wow, all my RTB houses are gone!

[Poo]

i went on a holiday for 10 days (yaaa Disneyland!)
and came back and all my RTB houses are gone.
every..... last..... one.....
and some of those where AOS free account houses.

that kinda caught me off guard.
a bunch placed in 2005, some in 2006 and some in 2007.

so i guess that cleans me out.
anyone else loose all of theirs?

 

[Vor]

It's been big news on here the last month. Very risky for people to store things in bugged houses, but some apparently did, though many that fell didn't have much in at all.

 

[FrejaSP]

I'm paying for all my houses so they are still standing

 

[Gameboy]

I think at this point even if I took a break from UO I'd still keep paying for it just because of my home, and the chance I'd go back to play.

 

[THP]

YO there.....they have been falling for the last 4 weeks...around 60-75% of rtb and bugged housing as fell....the common thought is the GMs went through the land and turned them in decay by hand because of the totally wierd any hour of the day fall times they dropped.....This fall time as finished at the moment...just back to normal movers and the odd real time idoc.....theres still quite a few bugged houses standing....so maybe there will be a phase 2 soon.......we will see

 

[THP]

It's been big news on here the last month. Very risky for people to store things in bugged houses, but some apparently did, though many that fell didn't have much in at all.

In my experaince 60% were empty,,,,20-25% normal 3 year player types lots of holiday stuff /resources and a few nice bits....15-20% packed to the gunnels/packed to the rafters storage houses.....

 

[SlobberKnocker]

i dont have any problem with this. i have two accounts i pay for and two houses. sort of makes sense.

i still wish they would let you place a small house that has to be refreshed regularly on seige but given the current tc 81 deal i think they have enough on their plate at the moment.

 

[flappy6]

its a shame that you ripped the people of UO off for the last 10 years then sit here and bragg about it

 

[THP]

its a shame that you ripped the people of UO off for the last 10 years then sit here and bragg about it

LOL........ Nobody expected to get a bugged house that would stand forever,,,it just happened...its not the players fault......and seen as half the houses on every shard have fallen its not just one or two people ....that u so call ripped of uo..... its about quarter/half the bloody shards population..........

U and othes who were jelous and were the ''have nots'' have got your wish...well come to Green Acres......[whatever]......AND Theres more to fall yet!!!

 

[flappy6]

its the playes fault when they do everything they can to get those free codes to place 50-????who know how many houses on a bunch of shards in prime locations ,dont tell me it didnt happen you guys bragged on here for years about all the free houses you have,while other payin players have quit because they couldnt get a good spot,i found idocs with the SAME name SAME spot on like 4 or 5 diff shards with like 300 items in them blocking for no reason,if someone leave stolen jewlery in your yard and you pick it up an wear it .....sorry dood your guilty

 

[Poo]

its a shame that you ripped the people of UO off for the last 10 years then sit here and bragg about it

brag about it?
you my friend need to read a dictionary a little more.
bragging would be me coming in here and saying "ha, suckers, i had free houses for 10 years while you guys didnt, ha, who's the suckers now!"
me coming in and stating that all my RTB houses fell while i was gone and inquiring as to how everyone else is doing is me stating a fact and requesting information.
i can see how that can be confusing.
and just to be clear, i have 5 accounts that i have been paying for since sept 1997.
ive also been in 3 focus groups and have VOLUNTEERED my time and expertise on different UO forums for more years then id want to admit.
maybe you can explain to me how ive been ripped off the people of UO, hmm?
and just to be double clear, my RTB houses where not 18x18's blocking peoples castle upgrades or hogging up space at yew gate fel.
mine where mini houses tucked away in the middle of the forests in fel so as not to interfere with other people but give me access to shards i wouldn't normally have housing on so i could play there some and meet new people. to paint everyone who had a RTB house as a grubby slum lord house blocker is painting with some pretty wide strokes there chief.

 

[DarkWolf]

More importantly though......you went to Disneyland and didn't invite us?!?!

 

[Gameboy]

More importantly though......you went to Disneyland and didn't invite us?!?!

That's what I'm thinking.

 

[Aran]

I think at this point even if I took a break from UO I'd still keep paying for it just because of my home, and the chance I'd go back to play.

Yeah, I hardly played UO the last two or three years but my accounts stayed open because of my houses. If not for the houses they would have been closed any time I felt I wasn't going to play for a bit, frankly.

 

[Lord Frodo]

its the playes fault when they do everything they can to get those free codes to place 50-????who know how many houses on a bunch of shards in prime locations ,dont tell me it didnt happen you guys bragged on here for years about all the free houses you have,while other payin players have quit because they couldnt get a good spot,i found idocs with the SAME name SAME spot on like 4 or 5 diff shards with like 300 items in them blocking for no reason,if someone leave stolen jewlery in your yard and you pick it up an wear it .....sorry dood your guilty

What the #@!! are all these "Free Codes" you keep screaming about? If all the players had these "Free Codes" you say are everywhere then there would be no open space on all the shards. The only "Free Codes" you get is for a trial account and guess what you can not place a house with a trial account. You really need to get over yourself. Yes they messed up with RTB and housing, but guess what they are fixing it. Was that the players fault, #@!! NO.

 

[Aran]

Not anymore you can't. You used to be able to.

 

[Lady Storm]

Hope you had a great time at Disney.....

As for the rest of you .. Poo 's Reflrxions of why he had the RTB homes brings back the reason I have for years on this forum asked the Dev to reconsider the 1 house/shard rule they imposed. I cant tell you how many players quit after that change... my guild on one shard of over 300 players vanished off the UO map in a matter of a few months. Many grumbling about the new houseing cutting them down on the other shards they played... making hard choices which to stay on... many due to money constraints. I watched my friends one by one quit UO as the strain of wanting to play more then one relm and have that nice new houseing..... It was bad timing for the release of that houseing AFTER the 1 house per account rule. Personally I beleave that was the first sign of the mass exodus of players....for good.

As one who was blocked by a RTB house from placing a castle on one shard I can understand any who came across that spot and was angry it couldnt be removed back then... Shards were still semi full in the big home market.... You must understand Poo's need for a small home on his shards is very much understandable.... Bank boxes even with the maxed out space is still not good enough for the average player to run with any guild hopes...

I'd like to see a change to both the limit of houseing one account can hold and the max lockdowns that house can have. The true issue here is not RTB housing but the need for something some idiot in accounting had a brain fart doing to us ( to make more $$$ for a unfeeling corprate board's pocket), to be rectified.
First off I understand the fear of mass accounts shutting down as the horde you feel will do the minute any opening on this will do.... (cough cough.. how many do you think are left in the game with this ? )
Accounts should have the houseing lifted on the shard level ok not the full limit of one per character but the first limit put on us would sufice. 1 per shard this opens up Poo's and anyone else not just Siege P placement but the chance to not just be squished in Atlantic! This might just allow shards to be more used.

The second thing is Storage..... yes storage... many of the small RTB houses were not eyesores but used cause homes were at their breaking point due to the house per limit...
Many players today are budget limited on their Game play. Times have changed to that point where money and play times have shrunk..
Mind you I can see this messing up the house placement tool a bit..... but it will go a million miles with the public then you know and reduce the need for many to get that bigger houe they really do not want, save for the storage room it provides. Today most shards have mainly 18's, towers, keeps and castles with a small smattering of other sizes. I propose to have the limit for any small house under the tower size to be the same as tower limit. This would give the small home owner that touch more room they need.

Now I suspect the Dev would balk at this .......... but to be truthfull I have listened to many players gripe its all well and good they wish to open up Siege for a second house but what about the poor smuck who dont want to go there but go else where and have that second life when their shard shuts down for the "night" (this time of down is widely varried per shard these days as life is set to the time zone and players who inhabit it)

There is a third idea I was toying with that the dev might go for if they could figure it out how to manage it ... facings for homes. Facings as in the direction the house entry is.
Perhaps allow a second side of stairs on customizables ... and a rotation of the house on other solid homes. Also modular homes.. sort of a block by block building of a foundation for those areas not quite square.

This is all on the positive side my dear's IF Mesanna you are reading .... think about it. Run it by the others and see what if any is doable.

 

[MedeaDF]

1 House per Account is just fine, no (obvious) exceptions.

If they think about Siege Perilous/Mugen changes, that's fine for me, because those shards need fresh blood.

But otherwise? If people can buy 4-10 Accounts for doing simple IDOCs it's fine to have 1 House per Account on the normal production shards.

But thats only IMHO...

Ah, yes. RTB Houses. I had one small house (yes, only one) on Moonglow on Drachenfels, and it was standing there, doing nothing for the last five years (it was built in 2007). I really think this was enough, five years of potential free storage (nope, never used it for that)...

 

[G.v.P]

i went on a holiday for 10 days (yaaa Disneyland!)
and came back and all my RTB houses are gone.

You didn't check UHall for 10 days? Man, I couldn't do that, lol.

 

[Voodoo Bad Mojo]

Hope you had a great time at Disney.....

As for the rest of you .. Poo 's Reflrxions of why he had the RTB homes brings back the reason I have for years on this forum asked the Dev to reconsider the 1 house/shard rule they imposed. I cant tell you how many players quit after that change... my guild on one shard of over 300 players vanished off the UO map in a matter of a few months. Many grumbling about the new houseing cutting them down on the other shards they played... making hard choices which to stay on... many due to money constraints. I watched my friends one by one quit UO as the strain of wanting to play more then one relm and have that nice new houseing..... It was bad timing for the release of that houseing AFTER the 1 house per account rule. Personally I beleave that was the first sign of the mass exodus of players....for good.

As one who was blocked by a RTB house from placing a castle on one shard I can understand any who came across that spot and was angry it couldnt be removed back then... Shards were still semi full in the big home market.... You must understand Poo's need for a small home on his shards is very much understandable.... Bank boxes even with the maxed out space is still not good enough for the average player to run with any guild hopes...

I'd like to see a change to both the limit of houseing one account can hold and the max lockdowns that house can have. The true issue here is not RTB housing but the need for something some idiot in accounting had a brain fart doing to us ( to make more $$$ for a unfeeling corprate board's pocket), to be rectified.
First off I understand the fear of mass accounts shutting down as the horde you feel will do the minute any opening on this will do.... (cough cough.. how many do you think are left in the game with this ? )
Accounts should have the houseing lifted on the shard level ok not the full limit of one per character but the first limit put on us would sufice. 1 per shard this opens up Poo's and anyone else not just Siege P placement but the chance to not just be squished in Atlantic! This might just allow shards to be more used.

The second thing is Storage..... yes storage... many of the small RTB houses were not eyesores but used cause homes were at their breaking point due to the house per limit...
Many players today are budget limited on their Game play. Times have changed to that point where money and play times have shrunk..
Mind you I can see this messing up the house placement tool a bit..... but it will go a million miles with the public then you know and reduce the need for many to get that bigger houe they really do not want, save for the storage room it provides. Today most shards have mainly 18's, towers, keeps and castles with a small smattering of other sizes. I propose to have the limit for any small house under the tower size to be the same as tower limit. This would give the small home owner that touch more room they need.

Now I suspect the Dev would balk at this .......... but to be truthfull I have listened to many players gripe its all well and good they wish to open up Siege for a second house but what about the poor smuck who dont want to go there but go else where and have that second life when their shard shuts down for the "night" (this time of down is widely varried per shard these days as life is set to the time zone and players who inhabit it)

There is a third idea I was toying with that the dev might go for if they could figure it out how to manage it ... facings for homes. Facings as in the direction the house entry is.
Perhaps allow a second side of stairs on customizables ... and a rotation of the house on other solid homes. Also modular homes.. sort of a block by block building of a foundation for those areas not quite square.

This is all on the positive side my dear's IF Mesanna you are reading .... think about it. Run it by the others and see what if any is doable.

I have a guild mate who has a old account that has 3 houses on 3 different shards.
A Castle on his main shard then a Cabin and a Mini Tower or 2 other shards.
What i wouldn't give to have been that smart back then and do that exact same thing.
Best I ever did was have 2 L Shape houses with 3 small houses between them all in a row, But those all dropped years ago.

I really don't see what the problem is with having a house on every shard.
Back 10 years ago, yes, far too many people playing.
But now? I think if you can afford to place a house you should be open to placing a house on every shard you want.
Who really cares anymore? There is so much open space out there on every shard with the exception of Atlantic that I'm sure this would not effect anyone and if anything would get more people out there mingling and making new friends.
I'm sure you could put some cap on it, say you can have one big house on your main shard then for any other shard the biggest you can have is a 10x10 (just some random numbers for discussion purposes). Or say they can only place that small house in fel, or Toko or Malas.

There are many option open to us for this.
We just need the Dev's to unlock this for us.

 

[S_S]

I've played going on 13 years now. I see nothing wrong with 1 house per account. You want another house, start another account and pay for it.

 

[Voodoo Bad Mojo]

I've been playing for 15.5 years now.
I see nothing wrong with giving us one house per shard.
It can only make the player base more global, which is a good thing, no?

 

[G.v.P]

I've been playing for 15.5 years now.
I see nothing wrong with giving us one house per shard.
It can only make the player base more global, which is a good thing, no?

You know why, everyone knows why. Game is account driven because of house ownership. People keep accounts only to keep houses. Then someone at EA was like, hey, we are giving up LOTS of free houses. Maybe those people will feel bad for awhile, but then they'll buy more accounts ;D.

 

[DerekL]

As for the rest of you .. Poo 's Reflrxions of why he had the RTB homes brings back the reason I have for years on this forum asked the Dev to reconsider the 1 house/shard rule they imposed. I cant tell you how many players quit after that change...

Of course you can't tell how many players quit after that change - because you have no idea how many quit. You don't even have any solid idea how many people play the game (then or now) in the first place. Nobody knows except the Dev's, and they aren't talking.

But what I know, is that I was here for the Pub 16 changes to housing, and if those changes caused people to quit, it was in numbers too small to be noticeable.

 

[Orgional Farimir]

This post shows exactly why we need more than 1 house per account. Maybe 1 house per shard max of 3. This would only help the slower shards. I know personally there are some slower shards I would love to PvP on, but since I only have one account I doubt I ever will.

 

[Gameboy]

This post shows exactly why we need more than 1 house per account. Maybe 1 house per shard max of 3. This would only help the slower shards. I know personally there are some slower shards I would love to PvP on, but since I only have one account I doubt I ever will.

I'd like this. Just saying.

 

[Olahorand]

The problem with grandfathered houses in the past was the fact, that there was usually not much space available to place even the smallest shack.
So if you got lucky, you could place a very small one. On top of the house, which you had on your home shard.
Then the change was announced. Players have been requested to give up their secondary houses on other shards, and the Primary house switch has been added for this purpose. So most players with multiple houses were afraid enough and followed the request.
The luckier ones have been those, who did not follow, since suddenly not only the primary house was grandfathered, but also the others.

But the luck was limited, since players with grandfathered houses got treated badly. They could not relocate, they could not resize or trade one of their houses up even with more and more free housing capacity on the shards available without immediately loosing the grandfathered status for all the other homes, putting them to decay. They could not even help somebody else with placing, always afraid, that one time the Do you really want to place dialog would be missed and all houses put into decay.

For my one account with some small grandfathered houses this was the final reason to give them up (and to use partially RTB houses for those shards instead). Others used RTB houses to keep guild towns/history intact after exodus of members.

Would I close accounts, if we could more than one house per account again? Maybe, but none, which I would not close in near future anyway. And to compensate this, there could be set a different rate to start decay:
1 House total: As before. Decay starts 90 days after last payment expired.
2 Houses total: 45 days after last payment expired.
3 houses total: 15 days after last payment expired.

Also for the guild master of a guild with members from x different active accounts could be allowed one extra guild house.

What I also miss is the possibility to pay ahead longer than 6 month without having to fiddle with GTC (not sure, how long one can pay forward stacking GTC) or maybe get the option to purchase a lifetime account, as it was possible in LoTRO.

*Salute*
Olahorand

 

[DerekL]

The luckier ones have been those, who did not follow, since suddenly not only the primary house was grandfathered, but also the others.

Um - that change didn't happen "suddenly". It was announced the day the rest of the changes were announced.

But the luck was limited, since players with grandfathered houses got treated badly. They could not relocate, they could not resize or trade one of their houses up even with more and more free housing capacity on the shards available without immediately loosing the grandfathered status for all the other homes, putting them to decay.

Trying spin "getting to keep something nobody would ever get again" into being "treated badly" takes some real chutzpah.

They could not even help somebody else with placing, always afraid, that one time the Do you really want to place dialog would be missed and all houses put into decay.

Those of us who have only one house suffered under the same restriction.

 

[Lady Storm]

Olahorand is right...
I remember the DEV and the GM's telling everyone that their secondary homes had to be removed. They were quite insistant on it infact. To the point my son took it to mean* they would ban accounts if players didnt do so. * they worded it to this in posts
He did not consult me and started to remove many of my grandfathered account homes till I caught on to what he was doing and told him to wait as a notice was posted that it was not mandatory.... I lost many grandfathered homes and accounts to this "deception".
SO dont hand me the fact some of you are fine to pay EA more $$$$ for the right to have a second account when it WAS our RIGHT to own homes on any shard, on 1 account.
Right now many players would be on other shards they once played and perhaps bring that shad back up to snuff where if a new player came it wouldnt be a ghost town... and perhaps stay......
It wouldnt hurt EA 's pocket book to open this back up... My reasoning is this:
Many players do have a second account or even more holding homes only sitting there... some paying monthly, some doing the rotation on off bit... Oh EA could shut it down to 30 days obly but that would cut their own throats as I think that would kill off whats left of UO's population not just the ones who have these accounts but for the simple fact many of us would loose things if a bank error happened as it has over the years to us all. The exodus would be very quick. So this would not serve EA in the slightest. Unless they do want UO to go bye bye.
The smart thing would be to open up placement and encourage players to diversify onto other shards and make more friends... I wouldnt put it past some of you to reopen accounts once closed to have some other homes ... you know if you think about it EA might make more $$$ in this process. The people who do the on off might just pay full time and instead of getting 4 months a year would now get that 12 months they really want.
Personaly I'd bet more money would go into their(EA's) hands with opening housing.

 

[Hellstorm]

I know on ATL years back there was hardly a space for a 7x7. Yet hundreds upon hundreds of empty houses and lots. If you were lucky enough to get an answer to your ICQ the price was ridiculous! Now every player can find a spot for a home, or buy one at a reasonable price. Excuse me for not having sympathy for players with a dozen houses crammed full of junk... for free even! I respect the OP for not bragging about it. The houses fell, he took his lumps, and is ok with it, just a little bummed. Im sorry you lost your stuff. But, I have read countless posts, and have known countless RL cash brokers that abused that system forever. I took a long break from UO due to RL job stuff. The house situation made me come back.

 

[Aran]

Olahorand is right...
To the point my son took it to mean* they would ban accounts if players didnt do so. * they worded it to this in posts
He did not consult me and started to remove many of my grandfathered account homes till I caught on to what he was doing

Account security is your prerogative. I hope you learned from that point not to give people access?

 

[Lady Storm]

Aran You know nothing of what you speak sugar....
My son and I have a working relationship with reguards to our Accounts. They belong to both of us... with the exception of 1 and he does ask to use it. Which is granted when I am not using it. We have a close relationship as parent and child is concerned considering he is 37 years old... If anyone had such as we do they would be thankfull.

 

[Aran]

Aran You know nothing of what you speak sugar....
My son and I have a working relationship with reguards to our Accounts. They belong to both of us... with the exception of 1 and he does ask to use it. Which is granted when I am not using it. We have a close relationship as parent and child is concerned considering he is 37 years old... If anyone had such as we do they would be thankfull.

So you didn't learn anything from him nuking your houses? Gotcha.

 

[Lady Storm]

No Aran You still dont get it....
My son did statigic moves to insure we didnt loose not just houses but accounts to what for all intent porposes looked like a threat if one didnt comply. I will admit the few accounts he did do WE gained castles out of a few smalls... so in a sense we gained in square footage but we lost in number of homes on shards to this day I wish we still had one there just for the use of them. But Dont get me wrong I dont blame my son in any way... PAST DEVS were ruthless to get their way and didnt hesatate to bend words to get their way.

I do have over 66 houses on 13 shards on 52 accounts.... I am trying to cut down....... in the light of the purge I have added more castles to my list in place of smaller ones...
I would love to get a home back on some of my old shards I have built up characters but I think you do understand I for one DONT need another account.... hmm?

 

[S_S]

God get over it people, want another house.. pay for it. UO is a business, not a damn baby sitter of houses.

 

[THP]

u can place a large house on any shard now.......when i say large i mean a max secure storage....thats 1515 or bigger

on some shards there are quite a few keep spots open.....in both felluca and trammel

on the odd shard theres are castle spots free............

 

[Olahorand]

God get over it people, want another house.. pay for it. UO is a business, not a damn baby sitter of houses.

If you argue that way, I would say without catering currently paying players some of these could also deside stopping to play and pay at all or reduce the number of paid accounts (a single house account is easier closed than one holding 3 houses). Good for the business?

 

[Voodoo Bad Mojo]

God get over it people, want another house.. pay for it. UO is a business, not a damn baby sitter of houses.

no.
UO is a company that i pay for a service, and i want that service changed to suit my needs.
if they dont change to suit my needs then my needs will move elsewhere.
and if enough people move elsewhere to have their gaming needs met there will be no more UO.

so no.
this is something that people want and the Dev's should be scrambling over themselves to please their customers.
because at the end of the day the customer is always right.

 

[Pawain]

I didn't look for IDOCs very well. Now there is a castle in front of my house! It ruins the view I had!

 

[DerekL]

If you argue that way, I would say without catering currently paying players some of these could also deside stopping to play and pay at all or reduce the number of paid accounts (a single house account is easier closed than one holding 3 houses)

Can I have your stuff?

Seriously, no. Catering to the whims of the players, especially when it would run counter to a long established policy isn't how you extend the life of a game - it's how you kill it. As soon as you cater to one group of squeaky wheels, the next demands their turn, then the next (often because their ox was gored by the changes made to cater to the second)... it's a death spiral.

 

[Aran]

No Aran You still dont get it....

I do have 52 accounts.

I've gotten allllll I need to get and more.

 

[kelmo]

This is done for a moment.