90 Day stuff - M&G 02/08/16

[Deep Ellum Dan]

I don't really get it, what the issue is here. If the issue is, that during the 90 days, the house can be used by friends, co-owners & for vendoring, then why is everyone talking about having those 90 days cut down to less days or not?
There seems to be a much more simple solution to that: If the owner suspends the account make the house completely unusable for friends, co-owners, etc... Disable vendors as well. Chars logged out inside the house will get ejected upon loggin in. 90 days can stay. Problem solved...
Did I miss anything?

I would be down for that but are the houses usable right now on suspended accounts?

 

[Uriah Heep]

That's the whole point. Place a castle for storage, pay once every 90 days....Only thing you have to be sure of is that the owner chars dont place or lock down anything, gotta let the paid accounts do that

 

[Lord Arm]

I wish there would be a response like this for all the real cheating that goes on in game everyday lol.
this is not a complaint but I have noticed: on the shard I'm play, population is small but there are rarely castle spots/idocs. there are some with a lot of accounts with many castles. it seems to be hard to get one with so many castles owned by so few when they can pay once every 90s days. I don't really care except there are no castle idocs lol. this is not a priority to me but maybe for others.

 

[Deep Ellum Dan]

I really do think that the building should become inaccessible both logging and vendors. That part there, to have a building and have profitable vendors that another account can access is a bad idea

 

[claudia-fjp]

I really do think that the building should become inaccessible both logging and vendors. That part there, to have a building and have profitable vendors that another account can access is a bad idea

Locking the Coowners out of the house is effectively the same as doing away with the 90 day grace period. The entire point of these extra accounts is having the houses to use with the main accounts. If you take that away then the reason for even keeping these extra accounts goes away. Making ANY changes to the game (like the IDOC ones a year ago) that results in less accounts seems like a bad idea for UO.

 

[Fridgster]

Locking the Coowners out of the house is effectively the same as doing away with the 90 day grace period. The entire point of these extra accounts is having the houses to use with the main accounts. If you take that away then the reason for even keeping these extra accounts goes away. Making ANY changes to the game (like the IDOC ones a year ago) that results in less accounts seems like a bad idea for UO.

Problem is thats not why it was put at 90 days. The then new idoc changes caused so much havoc they had to do something. I dont believe they should remove the 90 days however a lockout period would be tough to argue against. Personally I think the devs have bigger fish to fry but wouldnt argue with the decision if they made it.

 

[Uvtha]

Locking the Coowners out of the house is effectively the same as doing away with the 90 day grace period. The entire point of these extra accounts is having the houses to use with the main accounts.

That's not necessarily true, I don't use my house when I'm doing the 90 days thing. I just don't feel like playing all the time, but I know I'll feel like it again in the future, and I don't want to lose all of my things. Obviously people (probably most people) DO use it to have an "extra" house, but not every one does.

 

[claudia-fjp]

Problem is thats not why it was put at 90 days. The then new idoc changes caused so much havoc they had to do something. I dont believe they should remove the 90 days however a lockout period would be tough to argue against. Personally I think the devs have bigger fish to fry but wouldnt argue with the decision if they made it.

I mentioned no where in my post as to reason they put it to 90 days, I'm not talking about that at all. I was referencing the changes last year not, 10 years ago or whenever they changed it to 90 days.

 

[claudia-fjp]

That's not necessarily true, I don't use my house when I'm doing the 90 days thing. I just don't feel like playing all the time, but I know I'll feel like it again in the future, and I don't want to lose all of my things. Obviously people (probably most people) DO use it to have an "extra" house, but not every one does.

I said the entire point of the EXTRA accounts. That doesn't include you taking breaks from UO on your main account which is something entirely different.

 

[Uvtha]

I said the entire point of the EXTRA accounts. That doesn't include you taking breaks from UO on your main account which is something entirely different.

True, but the same rules apply in both cases, and in one case the house lockdown wouldn't be an issue.

 

[claudia-fjp]

True, but the same rules apply in both cases, and in one case the house lockdown wouldn't be an issue.

Right, doesn't effect you directly, only by all the other accounts closing for good and UO's revenue dropping.

 

[Fridgster]

I mentioned no where in my post as to reason they put it to 90 days, I'm not talking about that at all. I was referencing the changes last year not, 10 years ago or whenever they changed it to 90 days.

No you did not. I understand that, however if they made it a lockout situation they would not being veering away from the original reason for doing so. I understand alot of people would be upset about it and certainly be effected. The question is, how much would it effect their bottom line? Unfortunatly they are the only ones that have that info. Thus far it would seem that they are ok with the unintended benifit.

 

[Uvtha]

Right, doesn't effect you directly, only by all the other accounts closing for good and UO's revenue dropping.

I'm not for changing the rule if you look over this thread. Just saying some people use the time, but not to get an extra house.

 

[Deep Ellum Dan]

Locking the Coowners out of the house is effectively the same as doing away with the 90 day grace period. The entire point of these extra accounts is having the houses to use with the main accounts. If you take that away then the reason for even keeping these extra accounts goes away. Making ANY changes to the game (like the IDOC ones a year ago) that results in less accounts seems like a bad idea for UO.

I understand your point but after I found out that the house is still accessible when the account isn't paid, to me seems slightly like a bad way to take advantage of the system. I would want to have people not lose their stuff if they do not pay, but I wouldn't feel is fair to have the house be able to be used for anyone, even vendors. Just my personal thoughts but none of that affects me one bit if someone does or doesn't pay for their account every month.