Ea/Mystic Needs a heads up .... in my opinion one long over due.

[Lady Storm]

In the past Ea has put out mulitple new expantions, each was given forth as the new wave of UO. Sadly each has come with multi flaws, changes that were not fully working, and loses to many things players loved about the game. This sent players flying for the account page to end their UO playing days. Much to the games loss.
I'm a beta player from the dawn of UO. This is the worst I personally have seen the shards as a whole look since the early days of fel (population/house wise).
I dont speak flippantly about this fact we all can see, yes Chessy,Atl, Cats are still booming with players but i have seen the underside of them at hours when we all remember going on hunts the shard is dead but for the few straglers who sleep at luna bank.
UO is facing a new expantion in SA very soon to come out and it is with great hopes that new players will join us......... but what about the player who has stayed with EA through thick and thin?? Oh, yes the new player who gets the NEW game pack will get gifts beyond their dreams but what of "us"?
I have a few idea's I would like the dev team to consider:

1.) Reset the accounts back to 1 house per shard per account (no yelling)
Reason is 2 fold, 1 This will give old players the chance to place that house they wanted on siege/mugen also ending the dev's long drawn out thinking of how to do it. The small bonus would be for the old player to place that coveted house on the shard they go to to play but cant have a home now (no jeering you know you go to atl to do factions/pvp!) Secondly the players who do have homes on a few shard could get that bigger home with out the haunting guilt of loosing one home cause they NEED that bigger place. Face it 1 house per account was one of the biggest reason for some players leaving the game. That house resizing has its points but what many hoped for didnt come with it. We who have smalls and so much room around us now suffer cause to make it bigger we will loose our grandfathered home somewhere else, it wasnt fair. I as with many have paid for this game for years and to get slaped for it is not my idea of being wanted by EA.
Money is tight in this ecconomy if you want people to spend on a game give them some reason to do so.

2. Skill - Taming open the stables !! Add worth to taming
What tamer hasnt had in recient times yelled "I NEED MORE SLOTS!!" In a nut shell 14 spots with all the new pets pending in SA and old ones we love and dont want to part with. How the bloody hadies do you stable a Greater Dragon when all 14 slots are full??? is the cry I have heard so many times. Opening the stable which is account based should help greatly to the ecconomy of UO. The average tamer took months to gain his or her skill only to be twarted by the past Dev teams in killing any worthwile selling of pets till recient times with the advent of Greater Dragons and the coveted Dread Warhorse. ** Yea you must keep one of your precious slots open!!! you cant exchange that Greater Dragon with out it for yoru mare. Still though you stable your mare and get out your trusty Greater dragon..... and walk. Whats wrong with this picture?? (yes i can hear the warriors or pvp'rs yelling NO dont give them their mares!!!) ok i can see their point but i do have a solution that 99% of us agree on the etherials should not count to your pet slot count!! or better yet ;et me ride my Greater Dragon!!
** second idea would be to make pets forsale deedable. if say you tame 2 Greater Dragons and want ot sell one you would go to the stable person and get a claim ticket to sell that would place the pet(any pet for this ) able to be placed on a vendor available to anyone at any time. New market would open up for tamers to make $$ again.

3.) Loot
Be it from a treasure map or a SoS, critter or quest there is a glut of garbage!!
I would bet if you polled the populace of UO you would hear better loot not more junk just some better stuff... As a T-Hunter I have seen chests so stuffed with this junk! I mean junk, no not the regs, gems, scrolls, but the useless armor and weps in one is over board. Id be happy with 1 or 2 pieces of the better stat stuff then the 99 pieces of lag making junk you get in a lvl 5 or 6 chest. not counting the semi artie you get of course.
** quest items not lockable and stuck in packs return them to the old way. the cat is way out of the bag and well quite frankly to make them stick to your bag is anoyance! Many dont have time to complete a quest in one sitting and like to wait a day or two and do other things and that little item you think wont get in the way DOES! I for one would like ot be able ot take that ticket and put in bank for time when i can do it.)

4.) Bods more plz!
Tinker, carpentery, fletching, inscription.. to name a few yes we have heartwood to do some but to be honest make more trade based bod getting. * idea for new system based on old one would be something like this:
**example** Tailoring: the rewards are getting old. This small addon of a secondery bod system would revamp it and add more content to the learning of the skill. 20 sandals poof a new bod. Just by adding a bod for lets say the sm. stretched hide deed 20x would give you a new gift with incraments of 20x 50 x 100x the item needed to fill it. There is plenty of things ppl would covet in the data base already so NO NEW ART would be needed perhaps a color added to make it special is all and you could add in a bod that would collect those gifts too to get a bigger prize and so on to getting perhaps an artie! hey a girl can dream... But you get the drift. *idea the spring collection items as say top prizes the kitty with regs for inscription , the basket for tailoriing.etc...

5.) Wow take a lesson from the dev over there

Yes i know i said the W word... get it out of your system and calm down. You have to admit they have a good thing going over 13 million accounts active so they are doing someting right. I have to admit i play it and find many things id love to see put to use in uo. Not out right copy but the ideas they have is something UO should use.
Like:
The pvp system to name one. Get over it all you who stand there and want to kil any blue who daes to step foot in fel. You call them Trammies well you made them that way!
If not for the constant ganking an thiefs who steal you blind no decient home owner wanted to stay behind and loose value and items they worked hard for.
I want to see a toggle system that wil let people who want a fight fight and let the rest of us alone. Fel needs a revamp! put the trees back make it a livable place and open to houseing for the new player as well. Make a tournie type ye ol english style where fighting is encouraged perhaps in a off relm world where fields of 2, 3, of more sides can be formed of players to hold and keep while battleing for supremacy.

Basicly Money is Tight and well UO is my home game a few well thougth out ideas cant hurt to look into. Who knows a few more players might not hurt as well.
For all you detractors who want to shoot me down, think for a second not about yourself but the game you so velamently like to hate when it doesnt do what you want. WE need new life poured into UO. SA will I hope be that second life but these small changes would enhance play for the old and new. For once give the old player who has served the game well a gift before you hand the new guy all the goodies when SA comes out. It's a small thing to think about the vet player who has been here throught thick and thin.

 

[Mairut]

I agree with everything except 1(and 2)...its not that I have 2 houses but many people will not want to give up that one house for a bigger one. Check out the homes and castles section...some people have 2 houses....one for their crafters and one to show off. One for a garden/vendor house and one for a "home"(like with kitchens and tv's and stuff).
I'm not trying to speak for them, but I could understand if they wouldn't want to give up that extra home just to have one big one.

What would be cool....
2 homes. One account. No space between them. Make it so they could connect the homes but still have 2 seperate ones.

That would be AWESOME.

As far as 2....the fun part about being a tamer is deciding which animals to keep, which to throw out and how many slots you need open to sell stuff in brit. But only in brit cause luna doesn't have enough space to line up 7 horses to sell.
Being able to buy animals on vendors (and trained ones too) would be cool. I'm just not sure about having as many animals as you want in the stables.

Edit: Your fel idea...I don't like it. If you don't want to be ganked or outright stolen from, then don't go to fel. Newbs don't need to be in fel, they'd probably just leave after the first several ganks anyways. It doesn't need to be livable for everyone.
And the tourney thing....I thought that sounded a bit like factions.

Fel also doesn't need to be changed because most reds (that I know) won't keep attacking you after the first kill. I'm sorry its scary for some people, but their honestly isn't much to be afraid of. Go to fel naked if your worried about losing something.
I actually had a red attack me a month or two ago and then after I got ressed he gave me a lot of shinies ^.^ .
Anyways...leave fel alone, its fine as it is.

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

If you want a house on Siege. Place one and deal with your other house falling.

1 house per account...period...la

 

[Belanos/Icicle]

I only read the first point, but if we could have a house on every shard, all the rich players with multiple accounts would have multiple large houses on every shard. This would certainly make the world look more populated, but all it would really do is drive house prices to the sky for the people who actually play this shard, since all the good spaces would be owned by wealthy xsharders who haven't even logged onto a given shard in six months.
If this were reimplemented, they would at least have to readd the three-day manual refresh on every house an account owns (aside from one main one somewhere).

 

[Siteswap]

On the housing issue, EA are well aware that some people (a lot of people I think) keep multiple accounts open just for extra housing. For EA to give more than one house per account would be simply asking people to close accounts and therefore the revenue that is associated with those accounts. Financial suicide, which they are simply not going to do.

Siteswap

55050 The Chase

 

[Olahorand]

It must not be one house per account per shard, but houses on two different shards would help also. Maybe make this a Veteran reward for older players and enable only for players with double housing the reduction of decay protection to 30 days, after the payment stopped)?

Taming I fully agree. This is also a section, in which we have had so many discussions and finally got ignored until now.

Treasure hunters are now Trash Diggers.

Soulstones - why are they how they are? Not reusable by other accounts if skills are flushed, not being engraveable to determine, which belongs to whom?

Customer service? Payment options? Pricing for European players? UOGamecodes.com with all it's limitations and malfunctions? (If players want to spend money and they can't, something is seriously wrong. There are so many working Internet shops, and uogamecodes.com is by far the worst I ever have used.)

It's all the little annoyances together which make one player after the other leave the game. This sums up, and even more, since there is almost no "fresh blood".

We love this game, but we would really like to be loved as customers as well, before the love dies.

*Salute*
Olahorand

 

[hawkeye_pike]

I, too, started playing in 1997. Some expansions really had flaws we still suffer from today, and unfortunately those flaws cannot easily be reverted. However, I must admit that 90% of the changes added a lot to the gaming experience in UO and enhanced the game in a very good way.

Basically, most of the changes were good. I expect the UO developers to add new and exciting content, and slowly but steadily try to diminish the problems UO has today.

 

[Maximus Neximus]

I'd like to have 2 houses per account total. It'd definitely get me to play Siege or another shard more often.

As for #5, no way in hell. Fel is the original landmass. If you want to choose who you fight, stay in Trammel and war whoever you like. If you enjoy open pvp, which not very many other mmos offer, then Fel UO is for you. What would be the point of having Fel and Tram being the same ruleset?

If not for the constant ganking an thiefs who steal you blind no decient home owner wanted to stay behind and loose value and items they worked hard for.

Insurance. Items that can't be insured or blessed that are valuable, why carry them around in your backpack in the first place in Fel, Tram, etc? If you're referring to power/stat scrolls; Risk vs Reward.

Make a tournie type ye ol english style where fighting is encouraged perhaps in a off relm world where fields of 2, 3, of more sides can be formed of players to hold and keep while battleing for supremacy.

Factions?... If not, form up some guilds in Trammel and have a rp war there where others can't interfere. Make up your own conditions and rewards.

 

[Mairut]

If you want a house on Siege. Place one and deal with your other house falling.

1 house per account...period...la

Lol...I don't know if this was directed at me or the OP...

But to clarify what I said...and what I meant was completely different from what I said

What would be cool....
If you already have 2 homes on 1 account...No space between them & make it so they could connect the homes but still have 2 seperate ones.

Fixed!

I either need more coffee or more sleep

 

[NBG]

1) Housing is just fine right now, lets be honest the only good thing about UO right now is housing. It is good to see some open spot for once because it would make it easier for returning or god forbid new players to find housing spots easily.

2) Stable spot is kind of lacking when you think about all the cool fun creatures out there to be had. Heck even for non tamers the stable slot needs to be increased to allow for that one of a kind "Greater Chicken" or special fun pets from different events.

3) Loot from monsters could be better but loot should never be easy to get. I do like to see rewards from regular monsters.

• For example, better quest systems that provides decent rewards but would require obtaining special drops from different monsters
• The quest should provide enough decent rewards so that even a new player can get a decent set of armor/weapons depending on what quests is taken
• The quest reward items should be bound to the player that completes it. Lets face, why do you think WoW is so popular? It gives people a sense of accomplishment. Player earn their item and no you CAN NOT sell it!
• I mean wouldn't it be fun if a quest require items from treasure maps digs or MIBs?

4)BoDs are fun and all but I really think it should be changed to a tier system
where don't get a magic hammer but its an end reward. A change to get a high end weapon/armor of that type where you get a set amount of stat points and tailor the weapon/armor to your need but only if you complete a whole tier of bod for that weapon type/ armor type. Of course higher the tier lower the chance of getting the bod.

5) PvP systems used in WoW would never work in UO just due to the differences between the two games. The talk about ganking and inbalance between templates exist in ANY game. One format from WoW that could work well in UO is an area where 2 teams with same number of players and put into a area where they would have to either capture the flag or hold the most strong points in the time allowed. That way PvP is based on strategy and team work and there is no way you can cry about how you are always out numbered.

 

[Bomb Bloke]

One house per shard per account? Siege would run out of room in a day or so.

We don't really need more stable slots. I've no idea how people manage to fill all theirs. I mean, I've got various "silly" pets in mine (such as spare pack/fire beetles for "when people want them", plus lots of critters that are just not practical in combat), and they're still not full.

 

[Harb]

In the past Ea has put out mulitple new expantions, each was given forth as the new wave of UO. Sadly each has come with multi flaws, changes that were not fully working, and loses to many things players loved about the game. This sent players flying for the account page to end their UO playing days. Much to the games loss.

Having been around forever as well, and fully understanding your frustration and that of others, I tend to lean more toward Haweye's earlier post and viewpoint - that overall, despite the glitches/ blunders/ etc, taken as a whole, the game is the best it's ever been. That doesn't mean a helluva lot to the guy who was pissed when ganked by smack talking teenies consistently while mining, or dismayed when folks stopped coming to his/ her player run town, or when bards were nerfed back in pub 16, or the guy who felt keeping up with the Jones important but could neither compete or afford powerscrolls, or the solo or small group player who could not get a decent stab at a peerless, all became overcome by frustration. But if you divorce the emotions of it all, we've come a long, long way. If the 97/98 "base" would give it a go today, we'd retain a lot more of them than we did then, but without a marketing plan or shelved releases - that has a low % chance to happen.

This is the worst I personally have seen the shards as a whole look since the early days of fel (population/house wise).

Doh, in the early days of Fel we were in a boomtown! Based on military reassignment and consequent connection speeds, the Mrs and I had to switch shards fairly early on, very much to our dismay. You couldn't find a 7x7 spot anywhere, and houses didn't begin falling for years. But to your point, yes, populations are down, as is currently being dicussed in other active threads. Be it real life considerations, frustrations, a lure elsewhere, or whatever one's individual reasoning, there will always be some attrition within the player base of any product, even during growth stages. We have an outstanding environment, complex systems, unparelled depth and a solid fan base. OK, graphics, cheats, exploits, bugs, Roxxer -roos, something loved that's now lost, and so forth - it happens. We've been here 12 years, and if EA keeps us moving as we are, we'll be here another 12 - lord willing (some of us are getting older!). The trick for EA is to generate adequate revenue to maintain an investment by those of us who do enjoy their product, and compensate natural attrition to ensure said level is maintained. It's the latter half of the sentence that concerns me, and walks me back to my earlier comment regarding marketing. We're seeing some new players on our shard, not a lot. Certainly nothing similar to ages past. Organizationally, if theres a refusal to market, we're likely in trouble, now or in the near future. And they're refusing to market. It's a big source of my problem with Mythic as a "parent," I'm still very confident in our team, but not at all in the interim headquarters.

UO is facing a new expantion in SA very soon to come out and it is with great hopes that new players will join us....

Apologies, but I don't get that "feel" at all. In fact, my "interpretation" of what has "officially" been said by EA/My folks, is that adding new players is NOT on the radar at all, with the exception of word of mouth advertising to overcome natural attrition. If you or anyone can point out something to the contrary, I'd be greatly appreciative.

1.) Reset the accounts back to 1 house per shard per account (no yelling)

I'm with you to some extent, yet opposed in some ways also. I think Seige/ Mugen house placement deeds, as a "second" or added house (with no other restrictions), should be a vet reward at around the decade mark. I'm suppose I'm not strongly opposed to the ability to purchase a deed (see earlier comment regarding revenue generation) to enable placement anywhere, but do have concerns. Even with only 10k active accounts, which BTW we greatly exceed (albeit many "active" accounts aren't overly "active"), no shard can accept the potential "demand." Overcrowding house spots is adverse to anyone attempting to begin anywhere, and consequently isn't a good thing. We've (a term I often use, my wife and I play, as have two of our kids) had houses on seven shards over time, and to be honest, can't really play more than one, though we have tried. As best I can tell (i.e. most unscientific), considering after market sales, EA would probably have to price at about $30-40. In combination, this would give you the opportunity to try Seige for free, or alternate shards for a fee. Before you toss out that hard earned dough, I strongly recommend you try playing a "second" shard just to get a feel for time restraints/ considerations.

2. Skill - Taming open the stables !! ...What tamer hasnt had in recient times yelled "I NEED MORE SLOTS!!"

Alright, truth be told we maintain 4 tamers at 120, so I get the attraction, but continue to believe, and believe strongly, that ever since pub 16 tamers are tremendously overpowered. Further, given viable alternative, we'll play other characters, but again, truth be told, our tamers are played a lot. By way of "roots," I'm a warrior, then mage, then avid bard, then "hodgepodge" kinda guy through today. But as they say, whatever floats your boat, and tamers comprise a fleet. I agree, add five pet slots for every character. Let's face it, 5 pets don't require the server space 20 weapons in the chest do, though I don't think thats an issue anymore. I don't "like" the deed idea - sorry, tame it, sell it, whatever, but remain within the "lines."

3.) Loot

This one is a Pandora's box for sure, and certainly needs more than a little dev "love." We "used to" T-Hunt also and absolutely loved it, but its been about 5 years I'd guess since our last chest. The issue really is a larger one, items accross the boards would best fit "where" a player is, though I can postulate no method for an AI to determine and incorporate this. A couple things I would like to see that seem reasonable with the advent of embuing, are a SA client filter that visually queues overall intensity and for the 2d client an intensity "line." Filters enabling the player to set visually displayed "by level" loot only would be nice, by this I mean if a corpse or chest contains items with properties below a player selected "line" of for example 300%, items would not "appear" on the corpse to the player at all.

4.) Bods more plz! Tinker, carpentery, fletching, inscription.. to name a few yes we have heartwood to do some but to be honest make more trade based bod getting.

Theres an active thread up ATM that proposes an alternative, take a look if you have time. I'd make a couple overarching comments, expand to include all "major" crafting skills, consolidate systems - bods/ Heartwood, make it "point based," as crafting is "nugwork" and when we do it, we're not looking for "random" anything - we as players are "working" by God and want appropriate return! Our Union will be in touch. Alternatively, the Pres will get ya.

5.) Wow, take a lesson from the dev over there...Yes i know i said the W word... get it out of your system and calm down. You have to admit they have a good thing going over 13 million accounts active so they are doing someting right. I have to admit i play it and find many things id love to see put to use in uo. Not out right copy but the ideas they have is something UO should use.
Like:

Proverbial, hmmm..... Personally, I'm not ego-averse, and we've had our fair share of those over the years. The shoe has fit many on our team (Hiya Drac), for me, sobeit/ oh well. I'm not sure if it remains Gospel, but for a long, long time, being on our team was a rit of passage to "anywhere" really. But numbers have meaning, and WoW certainly has them - we don't. Nor for that matter does Mythic (spits - couldn't help myself sorry (I still love you Jacobs)), or EA. For discussion, apologies for the fourth time but I have no knowlege of WoW other than cursory info from offspring and their numbers (old board gamer here, punch card programming, nothing other than UO for 12 years).

The pvp system to name one. Get over it all you who stand there and want to kil any blue who daes to step foot in fel. You call them Trammies well you made them that way!...I want to see a toggle system that wil let people who want a fight fight and let the rest of us alone. Fel needs a revamp! put the trees back make it a livable place and open to houseing for the new player as well. Make a tournie type ye ol english style where fighting is encouraged perhaps in a off relm world where fields of 2, 3, of more sides can be formed of players to hold and keep while battleing for supremacy.

I get where you've been and where you're coming from, and in measure again agree, but also disagree. By way of history, I did trans-Pacific connectivity testing before there was a closed beta, and stuck around for all the steps we've taken together since. There was great diliberation, extensive by any standard, regarding what to do about non-consentual PvP, which frankly began killing our game trying before getting off the starting blocks. A guy named Gordan "Tyrant" Walton finally made the "hard call" behind the scenes, and the Tram/ Fel split as a solution is something still argued and "lived with" today. I'm sure that I, and it's up to you and anyone reading, to determine what you might have done elsewise given the circumstances/ information available at the time. I was a staunch advocate of a PvP toggle at the time, we had enough info on EQ to know where they were going, but my and others voices were not "loud" enough. While I disagreed, I did and continue to support his decision. It worked. Where I think we collectively erred was in pub 16, though Bryan "Tajima" Walker (can you say "Wii"?), who made this call, remains IMO the best "lead" we've ever had. Bryan supported the concept of "risk v. rewards," meaning enhancements within the Fel rules set for those participating. Again, IMO, we rewarded "wrongful" behavior, and the caveat it would be "relooked," akin to every "relook" projected in advance, never materialized and was OBE. All said, however, Fel is our PvP "toggle" or "switch." The only "error" lies in things there that aren't elsewhere. Easily fixable - but it won't be. As for quality of PvP, many will disagree for some reaons that are actually valid, my opinion is that overalll, like the game itself, PvP is more diverse and complete than it ever has been - sans cheating.

For all you detractors who want to shoot me down, think for a second not about yourself but the game you so velamently like to hate when it doesnt do what you want. WE need new life poured into UO. SA will I hope be that second life but these small changes would enhance play for the old and new...

I don't object in any way with how you feel, only you can make that call. And I'm not trying in any way to "shoot you down." But sincerely, things aren't as bad as they may appear, other than subscriptions - which is both an advantage and disadvantage. What we're missing is a strategic direction ( a leadership issue), most of which is organizational (UO under Mythic, marketing separate of all studios within EA). But if you want to "maintain," think of ways for EA to see revenue generated from UO and all we "nugs," so long as that occurs, we'll have a shot!

 

[JC the Builder]

The pvp system to name one. Get over it all you who stand there and want to kil any blue who daes to step foot in fel. You call them Trammies well you made them that way!
...................
I want to see a toggle system that wil let people who want a fight fight and let the rest of us alone.

WOW's PVP system consists mostly of Battlegrounds and Arenas. The toggle you mention does not exist. You are either on a server which allows global combat or doesn't.

Going out and copying another game doesn't work. It never works out and usually hurts the game. Plus you risk alienation of your existing playerbase.This has been a bullet point of several MMO lectures.

 

[Beer_Cayse]

Some comments although you make some good points in here.

1.) Reset the accounts back to 1 house per shard per account (no yelling).

While I believe 1 house/account is too little, how many players REALLY would benefit from your suggestion? Alternative in quantity to your idea is this ...
Each account has a pool of 'n' number of houses they can place. Let's say 12. Now, if I wanted to place 3 houses on LA in an area next to each other, I have 9 left to place elsewhere. So I can plunk one on Origin, maybe a 7x7 on ATL or something. <shrug>

2. Skill - Taming open the stables !! Add worth to taming

Even my non-tamer characters could have used more stable slots! Many times I wished my miner could have his firebeetle and 3 packies in tow AND stable them! With 0/0/0 in the tamer skills that allow more slots, he was essentially screwed.

3.) Loot - Be it from a treasure map or a SoS, critter or quest there is a glut of garbage!!

I couldn't care less about the armor drops! Seriously - it is junk and has been essentially since AOS. It's only worthwhile for enhancing, but I had a smith that made better stuff than 80% of the drops - without runics or ASH!

Scrap armor/weapon drops and I would not miss them.

4.) Bods more plz!
Tinker, carpentery, fletching, inscription.. to name a few yes we have heartwood to do some but to be honest make more trade based bod getting.

Agreed ... I'd love to see this.

5.) Wow take a lesson from the dev over there

Can't comment ... have never played levelers once Empiriana died and I left DAoC. However ...

I want to see a toggle system that wil let people who want a fight fight and let the rest of us alone. Fel needs a revamp! put the trees back make it a livable place and open to houseing for the new player as well.

I could deal with that! No problem from this ex-player.

Now, add to that ...

MARKET PRESENCE!!!

This should be very clear ...
EA: if you REALLY want UO to continue being the oldest MMORPG on the market, get the product out on the shelves, trade rags, TV and magazine ads.

You have UO and a host of other games in the MMORPG stable ... use it your advantage! Bundle memberships or something! Use the creative marketing genius you use on console stuff in this genre as well.

 

[Setnaffa]

There's nothing new in this post that hasn't already been dicussed in great detail at one time or another over the last 5 years.

Regardless, I'll comment on two of the points.

1. Housing. A better solution would be to give each account 648 tile points for housing. 648 tile points would get you 1 castle/hold/keep, 2 18x18's, or 8 9x9's. Let the user decide if they want alot of houses on many shards or just 1 or 2 large houses.

2. BOD's are OK, but recipes and imbuing are the new direction. Before adding BODs to tinkering, carpentry, or fletching, let's see how imbuing works with SA.

 

[Harb]

1. Housing. A better solution would be to give each account 648 tile points for housing. 648 tile points would get you 1 castle/hold/keep, 2 18x18's, or 8 9x9's. Let the user decide if they want alot of houses on many shards or just 1 or 2 large houses.

You're applying the term "better" to an opinion. Upon first look, I don't think it's a preferable direction, at least IMO. It's not a "pure" comparison to equate a castle to two 18x18s, the latter provide a lot of flexibility, the former does not. There is also a large "competitive" gap. Going this route could legitimately be interpreted by the owners of larger structures as biased. As you mention, there's nothing new here

 

[Old Man of UO]

I just want to know who Mystic is.

As Setnaffa said, there is nothing new is this post. Well, I thought Mystic was kinda new.

 

[Setnaffa]

You're applying the term "better" to an opinion. Upon first look, I don't think it's a preferable direction, at least IMO. It's not a "pure" comparison to equate a castle to two 18x18s, the latter provide a lot of flexibility, the former does not. There is also a large "competitive" gap. Going this route could legitimately be interpreted by the owners of larger structures as biased. As you mention, there's nothing new here

Well of course the word "better" is an opinion. "Better" is a subjective term; much like the rest of this thread. I consider it better so that is why I'll use the word "better". If you have a "better" idea, let's hear it.

Yes, you can compare a castle to 2 18x18's; I have no idea what you mean by "pure". A comparison is a comparison as you went on to show in the rest of your sentence.

Castle: Status Symbol, Lot's of storage, only 1 location, not customizable
2 18x18's: Just a little bit of a status symbol, Lot's of Storage per shard, two locations, customizable.
8 9x9's: Not a status symbol, very little storage per shard, multiple locations/shards, customizable.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

The problem I have with changing the 1 house per account period, is this, and I concede it may no longer be an issue, but I do see these stupid empty foundations everywhere .....

Real Life Currency players placing houses on every shard to consume all the possible housing slots so they can in turn sell them for real Life Currency.

Now if they did implement one house per account per shard, then I would prefer them to also reinstate the Houses being refreshed. Decay a house over a week's time or maybe a month but decay the house.

On the other hand, they could perhaps simply allow all the housing you want in Felluca, Siege Perilous etc (the PvP places). As in unlimited number of houses in PvP rule sets and they do NOT count vs the 1 house per account per TRAMMEL shard.

 

[Beer_Cayse]

... On the other hand, they could perhaps simply allow all the housing you want in Felluca, Siege Perilous etc (the PvP places). As in unlimited number of houses in PvP rule sets and they do NOT count vs the 1 house per account per TRAMMEL shard.

Ohhh! This I like! Good choice.

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

On the other hand, they could perhaps simply allow all the housing you want in Felluca, Siege Perilous etc (the PvP places). As in unlimited number of houses in PvP rule sets and they do NOT count vs the 1 house per account per TRAMMEL shard.

Huh? So what, a bunch of Trammies can drop houses, just to drop a house to have a nice little safe area, on a shard or a facet where they don't even play?

No just no, but hell no...la

 

[Harb]

Well of course the word "better" is an opinion. "Better" is a subjective term; much like the rest of this thread. I consider it better so that is why I'll use the word "better". If you have a "better" idea, let's hear it.

As one of our moderators here, sorry, and this may be a flaw on my part, but expectations are a little higher for you guys. Again, and it's simply my opinion, but when you post your ideas or opinions it just "seems" more appropriate if done under a non-mod label.

Yes, you can compare a castle to 2 18x18's; I have no idea what you mean by "pure". A comparison is a comparison as you went on to show in the rest of your sentence.

Castle: Status Symbol, Lot's of storage, only 1 location, not customizable
2 18x18's: Just a little bit of a status symbol, Lot's of Storage per shard, two locations, customizable.
8 9x9's: Not a status symbol, very little storage per shard, multiple locations/shards, customizable.

OK agreed, poor choice of a word on my part. I hope the idea was a little more clear. What you're proposing is tile based by account and serves as a "leveling" tool from a certain viewpoint. You negate almost all desire for castles, except as you say "status." I'm very wary of diminishing anything, too many players are goal oriented for dev to conciously begin lowering goals and desires in any case. For me, and it's an opinion, 18x18s don't compare to castles, and shouldn't. Going with your proposal not only may dimishish desire for some, it penalizes current castle owners. It can easily become a capitalism v. communism argument, but I won't go there!

And no, I don't have a "better idea," but do have alternate recommendations, stated earlier and elsewhere. I agree Seige needs help, and suggest a house placement deed be added as a 10 year vet reward. It would enable you to place a second house without penalty or restriction on either Seige or Mugen. On normal shards, I am not averse to the idea of EA/ Mythic selling "second house" deeds, appropriately priced - which would have to be balanced against outside sales to determine. Somewhere in the $30-40 range seems about right, but research would be required. To be fair, I'm not strongly in favor of this method, but if it supports goals/ desires of some players, generates added revenue for the mothership meaning better support for all of us and pay raises for our team, and prices out not to be excessive but above the after market value to ensure a "run up" doesn't occur - I would not find it objectionable.

I do think Enigma has hit a couple things that need comment. Reinstating decay is a bad, bad idea regardless of any other action. Bryan "Tajima" Walker, a fomer Apache driver, turned it off to support the military player base of our game while they were on extended deployments. The sacrifices these folks make is still ongoing. He does hit on something that might work, and possibly simpler to implement, removing all housing restrictions within zones governed by the Fel rules set. At first glimpse, it's hard to really see a downside. My guess is however, that many of the folks who might want to actively play "second shards" may have some objection. It would certainly serve the goals of a % of the PvP community

 

[Dragonchilde]

I've been fond of an expanded housing... but not as wide open as you're proposing. i'd like a two-house limit. Two houses, anywhere you like... but only one marked primary, with the other being secondary and subject to old-school refreshes by opening the door. Works like grandfathered houses.

 

[ColterDC]

On the other hand, they could perhaps simply allow all the housing you want in Felluca, Siege Perilous etc (the PvP places). As in unlimited number of houses in PvP rule sets and they do NOT count vs the 1 house per account per TRAMMEL shard.

Huh? So what, a bunch of Trammies can drop houses, just to drop a house to have a nice little safe area, on a shard or a facet where they don't even play?

No just no, but hell no...la

For once, I agree with Rico.

Allowing people to place additional houses on Siege or in Fel is the dumbest idea I've ever heard regarding housing.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

On the other hand, they could perhaps simply allow all the housing you want in Felluca, Siege Perilous etc (the PvP places). As in unlimited number of houses in PvP rule sets and they do NOT count vs the 1 house per account per TRAMMEL shard.

Huh? So what, a bunch of Trammies can drop houses, just to drop a house to have a nice little safe area, on a shard or a facet where they don't even play?

No just no, but hell no...la

Oh come now Rico what better way to get more Bodies in Felluca / Felluca Rule Set and Subsets.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

.....
I do think Enigma has hit a couple things that need comment. Reinstating decay is a bad, bad idea regardless of any other action. Bryan "Tajima" Walker, a fomer Apache driver, turned it off to support the military player base of our game while they were on extended deployments. The sacrifices these folks make is still ongoing. ...

I was in complete agreement with that action and still am. Problem is that there are a number of accounts that take advantage of the action. I am not one for throwing the Baby out with the bath water, so instead of a blanket action why not an account coded action. Such that any account can be coded to refresh the house(s) while inactive.

I might also ask the UOTEAM why can a Pack horse/Pack Llama carry 1600 stones and a Boat Hold, only hold 400 stones.

On that note, I was asked recently if a Boat was secure. I was rather surprised at this, yes a Boats hold is secure as long as you have both gang planks locked and retracted. Yes you can recall directly on to that boat as long as you have the Key to the boat. A key is placed in your bank and your back pack when you place a boat. An empty boat, with the anchor down, can be drydocked (made into a boat model) by being on land and dbl clicking the Tiller Man.

The UOTEAM could alleviate some issues by reverting the Boat Hold back to unlimited weight. If they did that then a Boat is almost as good as an obsolete Tent Use to be.

 

[Harb]

I was in complete agreement with that action and still am.

If memory serves me well enough, I believe you were one of the early voices in support of the decision back on the MyUO boards, my comment/ reminder wasn't meant for you personally in the least. The outcry by some of the IDOCers of the day constituted the lowest form of apathy and greatest disgust I have witnessed or felt in the history of the game and supporting boards. I only wanted to post a reminder before any wind got beneth any such sail! The scumbags screaming foul didn't realize that Bryan was a been there/ done that guy, and that there was no room for discussion on the issue. Just remember though that the dev team is comprised of completely different folks today, with I believe one lone exception, and some of the history of "why" can be lost in the weeds.

We're really kind of debating a "backburner" issue here I suspect, housing is working, available, and playing multiple shards simultaneuosly is actually quite a challenge for those who haven't tried it - so it likely doesn't occur often. But as always, if it's something that has reasonable "demand," dev should relook it for those concerned.