is that I resub every 90 days to keep my house, so I'll usually play a bit during one of those four one month periods over the year, just to run around and see what's what, if nothing else. I can justify 60 bucks a year to maintain that nostalgia, but not 170.

That said, I don't think people who don't play regularly should be catered to, and I wouldn't be mad about it at all. Just would be the sign that my time is officially rather than technically over.

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

...It is 100% time to do away with this "I'm going to pay once every 90 days" horsedung. .... No other game or business in history would tolerate this.
...

i'm opposed to this idea.

other than mindcraft and the yet-to-be-beta Shards Online, what other games have housing?

i pay for 8+ accounts. i've taken breaks from the game for months and even a year. during these hiatus, if i had to chose between paying monthly or liquidating accounts (to close them) you can damn sure bet i'd close most of my accounts. and i would never look back. it would be a permanent loss.

 

[Lord Nabin]

i'm opposed to this idea.

other than mindcraft and the yet-to-be-beta Shards Online, what other games have housing?

i pay for 8+ accounts. i've taken breaks from the game for months and even a year. during these hiatus, if i had to chose between paying monthly or liquidating accounts (to close them) you can damn sure bet i'd close most of my accounts. and i would never look back. it would be a permanent loss.

Fair statement friend.

Like you said tho you would close most of your accounts. Not all

Which brings things to my point that we would achieve a true baseline of where things are really at.

At the same time opening up housing plots for those who are paying monthly.

Yes it makes you chose and changes the current system you're working.

Like I said I have nothing against people currently working the system in place.

I do feel that a change is fair and appropriate

 

[MalagAste]

i'm opposed to this idea.

other than mindcraft and the yet-to-be-beta Shards Online, what other games have housing?

i pay for 8+ accounts. i've taken breaks from the game for months and even a year. during these hiatus, if i had to chose between paying monthly or liquidating accounts (to close them) you can damn sure bet i'd close most of my accounts. and i would never look back. it would be a permanent loss.

Final Fantasy XIV, Landmark, Minecraft... supposedly the new EQNext will have it...

 

[Jirel of Joiry]

i'm opposed to this idea.

other than mindcraft and the yet-to-be-beta Shards Online, what other games have housing?

Ever heard of Shroud of the Avatar?

i pay for 8+ accounts. i've taken breaks from the game for months and even a year. during these hiatus, if i had to chose between paying monthly or liquidating accounts (to close them) you can damn sure bet i'd close most of my accounts. and i would never look back. it would be a permanent loss.

Okay you still realize what you are doing is financially dishonest? I have paid EVERY MONTH for all 14 years I have played. I started with one acct, then added a second 6 months later. Then in 2006 two of my best in game friends quit and gifted me their accounts. I have since added 3 more just for housing that's 7 if you are counting.

I find this attitude disturbing. I mean do you people do this with say your gas, electric or water bills? Oh hey I didn't use much water so I'll only pay every three months, or gee I don't use much electricity in winter cause I have gas heat so I'll only pay when I run the A/C. To my ears it sounds lazy and like you just want to get something for nothing.

I remember somewhere back in UO past where they implemented, that hoouses fell after 30 days of no payment.
As I recall it so much hell was raised right here on Stratics and everybody and his dog threaten to "Quit Right This Minute!" if they didn't put it back to 90 days. Draconi was around when this happened and he annouced that they relented. It was returned to 90 days.

I do remember one legitimate complaint with the 30 days and poof policy. That was if your credit card expired and the charge didn't go through it somehow trigger house going into decay, and back then once it was in decay unless you traded it, you were SCREWED. Why I ended up with 4 temp accounts because a stupid ex-friend let her credit card expire her houses went into decay I had to make temps to hold them. She was one of those that would play for 6 months then leave and not play for a year or two. This was someone that had something like 25 accounts.

Considering I only play 3 months and 3 weeks per year yet I still pay every month for all seven accounts; the argument well why should I pay if I don't play...DOESN'T HOLD WATER!

The bottomline is its financially dishonest, and IMHO Broadsword should require a current CC on file period.
No card = no account! There is no reason not to; you can use a reloadale credit card or prepaid card.

Its like everything else in UO, its become all about the entitled, whiny, brats. UO playerbase suffers from a serious case of MINE MINE MINE and GIMME GIMME GIMME. IMHO, like most unruly two-years old we are long overdue for a spanking!

 

[Jirel of Joiry]

IMHO those that are "working" the UO payment system are no better than some of the people my sister and I encountered that worked the financial aid system and didn't give a rat-**** about getting a degree.

Back when sis was going the first time she was repeatedly denied financial aid, so our grandpa helped her pay tution.
She was mortified when in her Statics and Dynamics class her assigned lab/project partner informed her that she didn't give a **** about her grade she was here for the "FREE" daycare! To say the least sis was pissed. Wouldn't you be if your grade was dependant on someone that didn't give a flying ****? Sis had to bust her ass but was able to pull a high C. She did file a complaint with the instructor, the dean of students, and head of financial aid.

The bitter part of it, grandpa died and his assets were frozen and the estate tied up for 4 year due to warring relatives leaving sis little option but to drop out of college.

Its the same principle why should someone that don't give a **** get a free ride and someone that wants to get kicked in the 'Nads?

Sis and I both returned to college in fall of 2012. Sis' degree evaluation says she will graduate This coming fall or Spring 2017. The university offers certain uppers division courses only in the spring or only in the fall so it depends if she can take all the rest of her courses and capstone in the fall or not.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

This 90 day buffer thing was started a long time ago when the gulf war started. So vets overseas wouldn't lose their accounts over a billing error. UO considered it's self very patriotic at the time, their part to help the war effort Today with a cell phone almost being computer like I think I could keep up with my accounts anywhere in the world. Time to end it. It is pretty annoying that someone that pays for 3 accounts, like I do, can shuffle 12 houses. It's insane. And then come to the boards raising holy hell and looking for pity when one of their houses drop 2 days before it said on their spread sheet. I'm positive this would open up a lot of prime housing and put it in the hands of active players. EA billing isn't the best, they do have issues. I'd think 14 days is more reasonable. Enough time to catch a problem and straighten it out before your house drops.

 

[Promathia]

In an ideal world once your house goes into decay, all the items inside get moved into some kind of storage for the house owner to claim next time they login. The only thing lost would be the house spot and if the player ever comes back they don't have to start completely over because they lost everything. Then you get rid of the 90 days crap and figure out a new timer to encourage people to have to stay subbed.

 

[TimberWolf]

In an ideal world once your house goes into decay, all the items inside get moved into some kind of storage for the house owner to claim next time they login. The only thing lost would be the house spot and if the player ever comes back they don't have to start completely over because they lost everything. Then you get rid of the 90 days crap and figure out a new timer to encourage people to have to stay subbed.

Really that is your idea of Ideal....totally remove IDOC 's from the game?? Most people dont camp Idoc's to place...they camp them to gather. Personally if in 7 days your account hasnt been reactivated your house should drops...your stuff is free to grab. 7 days gives you plenty of time to figure out you screwed up and resolve the issue. If you really want to be generous first lapse of payment you have 2 weeks, next lapse 7 days, strike three is one day.
Lets play ball!

 

[Promathia]

Really that is your idea of Ideal....totally remove IDOC 's from the game?? Most people dont camp Idoc's to place...they camp them to gather. Personally if in 7 days your account hasnt been reactivated your house should drops...your stuff is free to grab. 7 days gives you plenty of time to figure out you screwed up and resolve the issue. If you really want to be generous first lapse of payment you have 2 weeks, next lapse 7 days, strike three is one day.
Lets play ball!

So punish people for leaving the game so that you can "Gather"? I'm sure that has done wonderful for the population.

If your account is inactive for 120 days, all your characters should be deleted too.

 

[Merus]

Personally I think the 90 day rule is just fine before the decay kicks in. Life happens. My issue is the fact that it remains fully functional during that 90 days. The moment an account goes inactive the security on the house should be set to owner only access. Don't clear all the lists, that is just a pita if the account opens up, create a new privacy setting.

People who want access to thier stuff will need to pay monthly. People who want to risk the 90 day roulette for inaccessible storage can do it. People who have rl issues will still have the 90 day window.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

Really that is your idea of Ideal....totally remove IDOC 's from the game?? Most people dont camp Idoc's to place...they camp them to gather. Personally if in 7 days your account hasnt been reactivated your house should drops...your stuff is free to grab. 7 days gives you plenty of time to figure out you screwed up and resolve the issue. If you really want to be generous first lapse of payment you have 2 weeks, next lapse 7 days, strike three is one day.
Lets play ball!

I've had my account lapse for like 5 days and not even noticed lol. I usually try to log in and it won't let me is my first clue. I have accounts that mostly just hold a house (what a sap I am I could get it for free!). My credit card was perfectly fine, correct info in account management, EA just had a glitch at some point and cancelled my account. I hit the button on the account management page manually and it goes through fine. I honestly rarely check my email cause the only person I would care about that would send me an email is my daughter and I talk to her on the phone. So much garbage in my email I kinda get depressed just having to deal with it, lol. Point being I'd be more comfortable in the 15 to 30 day range. I do dread knowing when my credit card is going to expire cause I have to teach myself how to enter a new credit card in the EA system. Certainly not intuitive. I need to watch a video to update my card, lol.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

I'm gonna call the bank or visa and tell them I'm just gonna let it ride for 90 days, not pay the missed payments, and take no penalty. This is an awesome idea!

 

[Assia Penryn]

I'd personally be okay with them shortening the time to 60 days or even 30 days. I understand RL happens and people are in the military, hospitalizations, death, etc... but everyone who plays this game should have a friend, spouse, partner, parent etc that can be able to check account status if something unexpected happens AND it means that much to them. For me, it's my spouse and also my best friend. They both have my account info and if something happened to me would be able to check in the span of 30 days that they could log in and the account was still active.

It is my understanding, that they already send an email when a cc is declined or when your account runs out subsciption, perhaps they can upgrade and add texting to a designated phone number as well. Would it help those without a cell? No, but it is better than not having the option.

As far as the IDOC thing goes... perhaps someone can come up with a win win for both sides. Houses that fall into decay because of non-subscription issues fall like normal. The others... this would be a coding nightmare probably...

Perhaps after a house falls, everything goes into storage for 30-60 days to be claimed by house owner. After 30-60 days, it gets "dropped" somewhere in the world (on the facet they dropped originally). Either through a few permanent large home locations on each facet that cycle through decay stages and the expired stuff is sent to house storage to drop to the ground when the house decays.

Another idea is that a ticket spawns randomly in areas where housing exisits that will let a finder redeem the house contents. The tickets for the loot will respawn in

Perhaps a set number of map spawns randomly in areas where housing exists that will lead the user to a house that has been created with the stuff in it's storage. You could even show decay time/date/facet in a countdown timer so folks wouldn't be scammed and allow for them to be put on vendors. This could add a whole new hobby to the game. Wouldn't show location unless purchased and double clicked and no coordinates... just... the image of the map and a pin at the location to make folks work for it. If someone looked at it, went and marked a rune and sold it again... they only harm themselves with added competition.

​

It's early and I need more coffee. Those are just some ideas which I am sure will be set alight by someone as you can't please everyone.

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

Okay you still realize what you are doing is financially dishonest? I have paid EVERY MONTH for all 14 years I have played. I started with one acct, then added a second 6 months later. Then in 2006 two of my best in game friends quit and gifted me their accounts. I have since added 3 more just for housing that's 7 if you are counting.

financially dishonest? really? because i am abiding by the established rules?

I find this attitude disturbing. I mean do you people do this with say your gas, electric or water bills? Oh hey I didn't use much water so I'll only pay every three months, or gee I don't use much electricity in winter cause I have gas heat so I'll only pay when I run the A/C. To my ears it sounds lazy and like you just want to get something for nothing.

this is such a poor analogy. when i use less water/electricity/gas, it is reflected in the price i pay for those services. more importantly, you are talking about necessities vs luxuries. i'm a single working mother of 2 who gets no child support (deadbeat dad) and no government assistance. i have to budget where my money goes.

I do remember one legitimate complaint with the 30 days and poof policy. That was if your credit card expired and the charge didn't go through it somehow trigger house going into decay, and back then once it was in decay unless you traded it, you were SCREWED. Why I ended up with 4 temp accounts because a stupid ex-friend let her credit card expire her houses went into decay I had to make temps to hold them. She was one of those that would play for 6 months then leave and not play for a year or two. This was someone that had something like 25 accounts.

i'd venture to say those 4 temp accounts were free 15 to 30 day accounts, right? is that honest? or is that working the system?

Considering I only play 3 months and 3 weeks per year yet I still pay every month for all seven accounts; the argument well why should I pay if I don't play...DOESN'T HOLD WATER!

sorry i am not as holy as thou. i pick and choose which accounts are paid when i know i am not playing uo due to conflicting r/l priorities.

The bottomline is its financially dishonest, and IMHO Broadsword should require a current CC on file period. No card = no account! There is no reason not to; you can use a reloadale credit card or prepaid card.
Its like everything else in UO, its become all about the entitled, whiny, brats. UO playerbase suffers from a serious case of MINE MINE MINE and GIMME GIMME GIMME. IMHO, like most unruly two-years old we are long overdue for a spanking!

come on. you're a smart girl. financially dishonest is a stretch. financially dishonest is cheating on your taxes. using an established process is not. this has nothing to do with entitlement or whining or brats or corporal punishment.

the difference here is... i am not a die hard, starry eyed uo player. to me, the game has lost alot of the appeal it once had. sometimes it's time to step away for awhile for that reason. other times r/l is just too chaotic and there's no time for gaming. when i come back, the game is fresh again.

changing the 90 day rule would make me rethink whether it is worth it for me to stick around. looking at it from a financial perspective, i probably spend about $1400 per year on uo (between subs and store purchases). maybe i would pare down to 2 accounts if the 90 day rule changed -- resulting in a loss of $1280 per year to EA. i'm sure there are others who would also rethink their subs. i'm just being vocal about it.

 

[TimberWolf]

Cat fight!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ansel]

Cat fight!!!!!!!!!!

Cats on the internet?

 

[It Lives]

financially dishonest? really? because i am abiding by the established rules?


this is such a poor analogy. when i use less water/electricity/gas, it is reflected in the price i pay for those services. more importantly, you are talking about necessities vs luxuries. i'm a single working mother of 2 who gets no child support (deadbeat dad) and no government assistance. i have to budget where my money goes.


i'd venture to say those 4 temp accounts were free 15 to 30 day accounts, right? is that honest? or is that working the system?


sorry i am not as holy as thou. i pick and choose which accounts are paid when i know i am not playing uo due to conflicting r/l priorities.


come on. you're a smart girl. financially dishonest is a stretch. financially dishonest is cheating on your taxes. using an established process is not. this has nothing to do with entitlement or whining or brats or corporal punishment.

the difference here is... i am not a die hard, starry eyed uo player. to me, the game has lost alot of the appeal it once had. sometimes it's time to step away for awhile for that reason. other times r/l is just too chaotic and there's no time for gaming. when i come back, the game is fresh again.

changing the 90 day rule would make me rethink whether it is worth it for me to stick around. looking at it from a financial perspective, i probably spend about $2k per year on uo (between subs and store purchases). maybe i would pare down to 2 accounts if the 90 day rule changed -- resulting in a loss of $1600 per year to EA. i'm sure there are others who would also rethink their subs. i'm just being vocal about it.

"i am not a die hard, starry eyed uo player." "i probably spend about $2k per year on uo"

LOL It goes far past die hard for you.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

I understand RL happens and people are in the military, hospitalizations, death, etc...

Are dead people complaining a lot or what?

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

"i am not a die hard, starry eyed uo player." "i probably spend about $2k per year on uo"

LOL It goes far past die hard for you.

yikes! i made a mistake in my math (fixed in the original post). but it's still alot of money when you think about it. when you average it out to a monthly figure, my son eats that much in food per week. so i stopped feeding him to fund uo. j/k. actually i am frugal in real life and uo is/was one of the few things i splurge on.

 

[Longtooths]

Hmm Flutter?

Oh the stories that could be created with this statement

Let the conspiracy theories fly.

*signals his treasurer to buy all the corn in Sosaria and resell it for a good margin*

FINE! I'm Mesanna....




(This is a joke and as such does not break the impersonating staff rules. Take your finger of the report button Norrington!)

 

[Picus at the office]

They should stop the cycle of accounts and "they" should play the game but I've only been saying that for 5+ years now.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

Just learned when you type pancakes it turns it into pancakes. Well can't actually show the word Funny boys!

 

[Merlin]

financially dishonest? really?

As a Certified Public Accountant, I believe I am in place to say that YES this is financially dishonest.

It's not "Bernie Madoff" dishonest or something radical like that, but it sure ain't squeaky clean either.

because i am abiding by the established rules?

Established rules? I'm not so sure about that language. This is more so exploiting a loophole that is not enforced. That's a big difference from "abiding by the established rules".

changing the 90 day rule would make me rethink whether it is worth it for me to stick around. looking at it from a financial perspective, i probably spend about $1400 per year on uo (between subs and store purchases). maybe i would pare down to 2 accounts if the 90 day rule changed -- resulting in a loss of $1280 per year to EA. i'm sure there are others who would also rethink their subs. i'm just being vocal about it.

As I said in a previous post, if you're holding onto a house in a remote location on a not-so-populated shard, I am willing to look the other way.

But if you have ANY housing on Atlantic OR Castles/Keeps in spots where others might have them on other shards, then you are hurting game play. You yourself said you're no longer a die-hard UO player (albeit spending $1400 a year on the game). Those prime real estate spots should then be freed up for hard core players.

I do understand this might hurt revenue, but it's unfair to others that prime housing is blocked by people not paying timely. Specifically as this relates to Atlantic, where prime housing spots aren't so easy to come by, this practice of exploiting the 90 day loop hole is probably doing more harm than good. It's a double edged sword, but someone has to come out and say it.

I will repeat something else I have already said on this thread: It is not a radical concept to expect people to be fully paid up and on-time.

 

[Picus at the office]

I've maintained my monthly payments for 3 account for the last year while only logging in a handful of times. Partially to support the game, so I can troll this site and because I'm to lazy to attempt at moving all my stuff to one house. I think that some people might still use my old gate house, most likely not though, and I know my luna place still sells stuff for those who have vendors.

If the argument is I'll reduce my spending in the game by 85% because I can't keep a few "free" spots you aren't doing the game any favors and it could be said you are only hurting it.

 

[S_S]

My husband and I have paid monthly on 5 accts for the past 18 years whether we actively played or not. I best keep my mouth shut on players who play the 3-4 month pay game to hold housing because I would end up banned from stratics.

 

[Uriah Heep]

I look at this 90 day thing just like I do bugs ingame. If a bug gets ingame that lets me do something, have something, or go somewhere I shouldnt be able to go, I do it with a clear conscience. I am not "cheating" because regardless of what anyone anywhere says, I am playing with the game, pay attention now, AS THEY CODED IT. I'm not modifying code, nor using a cheat program.

Paying once every 90 days, I have no shame about that. None whatsoever. If they didnt want us doing that, then they wouldn't have coded it that way. Want paid monthly? move the 90 days down to 30. Simple, easy, common sense kinda thing. I look at all this bitcching about people and the 90 days as sour grapes. If you set up a buffet, dont tell me not to eat!!!

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

...

As I said in a previous post, if you're holding onto a house in a remote location on a not-so-populated shard, I am willing to look the other way.

But if you have ANY housing on Atlantic OR Castles/Keeps in spots where others might have them on other shards, then you are hurting game play. ....

no worries hon. i have a house on atlantic ... it's a 7x7 in Fel moonglow. it's a grandfathered house on an active account and only has meaning to me. i would probably have to pay someone to take it.

the most valuable house i own is my fel castle on chessy and a medium sized luna house on sonoma. those are both on paid accounts. i own a few more houses on sonoma but there is no demand for housing on sonoma unless it's a castle. even then people are picky. the last account i permanently closed held a castle which i gave away.

 

[Lord Nabin]

I look at this 90 day thing just like I do bugs ingame. If a bug gets ingame that lets me do something, have something, or go somewhere I shouldnt be able to go, I do it with a clear conscience. I am not "cheating" because regardless of what anyone anywhere says, I am playing with the game, pay attention now, AS THEY CODED IT. I'm not modifying code, nor using a cheat program.

Paying once every 90 days, I have no shame about that. None whatsoever. If they didnt want us doing that, then they wouldn't have coded it that way. Want paid monthly? move the 90 days down to 30. Simple, easy, common sense kinda thing. I look at all this bitcching about people and the 90 days as sour grapes. If you set up a buffet, dont tell me not to eat!!!

It's the system in place and your working it. I have no gripes against that.

I do feel it's time to roll it down.

 

[arkiu]

I really can't believe this 90 day housing argument is consuming this thread... This game is becoming increasingly convoluted with somewhat bad decisions/pubs by the devs (some of which were maybe too harshly pointed out by attendees at the m&g), and this silly housing loophole is what's concerning everyone? It's probably not going to change and I'm okay with that. Two topics that do concern me are related to the game itself: increasing the player base and revitalizing Pvp. In other words making the game more enjoyable to play... Who cares what people do to keep their houses... There is more housing plots available now more than ever and this should be indicitave of the real problem this game is facing..

 

[King Greg]

I really can't believe this 90 day housing argument is consuming this thread... This game is becoming increasingly convoluted with somewhat bad decisions/pubs by the devs (some of which were maybe too harshly pointed out by attendees at the m&g), and this silly housing loophole is what's concerning everyone? It's probably not going to change and I'm okay with that. Two topics that do concern me are related to the game itself: increasing the player base and revitalizing Pvp. In other words making the game more enjoyable to play... Who cares what people do to keep their houses... There is more housing plots available now more than ever and this should be indicitave of the real problem this game is facing..

What they said ^

 

[kelmo]

Broadsword should sell house only accounts. No characters, just a home owners option to use the house menu for design, commands etc.

I believe that using the 90 day is sketchy and risky.

 

[Spock's Beard]

As a Certified Public Accountant, I believe I am in place to say that YES this is financially dishonest.

Absolute nonsense. The game's producers decide what to offer and how much to charge for it, they decide how long it should take a house to fall, and the only input a customer has is to either pay money or not. There is literally zero potential for dishonesty here. You put in your money and you get what they give you.