Anonymous housing poll

[Uriah Heep]

I'm in favor of anonymous houses.

 

[HD2300]

LMAO

1 days work just to make $156,000 to $468,000 over 3 years.

 

[Prince Caspian]

Only have one house.

I WOULD like to have a Felucca outpost, but I certainly don't require it.

Storage isn't the issue it used to be, but when I am close to the limit, I just throw stuff out (or sell it). Economizing space sure is a good way to find out just how much you value your various possessions.

George Carlin once defined a house as "a container for your stuff." That certainly is a large aspect of what a house is in Ultima Online -- for many of us, it's a showcase of what we've accomplished in game thus far. But it's also a base, a sanctum sanctorum -- a small piece of the game that truly is ours.

I have been an opponent of multiple houses for a long time. I've come to realize a large portion of this is like my hatred of PKs... a hard position born from the events of another time, years back. What was so then is not so now.

Back around the DLD, housing was out of hand. Dense forests looked more like downtown Manhattan. You were allowed to place a house or tent if you were able, number of existing houses notwithstanding. For years, it was impossible to place even the 8x8 outhouses on most shards.

That, obviously, is no longer the case, certainly not on Sonoma. Aside from some of the popular areas, there are empty plots galore. I don't think it should be carte blanche like the old days -- in fact, I think you should have to pay a daily exorbitant fee to keep the extra house.

 

[Bella]

My monthly payments are how I refresh my houses. How often I do or do not login should not be the determining factor on whether or not I get to keep them.

Bella

 

[goldenpower]

I picked "I occasionally allow an account to lapse here or there but always renew within 90 days."

I do own RtB houses but I don't use them for anything because obviously at they could be deleted at any time

 

[kleos]

I'd do this if it was unlimited houses any shard.
So 1 house auto refresh or unlimited houses perma decay/owner refresh. Placing an additional house puts it at owner refresh rate. Demolishing all but one house resets your home to auto refresh.

Back when it was possible to place unlimited homes, people didn't have billions, very few even had a couple million. Too much gold to do that at the current placement prices. Even with the placement timer, If you did unlimited per shard, every spot (even the less populated) would be gone in a week or two, and slowly be consolidated to a single account.

1 per shard is hard enough to accept, even that should probably be limited. People will go out and take spots on shards they will never play, just because they can, and so they don't get beaten to the punch if they should ever want it down the road.

I don't see the upside to allowing someone to take up a plot for a 30 second once a week effort. There is no real upside to the game and player base as a whole to allow unlimited anything. In a sandbox like UO, it leads to griefing for lack of a better term.

That does not mean there is no solution, it just means if something is done, it needs a lot more thought.

 

[Obsidian]

I have 5 accounts that I pay for continuously in 6 month increments. If I could have multiple houses on an account, even by manual refresh, I would consolidate to 2 accounts. That's where my characters are and this would allow me to keep 2 houses on my primary shard. The other 3 accounts are only for houses. Of the 5 houses I currently have, they are all on separate shards except I have 2 on Atlantic. I think many people would be in this situation and EA would loose much revenue with Flutter's proposal to have one house per shard per account with manual refresh.

I would prefer a bonus option of paying an additional $3 per month on each account to have a second non-decayable 10x10 (or smaller) on a second shard. This would not be a max secures plot, but would allow you to enjoy the benefits of home ownership while you play on your secondary shard. You could not have both the primary house (any size) and secondary (10x10) house on the same shard on the same account.

 

[Flutter]

I'd do this if it was unlimited houses any shard.
So 1 house auto refresh or unlimited houses perma decay/owner refresh. Placing an additional house puts it at owner refresh rate. Demolishing all but one house resets your home to auto refresh.

Back when it was possible to place unlimited homes, people didn't have billions, very few even had a couple million. Too much gold to do that at the current placement prices. Even with the placement timer, If you did unlimited per shard, every spot (even the less populated) would be gone in a week or two, and slowly be consolidated to a single account.

1 per shard is hard enough to accept, even that should probably be limited. People will go out and take spots on shards they will never play, just because they can, and so they don't get beaten to the punch if they should ever want it down the road.

I don't see the upside to allowing someone to take up a plot for a 30 second once a week effort. There is no real upside to the game and player base as a whole to allow unlimited anything. In a sandbox like UO, it leads to griefing for lack of a better term.

That does not mean there is no solution, it just means if something is done, it needs a lot more thought.

A lot of people had a lot of gold. Remember the current system didn't go into place until late 2001.
Yes, gold was "more expensive" but there was plenty of it. People were smelting bods for God's sake. lol

 

[Flutter]

I have 5 accounts that I pay for continuously in 6 month increments. If I could have multiple houses on an account, even by manual refresh, I would consolidate to 2 accounts. That's where my characters are and this would allow me to keep 2 houses on my primary shard. The other 3 accounts are only for houses. Of the 5 houses I currently have, they are all on separate shards except I have 2 on Atlantic. I think many people would be in this situation and EA would loose much revenue with Flutter's proposal to have one house per shard per account with manual refresh.

I would prefer a bonus option of paying an additional $3 per month on each account to have a second non-decayable 10x10 (or smaller) on a second shard. This would not be a max secures plot, but would allow you to enjoy the benefits of home ownership while you play on your secondary shard. You could not have both the primary house (any size) and secondary (10x10) house on the same shard on the same account.

I'm not so sure, as it seems many people wouldn't do it since it requires them to actually log on and play UO.

 

[Ezekiel Zane]

Remember the current system didn't go into place until late 2001.

Actually it was 2003 before the current system was fully implemented.

I was just going through all the old pub notes yesterday looking for something else.

It's amazing how much Pub 16 changed the game.

 

[Flutter]

I think some of the reactions to my idea in this thread are hilarious.
"I pay for my accounts! That should keep my houses up! I shouldn't actually have to PLAY too!"
What the **** is wrong with me thinking people would want to play what they pay for. lol

 

[Felonious Monk]

I think some of the reactions to my idea in this thread are hilarious.
"I pay for my accounts! That should keep my houses up! I shouldn't actually have to PLAY too!"
What the **** is wrong with me thinking people would want to play what they pay for. lol

The difference is between forced to refresh
Or not forced to refresh
Both my lil houses have auto refreshed for years and for what its worth I for one would like it to stay that way
*Winks*

 

[Woodsman]

What the **** is wrong with me thinking people would want to play what they pay for. lol

Make fun of those players all you want, but they are probably why the game is still profitable.

People get really attached to their virtual stuff in UO, and are willing to pay for it even even when they take long breaks, or at least play the 90 day game.

 

[Poo]

work and kids and a wife and friends.

between those they are determined to keep me from playing UO.

but i fight them every step of the way!!!!

but there are times in the summer when i go weeks without being able to play.
vacation and work and such.

but i pay all my big houses up so that when winter gets here ill have all my stuff and its all ready to go.

i know there are a lot of people like that.

i have a keep on each side of my castle and i dont see those people at ALL, but i know how to get in touch with them and they are just like me, they get buisy and are gone for months on end.
then they are back playing for a couple months, then off again with RL stuff.

i think that is one of the biggest transitions of this game over the years.

most of us where young when we started playing, so we could invests endless hours into doing it.
but now we are entering middle age and have the house and kids and all that so our hours are greatly reduced.

hell, i distinctly remember taking holidays from work 12-14 years ago and spending the ENTIRE time playing UO and never leaving my computer room.... and i LOVED it, hahahaha!

come on, i know there are other that did the same!

but now i take holidays and its take the family out camping and boating, work sends me away on a course for 2 weeks ect ect ect ect.

wow, i have to stop getting up this early in the morning.
i ramble a lot more in the morning, eh?

 

[RaDian FlGith]

I think some of the reactions to my idea in this thread are hilarious.
"I pay for my accounts! That should keep my houses up! I shouldn't actually have to PLAY too!"
What the **** is wrong with me thinking people would want to play what they pay for. lol

I'm not sure what's so hilarious about people expecting something that they pay for to continue to be in-game. UO is entirely about attachment to pixels... why are you surprised when people become attached to them even at a base level?

On top of that, I have to ask... Why are you so hell bent on needing the housing rules changed? The only present issue with housing is the RTB thing, which is clearly a bug in the system since other than RTB houses, if you don't pay, they do fall as instructed by the system.

 

[Capn Kranky]

I no longer play ... making me the first vote in that group! Whee!

Did the rtb housing affect my game play? nope, therefore they had no real affect on me as a p(l)ayer and thus it did not matter to me what happened.

 

[Flutter]

I'm not sure what's so hilarious about people expecting something that they pay for to continue to be in-game. UO is entirely about attachment to pixels... why are you surprised when people become attached to them even at a base level?

On top of that, I have to ask... Why are you so hell bent on needing the housing rules changed? The only present issue with housing is the RTB thing, which is clearly a bug in the system since other than RTB houses, if you don't pay, they do fall as instructed by the system.

lol
Sorry if this discussion makes me sound "hell bent".
People are arming themselves with pitchforks and torches over the RTB houses, calling for them to be deleted along with all of the contents. Seemed like something people felt strongly about and I wanted to participate in the discussion.
While I really don't care how many RTB houses anyone has, I've always wanted to go back to being able to place multiple houses per account. I thought this would be a good way to appease everyone. Let those with however many RTB houses just refresh their houses as needed and place as many as they wanted. (We go back to a more fun idoc cycle this way) And those satisfied with one house per account could simply leave it to auto refresh. The poll was just to see how many people this would affect.


No, I'm not surprised people are attached to their pixles. I am also a pixle junky.
Yes, I do find it funny people want to continue paying for something they don't use, to the point where any suggestion that they use it is greeted with angry rebuffs.

 

[rieley]

I have three accounts, each has a house which is paid monthly. One account I seldom log in to, however it is paid monthly. Co-owners use the house. Why should I need to remember to log on that account?

For each account 12 months are paid in a year. If UO wishes to allow a 90 days grace period that is great, however 90 days should be the max in a year. Example, if you are 90 days BEHIND in your UO mortgage, and pay for 30 days, then you are still 60 days in rears. Why does one monthly payment catch a player up for 90 days?

With shards having lower population, other than ATL, UO could sell housing tokens for med size houses. $20 for the token and the monthly account increases $3-5. Let us place a house on another shard. As for Siege, same idea except no transfer in or out.

If one wants the additional storage without paying more, then purchase boats and refresh.

I feel strongly about this.

 

[Flutter]

I have three accounts, each has a house which is paid monthly. One account I seldom log in to, however it is paid monthly. Co-owners use the house. Why should I need to remember to log on that account?

For each account 12 months are paid in a year. If UO wishes to allow a 90 days grace period that is great, however 90 days should be the max in a year. Example, if you are 90 days BEHIND in your UO mortgage, and pay for 30 days, then you are still 60 days in rears. Why does one monthly payment catch a player up for 90 days?

With shards having lower population, other than ATL, UO could sell housing tokens for med size houses. $20 for the token and the monthly account increases $3-5. Let us place a house on another shard. As for Siege, same idea except no transfer in or out.

If one wants the additional storage without paying more, then purchase boats and refresh.

I feel strongly about this.

I'm sorry. I sometimes forget that people haven't been playing this game as long as I have.
With the old refresh system, co-owners using the house would automatically refresh it.
The refresh happened when a home owner or co-owner opened the door or clicked the house sign. (i do forget if a friend of the house could also but I believe it to be so as well)

 

[RaDian FlGith]

lol
Sorry if this discussion makes me sound "hell bent".

It's not this discussion that makes you sound hell bent, it's that you are continually trying to find ways to shed light on your idea of "houses should be refreshed," a concept so old that most players probably don't remember when that was the case.

People are arming themselves with pitchforks and torches over the RTB houses, calling for them to be deleted along with all of the contents. Seemed like something people felt strongly about and I wanted to participate in the discussion.

Well, you know, the RTB houses are bypassing the system that everyone is supposed to be playing by.

While I really don't care how many RTB houses anyone has, I've always wanted to go back to being able to place multiple houses per account. I thought this would be a good way to appease everyone. Let those with however many RTB houses just refresh their houses as needed and place as many as they wanted. (We go back to a more fun idoc cycle this way) And those satisfied with one house per account could simply leave it to auto refresh. The poll was just to see how many people this would affect.

But why continue to foster discussion of systems that benefit those that are not paying to play the game. There's a huge difference between the RTB houses and every other house in game.

I too would like to place multiple houses on the same account, and am willing to suffer some limitations on that -- even if they charged me a monthly fee to do so -- but I think you will find that a vast majority of players don't want to have to worry about leaving the game to go on vacation and come back to find they no longer have a house. Housing is, quite frankly, one of the major draws to the game, and also, in my case (and the case of many others) the only reason to have multiple accounts. I guarantee I wouldn't be the only one who would close excess accounts if I suddenly had to log in once a week on every account to ensure that every house was refreshed. And then housing really just becomes a game of the powergamers will control the space, and screw the casual players. Not my idea of Fun™.

No, I'm not surprised people are attached to their pixles. I am also a pixle junky.
Yes, I do find it funny people want to continue paying for something they don't use, to the point where any suggestion that they use it is greeted with angry rebuffs.

But you're not suggesting that they "use it." You're suggesting that they go through some arbitrary weekly ritual in order to continue to own a house. Honestly, what difference does it make to you (or even other players) if someone doesn't log in for 4 weeks, 4 months, or 4 years if they're paying for the account. They're already paying their "rent" to EA... under your suggestion they must also engage in a weekly Indian House Dance to maintain "ownership."

 

[Woodsman]

People are arming themselves with pitchforks and torches over the RTB houses, calling for them to be deleted

I think that's because it's one of the more glaring errors with UO that BioWare apparently has no intention of addressing.

It's like the scripters who are doing it in the open, the problems with UO Herald that could be fixed in an afternoon as others have said, etc. etc.

There are much bigger problems with UO than RTB, the scripters who do it in the open, the UO website, the lack of direction with UO, etc., but it's the things that are right there in the open that should have been dealt with years ago that can get a lot of people talking.

 

[HD2300]

^^ RTB could be fixed in an afternoon.

The benefits would be that EA would get ROI overnight, and pocket $120+++ over 3 years.

 

[Olahorand]

I have 5 accounts permanently open (only broken due to last years account transition issues), a 6th reopened all 90 day - all have houses.
I also have about 5 RTB houses, which are part of guild towns or a legacy from a friend, who left years ago or on one of the other shards I still play. (Paying more accounts is not possible, even the current amount is already too much.)
If they would allow two houses per account as a 10 year old account bonus, I would happily legalize these houses (assuming I find a way to activate the accounts holding these houses with the new system).
If they would drop these RTB houses, I would be sad, but that would not be too unexpected. But then I might be tempted to close more accounts and stop paying at all, especially since UO is not that addictive any more as some years ago.

 

[lupushor]

This poll is useless as it doesn't give multiple choices.

I truly don't think that of the 154 ppl that voted so far for 1 or more regular accounts with houses NONE have ever juggled a 90day-house or has a RtB house.

So what's the point of continuing this poll?

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

they can make me login to refresh my houses when the game is free to play, but when we're paying, why should anyone have to do anything?

if this is about solving RTB houses, making paid customers required to do anything isn't the way to fix that. how about punish the players who aren't paying for housing?

Agreed.

There is no reason at all to punish the existing, paying customers by making them have to start opening a door once a week. Makes absolutely no sense in todays game.

I am not talking about the 90 day losers who are beating the system btw.
I am talking about the regular paying players that keep all their accounts active all the time as intended.

There is no need to start doing stupid **** just to open up a few more castle spots. A new player has no need for anything close to a castle or keep and any vet player that cannot obtain a large enough house or two (pretty sure most vets have more then 1 fully active account) is obviously an item junkie and should then have to make hard decisions about how to manage all his junk.
Lets not even get into the players that want 100 large houses on their account just so they can decorate and re-decorate them weekly.
To each his own and if there was never-ending house space I would say knock yourself out but there isnt so there is no way any player should be denied a decent house just because a bunch of wannabe architects want to peacock their pixel housing.

 

[old gypsy]

I don't think it would be wise to return to the old system where you could place as many houses as you had characters, and the only way I could see justifying a refresh requirement might be applying it to certain things that have not been added to the game (and probably never will be)... for example, a temporary housing item such as a tent that could be packed up and placed elsewhere as needed.

I also think 90 days is an excessive grace period for unpaid accounts. Thirty days would be more reasonable and sufficiently generous.

As far as RTB houses, I agree that they should be removed somehow. I see them as an abuse of the system, whether intentional or unintentional.