A fix for the 90 days cycle abuse

[WootSauce]

My guess is that there are more accounts paid for monthly - by unwitting parents of millennials (who signed up 8 years ago with their parents CC) - who pay the bill monthly because they have no idea what it is, or that their kid hasn't touched the service / game in 5 years than there are people who calculate and schedule 90 day payments to "cheat the system"

Thus keeping houses from you house hungry folks. Those would be paying monthly charges, as do we all.

 

[Merlin]

Are you outta your $%^&&* mind?

Their gonna lose revenue....BIG TIME!

You know this no better than Captain Lucky, WootSauce, me, the original poster, or anyone else. This is speculation, just as it us coming from any of us.

If even 25% of the accounts doing the 90 day cycle re-subbed full time (or are replaced by new subs), it becomes a wash financially.

And the fact that we have players like yourself referring to this as a loophole, explot, "free lunch", or taking advantage of is absolutely hilarious.

Respectfully, this is almost a text book example the financial/economic concept of a "free lunch". An opportunity is being taken away from others to give away something for 'free' or at a reduced cost to favored or related parties, herein being potential new subs that would pay 100% of the time versus subs who are exploiting this 90 day situation.

I don't see anywhere in the agreement where it defines that this is allowed. Admittedly, it also doesn't say it isn't allowed. Thus, this is a loophole that does not appear to be enforced and is instead exploited. But we can debate semantics all night, that's not the point here.

I have 1 Castle on my main account on Sonoma (still active). I have 2 houses on Atlantic (Neither prime locations), and I have 2 houses on a deserted shard that I like to play on when I don't want to be bothered.

They change the 90 day rule....I got news for you...no one is going to be placing houses on that deserted shard where I have my two houses to replace the revenue.

Which is why is should be applied exclusively to Atlantic, if there is a way to do that.

Those of you who think UO is somehow going to increase their revenue stream are off your %^&^&&& rockers, and not only that, it's playing with fire as this game needs all the revenue it can get.

Admittedly, it's a risk. All changes are risky. The only reason not to do this would be the aversion to change. However, it has the potential to bring in more revenue as well. No one knows better than any one else on this thread.

Q: You know who has numbers to quantify all of our opinions and assertions? A: EA / BS.

Everyone else has an "opinion" based on "observation" and "speculation".

When EA / BS asks for you opinion on the matter, be ready to share. If you feel strongly about this argument one way or the other, please proactively craft a well written email to the powers that be explaining your stance.

This forum is also a suitable place to discuss this issue. The developers come here and see the things we discuss. That's not to say anything will be done about it, but doesn't mean it doesn't belong here for posters, like myself, to gripe about it.

My guess is that there are more accounts paid for monthly - by unwitting parents of millennials (who signed up 8 years ago with their parents CC) - who pay the bill monthly because they have no idea what it is, or that their kid hasn't touched the service / game in 5 years than there are people who calculate and schedule 90 day payments to "cheat the system"

Thus keeping houses from you house hungry folks. Those would be paying monthly charges, as do we all.

This is very possibly true, but doesn't make the '90 day cycle' exploit any more acceptable.

 

[WootSauce]

the '90 day cycle' exploit

is a quote by you, an accusation by you and up to you to prove that it is a legit "thing" that is sapping money or resources from this game. as you have no stats - you can not do any of these things with anything other than your opinions, observations and assertions.

 

[HoneythornGump]

Removing the 90 day cycle will make it all that much easier to for players to walk away from the game permanently.

I can pay every 3 months: "Okay...I'm not sure what to do. I don't login too much anymore, but I still love the game. Maybe I'll start playing again sometime....I'm not ready to sever ties permanently with the game I once loved so much" player ponies up the $12.99 while he has 3 months to think about whether not he wants to continue to pay to play a dying game that is sorely neglected in many aspects.

You have to pay every month: "Hell I never log in anymore. I'll always love the game, but only 4-5 Bosses drop anything worthwhile anymore,and I've killed them all 100+ times now. The fun spawns like Peerless & Champion Spawns don't drop didly squat. Treasure hunting is a joke...I just can't justify paying to play a game I hardly login in every month" Player cancels account and head over to Steam to see what new games have been released.

Anyone with eyes can see what's happened to shards becoming ghost towns over the past year or two, and knows this is a no brainer.

My reluctance to shut down accounts permanently and put them on a 90 day hiatus has much more to do with me severing ties with Ultima Online completely, than it does me trying to keep all my ****. I can easily store all my most valuable items on characters backpack, bank vault, and beetle.

I can tell you this though...once I start closing down a few of my accounts permanently the other aren't far behind.

Changing the option to put my accounts on hiatus will certainly push me in one direction.

Something for the powers to be to think about should they every contemplate changing the 90 day cycle.

 

[WootSauce]

@Merlin - we clearly disagree. we both clearly love the game for obviously different and irreconcilable reasons.

I am going to do us both a favor and back out of replying to this thread for the time being. No moderation will bring us to some sort of agreement on the topics at hand.

 

[Merlin]

@Merlin - we clearly disagree. we both clearly love the game for obviously different and irreconcilable reasons.

I am going to do us both a favor and back out of replying to this thread for the time being. No moderation will bring us to some sort of agreement on the topics at hand.

My disagreements were nothing personal, strictly business. Clearly, there are many different passionate opinions on the topic so good to air them out now and then, even though people on my side of this particular issue likely don't have any hope or expectation that much will change here any time soon.

 

[MalagAste]

So lets say that the people that play the 90 day game close their account or consolidate. Someone who is willing to pay a monthly reoccurring rate, lets say on ATL will plant a house at the same location faster then you can do the following math: Thus trading 4 month sub for a 12 month sub....

It does not take a lot of the occurrences above to more than make up for the dead servers where people would not place.

Show me the glut of people that aren't already paying for their subs every month that will magically appear if they change the rules vs those that I know for a FACT will VANISH and take away that 12X3 or 12x4 that they pay right now..... I'm willing to bet that for every 1 that "might" come if there was a spot to place on atl..... there are 20 or more who will vacate... and take with the 1 to 5 fully paid accounts along with it...

But I guess you all would rather see UO as a ghost town everywhere.

 

[FrejaSP]

Maybe a solution for the housing crunch on Atlantic is to let every house, no matter its actual size, have the same storage capacity as a castle.

I do not agree with that but small houses sure need more storage.
What about this:
Houses less than 10 x 10 tiles = 2500 storages
Houses from 10 x 10 to 18 x 18 tiles but max 4000 storage
Keep = 5000 storages
Castles = 6000 storages

Keep and Castles would still have better storage but if you do have multi accounts anyway, you could own 3 small houses and have more storages than in one castle.
A young player could get a 7x7 house and still be able to run vendors from it and store resources needed and some BoDs
It would help Siege too as even when it still would be nice to own a castle, it won't be a must.

Lets say a castle drop, a small guild could easy place:
9 small houses max 10 x 7 = 9 x 2500 storage = 25,500 storage
or 6 small at 10 x 13 = 6 x 4000 storage = 24,000 storage
or 4 large 15 x 13 = 4 x 4000 = 16,000 storage

This may do, that if a castle drop, we won't see a new castle in the spot.

 

[Longtooths]

Show me the glut of people that aren't already paying for their subs every month that will magically appear if they change the rules vs those that I know for a FACT will VANISH and take away that 12X3 or 12x4 that they pay right now..... I'm willing to bet that for every 1 that "might" come if there was a spot to place on atl..... there are 20 or more who will vacate... and take with the 1 to 5 fully paid accounts along with it...

But I guess you all would rather see UO as a ghost town everywhere.

I for one would consider opening another 3 accounts to hold houses and pay the monthly fees. By doing this, I would monetarily make up for 9 people that play the 90-day game leaving. It does not take long for the numbers to add up.

 

[Longtooths]

Removing the 90 day cycle will make it all that much easier to for players to walk away from the game permanently.

I can pay every 3 months: "Okay...I'm not sure what to do. I don't login too much anymore, but I still love the game. Maybe I'll start playing again sometime....I'm not ready to sever ties permanently with the game I once loved so much" player ponies up the $12.99 while he has 3 months to think about whether not he wants to continue to pay to play a dying game that is sorely neglected in many aspects.

You have to pay every month: "Hell I never log in anymore. I'll always love the game, but only 4-5 Bosses drop anything worthwhile anymore,and I've killed them all 100+ times now. The fun spawns like Peerless & Champion Spawns don't drop didly squat. Treasure hunting is a joke...I just can't justify paying to play a game I hardly login in every month" Player cancels account and head over to Steam to see what new games have been released.

Anyone with eyes can see what's happened to shards becoming ghost towns over the past year or two, and knows this is a no brainer.

My reluctance to shut down accounts permanently and put them on a 90 day hiatus has much more to do with me severing ties with Ultima Online completely, than it does me trying to keep all my ****. I can easily store all my most valuable items on characters backpack, bank vault, and beetle.

I can tell you this though...once I start closing down a few of my accounts permanently the other aren't far behind.

Changing the option to put my accounts on hiatus will certainly push me in one direction.

Something for the powers to be to think about should they every contemplate changing the 90 day cycle.

Powers That Be,

No worries, I will open a few accounts to take his house spots to make up for his leaving....just sayin'

 

[TimberWolf]

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.

I am sorry but you are dead wrong on this..... the first iraq war was in 1990-1991 ( trust me on this one....I was serving at the time) this policy has nothing to do with that engagement, You werent playing UO when that war started....no one was... that was 26 years ago. UO launched in 1997 it is my understanding that this policy was started circa 2002 during the second iraq war.

But what we agree on is the day has past for this policy....Further as a retired Vet, anyone that uses this system, but never served a day, is a total low life. It sickens me to listen to people justify why they deserve to continue to exploit this system for their own greedy reasons.

 

[Zosimus]

IF EA and BS has no true issue with the 90 day cycle maybe the easier solution is add a housing facet that is just for players who want to keep their house on the 90 day cycle.

1) If your account goes inactive past 60 days your house is moved to the housing facet.

2) Owners, Co-owners, friends can still access the house and their housing status.

3) You lose your housing spot period on any shard facet once your house goes past the 60 day inactivity. On day 61 your house is moved.

4) You may keep your house on the housing facet if you want once you activate the account again.

5) You can still place a new house back on any server facet if you choose and you have 7 days to move your stuff out of the house on the housing facet. The new 60 day inactivity comes back into effect once you move your house back in the regular facets.

6) You can not sell the house on the housing facet to any other player. It's only meant for saving your house and items on a hiatus period.

7) This gives all active players a chance to place a house on the regular facets while 90 day cycle players are not holding prime housing spots.

8) Your house on the housing facet will still have the idoc rules in effect if you do not pay your account by 90 days.

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

Removing the 90 day cycle will make it all that much easier to for players to walk away from the game permanently.

I can pay every 3 months: "Okay...I'm not sure what to do. I don't login too much anymore, but I still love the game. Maybe I'll start playing again sometime....I'm not ready to sever ties permanently with the game I once loved so much" player ponies up the $12.99 while he has 3 months to think about whether not he wants to continue to pay to play a dying game that is sorely neglected in many aspects.

You have to pay every month: "Hell I never log in anymore. I'll always love the game, but only 4-5 Bosses drop anything worthwhile anymore,and I've killed them all 100+ times now. The fun spawns like Peerless & Champion Spawns don't drop didly squat. Treasure hunting is a joke...I just can't justify paying to play a game I hardly login in every month" Player cancels account and head over to Steam to see what new games have been released.

Anyone with eyes can see what's happened to shards becoming ghost towns over the past year or two, and knows this is a no brainer.

My reluctance to shut down accounts permanently and put them on a 90 day hiatus has much more to do with me severing ties with Ultima Online completely, than it does me trying to keep all my ****. I can easily store all my most valuable items on characters backpack, bank vault, and beetle.

I can tell you this though...once I start closing down a few of my accounts permanently the other aren't far behind.

Changing the option to put my accounts on hiatus will certainly push me in one direction.

Something for the powers to be to think about should they every contemplate changing the 90 day cycle.

^^^ this post sums up my sentiments to a tee. i was a hardcore uo player back in the day. nowadays i spend more time on stratics than i do in-game. i spent more time in-game last week than i have in the past 4 months only because i attended rares fest.

in my uo lifetime i've had 24+ accounts. of the 24, 12 are permanently shutdown never to be activated again. i subscribe to 6 accounts which are paid all year long. then there are 6 accounts that i reactivate on occasion or do the 90 day resub. over the past few months i have toyed with the idea of liquidating and scaling down to 1 or 2 accounts. i love the game but it has lost it's appeal. changing the house decay interval would give me the incentive to move on.

 

[Longtooths]

^^^ this post sums up my sentiments to a tee. i was a hardcore uo player back in the day. nowadays i spend more time on stratics than i do in-game. i spent more time in-game last week than i have in the past 4 months only because i attended rares fest.

in my uo lifetime i've had 24+ accounts. of the 24, 12 are permanently shutdown never to be activated again. i subscribe to 6 accounts which are paid all year long. then there are 6 accounts that i reactivate on occasion or do the 90 day resub. over the past few months i have toyed with the idea of liquidating and scaling down to 1 or 2 accounts. i love the game but it has lost it's appeal. changing the house decay interval would give me the incentive to move on.

.....and other people the opportunity to place housing and pay monthly.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

Would they? A lot of folks might just drop houses and consolidate if they closed the loophole and EA loses 4 months revenue per year. If EA thought that changing the rule would increase their income then they damn sure would change it. Also its not an exploit.

I'll respond to your misinformation from several posts here. An exploit is when a person uses a trick for his advantage not as intended. It's clearly an exploit. Just because we are so use to BS/EA accepting exploits and doing nothing about it doesn't change the clear fact of what it is.

Perhaps your using new math or something but I believe people are paying 3 months a year not 4. One on and three off comes up to about 3 billings a year. As you say... come on your better than that. My point being is people are hoarding choice spots and will pay for them if they have to. I'll repeat people aren't paying to hold onto Minoc swampland. Someone has to pay to keep the game running, If we lose 4 accounts of exploiters we only need one of those accounts to decide they aren't giving up that prime house spot even if they actually have to pay for it. Very very easy to accomplish. I'm sure the actual number ponying up full price would be much higher than that. I'm not interested in being one of the people paying for your house collection.

So very few, if any accounts would be lost and the revenue overall increases AND BS would stop treating the people that actually pay for this game to keep it running like saps. We lose a few exploiters? SWEET! I know when I see a sweet spot I want I'll be adding a full time account. I'm sure many others would too. Since you seem to infer this is a minor issue, then I see no problem fixing it. You folks that are absorbed in greed and cheating EA outta their cash will bring this game to it's end many years before it normally would have. I see all you folks abusing this exploit as thieves. While I come here because frankly, it's kinda fun, lol, I am kicking this upstairs to make EA aware of what is going on here. I will continue at the EA level until I get a reasonable response. It's an exploit, it's unfair, it costs EA money, and it plays the regular full time subscribers as saps.

You guys can argue with yourselves, but I'm extremely interested in where this goes. I will admit I'm a little ashamed of @Mesanna and @Kyronix for not addressing this long ago, a situation I know they are aware of. It's not my intention to embarrass the BS team but their silence is deafening and it's time to try a new route with EA directly. Let the game begin! I encourage others from both sides of the issue to do so as well.

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

.....and other people the opportunity to place housing and pay monthly.

really? you can't be serious. do you honestly think people are coming back to sonoma in droves?? omg. EA would be hardpressed to get 1 new sub to replace the ones i'd deactivate.

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

I'll respond to your misinformation from several posts here. An exploit is when a person uses a trick for his advantage not as intended. It's clearly an exploit. Just because we are so use to BS/EA accepting exploits and doing nothing about it doesn't change the clear fact of what it is.

Perhaps your using new math or something but I believe people are paying 3 months a year not 4. One on and three off comes up to about 3 billings a year. As you say... come on your better than that. My point being is people are hoarding choice spots and will pay for them if they have to. I'll repeat people aren't paying to hold onto Minoc swampland. Someone has to pay to keep the game running, If we lose 4 accounts of exploiters we only need one of those accounts to decide they aren't giving up that prime house spot even if they actually have to pay for it. Very very easy to accomplish. I'm sure the actual number ponying up full price would be much higher than that. I'm not interested in being one of the people paying for your house collection.

So very few, if any accounts would be lost and the revenue overall increases AND BS would stop treating the people that actually pay for this game to keep it running like saps. We lose a few exploiters? SWEET! I know when I see a sweet spot I want I'll be adding a full time account. I'm sure many others would too. Since you seem to infer this is a minor issue, then I see no problem fixing it. You folks that are absorbed in greed and cheating EA outta their cash will bring this game to it's end many years before it normally would have. I see all you folks abusing this exploit as thieves. While I come here because frankly, it's kinda fun, lol, I am kicking this upstairs to make EA aware of what is going on here. I will continue at the EA level until I get a reasonable response. It's an exploit, it's unfair, it costs EA money, and it plays the regular full time subscribers as saps.

You guys can argue with yourselves, but I'm extremely interested in where this goes. I will admit I'm a little ashamed of @Mesanna and @Kyronix for not addressing this long ago, a situation I know they are aware of. It's not my intention to embarrass the BS team but their silence is deafening and it's time to try a new route with EA directly. Let the game begin! I encourage others from both sides of the issue to do so as well.

while you're at it, why don't you get them to fix the billing system and EA store too.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

while you're at it, why don't you get them to fix the billing system and EA store too.

LOL One quest at a time. I took my case to Mesanna. It seemed like the fair thing to do before I start emailing everyone at EA with an email address lol. If you search the web there's a lot of EA emails out there. So I've given her a heads up of what I'm up to to give her a chance to reply if she wishes to. Then I'll continue on to annoy EA to the best of my ability. The thing with this proposal is it's much easier to pull off than those other things. If they don't care about being fair to the subscribers maybe making a lot more cash will interest them

 

[Capt. Lucky]

My disagreements were nothing personal, strictly business. Clearly, there are many different passionate opinions on the topic so good to air them out now and then, even though people on my side of this particular issue likely don't have any hope or expectation that much will change here any time soon.

I fully expect to see this heinous exploit fixed

 

[Longtooths]

really? you can't be serious. do you honestly think people are coming back to sonoma in droves?? omg. EA would be hardpressed to get 1 new sub to replace the ones i'd deactivate.

No, I doubt they would. However for every person that left ATL due to the change and a regular sub payer replaced them, It would pay for 3 x 90day payers on other dead shards. Have 10 people leave ATL because of the change. 10 regular sub paying people replace them, that accounts for 30 x 90day payers monetarily speaking.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

I am sorry but you are dead wrong on this..... the first iraq war was in 1990-1991 ( trust me on this one....I was serving at the time) this policy has nothing to do with that engagement, You werent playing UO when that war started....no one was... that was 26 years ago. UO launched in 1997 it is my understanding that this policy was started circa 2002 during the second iraq war.

But what we agree on is the day has past for this policy....Further as a retired Vet, anyone that uses this system, but never served a day, is a total low life. It sickens me to listen to people justify why they deserve to continue to exploit this system for their own greedy reasons.

Fair enough I stand corrected! My God, have we really been over there for that long? lol I was in the Air Force during peace time. Can I still exploit? I really appreciate this cause I want my ducks in a row and my facts straight when I began my EA email campaign

 

[Capt. Lucky]

No, I doubt they would. However for every person that left ATL due to the change and a regular sub payer replaced them, It would pay for 3 x 90day payers on other dead shards. Have 10 people leave ATL because of the change. 10 regular sub paying people replace them, that accounts for 30 x 90day payers monetarily speaking.

Even on "dead shards" people like hoarding Luna spots, castle spots, on the water spots, remote island spots, and places to junk hoard in general. This isn't strictly an Atlantic issue.

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

No, I doubt they would. However for every person that left ATL due to the change and a regular sub payer replaced them, It would pay for 3 x 90day payers on other dead shards. Have 10 people leave ATL because of the change. 10 regular sub paying people replace them, that accounts for 30 x 90day payers monetarily speaking.

as someone else mentioned previously in this thread, we have no facts to backup any of these statements.

so i'll throw out my prediction: if this change goes through, it will be the demise of uo. i think more subs will be lost than gained. the lower population shards will be a wasteland. the game will be dead before it's 20th anniversary.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

as someone else mentioned previously in this thread, we have no facts to backup any of these statements.

so i'll throw out my prediction: if this change goes through, it will be the demise of uo. i think more subs will be lost than gained. the lower population shards will be a wasteland. the game will be dead before it's 20th anniversary.

Like you say you have no logic to back that up. My prediction is people will pay to keep their prime spots and be able to keep all the junk they've hoarded up and we'll easily get one full time subscription for every 4 exploiters we lose. Plus we'll stop the bleeding from people like myself deciding I'm tired of being a sap paying full price and I'll jump on the that band wagon too. I can do a spread sheet as well as anyone

 

[Capt. Lucky]

You guys are doing a great job of honing my argument for EA. I really appreciate it!

 

[MalagAste]

I think the potential to lose 100's of non-player payers is way more than any gain that you all fictitiously think will happen.

My guess is that it might get 3 or 4 people to maybe move to Atl from somewhere else at first.... but you'd have a Vacuum of 100's of people who will be extremely saddened to lose everything since they don't really come around much anymore and my guess is wouldn't realize that EA/DEVs were turning off their one on three off accounts and they would conduct business as usual and find in a few months that their house fell and all their treasures of 18 years are gone and that would be the last thing holding them to UO and they would just divorce UO in sickness...

Once that happens they will never come back. Which means you would lose 100's of potential returning players to get 2 or 3 people to move to a shard that's far too crowded in the first place so some of you can place a castle taking up more real estate than if they just fixed storage.

I'm sorry but you all are totally delusional. Doing away with the 90 days would do WAY more harm than good.

 

[Longtooths]

I have already said I would open up three more accounts at least to hold more houses.....that equates to 9 x 90day payers leaving. That is not delusional, that is fact.

 

[MalagAste]

I have already said I would open up three more accounts at least to hold more houses.....that equates to 9 x 90day payers leaving. That is not delusional, that is fact.

One person..... opening 3 accounts vs the vacuum of over 100 ..... not really seeing how that would help.

 

[Longtooths]

One person..... opening 3 accounts vs the vacuum of over 100 ..... not really seeing how that would help.

One person taking the place of 9 people leaving. and as you point out, that is only one person...


The other difference is my example is fact. The, "vacuum of over 100" is a figment of your imagination.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

I think the potential to lose 100's of non-player payers is way more than any gain that you all fictitiously think will happen.

My guess is that it might get 3 or 4 people to maybe move to Atl from somewhere else at first.... but you'd have a Vacuum of 100's of people who will be extremely saddened to lose everything since they don't really come around much anymore and my guess is wouldn't realize that EA/DEVs were turning off their one on three off accounts and they would conduct business as usual and find in a few months that their house fell and all their treasures of 18 years are gone and that would be the last thing holding them to UO and they would just divorce UO in sickness...

Once that happens they will never come back. Which means you would lose 100's of potential returning players to get 2 or 3 people to move to a shard that's far too crowded in the first place so some of you can place a castle taking up more real estate than if they just fixed storage.

I'm sorry but you all are totally delusional. Doing away with the 90 days would do WAY more harm than good.

Your saying people that don't play sub up every 3 months for some mysterious reason? lol Nonsense. If 200 leave 50 will be desperate to keep their hoarded junk and prime house spots. No doubt. I could care more about Atlantic btw, I don't play there. Although it would be very healthy for Atlantic especially. People quit, lose it all, come back and start fresh. There's nothing like UO. They come crawling back, lol. I've done it 3 times lol. It had nothing to do with my house falling or hoarded junk lost. Some exploiters will be upset they lost their 75% discount. They'll suck it up. We're talking a four to one ratio. That will be easy breezy to get. We're talking about the biggest hoarders in UO doing this lol. Probably some 3rd party sites that use UO to make a nice coin off of. They won't give up their "treasures" or their revenue. I'd be more concerned about losing these people if they were ACTUALLY PAYING lol.

 

[Corwyn]

Today... on Hoarders: Ultima Online Revealed...

Hoarding Therapist: "Wow... you have quite the collection of *stuff*."
Player X: "Well... I'd have more here, but the house won't let me block doors with chests. Instead, I bought a sixteenth house for all of my raw fish steaks."
Hoarding Therapist: "I quit."

 

[Capt. Lucky]

Today... on Hoarders: Ultima Online Revealed...

Hoarding Therapist: "Wow... you have quite the collection of *stuff*."
Player X: "Well... I'd have more here, but the house won't let me block doors with chests. Instead, I bought a sixteenth house for all of my raw fish steaks."
Hoarding Therapist: "I quit."

It's not the size of the place, they will only allow you to cram a finite number of items in there lol. I hoard as much as anyone probably. Stuff like a sifting tray use to lay on the bank floor but now they're 5 mill, lol. How about those bloody bandages? But at least I pay for my hoarding, every month. I love hoarders that pay for their accounts, the more the merrier!

 

[Corwyn]

It's not the size of the place, they will only allow you to cram a finite number of items in there lol. I hoard as much as anyone probably. Stuff like a sifting tray use to lay on the bank floor but now they're 5 mill, lol. How about those bloody bandages? But at least I pay for my hoarding, every month. I love hoarders that pay for their accounts, the more the merrier!

Oh trust me... I could totally see me hoarding. Although most of my hoarding would be resources and such. And fishing stuff. I'm really enjoying fishing. Who would have thunk it?

I'm contemplating getting a second account... seriously contemplating it. We'll see.

 

[Stubentiger]

as someone else mentioned previously in this thread, we have no facts to backup any of these statements.

so i'll throw out my prediction: if this change goes through, it will be the demise of uo. i think more subs will be lost than gained. the lower population shards will be a wasteland. the game will be dead before it's 20th anniversary.

Why mess with a system?
It seems to work now. I see no reason how those mysterious new players would come and play UO if more houses drop. If that were true more shards would be populated I guess.
For EA it seems better to keep the system and only mess with it when there is no choice.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

Oh trust me... I could totally see me hoarding. Although most of my hoarding would be resources and such. And fishing stuff. I'm really enjoying fishing. Who would have thunk it?

I'm contemplating getting a second account... seriously contemplating it. We'll see.

3 accounts are better trust me I'd say 2 accounts minimum for characters. Full crafting ability takes 2 character slots right there. Then you'll want a thief, samp, dexxer, wiz, tamer, archer, etc Then a castle, Luna spot, and another place on a nice island or by the water to place your gun boat. Perfect Buy the 6 month subscription for real legit savings. Piece of cake Then you be up to 15 characters or so which is nice when those gifts roll in around the holidays

 

[Corwyn]

3 accounts are better trust me I'd say 2 accounts minimum for characters. Full crafting ability takes 2 character slots right there. Then you'll want a thief, samp, dexxer, wiz, tamer, archer, etc Then a castle, Luna spot, and another place on a nice island or by the water to place your gun boat. Perfect Buy the 6 month subscription for real legit savings. Piece of cake Then you be up to 15 characters or so which is nice when those gifts roll in around the holidays

In order to get a castle or Luna house, I'd have to have money. And since I lost pretty much everything the last time I quit, I'm quite poor. I'll get there perhaps someday.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

Why mess with a system?
It seems to work now. I see no reason how those mysterious new players would come and play UO if more houses drop. If that were true more shards would be populated I guess.
For EA it seems better to keep the system and only mess with it when there is no choice.

Why mess with it? Have you read the thread? We're tired of paying for the moochers if nothing else lol. We'd like EA/BS to have more money to support the game. We'd like to see the full time subscribers get a break if anyone is going to get one. etc etc etc 10 bucks a month isn't stopping anyone from playing or not playing. Get real. People just love exploiting a loop hole to the detriment of everyone around them.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

In order to get a castle or Luna house, I'd have to have money. And since I lost pretty much everything the last time I quit, I'm quite poor. I'll get there perhaps someday.

I restarted fresh almost 2 years ago. I have more going on at this point in characters and wealth than I ever had in the past. It comes one piece at a time. I did have some established characters wearing useless stuff but that was it. Then I moved to Legends and started fresh again over there lol. I did move some stuff over but left all my characters on Great Lakes (Just in case I ever wanna go back there). On Legends I can usually find prime spots to hunt where I'm the only one there for hours. It's great Hang in there, it'll come.

 

[Longtooths]

In order to get a castle or Luna house, I'd have to have money. And since I lost pretty much everything the last time I quit, I'm quite poor. I'll get there perhaps someday.

Dont worry, I'm poor too.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

Dont worry, I'm poor too.

Seriously doing the events, even once a month on your home shard. Do them every month. Couple hours a month and they're fun too! Take you places you might never have been too. Get that one rare drop, sell it for 50 or 75 mill and your on your way! Not nearly as hard as hitting the lottery

 

[Longtooths]

Seriously doing the events, even once a month on your home shard. Do them every month. Couple hours a month and they're fun too! Take you places you might never have been too. Get that one rare drop, sell it for 50 or 75 mill and your on your way! Not nearly as hard as hitting the lottery

That would be awesome!! I'll certainly have to try that out, thanks!

 

[Arroth Thaiel]

I'm contemplating getting a second account... seriously contemplating it. We'll see.

If you do, you'll enjoy it. Having a second account opens up a lot of options.....

And for fisher's....well why have just one toon out fishing when you can have two!

Fishing is a dangerous hobby in real life, in UO it might be worse.

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

interesting fact....thusfar based on the responses in this thread:

• 12 individuals want the housing cycle to change
• 13 individuals do NOT want the housing cycle to change
• 12 individuals offered suggestions/alternatives and did not specify if they did/did not want a change

 

[TimberWolf]

I think the potential to lose 100's of non-player payers is way more than any gain that you all fictitiously think will happen.

My guess is that it might get 3 or 4 people to maybe move to Atl from somewhere else at first.... but you'd have a Vacuum of 100's of people who will be extremely saddened to lose everything since they don't really come around much anymore and my guess is wouldn't realize that EA/DEVs were turning off their one on three off accounts and they would conduct business as usual and find in a few months that their house fell and all their treasures of 18 years are gone and that would be the last thing holding them to UO and they would just divorce UO in sickness...

Once that happens they will never come back. Which means you would lose 100's of potential returning players to get 2 or 3 people to move to a shard that's far too crowded in the first place so some of you can place a castle taking up more real estate than if they just fixed storage.

I'm sorry but you all are totally delusional. Doing away with the 90 days would do WAY more harm than good.

The delusional ones are those attempting to rationalize the abuse further....and denying the game would be improved for all active players to have it changed. and take it from someone that has lost everything twice now over the last 18 years....it isnt that big a deal to get it all back and then some.

 

[MalagAste]

The delusional ones are those attempting to rationalize the abuse further....and denying the game would be improved for all active players to have it changed. and take it from someone that has lost everything twice now over the last 18 years....it isnt that big a deal to get it all back and then some.

For most it's not the pixel crack that others come to take the instant that your house falls. It's the gifts from long gone friends, the books that were given with stories the very personal stuff that is lost that keep folk from wanting to come back not the piles of reagents, the nameless crap or the billions of christmas and valentines crap that the devs give us. It's those few items from friends.... the rose you have with their name on it... the card they gave you.... that sort of stuff that you had in your house that reminds you of all those wonderful times and all the long lost friendships... When those items no longer hold players here.... they won't return.

You all think that you can replace anything in game... well you CAN'T. There are some things that you will NEVER replace. Many of them are good friends. It's that hope and that love that keep folk paying for those accounts even if it is 3 times a year. They sometimes come back for a year or two at a time... and then life takes them away but they put the account in stasis and eventually return..... happy to find their home and those things still there. Without that nothing will bring them back because the sadness of that kind of loss will just eat at them... and logging back in will only remind them of that loss. Forming painful instead of joyful memories.... and eventually those painful memories replace the joyous ones..... and without the reminders of the joyous times..... they have no reason or desire to come back. Trust me knowing several folk who've lost homes over the years.... THAT is the biggest thing that keeps them from returning.

So while you think that it won't effect anything it will... paying 3 times a year for that nostalgia is something many are still willing to do.... but having to pay full cost all the time to hold onto memories.... most won't. And like I said once that's gone.... they won't return either.

 

[TimberWolf]

For most it's not the pixel crack that others come to take the instant that your house falls. It's the gifts from long gone friends, the books that were given with stories the very personal stuff that is lost that keep folk from wanting to come back not the piles of reagents, the nameless crap or the billions of christmas and valentines crap that the devs give us. It's those few items from friends.... the rose you have with their name on it... the card they gave you.... that sort of stuff that you had in your house that reminds you of all those wonderful times and all the long lost friendships... When those items no longer hold players here.... they won't return.

You all think that you can replace anything in game... well you CAN'T. There are some things that you will NEVER replace. Many of them are good friends. It's that hope and that love that keep folk paying for those accounts even if it is 3 times a year. They sometimes come back for a year or two at a time... and then life takes them away but they put the account in stasis and eventually return..... happy to find their home and those things still there. Without that nothing will bring them back because the sadness of that kind of loss will just eat at them... and logging back in will only remind them of that loss. Forming painful instead of joyful memories.... and eventually those painful memories replace the joyous ones..... and without the reminders of the joyous times..... they have no reason or desire to come back. Trust me knowing several folk who've lost homes over the years.... THAT is the biggest thing that keeps them from returning.

So while you think that it won't effect anything it will... paying 3 times a year for that nostalgia is something many are still willing to do.... but having to pay full cost all the time to hold onto memories.... most won't. And like I said once that's gone.... they won't return either.

Obviously you failed to read my original post.....just freaked out and went full fledge MalagAste. ....

As the OP I suggested a maintenance cycle of 6 months to a year where no one has access to the home or items. ( for those taking a prolong break) at a significantly reduced cost as compared to full price. Combined with a reduction of the existing housing timer to 15-30 days from failure to make payment. This should be a win win for all.....

1)...people like your friends that have no life and insist on hanging onto pixel crack memories have a discounted way to do that.
2) abusers who are simply manipulating the system to allow themselves to own and use 4 homes but pay the equivalent of a single account will lose everything if they refuse to change.
3) Housing spots of all sizes increase to allow regular players to place and use some of the premium spots in the game.

Anyone who doesnt see the abuse of a system designed to benefit the world's veterans, as a rip off and an insult to every single active player is delusional or lying...because frankly your BS excuse is just that....BS

Banks hold what 150 items/ character ( no checks included) that is over 1050 lock downs and unlimited gold for cherished gifts and special memory pieces per account that they can hold onto. ...Cut the crap....it is about greed and simple exploitation of a system they had no right accessing originally.

 

[TimberWolf]

Frankly Mal anyone that uses the present system for any reason other then why it was officially designed is a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves....They are the same type that park in handicap parking spots and steal from charities.....

 

[Longtooths]

Frankly Mal anyone that uses the present system for any reason other then why it was officially designed is a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves....They are the same type that park in handicap parking spots and steal from charities.....

Dont forget, pull the wings off of flys.

 

[TimberWolf]

Dont forget, pull the wings off of flys.

thanks...ya they probably do that too...bloody low lifes

 

[Spock's Beard]

And I don't know if any of us are exactly in a position to say it's "working as intended" if this was really only created for Iraq vets, or so the story goes.

You know who is in a position to say that? The people in charge of the game, who base their decisions on actual financial and subscriber data. Those people have seen fit to leave this policy in place for over a decade now. Why should anyone think you suddenly know better? You don't even have access to the information it would take to have an informed opinion.

Maybe it would change on other non-Atlantic shards, but I think on Atlantic they would end up making more money. People who exploit this loophole (and yes, unless if it isn't clearly defined in the user agreement that you can pay only once every 90 days, then it is a loophole)

Watching you torture logic like this is almost physically painful. People pay EA the money they ask for, and in return they get what EA gives them. That's it. That's the entire system. There isn't even the potential for any sort of exploitation since the only input the customer has is to either pay money or not, and EA completely controls all the consequences of that decision.

You're butthurt that you don't have a bigger house. Period. Stop trying to dress it up as something more. There's no moral issue at stake, you don't have any magical business insights that EA has somehow missed for all these years, and EA certainly aren't babes in the woods who need you to protect them from exploitation. You're just butthurt.

I have no idea how you and Lucky type this stuff without feeling like idiots.