Housing Ideas...Additional...pro's and con's

[THP]

Okies myself i like playing a lot of shards...alas we can only have 1 house on production shard and one on siege...both i have and use...

I would love a small house on 2 or 3 other shards ...

Yes i could pay for 2-3 more accounts to make this happen...but iam not going to ...im not gonna pour real money down a drain...i hope for a discussion on a alternative way.

Its pretty obvoius trawling all the 27 shards [my world tour]...there are 5 groups of shards

1. highest populous... by a country mile is Atlantic...[housing market is still bouyant although slowing down and vendor shops/markets litter the land even malas is well well used]

2. above average populous...4 shards Great Lakes and Chessy in the west and Asuka and Yamato in the east... [castles are sought after and pay high...even placing a keep is hard, more likely to have to buy one in tram and lots of vendors/shops....even life in malas on these 4 shards!!]

3. average populous shards...Euro, Pacs, Cats, Lake superior, Siege[maybe], Napa in the west and Hokuto, Mizuho in the east...[castle are all taken/placed but some often come on the market but prices are fair and its easy to place a keep in tram/fel, the shopping are just ok but malas is looking bleak indeed.

4. below average populous... baja, legends, sonama,drachs and lake austin in the west and inzumo, wakaku, formosa and sakura in the east...[ these shards have a few castle spots free for placing at most times and castle sell really cheap if not, keeps are extremely easy to place even in trammel, less shops and vendors than the average populous shards and malas is pretty well green wastelands.

5. dying shards... [sorry] ...Origin in the west and in the east Airang ,Balahe, Mugden and Oceania...[loads of castle spots free, pretty well castle only and luna shards these- even spots in luna on some, not many shops and malas is simply empty]

Anways my question is this....

What about a new token/code from Broadsword aka the Origin store for additional fixed account housing... they would be Malas Only houses...thus stopping any blocking of castles ats in trammel and felucca....Also maybe capped at villa size 11x11 or even less 9x9??...the price would have to be fair in the 4.99-9.99 bracket...maybe the houses could be in 2- 3-4 new styles so people recognize them as extras- even tents!! lol....but they wont need refreshing and u can buy as many as u like, but only one extra small house on each shard per fixed account. Seroiusly even if every player left in the game bought a dozen each [which they wont...maybe 2 or 3 like me] the lands of malas would still not be full again.....Just saying it would just be nice to own / share a house on other shards than your ' home shard ' rather than live out a bank box and not being able to share stuff between shard chars.

the pro's loads extra income for broadsword and the lands look healthier... and people can have a small house to share with all the chars they have on that shard swop stuff easy amongst the chars etc etc

the conn's maybe people only keep accounts open for houses...but like i said its only 1 extra per shard....so the people with 6 houses on the same shard will need keep accounts open

 

[THP]

oh and lets try keep it clean please...adult discussion please...

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

Okies myself i like playing a lot of shards...alas we can only have 1 house on production shard and one on siege...both i have and use...

I would love a small house on 2 or 3 other shards ...

I'd like to see the old housing rules in place, but I would hope that if they allow multiple houses on multiple shards, they require a player to physically refresh each house.

I suppose you could claim a primary shard and then have to refresh the others.

I've been running around Siege looking for good home locations and have run into a bunch of homes set as plots that are simply used to land squat so someone can have their own property on Siege. All this does is allow someone to save up enough gold and then leave the shard never to be seen again...la

 

[Uvtha]

Okies myself i like playing a lot of shards...alas we can only have 1 house on production shard and one on siege...both i have and use...

I would love a small house on 2 or 3 other shards ...

Yes i could pay for 2-3 more accounts to make this happen...but iam not going to ...im not gonna pour real money down a drain...i hope for a discussion on a alternative way.

Its pretty obvoius trawling all the 27 shards [my world tour]...there are 5 groups of shards

1. highest populous... by a country mile is Atlantic...[housing market is still bouyant although slowing down and vendor shops/markets litter the land even malas is well well used]

2. above average populous...4 shards Great Lakes and Chessy in the west and Asuka and Yamato in the east... [castles are sought after and pay high...even placing a keep is hard, more likely to have to buy one in tram and lots of vendors/shops....even life in malas on these 4 shards!!]

3. average populous shards...Euro, Pacs, Cats, Lake superior, Siege[maybe], Napa in the west and Hokuto, Mizuho in the east...[castle are all taken/placed but some often come on the market but prices are fair and its easy to place a keep in tram/fel, the shopping are just ok but malas is looking bleak indeed.

4. below average populous... baja, legends, sonama,drachs and lake austin in the west and inzumo, wakaku, formosa and sakura in the east...[ these shards have a few castle spots free for placing at most times and castle sell really cheap if not, keeps are extremely easy to place even in trammel, less shops and vendors than the average populous shards and malas is pretty well green wastelands.

5. dying shards... [sorry] ...Origin in the west and in the east Airang ,Balahe, Mugden and Oceania...[loads of castle spots free, pretty well castle only and luna shards these- even spots in luna on some, not many shops and malas is simply empty]

Anways my question is this....

What about a new token/code from Broadsword aka the Origin store for additional fixed account housing... they would be Malas Only houses...thus stopping any blocking of castles ats in trammel and felucca....Also maybe capped at villa size 11x11 or even less 9x9??...the price would have to be fair in the 4.99-9.99 bracket...maybe the houses could be in 2- 3-4 new styles so people recognize them as extras- even tents!! lol....but they wont need refreshing and u can buy as many as u like, but only one extra small house on each shard per fixed account. Seroiusly even if every player left in the game bought a dozen each [which they wont...maybe 2 or 3 like me] the lands of malas would still not be full again.....Just saying it would just be nice to own / share a house on other shards than your ' home shard ' rather than live out a bank box and not being able to share stuff between shard chars.

the pro's loads extra income for broadsword and the lands look healthier... and people can have a small house to share with all the chars they have on that shard swop stuff easy amongst the chars etc etc

the conn's maybe people only keep accounts open for houses...but like i said its only 1 extra per shard....so the people with 6 houses on the same shard will need keep accounts open

When talking to us about adding a "free" second house on siege we asked for limits to size. They said it was impossible, it was either on or off. So, doubt it.

 

[THP]

When talking to us about adding a "free" second house on siege we asked for limits to size. They said it was impossible, it was either on or off. So, doubt it.

not if the token u buy from broadsword/origin .. is a set type of house/tent design when u click it to use...not using the tool...

and this is malas only...u know the green fields that wrap around luna and umbra....so noone is gonna block keeps/castles in tram or felucca

 

[Lorddog]

make all the secondary homes a preset 7x7 or 8x8 or 9x9
make them only placed in malas
then allow you to have one on any or every shard.

then your primary housing is unchanged and you can only have 1 total anywhere.

perhaps make these secondary homes have preset cabinets also so you cannot lock down in them at all

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

Love the ideas...Make the secondary homes 6x6 tents with a chest for storage. Determine the number for storage and let everyone place in some of the old un-placeable locations in Malas.

If you want the tent and the stored items to stay in place...you must refresh them every 30 days, not automatically.

Oh and Siege would be included in this program and none of the existing homes would stay in place unless you marked it as your primary shard...la

 

[Lady Storm]

Well for one I like the idea of opening up the houseing on ANY shard.
Look the old ways were best in this sense.
You went hunting for houseing and like it or not you had to fight for it.
And to those of you who think goingback to the open the door refresh is a nice offering might i offer you this reminder of how that went....
EVERY WEEK (under the 7 days or you took the risk of it falling) you HAD to open the door to refresh the house.
You couldnt take a vacation longer then 6 days, if you did you needed to have a friend you could count on to do it...which meant you needed to co-own them. Psst... oh can you imagine the hosue loss on Atlantic..and then the players quitting in mass due to it???
This was one of the sticking points for many as it left you open to all sorts of "FUN" when you got back and all was gone because your friend forgot...(yea right forgot my aunt fanny)
This also was bad for the service personel who risk thir lives for the country and do actively play the game... sometimes you just cant tell the enemy hold on i need to refresh my house in UO thank you....
Now as a heavy house holder in my own rights, I know the need of a house on a shard you dont have one... how the hadies did you think i got so many for in the first place?
Running a few characters out of their bank boxes is hellish as the room is so small to keep even a crafter going. Lets face it.. a house solves this nightmare. The one thing i do see is storage for all the account(s) characters you have running per shard.
Now the Idea of purchasing a set type of home with max storage in the form of a token for a set fee has at first to have a few rules.
Number one is that it be non-tradeable.
Two is that it be subject to the 90 day rule as it will be linked to one of your master accounts and even if you log in after the 90th day it has auto droped and you would need to purchase a new token to put it back up.
Three You can only have the style you buy.. no plotting to a borg cube... I would also like this to have the option to be a garden plot with a small home and a yard for your gardening. Sort of like the garden beds but larger with a shed/home attached.
Price range 4.99 - 12.99 depending on style of token purchased with none over the 18x18 plot size.
I can see this going over if strickly for Malas placement.
For you die hard 1 house per account folks .... your helping kill off the game... we loose people who cant stand the tight restrictions the houseing rules have become. 1 shard play has gone out the window with the lower population shards...

 

[THP]

seems postive ..yes def the green fields and sand dunes and ice caps of malas only... and yes a deffo preset house...nothing massive ...like i said 10x10 villa ...garden with a shed... even a tent....a pre made new design...etc

 

[MalagAste]

I am still with the crowd who though that you should be able to place as many homes as you wanted however every account would be given a maximum of 36x36. So when you reach your 36x36 limit... you are done. This means if you have a castle that's all you have... But if you have a keep you can have a keep and something else 12x12 or smaller. Since you wouldn't be able to have 2 at 6x6 then you can have only one other house with a Keep.

But those with 18x18 or smaller places would have loads of possibilities. You could have 3 or 4 homes. And they could be all on one shard or on 4 shards. Wouldn't matter.

 

[THP]

Apart from castles are 31x31

 

[MalagAste]

Apart from castles are 31x31

Castles are actually 32x32... However that's all moot since you can't have a 5x5 or a 4x4.... so if you have a castle that's still all you would get.

 

[RueTor]

To avoid that 7x7 blocking your potential Castle spot, you need some other incentive to allow people to pull-down existing housing (including grand-fathered housing)

Create a bank safety deposit option from the content menu, think of it like a shared bank area for the server where all your characters can access items (e.g. similar to Diablo's banking system)

• • same lock-down rules as a house so those SOT/SOA/PS books can be used
  • possible way to get rid of checks too - common gold storage like a vendor.
  • you want more storage above and beyond whatever number is allocated by the UO gods...
    • buy an upgrade shard token or game upgrade
    • pay a gold fee (gold sink)
    • Devs could build an in-game reward system to earn greater storage points (shard bound) and create sense of purpose

 

[THP]

Castles are actually 32x32... However that's all moot since you can't have a 5x5 or a 4x4.... so if you have a castle that's still all you would get.

nope there 31x31 ..u walk around them 32x32...same as u walk around a 18x18 by 19x19...just saying im pretty pro at this game

 

[THP]

To avoid that 7x7 blocking your potential Castle spot, you need some other incentive to allow people to pull-down existing housing (including grand-fathered housing)

Create a bank safety deposit option from the content menu, think of it like a shared bank area for the server where all your characters can access items (e.g. similar to Diablo's banking system)

• • same lock-down rules as a house so those SOT/SOA/PS books can be used
  • possible way to get rid of checks too - common gold storage like a vendor.
  • you want more storage above and beyond whatever number is allocated by the UO gods...
    • buy an upgrade shard token or game upgrade
    • pay a gold fee (gold sink)
    • Devs could build an in-game reward system to earn greater storage points (shard bound) and create sense of purpose

this wont happen as the theory is malas only....no castles or keeps there... yes yes there is the odd 1-2/5 that won there somehow friends and family etc etc

 

[Obsidian]

I like the concept of having up to 36x36 total. How would you identify a primary house (on any facet) and a secondary? I am not sure how to contain it to Malas. I agree if there are more than one house on the account, the extras need to be in Malas an be less than 10x10.

 

[James Moriarty]

InArcheage they run a tax system. You can have as much housing as you like as long as you can afford the tax. Tax has to be paid weekly and the house will fall if no tax is payed for 3 weeks. The tax is not large but its large enough to put you off owning too much land. Tax is payed using Tax Certificuts that you buy.

A system like this could work in UO.

A nice thing they do too is if your house falls due to the lack of paying your tax, the house deed and all the house content is emailed back to you in game. Shame UO didnt work a system like this years ago

 

[Tomarke]

I like this line of thinking. I think back to my previous game where every character would have a set amount of "lots" available them and each type/size of house had a specific lot requirement. In the case of UO each account could have a designated amount of "lots" for example 10. Type/size of house would scale up to 10 "lots" each on the high end (castles), down to 1-2 lots per house (7x7, 8x8). This allows one account to have multiple smaller houses if they wish. Or an 18x18 and a 7x7. The combinations could go on and on.

 

[THP]

well '' malas only'' preset house style determined by the token u purchase for between 4.99-9,99 that can only be used in malas and give 2 or 3 styles that are less than 9x9 in size

each fixed account can place on any shard they like ,,'' except there main shard- if that is possible''...no need to do anything with your exsisting house on the account as these new style houses wil be identified as such by the new style and placeable with a purchased token.

 

[Lady Storm]

I can tell you this much from past exp with the Dev team's attitude twards opening the houseing back to the old days of 1 house per shard per account... Hell could freeze over and be sold for ice cubes before they will even consider this or any other idea for extra houseing for any reason.
In the early days if you had the gold and the spot you could own as many houses as you could aford..(early after beta 97)
That changed when the population of players strated to grow and the few shards we had filled to capasity the Dev set it for 1 house per character..
This which changed quickly to the 1 house per accout ...(this was when I beleave we got to the 250k mark of players in game.)
***Psst... a noteworthy source on the web pinned both UO an DoaC to 250k. Before the other games of note they were touting came to being.***
Some Bean counter trying ot make a name with the EA bosses came up with a nifty idea ....make the players scream and coff up more $$ and limit the growth and need for production/staff that was failing to bring in the population others who now ran their number of players in the millions..
Hence we got the 1 house per account.
This pegion hole idea to make us cry uncle and coff up more moeny has worked well till the last few years when the lack of any real investment into the game started to show up and players started to leave by the thousands monthly.
We have gotten a new handler in Broadsword.. who for the most part has given us more in the short time it has been running the show then EA gave us in the last 7 years of their inept control.
Dont be fooled EA still owns UO on paper....and handles the cash flow.
The facts are even with players returning and some new showing up to join us in play ... we still are never going to grow back to our top numbers of yesteryear.
Now I am that lady who see's a glass half full type...but even I know unless every other game out there died and we were the last one working would be even have a chance to get back to even 250k.
Let's be real for a second...
Most out there are opposed to opening up the houseing market because they over the years have worked to get that chnace for a castle..
This is deep hidden in every word i have seen against the thought of the houseing changes asked for. Let's admit it now is the best its been sense the beginning of UO for a player to place a castle ... money is not the object any more its space!
At this moment in time in other threads many have pointed this vast room for homes and how poor it makes working shards look.
How many have bitched their heads off about that small house blocking a castle spot??
All they want is the Dev to drop all vacant and unused houses and blame their trouble on that small being unowned... in hopes that little monster will fall and give them their just deserts in that castle spot they covet.

Let's be real....
There is not a chance in hell the Lead Producer of UO will even think of opening housing for any reason.
This is nice to think if wishes were granted and the powers that be understood its not a bad thing to loosen up the tight fingers on the game... we are not out to kill it... people just might play and get more to join them...

 

[THP]

i think the fact that broadsword could get some seroius income from this is the main reason...which will keep OUR game running longer....

like i said no accounts will be closed as the folks that have 12 houses on 1 shard will still have to keep accounts open for them//

these would be small houses 9x9 typical in malas only...broadsword gets loota $$$ simple...and the green lands of malas look fresher

 

[THP]

so...huge green fields or 9x9 holiday homes paid for tents/houses...simple idea???

 

[MalagAste]

I would not want need or desire to have a castle or in my case a second castle if my current houses could hold as much as a castle can. If I could somehow have a plot of land that held the storage of a castle I would never want another castle ever. The only reason I have the one was because of the town.. Newcastle Township. It's our base... as it was in old days the castle was the top thing a guild could own and say they were something. So there it is. However I really like the storage that it offers.

But I prefer to customization of a regular house. And honestly I'd prefer just your regular 18x18 to a castle any day function and form wise.. except that the 18x18 doesn't hold enough lockdowns/secure storage to suit my needs.

 

[a slave girl]

I like some of the ideas here but we all know UO will make money if we open more accounts because we need more storage or storage on random shards.

No more free storage I say.

It would be nice if we could rent out levels of our homes to other players.

1. The amount of max storage would remain the same and be split equally between levels.

2. The renter gets a key. The house owner (landlord) is not allowed to enter a rented level unless invited by the renter.

3. I'd like some sort of random sweeps of rented levels to catch dupers who may store their ill-gotten gains in a rental.

4. I think the rented levels would require a set of stairs for private entry, so possibly a new house design just for this purpose?


As far as storage, they could sell a B&B's (Blackthorn & British) code upgrade that allows any size house to store the same amount as a castle. I don't see this as too much of a loss, because if you have storage issues, you might drop one householder account, but once that first 6k is maxed out, you'll be paying that householder account again to store more.

So whichever size house you own, you pay a King's ransom in real life coin ($100 at least, maybe $120) for the upgrade code, and even your 7 x 7 plot on Seige (that all I could afford there) holds over 5k in items, or is it 6k now?

6k items crammed in a 7 x 7!

Oh I think I'd like a new rental style house design to be called B&B's (Blackthorn & British) Bed & Breakfast.

Meanwhile, of my five idocing pack animals, after a hard days idocing, only four of them get to crash in a luxurious stable manned by a skilled stable attendant.

:<

 

[MalagAste]

I like some of the ideas here but we all know UO will make money if we open more accounts because we need more storage or storage on random shards.

No more free storage I say.

It would be nice if we could rent out levels of our homes to other players.

1. The amount of max storage would remain the same and be split equally between levels.

2. The renter gets a key. The house owner (landlord) is not allowed to enter a rented level unless invited by the renter.

3. I'd like some sort of random sweeps of rented levels to catch dupers who may store their ill-gotten gains in a rental.

4. I think the rented levels would require a set of stairs for private entry, so possibly a new house design just for this purpose?


As far as storage, they could sell a B&B's (Blackthorn & British) code upgrade that allows any size house to store the same amount as a castle. I don't see this as too much of a loss, because if you have storage issues, you might drop one householder account, but once that first 6k is maxed out, you'll be paying that householder account again to store more.

So whichever size house you own, you pay a King's ransom in real life coin ($100 at least, maybe $120) for the upgrade code, and even your 7 x 7 plot on Seige (that all I could afford there) holds over 5k in items, or is it 6k now?

6k items crammed in a 7 x 7!

Oh I think I'd like a new rental style house design to be called B&B's (Blackthorn & British) Bed & Breakfast.

Meanwhile, of my five idocing pack animals, after a hard days idocing, only four of them get to crash in a luxurious stable manned by a skilled stable attendant.

:<

I like your thinking. I always thought we ought to be able to rent a "box" at our house to other players. It would work like any other rental contract. Payments made to the house owner and house owner can't just dismiss your box or anything, and if the place goes IDOC just like your vendor you would get a warning message upon login and have X# of days to do something about it or your chest of stuff falls to the ground with the rest of the house. But you can come by pick it up out of the moving crate and move on before that happens. Also... I always thought you should be able to "rent" a room at any of the Inns throughout the lands by paying the Innkeeper there and he gives you a room key.. which you can use to get into the room and you choose which room you want it becomes yours so long as you pay for it and like a vendor you'd need to keep up your contract.. If you fail you return to the innkeeper in X# of days and he keeps your stuff and gives it to you in a box when you come back... but otherwise he sells the boxes to the public at a silent bid auction held each month in Britannia... at say the port there. Proceeds of which would be distributed to each of the Town stones to do with as they see fit. Another Gold Sink for UO and another way to earn Gold for the cities... and a good way to give folk a temp home. Each room would have 4 containers so you'd have 500 lockdowns there. Or rent could be scaled upon the # of lock-downs you wanted to have you could then always add more up to the 4 containers but then after that you'd have to rent another room on another character or something. Limit room rent to one room per character/per shard.

 

[THP]

but my idea wont close accounts.....far form it...... Quite simply if some people want 6 castles they will have to pay for 6 accounts.....iam talking a few extra small 9x9s on other shards that an account as a main master house..[.ie] i have a castle on europa...so i cant place again on europa..... but i can buy a extra house token for a 9x9 preset design house form broadsword/orign store 4.99-9.99.... that i can use on any other shard except europa..and place the small preset house there using the token i purchased [extra revenue for broadsword] ...then i can use the small house on say Hokuto and all my 6 chars can live there on that account and share the bits and bobs i have on that shard...i can have a vendor in my little house...etc etc etc

 

[Lady Storm]

Hello .......
While A Slave Girl and Mal have good ideas, its the impossible coding for such intracate housing formats that keeps it from being done... the kettle of fish it also opens as to account activity is a nightmare all on its own!
THP I do agree that your idea will not effect accounts that much as many fear here. Come on... I looked at EVERY account I own..(yes i went through all that mass of accounts)
As example:
To be quite honest here I could consolidate shards and house's but the total number... will shock you.. Out of 47 active accounts I could only cut it back by 8 accounts. Thats if all housing opened to 1 house per shard was eliminateing just 8.
Right now my main accounts hold houses on just about every shard I play as it is...go figure...
That means the few that could be cut out are undeveloped accounts meant to hold houses when I was in expand mode many years ago and just hold a small house I need atm.
One would think "Ah she could cut out all her accounts this way..."
Nope
Without doing major shifting of characters on shards to move houses andhave working characters worthy of it would brake anyones bank limit!
Pointing out the cost in a recient post of upgrading accounts and getting the right parts and characters where they would be of use makes this not worth the effort or the exorbadant cost too far out of my budget.
I may be a nut to most for having so many accounts but i'm not that much of a nut case to blow funds on this folly!
I will point out that its "nuts" like me who have kept paying for accounts that kept the doors open this long.
But to get back to the point of this post:
EA ownes the bank on UO... not Broadsword. (yet)
Every dime that UO produces goes into EA's coffers which pays into investors pockets, staff payroll, development and production.
Of which I seriously doubt the cut given to braodsword is any great amount.
Opting to pay for houseing and other features is great in thought and I would hope would increase the output by the Dev but in reality I do not beleave our offers even would dent the needs EA places on that money... meaning UO will see not one penny for improvement.
EA is the black hole in the UO universe....

 

[Ox_AO]

from what I'm reading the system is either on or off globally. Meaning all shards are allowed to place or one. Size can't be factored in without a major change in the game design.

Not sure if this can be done. make two account types. Basic what we have now and Barron accounts or some odd name.
Meaning they can place one house on every shard. These type of accounts would cost maybe +3x the normal costs for an account.

Personally i would love to have a mail box on every shard. Ha

 

[Lady Storm]

Ox_AO is quite correct.
The placement engin for the production shards was made seprate from Siege and Mugen to allow for the placement of a "second" that didnt count twards our actual set limit.
This limit is something the Dev of that time period coded into the game to limit placement to 1.
This can be over written and back to the 1 house per shard at any time.... if and this is a big IF.. the Dev so choose to do so.
After compiling all the conversations of this current Dev Team the likelyhood of this happening is 1:1,000,000.
For so long players have touted how this change would kill whats left of the game... lets be frank here.
Yes there is a long shot that many will consolidate down and we would loose many sub's that keep the game afloat.
There is also the possibility that many of you who do the 90 day shuffle to keep houses you need would be able to consolidate to managable account levels that keeping them open and active would be a viable deal.
For too long, many here and in the past have cried "Wolf" so much and put fear of what could happen deep into the Dev psychie that they truly fear change to the status quo.
Recient changes have been proven a positive for the game when just a short time ago this very same Dev held tight fisted and wouldnt budge on matters we needed to keep the game viable.
Broadsword has given me hope that soon the Dev might loosen their hold on the old EA ploys and give the game more freedom.
You all want a limit on house size.. but is this not a fear that somehow this wold mean to you mind you your chance for that one spot you covet most?
Limiting size is just a way to keep the fear going..
What was it that one poster said?.......
Oh yea....
"if they open up houseing we will have every house spot taken up by little houses and nobody in them and blocking a possible castle spot..."
Go back to 1999 when just before WoW was a twinkle in players heads... UO was a force in the gaming world due to the freedom and the possibilitys it gave the player.
We had the 1 house per character...
I for one had 1 tower and 4 7x7's on my main till I placed my castle, when i shifted the houses around and gave to my second account the 1 small. I didnt race around placing tons of houses though i do see your fear that some money grubbing mogule who makes cash off our game might do so. But you see there is a safety mode we can do and would be exceptable to all but them hehe.
A 1 month timer on the account for placement.
If you place a home ANYWHERE... you cant except, trade, or place another on any shard & the account must stay active durring this 30 day limit. That too can be written in as well that before you can place a house the account must be on for over a 30 days period.
So if you place , you best be pertty Damn sure this is the one size and spot you want.

 

[THP]

stil say its a great idea and it deffo could be done and work and make broadsword cash flow posttive

 

[Lug]

NO. The last thing I want on legends is more empty houses. If you want an extra house open an extra account.

 

[Zeke]

I would be happy if the items that I could only use in a house would be available either at the bank or in an Inn (scroll books, shard shields, etc). Also a way to transfer items/gold from one Char to another on the same account, maybe a room at an Inn that you rent that would have safe storage that all characters on that account can access. I basically only play on 2 shards and have houses on both and only "shop" on Atlantic but the sharing of gold/items between chars would be a great step forward. I don't really want to see a bunch of useless plots on all the lower population shards if they opened up more housing per account. I like that I have a castle and that friends can still strive to get one and making multiple housing per account would make that a lot harder. Just my $.02...

 

[SpyderBite]

While the game is subscription based; housing should remain one house per account regardless of the house size. If you want an additional house, open another account. Should the game go F2P, then additional housing should be available in various sizes in a "marketplace" for RL $.

 

[The Craftsman]

stil say its a great idea and it deffo could be done and work and make broadsword cash flow posttive

Ah, but this is the thing, which Lady Storm correctly touched upon. The extra cash WOULDNT go to Broadsword ... it would go to EA, with very small likelyhood that any of it would be reinvested into UO.

It would also be a short sighted business decision if they did it. They would lose some accounts for sure (maybe not huge numbers but certainly some) and with it the regualr monthly income. They would get an influx of cash from sales which would eventually dry up so a short term gain but over time the lost account revenue would cancel out and overtake that short term cash burst. One thing they will not do is jeopardise regular income for an unknown short term cash hit.

EA likes UO as its a cash cow to fund other projects. They wont risk losing consistent paid subs for an unknown short term income, and from a business sense I dont blame them. If I was EA the only way I would do this would be 12 months before closing UO down when I knew the long term subs had a finite lifespan.

 

[THP]

but we are talking small 8x8s or 9x9s..in the middle of the malas wildernes.....people do not keep extra accounts open for small malas houses...yes for 1818s and above.... oh well ....it just sucks u have to live out ya bank box on other shards and its hard to share items between chars and hard to exchange gold ...and u need ask for a vendor form someone else...etc etc etc...would be so much easier and wonderfull if my great ideas came true...and yes it would deffo make real money for whoever!!! no doubt whatsoever....hey i dont even want the credit when it does...

 

[The Craftsman]

I understand the house size you are referring to. However I think because people need extra storage then they pay for other accounts to have houses on. If they are paying then they may as well have the biggest house possible. If they could just drop a one off $9.99 for a small storage house im sure many would find that preferable to paying monthly to keep a house standing for storage. Downsizing would be a very attractive alternative due to the $$$ savings. Sure many players will keep multiple accounts for housing for a number of reasons but dont underestimate how many would downsize on a deal like that.

The beancounters wouldnt entertain it as it carries little certainty as far as income is concenrned and therefore carries risk. Regular income through active accounts is a far preferable alternative to those who make the decisions on how game changes will affect income.

Donr get me wrong ... I love the idea. But I think it would be deemed a financial risk by EA and therefore a nonstarter

 

[THP]

Okies lets just have a 5x5 tent...some were our chars can all share items and gold etc....somwere we can logout and in safe away form the towns.....maybe just 2 box storage ...thats 250 items....but enough to safely swop stuff around the account chars......and u can place only 1 vendor...does that sound a better reality....

 

[old gypsy]

One house for the homeland... and one gypsy wagon for every shard!

 

[THP]

One house for the homeland... and one gypsy wagon for every shard!

wagon or tent....whatvever ...after all u have your house on your home shard....why not a gypsy wagon or tent to share with your other shard chars on other shards only placeable in the green acres of the barren malas wilderness

 

[old gypsy]

wagon or tent....whatvever ...after all u have your house on your home shard....why not a gypsy wagon or tent to share with your other shard chars on other shards only placeable in the green acres of the barren malas wilderness

If you had to "move it or lose it" every so often, it wouldn't have to be restricted to one land mass. You could be like a real gypsy!

 

[THP]

still its my great idea... ccome on devs nake it happen and rake the real money in... give us a small tent 5x5 whatever 2 box 1 venor store house /tent/wagon ...for our gypsy chars on other shards ....a token we can buy via broadword/origin token... so we can play our homeshard... yet enjoy/share all the other shards too....i for one would buy at least 10..on shards i likee to play but wont ever due to living out the bank box issue

 

[Lug]

I'll support the wagon idea only if wagons had "parks" to park them in. I'd even support the idea to allow other facets if these parks didn't interfere with open housing plots. Once wagons are parked, there must be npcs that hang-around the wagon with mullets. They gota talk like hicks or rednecks and have a pack of Marlboro reds cigs on hand ( or in mouth) to mask the alcohol on there breath. They MUST talk about the classic rust buckets they're working on like a chevy nova, gto, or cuda. These parks must be attacked by wind or air eleys on a regular basis.

 

[old gypsy]

I'll support the wagon idea only if wagons had "parks" to park them in. I'd even support the idea to allow other facets if these parks didn't interfere with open housing plots. Once wagons are parked, there must be npcs that hang-around the wagon with mullets. They gota talk like hicks or rednecks and have a pack of Marlboro reds cigs on hand ( or in mouth) to mask the alcohol on there breath. They MUST talk about the classic rust buckets they're working on like a chevy nova, gto, or cuda. These parks must be attacked by wind or air eleys on a regular basis.

I have to assume you never read all the suggestions on the original thread about gypsy wagons. Lots of input there on how to prevent the wagons from being a problem for anyone. http://community.stratics.com/threads/gypsy-wagons-for-players.276218/

 

[Lug]

I have to assume you never read all the suggestions on the original thread about gypsy wagons. Lots of input there on how to prevent the wagons from being a problem for anyone. http://community.stratics.com/threads/gypsy-wagons-for-players.276218/

Oh I've read it and love the idea. My post was more of an attempt at some late night humor is all.

 

[Keith of Sonoma]

I typically play only Sonoma, but I would love to be able to place a house on other shards without having to open another account. I think being able to purchase (for a one time fee) housing on another shard allows me to play them on a regular basis, and experience what they "have to offer". It might also help to breath some life into shards other than ATL. More players on a shard, for whatever length of time can't be a bad thing can it? I can't speak for anyone else, but I know it would be awesome for me. Living out of a bank prohibits me from being able to use some in game items such as the books that have to be locked down to use, the new coffee makers, etc...

 

[THP]

i deffo think it would work ans earn real cash for the develpers...iam all for prolonging this game of ours

 

[The Craftsman]

I typically play only Sonoma, but I would love to be able to place a house on other shards without having to open another account.

Of course you would. Wouldn't we all. However the owners of UO would like you to pay a monthly fee to place a house on another shard, rather than a one off payment. It makes them more money.

What we the players would like is very different from what EA want. We want stuff free or at a better price. EA want as much money from us as possible. I'm afraid that's just how it is. So for the umpteenth time whilst this is a nice idea, which we the players would all love, it ain't ever going to happen.

 

[THP]

Of course you would. Wouldn't we all. However the owners of UO would like you to pay a monthly fee to place a house on another shard, rather than a one off payment. It makes them more money.

What we the players would like is very different from what EA want. We want stuff free or at a better price. EA want as much money from us as possible. I'm afraid that's just how it is. So for the umpteenth time whilst this is a nice idea, which we the players would all love, it ain't ever going to happen.

we are not talking 1818 keep or castlees here... no one is gonna pay for a 7x7 anywere except maybe a luna shop on one of the big 4 or 5 shards... its crazy to think otherwise...iam stated as saying a 8x8 or 7x7 even less.....jesus a 6x6 tent /caravan.... storage to be 250 items or 375 items ...2 or 3 chests .. with only 1 -2 vendor placeable...

 

[THP]

devs wake up and rake this on board ansd rake the cash in..... jesus....

 

[Theo_GL]

My .02 here.

Instead of a one time token - allow secondary housing for an additional option per month. It is more revenue for EA. Charge $2 extra per house per month. So instead of a $13.99/month make it $15.99. Thats $24 a year or the same price as a couple of one month codes to keep those houses 'active'.

Its a win win. I don't want to pay for 3 or 4 full time accounts to hold on multiple shards but I would pay a few dollars extra per month.

My current status is 2 active accounts I play both holding a house on GL. I have an on again off again account (every 90 days) holding a castle on a little played shard. I'd likely pay for it as an add on and add 2 more houses for Sonoma and Catskills if I could but I"m not going to maintain more accounts.