Housing account limit

[Marquis de Sade 209]

I think it is idiotic to limit players to one house per account. There would probably be increase in activity on some of the lesser played shards if housing limit was increased to at least 2. I for one have toons on 4 different shards Atlantic, Sonoma, Lake Austin, and Siege. Sonoma and Lake Austin have ton's of housing available and i even found 4 Keep spots on Lake Austin alone (i am sure there are more). Is this unreasonable to request this or are the people that agree with me on this issue? Feedback is appreciated.

 

[Llewen]

What I'd like to see is the current system of one house per account maintained, with one exception. Anyone who has put in at least 80 hours which is equivalent to 4 hours a day for 20 days on Seige (which is a good approximation on one month's fairly heavy playing time imo), and who has a character who is at least one month old on Seige, should also be able to own a house there.

This should have the effect of increasing traffic and playtime on Seige. I don't want to see everyone trying to own a house on Atlantic, or the other high population shards. It is already difficult enough to find housing on those shards, and they don't need more traffic.

 

[jack flash uk]

well, i kinda supported you untill i read "toons"

shame on you!

 

[Marquis de Sade 209]

I could live with a 2nd house allowed on siege only as well, i just thought that there would also be more activity on "dead" shards such as Sonoma if they allowed a 2nd house everywhere. I moved to Atlantic from Sonoma because frankly it is where the action is. Maybe with 1 extra house per account that may not always be the case. At the very least they need to allow extra housing for Siege.

 

[Marquis de Sade 209]

well, i kinda supported you untill i read "toons"

shame on you!

lol...what am I supposed to refer to them as?

 

[enderz]

One house per account is fine. Even on most f2p uo servers you only get 1 house per account, for good reason.

I do endorse Llewen's idea though for Siege.

 

[Larisa]

We are not TOONS....that's like calling me Jessica Rabbit!

We are charactors...with personalities and backgrounds!

And I agree that housing should remain 1 per acct with SP as an exception, I would love to have a house there.

 

[Siteswap]

We are not TOONS....that's like calling me Jessica Rabbit!

Its a widely accepted term used in MMO's and perfectly acceptable. If you dont like it, dont use it.

We are charactors...with personalities and backgrounds!

Character's not charactors

And I agree that housing should remain 1 per acct with SP as an exception, I would love to have a house there.

I agree.

 

[yanaki2]

well unfortunatly they might do it for seige/mugen but that is a long shot at best. as i hope you can understand that right now ea would lose a ton of money if they let players have the 1 house per shard rule(now i come back from the day where you could have 1 house per charicter,in fact on a couple of servers all 5 of my chairicters own houses) more accounts that are being turned on and paid for once every 85 days wouldnt need to be turned on and ea would lose money on this. its just not good buisness sence for them.

now my family is probably a rare example.we own 53 accounts, we have houses on nearly all north american servers , if they said tomorrow that its back to the one house per shard rule, i could close down about 35 accounts and never have to activate them again.thats over 450.00 lost every 90 days.even if they just put in seige id still be able to cut down about 8 accounts... the bean counters would have a fit.of course they will probably have a fit with all the potential people quitting over this account management debackle thats happening.. 53 accounts and i can only link 9 of them, i cant even activate the other 44 if i wanted to.

 

[Olahorand]

I never was a friend of the 1 house per account rule. 1 house per account per shard was overkill on the other side, but houses on 2 or 3 shards should not be a problem.
They could make it even part of the vet reward system, i.e. if you have paid 5 years for your account, you can place a second house, with 10 years a 3rd.
So the system would not be exploitable with trial or short time paid accounts and give an interest to keep the payments running instead of stopping for 90 days.

 

[Lady Storm]

Ladys and Gentilmen I happen to agree with the op and more so.

UO had in the begining unlimited house ownership per character. But with the UO popularity growing it was scaled back to 1 per character. This was fine as it was a limited few who at that time could aford the cost of the average house. Now mind you that was back in the first years of UO when the population of the game was as small as it is now.

Back when the 1 house per account went in, players were clamoring for more land better housing, and the shards were stuffed with players willing to shell out the money to get it. A 18x18 sold for millions of gold depending on shard 10 to 25 mill was not out of the question in price.
UO powers that be didnt ignore the demand but as usual to their nature of give 1 take back 5 ways of doing business, we lost our rights to have a home where we wanted.
The one house per account did more then place a limit on housing, it was used to build up more accounts to their thinking and generated more $$. It was a money thing not a player limit. But it did both.
The yelling for more land for house placements gave them the barganing power to up subscriptions via this rule. Oh we got customizable homes out of it, but those who had multi shard homes were cut out of having one. When the new house plans and all its advantages came into game the pull was great to have one. Many garndfathered accounts went the way of the dodo bird cause of this. At the time the older classic houses were in deep question if it was safe to make it a plot. I remember feeling slighted on this as the 2 came in at the same time.
I feel this limit to home placement did and will continue to hold back some shards from having a decient player base. How many of you have played out of your bank box till it drove you to ether quit the shard and go back to where you had a home or made you open a 2nd account to handle your needs?? Siege is not the only hurting shard for players here. I can tell you the reason Atlantic is so packed, and no its not just the pvp! Its the only shard with value back to where it was prior to the 1 house account rule.
Unfortunatly many of you dont remember that many after that limit started to drive many out of the game... remember the time when a 18 x 18 sold for millions?? Mind you this now doesnt count in Atlantic.. we all know that shard is the last banyon of normal UO play value.
I have litteraly walked many shards to take stock of the condition of UO, and I hate to tell you the poor condition of the game. People have made choices to keep UO going many moving to Atlantic to get back that life they once loathed. I sold a 18x18 on atlantic reciently... I sold it for 25million. Ok you say..... but when was the last time you sold a 18x18 on any other shard for a house far from any city for that amount??

Exactly.... you cant. Not a 18x18 or a tower these days sells for that kind of gold. There is too much room! For a few hours of hunting many can go out and plant a house many almost on luna doorsteps for basic fees! Its that bad on many shards. So wake up already.

If you think this 1 house per account is a good thing your fooling yourself, its just another nail in the uo coffin. As players move to Atlantic to get back some normalcy in UO life.

Oh and by the way... remember many of you were condeming castle and keep owners for taking up so much land..... right now I have a list that is quite big of shards with room so big in old lands for keeps and castles, many shards Malas is barren. Big stretches of land open and not a 18 x 18 to be seen. They could honestly shut down Malas, Tokuno and Ter Mur and still have huge house room on the remaining land.

The one house per account should be repealed back to the 1 house per shard. This would give the players who can handle the multi shard game play the chance to have more then a bank box to play out of and make the shards ecconomys viable again. You see the harder it is to get something the more someone is willing to pay. This goes for housing in game.
Right now a castle on Atlantic is going for over a billion gold.... keeps 400 to 800 mill. Try getting that for one on any other shard. You will get laughed at and told they could take you to a handfull of places to place one! To me thats sad.
In RL when your town looses home owners the value of all things go down and you loose businesses to the shrinking ecconomys. This is UO housing doing the same in game. We need to stop this.
It's not just Siege P. that needs this to be reset back to the 1 house per shard. All shards need it.

 

[Siteswap]

It's not just Siege P. that needs this to be reset back to the 1 house per shard. All shards need it.

Great. Bring it on. I'll immediately close two accounts that I use for holding houses and save myself 2 monthly subscriptions. Unfortunately so will everyone else who pays for accounts simply to hold houses.

And THAT is the reason it wont happen, and you cant really blame EA for not doing it.

 

[Lady Storm]

It's not just Siege P. that needs this to be reset back to the 1 house per shard. All shards need it.

Great. Bring it on. I'll immediately close two accounts that I use for holding houses and save myself 2 monthly subscriptions. Unfortunately so will everyone else who pays for accounts simply to hold houses.

And THAT is the reason it wont happen, and you cant really blame EA for not doing it.

Sorry no it wont, oh I dont doubt some could cut back but not to the point your claiming.
Too many of us have single home accounts on same shard... You would think me of all people could cut back my accounts to 1/2 if not less (53 accounts) Right???
HAHA I wish. I sat back and looked at it and its just not the case.. most of my single house account holdings are on the same shards. I could only cut back perhaps 3 or 5 max!

I'm not alone, many who have single accounts are on the same shard. So there is a hole in your anallagy kiddo. Stop thinking with your greed. I sometimes wonder if its the Atlantic players who pancake the most against it to keep the prices and players on that shard...

 

[Uvtha]

I never was a friend of the 1 house per account rule. 1 house per account per shard was overkill on the other side, but houses on 2 or 3 shards should not be a problem.
They could make it even part of the vet reward system, i.e. if you have paid 5 years for your account, you can place a second house, with 10 years a 3rd.
So the system would not be exploitable with trial or short time paid accounts and give an interest to keep the payments running instead of stopping for 90 days.

Well It just depends on how many people actually make use of being able to place extra houses on other shards. If a lot of people do then its going to cause housing problems.

With the population as low as it is, I don't think it matters.

What I would do, is allow people one house per shard, and any house beyond one its limited to 7x7.

 

[Lady Storm]

well unfortunatly they might do it for seige/mugen but that is a long shot at best. as i hope you can understand that right now ea would lose a ton of money if they let players have the 1 house per shard rule(now i come back from the day where you could have 1 house per charicter,in fact on a couple of servers all 5 of my chairicters own houses) more accounts that are being turned on and paid for once every 85 days wouldnt need to be turned on and ea would lose money on this. its just not good buisness sence for them.

now my family is probably a rare example.we own 53 accounts, we have houses on nearly all north american servers , if they said tomorrow that its back to the one house per shard rule, i could close down about 35 accounts and never have to activate them again.thats over 450.00 lost every 90 days.even if they just put in seige id still be able to cut down about 8 accounts... the bean counters would have a fit.of course they will probably have a fit with all the potential people quitting over this account management debackle thats happening.. 53 accounts and i can only link 9 of them, i cant even activate the other 44 if i wanted to.

Kiddo you better relook at that list I did and no I might close down 5 maybe a few more if I do the right shifting but to be honest not as many as you think we can. The grandfathered accounts couldnt be touched and thats a good handfull. most of the singles are on same shards ..... that limits how many can. I'm looking at the book right now infact and at most if done corectly possibly 13 at most. So its no a big deal UO would still be getting about the same amount of money from me. As I would want to keep more on full time...

 

[phantus]

Housing should be footprint based. If you can place a 18x18 then you should be able to place 3 6x6 houses regardless of shard etc. Each year you have on the account should give +1 to the footprint total.

That is all.

 

[Theo_GL]

Signed x10.

I have 2 accounts. I would not close 1 if I could hold 2 houses with 1 account. I currently play 3-4 diff shards.

Having 1 more house per account provided on diff shard would be very helpful and allow better ability to play across shards.

I think this is one reason many people don't play Siege - with no house there - you are 'exposed' 24x7 and can't build any skills without risking getting PKed.

 

[Uvtha]

Housing should be footprint based. If you can place a 18x18 then you should be able to place 3 6x6 houses regardless of shard etc. Each year you have on the account should give +1 to the footprint total.

That is all.

Also a very good solution. Sadly its one I suspect would require a wholllleeee lot of work, and as such probably has zero chance of happening.

 

[Siteswap]

Sorry no it wont, oh I dont doubt some could cut back but not to the point your claiming.
Too many of us have single home accounts on same shard... You would think me of all people could cut back my accounts to 1/2 if not less (53 accounts) Right???
HAHA I wish. I sat back and looked at it and its just not the case.. most of my single house account holdings are on the same shards. I could only cut back perhaps 3 or 5 max!

I'm not alone, many who have single accounts are on the same shard. So there is a hole in your anallagy kiddo. Stop thinking with your greed. I sometimes wonder if its the Atlantic players who pancake the most against it to keep the prices and players on that shard...

Stop thinking with MY greed? I cant be the only player with house holding accounts cross shard. EA would lose these accounts and therefore the income. So its EA's greed that will prevent this ever happening, and I cant say I blame them. They are in the game of making money. They dont run UO for our amusement.

 

[Woodsman]

Housing should be footprint based. If you can place a 18x18 then you should be able to place 3 6x6 houses regardless of shard etc. Each year you have on the account should give +1 to the footprint total.

That is all.

This is a pretty good idea.

Although this would require the manual intervention of GMs, and since they are shared with other games, I don't think it would work very well, I wouldn't mind seeing some system for new player towns that are in areas that aren't normally open to players. I'm not talking about T2A or Ilsh or dungeons, I'm talking about Tram and Fel, perhaps in the woods or other similar areas, as long as they don't impact any spawns, or perhaps on the outskirts of towns like Britain or Minoc, where there isn't player housing.

Basically a certain amount of distinct players get together (not one guy and his 8 accounts) such as a guild, make a petition of sorts explaining what they want to do and how they want to accomplish it, have it reviewed, and then have the GMs help them out. I don't want a bunch of 18x18s, it would need to be smaller spots and limited to no more than a certain number of hours (a dozen or so). Basically an actual honest to god player town. Minoc is kind of an example of this, but that's a lot larger than I'm talking. I've seen guilds and groups take over parts of Minoc on certain shards, and I'd like to see it applied further.

Or perhaps some kind of housing within the towns, like the houses used by peasant NPCs now. Not the shops.

The idea is to group more people together. We have hitching posts already with our houses, but it'd be nice to have some kind of bank function as well.

 

[Barok]

How about this: Each account is allocated 'X' amount of housing credits. The larger the house, the more credits are consumed, also the population of the shard would be taken into account, a house on the most populated shard should consume more credits than a house on the least populated shard.

So a person choosing to place a castle on the most populated shard would use up all their credits and wouldn't be able to place another on a different shard with the same account.

Someone choosing to place 2 or 3 smaller houses on the less populated shards could do so by spreading out their housing credits.

 

[yars]

isnt greed the reason why we have so many houses?

 

[Olahorand]

isnt greed the reason why we have so many houses?

Often not. Some people hold multiple houses for nostalgic reasons (like a house from a friend long gone) or for keeping up player run towns, which are part of the UO history.

I know a RPG league on Drachenfels, which holds 2 or 3 houses on an area, where also would fit a castle. So if it would be greed, they could demolish the houses here and place a castle for the league. They dont to preserve history.

 

[Lorddog]

i think 1 problem is different servers might not know whats going on with the multiple houses.

the idea that 5yr account can do 2 is a great idea so you have to have at least some acountability.
perhaps a 2ndary house might have to be refreshed so that people dont place a house (on seige) and never go there.

us players on seige just dont want production people reserving houses and not playing there is all.

lorddog

 

[Ezekiel Zane]

us players on seige just dont want production people reserving houses and not playing there is all.

lorddog

Easy fix for this is to have any Secondary houses on Seige require regular refreshing or they'll fall. Something like 7 days or 30 days, whatever. So, on normal production shards, a secondary house is auto-refreshed but on Seige or Mugen it must be manually refreshed.

 

[Gunga_Din]

Wow, most of you need your head examined. Why on earth would they allow more than one house per acct if that then allowed people to close accts and therefore ..... decrease revenue?

Get a clue. Even allowing it on SP would cost them money. I'm sure people have 2 accts just to have a house on SP.

Never gonna happen. More housing per acct will cause cancelling of extra accts and less revenue.

This thread can now me locked because I have spoken and the rest of you are unwise.

 

[Marquis de Sade 209]

We are not TOONS....that's like calling me Jessica Rabbit!

We are charactors...with personalities and backgrounds!

And I agree that housing should remain 1 per acct with SP as an exception, I would love to have a house there.

you take this game way to serious..

 

[claudia-fjp]

Wow, most of you need your head examined. Why on earth would they allow more than one house per acct if that then allowed people to close accts and therefore ..... decrease revenue?

Get a clue. Even allowing it on SP would cost them money. I'm sure people have 2 accts just to have a house on SP.

Never gonna happen. More housing per acct will cause cancelling of extra accts and less revenue.

This thread can now me locked because I have spoken and the rest of you are unwise.

Yet they do exactly that every time they have Return to Brit. People in this thread who are begging for more even exploit it for free housing...