A fix for the 90 days cycle abuse

[TimberWolf]

for nearly 20 years people have being duping gold and selling it. EA knows who it is and how they do it, and nothing is done. Does that somehow make it ok?

you can continue to repeat the same BS over and over again until you are blue in the face.....for me and many others this is abuse of an exploit plain and simple.

you arent going to change that opinion. There could be a dozen reasons why they didnt follow through with it then.....I believe motivations may have changed.... time will tell!

 

[WootSauce]

Merlin taught me how to delete posts, so i deleted a bunch. Timberlake - you go girl..

 

[MalagAste]

This wont get 'fixed'. Bet on it.

Why would it.... It's not broke... It's actually working as intended. Unlike so many other things... but then they do seem to do a good job of fixing things that aren't broken.... and making a muckery of them...

 

[WootSauce]

for nearly 20 years people have being duping gold and selling it. EA knows who it is and how they do it, and nothing is done.

Show any evidence of this claim please. We all know gold has been duped in the past. If EA knew who it was, and how they do it... well.

you and cptn Lucky and a few others are on some kind of crusade, and I welcome you to it, but you are all (each) fundamentally wrong in your assertions.

 

[MrMightySmith]

I just dont get how some people in this thread can just blatantly call this an exploit and accuse the people of that advantage of the 90 day thing cheaters. Its one thing to disagree with the system but to take it the exploit/cheater level when your just not correct is wrong.

 

[Zuckuss]

Just for the sake of the spirit of conversation I have come up with a hypothetical scenario over the past 3 minutes.

Perhaps one evening, the dev's were sitting at the table and said something to the effect of,

"Look, we have x amount of active accounts. After years of study of this game, we have determined several factors in why people keep multiple accounts open. These include, a large character selection pool, the ability to own more than one house, the ability to maintain grandfathered houses, and last but not least, nostalgia. We realize that many players do not want to spend $155.88 per year on additional house. But...... studies show that x% would be willing to spend 38.97 per year for merely the ability to hold additional storage."

"On a majority of shards, there is an average of x% open land that is currently not being used. We have determined that x% of players using this rule set will not overly diminish the x% of open land that currently exists in the game, thus limiting the potential damage to the housing economy. We will however continue to monitor the situation, should we release this rule."

"In addition to the benefits of maintaining players over life events and military deployment, not only could this rule allow for better customer relations, but could actually net us a profit of which we are currently not allowing ourselves an opportunity to net."

So they try it, evaluate it along the way and thus far have decided to stick with it.

Depending on the percentage of player base that uses (or abuses) this feature (or exploit), EA could actually be profiting from this policy from a business standpoint.

If 15% of the population use (or abuse) this feature (or exploit), let's just speculate that 15% is 3000 people.
3000 x $38.97 = $116910 of additional revenue.

All of the above is pure speculation on my part, and is under the assumption that EA/Broadsword keeps an eye on this "rule." Additionally, I care little either way which rule that they choose to use, but the fact of the matter is ... It IS the rule.

Agree with it or not, that's the policy. Those against it have made quite a bit of noise over the years, but if you look back, it was incomparable to the amount of noise being made over military vets and people with life issues losing everything over an expired cc or the inability to log into a computer. Rather than "abuse" this policy could very well be "working as intended."

 

[Zosimus]

Abuse, exploit, or working as intended doesn't matter. We can talk about it until everybody is blue in the face or face planted whichever comes first. EA doesn't read these boards and don't care. That's who has the power to change it because of the financials. We all can give percentages, solutions, business reports, be on MSNBC, say this would kill the game or help the game with just our own perceptions based on a guess and still doesn't matter. EA doesn't read these boards and don't care.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

Everyone who has worked on the game and looked at the actual subscriber stats over the years apparently disagrees with you. But hey if there's one thing EA doesn't know about, it's bean counting, right? They probably totally need some random doofus on Stratics to tell them they've been doing it wrong for 10+ years and just never noticed. Hurr.

I'm a doofus? How many times do you need to be warned? I guess rules and fair play are something you don't relate to, lol. Well aren't you a classy guy! I guess when there's no real rebuttal some turn to personal insults and using phrases like "stop crying about it" lol. So I suppose if you do something wrong for 10 years you just keep on doing it that way? I believe you if you say you do.But I highly prefer doofus over being an exploiter who can't scrape up 10 bucks a month and mooches off others. I'm not saying that applies to you but if someone else says it I'll nod in agreement If you care to PM me I'll be happy to give you my unedited opinion! Have a nice day

 

[Capt. Lucky]

Because if there's one thing we know about EA, it's that they're a bunch of fluffy kittens who don't know how to properly monetize a game and are always being taken advantage of by the ruthless public.

Judging that every online MMO EA has ever launched is shut down now you may actually be right this once (Earth and Beyond, Motor City Online, etc). Good for you! Did I miss the buy one month get three months free marketing campaign for UO? Clearly this feature should be mentioned every time EA or BS mentions UO! Clearly anything this awesome should be yelled from the roof tops! *SMH*

 

[Capt. Lucky]

bottom line - take your argument to the devs.

Exactly! Actually I've been running this through the proper channels at Broadsword and EA and I think I'm winning them over. When one steps back, and looks at the facts, a 90 day system as it applies to UO is unproductive and not cost effective. The Gulf War is supposedly over. This system has out lived it's intent. As it is currently being abused it's a slap in the face to every full time UO subscriber. It impacts every single player in UO negatively other than the exploiters (naturally) and has a negative effect on the extended life of UO. I say fix it or lets all jump on board! Let's see how long the game lasts when EVERYONE plays the buy one get three free deal! I don't need extra accounts for characters. All my extra accounts are for houses and hoarding. Why should I be a sap and pay full price? Lets just all band together, rip off UO, and just burn the game right into the ground. Right? If I can help end this exploit feel free to blame me, cause I'm working *hard* behind the scenes to make this happen.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

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!

BTW TimberWolf, I think you started a revolution! A spot light is being focused on the exploitation of this current system. Congratulations! I went through the threads 20 pages before I gave up looking. You might set a record for the most discussed topic in a very long time.

 

[TimberWolf]

Excellent Lucky, I am sure when they carefully review all aspects of this situation and the way it is presently abused they will do the right thing and change the system. The fact that someone can own and hold 4 houses while paying for the equivalent of 1 house is ( in my opinion) a perversion of the original purpose.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

So when this gets fixed what is a reasonable new time frame? I think 14 days is reasonable. 30 days is probably more intuitive and more inline with what is typical out there in the gaming world. I like 30 days also because then they would have to pay at least half the time lol. Although many companies when you end your account that's it. You're done. 45 days on the outside might be a good compromise to appease those that love to abuse this. It would cut this exploit down to where it would be a lot more of a pain to do. But still doable to a lesser extent. Anything over 45 days would be a joke really. Not accomplish much. What do ya think?

 

[Capt. Lucky]

Excellent Lucky, I am sure when they carefully review all aspects of this situation and the way it is presently abused they will do the right thing and change the system. The fact that someone can own and hold 4 houses while paying for the equivalent of 1 house is ( in my opinion) a perversion of the original purpose.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease and I'm squeaking! I will continue to squeak too!

 

[Longtooths]

I can not wait to hear the back peddling, wailing and gnashing of teeth from those on this forum that support the status quo when and if there is a change.

 

[OREOGL]

I can not wait to hear the back peddling, wailing and gnashing of teeth from those on this forum that support the status quo when and if there is a change.

To play devils advocate, they said they were going to make this change back in 2006 and never followed through on it.

I'm guessing they have already hashed this issue out and probably didn't see much value in doing it.

Though they never did explain why they didn't do it.

 

[TimberWolf]

So when this gets fixed what is a reasonable new time frame? I think 14 days is reasonable. 30 days is probably more intuitive and more inline with what is typical out there in the gaming world. I like 30 days also because then they would have to pay at least half the time lol. Although many companies when you end your account that's it. You're done. 45 days on the outside might be a good compromise to appease those that love to abuse this. It would cut this exploit down to where it would be a lot more of a pain to do. But still doable to a lesser extent. Anything over 45 days would be a joke really. Not accomplish much. What do ya think?

Personally I like the 15-30 day time frame. 15 being ideal but 30 definitely being acceptable....

I am pretty much done with this discussion ...as I have stated I feel confident that this will change... now we will just have to wait and see!

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

I'm a doofus? How many times do you need to be warned? I guess rules and fair play are something you don't relate to, lol. Well aren't you a classy guy! I guess when there's no real rebuttal some turn to personal insults and using phrases like "stop crying about it" lol. So I suppose if you do something wrong for 10 years you just keep on doing it that way? I believe you if you say you do.But I highly prefer doofus over being an exploiter who can't scrape up 10 bucks a month and mooches off others. I'm not saying that applies to you but if someone else says it I'll nod in agreement If you care to PM me I'll be happy to give you my unedited opinion! Have a nice day

nobody is 'mooching' off of you or any another player. you pay your sub, you get your toons to play with.

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

Judging that every online MMO EA has ever launched is shut down now you may actually be right this once (Earth and Beyond, Motor City Online, etc). Good for you! Did I miss the buy one month get three months free marketing campaign for UO? Clearly this feature should be mentioned every time EA or BS mentions UO! Clearly anything this awesome should be yelled from the roof tops! *SMH*

you too can take advantage of this feature! only downfall is that you only get 30 days of gameplay.

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

Exactly! Actually I've been running this through the proper channels at Broadsword and EA and I think I'm winning them over. When one steps back, and looks at the facts, a 90 day system as it applies to UO is unproductive and not cost effective. The Gulf War is supposedly over. This system has out lived it's intent. As it is currently being abused it's a slap in the face to every full time UO subscriber. It impacts every single player in UO negatively other than the exploiters (naturally) and has a negative effect on the extended life of UO. I say fix it or lets all jump on board! Let's see how long the game lasts when EVERYONE plays the buy one get three free deal! I don't need extra accounts for characters. All my extra accounts are for houses and hoarding. Why should I be a sap and pay full price? Lets just all band together, rip off UO, and just burn the game right into the ground. Right? If I can help end this exploit feel free to blame me, cause I'm working *hard* behind the scenes to make this happen.

ahh but it WASN'T JUST FOR VETS. there was a natural disaster either in DC or NYC which caused a huge failure in the region's infrastructure. housing decay was turned off to prevent the players in the region from losing everything. after housing decay was turned back on, the team permanently established a 90 day policy.

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

BTW TimberWolf, I think you started a revolution! A spot light is being focused on the exploitation of this current system. Congratulations! I went through the threads 20 pages before I gave up looking. You might set a record for the most discussed topic in a very long time.

i'm just in it for the post count. lol. actually i find the whole thread hilarious. i like seeing you all get riled up.

 

[It Lives]

Back in the day there were enough people playing that some tolerance could be afforded. I am sure any business in this day and age that wanted to continue to make a decent profit would want to close this loop hole..

I think TimberWolf is right at some point and time the team will be forced to make this decision.

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

I have the answer!!! FREE-TO-PLAY. F2P -- Problem solved. YEAH!

 

[It Lives]

When they do make a decision we will all feel it. :[

 

[Kayhynn]

Personally I like the 15-30 day time frame. 15 being ideal but 30 definitely being acceptable....

I am pretty much done with this discussion ...as I have stated I feel confident that this will change... now we will just have to wait and see!

45 days due to their screwed up billing system and running out of codes from time to time.

Sorry - unless the billing system gets fixed, I won't support a time less than 45 days.

I also love, how, with the exception of a few people, the billing issues I keep bringing up keep being ignored by those pushing for a change. You'd be singing a different tune if billing kept screwing up on you.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

i'm just in it for the post count. lol. actually i find the whole thread hilarious. i like seeing you all get riled up.

I not riled. I'm having a blast! I'm energized @TimberWolf I'm done with the peanut gallery also at the moment. It's all been said. No further progress to be made here. Although I would probably respond to personal insults lol. I just can't resist....

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

45 days due to their screwed up billing system and running out of codes from time to time.

Sorry - unless the billing system gets fixed, I won't support a time less than 45 days.

I also love, how, with the exception of a few people, the billing issues I keep bringing up keep being ignored by those pushing for a change. You'd be singing a different tune if billing kept screwing up on you.

i'm right there with you kayhynn. i lost everything i owned except banked items on chessy b/c of a billing failure. i was taking a break from the game but had my accounts set up using recurring billing. how the hell did 5 out of 6 accounts successfully get paid and the 6th failed to get paid?? i carry no balance on the credit card so it wasn't a funding issue from my end.

 

[OREOGL]

i'm right there with you kayhynn. i lost everything i owned except banked items on chessy b/c of a billing failure. i was taking a break from the game but had my accounts set up using recurring billing. how the hell did 5 out of 6 accounts successfully get paid and the 6th failed to get paid?? i carry no balance on the credit card so it wasn't a funding issue from my end.

I know I have ran into this but if a creditor sees repeated billing from a company they will sometimes block the charges or turn the card off.

 

[OldUO]

I would rather pay double the subscription than see this game goto FREE-2-PLAY anyone who says that obviously has ZERO experience with a game that was a sub platform that made the transition to F2P. I don't think there are any examples of a successful F2P game that was once a sub. **** will degrade, bugs will rule, service will lack and the game will fall. If it was going to go that route it would be better to just say **** it and let it be open source and let the freeshards rule.

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

I know I have ran into this but if a creditor sees repeated billing from a company they will sometimes block the charges or turn the card off.

not my credit card company. they let 100 fraudulent charges go through from facebook in the matter of 1 week. i don't even use facebook nor do either of my kids.

aside, i called the credit card company and asked them if they rejected a charge from EA. they said they didn't decline any charges.

 

[OREOGL]

not my credit card company. they let 100 fraudulent charges go through from facebook in the matter of 1 week. i don't even use facebook nor do either of my kids.

aside, i called the credit card company and asked them if they rejected a charge from EA. they said they didn't decline any charges.

I would be switching companies if I were you.

 

[The Craftsman]

As it is currently being abused it's a slap in the face to every full time UO subscriber.

What? Both of them!!??

 

[Dot_Warner]

for nearly 20 years people have being duping gold and selling it. EA knows who it is and how they do it, and nothing is done. Does that somehow make it ok?

This is demonstrably untrue. In fact, evidence of "Them" doing something about it still exists on a few shards.


They touted removing several trillion gold from the economy when this happened.

Then there's the (nearly useless) anti-dupe code on vendors, the crack down on duped Mythic Tokens a few years ago, and the recent gold conversion to a non-physical object. Those are just the big ones we know about.

Now, that's not to say that these were timely or problem-free changes, but they definitely aren't "nothing." I'm highly doubting that Mesanna would sit back and willingly allow a known item dupe method to go unchecked, she'd get crucified on the boards.

 

[Keith of Sonoma]

This is demonstrably untrue. In fact, evidence of "Them" doing something about it still exists on a few shards.

View attachment 42603
They touted removing several trillion gold from the economy when this happened.

Then there's the (nearly useless) anti-dupe code on vendors, the crack down on duped Mythic Tokens a few years ago, and the recent gold conversion to a non-physical object. Those are just the big ones we know about.

Now, that's not to say that these were timely or problem-free changes, but they definitely aren't "nothing." I'm highly doubting that Mesanna would sit back and willingly allow a known item dupe method to go unchecked, she'd get crucified on the boards.

I personally feel that the "burning houses" should be deleted. In my opinion, it is a slap in the face every time I see one. Knowing that NOW, nothing is done to scripters/dupers.

 

[The Craftsman]

This is demonstrably untrue. In fact, evidence of "Them" doing something about it still exists on a few shards.

View attachment 42603
They touted removing several trillion gold from the economy when this happened.

Then there's the (nearly useless) anti-dupe code on vendors, the crack down on duped Mythic Tokens a few years ago, and the recent gold conversion to a non-physical object. Those are just the big ones we know about.

Now, that's not to say that these were timely or problem-free changes, but they definitely aren't "nothing." I'm highly doubting that Mesanna would sit back and willingly allow a known item dupe method to go unchecked, she'd get crucified on the boards.

Yeah sure. They really stomped on it didnt they. /end sarcasm.

A token gesture from time to time but by and large it still runs completely unchecked and the dupers/hackers/bots are still very much in evidence all these years later and are blatently still doing their thing. Too little too seldom and its done nothing to eradicate these problems from the game. By and large EA just turn a blind eye.

 

[Dot_Warner]

I personally feel that the "burning houses" should be deleted. In my opinion, it is a slap in the face every time I see one. Knowing that NOW, nothing is done to scripters/dupers.

Most of them were. I think GL has two left in fairly out-of-the-way places, and they're both fairly small.

They were the first, and only, extremely public enforcement of the ToS. Which is rather unfortunate.

 

[Hannes Erich]

I also love, how, with the exception of a few people, the billing issues I keep bringing up keep being ignored by those pushing for a change.

Cognitive dissonance (Google it).

Of all the things people think make the world turn round, the true wizard behind the curtain is often just a gaggle of contradictory dispositions and half-formed biases, all sliding past one another in the same mind, vying for dominance during any particular moment or argument.

The entertainment never ends, next week there'll be another intellectually dishonest hill to die on, etc, etc, etc.

P.S. It's against the TOS to publicly post "exploits" instead of reporting them to Support.

 

[WootSauce]

lets ban all of the low lifes that are paying EA so that we can have sweet sweet housing on ATL!!! EA set rules that the public is taking advantage of, the EA customers are ransacking EA and stealing from them!!! Come on and let them know that we will not stand for this!!!

 

[claudia-fjp]

Once upon a time I would have railed against this and would have had a dozen posts in this thread but really it would save me money in the long run. I just looked at my list of UO accounts and counted 21 log ins from over the years. A handful of them were just placing accounts from back in the day but many held houses until last year. I always had just 2 main account with characters and others were for housing. No one really has the time or need to actively play more than 2 or 3 accounts worth of characters (SP not included). The box for either UO:T2A or Renaissance actually had the selling point on it that you could have multiple houses with one account. Then UO's population became too big and they took that away from us. UO's population crashed but did they give us back the option? No, of course not, that would be too fair to the remaining players. 8 of the accounts were closed for good when they changed IDOCs to the current system making it so I could no longer do the thing I loved to do in UO. People with jobs and lives don't have time to sit at houses for 15 hours at a time or run every couple days since they decay so quickly. So the houses were emptied, dropped, and one or two sold, the accounts closed forever joining the 5 old placing accounts. That leaves me with 8 current accounts. 2 main accounts always on and gaining vet time. The rest are the reviled accounts referenced by this thread, call it an exploit all you want but if it truly was you'd think they would have fixed it in the first decade. It's their system, they came up with the rules, we just abide by them. What would I do if it changed? I would get a lot of cleanup points and permanently close 6 more accounts because it would no longer be worth keeping them just for the nice housing locations and storage. I suspect EA would rather have $42 per account a year for house holding accounts than $0. Even if you get your way that's 6 accounts lost and there certainly won't be 6 new UO players to replace it. People who would buy my non-Atlantic castles would generally let their smaller houses go not open another account just to hold them. Subs go down even more. How long before keeping UO around is no longer worth it to EA just like the extra houses weren't worth it for me if you get your way?

 

[MalagAste]

^^^ This is what I've been trying to say..... I know scads of people who hold multiple accounts and do just that... if you try to force them to pay every month for the accounts I'm without a doubt certain that they will all close... and I'm even more certain that no one is going to be opening anywhere NEAR what will leave.

 

[OREOGL]

Once upon a time I would have railed against this and would have had a dozen posts in this thread but really it would save me money in the long run. I just looked at my list of UO accounts and counted 21 log ins from over the years. A handful of them were just placing accounts from back in the day but many held houses until last year. I always had just 2 main account with characters and others were for housing. No one really has the time or need to actively play more than 2 or 3 accounts worth of characters (SP not included). The box for either UO:T2A or Renaissance actually had the selling point on it that you could have multiple houses with one account. Then UO's population became too big and they took that away from us. UO's population crashed but did they give us back the option? No, of course not, that would be too fair to the remaining players. 8 of the accounts were closed for good when they changed IDOCs to the current system making it so I could no longer do the thing I loved to do in UO. People with jobs and lives don't have time to sit at houses for 15 hours at a time or run every couple days since they decay so quickly. So the houses were emptied, dropped, and one or two sold, the accounts closed forever joining the 5 old placing accounts. That leaves me with 8 current accounts. 2 main accounts always on and gaining vet time. The rest are the reviled accounts referenced by this thread, call it an exploit all you want but if it truly was you'd think they would have fixed it in the first decade. It's their system, they came up with the rules, we just abide by them. What would I do if it changed? I would get a lot of cleanup points and permanently close 6 more accounts because it would no longer be worth keeping them just for the nice housing locations and storage. I suspect EA would rather have $42 per account a year for house holding accounts than $0. Even if you get your way that's 6 accounts lost and there certainly won't be 6 new UO players to replace it. People who would buy my non-Atlantic castles would generally let their smaller houses go not open another account just to hold them. Subs go down even more. How long before keeping UO around is no longer worth it to EA just like the extra houses weren't worth it for me if you get your way?

Paragraphs are our friends.

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

Once upon a time I would have railed against this and would have had a dozen posts in this thread but really it would save me money in the long run. I just looked at my list of UO accounts and counted 21 log ins from over the years. A handful of them were just placing accounts from back in the day but many held houses until last year. I always had just 2 main account with characters and others were for housing. No one really has the time or need to actively play more than 2 or 3 accounts worth of characters (SP not included). The box for either UO:T2A or Renaissance actually had the selling point on it that you could have multiple houses with one account. Then UO's population became too big and they took that away from us. UO's population crashed but did they give us back the option? No, of course not, that would be too fair to the remaining players. 8 of the accounts were closed for good when they changed IDOCs to the current system making it so I could no longer do the thing I loved to do in UO. People with jobs and lives don't have time to sit at houses for 15 hours at a time or run every couple days since they decay so quickly. So the houses were emptied, dropped, and one or two sold, the accounts closed forever joining the 5 old placing accounts. That leaves me with 8 current accounts. 2 main accounts always on and gaining vet time. The rest are the reviled accounts referenced by this thread, call it an exploit all you want but if it truly was you'd think they would have fixed it in the first decade. It's their system, they came up with the rules, we just abide by them. What would I do if it changed? I would get a lot of cleanup points and permanently close 6 more accounts because it would no longer be worth keeping them just for the nice housing locations and storage. I suspect EA would rather have $42 per account a year for house holding accounts than $0. Even if you get your way that's 6 accounts lost and there certainly won't be 6 new UO players to replace it. People who would buy my non-Atlantic castles would generally let their smaller houses go not open another account just to hold them. Subs go down even more. How long before keeping UO around is no longer worth it to EA just like the extra houses weren't worth it for me if you get your way?

this is how i feel too. and yours is the 4th post stating this position. any change to the subscription/decay interval will give people that are barely holding on to uo the reason to leave for good. between the 4 folks who've spoken up roughly 30 accounts would be shutdown -- some paid for regularly and some every 90 days. can the remaining active players sub up to compensate?

i disagree with those who think this will open land for other players to place new homes in preferable locations. other than my luna vendor house on sonoma, none of my houses are in prime locations. and considering there are 3 other luna houses for sale on sonoma i'd hardly consider my luna house anything special. aside, i would sell my houses and do the unspeakable with the gold. how many other players would do the same?

i've been thinking about calling it quits for a few weeks. i've logged into the game for a total of 10 minutes this week. if the housing decay interval is reduced from 90 days, then i have the motivation to proceed with my termination plan. if it stays the same then it's status quo and i take a break.

 

[Tina Small]

I've been on the verge of quitting for quite a while now. Just can't find the time to log in to pack the valuables in the bank. My daughter and her kids moved in with us in September and we're home schooling one of them now. No time to play. I left some boats up on shards where I had no house and was working on fishing just to give myself a reason to log in at least once every 7-10 days and that is almost the only thing I've done for the last four months: log on about once a week and refresh 6 or 7 galleons and log off. I forced myself to find the time over Christmas to collect holiday gifts on three accounts and just had no time and no desire to do any more than that.

If packing up were easy, I would have been gone back in September when I knew my time to play UO was going to become severely limited. But it isn't an easy process and the fact that I can turn some accounts off periodically has just stretched out the process even more.

If EA/Broadsword decide to change this, then I will be gone for sure. I have no reason at this point to activate all of my accounts to save anything in a game that I only play for less than 45 minutes per month. They will lose the the money from the 2 or 3 accounts I have been paying for monthly and also the money for the 5 or 6 accounts that I pay for every 75-85 days. That's around $900 per year. Good luck getting another 6 or 7 people to open "full freight" accounts to replace that income. It's not like I own any Luna houses or a house on Atlantic in a desirable location (mine's in the Malas "trailer park," as so many people like to call it).

 

[Deep Ellum Dan]

Lol... On page 7 of 25...
To many personal attacks here. I have a simple max storage house by gravewater and before that, a small 7x8 by the T2A minoc entrance. There have been times either I was forced to take a break sure to money issues or I just wanted a break. Both times, I really didn't want to lose what little items I worked hard to obtain by hunting or gathering so the 90 day thing was a blessing.
I see nothing wrong with someone wanting a break and not losing their stuff as they are still paying at least every 3 months. What these people are missing or on is the ability to play and to me that's the worst part, to be unable to play.

It isn't logical to me how anyone is affected by this.

Is it keeping anyone from playing? No.

If I were to lose all my belongings because I missed the payment or was unable to pay out just wanted a break, I would highly be likely to return. Having to start over with everything acquired would be a huge blow.

Now let's all stop making everything childish and personal please.

 

[OREOGL]

Lol... On page 7 of 25...
To many personal attacks here. I have a simple max storage house by gravewater and before that, a small 7x8 by the T2A minoc entrance. There have been times either I was forced to take a break sure to money issues or I just wanted a break. Both times, I really didn't want to lose what little items I worked hard to obtain by hunting or gathering so the 90 day thing was a blessing.
I see nothing wrong with someone wanting a break and not losing their stuff as they are still paying at least every 3 months. What these people are missing or on is the ability to play and to me that's the worst part, to be unable to play.

It isn't logical to me how anyone is affected by this.

Is it keeping anyone from playing? No.

If I were to lose all my belongings because I missed the payment or was unable to pay out just wanted a break, I would highly be likely to return. Having to start over with everything acquired would be a huge blow.

Now let's all stop making everything childish and personal please.

I used to moderate for another board and chat for a different game for a couple years.
(No way would I do it again, it really is a thankless job.)

I found it more effective to be objective and address the action and not the behavior, of an individual.

So it may help not to assign labels to others posts regardless if they are specifically what you call them out to be.

Hope this helps.

 

[Tina Small]

^^^ This is what I've been trying to say..... I know scads of people who hold multiple accounts and do just that... if you try to force them to pay every month for the accounts I'm without a doubt certain that they will all close... and I'm even more certain that no one is going to be opening anywhere NEAR what will leave.

I'm pretty sure no one would want any of my UO housing:

- Siege: One house too far outside of Zento for "safe" shopping from the guard zone and some houses in Malas. I placed all of them myself.
- Atlantic: A house in the Malas boondocks. Purchased myself back in 2005 via eBay. Over the years, I have seen usable spots to the side and in front of it go empty for weeks/months at a time.
- Great Lakes: A house in the Malas boondocks. Placed it myself.
- Formosa: A house outside Trammel Moonglow. Placed it myself.
- Hokuto: A house outside Trammel Trinsic. Placed it myself.
- Yamato: A house outside Fel Britain. Placed it myself.
- Lake Austin: A castle in Fel (placed it myself on a long-empty spot that THP showed me).
- Origin: A castle in Fel (placed it myself on a long-empty spot that Lore Denin showed me).
- Balhae: A castle in Trammel (placed it myself on a long-empty spot that I found myself).
- Sonoma: A castle in Fel (placed by a guildmate and is part of our guild's town).

I don't hunt IDOCs, so when I say I placed a house myself it was done in absolute peace and quiet and on a spot that was clearly not wanted by anyone else at the time.

I truly doubt that anyone other than maybe a guildmate would show the slightest interest in any of my UO homes. And if they end up falling before I can bank the important stuff, if anyone finds that stuff before it decays, they sure won't be finding any great stuff: some vet reward stuff, a few soulstones, a few holiday/anniversary items, scant amounts of resources, piddly amounts of maps and SOS, and a few BOD books with very few useful BODs in them. Never took up reforging, so there won't be any hordes of runic tools or forged metal tools. Have done all lumberjacking and mining myself while attended and under Trammel rulesets, so quantities of ingots and wood and gems I collected are laughably small compared to what other people have. I have no stockpiles anywhere of power or stat scrolls (the few that are in my houses belong to guildmates because they are the ones who did the spawns to get them). I also have very few SoTs and SoAs. The most I ever collected were on Balhae and someone bought up most of them for cheap before I closed my shop there.

Yeah....no players will profit much if I am forced to bail out of UO because of a rule change and EA/BS will lose a little bit of income and I can promise you I won't ever come back because I never want to find myself in this position again. UO's a lovely game, but it's way too hard for me, at least, to just pick it up and play it for a few weeks or months at a time, leave completely, and come back.

 

[Spock's Beard]

for nearly 20 years people have being duping gold and selling it. EA knows who it is and how they do it, and nothing is done. Does that somehow make it ok?

You just literally compared duping gold to paying EA money because you don't like what EA gives people for that money. You actually seem to think that nobody at EA in the last 10+ years has ever been aware of people sporadically renewing in order to keep a house active, and think they need you to come in here in 2016 and tell them about it.

Like can you explain how the hell you think that works? How do you think it's possible that Mesanna, and Cal before her, and Draconi before that, and whoever else, all completely missed this terrible "exploit" despite the fact that they've played the game, drew paychecks from it, had free access to subscriber information, and were responsible for the game's financials?

Go on, explain to me how they managed to find THAT MANY incompetent people in a row, such that an "exploit" could be written into their subscriber policy and go unnoticed by multiple dev teams for over a decade.

I'm a doofus? How many times do you need to be warned? I guess rules and fair play are something you don't relate to, lol. Well aren't you a classy guy! I guess when there's no real rebuttal some turn to personal insults and using phrases like "stop crying about it" lol.

That was a really good job of crying about the word "doofus" and a really bad job of answering any questions. Come on champ, explain to me how multiple dev teams over the course of a decade were all completely incompetent and needed you to tell them how to do their jobs, despite the fact that they had access to real subscriber data and you don't.

That uncomforable feeling you guys get when you try to answer this question and can't come up with anything that doesn't sound stupid? That's called losing an argument.

 

[Zosimus]

At this time, its working as intended UNTIL EA decides to do something in the end. BS can ask EA but as long as EA is making that extra money why would they want to lose that. It goes into funding their other projects. I personally think its abuse of the system but again that is just my opinion.

EA doesn't read these boards and don't care.

 

[Longtooths]

^^^ This is what I've been trying to say..... I know scads of people who hold multiple accounts and do just that... if you try to force them to pay every month for the accounts I'm without a doubt certain that they will all close... and I'm even more certain that no one is going to be opening anywhere NEAR what will leave.

Again, it only needs to be 1 monthly subscriber for every 3 90day player that leaves. Additionally it doesnt have to be new or returning players. Like I said, I would probably open another 3 accounts for the housing. Just little ole me would make up for 9 90day people leaving.

 

[OREOGL]

You're a moderator now? ... must have been a lack of applicants. Not a personal bash, but... do you get to control the use of bubble wrap per thread?

This is like saying "I mean this in the nicest way possible" or "with all due respect but"

How could you perceive this to be anything but that?

I encourage you to be a moderator for a while.