I'm in favor of anonymous houses.
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.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.
A lot of people had a lot of gold. Remember the current system didn't go into place until late 2001.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.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.
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.
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.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.
Actually it was 2003 before the current system was fully implemented.Remember the current system didn't go into place until late 2001.
The difference is between forced to refreshI 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
Make fun of those players all you want, but they are probably why the game is still profitable.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?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
lolI'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.
I'm sorry. I sometimes forget that people haven't been playing this game as long as I have.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.
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.lol
Sorry if this discussion makes me sound "hell bent".
Well, you know, the RTB houses are bypassing the system that everyone is supposed to be playing by.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.
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.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 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."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.
I think that's because it's one of the more glaring errors with UO that BioWare apparently has no intention of addressing.People are arming themselves with pitchforks and torches over the RTB houses, calling for them to be deleted
Agreed.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?