Opening Housing to all Shards - The logical move or no?

[Lady Storm]

After a long talk to a old UO friend I had not seen in years...
I got to wondering what if?
This friend left after 2004.
The reasons were many but one stuck out. It's what most of us have complained of and the loss of being able to go to any shard and start a new "Life" without indangering their holding (this was his major sticking point for leaving UO in the first place).
He wanted a house... nothing spectacular but the simple ability we all had to place a house and not loose what we got now.
He pointed out the limits put when they said one house per shard.... he was not happy but saw the need as houses cost a fortune then and were hard to get...
We had alot of people back then.
He hated when they put in the 1 house per account and said they went too far. I had to agree with him there.. yes I know now most of you think its the greatest thing sense sliced bread but to be honest its a hinderance.
Not just to my friend.
He had a point.
We all know the game is not getting any bigger in population... and if any of you have walked a few areas on shards other then Atlantic you will see huge spots open everywhere.
In New Magincia where everyone busted the bank to get a house... on most shards this area many plots open... one shard I wont name is totally void of homes... TerMur.... many are vacant of any homes, oh there are a few exceptions.
Malas you can drive a few mac trucks through side by side in the vast open land....
Tokuno.... its so vacant of homes on some shards... This was our second "Luna" ring for vendors..its mostly all gone... its a shame.
The Same could be said of many shards in Tram and Fel.

Now I will point out something you might not have noticed... The house opening on Siege P. has not gone into a land rush.....as was thought would happen.

I think its time to open up the shards... back to 1 house per shard. (I know its not the full open we had but to minimize player abuse this is good enough for now.)

Fear has been that many would take this opportunity and move houses and close down accounts, cutting the games revenue to zip... not so fast there grasshopper.
Think about the up side for a second.
We have many part time accounts that could just go on year round...
Knowing many players who on this board alone have admitted to owning house holding accounts...the consolidation will be the point. I think we will gain in paid in full accounts year round if we did this. The only "grandfathered" accounts then would be the ones who have more per shard then the limited 1 per.
This move in my opinion would negate the small loss that for a time will show up but then the opening of more of those accounts to full use will more then over take the loss and give the game more revenue.. This is a good thing and might wake up the board to some small boon to the game at large perhaps in a few minutes of advertising.
(well a girl can hope cant she..)

 

[The Zog historian]

Maybe, but my fear is a lot of small houses being placed in Trammel areas where a keep or castle would fill, and signs advertising an ICQ number for interested buyers. So I think if we went that route, it should be how grandfathered houses originally were: declare one house as primary, and all others needed to be manually refreshed each week.

 

[Winter]

I like the idea of allowing one additional house per shard. But I would also suggest:

• additional house size be limited to a smaller house, say 13x13
• give all houses smaller than a keep the max item and lock down account. (I think 3849 items with 1949 lock downs?)

 

[old gypsy]

The suggestions have a lot of merit. I think any possible abuses could be kept to a minimum if a second house (no larger than a 15 x 15) was allowed on each account and had to be refreshed periodically to keep it from falling.

Note: I do not think the current storage capacities should be changed, however.

 

[claudia-fjp]

Maybe, but my fear is a lot of small houses being placed in Trammel areas where a keep or castle would fill, and signs advertising an ICQ number for interested buyers.

Ones that sit there for over a decade even after all the other houses are gone and no one answers the ICQ because they quit long long ago...

 

[Obsidian]

I like this idea, but I think we ought to look at Siege in a year and see how many placed, unused plots are sitting dormant.

 

[Lady Storm]

I do understand the fear that many will place and forget or place and try to block a keep or castle location...
May I point out 1 tiny factor... most castle spots are taken, 99% of the shards with some small exceptions... most have been filled.
Now on the limit of size... I do not see a need to limit it as for the fact id also like to see them open up malas for castles and keeps. I know this sits in your craws tightly but I ask you this when was the last time you looked over ALL the shards to see the vast open land.
You See I am not just saying Pac or Cats or even Lake Sup in this but all of them... so many open spots and players from those shards should be able to go and have a home on their home shard....
I have watched too long Atlantic swallow up our people and we are loosing them by the drove there too now... its too small for all that player influx.
Think of it this way..
A guild on Atlantic could have private quarters on another shard for Guild hunts only... These shards dungeons and hunting is so open that no one will have much trouble finding room.
Opening it up again BACK to what we HAD .. this is not something we never had kiddos, this is a right we had years ago and was taken away. All cause we wanted more land for houses and EA wanted more $$.

 

[Lady Michelle]

How about a crate that goes in your bank box that will maybe gives you a limit of lock downs like a 7 by 7 plot in your bank box.
Like if you want a 7 by 7 house you buy a crate that gives you as much lock downs as a 7 by 7 plot place it in your bank. Each character on that shard will be able to get their own crate. The crates will only work on a shard you do not own a house on.

 

[_ARMY_]

Add tents with weekly fees

Small Tent(6x6)-15k Per week rental
Medium Tent(8x8)- 30k Per Week
Large Tent(10x10)-70k Per Week
Mansion Tent(15x15)-150k Per Week

2 mansion per city must be venerated
5 large per city must be adored
10 Medium Per city must be respected
25 Small Per City must be commended

- Customizable
- Act as a house for logging out, locking down
- Can add NPCs..cook/smith/banker also for an additional weekly fee

 

[old gypsy]

Regardless of size, if they ever decide to allow a second house (or tent or gypsy wagon) for shards other than Siege, the added housing should definitely have to be refreshed. Otherwise we will end up with unused or seldom used storage sheds/warehouses standing indefinitely and blocking placement for others. If they wouldn't require a second house to be refreshed, I'd rather not see them add this at all.

 

[Poo]

I 100% agree with the OP on this one.
I would love to have one house per shard.
It would even effect my account as I have3accounts on because I need access to those toons, not to hold houses.

I would be totally happy with them restricting it to the small wood and plaster houses even.
Just room enough for me to put up a forge and anvil and a couple cheats for resources storage.

 

[Poo]

Regardless of size, if they ever decide to allow a second house (or tent or gypsy wagon) for shards other than Siege, the added housing should definitely have to be refreshed. Otherwise we will end up with unused or seldom used storage sheds/warehouses standing indefinitely and blocking placement for others. If they wouldn't require a second house to be refreshed, I'd rather not see them add this at all.

Refreshing sucks and is NOT the way to go.
People get sick.
People go on holidays.
Hell, I can't even count the amount of boats I've lost over the years from forgetting to refresh!
I have like 7 Brit boats but stopped using them because I don't wanna loose them.

 

[old gypsy]

Refreshing sucks and is NOT the way to go.
People get sick.
People go on holidays.
Hell, I can't even count the amount of boats I've lost over the years from forgetting to refresh!
I have like 7 Brit boats but stopped using them because I don't wanna loose them.

There's a solution for temporary absence from the game. In the past, anyone friended to your house could refresh it for you. In any case, only the second house would need refreshing. One's primary house would be unaffected.

Actually, the players most likely to object to the idea of refreshing are those who juggle a number of accounts, deactivating and reactivating (cycling accounts) in order to save money on subscriptions. I can understand why this idea would not appeal to them.

 

[G.v.P]

Refreshing sucks and is NOT the way to go.
People get sick.
People go on holidays.
Hell, I can't even count the amount of boats I've lost over the years from forgetting to refresh!
I have like 7 Brit boats but stopped using them because I don't wanna loose them.

I don't agree with the OP regarding housing on every shard, but I would like to see a new system for boats so that players could have one permanent boat up per account. I would never get one Brit boat let alone seven under the current rules because I know I would end up forgetting about it one week. Either that, or we need a Fish Aquarium token which will keep a boat up for a week. There needs to be something for ships.

Then it would be:
1x Siege/Mugen House
1x Production House
1x Production Boat

Otherwise, I agree with the idea of making a universal shard based "bank vault," something all of your characters on that shard could access via a command such as "open vault." I would suggest something modest like 25 items as a throw back to the old strongbox system in which co-owners of a house were given extra storage. Something that would help regardless of income/status.

 

[Goodmann]

it should be open housing. This game is to old and to few people play it now to have 17 different shards. Max the houses at 2 per shard per account

 

[Ashlynn_L]

I always thought it'd work better if there were some sort of total. So you could own up to... say (a random figure) 26x26 houses in size. So if you had an 18x18 then you could place another 8x8 anywhere on any shard. Or you could have a 10x10 and two 8x8s. And so on.

 

[Lady Storm]

You add in refresh and you might as well shut us down... no one will do it... it stops vacations ... military service will kill players who need to go...
Your not listening to me here.
WE HAD THE RIGHT TO HAVE ONE (1) HOUSE PER ACCOUNT BEFORE.. we had same as we do now with account pay and play no refresh.
Your sounding like we have this monster amount of people in the game who will make mega quadrillions on this.. and we don't.
Sorry to say your wrong.
I am in hopes it pulls some players back to shards that are so vacant of people that its almost to that point where reduction of shards would be feasible.
Get with the program...
With housing added back to the 1 house per shard the game would then allow guilds worth of players to make shard lodge villages for hunting ... players to have homes back home and play with old friends left behind...
We could save the game play we have... because I see many shards I play on with so few players that its not funny.
Housing has always drawn players in....
Stop thinking of what if's....

 

[MrMightySmith]

i like the ideas but this one WILL NEVER BE CHANGED as its EAs biggest money maker in my book as id love to see the numbers of inactive accounts that keep paying to keep their houses (how many accounts EA lost through the billing fiasco when people were essentially letting their cards be charge for almost nothing in return but too keep their house up). I love to see a system where i can have up to say 30x30=900 tiles where i can not go over that limit or something and maybe reward vets 1x1 year at certain intervals. Lets just makes castles and keeps worth 18x18s because i dont think they should be punished for being wealthy as a castle is 33x33 or something crazy like that. Under this system i could have 4 7x7s houses on the same account or just have one 18x18 and a 12x12 somewhere. Or if i am very lucky i can have a castle and a small vendor houses some where on moonglow. The reason i like the tile based system is it brings back the small house which is what uo used to be so much about and it fills up the lands just a little bit so that everything doesn't seem so desolate. I mean let a 15 year account have 36x36 and be able to have 2 castles or something like that.....(I don't have a 15 year account but i like letting the older accounts get more housing and under this idea there is a easy formula in doing that) (and i just read the poster above me, with the same idea lol)

 

[jack flash uk]

Ah, I see more unbalancing moves for the shard shield owners!

 

[THP]

Ah, I see more unbalancing moves for the shard shield owners!

heheh ive said it all along shard shields are game breaking items...and yes opening houses up too......would be awesome and even more overpowering..i love it!!

 

[Lord Frodo]

Ah, I see more unbalancing moves for the shard shield owners!

heheh ive said it all along shard shields are game breaking items...and yes opening houses up too......would be awesome and even more overpowering..i love it!!

Maybe the 2 of you could explain how this would be unbalancing and overpowering. All this says to me is you two do not want others on your shards so you can jack up your prices just to make more gold or charge others Xfer fees to get needed items to lesser shards. Shard Shields have been around long enough and they have not broken UO or lowered the prices on Alt buy 1 gold. I sell items on my shard based on my shards prices and yes I know that a lot of my sells are prob. from Alt players taking stuff back there to sell at jacked prices. Has this broken my shard, no, and it never will. Allowing players to have a 1 house per shard will not break UO but will allow other players to play on other shards that they can not do. You make it sound like everybody playing UO has a 14 yr account and all they do is shard jump. This would allow players that are less than 14 yrs to play on other shards, so please tell us how that would break or be overpowering to UO or its players.

 

[Lady Storm]

MyMightySmith let me explain this to you in laymans terms.
Most players that pay for a house holding account do so to save money... and a lot of them have homes on 1 shard up to perhaps 3 shards (most players I know who play 2 shards and Siege). The only thing effected is perhaps their ability to shift the owners around.. its hoped that with the return to 1 per shard will promote players to return for some play back to a home shard. Thus giving it a bit more life.
It might even encourage some to keep more accounts on then what they have now been paying for to EA. This means a lot more $ in EA's pocket not a loss.
That means more Origin Store purchases to bring the accounts up to snuff... that's more $$ cha ching.
We have been indoctrinated so long in the theory EA put out that Less is More... that we forget when that 1 house per account went in that subscriptions dropped dramatically.
We have members here on Stratics who will tell you this might even make more money for EA as some will turn on more accounts to full subscription BECAUSE they can combine.
As for Shard Shields breaking UO... give me a bloody break jr...
As in another Thread I told all I have between 2 of my old accounts 17 different shields (I have doubles of my 2 main travel destinations for more tokens) I do ship things I make off to sell on Atlantic.. and I do ship to other shards back and forth things I need or can use back and forth as needed.. this has been great but does not stop me from needing full transfers which I buy at a regular basis... if anything the Shields have made UO more playable and if this opens back up to 1 house per shard the Shields will be no different and more sales of full transfers will sell as players send households full of junk to their new homes... I see a win - win for both EA and us.
I think you underestimate our fellow players in that need for new horizons.
I believe that more accounts will go full time if it happens.

 

[Winter]

Anything that will get more active players on more shards is worth considering. This will take some thought in how to best balance, but should be a simple no-brainer to code, and is worth considering.

 

[Gorbs]

I'm not sure where I stand. I can't properly give credit, but I liked the idea proposed that an account should get a maximum footprint for housing on all (non-Siege ruleset) shards. However, I'd probably modify their proposal. I'd suggest each account could have a maximum footprint total of 18x18 and limit housing per account to one per shard as well. Basically, if you placed an 18x18, small keep, or castle on a shard that would be your only house on the account. If you placed a tower (16x14) you would have room for an additional 100 tiles for housing on other shards. I would also add in a cost multiplier. Your first house plot would cost the normal gold amount. A subsequent plot would cost you double. A third house would cost you 3x the list price, and so on.

 

[whiterabbit]

Lady storm ifin mobes in next door to yoos will meees be able to see you running around in yoos undies?

 

[Winter]

Lady storm ifin mobes in next door to yoos will meees be able to see you running around in yoos undies?

BAD whiterabbit... BAD!

 

[MalagAste]

I was thinking a while back that it would be nice if you could have 2 per account..... but they couldn't be on the same shard. I think that would be nice.

 

[MrMightySmith]

I understand that opening houses for accounts if done right should be a net gain for UO at the end of the day. The point was making that EA/Mythic knows that there are likely alot of accounts that are active just too keep houses up and that people rarely play them. So they feel the status quo is better even though another system of housing may actually be better for the game in the long run. I am not arguing that there should not be a change but merely the reason they will not change it.

 

[jack flash uk]

heheh ive said it all along shard shields are game breaking items...and yes opening houses up too......would be awesome and even more overpowering..i love it!!

Your a bad man

 

[jack flash uk]

Maybe the 2 of you could explain how this would be unbalancing and overpowering. All this says to me is you two do not want others on your shards so you can jack up your prices just to make more gold or charge others xfer fees to get needed items to lesser shards. Shard Shields have been around long enough and they have not broken UO or lowered the prices on Alt buy 1 gold. I sell items on my shard based on my shards prices and yes I know that a lot of my sells are prob. from Alt players taking stuff back there to sell at jacked prices. Has this broken my shard, no, and it never will. Allowing players to have a 1 house per shard will not break UO but will allow other players to play on other shards that they can not do. You make it sound like everybody playing UO has a 14 yr account and all they do is shard jump. This would allow players that are less than 14 yrs to play on other shards, so please tell us how that would break or be overpowering to UO or its players.

Frodo you seem to know so much, and in fact NOTHING about me. I don't sell items..........

Shard shields for the rares "collectors" are unbalanced as they can train up chars on home shard, kit them out with top end gear (for top 10 damagers etc) easily and then send them off to all shards to get high end items and ship quickly to Atl to sell. Just look at the boards to confirm, being able to place houses on other shards you are killing what is left for the non vet players.

sadly since the original tokens can out the history of shards has been killed forever, now with free houses ad free xfers for the select few you are killing what small chance other player shave to make up rares museums of their own. I know this as it proved impossible to achieve what I wanted to achieve, just looking at prices now neon gift boxes in excess of 100m give me a break you can only afford these insane prices if you offset the costs 50m per token now?

impossible......

 

[whiterabbit]

EARS DROOP HIDES BEIND HIMS EARS

 

[DJAd]

i like the ideas but this one WILL NEVER BE CHANGED

This.

 

[The Mule]

Vendor stall esque... A small 4X4 plot with enough room to lock a box down. Charge X gold per week to hold the plot.

 

[Lady Storm]

I asked a friend and no I wont say who.... how many of their homes were on active accounts year round and how many were on alternating 1 month on 85 days off.... and was told of their 6 houses, 2 were on year round the others were set for the alternating system as it is difficult to keep them up and active and explain it to their mate the cost when they are on active duty and could at any time be shipped out. And no the mate doesn't play much to warrant the argument.

They are not alone in keeping a small handful in the 1/3 system to hold a house for their use. Cost is a major factor. Military service adds to the need...
Remember this is ONE (1) house per SHARD... so the player who has multiple houses on a SINGLE SHARD is NOT going benefit from this.
I know many over the years here on the forums have said in as much that they have the house's on the system I have stated... due to a lot of different factors... I cant fault any for it.
We had this before and no its not too late in the game to redo the housing back to the 1 per shard.