-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
that is very good news!
On the surface it sounds great. only two items i'm curious about:
1. Will it really happen, and
2. Hope they give at least a weeks notice fore it goes live, cause considering some of the mistakes of the past, I can see everyone's houses falling on the regular shard. I want my stuffs in the bank when this goes live.
1. Will it really happen, and
2. Hope they give at least a weeks notice fore it goes live, cause considering some of the mistakes of the past, I can see everyone's houses falling on the regular shard. I want my stuffs in the bank when this goes live.
Good news. Hope it is incentive enough and doesn't turn into a slippery slope of compromises. *crosses fingers*
I just hope people keep in mind that Siege has no Trammel facet available for housing. Also, for some unexplained reason, it is impossible to gate to/from certain housing areas in Ter Mur, Tokuno, and Malas to other areas on the shard, making those areas a lot less desirable for housing. So, all in all, Siege has significantly less available housing area than any other shard. Also, you can't use recall spells or sacred journey to get around on Siege--just gate spells, teleporter pads placed within houses, crystal and corrupted crystal portals, faction stronghold runes, and running/walking/sailing to your destination. You can also only have one character per account. So people who only have one account to use for a house on Siege and decide to make that character without magery will most likely wish to find housing near a moongate or a town or a well-established public house that is linked to other easily-accessible houses via teleporter pad.
Allowing people to place second houses on Siege without taking these limitations/restrictions into account may end up backfiring and causing a lot of bitterness when folks go to place and find out their only options for placing a house for a non-mage character cause them to spend most of their playing time running to and from their house, and possibly being PK'd more often than other players. I'd hate to see "land speculators" take up all the best locations as empty plots and then try to sell them off to other players at jacked-up prices. Siege is supposed to be more difficult; however, this idea, in my opinion, has vast potential to make it even more difficult than was ever intended for the average player who doesn't want to cash in their gold on other shards in trade for Siege gold or buy Siege gold from RMT brokers. I fear that this change will almost solely benefit opportunists who really don't care about the shard's future but are only looking for another get-rich scheme with which to line their pockets.
Also, I would be curious to know if this "benefit" will also be extended to Mugen. While it has the same limitations on getting around the shard, it does have a Trammel facet that Siege lacks (but it is subject to the Felucca ruleset).
In lieu of allowing people to have a second house on Siege, I would rather see the developers consider some other alternative, such as increased bank storage if your account has a house on another shard or perhaps storage lockers at inns. Do something creative that isn't just another way to put more gold or cash into the hands of people who only care about getting rich off UO.
Allowing people to place second houses on Siege without taking these limitations/restrictions into account may end up backfiring and causing a lot of bitterness when folks go to place and find out their only options for placing a house for a non-mage character cause them to spend most of their playing time running to and from their house, and possibly being PK'd more often than other players. I'd hate to see "land speculators" take up all the best locations as empty plots and then try to sell them off to other players at jacked-up prices. Siege is supposed to be more difficult; however, this idea, in my opinion, has vast potential to make it even more difficult than was ever intended for the average player who doesn't want to cash in their gold on other shards in trade for Siege gold or buy Siege gold from RMT brokers. I fear that this change will almost solely benefit opportunists who really don't care about the shard's future but are only looking for another get-rich scheme with which to line their pockets.
Also, I would be curious to know if this "benefit" will also be extended to Mugen. While it has the same limitations on getting around the shard, it does have a Trammel facet that Siege lacks (but it is subject to the Felucca ruleset).
In lieu of allowing people to have a second house on Siege, I would rather see the developers consider some other alternative, such as increased bank storage if your account has a house on another shard or perhaps storage lockers at inns. Do something creative that isn't just another way to put more gold or cash into the hands of people who only care about getting rich off UO.
Last edited:
I've only been a part of the Siege community for about 5 days now, but I have to say, they should not do it "as is".
IF you are allowed to have a house on Siege, and a house somewhere else, I think that the house on Siege needs to decay at a rate much faster than anywhere else, and ONLY for the mulit-shard owners. If all you have is a house on Siege, typical decay rates apply. Elsewise, a faster rate of decay. As Tina pointed out, there is less space available on Siege, and it should be reserved for those who truly want to play a part there.. Granted, not that there is any space problems on any shard, really, but I'd rather this issue be taken into consideration before it becomes a problem.
IF you are allowed to have a house on Siege, and a house somewhere else, I think that the house on Siege needs to decay at a rate much faster than anywhere else, and ONLY for the mulit-shard owners. If all you have is a house on Siege, typical decay rates apply. Elsewise, a faster rate of decay. As Tina pointed out, there is less space available on Siege, and it should be reserved for those who truly want to play a part there.. Granted, not that there is any space problems on any shard, really, but I'd rather this issue be taken into consideration before it becomes a problem.
Its nice that they are trying to get us new players... but this also penalizes those of us who play here as our home shard. I really hope they limit it to a small house or something...
I doesnt seem fair to the current sp player base to me.
If i place a house on my main account (which is always paid for) on sp its will remain there perminately. Even if I never log onto the shard. Multiply that a few hundred/thousand times and fast forward a few years and I see housing headache for the "real" sp player base. Low population with limited housing doesnt seem like a good idea to me in the long run.
Now, if they were to place rules to protect the current "active" sp player base I'd be all for it.
Good call.
W
Woodsman
Guest
I think that if you hadn't come in here and told us this, none of us would have heard about it. I would be very happy with this if it didn't screw over Siege in favor of the RMTers or others who would abuse it.
- Awards
- 1
That means you can move in next door to me on Catskills
If they allow an account a second house that can ONLY be placed on siege, it should be 'refreshed' by an owner opening the door, at least weekly or at the outside monthly (certainly not longer than this, and has to be a physical 'open door' by the account owner not just a paid up account) or go into decay (ie have it's own special decay rule as a "2nd" legally placed Siege house.)
A second house placed on any other shard will work as normal and put the first placement into decay on whatever shard it is on with the normal timer etc. You don't want a bunch of ppl flocking over, placing houses to 'try' siege, then never playing there and leaving their houses standing 'just in case, one day, maybe.... ' they may play.
First placed houses (on Siege) ie flagged as the accounts only house should operate as per normal housing rules.
None of this place a house, and pay 3 monthly never to actually 'use' the thing which sits forever and day taking up real estate. This is not fair to existing siege players. Nice to revamp the shard however, second houses should be used or lost.
A second house placed on any other shard will work as normal and put the first placement into decay on whatever shard it is on with the normal timer etc. You don't want a bunch of ppl flocking over, placing houses to 'try' siege, then never playing there and leaving their houses standing 'just in case, one day, maybe.... ' they may play.
First placed houses (on Siege) ie flagged as the accounts only house should operate as per normal housing rules.
None of this place a house, and pay 3 monthly never to actually 'use' the thing which sits forever and day taking up real estate. This is not fair to existing siege players. Nice to revamp the shard however, second houses should be used or lost.
In a way this is fair to existing siege players because since they already have invested to this shard, i.e. by placing a house they can now pick better spot to place before it goes live. It will only drive up their own property value. Prime spots are for the pickings right now for existing Siege players. The entire idea is to get more people interested in this shard since it had always been considered the "step child" shard. But I am happy to see Mesanna is taking actions in trying to make this shard better. They have recently hired on a new EM who people say looks very promising etc.. So all these new improvements hopefully will get more people excited about this shard. I am sure if these changes proves to be positive over time that Mugen will soon after receive the same treatment.
On the surface it would seem a simple fix, but just like in the old days, it puts them at a risk of loosing thier home if they choose to go on vaction irl, or just decide to take a break from uo. I go weeks at a time with out even logging into uo due to rl. Now if I was to log in my main shard and find my house gone due to a promo that was ment to bring more players... I might start shopping for some red hair dye if you know what i mean!
Oh, so now that Siege has had its first "Mesanna roulette" event, everyone who wants to get the Mesanna items needs a character there so they can get the items and sell them for insane prices. Next thing we know we'll have pumpkin dyeing events. It's really bizarre how people you've never ever seen posting in the Siege forum were all of a sudden posting there today selling Mesanna lanterns for 50 million gold.
I'm so disgusted right now.
Last edited:
The upside is everything stays in Siege
I would think Siege players would want more trammies there so more to kill 
Not everyone on Siege is a PKer or even PvPs.The upside is everything stays in Siege
I'm just disgusted that the Siege forum and general chat will now end up mirroring every other shard in terms of people trying to sell crud. I enjoy Siege's general chat, but I'll be turning it off and leaving it off when people start spamming that they're trying to sell today's items and anything similar. True event items that relate to game lore is one thing and I enjoy looking at that stuff in player-run museums. And I don't mind seeing once or twice a year items that are randomly named with UO team member names. The rest of it....all it does is ruin the shard's economy.
Last edited:
You can move in with me if you want. I have three houses there that I pay for every single month and visit almost every single day, too!!
- Awards
- 1
Are you as cute as kelmo?
I really worried about this. A second house may sound nice but we tryed that before, when all could place one house on each shard. It was very hard just to place a small house on Siege, and to get a large one would cost alot gold, many times payed to someone who did not even play on Siege.
At the event I got to speak a little with Mesanna. That's where she did speak about a second house.
Freja: I have one wish for Siege
Freja: that new account can see us
Freja: on shard list
Mesanna: Freja thats not fair to new players
Mesanna: I am not saying siege is a bad shard but it is hard core
Freja: let it not effect their young on other shards
Dionysis: any chance that advanced tokens could be enabled?
Freja: many want to go here
Freja: some returning
Freja: from back in 1998
Morea Aenil: *nods*
Freja: they don't know we are here
Morea Aenil: I just returned from forever ago, came back for a short time in 2004 and had to make a new
Mesanna: I will talk to the engineers but I am not sure we can seperate the two
Mesanna: but
Morea Aenil: account. boo! haha
Mesanna: oen thing I do know I want to do for here
Mesanna: is allow you to have a house here and a house on the other shards
Freja: please only a small
Freja: else we will get to many ghost houses
Here I lost her and dit not think she heard my reply. I remember last we could have a house on each shard, it was so hard to place a house on Siege so I hope they will be careful what they do.
Alot start to play here and if the house do not need refresh, it will stay forever and block for the active community's houses.
At the event I got to speak a little with Mesanna. That's where she did speak about a second house.
Freja: I have one wish for Siege
Freja: that new account can see us
Freja: on shard list
Mesanna: Freja thats not fair to new players
Mesanna: I am not saying siege is a bad shard but it is hard core
Freja: let it not effect their young on other shards
Dionysis: any chance that advanced tokens could be enabled?
Freja: many want to go here
Freja: some returning
Freja: from back in 1998
Morea Aenil: *nods*
Freja: they don't know we are here
Morea Aenil: I just returned from forever ago, came back for a short time in 2004 and had to make a new
Mesanna: I will talk to the engineers but I am not sure we can seperate the two
Mesanna: but
Morea Aenil: account. boo! haha
Mesanna: oen thing I do know I want to do for here
Mesanna: is allow you to have a house here and a house on the other shards
Freja: please only a small
Freja: else we will get to many ghost houses
Here I lost her and dit not think she heard my reply. I remember last we could have a house on each shard, it was so hard to place a house on Siege so I hope they will be careful what they do.
Alot start to play here and if the house do not need refresh, it will stay forever and block for the active community's houses.
Last edited:
What about a "Siege loyalty" to place a house there (starting 7 days before they allow second houses) so these houses actually go to people who will actively play the shard. All current players would be grandfathered into the system of course, but it would be like housing in Ter Mur. Working up a character's skills and/or time played (moving, not standing around) would gain the loyalty.
- Awards
- 1
I don't think many people have money enough to be placing houses on Siege all willy-nilly. Unless they are buying gold. Would that many people buy Siege gold just to place a house they wouldn't use?
The player base on Siege changes all the time, houses should be for the ones, who active play the shard. Some may be active today, but gone in a month. There house should not stay, if a player stop logging in to Siege.
- Second house should need to be refreshed. It's fine with a little longer timer for refresh than the old refresh rule, maybe once a month.
- A second house, no matter what shard it is on, should never be bigger than 10x10 as long soul forges are so heavy, else 8x8 should be max.
- Maybe limit it, so they only can place a second house in Malas, keep other facets for the ones who want Siege as their main shard.
I would love to see more active players on our shard but I would hate to see more ghost houses, we already have enough of them.
Making gold on Siege is not hard. Alot try to play Siege, they stay a month or two, then they give up getting their friends to follow or they miss having more than one char slot and go back to their old shard. They would all place a house on Siege in their first week on Siege.
We do not want that house to stay and steal a spot for the next one tho try out Siege.
If we not get limit this houses, it will hurt Siege badly and a new guy will have to pay mills for a small house as it will be almost impossible to place a house.
A lot of people have characters on Siege that were created years ago and have never been used for much other than collecting holiday and event items. So any kind of "Siege loyalty" system probably shouldn't rely solely on the creation date of a character.
- Awards
- 1
Not if you hunt and kill the gold farmers. Don't houses cost more on Siege just like everything else? Isn't the point of siege that there is no Trammel and therefore no safe place to do things like farm up gold?
Classic houses cost about twice as much on Siege as elsewhere, but custom plots and construction costs are the same as on other shards.
I wonder how the people who think this is such a fabulous idea would feel if the situation were reversed and it was announced that everyone who's had a house on Siege all of a sudden can place a second house on Atlantic without jeopardizing their Siege house.
Last December, Siege had over 821 houses on it. ( (Player News) - Siege Perilous Census 2011 Fall edition. | Stratics Forums ) I think a lot of people would be questioning how it could possibly be fair for those 800 people to suddenly be entitled to a second house somewhere else just because they play on Siege. And people wanting to move to Atlantic from some other shard might be rather put out that in order for them to place a house on Atlantic of any size, they have to give up the house, castle, or keep they already have somewhere else.
I think if you're going to like Siege, you know pretty quickly, within a week or less. And from what I've seen, people who get bitten by the Siege bug are usually hooked enough to sacrifice a house elsewhere or reopen a closed account to have their own place on Siege. I really think that paying "full price" for a home on Siege helps cement the relationship players have with Siege. Handing someone a free house slot on Siege and letting them maintain what they have elsewhere with no risk at all seems to run completely against the idea that Siege is supposed to be a more challenging place to play.
- Awards
- 1
So after reading through all the comments and remarks here is what I think... And please forgive me if I sound mean, or even like a big evil pancake... I will even keep this post in normal color so all can see...
I would imagine if people can have a second house on Siege, could us Siege folks have another house on a prodo shard? Even though I would never... But... "Hey Prodo folks... How would you like to see me with a 8x8 in the middle of a field that fits a castle? I don't really play on your shard, but it would sure be nice just to have a second house on an account." How hard would it be to just log on for that 1 sec to refresh that house and pop on over to Siege... I would think it is only fair to flood the prodo shards with second houses too. Why should you be allowed to **** in your backyard and then come and **** in mine? If a second house was allowed on Siege, my home shard, I would find the exit door and leave...
Yes, I would love to see more players play on Siege, but not this way. This way will hurt true Siege folks in the long run, and not help it.
When I made the move to Siege, I had to drop a castle that I loved, and items that would not fit in my bank, but I made the bold move. That is the kind of players you find on Siege. Players that will take that jump, be that bold, and not whine about this and that... I am so sick of people always whining about not having this or not getting that... Seriously, life is tough, shut up...
If you have to have insurance so you don't lose your stuff, please just stay where you are at...
If you are afraid of leaving the comfort of Trammel, please just stay where you are at...
If you can't handle having just 1 character, please just stay where you are at...
Like I said before, I would love to have more players to play with... But not the above kind... By all means this might make me sound like a big evil pancake, and might even hurt the chance of people trying out Siege, but you know what? I love Siege and I do not want to see it turn into just another prodo shard. One of the reasons I left and went to Siege was for more adventure and danger. And I am sorry that some of you cannot handle a shard a 16 year old girl could/can... I was 16 years old when I first left Napa/Sonoma and made the move to Siege. Enough said? Okies...
Siege has it's downs, but it also has it's ups. Like I said before, if a second house was allowed on Siege, I would leave... I only came back to UO to play on Siege after a 4 year break due to school and stuff.
If you know me, you know I am a really easy going person and nothing ever bothers me. So sorry if you had to read this from me...
No thanks!
P.S.
:mylittlepony:Thanks!
I would imagine if people can have a second house on Siege, could us Siege folks have another house on a prodo shard? Even though I would never... But... "Hey Prodo folks... How would you like to see me with a 8x8 in the middle of a field that fits a castle? I don't really play on your shard, but it would sure be nice just to have a second house on an account." How hard would it be to just log on for that 1 sec to refresh that house and pop on over to Siege... I would think it is only fair to flood the prodo shards with second houses too. Why should you be allowed to **** in your backyard and then come and **** in mine? If a second house was allowed on Siege, my home shard, I would find the exit door and leave...
Yes, I would love to see more players play on Siege, but not this way. This way will hurt true Siege folks in the long run, and not help it.
When I made the move to Siege, I had to drop a castle that I loved, and items that would not fit in my bank, but I made the bold move. That is the kind of players you find on Siege. Players that will take that jump, be that bold, and not whine about this and that... I am so sick of people always whining about not having this or not getting that... Seriously, life is tough, shut up...
If you have to have insurance so you don't lose your stuff, please just stay where you are at...
If you are afraid of leaving the comfort of Trammel, please just stay where you are at...
If you can't handle having just 1 character, please just stay where you are at...
Like I said before, I would love to have more players to play with... But not the above kind... By all means this might make me sound like a big evil pancake, and might even hurt the chance of people trying out Siege, but you know what? I love Siege and I do not want to see it turn into just another prodo shard. One of the reasons I left and went to Siege was for more adventure and danger. And I am sorry that some of you cannot handle a shard a 16 year old girl could/can... I was 16 years old when I first left Napa/Sonoma and made the move to Siege. Enough said? Okies...
Siege has it's downs, but it also has it's ups. Like I said before, if a second house was allowed on Siege, I would leave... I only came back to UO to play on Siege after a 4 year break due to school and stuff.
If you know me, you know I am a really easy going person and nothing ever bothers me. So sorry if you had to read this from me...
No thanks!P.S.
:mylittlepony:Thanks!
- Awards
- 1
It does work that way does it not? Mesanna announced you can have a prodo house and a Siege house. It works both ways. How could it not?
In my example, only one prodo shard (Atlantic) gets the pleasure of an influx of Siege players. Over 800 new houses.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 1
Don't think anyone wants to play anywhere else nowadays.
Seriously, though, can you imagine if even half of the current players (let's just use 50k as a wild guess for the total population) decided to try to do this? 25,000 new houses on Siege? How is that fair to the people who've stuck by it all these years and paid full subscription price for their home or for people who seriously want to give it a try and aren't just going to place a house that they have no real intention of using? 25,000 new houses on a shard that has no Trammel facet, where gating is mysteriously borked in Ter Mur and several housing areas in Tokuno and Malas, and where every non-mage character has to run to get anywhere if they don't own crystal portals or have their house connected via a teleporter pad to someone else's house that's equipped with crystal portals or have mage friends to gate them around? It's just dumb.
If the devs really want to provide an incentive for people to play on Siege, then give people who don't want to give up their house somewhere else a slight bump in their bank storage on Siege (another 25 to 50 items?) or let them rent a safe container or two at an inn or a bank that has to be refreshed every week or something. Or do something like the New Player Token on Siege so people start out with a little bit more gold (maybe 10k instead of the 20k the New Player Token gives) and being partied with them for their first 40 hours on the shard gives the party members a slight acceleration in skill gains.
Edited to add: And get rid of the daily cap on stat gains.
Last edited:
I think this is a good idea.. Although I can understand the concerns of of others.
I look at it in the sense that Siege is a pretty dead place as are many other shards. and anyone who wants a house on siege as their primary shard they play can pretty much pick a space. Zento is the busiest place for Housing there just like any other shard. I think I would continue my Siege play if I had a place for storing stuff and a small house would be perfect.
if you are worried about the influx of people placing houses... then have a think that they will only be able to place in a spot that other's have chosen not to place on.
I look at it in the sense that Siege is a pretty dead place as are many other shards. and anyone who wants a house on siege as their primary shard they play can pretty much pick a space. Zento is the busiest place for Housing there just like any other shard. I think I would continue my Siege play if I had a place for storing stuff and a small house would be perfect.
if you are worried about the influx of people placing houses... then have a think that they will only be able to place in a spot that other's have chosen not to place on.
Im not a fan of the extra house idea unless everyone gets to place a second house reguardless of where it is at. I mean if non siege people get to place a second house i want one as well. I would love to have 2 houses on siege as im sure someone in atlantic problly wouldnt mid have 2 houses on atlantic, but if a second house is in the works i think it should ahave a manual refresh it would make idocs interesting in all shards not jsut siege
I wouldn't call it an announcement, it was more of a' btw' mentioned in passing. She didn't shout out in General chat to the whole shard and make sure they were listening first, she just dropped it into the conversation with the few people who were on screen with her. Also they're only looking into it, it might not happen.
I have a crafter char with no magery, she manages to get to where she wants to be eventually. She has +15 ring and brace +15 tome of lost knowledge, + 5 library talisman (siege blessed) and gate scrolls. She fizzles a lot, but she can get there.
Ter Mur houses are all pretty close to the moongate, I don't see them as out of reach, except it's hard for a crafter char to get enough loyalty points to be able to place there.
I do agree that there needs to be some kind of restriction. What Siege doesn't need is a lot of empty, abandoned houses cluttering up the shard.
If I were designing this feature a 30 day age requirement on the character placing would be a starting point, then manual refreshing needed every 30 days after that.
I have a crafter char with no magery, she manages to get to where she wants to be eventually. She has +15 ring and brace +15 tome of lost knowledge, + 5 library talisman (siege blessed) and gate scrolls. She fizzles a lot, but she can get there.
Ter Mur houses are all pretty close to the moongate, I don't see them as out of reach, except it's hard for a crafter char to get enough loyalty points to be able to place there.
I do agree that there needs to be some kind of restriction. What Siege doesn't need is a lot of empty, abandoned houses cluttering up the shard.
If I were designing this feature a 30 day age requirement on the character placing would be a starting point, then manual refreshing needed every 30 days after that.
Last edited:
that sounds like resonable restrictions there Petra
N
neverplayuo
Guest
im makeing a char there any way so would be a good thing.