New Housing System Revised...

[Zyon Rockler]

I would like to see the housing system changed so that it benefits those who pay, continueously.

I would like to see an incentive given to those who remain active.

I think systems should be set up so that you can earn extra over the course of time.

They should reset all housing. When you pay for 1 month you should have 1 house and 1 boat that will auto refresh. If you stop paying the house should go into decay.

On the house sign there could be a new button that checks if you have refreshed your house every 7 days. If the house stays refreshed for 1 month then it will add 1 month that the house will stand when the account goes inactive. The boat must also be refreshed to earn the bonus.

After an account reaches 3 months and has been refreshed for that 3 months, the account will be able to go inactive for 3 months before the timer will begin it.

With this incentive, if a player refreshes his house for 1 year he could have up to 1 year to be inactive but if the player fails to refresh manually, the time earned will begin to decay.

Also, the boat will remain intact if the account goes inactive and will stay standing depending on how well kept or maintained it was.

So, the incentive is, to pay for the account monthly, refresh your house and boat weekly so that you can build up enough time to protect your house and boat if for some reason you can no longer pay for a period of time.

Everything else would stay the same, like it is now if you're paying then the house will stay standing no matter what. This would just simply be an incentive.

I would like to see the timer of 3 months removed to stop people from placing houses and then going inactive for 3 months.

If the player had to maintain their houses to earn time then newly placed houses could decay as soon as an account went inactive.

Veteran players could maintain an account for 1 year and then take 1 year off if they had refreshed the boat and house, so the system would balance out and give people an incentive to play.

 

[old gypsy]

I'd simplify things even further. If you don't pay, the homestead goes into decay, with a one week window to pay up and save it.

 

[Zyon Rockler]

I agree with that for new players because they don't have anything invested but I would hate to lose my house and my boat after spending over 10 years.

If you have given and worked hard to earn a lifestyle, there should be a way to maintain that, some type of insurance.

There's alot of things that bother me about systems that make it easy to understand why I feel a certain way but there are other things that are vague.

Like when we used to refresh our house, we would see other people logging in to refresh their house and alot of times we would greet those people and welcome them as a neighbor, knowing that we would see them refresh again and again and that would lead to hunting and guilding.

So, when you remove systems, you can be very passive about their affect, when you simply analyze the system itself and not what the system causes.

Also, you have to think about its connection to realism. A well maintained house is something we have to do in real life. You can imagine dust building up, doors falling off of hinges, leaking roofs and cracked foundations.

This is a type of roleplay and experience that soothes an addiction of being connected to a reality. So, you could expand on the types of maintained structures.

Like, I always wanted to see cracks placed on houses that were not well maintained and then more cracks and then spider webs, dust and just the appearance of a house not being maintained.

Even houses becomming haunted after a certain level where decay would set in and the house would eventually collapse.

 

[roninaxx]

I agree with that for new players because they don't have anything invested but I would hate to lose my house and my boat after spending over 10 years.

If you have given and worked hard to earn a lifestyle, there should be a way to maintain that, some type of insurance.

There's alot of things that bother me about systems that make it easy to understand why I feel a certain way but there are other things that are vague.

Like when we used to refresh our house, we would see other people logging in to refresh their house and alot of times we would greet those people and welcome them as a neighbor, knowing that we would see them refresh again and again and that would lead to hunting and guilding.

So, when you remove systems, you can be very passive about their affect, when you simply analyze the system itself and not what the system causes.

Also, you have to think about its connection to realism. A well maintained house is something we have to do in real life. You can imagine dust building up, doors falling off of hinges, leaking roofs and cracked foundations.

This is a type of roleplay and experience that soothes an addiction of being connected to a reality. So, you could expand on the types of maintained structures.

Like, I always wanted to see cracks placed on houses that were not well maintained and then more cracks and then spider webs, dust and just the appearance of a house not being maintained.

Even houses becomming haunted after a certain level where decay would set in and the house would eventually collapse.

Then we could have teenagers breaking in scrawling graffitti on the walls, rouge alchemist making unlawfull potions and selling them . Oh yes lets turn neighborhoods into slums just like in real life,

I say if you let your account drop for nonpayment then it should go thru the condemed process and let someone who plays have a place to put up a house and live there within a 30-60 day window, now if they would put all of your items in the bank like on test so you could restart with at least something if you decide to come back,that would be an acceptable solution .

 

[EvilPixieWorks]

Please! Not housing again!

However... I do agree, as it's most frustrating... even though the little old school ships are only 10k or whatever... it's most annoying when you forget for an extra day, you loose them. Why do I forget? Lousy fishing! Used to be fishing was a lot better... I was after serpents, for MIBs, Nets, Maps... now all you get is this new fish rubbish for hours as your hot key gets worn out for nothing and you start falling asleep at the keyboard. HATE these new fish!!! That whole add-on sucks. Why must a ship fall to pieces in 10 days or whatever? It's lame.

Unlike boats... that shouldn’t be used as extra storage anyway... There is a hell of a lot more investment into houses for players then boats. With life hardships... jobs that go poof for no reason, someone searches for 4 months for a job that lasts 3 weeks... their only hobby and entertainment being UO, why the hell not give them a break? Forget those people playing in areas without dependable net service... or whatever life throws at us all. You shouldn’t punish someone for not being able to play for a month and take away everything they own in the game world. That’s how we loose players! Think it out, babe. Serously. Not all of us have trust funds or someone to toss money at us in hard times. Loosing one's real home is a bad enough hardship looming over your head.

 

[old gypsy]

I doubt that money is the main issue for most players, considering the average age is now well beyond the teen years. The subscription cost for a month of play is less than the price of a movie and popcorn. Speaking only for myself, if I couldn't afford to keep my account active (or accounts, if I had multiples, which I don't), I'd pack up my stuff in bank boxes, collapse my house and pocket the gold till I could return again. I think most might agree that keeping subscriptions active is good for players and EA and helps to keep UO going. As far as forgetting to pay... or forgetting to refresh a ship... if I was that careless, I think I'd have to accept the consequences. Again, that's just my perspective. And if a poor connection was responsible for my not playing for a while, that would have nothing to do with my decision to keep my subscription paid in order not to endanger my house.

 

[EvilPixieWorks]

I just love the feeling that anyone feels the need to fight pointing out why we loose our player base numbers. It's like a dire need to always argue everything posed. Frankly, anything that removes loyal vet players from our world is a bad thing, no matter what you say or think or post. People hit hard times. Believe it or not.

Deathly Hallows Part 2 came out when? Last movie I saw. Last DVD I bought, too. I spend 100x more on UO then movies these days. If I miss a movie I want to see... I get it on Netflex. Should you miss a month of your account and loose years of work? Get your brainwaves checked. Something’s faulty.

 

[old gypsy]

Opinions will vary on this topic, as they do on everything else. I've offered mine while respecting the rights of others to disagree. My opinion is quite simple, based upon what may be an old-fashion concept called personal responsibility.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

The system, with a 90-day grace period, works fine as it is. If anything, the system should simply lock the doors and eject anyone who logs in inside during that grace period. Then the grace period becomes as intended: A way for someone who has been a subscriber to be assured they won't lose their house in case something happens, be it family emergency, credit card error, financial hardship, whatever.

This solution would also prevent those who game the system to hold onto properties that they only pay for once every three months and still have the full-time benefit of the house.

Then again, if they added a purchasable secondary housing in tandem for either a one time fee or say another $4 bucks a month, they would likely see a slight increase in revenue.

Various ways to handle it, but reducing the 90-day grace period is not, I think, one of them.



Fixing all the WBtB houses, on the other hand, would free up some prime space, and preventing that exploitation of the system in the future would go hand in hand.

 

[Lady Storm]

I understand the OP's ideas but as RaDian pointed out the 90 days is good as it is.

We tend to forget real life can get in the way of game play, and absent minded can come in to play as well.
None of this would be needed had EA not have put in the 1 house per account ruleset when we were all yelling for more houseing room.
We all know it was a billing attempt to cull in more cash to up the subscriptions. (I kind of wonder if it was EA's attempt to try to get close to WoWs subscription numbers and goofed and wont admit it)

I made a suguestion not long ago to help with this as a 15th anniversary idea. All 15 year accounts would go back to the old ways of having placement rights of 1 house per shard. Not the full return to the original 1 house per character mind you of our begining mind you but its vastly more accessable to many. Being a slow trickle of 15 year old account a month the system would be slow and not be a giant rush to gobble up land. This would give many who reach this age the ability to have that house on Siege or Mugen where players need a home to play out of...
Look I understand you want to get rid of houses that take up land from the RTB non paying accounts, thats fine. I have run accross many of the RTB houses and yes they block many big building from going up. But you have to wonder too on this addament push to cull houses as to the reasons behind the push..... To want to end the 90days is way more then just want to stop players from in your opinion hording houses. How the hadies do you know they are unused??
I play many shards and I must admit I dont log in every house I have every day! Also how do you know that house that is bugging you is unused??? Do you honestly sit there 24 /7 365 watching for a owner to pop in??? Sound like stalking to me....

Look I have not seen a neighbor of mine in years on one shard.... do I want her to loose her house over it.... no. I do know she plays btw... she plays only when she has a free hour or two and its a super quick pop in and out. Now if I didnt see her in chat I'd be wondering just as you are as to if the house was abandoned. But is it right of you or I to make this determination?? Hell No.

To me every post about this makes me a bit scared that someone will get the idea that every house they see no one at in a week is abandoned and find a way to get someone at UO to drop it and not check if it really has a owner! Look it can happen.... I have seen a GM do so in the past. It's owner was a paying player.

 

[old gypsy]

Actually, for those who consistently pay to keep their accounts active, this should be a non-issue. I pay each month whether I play or not, and if I chose to have multiple accounts, I would not play Russian roulette with them by not paying for whatever length of time I deemed my houses might be safe.

As I suggested previously, consistently paid accounts are good for players, EA, and especially UO. Until such time as EA changes its status from a business to a charity organization, I'll personally consider it my responsibility to pay for any account I wish to keep safe from loss. If I was to experience a financial hardship and could not afford to keep multiple accounts active, I'd pack up the bank boxes, take down the houses, and return later, once I could afford to meet my obligations. Once again, this is simply my personal opinion. Obviously, many other players think differently.

 

[goldenpower]

the only problem with housing that I see is the Return to Brit houses. I am very disappointed they did not fix the problem as part of the process of turning decay back on.

 

[old gypsy]

Definitely an issue. Let's hope the Devs address that problem.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Actually, for those who consistently pay to keep their accounts active, this should be a non-issue. I pay each month whether I play or not, and if I chose to have multiple accounts, I would not play Russian roulette with them by not paying for whatever length of time I deemed my houses might be safe.

As I suggested previously, consistently paid accounts are good for players, EA, and especially UO. Until such time as EA changes its status from a business to a charity organization, I'll personally consider it my responsibility to pay for any account I wish to keep safe from loss. If I was to experience a financial hardship and could not afford to keep multiple accounts active, I'd pack up the bank boxes, take down the houses, and return later, once I could afford to meet my obligations. Once again, this is simply my personal opinion. Obviously, many other players think differently.

Again, you are glossing over the fact that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that happen. Say your bank sends you a new bank card. Your old one is cancelled. In the hubbub of going around and updating all of your other stuff, you forget a thing or two -- after all, UO is only a game (*snicker*). You're busy with work/school/whatever, your account gets cancelled and you don't realize it immediately. 7 days pass, bye-bye house under some suggestions.

Whatever the reason, the 90 day system is a good thing.

Again, I'd prefer to see a house that falls into the 90 day period simply made unusable until its parent account is active again. That would make the grace period TRULY for people who needed it, and would avoid people who place houses, cancel the accounts, and continue to use the house on a daily basis.

 

[Zyon Rockler]

I think it's interesting that the focus has become on removing the 90 days when in actuality the idea states it would be adding a year or more.

The only people who would be losing the 90 days would be people who did not have their account active for 3 months.

Anyone who reached 3 months of refreshed time would have a 90 day safety zone and as soon as you hit 4 months you would have more than you do now. This refresh could happen upon log in. So, you would log in and receive a message, Your houses and your boat have been refreshed and credited incentive maintenance time due to your log in bonus which now grants you an insurance time of 1 year.

Another thing that's interesting to me, is that when people are offered more they would argue that is was not a good idea. There's definitely an underlined issue that needs to be dealt with.

I like the fact someone could earn more time for their boat or their houses to stand after an account goes inactive. It's ok if others use it as long as it was earned.

Also, you are not taking the 90 day timer away. You are adding up to a year or more depending on how much you are active.

Who cares if a person only plays 1 or 2 months, they don't need a grace period.

If all housing was placed on this system then they should reset and fall unless they are inactive and have incentive time added to them.

I think once people start packing their banks and drop their houses, it's pretty much done for. In alot of cases this is demonstrated through strange ritual. The dropping of their house, the giving away of their things, posting about their leaving.

They would still be losing their in game home and making a conscience choice to leave and there would be no incentive for them to come back.

It's true. It's not about money, really, when you think oh, it would be nice if you could place a house and it would stand there forever. It does not work that way though, and even though they can add in city apartments, houses you can rent, people will still come and go because the true reason most people play is because they have a home and a place for their stuff.

There should be a way to pay just to keep a house standing on an inactive account. Like, $5.00 a month for houses and a boat until you can reactivate to play.

I don't think I would pay any more for another or additional houses. I feel I earned at least 2. 2 houses per 10 year account, any size and 1 boat with incentive of a year or more of no decay insurance if so earned.

They act like they are giving us a real house or something and 3 months does nothing for a vet. It's only good for hop scotch. If you lose your real life job, house or have any real kind of problem, 3 months is a joke. A year will be gone the next time I blink.

The current system only helps to remove vets and guarantees the loss of their homes and a redirection of their dreams and hopes.

 

[Zyon Rockler]

George Carlin - Stuff - YouTube

elvis presley - in the ghetto - YouTube

 

[old gypsy]

Again, you are glossing over the fact that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that happen. Say your bank sends you a new bank card. Your old one is cancelled. In the hubbub of going around and updating all of your other stuff, you forget a thing or two -- after all, UO is only a game (*snicker*). You're busy with work/school/whatever, your account gets cancelled and you don't realize it immediately. 7 days pass, bye-bye house under some suggestions.

Whatever the reason, the 90 day system is a good thing.

Again, I'd prefer to see a house that falls into the 90 day period simply made unusable until its parent account is active again. That would make the grace period TRULY for people who needed it, and would avoid people who place houses, cancel the accounts, and continue to use the house on a daily basis.

Ninety days is far too long, in my opinion. Even if the system was changed to make houses on unpaid accounts unusable, a thirty day grace period would be more than reasonable. It doesn't take three months to transition from an old credit/bank card to a new one. Frankly, I think the "hardship" argument is being overused.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Ninety days is far too long, in my opinion. Even if the system was changed to make houses on unpaid accounts unusable, a thirty day grace period would be more than reasonable. It doesn't take three months to transition from an old credit/bank card to a new one. Frankly, I think the "hardship" argument is being overused.

Yes, yes. And I noticed you also think you can magically determine all possible outcomes in your own life so that you could happily pack your stuff up until you could afford to come back.

I get it.

I just hope no one at EA is ever swayed by your opinion.

 

[old gypsy]

Yes, yes. And I noticed you also think you can magically determine all possible outcomes in your own life so that you could happily pack your stuff up until you could afford to come back.

I get it.

I just hope no one at EA is ever swayed by your opinion.

And you appear to be looking for a magical safety net from EA that will cover all possible outcomes in every UO player's life. Welfare in Britannia.

Have a nice night.

 

[Zyon Rockler]

I think it's more of a safety net for EA. If players invest 5 months real money into EA, it's like they are saying, you paid us for 5 months now we will hold your stuff for the same amount of time.

It's not like it even costs them anything at all. If they set the time so that it will max out, at say a year, it would allow people to invest into the game more of their time knowing they will not lose it as soon as they stop playing.

They can come and play 5 months then say i'm bored and go play Star Wars. If they play Star Wars for 4 months and decide I don't like Star Wars, they will then be able to return to UO. Now UO starts to earn money again.

The more a player invests in a game, the more time EA should be willing to invest into the player, player meaning customer.

You could remove the 90 days and make it so you would have to play 200 days then 200 days could go up to 500 days. So, they would match anything after 200 and cap at 500 but I think that's asking to much. They should just match the player.

This would guarantee EA a returning player. It's not like you would be able to log in and play. So, people would reactivate and become lifetime players.

So, this is more of a safety net for EA than the player. If you invest 5 months or 6 months into a game and then decide you're going to go to another game, it's like you're taking that 6 months and investing it into the new game because you're willing to take that 6 month loss to play it. So, now if you played that other game for 6 months, you would have to be willing to give up 12 months of your time to return to UO plus add another 6 months to get back to where you were.

So, the odds of somebody doing that become much less because you lose any time that you invest.

 

[old gypsy]

I understand what you're trying to say, Zyon, and there actually was a time when I might have agreed with your view. I've invested a substantial amount of time and money over the years into UO (started in '98); however, looking back, I realize that no "incentive" would have been effective in keeping me here if I had decided I didn't enjoy the game as much as I do. I don't believe that EA has to (or should) provide the kind of incentive you describe in order to keep players. It's a game business, after all, and it is sound fiscal policy for EA to require players to pay for their subscriptions.

I believe that those who really love the game will continue to play (and will agree to pay), and that when love of the game dies, no incentive offered by EA will keep this game alive. I guess that's why I don't get too upset when arguments erupt here on the forums... it demonstrates that people are still passionate about UO. To my mind, that's what matters most.

Have a good day, and have fun in UO.

 

[smip]

I'd simplify things even further. If you don't pay, the homestead goes into decay, with a one week window to pay up and save it.

They had hoseing decey before then after 9-11 (and after the war started) alot of folks lost their belongings in the game. It was great when they came up with no houseing decey. If they brought it back up then the headach of vacations and extended leave from the game even though we pay for it comes back into action.

If someone pays for their account then there is no reason why their stuff should decey.

 

[old gypsy]

If someone pays for their account then there is no reason why their stuff should decey.

Totally agree! If someone pays for their account, there is no reason why their stuff should decay.

 

[Lady Storm]

Back in the beginning when refreshing a house all you needed to do was open a door to refresh a house. There was no 90 days or even decay if a friended player opened your door.
I know of houses that stayed up for ages because friends kept the house active. And that was the 7 day rule bit back then.

You really want to go back to that??? Heaven forbid that a natural disaster happen around your way kiddo, or you get called out to go to war... many of our players play on service bases around the world. So your argument is a bit leakie... They cant just go to their bank if a snafoo with a credit /debit card pops up. Or like the poor fokes up in that New England town that lost power for a few weeks.... They can punt in your opinion ... they should have made better choices right??? This kind of advice holds little warmth for the person who is on the other side of the coin trying their best to make things work.

Old Gypsy I do understand your view and the op's as well but its very selfserving to your lifestyle alone. The rest of us do have bills that pop up and at times have used that 90 days to save our game homes while paying for that emergency hospital visit that was not in the game plans.

In the past many things have come up that the 90 days has come in so handy for many of us. To even think to change it now is a bad idea, how many do you think will loose their house if your ideas came in ??? Enough to have uo bite the dust I can guarantee you.

OH this would have been fine had we been at the hight of our population and given advanced notice of the change that players could revamp their thinking. But this is 2012, the tail end of a major recession that put millions out of work, real homes were lost, and many are still recovering from. Dont let those job numbers fool you. They only show those who are on the rolls of payments of unemployment, and do not cover al those who have ended their entitlements and are STILL out of work.

You are working and able to pay on a monthly basis... i hope you stay that way But dont even pretend you know what the other man/woman has to do to keep their life going.

UO is a game, and to many its a way to keep real life at bay for a few hours to decompress. Stress is a big deal and if it is a little game like uo that keeps players happy who are we to stop it.

After all its not up to you on how much time EA grants players. Unless your owner of EA mind you.......

 

[old gypsy]

I respect your opinion, Lady Storm. However, I would ask you this... do you really believe most players who don't pay for 90 days are experiencing real financial hardships or are just getting as much mileage as they can by playing the system? I tend to think the latter would apply more often than not. I don't have time to discuss this further at this point... have to leave and won't be returning till Sunday. Have a good weekend.

 

[georgemarvin2001]

I liked the really old system, where we could have multiple houses on all the shards, but they decayed in 14 days if we didn't refresh them.

However, they changed that long before 9/11, first to a limit of one house per shard (I would have agreed with one house per facet after trammel opened, IF we had been given a short amount of time to place at an IDOC, then sell the 2nd house), then they reduced it to just one house per account (Which I totally disagreed with).

When they introduced Trammel, a lot of people opened up a second account just to have a house on both facets (it was a pain killing stuff just to get the stones to switch from Tram to Fel, so people needed houses both places for a while)

Pre-Trammel, there were massive fights daily over IDOCs; whole guilds would go to war over one little cottage, because housing space was at a premium. Limiting the number of houses per account really changed that.

When troops were deployed after 9/11, UO introduced the system to stop housing decay as long as they paid for the account.

My personal opinion was that the old system worked really well; if you didn't play on a regular basis, you lost your house. BUT you could have a house on siege, one on Atlantic, and one on another shard that you just played when Atlantic was down. You could go IDOC'ing, and if you were lucky, you would be able to place a house or two to sell at Brit bank. I had more fun IDOC'ing than I ever had with factions, even before they broke them. Or with that old order/chaos system for that matter.

The current housing system maximizes profits for EA, because people have to pay for a 2nd and 3rd account if they want to have more than one house. They have to keep paying for an account to keep that house while they're away from the game, as well. It's a carebear solution; the old way, you had to make somebody you trusted a co-owner while you went on vacation, or lose all your houses and stuff. Now, you just have to give EA money. The flip side is that, when money gets tight, a $50 per month bill for entertainment is a lot more likely to be on the chopping block than a $9.99 one (the original price for a month's subscription to UO)

As for the money discussion, I was making in the 6 figures a few years ago; now, I'm working part-time for make-do wages. Not all of us have been fortunate enough to keep our high-paying jobs in this economy. Or even menial ones, for that matter. The local Dollar General put up a help wanted sign one day. I talked to the manager the next day; he said he got over 300 applications to sort thru. For one part-time job. Same with the Subway sandwich shop; a girl I know asked for an application. They had run out of them. The guy behind the counter said they had handed out the full 150 application they had on hand, and started turning away applicants. All of the local mills have big signs out front saying "NOT HIRING. Don't waste our time and yours by asking". A lot of companies have either went out of business, downsized or moved their whole work force to India or China. I wouldn't dismiss the money issue quite so lightly at this point in time.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

And you appear to be looking for a magical safety net from EA that will cover all possible outcomes in every UO player's life. Welfare in Britannia.

Have a nice night.

Didn't say any such thing, but way to exaggerate there.

What I DID say was that there's nothing wrong with the 90-day period as it stands, save the one area where it is gamed, and that a fix to that would be better than the lackluster idea you set forth.

But then, I guess the oxygen thieves are as prevalent in UO as they are in real life. Suppose they'd have to be given that UO avatars represent real people.

 

[old gypsy]

Didn't say any such thing, but way to exaggerate there.

What I DID say was that there's nothing wrong with the 90-day period as it stands, save the one area where it is gamed, and that a fix to that would be better than the lackluster idea you set forth.

But then, I guess the oxygen thieves are as prevalent in UO as they are in real life. Suppose they'd have to be given that UO avatars represent real people.

No, dear, what you actually said was:

"Yes, yes. And I noticed you also think you can magically determine all possible outcomes in your own life so that you could happily pack your stuff up until you could afford to come back.

I get it.

I just hope no one at EA is ever swayed by your opinion."

In your words, "way to exaggerate there."

I'm sorry you are taking this so personally. My only intention in this thread was to express my opinion and explain why I hold that opinion (which I have done). There really isn't any point in getting into a silly, emotionally charged huff & puff over the fact we happen to disagree. Take care, and have a blessed day.

 

[Lightning 1]

Well said

 

[RaDian FlGith]

I'm sorry you are taking this so personally. My only intention in this thread was to express my opinion and explain why I hold that opinion (which I have done). There really isn't any point in getting into a silly, emotionally charged huff & puff over the fact we happen to disagree. Take care, and have a blessed day.

Emotionally charged?

LOL.

Have a good day as well.

 

[Woodsman]

When they introduced Trammel, a lot of people opened up a second account just to have a house on both facets (it was a pain killing stuff just to get the stones to switch from Tram to Fel, so people needed houses both places for a while)

Not to nitpick, but the moonstones dropped from ratmen, lizzies, orcs, and a whole lot of other creatures. People used to dump them on the ground at banks because they were so common.

It's a carebear solution; the old way, you had to make somebody you trusted a co-owner while you went on vacation, or lose all your houses and stuff. Now, you just have to give EA money.

Under the old way, it was easy to lose your house, and when people lose houses and all the stuff in them, a lot of them say "**** it" and just walk away from UO, because that is a major anchor point for a lot of people. I like the current system, although I think they should drop all of the bugged houses and do something to do deal with people who game the system to keep a bunch of houses while only paying for a fraction of the time.

It should be easy enough for them to look through and find folks who have a bunch of accounts with houses and who are not paying on a monthly basis and who are clearly gaming the system. It's one thing if somebody does it occasionally, like they are paying 9 months out of the year, but there are people who have been gaming the system for years, and they should be easy enough to find with the right database search.

The flip side is that, when money gets tight, a $50 per month bill for entertainment is a lot more likely to be on the chopping block than a $9.99 one (the original price for a month's subscription to UO)

If money gets that tight, you have bigger issues than playing a game, because depending on whether you pay monthly or are doing it with 6 month gametime cards, you're still talking $120 - $150+ a year. If money gets that tight, then $120 - $150 becomes extremely important.

I've known a few people who really screw themselves over financially because they are just too addicted to MMOs or it becomes an escape. When 75% of your meals are ramen noodles so you can afford better internet and a monthly subscription, you're doing it wrong. Knew somebody for whom that applied.

 

[Woodsman]

At this point they should be looking at things to keep people around. Screwing with the housing system and taking it back to the old days would go against keeping people around. I think a lot of people who look back fondly on the days of the door refresh/timers have forgotten how many people lost a lot of stuff and walked away as a result. Housing is a major thing that keeps a lot of people around.

What needs to happen before anything else having to do with housing is this:

The bugged houses need to be dropped/IDOCed. These are a problem that the majority of us agree should be dealt with, because they should not exist to begin with, not at this point in time. It would open up a lot of interesting/prime housing spots.

These are also a known problem to EA and they won't result in lost revenue, so they should be a win-win situation for everybody.

We know the UO team has limited resources and this is a problem that can be dealt with in the here and now using a small amount of resources, since it requires no coding. It just requires somebody with the ability to properly set the IDOC timers for them or to just drop them and dump the contents on the ground. It would make a lot of players happy.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

I will say that in regard to the RTB houses, the house should be attached to an account number, and that account number should be attached to a billing system that can identify the last date the account was (1) paid for and (2) logged into. Why they haven't run a comparison between the databases and found out which houses aren't actually being paid for is beyond me.