Devs.. Open house Plee/Ideas for extra Housing per account

[THP]

Okies lots of land is now free on most shards...and lots of nice little places by roadsides or little coves and little sea bearths are no longer used by players

What say yee mighty devs let everyone have upto 40x40 square of housing land between 2 houses of there choice???

18x18 owners (have spare 22x22)- so can have another 18x18 max or less ****but not 3 or more houses!!!****only 2 houses max***

keep owners 24x24 can have another 16x16 max or less

castle owners 31x31 can have another little 9x9 max or less

Any shard .....Lets fill those little roadside plots and let maybe peeps have a house and a little shop too and make UO look fuller and vibrant again!!

What say yee other of the UO faith......

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

No thanks...la

 

[Viper09]

I'm on the fence about this. No because we want more people to sign up for UO, new players. When the new players come in they will see all the open land, place their houses on them. Tell friends, they come in, get more houses, etc.

That would be the goal

Yes because, well, so much land! lol

 

[Cyrah]

I don't know about the amount you chose per player but I like the idea.

Those who say EA will not give up the revenue for accounts players use to hold houses, please explain why the 90 day deactivation policy still exists.

 

[THP]

And Devs Dont include Siege if u think it may upset that bunch.. I know they are kinda ''keep themselves to themselves peeps'' and why should us normal UO players invade and increase there Siege numbers for the easy kills for them....

Whatever.... La de La...

 

[Turdnugget]

I wouldn't mind another small house. I own a keep atm.

But would like even just a small 7x7 house to store loot/PvP supplies in.

There's plenty of housing spots too on most shards.

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

One house per account seems to be working just fine. Want another house...open another account...la

 

[christy1221]

I would love another house per account.

I think you should only be allowed a small house as a second house.

 

[DanTheMan19]

They would lose money if they did this, some people keep 5 accounts open just for the houses. :<

 

[Hemisphere]

It sounds like a good idea.

Thing is, it'll never happen in the way you're suggesting. EA aren't stupid, they run UO because it makes them money. They know that players love their houses, and are prepared to pay for them.

I would personally like to see this implimented, in the sense that you pay $13/month for your account, plus an extra $13 for every additional house you want to own with that account. At one stage I had like 6 accounts open just for houses, and it's ridiculously inconvenient, seeing as all my characters were on just one of those accounts.

Being able to have full ownership access to multiple houses with a single account would be totally awesome.

 

[T_Amon_from_work]

I could go for this one ... uses ingame mechanics, just need a finite X-by-Y limit on usage.

/signed - FWIW

 

[Duskofdead]

I like the idea 'cept frankly I don't think people already presently residing in a castle should get any secondary home. That should be a tradeoff you mkae for hogging so much space.

 

[Turdnugget]

If they don't give us more than one house per account, instead of forcing people to have house holding accounts, why not allow us to use a collection box for the pixel crap and get rewards for turning stuff in.

Like the original Clean Up Brit back in the day.

 

[Maplestone]

Never-inhabited houses offend my eyes more than empty space.

That said, it would be nice to do some more house-decoration (party because all the decorations accumulated over the years begs more theme houses, party because I'm terrified to renovate one of my existing houses for fear I'll accidently destroy it somehow), but deep down my ambitions are far larger than an extra house - huge customizable estates, ownable dungeons, etc.

 

[Littleblue]

I would personally like to see this implimented, in the sense that you pay $13/month for your account, plus an extra $13 for every additional house you want to own with that account. At one stage I had like 6 accounts open just for houses, and it's ridiculously inconvenient, seeing as all my characters were on just one of those accounts.

Being able to have full ownership access to multiple houses with a single account would be totally awesome.

I like both ideas, but I see this one as the most profitable for EA, and therefore, the most probable to ever be implemented.

I would love to have the ability to add on extra housing slots to an account for an additional monthly fee. Like quoted above, it would be much easier to maintain for the player. I would love to have all my characters have full access to all my houses, without having to add them to any friends' lists or co-ownering them.

Now back to THP's initial idea...perhaps each active account could be allotted a certain number of tiles for housing, able to be split between a maximum of two plots. Now the extra $$ for EA could still come from offering additional housing tiles and plots as add-ons to the account. So for an extra $13, you would have twice as many housing tiles available to be split amongst three or four plots, etc.

Anyways...I like both ideas, and would love to see more options available for housing plots.

 

[The Craftsman]

Hemi is dead right.

EA know exactly how many people refresh accounts on a 3 month cycle just to keep extra housing slots. Give people the option for a second house for free on an account and EA will instantly lose revenue as people close housing only accounts that they no longer need. For this reason it'll never happen.

 

[Flora Green]

I am all for two houses per account. I'm willing to bet that most people wouldn't close their second account, either since they likely have established characters on it that they play.

Second house per account was an e-mail poll question a few years ago. No surprise it was never addresed (that I know of) by any of the devs then.

 

[Valas]

Why not introduce a system were you can purchase holding accounts? That can hold another house for say $15 per 6 month, and increase as more holding accounts are purchased such as:

1st account : $15
2nd account: $20
3rd account: $25

EA would benefit in my eyes as I for sure would purchase something like this to have another house.

 

[Duskofdead]

After thinking it over I agree that adding a 2nd housing slot should be a purchase gamecode.

Reason, I don't think all the people already way overly obsessed with the game holding six accounts open for the purpose of six houses (what someone would need with six, I have no idea, seems a mite OCD and greedy to me to be honest) should overnight be able to have 12 houses at no additional effort.

People who don't really want a second house, won't be placing a second one just because they can, and spamming up every potentially good area for a player's FIRST house with people cramming in 18x18 "nothing but storage" mansions all over the map. Which is what would happen if every account was just able to have a 2nd house for free.

 

[Flora Green]

I don't have a problem paying extra for a second house. Maybe they'll consider that at some point.

 

[THP]

I also agree Hemis idea would be more porfitable with EA...

However how about this newer idea......regardless of what first house u own.

Drum roll.........................A little gold sink idea tooo.................

Each account can purchase a ''new 2nd house placement tool'' with one use only for say 1-10 millo??? Its ''one'' use and u can only place certain houses that are only on the new type tool- maybe only 7x7 or 8x8 style size house/shops??

A player can place his second house, if he chooses to move to another place he as to demolish then rebuy another new 2nd house placement tool if they want another elsewere....

only ideas ??? any other thoughtss???

 

[Wenchkin]

I think the current system is fine. Much as I'd love to save cash on keeping houses in game right now, I think there are simply too many greedy players who will hogg up land space to store all manner of crap. Let's face it, even players who don't need a second house will place one anyway. If you imagine all the house owners grabbing their second plot, there would be precious few spaces available for new players. Especially when players can drop an account and it takes 60 days before it'll start to decay.

Wenchy

 

[Duskofdead]

I think the current system is fine. Much as I'd love to save cash on keeping houses in game right now, I think there are simply too many greedy players who will hogg up land space to store all manner of crap. Let's face it, even players who don't need a second house will place one anyway. If you imagine all the house owners grabbing their second plot, there would be precious few spaces available for new players. Especially when players can drop an account and it takes 60 days before it'll start to decay.

Wenchy

I feel this way too---- 2, 5, 7, 11 year vets of the game should not have 2 different houses in posh spots leaving new joiners or returners to try to place a house in really crappy areas in the middle of nowhere. Though, you could argue, this largely happens anyway because of all the players who maintain multiple accounts.

On a total side note I think that Luna house spots should move on an account rotation where the ownership changes totally every 3-4 months. Because players holding a house idle in Luna, completely dirt plot, with nothing but the sign saying ICQ for offers and people wanting $800 bucks in real life for it... is utterly, utterly ridiculous. That wouldn't be popular with people who currently have Luna houses but eh, boo hoo, they've had all this time to make the mega millions and some are abusing having housing in the most coveted spot in the game.

Back on topic. I like the gamecode idea. I do not like buying 2nd houses with in-game gold. If you do that everyone's going to have a 2nd house, so you might as well just give it away for free. Make a 2nd house a 19.95 one-time game code. Or even 29.95. And perhaps make a 2nd house unplaceable if your present single home is a keep or greater. (Otherwise we wind up right back at the same kind of predicament as with Luna, where there's no space for keeps/large template houses, and people are selling them for real life $$$.)

2nd house free is terrible idea, because as you say, people will waste it. Players who don't use either house or are never on will still be sure to place two gloriously supersized 18x18's just because they can.

 

[THP]

Especially when players can drop an account and it takes 60 days before it'll start to decay.
-------------------------------

Tis actually 90 days........hehhee...

 

[THP]

So maybe it should be a new 2-3-4 year reward choice???...

maybe a second house of mediumn size??? a chioce of a 2nd house placement tool in the menu!!!!!

that would be cool !!!!! and well worth working account age up for again.....instead of stupid ethies etc etc which are kinda worthless now

 

[Duskofdead]

It was suggested earlier up... I'd like something like a maximum area cap. I dunno just throwing this out there, maybe say if you have an 18x18 presently, your 2nd house could be .... 12x12? 14x14?

Some total cap of area tiles you may use for housing. I honestly don't think people already possessing keeps or castles should go crying over not being able to place a secondary 18x18 on the same account.

Even on an aesthetic note, wouldn't it be nice to see a return of some smaller house designs?

 

[THP]

But peeps with keeps and castles can say they dont agree that they cant have another house because if someone as 2 x 1818 on same account they got same storage as the one castle..and more than the keep..

So maybe if it through the board one extra house but only smalish???

 

[Duskofdead]

But peeps with keeps and castles can say they dont agree that they cant have another house because if someone as 2 x 1818 on same account they got same storage as the one castle..and more than the keep..

So maybe if it through the board one extra house but only smalish???

Why would people with castles feel entitled to more than other players? If two 18x18 houses have the same lockdowns as 1 castle then that's equal and castle owners should not get a 2nd house.

Frankly I think the things were always way too huge, took up too much space, and probably could have been allowed only as special rewards or something. The way they let it be free for all a few people got castles early on and those same castles have switched hands mostly via ebay for years.
But that's getting back into old history. The point is, players maintaining a castle are already using up so much land area and lockdowns that I don't see why anyone would lose any sleep if castle ownership was not considered for secondary home ownership on one account.

Of course that sounds silly cause this is all just a theoretical discussion. I'd just be very annoyed if they made it a simple "two houses per account" change and there were people with two castles, or a castle and a Luna house. Because in either case you're taking up a valuable in game resource lots of players would like to have, and shouldn't have to bribe someone $800 IRL to have a chance at accessing. Yet that's how it seems to work right now.

At any rate, before people start feeling too weepy sad for castle or keep owners... they can always demolish their castle and keep if they want two separate houses. You know that old saying about having your cake and eating it too..

 

[Tom_Builder]

Why would people with castles feel entitled to more than other players? If two 18x18 houses have the same lockdowns as 1 castle then that's equal and castle owners should not get a 2nd house.

Frankly I think the things were always way too huge, took up too much space, and probably could have been allowed only as special rewards or something. The way they let it be free for all a few people got castles early on and those same castles have switched hands mostly via ebay for years.
But that's getting back into old history. The point is, players maintaining a castle are already using up so much land area and lockdowns that I don't see why anyone would lose any sleep if castle ownership was not considered for secondary home ownership on one account.

Of course that sounds silly cause this is all just a theoretical discussion. I'd just be very annoyed if they made it a simple "two houses per account" change and there were people with two castles, or a castle and a Luna house. Because in either case you're taking up a valuable in game resource lots of players would like to have, and shouldn't have to bribe someone $800 IRL to have a chance at accessing. Yet that's how it seems to work right now.

At any rate, before people start feeling too weepy sad for castle or keep owners... they can always demolish their castle and keep if they want two separate houses. You know that old saying about having your cake and eating it too..

So you think that if I own a castle that I should be limited to one home and everyone else should have two? Dont I pay that same money as you do? Why not just make the monthly fee more for people who have more then you? I have never paid for anything with real cash other then my monthly fee. I do have a castle, I have owned at least 5 luna houses. I do have so much gold that I really dont even know how much I have. I dont script, hack, or cheat. I earned all my skills the old way, by playing the game. I think that all people should have the same chance to own what any other person can. This even includes you!

Im I lucky to have what I have? No, I earned it all. I have invested over 7 years in to this game. I even quit for 3 years ( I started in 1999) and came back with very little.

Now as for a 2nd house, I would love to see all of us allowed to have a small home on another shard. I play Napa and LS, on LS I live out of my bank. Having a small home would make my life there easier.

Tom

 

[Gellor]

With 40x40, negative. And definitely NOT on the same shard and I'd almost say not including Siege/Mugen.

I'd say 25x25 max. You want a keep or a castle, that is all you get. You want an 18x18, you can place a small 7x7.

I'm semi active on multiple shards... last count was four. On one shard, I live out of a bank which is hard.

 

[Duskofdead]

So you think that if I own a castle that I should be limited to one home and everyone else should have two? Dont I pay that same money as you do? Why not just make the monthly fee more for people who have more then you? I have never paid for anything with real cash other then my monthly fee. I do have a castle, I have owned at least 5 luna houses. I do have so much gold that I really dont even know how much I have. I dont script, hack, or cheat. I earned all my skills the old way, by playing the game. I think that all people should have the same chance to own what any other person can. This even includes you!

Im I lucky to have what I have? No, I earned it all. I have invested over 7 years in to this game. I even quit for 3 years ( I started in 1999) and came back with very little.

Now as for a 2nd house, I would love to see all of us allowed to have a small home on another shard. I play Napa and LS, on LS I live out of my bank. Having a small home would make my life there easier.

Tom

Correct, if you take up an huge swath of the open land out there with a castle, and you have the same amount of storage as two 18x18's anyhow, you do not need a second house, and giving you one would be an unfair benefit to you---- not the other way around, that you'd be somehow left out and disadvantaged if other non-castle owners could have a 2nd house and you couldn't.

The area cap was not my idea alone... it's mentioned a few times in this thread. I think the idea of someone a castle and then a huge 18x18 in a nice spot is awful. I think it should be either/or. Period.

As I said this is all theoretical and most likely no change is ever going to happen either way. However if I were head dev, yes, you have or want a castle, you relinquish the ability to have a 2nd house on that account so long as you are the owner of a castle. I don't see that as unreasonable and frankly only a greedy or selfish person would flip out and think they're getting SO SCREWED that they have a castle and can't add another 18x18 house in addition. But that's kind of stating the obvious, because castle owners have always been greedy and selfish, like back in the days when everyone was waiting on IDOCS just to place a small template one-room house like a 4x4 while every bit of open forest around Brit and good spawn points like the swamps were filled with castles and keeps. If I had been head dev back then rather than having players resort to paying hundreds of bucks online just to own any home at all during the housing crunch, I would have given everyone two weeks to clear out their castles, refunded them, let them get a free housing deed and early placement in teh newly cleared areas with the castles gone. You could have fit 10, hell, 14 or more small houses in the space a castle takes up back in the days housing space was down to nil.

So yeah, now, hearing castle owners whine about how they'd be screwed not getting to place a second huge house, boils my blood a bit. You wanted, and got, the hugest possible bit of property in the game, and here you are, all upset that in a theoretical discussion you might be excluded from a system that would let people with 18x18 place another small or medium house... which still wouldn't even bring them up to the storage space you already have. Seriously, get a sense of proportion.

 

[Wenchkin]

Especially when players can drop an account and it takes 60 days before it'll start to decay.
-------------------------------

Tis actually 90 days........hehhee...

LOL, I went to type 90 too... Wenchy having a senior moment (again).

Wenchy

 

[RD Gumbie]

I would like to see just 7x7s or 8x8s and they have to be in areas smaller than a 12x12 area or something, I want these places used:

THP wrote:
lots of nice little places by roadsides or little coves and little sea bearths are no longer used by players

what I dont want to see is people using 7x7s to block other placement and stuff like that. So if they were able to designate areas along roads and coast lines then im all for it but they cant even figure out the return to britainia houses so I wouldnt count on this.

 

[Flora Green]

Two houses per account on seperate shards is my preference with no size restrictions. That would allow me an 18x18 on my home shard and an 18x18 if I so desired on a secondary shard.

 

[Karthcove]

No need to fill up the housing space, leave it as is - just increase every houses storage space to that of a castle.

 

[J0KING]

Have to agree with this one... if I remember correctly the original reason behind one house per account was due to the limited amount of land... Now that more land has become available that need is no longer there.

As far as the loss in revenue though... well... it could go either way. I for one have multiple accounts with homes all around the same mountain... There is a possibility of merging a housing account... but... there is the possibility of keeping that account open in the event another house falls near that mountain

 

[Tom_Builder]

Correct, if you take up an huge swath of the open land out there with a castle, and you have the same amount of storage as two 18x18's anyhow, you do not need a second house, and giving you one would be an unfair benefit to you---- not the other way around, that you'd be somehow left out and disadvantaged if other non-castle owners could have a 2nd house and you couldn't.

The area cap was not my idea alone... it's mentioned a few times in this thread. I think the idea of someone a castle and then a huge 18x18 in a nice spot is awful. I think it should be either/or. Period.

As I said this is all theoretical and most likely no change is ever going to happen either way. However if I were head dev, yes, you have or want a castle, you relinquish the ability to have a 2nd house on that account so long as you are the owner of a castle. I don't see that as unreasonable and frankly only a greedy or selfish person would flip out and think they're getting SO SCREWED that they have a castle and can't add another 18x18 house in addition. But that's kind of stating the obvious, because castle owners have always been greedy and selfish, like back in the days when everyone was waiting on IDOCS just to place a small template one-room house like a 4x4 while every bit of open forest around Brit and good spawn points like the swamps were filled with castles and keeps. If I had been head dev back then rather than having players resort to paying hundreds of bucks online just to own any home at all during the housing crunch, I would have given everyone two weeks to clear out their castles, refunded them, let them get a free housing deed and early placement in teh newly cleared areas with the castles gone. You could have fit 10, hell, 14 or more small houses in the space a castle takes up back in the days housing space was down to nil.

So yeah, now, hearing castle owners whine about how they'd be screwed not getting to place a second huge house, boils my blood a bit. You wanted, and got, the hugest possible bit of property in the game, and here you are, all upset that in a theoretical discussion you might be excluded from a system that would let people with 18x18 place another small or medium house... which still wouldn't even bring them up to the storage space you already have. Seriously, get a sense of proportion.

And it boils my blood that you whine about people who own a castle. Why dont you do like us castle owns did, and earn yourself one. I bet you think my bankbox should be smaller too, just because it's full of checks.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

I think the Devs should make anyone that reaches the ten year mark eligible for a second house on their account...at no extra cost, and everyone else can purchase this for a one time fee of $99.99.

 

[J0KING]

I think the Devs should make anyone that reaches the ten year mark eligible for a second house on their account...at no extra cost, and everyone else can purchase this for a one time fee of $99.99.

Not sure about the fee... but that is a good idea that you have...

Why not make that a vet reward for those who were around before the housing restriction? Having one extra house is a rather nice perk for being a loyal customer for that long...

 

[Lore Master]

i have requested a simular idea to this this several times i feel we can sure use an extra house per account more land with housing cant hurt either.

 

[Snakeman]

A 2nd House on another shard of your choice would be great. If you do not play another shard then you are limited to a 7x7 on your main shard.
Thoughts ?

 

[Andrasta]

Not sure about the fee... but that is a good idea that you have...

Why not make that a vet reward for those who were around before the housing restriction? Having one extra house is a rather nice perk for being a loyal customer for that long...

I like the idea of a vet reward for very long term customers (10+ years) but I don't want to see any size or shard restrictions.

 

[Fink]

How about..

..have about 5000 secures per account, can be divided up between characters as seen fit by the player. eg: you own a castle on one char you can't have houses on other characters, or you can have 5 houses of 1000 secures each, or split it seven ways, or three; however you like. Basically this means you can't have multiple castles on one account, but you can outfit each character with their own smaller abode if you like. The +20% or +40% storage bonuses would still work on your total secures, plus each character would be co-owned to each other's places.

Just ideas, really.

The actual implementation would be horribly complicated, plus as stated already people might just close accounts if they could have more houses on one account.

 

[THP]

SOME INTERESTING THOUGHTS....

It would make a great ''loyal to UO gift reward''..

3 years is good amount of time to have earned a second small house

5 years for a second meduim house

8 years for a second large house

What doth thee say to this?????

 

[Turdnugget]

I would like another house on another shard, or the same shard for having played X amount of years and been a customer.

Even if it were a small house... or AT LEAST give us more storage =/

Without having to pay $$ for it. I mean seriously...what harm is there for giving us some more free storage? Free storage means people will play more so they can fill it up!

 

[Redxpanda]

No thanks...la

Are you saying no to something that could bring more players to siege?

Thats why i don't play there much anymore. Restricting people to one house per account leaves them choosing one shard over the next. There are many people who played multiple shards when they could have one house on pacific and a small one on siege (like me). When they made me choose, i chose pacific. If i could get that small house back, i would play more on that shard.

Now i am not saying go all willy nilly with the housing rules but it should be allowed under certain circumstances with serious restrictions to prevent abuse...But it should happen.