They should open for housing on more shards

[Zayin666]

Ack.. totally forgot you can only have 1 house on your account.
I recently came back and was lucky to find a nice tower spot in trammel on Europa.

However I also have a char on Siege and it would be nice if I could also have a house there.

So with the current player base and available spots, do any of you guys see a problem in EA allowing houses on maybe 2 or 3 shards?

Just an idea...

Zayin

 

[Wenchkin]

Aside from the obvious greedy folks who'd abuse it by grabbing houses they don't need and rapidly grabbing all the spots? *grins*

While I'd like the convenience of a home when I was on Siege, I know that if 2 houses on diff shards were allowed, there wouldn't be a space left on Siege. And as those second houses wouldn't condem while the player was engaged on another shard, it would mean a lot of disused buildings IMO. I think that would be unfair on those players who want to make Siege their main shard, if they can't get a space for all the visiting players.

If it couldn't be abused, it'd be good.

Wenchy

 

[Hemisphere]

but, given the choice, what do you think most players will do?

Imagine you are a player with 2 houses, and one account to hold each house. Do you keep both accounts open and have 4 houses? Or do you put those 2 houses on one account?

Enough would choose the latter to make this a ridiculous suggestion (although it comes up like once a month on U.Hall )

 

[Zayin666]

but, given the choice, what do you think most players will do?

Imagine you are a player with 2 houses, and one account to hold each house. Do you keep both accounts open and have 4 houses? Or do you put those 2 houses on one account?

Enough would choose the latter to make this a ridiculous suggestion (although it comes up like once a month on U.Hall )

I guess your right I could simply get another account... of course they would not do this as it would probally cost some active accounts.

 

[Hemisphere]

I think it would cost a lot of active accounts

 

[Black Sun]

but, given the choice, what do you think most players will do?

Imagine you are a player with 2 houses, and one account to hold each house. Do you keep both accounts open and have 4 houses? Or do you put those 2 houses on one account?

Enough would choose the latter to make this a ridiculous suggestion (although it comes up like once a month on U.Hall )

I'd have 4 houses.

 

[phantus]

Best solution I've heard for this so far is a finite number of tiles for housing.

18 tiles + 1 per year of account service. Place them on whatever shard you want with minimum of 7x7.

 

[Stupid Miner]

It's actually not that hard to live out of a bank box. Just can't keep the worthless stuff that you don't need.

 

[guum]

Here's what would happen:

About half the playerbase have multiple accounts. So, probably the average # of houses per player would be more like 3...with that many houses per player, it'd quickly become like it was back in the day: expect to spend days searching for even a small open house spot, even on the underpopulated shards. Atlantic 18x18s will go for a couple hundred mil. A good chunk of those with 3+ accounts will close one or more of them, since for most people the extra accounts are only there for house holding, and these folks can't find enough new housing spots to take advantage of the extra home rule on all their accounts anyway. As a result, the apparent subscriber base of UO will dip by 10-30% or so, causing EAMythic to actually lose money.

The last reason is pretty much the main one why it would never happen, but the other reasons are the ones why it would be less fun than it sounds.

 

[RavenWinterHawk]

but, given the choice, what do you think most players will do?

Imagine you are a player with 2 houses, and one account to hold each house. Do you keep both accounts open and have 4 houses? Or do you put those 2 houses on one account?

Enough would choose the latter to make this a ridiculous suggestion (although it comes up like once a month on U.Hall )

bingo.
That is the main reason.

 

[Lady Michelle]

I would keep my accounts open an place an extra house on each account. You can never have to much storage.

 

[Gellor]

Better bet would be to say an account can have 20x20 worth of housing(or some similar arbitrary number) so a user can have ONE large house on their account or multiple little ones that add up to 20x20. Or do it by total storage so that max number of houses is 3.

For example, lets say I get 21x21 worth of housing. If I want an 18x18 or larger, that is all I get. Or I can get two 10x10s. Or I can get three 7x7s.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

Bah, just allow 1 Trammel House per account and 5 Felluca Houses per Account and SP is treated as a Felluca House.

 

[Remakerr]

Better bet would be to say an account can have 20x20 worth of housing(or some similar arbitrary number) so a user can have ONE large house on their account or multiple little ones that add up to 20x20. Or do it by total storage so that max number of houses is 3.

For example, lets say I get 21x21 worth of housing. If I want an 18x18 or larger, that is all I get. Or I can get two 10x10s. Or I can get three 7x7s.

if you could own 21x21 of housing then you could have 9 7x7's, not 3.

 

[Old Man of UO]

IF they would increase the storage size of ALL houses to what the castle has, I would drop to a smaller house and be happy! Of course, I'd fill it up just the same.

 

[Alvinho]

Aside from the obvious greedy folks who'd abuse it by grabbing houses they don't need and rapidly grabbing all the spots? *grins*

While I'd like the convenience of a home when I was on Siege, I know that if 2 houses on diff shards were allowed, there wouldn't be a space left on Siege. And as those second houses wouldn't condem while the player was engaged on another shard, it would mean a lot of disused buildings IMO. I think that would be unfair on those players who want to make Siege their main shard, if they can't get a space for all the visiting players.

If it couldn't be abused, it'd be good.

Wenchy

if the house had to be manually refreshed every month by the account owner, i believe that would stop alot of the placeing and forgeting on seige

 

[guum]

if you could own 21x21 of housing then you could have 9 7x7's, not 3.

Yep.

Personally, I'd just like there to be a way to get 18x18 (or larger) storage on small houses somehow. I really prefer the aesthetics of smaller houses...12x12s are cute -- 18x18s look pretty awkward, regardless of how you do them (I do my best to get around this with large yards). Keeps are kinda meh and castles are downright unwieldy. Maybe add the ability to purchase additional house storage for any size house from some NPC? I'd be fine if it were expensive...say 5 mil per extra 125 storage capacity. It'd be a nice gold sink, something to work towards (time sink), people wouldn't feel so compelled to have massive houses, and I'd guess that the result would be (eventually) a countryside that's less plastered with houses. I know it'd probably never happen, but I'd like it.

 

[Gellor]

if you could own 21x21 of housing then you could have 9 7x7's, not 3.

Only if you are doing by area. My idea is SUM of dimensions. There for 7+7+7 does indeed equal 21.

And it also was a VERY random theory. I think a better system would be based upon storage.

 

[MalagAste]

Two thoughts on this.... as someone with MULTIPLE accounts... really don't want to say how many... I know me FAR too well...

If I could have 2 houses per account I would.

Infact even if I could only have one per shard... but I could have one on another shard and one on my main shard .. I would. On all of my active accounts...

I would like to think I would drop one or two or even more accounts... but I know me far too well .... It just wouldn't happen.... I'd find this cool spot or that cool spot or I hold this place or that place.... and I'd eventually wind up with the same number of accounts I have now with double the house's.

Now that said... honestly ... I don't see anything wrong with letting folk have 2 house's per account... without restrictions. But that's just me.

It would let me do one of the things I've always wanted to do which would be make a "job" out of helping others design and deco house's... I'd just place or own the house design it decorate it nicely and sell it... Or have someone trade me their house design it decorate it with what they leave me.... and then give it back to them... I don't do that now because well... I'm full on housing... and I'm not about to give mine up right now.


The other thought I had was in another post about "dungeon/basements" where I said I would prefer if we were given the ability to "purchase" a dungeon/basement that had say.... 3k in storage was 31x31 and even if it came with outter cavern walls you could "change" but not remove.... it would be like a dungeon and you would get a "teleporter token" that you could choose a graphic for from trapdoor to ladder to stairs... or whatever even a few neat "teleporters" like the glowing runes you find in some dungeons..... to a statue to click or a shimmering bunch of sparkles like Wrong.... or other things and you could place this "teleporter" in your house/Keep/Castle and it would then "teleport" you to another server much like green acres where it's just all black and 100's of 31x31 squares... you would get your square and be able to "custom" it anyway you like with select tiles but it would be only one level. you could move the "teleporter" back to your house anywhere on the square... and it would add storage... and not clutter up the landscape of Sossaria with more house's... And if the squares were on sub servers then it wouldn't at all lag up the landscape either. Also considering you would have to "buy" the added space not everyone of course would have one.

Another thought is allowing folk to "purchase" a second house slot. This too would make it so not everyone would do it because not everyone needs a second house or wants a second house... but they could either charge say 3 extra bucks a month to have a second house or they could have a flat one time upgrade of 30 bucks or something to "upgrade your account" to add a second house slot.

 

[Omnius]

I've always felt that you should be able to declare a primary shard and a secondary shard. Primary shard you may have whatever size home you please but that will then limit your secondary shard home to no larger than an arbitrary size like 10x10

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

...

The other thought I had was in another post about "dungeon/basements" where I said I would prefer if we were given the ability to "purchase" a dungeon/basement that had say.... 3k in storage was 31x31 and even if it came with outter cavern walls you could "change" but not remove.... it would be like a dungeon and you would get a "teleporter token" that you could choose a graphic for from trapdoor to ladder to stairs... or whatever even a few neat "teleporters" like the glowing runes you find in some dungeons..... to a statue to click or a shimmering bunch of sparkles like Wrong.... or other things and you could place this "teleporter" in your house/Keep/Castle and it would then "teleport" you to another server much like green acres where it's just all black and 100's of 31x31 squares... you would get your square and be able to "custom" it anyway you like with select tiles but it would be only one level. you could move the "teleporter" back to your house anywhere on the square... and it would add storage... and not clutter up the landscape of Sossaria with more house's... And if the squares were on sub servers then it wouldn't at all lag up the landscape either. Also considering you would have to "buy" the added space not everyone of course would have one.

...

This is reminiscent of two threads on CoB back in the bad old days ....

One was the Underground Dwelling with the Cave / Dungon Theme. I would think this to be some what easy with one exception, the exterior view would need to be negated. The rest should simply be what is already in place with either a Teleporter or a Ladder leading down.

Now to the Other part, one of the plagues of UO (probably most all MMORPG's) is the collection of Items we pack rats have.

In UO it has historically been a real problem and I suspect that we can have the items we have (but who knows maybe the total number of items in UO is lower now with the one house rule than it was in the begining where you could have an unlimited number of tents/houses etc and an unlimited number of bags/items in the house with no decay) because the hardware has been upgraded to overcome the original design.

It was suggested that everyone be given an artifact of some sort that would teleport the person to their home, this home would in essence be an instanced zone for just them (Everquest eventually did this but it sort of (EQ has extreme limits on the number of items)). Now then the number of items and the size of the house etc are no longer interacting with the UO Server per se. So there would be far less reasons to have restrictions on the players. This would allow every account to have a house on every Shard/Facet.

The downside would be the ability to show off ones house, house vendors, community( )

 

[Malimus]

I agree to a point... it should be -two- houses per account no more no less. From a storage point of view or a playing multiple servers point of view it makes sense. As well with the coming of the new expansion SA there is going to be EVEN MORE housing area's.

Perhaps there would even be a market for player made/designed houses again if something like this got implemented. Considering the only houses that hold value these days are Keep's, Castle's, Yew moongate & Luna houses.

UO Real Estate was a fun part of the game for some people but it virtually does not exist anymore due to the fact almost anyone can find a 18x18 or Large Tower plot in a very short period of time on pretty much every server. Would be cool if an 18x18 or Tower was actually worth something again. But that is just my opinion.

 

[kelmo]

*thinks on it*

 

[Sarsmi]

Better bet would be to say an account can have 20x20 worth of housing(or some similar arbitrary number) so a user can have ONE large house on their account or multiple little ones that add up to 20x20. Or do it by total storage so that max number of houses is 3.

For example, lets say I get 21x21 worth of housing. If I want an 18x18 or larger, that is all I get. Or I can get two 10x10s. Or I can get three 7x7s.

if you could own 21x21 of housing then you could have 9 7x7's, not 3.

Or less than half a castle...that would be terrible for us classic home owning folk.

 

[Kaleb]

I would be down for being able to have a 2nd house on an account, but only if the decay of houses was turned back on (Ex: pre custom housing)being that they had to be refreshed once every 14 days before it collapses just for the people who choose to have 2 houses, and only 1 house per shard. if a player is really serious about needing the 2 houses like me for example I play pacific mostly but I have a finished character on siege that i play every so often more so if i had a house. I would make sure to keep it refreshed being that I would use it, if someone randomly places a house on another shard then it will eventually collapse.

 

[Flora Green]

I didn't read the replies, but it would be great if they allowed us 2 houses per acct, different shards.