A fix for the 90 days cycle abuse

[TimberWolf]

I think most can agree that the 90 days housing cycle for idocs isnt ideal for the long term health of the game.

But before I get burnt in effigy ( put your torches down) consider something like this.

Allow a character to put his account into a maintenance cycle for a reduced flat fee ( as compared to 14.99/month for 12 months) for 6 months or a year. The house and all their items on that account are secure but unusable.
You cant open the doors in your house....
you cant access any characters..
you cant open a chest in a house with the account in that state.

now dump the 90day account decay cycle down to 15-30 days. Lets face it... If I dont pay my hydro bill for 30 days my lights go out. If I dont pay my car loan...my car can be repossessed...etc
So why should you be allowed to keep your housing active and accessible without paying

But what this does is allows a player to keep what they have ( castles ..collectibles etc) with no risk of losing them because you forgot which day you needed to reactivate.

Real life is crazy...you have a year of account safety and your decorated castle is safe to encourage you to comeback.

I think this would be a win win for everyone ( yes I fully expect Bonnie to complain this would take too much work to program,,,she says that for any great idea that isnt hers)

Will free up housing spots long term...
Allows a player to take a break without losing something ( I have left UO twice for prolonged periods over the years and had to start over,,,I know it sucks)

EA/BS gets money still in the coffers.....

ok let the flame war begin!

 

[Gameboy]

I think most can agree that the 90 days housing cycle for idocs isnt ideal for the long term health of the game.

But before I get burnt in effigy ( put your torches down) consider something like this.

Allow a character to put his account into a maintenance cycle for a reduced flat fee ( as compared to 14.99/month for 12 months) for 6 months or a year. The house and all their items on that account are secure but unusable.
You cant open the doors in your house....
you cant access any characters..
you can open a chest in a house with the account in that state.

now dump the 90day account decay cycle down to 15-30 days. Lets face it... If I dont pay my hydro bill for 30 days my lights go out. If I dont pay my car loan...my car can be repossessed...etc
So why should you be allowed to keep your housing active and accessible without paying

But what this does is allows a player to keep what they have ( castles ..collectibles etc) with no risk of losing them because you forgot which day you needed to reactivate.

Real life is crazy...you have a year of account safety and your decorated castle is safe to encourage you to comeback.

I think this would be a win win for everyone ( yes I fully expect Bonnie to complain this would take too much work to program,,,she says that for any great idea that isnt hers)

Will free up housing spots long term...
Allows a player to take a break without losing something ( I have left UO twice for prolonged periods over the years and had to start over,,,I know it sucks)

EA/BS gets money still in the coffers.....

ok let the flame war begin!

I agree something should be done.

 

[Fridgster]

I think most can agree that the 90 days housing cycle for idocs isnt ideal for the long term health of the game.

But before I get burnt in effigy ( put your torches down) consider something like this.

Allow a character to put his account into a maintenance cycle for a reduced flat fee ( as compared to 14.99/month for 12 months) for 6 months or a year. The house and all their items on that account are secure but unusable.
You cant open the doors in your house....
you cant access any characters..
you cant open a chest in a house with the account in that state.

now dump the 90day account decay cycle down to 15-30 days. Lets face it... If I dont pay my hydro bill for 30 days my lights go out. If I dont pay my car loan...my car can be repossessed...etc
So why should you be allowed to keep your housing active and accessible without paying

But what this does is allows a player to keep what they have ( castles ..collectibles etc) with no risk of losing them because you forgot which day you needed to reactivate.

Real life is crazy...you have a year of account safety and your decorated castle is safe to encourage you to comeback.

I think this would be a win win for everyone ( yes I fully expect Bonnie to complain this would take too much work to program,,,she says that for any great idea that isnt hers)

Will free up housing spots long term...
Allows a player to take a break without losing something ( I have left UO twice for prolonged periods over the years and had to start over,,,I know it sucks)

EA/BS gets money still in the coffers.....

ok let the flame war begin!

I think a great idea may be a bit of a stretch. Besides with the many many issues that the game currently has this one issue would be aweful low on the list.

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

no thank you.

 

[Elenni]

How would you stop this from being abused by people claiming even more premium, discounted housing spaces with the intent to re-sell them? I know of several in Luna that have been unused and "for sale" for years already. Wouldn't this just make it more convenient and cheaper in the long run for them to do so?

 

[Dot_Warner]

Just lower the subscription fee to something realistic for a game going on its 19th year, something commensurate to Broadsword's output.

 

[Zuckuss]

It's specified on your electric bill that if you don't pay in x amount of days, your electricity will be turned off. It is specified in the UO terms of service that if you don't pay your bill in 90 days that your house will fall.

How is it "abuse" if customers are folowing the written policy?

 

[Larisa]

There are honestly too many contingencies to make this a viable option.

It is a well thought out idea, but the flat rate would have to be pretty high so Broadsword doesn't lose money.

I agree that the 90-day juggling act is abused by some...but not all.

For those who are unable to pay for their accounts due to financial distress or other unavoidable issues, a flat-rate might not be an option either.

 

[FrejaSP]

I agree something need to be done. If you do not pay and can't login your account no other account should be able access secure storage, lockdown/secure/unlock/unsecure items. That count for containers set to friend, guild, co-owner, owner only.
I don't agree in closed doors, I would say, changes house to public and set all doors/teleporters to anyone/public
Same with runebooks, anyone should be able to gate/recall from them but not remove the runes.
If any house teleporters, they should be set to anyone too, this way, a house working as a hub/runebibliotek would still work.
Stuff like crystal portals, luck statue, crafting add ones like forge, spinn and loom should work for anyone too.
Resources from mining cart, sheep, etc should be anyone too.
Vendors in house should refuse to sell anything, let them go to house sign and vendor owners can claim them there

With other words, if not paid, house can be used of the community except anything in friend, guild, co-owner, owner only secures, this secures will protected and no one can access them.
The moment a house is paid again, the old secure setting will be back.

I have 6 accounts and I pay all 6 account, they never go unpaid. The 90 days was made, so people did not lose their house if something did happen to them and they could not pay for the game for 1-3 month and could not play.
This way, they would keep their house and items but could not own several houses and only pay each house 3 x 1 month a year and use them all with their main account and only pay that account each month.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

*Stares at pile of unlit torches* *Sighs*

 

[Capt. Lucky]

Yeah I agree something needs to be done. So many people I know play this game with valuable spots like Luna houses and castles. It wouldn't bother me if I knew they were actually paying for them. I'm rather stable with my accounts so odds are I would actually pay for extra accounts to secure some of these spots. People say they'll quit. But for each player that secures a good spot with a full time account you could lose 3 of these part time accounts. IDOCs are fun too! This behavior actually snow balls more of this kind of activity. I think about doing this quite often now. Why should I be a sap and pay full price? Hey I'd love a 75% discount lol. We've seen it so many times that people will quit. In reality it doesn't happen. For the few that do leave it would way more than made up for it by the people acquiring extra accounts for these spots and people biting the bullet and begin to actually pay for their accounts. I really can't rag on the folks doing this as long as Broadsword allows it. Hell we might as well all join in. Why not? Buy one month get 3 free! Thanks Broadsword! You guys at Broadsword must be rolling in cash to do this for us!

 

[AnneNomilly]

I think most can agree that the 90 days housing cycle for idocs isnt ideal for the long term health of the game.

But before I get burnt in effigy ( put your torches down) consider something like this.

Allow a character to put his account into a maintenance cycle for a reduced flat fee ( as compared to 14.99/month for 12 months) for 6 months or a year. The house and all their items on that account are secure but unusable.
You cant open the doors in your house....
you cant access any characters..
you cant open a chest in a house with the account in that state.

now dump the 90day account decay cycle down to 15-30 days. Lets face it... If I dont pay my hydro bill for 30 days my lights go out. If I dont pay my car loan...my car can be repossessed...etc
So why should you be allowed to keep your housing active and accessible without paying

But what this does is allows a player to keep what they have ( castles ..collectibles etc) with no risk of losing them because you forgot which day you needed to reactivate.

Real life is crazy...you have a year of account safety and your decorated castle is safe to encourage you to comeback.

I think this would be a win win for everyone ( yes I fully expect Bonnie to complain this would take too much work to program,,,she says that for any great idea that isnt hers)

Will free up housing spots long term...
Allows a player to take a break without losing something ( I have left UO twice for prolonged periods over the years and had to start over,,,I know it sucks)

EA/BS gets money still in the coffers.....

ok let the flame war begin!

Completely get where you are going and why. Well thought out idea.

What if, instead of a flat rate, you limit the number of times a house/account goes into the 90 days cycle? It could be two times, three times, whatever number but after that, next time the account goes 30 days dormant, the houses fall. Would that give time to anyone who has r/l issues to get them sorted? I can see that maybe I need to let my account go dormant for 3 to 6 months, maybe even a year just to give full safety. But, and this is just me, if I'm not back in a year, I should probably pack up anything I want and just start over when I get time/money/inclination.

Seems that might also stop the abuse but give people a chance to catch their breath if needed?

Just my two cents.

 

[Uvtha]

I think most can agree that the 90 days housing cycle for idocs isnt ideal for the long term health of the game.

But before I get burnt in effigy ( put your torches down) consider something like this.

Allow a character to put his account into a maintenance cycle for a reduced flat fee ( as compared to 14.99/month for 12 months) for 6 months or a year. The house and all their items on that account are secure but unusable.
You cant open the doors in your house....
you cant access any characters..
you cant open a chest in a house with the account in that state.

now dump the 90day account decay cycle down to 15-30 days. Lets face it... If I dont pay my hydro bill for 30 days my lights go out. If I dont pay my car loan...my car can be repossessed...etc
So why should you be allowed to keep your housing active and accessible without paying

But what this does is allows a player to keep what they have ( castles ..collectibles etc) with no risk of losing them because you forgot which day you needed to reactivate.

Real life is crazy...you have a year of account safety and your decorated castle is safe to encourage you to comeback.

I think this would be a win win for everyone ( yes I fully expect Bonnie to complain this would take too much work to program,,,she says that for any great idea that isnt hers)

Will free up housing spots long term...
Allows a player to take a break without losing something ( I have left UO twice for prolonged periods over the years and had to start over,,,I know it sucks)

EA/BS gets money still in the coffers.....

ok let the flame war begin!

Well, honestly that is basically how it is now. You pay 1/3 sub rate to not play but not lose your house.

 

[Fridgster]

Well, honestly that is basically how it is now. You pay 1/3 sub rate to not play but not lose your house.

Honestly just seems like op is upset that someone benifits from something that he percieves as an abuse. The argument about taking house placement from paying customers is laughable at best.

 

[omukai]

I tried to place a house today, on Atlantic. I'd love to have one in Tokuno, especially in Makoto-Jima, but half of the town belongs the same guy. During my search around the islands I also encountered lots of dirt patches.

Ended up putting one down somewhere in neverland, Felucca.

 

[kaio]

15 days idoc timer, gets my vote any day
I mean come on, we live in 2016, its not like we dont have VISA/paypal/mastercard/etc etc..

 

[Stubentiger]

Just save the stuff if the account runs out of gametime. Let the house drop and if the account gets reopened you can access the items again. No loot from idocs anymore, though i doubt that is a issue, as housing spots are freed up.

 

[Uvtha]

Just save the stuff if the account runs out of gametime. Let the house drop and if the account gets reopened you can access the items again. No loot from idocs anymore, though i doubt that is a issue, as housing spots are freed up.

I dunno. The good thing about Idocs is that the items in the house don't end up just being lost forever. While the boxing up of a houses contents would be good for the player who left, the odds are that many wouldn't come back, and those items would just sit in the data forever, or would eventually be purged.

Anyway, abuse or not (I tend to think that it is, despite the fact that I abuse it heartily) there's really no reason to change it. It's part of the game at this point. Then again, they love changing 10 year old stuff out of the blue for no reason, so... beware!

 

[Arroth Thaiel]

It's specified on your electric bill that if you don't pay in x amount of days, your electricity will be turned off. It is specified in the UO terms of service that if you don't pay your bill in 90 days that your house will fall.

How is it "abuse" if customers are folowing the written policy?

This is so very true.

How long before they change the policy ya think?

I bet EA won't let you pay one month for that new all inclusive game service of theirs and then give you three more months for free. Honestly, it's amazing EA allows this to continue in UO (and lucky for us I guess).

One day a corporate accountant will realize what's going on and that will be that. They'll nuke this policy just on principle. (Or, UO is so insignificant to EA they will just ignore it and let Broadsword do what Broadsword thinks is best.)

 

[Tanivar]

It would be nice to eliminate the hundreds of houses that sit there for years on unused accounts. How many newbies might stay if they could get those nice house spots to work out of as they play instead of winding up in a small home way out in the boondocks?

 

[CovenantX]

I to this day, still can't believe you guys are trying to give (or save) money for EA/BS...

on a side note, I do agree to an extent, but in all honesty, I think the rules should just be changed to where you have 30 days of your account being inactive before your house goes into decay.

Either way, I'm not worried about it, I don't abuse it, but at the same time, the Devs obviously don't consider this to be something that needs addressing anytime soon either... Which is a good thing, we might have something to worry about if it was an issue of concern to the EA/BS.

 

[Spock's Beard]

Only EA/BS know the game's financial and subscription stats, and speculation on this topic is worthless without that information. All we know right now is that Broadsword has considered the current system to be financially worthwhile for a very long time now.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

People seem to be way off track on this. I was here when this system started. It was the first Iraq war and people were screaming that military folks would lose their accounts while serving our country overseas and out of touch with electronic devices. That's the *ONLY* reason this current fiasco exists. After much flag waving and patriotic hoopla it was agreed to extend the time to renew accounts for the benefit of our servicemen (and women). It was never intended to be a loop hole to hoard housing spots from active players and have a free closet to hoard items in. To use this as a form of perpetual game play is an abuse of the system as intended. It's an exploit. Plain and simple. Broadsword should realize this costs them money. Giving away free game time isn't helping them the least bit. I hope BS wakes up for their own good, and ours, and extend the life of the game with the extra revenue they would have from ending this exploit. It's completely gutless on the part of BS to ignore this situation and reward exploiters over the paying player base. Technology has advanced a great deal since this started and I doubt any military folks are having a hard time keeping up with their accounts anymore regardless of where they're stationed. The need for this system has out lived it's intention and it's time for it to end. The fear of losing non paying customers is of little concern to me. Having empty houses stored all over the game is of no benefit. It only discourages active players from continuing the game when they realize half the key housing spots in the game are tied up in limbo due to the exploiters.

 

[Merlin]

The "90 day cycle" non-sense should be done away for:
- ALL Atlantic accounts
- Any accounts with Castles
- Any accounts with Luna housing.

Anyone who uses the 90 day cycle two times consecutively should be investigated with a GM visiting the housing spot.

 

[MalagAste]

Honestly it ought to be none of anyone elses business what other players do.

Now to me if someone wants to play Roulette with their accounts then that's their prerogative since it's honestly been allowed to continue for how many years now???

And also if they lose their stuff due to weirdness with the stupid system then so be it.... that's their problem.

And furthermore... I honestly don't think that it matters HOW much money we spend or how many accounts we have, pay for or anything else. My guess is that the DEVs are a paid a salary.... they are given X # of dollars for the maintenance of the game etc... and no matter what income it does or does not generate... that will NOT change... If we got 100k new subscribers tomorrow that extra income would go strait to EA NOT Broadsword.

If it went to Broadsword you'd think that they would work extra hard to actually increase income.... but since I'm pretty sure that's not the case... I highly doubt the DEVs care what we spend or don't spend..... they get paid what they get paid regardless. And they aren't in any rush to make money for EA.

 

[HoneythornGump]

*Light Torch*
*Brandishes Pitchfork*
*Open ups barrel of tar*

How about they make the game free to play? Then I'll never have to see another thread, or hear players whine about this so called "90 day" abuse.

How about they remove the limit on houses? Let players place 1 house per shard per account....

Any income UO generates should be welcome with open arms.

If they change the rules on this, this game will simply lose what little revenue it does generate.

Storm in a teacup thread.

 

[The Craftsman]

Firstly, the decision to change the current 90 day policy will not rest with broadsword. It will be an EA decision as it effects game revenue (and as MalagAste correctly stated, the devs are most probably flat rate subcontractors). EA will be fully aware of how many accounts do the 90 day shuffle and what revenue that brings in. Remove that completely and its a risk for EA as to what percentage will simply drop houses and EA will lose the quarterly revenue against how many would go full subscription. I suspect its not a risk that EA are prepared to contemplate. If they were going to change it they would have by now.

Secondly any system that involved the OP's suggestion would need to be sufficiently high in cost to cover the revenue EA would lose from the 90 dayers. Anything less and they arent going to go this route and risk revenue loss.

Thirdly this isnt really a problem in todays UO except perhaps on Atlantic. Every other shard has free spots of many sizes.

Lastly it seems once again that its the greed of the existing playerbase that is driving the wanting the 90 day rule dropped in order to gobble up bigger and better housing spots.

After all of this time and the game in decline EA are not going to do anything that risks losing revenue. The 90 day rule has been here for a long time and is here to stay. And to be honest ... with the current state of the game, it doesnt really matter

 

[Longtooths]

It's specified on your electric bill that if you don't pay in x amount of days, your electricity will be turned off. It is specified in the UO terms of service that if you don't pay your bill in 90 days that your house will fall.

How is it "abuse" if customers are folowing the written policy?

Integrity.

 

[Lady Storm]

1.) EA is the main recipient of every dime we pay for UO.
2.) There are more reasons that this 90 day grace period is in force. (please see addenda)
3,) Why is it any reason for us to mess with? Is it really hurting you?
Answers :
While you and I might not agree with things as they sit, It is none of our business how EA deals with it.
It don't hurt us in one iota.
Addenda:
Not only is it for people who cant afford the cost of the "extra" housing accounts. (your loophole) This 90 day has saved many from the loss of their homes(accounts) due to errors in banking, CC dates mismatch, and the ever dark hole of EA billing errors. I can tell you this from my own experience on quite a few of my grandfathered accounts! A CC error in its date change that didn't go in on time or didn't register in billing management that never made it to my E-Mail account. No notice... and I found out the hard way. As have many others to the loss of UO when houses fell and years of hard work and love went poof in another persons pocket.

While this is a good thought on your part sir and I do understand your standing on this... I feel it will hurt more then help.
We are thin as it is and if this will kill off more players .... id rather see the 1/3 of a year paid for then no pay at all and people leave.

 

[Merlin]

Honestly it ought to be none of anyone elses business what other players do..

It affects everyone in game. It's everyone's business.

 

[WootSauce]

It affects everyone in game. It's everyone's business.

It absolutely does not affect everyone in game, and as Zuckuss pointed out earlier:

"It is specified in the UO terms of service that if you don't pay your bill in 90 days that your house will fall. How is it "abuse" if customers are following the written policy?"

You dislike it, and that is ok. However its not an "abuse" as this has been OSI, then EA, now EA/BS policy for the vast majority of the existence of the game. And, before you ask... no, I do not use this method of account renewal, and yes, I keep multiple (too many) accounts active every month.

What is your real motive here? Freeing up housing that you perceive as being "immorally maintained" on your precious Atlantic shard? Or is it just being a CPA in real life and wanting to disagree with a well established, long standing policy of a gaming company which you find unpalatable?

/ disclaimer, 7 of my 10 houses are on the precious Atlantic shard
// also - in my ten + years on this board, @Merlin, you may be the only poster that I have ever encountered who I disagree with 100% of the time. Congrats!
/// slashies come in threes

 

[Spock's Beard]

Yeah this is seriously one of the stupidest "causes" anyone here has ever adopted. As if the game's account policy of the last 10+ years is somehow broken and EA needs a couple of know-nothing randoms on a forum to point it out to them. The ones who try to make it some sort of "moral" issue are even worse.

Reality check: If EA thought this policy was losing them money they would have nuked it from orbit themselves. (Because they have the financial data and, you know, they like money.) They certainly wouldn't change their financial policy because a few crybabies on a forum they barely read want to place bigger houses on Atlantic.

 

[Merlin]

It absolutely does not affect everyone in game,

YES. IT. DOES.

"It is specified in the UO terms of service that if you don't pay your bill in 90 days that your house will fall. How is it "abuse" if customers are following the written policy?"

In my humble opinion, it's dishonest and shady. I call it like I see it.

Freeing up housing that you perceive as being "immorally maintained" on your precious Atlantic shard?

This.

also - in my ten + years on this board, @Merlin, you may be the only poster that I have ever encountered who I disagree with 100% of the time. Congrats!

Make way for the bad guy.

/// slashies come in threes

Derp.

And as always... @Merlin. Stupidest. Posts. Ever.

Freeing up castles and other prime houses isn't stupid.

"i spend my money more often than other people spend theirs! that makes me more special!"

Money talks, BS walks.

 

[WootSauce]

YES. IT. DOES.

Caps lock does not enhance or fortify your "argument".

 

[Merlin]

Caps lock does not enhance or fortify your "argument".

Affects everyone else who is prevented from possibly having those plots. It's as simple as that.

 

[WootSauce]

Affects everyone else who is prevented from possibly having those plots. It's as simple as that.

I have a house in a "hidden" spot in Malas which has one house on the left and one on the right and in 8 years, I have never seen either player, and the houses have never been modified or re-decoed. Should I assume that these are maintained by the 90 day "loophole" and pitch a pancake, or should I assume that they are paid monthly? Is it any of my business? If they are playing by the rules that OSI, and then EA, and then EA/BS have established? Maybe I should stomp my feet and try to find a way to shake them loose and make them available to me and the rest of the public? Your stance is shaky, at best Murlin.

 

[cazador]

I say if your too dumb to get your account/credit cards whatever the case is in order in 30 days or less..you probably should take classes. "Sorry ahead of time to the .0001% who had a real life tragedy that the 90 days spared." UO probably wasn't on your top of care lists anyways, and if it would of hurt so bad..it takes 5 minutes to add game time or a recurring credit card payment. It's pure laziness..bottom line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Merlin]

Your stance is shaky, at best Murlin.

I'm entitled to my opinion, as are you. I never shy away from unpopular stances and I maintain this 90-day cycle practice should be done away on Atlantic.

 

[Keith of Sonoma]

I'm entitled to my opinion, as are you. I never shy away from unpopular stances and I maintain this 90-day cycle practice should be done away on Atlantic.

While I seldom agree with you, ROFL, I DO agree that you are as entitled to your opinion as any one else. FYI, in this case, I DO agree! But not just on ATL, on all shards. Although I also think nothing will change.

 

[WootSauce]

I'm entitled to my opinion, as are you. I never shy away from unpopular stances and I maintain this 90-day cycle practice should be done away on Atlantic.

Yes, lets petition the devs to monitor billing cycles for all accounts which play and have houses only on Atlantic shard and ask them to code in specific rules that are different from the global rules of the last 12+ years. That's a perfectly reasonable request from one Merkin with no ulterior motive at all.

 

[WootSauce]

@Merlin - Wow - in the 90 seconds it took me to write the response, you deleted your rebuttal of "Then do it for all shards"

Or let the decision made by the powers that be - 12+ years ago, with financial considerations on their end in mind remain in place. And let your silly "moral" disagreement with that decision die, and somehow come to terms with not being able to acquire the lovely plots on Atlantic which you somehow "know" are held by the "immoral" abusers of "the system".

 

[WootSauce]

You deleted atleast two posts on this thread, too. Derp.

You're just making this a personal issue with me and trolling at this point and I saw better of it to delete my post rather than respond to you further when you're not truly interested in discussing the issue.

The issue - "Abuse of the current rules established by OSI / EA / EA&BS" 12 years ago.

There is no troll here. Just disagreement. Each post that I deleted was to re-copy my response and quote you, as opposed to just posting a response.

You see this as an issue. Myself and others see this as a term and condition of paying for and playing the game. You can call "Troll" on me all you want, it won't strengthen your position.

 

[WootSauce]

No will all your minor insults either.

My arguments are still there for your rebuttal. Your argument is simply - "I want more access to castles, and Atlantic property than I currently have, and my theory on this is.... 90 day housing crap."

 

[WootSauce]

No will all your minor insults either.

And you didn't just re-copy posts. You changed them entirely.

But this was exactly the point of my last post - now this is becoming about semantics, which is ridiculous.

Any mod of these boards has my permission to post any unedited, deleted posts that I have made in the last several hours. Not a problem.

 

[WootSauce]

Wow, you deleted a lot of responses....

 

[MalagAste]

It affects everyone in game. It's everyone's business.

What are you going to cry unfair about next? The 15 or 20 people who still play and still have Grandfathered Accounts with more than one house on them??? FYI for you .... they're still out there... Still holding even a house on every shard. Don't see anyone crying over that.

And before you ask I pay for all my accounts and I have probably 18 houses or more.

 

[Merlin]

What are you going to cry unfair about next? The 15 or 20 people who still play and still have Grandfathered Accounts with more than one house on them??? FYI for you .... they're still out there... Still holding even a house on every shard. Don't see anyone crying over that.

And before you ask I pay for all my accounts and I have probably 18 houses or more.

Fairness has nothing to do with my position on this issue, nor have I cried 'unfair'. I genuinely believe this practice hurts the game.

 

[WootSauce]

Fairness has nothing to do with my position on this issue, nor have I cried 'unfair'. I genuinely believe this practice hurts the game.

So after retracting all of your responses to me, you are done responding?

 

[MalagAste]

Fairness has nothing to do with my position on this issue, nor have I cried 'unfair'. I genuinely believe this practice hurts the game.

There are FAR worse things destroying the game than a few cheapskates who want to risk losing their house playing roulette.

 

[WootSauce]

you can page and cry about how i am against you however ...your position is indefensible, but it will be fun to watch you flail around.