B
Bennos Morales
Guest
No to that idea.....
Invest solely in Siege and stop sitting on the fence. You know you want to.
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
Siege Housing
- Thread starter Limlight
- Start date
- Watchers 4
Invest solely in Siege and stop sitting on the fence. You know you want to.
B
Bruin
Guest
Because I believe it's a short term answer to a long term problem, and makes the long term problem even worse.
Say you opened up Siege today to allow for a 2nd house. You would have a mass influx of new characters who would do 1 of 2 things:
A. Play this shard, farm enough gold to place a home.
B. X-shard gold and place a home.
The question is of this mass influx of people, who would stick around?
Group B - the likelyhood of them being a Siege citizen is very low.
Group A - Some would likely stick around, some would not. No idea what percentages though.
Then what, 6 months from now? You have an increase in the siege population, we don't know if its a large increase or small increase. Then I would guess all the available land will be taken up by unoccupied homes - where will the future players place homes? If they can't place a home because most of the spots are taken by people who don't play here, then they won't stick around.
That's how I imagine it happening.
K
kendalldcfan
Guest
I have not read this entire post, but I understand that the Die Hard Siege Vets want to protect their shard. With that said I also agree with Limlight. I also play on atlantic and came to siege. If you force people to open another account to play on siege all you are doing is keeping people from coming to siege. I do not wish to sell all my belongings on atlantic because some times I like to play that account. I have things there that took me a long time to get and do not wish to give them up completely. I realize this is my problem and not the problem of the Vets on siege. I read another thread today about everyone coming together to do spawns and harrowers to try to draw people to siege. This issue is one of the biggest keeping people from siege. Sure you will have some downside but be honest UO is a dying game. Alot of people are going to be giving Darkfall a try in 6 days and UO stand to loose many people to it if it is what they are making it out to be. The thing about siege is people can come here start new and be productive because everyone is not running around with a 100 million gold suit on, but that is not enough to cause people to sell everything they have on prod shards. Be honest few people are running out buying UO and playing for the first time. Those days are long gone. If you want this game to be around you should give serious thought to this issue, otherwise have fun playing with the 50 or so people that are here now. There should still be no xsharding to siege you should just be able to have a house on siege and a house on prodo shard on same account. Everything you get on siege you should have to earn.
The Siege Vets who are against this suggestion are thinking about he new players who want to make siege their permanant shard. If the shard is filled up with a bunch of unoccupied homes, they will end up not sticking around and would most likely head back to their home shard for housing reasons.
You can bet, within a couple of days, most of the open housing spots would be filled with homes of players who really don't plan to play Siege much, but due to the ability to have a house here...just in case one day they do plan to play here...isn't good enough. Either commit to the shard...or don't, but that is the player's choice...la
You can bet, within a couple of days, most of the open housing spots would be filled with homes of players who really don't plan to play Siege much, but due to the ability to have a house here...just in case one day they do plan to play here...isn't good enough. Either commit to the shard...or don't, but that is the player's choice...la
M
MoonglowMerchant
Guest
The worst case scenario is that you are right. Within days, most of the housing spots on Siege are full. This would make it hard for new players to find large plots. They might have to settle for a smaller plot and save gold to buy a larger plot or wait for one to decay.
The best case scenario is that it opens Siege to entire guilds who would love the opportunity to create player towns or simply try a different ruleset and we get a big influx of new players.
I'd take that risk today because the reality is that under the current system, you are saving all those spots for new players who don't exist.
Edit: When I started UO, I started on Lake Superior. There were zero housing spots. None.
I didn't quit because I couldn't get a house. I played the game because it was fun and there were lots of people to interact with. Eventually, I got a house.
If I started on Siege now, I could have a house, but could I have fun?
Most nights, the shard is completely empty. People who would try Siege make a character, log in and see no one to interact with. They log off and go back to their shard.
Lack of players is a bigger obstacle than lack of housing.
Large guilds can do this now...but don't...la
M
MoonglowMerchant
Guest
They could do it yes if they were willing to give up their houses on other shards. The point is to allow them to join Siege without having to give that up.
L
Lych
Guest
I agree with the above arguments. The real danger isn't necessarily the real-estate speculators, but people placing houses and then returning to their old shard, either maliciously or simply fading from siege. The house they placed would not decomp and we would have a lot of empty houses to look at.
But, hey, Limlight, you can crash at my place. There is plenty of room, and I don't snore.
But, hey, Limlight, you can crash at my place. There is plenty of room, and I don't snore.
kelmo
Old and in the way
Professional
Alumni
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Dread Lord
*shakes head* While I certainly understand the desire to bring more players, I can not endorse this idea. The "cart before the horse" seldom works.
Opportunistic players would assuredly litter the shard with houses filled with 'ghosts'. Count on that.
Opportunistic players would assuredly litter the shard with houses filled with 'ghosts'. Count on that.
We had tryed that, a large tower at a deset place did cost 6 mills, at that time, 6 mills was worth alot more, so it was very bad.
Guilds would not have a chance to build player towns as they could not get just a few houses near ech others.
As it is now, a large guild will have at least one player who can place. It's not hard to find a keep spot now, so they could all live in that and share the items and use bank for private items. It would be good for the interact, as they would have crafters, gartheres, PvM's, treasure hunters fill the house with needed stuff and when they die in PvP, they would have access to new gear.
And stop saying the shard is emty, it's not true.
M
MoonglowMerchant
Guest
I suppose that is relative. If you came from a shard with less than 10 players then the active Siege population of 100 or so might seem like a lot.
Unfortunately, every U.S. shard but one has more people than Siege.
People on those shards are used to logging in and being able to find SOMEONE.
On Siege, unless you have automap and vent to find your guildmates, you aren't likely to find anyone else.
That is why I find all the arguments against opening up housing so silly.
If you compare the two, lack of housing space is a lot more palatable than lack of players.
There is the flaw in your logic. You know that if the shard were to be opened up for players to place a secondhouse...that the house spots would dry up rather quickly. There is no way you can say that the population would see that type of increase.
There are too many other issues that keep people away from Siege. If you eliminate all or most of those issues, what will you have?
A production shard...la
I love the idea of tweaking the vendor coding to allow people to rent space in there homes, in fact this could go a long way towards getting rid of castles and keeps because you could increase the storage of your home. Heck the only reason I have a castle is for the storage. Could also make for a nice little gold sink.
Or another option is to have the inns actualy rent out rooms with storage space.
Or another option is to have the inns actualy rent out rooms with storage space.
M
MoonglowMerchant
Guest
That is true. I can't say that opening up the shard for housing would increase the population. I think it would, but I can't say for sure. Of course, you can't prove that the housing spots would fill up either.
What I can say for sure is that there aren't enough new players coming on to the shard now to sustain it. I don't ever remember a time on Siege until now where you could go to every bank on the shard and not see a single player. That is where we are now.
Could opening up the shard for housing be the disaster that you foresee? It could. But the flaw in your logic is ignoring the disaster right in front of your face. That disaster is the current lack of enough people to make this shard fun for new and existing players alike.
To be honest, the shard is busier now than it has been at times throughout the year. I blame the lack of people showing publically is the amount of people running around with stealth. Good or bad, if you have stealth, is there any reason to run around visable when banking?...la
K
kendalldcfan
Guest
There is an easy solution, getting it done may be hard. Allow 2 houses per acct with the following stipulations.
1. Can not have 2 houses on same shard.
2. one house is primary one is secondary
3. primary houses refreshes automaticly
4. secondary housemust be refreshed in game once a month.
Simple if some one comes to siege and stops playing siege house falls. If someone comes to siege and stays house is refresshed through play and everyone is happy. As we all know UO is dying. There is not a influx of brand new players like there are in many other games today. I respect the fact that Siege players respect the game more than I have seen on any prodo shard. With that said if you want more players on siege this would help. Bottom line 5 years from now UO will probably be a memory anyway you go.
1. Can not have 2 houses on same shard.
2. one house is primary one is secondary
3. primary houses refreshes automaticly
4. secondary housemust be refreshed in game once a month.
Simple if some one comes to siege and stops playing siege house falls. If someone comes to siege and stays house is refresshed through play and everyone is happy. As we all know UO is dying. There is not a influx of brand new players like there are in many other games today. I respect the fact that Siege players respect the game more than I have seen on any prodo shard. With that said if you want more players on siege this would help. Bottom line 5 years from now UO will probably be a memory anyway you go.
The problem is if people log on Siege, place a house then go back to their home shard because they couldn't hack it/didn't like it here. So the house just sits.
If you had to constantly refresh the house in order to keep it... sure why not (as long as grandfathered, house on siege only accounts don't have to refresh.)
When EA is ready to sell it, we should be ready to buy it!
Alert all the shards that their shards will be closing under the new ownership, as Trammel servers cost too much to run. There will now only be one shard run off of one server ( and 2 backup servers ), so if they wish to continue playing, they will have to come to Siege.
The operating cost shouldn't be much to run one server, one shard. The biggest cost would be bandwidth, and we could modify the code to get all the bugs fixed and other additions and features that we've been complaining about for years!
50 subscribers x $10.00 a month = $500.00, not to mention multiple accounts and item code purchases, should be plenty enough to run one shard.
There will be die hards who will come from prodo shards too, who will boost the population and revenue.
The only thing now is getting EA to sell the rights to us...
The last resort would be to run a free shard, illegally!
They wont be selling any time soon.
They have thousands of paying customers still.
They are still bringing in $30,000 a month at LEAST, and that is more than enough for bandwidth and employees salaries.
L
Limlight
Guest
So what if the rules were you can have a 2nd house on ANY shard. That would cut down on EVERYONE getting a Siege one.
Also, what if the house had to be a small one on whatever shard it was.
Whether you see me as often as Atlantic see's me isnt the point.
I would play there too...I would farm gold. I would farm items. I would still PvP.
Its one more person at certain hours playing on your shard. Isnt that what you need?
You would have one more person to steal from. Kill. Fight with/against.
Isnt that what Siege needs right now. Really...what do you care if I place a 7x7 in between trees in a spot where only a 7x7 will fit?
If something like this brought more people to Siege. You dont think some of them are going to love it? You dont think it will help the economy there?
You dont think it will add more life in the longrun?
Do you think so little of your shard that if 1000 people came that none would stay?
Also, what if the house had to be a small one on whatever shard it was.
See, I think that comment is off based because within this very topic you have several people who said they would play there more if they could have a house.
Whether you see me as often as Atlantic see's me isnt the point.
I would play there too...I would farm gold. I would farm items. I would still PvP.
Its one more person at certain hours playing on your shard. Isnt that what you need?
You would have one more person to steal from. Kill. Fight with/against.
Isnt that what Siege needs right now. Really...what do you care if I place a 7x7 in between trees in a spot where only a 7x7 will fit?
If something like this brought more people to Siege. You dont think some of them are going to love it? You dont think it will help the economy there?
You dont think it will add more life in the longrun?
Do you think so little of your shard that if 1000 people came that none would stay?
Place your house on the shard you play.
If you really love Siege, you won't have a problem giving op your old house and shard.
We don't really need players who only play Siege if their own shard is down.
Give it up, we don't need alot emty holiday cottages on Siege
If you really love Siege, you won't have a problem giving op your old house and shard.
We don't really need players who only play Siege if their own shard is down.
Give it up, we don't need alot emty holiday cottages on Siege
If you want to play Siege so badly, learn to adapt your bank box, make friends...or god forbid...drop your house on your trammy shard.
Seems like a simple fix you can fix today...and not need the deveoplers help to do it...la
We also do not need a lot of empty Lots on Siege Perilous.
UGLY!
Frankly, the only scenario I can see that a second house should work for
ppl who have a house already placed on another shard is that placement
of that 2nd house is made by a character who been on Siege Perilous
for more than 2 years as a veteran reward of more than two years.
The developers can give that as a token house placement tool.
*stares*
Yahaxithonix
The current system works fine...la
B
Bluebottle
Guest
I must be one of the lucky few who hung on to my little grandfathered houses on Siege AND production shards - I have to say - I really do like being able to engage in Siege mode whenever I feel like it and drop back to "normal".
*fixed*...la
M
MoonglowMerchant
Guest
Great question.
I, too, have homes on two shards, and I play both shards more or less equally. My pvp skills are non existant, so on Siege I play a crafter, and I believe I am valued in that role. However I don't want to be a crafter all the time. So I also play Europa where I can play other characters, and yes, I play them in Trammel. It's not a crime to enjoy a different playstyle to that preferred by someone else.
Yes it is...la
B
Bluebottle
Guest
PAH!
ROFL - you really are a scoundrel
all but one of my non-siege houses are in Fel - not even sure if I remember where the Trammel one is come to think of it!!"placing also has 'veteran' status on the chosen shard - that's veteran by uo.com's character definition, ie 700/720 points?"
great idea problem solved.
It might need to be 5 or 6 gm skills though not 20 points here, 30 there, all across the board.
If someone gmed a few skills then they oviously play siege. No one would come to an empty shard gm a few skills just to sell a house for pretty much nothing.
great idea problem solved.
It might need to be 5 or 6 gm skills though not 20 points here, 30 there, all across the board.
If someone gmed a few skills then they oviously play siege. No one would come to an empty shard gm a few skills just to sell a house for pretty much nothing.
M
MerchantAtHome
Guest
Best idea ever?
They would need to make a new status, named Siege Vet.
A Siege Vet can own a second house max size 8x8
1 - The char must be 24 month old
2 - The char must have 5 GM skills
3 - The char have 80 hours of ingame playtime
This may be a useful idea, special if GM's will ban unattented macroing chars.
C
Cat Crimson
Guest
Well the 5x GM thing would have let me out for a house if I had not freed up a slot on another shard, yet I have played on Siege for quite a few years. Sometimes not actively but then that is when I did not play UO at all for personal or technical reasons. I don't have many multi GM characters full stop. Many reasons for this, partly because I play the old fashioned slow way, 2d client, no KR macros, no UOA ever, just manual use of ordinary ingame macros. And before soulstones came along I would sometimes end up changing a character's template and direction and have to work the skills all over again. Here on Siege, Eric's Kitty was originally a bard, then a warrior - now she is a craftswoman and loving it
M
_Myaku_
Guest
could add some form of vet reward that allows house placement on a second shard, could cost like 2 vet reward points. that would stop the people that were doing it just because they can, and you would also need a account that was atleast 1 year old to place your second house. just my thought
I've got a great idea. How about this. If you want a house on Siege. You simply place one here. If you have a house on another shard, put all of your belongings in the trash or in your pack/bank...or even sell off the extras.
Simple enough...la
Simple enough...la
M
_Myaku_
Guest
i agree, i was just trying to satisfy the people in this tread , hoestly ive had a char on LS for years and i find no need for a house, as i have nothing other then regs, pots, and gold that needs storing. since my char only needs one suit and i dont have to bulk jewels and armor.
, hoestly ive had a char on LS for years and i find no need for a house, as i have nothing other then regs, pots, and gold that needs storing. since my char only needs one suit and i dont have to bulk jewels and armor.
"I've got a great idea. How about this. If you want a house on Siege. You simply place one here. If you have a house on another shard, put all of your belongings in the trash or in your pack/bank...or even sell off the extras."
I'm curious as to why you are so opposed to people coming to siege, would'nt you have more people to steal from?
I'm curious as to why you are so opposed to people coming to siege, would'nt you have more people to steal from?
L
Limlight
Guest
Since no one answered this question. I am assuming that you guys have 0 faith in your shard. If your shard was as fun as you make it out to be. You would be ok with 1000 new players and houses and a majority of them would stay.
But the fact that this idea scares/pisses you off...tells me that you guys dont have much faith in your shard.
I would say our lack of faith lies in the carebear trammies who crave and need insurance to play a video game in the safest environment possible. They will come here for a week, not be able to hack it, and then leave a congestion of unused houses in their wake.
We have plenty of faith in the shard. It's the people that would just place a house to have a second house that we don't have faith in.
Siege housing spaces would disappear and many people would just leave vacant plots and not even bother to play the shard...la
Siege housing spaces would disappear and many people would just leave vacant plots and not even bother to play the shard...la
A
Azural Kane
Guest
Sad but true... which is why the shard never gets anywhere.This a road we've been down before, and to be honest, opinion is just as divided on this as on the idea of an additional character on accounts.
On the other hand, about the only thing you'll get this lot to agree on, is that they can't agree on anything
N
Nickster
Guest
I have every faith in my shard, its brilliant! so brilliant i gave up my house i had for 4 years on Europa to move here! the reason people don't like the idea is that although the pop would increase it would become a holiday shard for a lot of those people... Oh i know, nothing much going on on Atlantic today, ill log for an hour on siege... thats how it would go, our population isn't that bad.... i don't pvm, i don't pvp... i steal from other players and i find them every day to steal from so the shard is far from empty... by having it the way it is now it means people commit to the shard... Siege isn't for the fient of heart... most that came and placed the houses would return back to prodo shards when they got sick of having to restock the items they couldn't insure, or get angry at being pk'd... fact of the matter is if you aint willing to settle here then you shouldn't get a house here, for every person that comes and leaves there will be someone who comes and stays... its just the way it is.
I think if a thousand people came here then sure some would stay.... but potentially that may mean 500 other players couldn't have a house here as the people that placed them would have left! and thats with a 50-50 split. IMHO the way it is now is harsh yes... but its the only way... i have a 15x12 plot in a player run town and its great i could have found bigger also if i wanted but thats the great thing! my house is not the best but i had to work for it and sacrifice another house for it.. it was worth it, anyone who truely wants to play here would do the same.
period
I think if a thousand people came here then sure some would stay.... but potentially that may mean 500 other players couldn't have a house here as the people that placed them would have left! and thats with a 50-50 split. IMHO the way it is now is harsh yes... but its the only way... i have a 15x12 plot in a player run town and its great i could have found bigger also if i wanted but thats the great thing! my house is not the best but i had to work for it and sacrifice another house for it.. it was worth it, anyone who truely wants to play here would do the same.
period
People is greedy, 2000 may try to place a house, just because they can, not because they want to play our shard.
Thet will try to block the spots and sell them for insane prices, paid on their shard or for RL cash.
Right now, anyone who want to play Siege can find a nice place for a house. We want to keep it that way.
Maybe you should listen to the ansvar you get, when you can't have the answar you want.
You don't need a house. Perfectly fine to deal with a bank box with most stackables/etc. Is it tight? Yes, very. Doesn't it make the shard unplayable? Nope, not by a longshot.
Only way I'd even come close to saying 'yes' is if in addition to having to 'manually' refresh the 2nd house here, there was some sort of 'character has to play x hours over x days' or the house goes into decay mode, and it would have to be done VERY well...
Say something like has to play at least 20 hours over 7 days. And a minimum of 10 hours cannot be in the house. There would still be macro'ers, but I'm willing to bet most people aren't going to bother with macro'ing for 20 hours a week just to keep a house they have no intention of using.
Only way I'd even come close to saying 'yes' is if in addition to having to 'manually' refresh the 2nd house here, there was some sort of 'character has to play x hours over x days' or the house goes into decay mode, and it would have to be done VERY well...
Say something like has to play at least 20 hours over 7 days. And a minimum of 10 hours cannot be in the house. There would still be macro'ers, but I'm willing to bet most people aren't going to bother with macro'ing for 20 hours a week just to keep a house they have no intention of using.
Steep requirements! Even my house would fall under your rules... I have a hard time logging 20 hours a week, and this is the only shard I play.
Twenty hours a month would be more fair, and use Punk Buster to get rid of the scripters. ( I said scripters, not macro'ers )
There is a certain miner who is also a mage ( by the same name ) who is a scripter... they should be busted. ( Moderators take note of my vauge reference
)
S
Sweeney
Guest
maybe a granny never underestimates meSteep requirements! Even my house would fall under your rules... I have a hard time logging 20 hours a week, and this is the only shard I play.
Twenty hours a month would be more fair, and use Punk Buster to get rid of the scripters. ( I said scripters, not macro'ers )
There is a certain miner who is also a mage ( by the same name ) who is a scripter... they should be busted. ( Moderators take note of my vauge reference
L
Limlight
Guest
See, its thats judgemental crap that annoys me. Have you ever stopped to realize that your skill gain system and 1 character per shard is what keeps your population down?
I have no problem not having insurance. I have been playing since it came into play. I personally hate insurance. But its here, so I use it. Id prefer none.
I also like to play different playstyles so 1 character is annoying to me. Also, before you start on your "1 character builds community" garbage...keep in mind that I have run by plenty of houses on your shard that have like 30 soulstones.
I agree that if housing was implemented it would have to be refreshed every week or two.
Isn't that what soulstones are for though..... So 1 character can play multiple templates and use multiple skills....