Proposal for a 15th year change to UO...

[Lady Storm]

Over the last few months there have been posts by many for a change to the housing alotment. I tend to agree with this trend as I felt it was not needed in the first place and warned way back when it would drive off hundreds of players ... it did.

We can bicker all we like but the plain fact is, our population has shrunk majorly. Prime example was the recient return to house decay. Many of you noted the sheere amount of houses that fell and are still falling as we speak here now. Let's face it. We have major tracks of land open everywhere on every shard with the exception of Atlantic and it could take a hundred more small homes easly.
Someone suguested a addition of a 2nd house on another shard to promote play on other servers when play on thier primeary shard was low. Great idea for some, but many still need that tiny extra house as we all can see by the RtB houses still standing... hint hint.

Now back to the Idea:

What I propose is a one time fee like the 7th character slot/bank storage limit you can buy on Origin but for a account house addition. Useable on any shard even the same shard your currently on.
A second idea is to have keeps, castles and or a new plot size say 30 x 30 with a castles lockdowns buyable.
Along with this later the Dev could open Malas to keeps and castles. On mostly 80% of the shards Malas is a ghost town of open space.

UO would make $ for the slot, or plot, ether way many could finally go to Siege or a second shard boosting the play and possibly keeping more players in the game with the added flexability.

 

[old gypsy]

What I propose is a one time fee like the 7th character slot/bank storage limit you can buy on Origin but for a account house addition. Useable on any shard even the same shard your currently on.

I'm in favor of this... have previously suggested that the addition of a small house would be a good thing, given the current shard populations. I do think the size should be limited on a second house.

 

[MalagAste]

I've long agreed that we need something like this. I'm torn on the castles/keeps thing. I still say either they need to make them customizable or they need to give us more variety in them... they are EXTREMELY user unfriendly. Something needs done with them.

Give me the reigns to some sort of program that gives us a chance to change the face of castles and keeps and make it a competition for the love of all things ... You know there are many of us who are VERY talented with house design. Let us change the face of castles and keeps... Let us make them useful... why on earth do keeps have area's you can't access anyway? I'm sure they could make a program that allows you to customize a castle/keep easy enough. Kurgan had UO House Builder and that used to let you do such things.

Why are castle owners unable to do anything in their own courtyard???

I see nothing wrong with allowing a second home... even if it were limited to say 14x14 max size.

But if we are going to do that... then we definitely need to give folk more house co-owners. Sure keep the same old 10 house rule but allow us more than 10 co-owners.

Just saying...


And definitely something needs to be done about the RtB homes.... lose them! If ever there was an unfair advantage THIS is it!

 

[Woodsman]

UO would make $ for the slot, or plot, ether way many could finally go to Siege or a second shard boosting the play and possibly keeping more players in the game with the added flexability.

If they lose money from players closing accounts, that's not good. EA does not have a feel good attitude towards UO. If it loses money, they'll shut it down in a heartbeat. If a proposal reduces the amount of revenue, they'll ignore it.

And definitely something needs to be done about the RtB homes.... lose them! If ever there was an unfair advantage THIS is it!

This.

This. This. This. This. This. This.

 

[old gypsy]

If they lose money from players closing accounts, that's not good. EA does not have a feel good attitude towards UO. If it loses money, they'll shut it down in a heartbeat. If a proposal reduces the amount of revenue, they'll ignore it.

That is why an option for a second house should only allow for a small size. Players who have more than one account (and already have larges homes on each) aren't likely to shut down an account with an 18x18 over this option.

 

[CovenantX]

I think it would be cool to have a 2nd house on a Different shard (per account), Otherwise I think the housing system is fine the way it is.


If you want another house, sub for another account. and leave land open for returning/new players to place houses.

 

[HD2300]

1. They should drop the RTB homes. People who are using them for free storage will then have to pay for an account -> more money for EA

2. F2P. More players -> more money. It is proven in many other MMOs.

3. 24x24 house placement tool token that is account bound like a soulstone

 

[Ezekiel Zane]

I love how so many are SOOO concerned about more money for EA.

Jeez, they're a multi-billion dollar company and they've treated us like crap for most of UO's existence.

EA made $3.8 billion last year, $999 million was profit. I could give a rat's ass about more money for EA.

We could have many houses, unlimited at one time, on one account in the past. It was changed because there was a housing shortage. Now they're just greedy bastards. Look at all the tens of thousands of players UO doesn't have anymore. If EA gave a **** about making money from UO they'd have reversed the subscriber losses years ago.

There's lots and lots of players that have multiple houses, grandfathered, on only one account just because they've been here a little bit longer than many of us who are still left and paying to play this game. I'm only asking for a second house and in my case anyway, it won't even amount to the closing of a single account. I've put up with enough crap in my eleven years paying for four to fourteen accounts. It's certainly not too much to ask to be allowed to utilize some of the vast space that now exists in most the lands for an additional small house. I'd prefer to have no restrictions on shards but even if it's only allowed on separate shards it would be welcome.

 

[Lady Storm]

Size would not matter on many shards, only a few really would have trouble with tower or larger. Perhaps if the storage capasity were equil to that of a castle in the second house alotment size then wouldnt be an issue as most want it for the use like their main house.

Those of you who play Atlantic or any of the more populated shards go have a look see at the other shards before you make up your mind... I mean really go look. 2/3s of Napa malas is vacant and a great deal of Fel too. This goes for Catskills, Sonoma, Baja, Siege! to name a few. Malas is not the only places devoid of homes, Termur on many is totaly lacking houses. Tokuno .... many have spots open in the main city square.. Lets face it people They would be paying for the addition and many only have 1 account working...

(note I said working... Im the only idiot with 46 accounts on constantly working. And no this wouldnt help me any pfft... But I would be able to get a bit more housing on the smaller shards I play letting me get house I could use. )

 

[Uriah Heep]

Size would not matter. )

Never mind, that one's not even a challenge



On the serious side tho, I think most of us are actually like me, paying for accounts just for houses and storage. More than one house, I think would be fair for all, but I can't see it happ;ening because of the lost accounts it would bring about. Lets face it, some peeps have 40 accts, others have 3. They used to talk about 75k subs...thats accounts. I figure player numbers (real people) are about 20k. There's no way that EA will live with that. It will be the straw that broke the camels back.

 

[Raptor85]

Only thing i'd worry about is people holding housing spots on shards that arent their primary ones just for the sake of holding them, for instance on siege we already have this problem to some degree as playing on siege tends to breed opening up tons of accounts (due to the one character per account limit) and most people even when they move to another shard keep a house or two here. It could potentially lead to a LOT of unused houses eating up the best spots while players who actually play on that shard will get stuck with a 7x7 in the malas trailer park.

I don't see it happening either way though, there's a lot of players who keep multiple accounts open just to hold extra houses, from players that I know alone that change would mean we could close a good 15-20 accounts, if you could just pay for an addon like this you'd see the subscription numbers plummit overnight.

 

[Woodsman]

I love how so many are SOOO concerned about more money for EA.

Jeez, they're a multi-billion dollar company and they've treated us like crap for most of UO's existence.

EA made $3.8 billion last year, $999 million was profit. I could give a rat's ass about more money for EA.

People care because the moment that it is unprofitable, the plug will be pulled, for the exact reason you've cited: they've treated us like crap for most of UO's existence. People are under the misguided notion that EA would give UO a second chance or make it f2p or whatever, but the reality is that UO is finished when it can't cover its costs.

Well that and EA isn't going to do anything to reduce UO's revenue stream.

Hell, EA laid off UO developers when Warhammer crashed and burned and EA had a lousy year.

 

[Ezekiel Zane]

When EA closes their UO servers I'll play a freeshard for free. Already considering it actually. Save me over $700.00 a year.

 

[Ashlynn_L]

While this doesn't address any of the population issues (and it does need addressing), since the advent of custom housing, I have always been in favour of a XxX tile limit for housing or something similar. Perhaps 25x25. So you can own one large home and one small one, or two mid-sized ones.

 

[old gypsy]

Size would not matter on many shards, only a few really would have trouble with tower or larger. Perhaps if the storage capasity were equil to that of a castle in the second house alotment size then wouldnt be an issue as most want it for the use like their main house.

I have to disagree. With the population reduction UO has experienced over the years, I wouldn't care to see a rush by players to dump their additional accounts, which would most likely happen if a second house was spacious and/or offered a great deal of storage space.

I think a second house would have to be small and have very limited storage... something that might appeal to role players (just an example), who might want a separate residence for a particular character... a beggar, perhaps, or any character that would be better played and housed separate from the rest. That was how I envisioned it, anyway. *shrugs*

 

[Ezekiel Zane]

The reality is that UO is finished when it can't cover its costs.

I hate to say it, and I've never ever said it before, but UO as we know it, on EA/Mythic servers, is finished. It will not go on forever. The subscriber base has continued to decline month after month, year after year and nothing the devs or EA has done has stopped it. Eventually UO won't be profitable and it will be shutdown. If it makes it five more years I'd be very surprised. Nevertheless I'll likely still be here 'til the very end. Regardless the devs have done very little the last few years that to me improved my game experience in UO.

Some of you seem to know absolutely nothing about customer service. Good customer service is about giving your customers what they want. We are paying customers. Instead EA has taken away from what we've been able to have before. They raised subscription rates with the promise of better game design and improved customer service. The game is debatable, the customer service however is a resounding failure and ultimately is what has driven more players away from UO with maybe the exception of cheating. Even then that's tied in directly with customer service and their failure to do anything about the cheating.

Anyways, whatever, if we could have two houses per account and you close your account, fine. You'll eventually reopen it once you collected another mountain of pixel crack that you just can't live without. If anybody is still in need of additional houses just for storage, with Spring Cleaning going on, then you are keeping entirely too much crap. Maybe excluding very large rares collections and museums.

 

[MrMightySmith]

Id rather go with limit with house sizes. 18x18 is the max per account but for every year your account has been paid your limit goes up 1x1. So a 15 year account can have and amount of housing up to a 33x33...... so you could have a 18x18 and a 15x15 or any combination of plot sizes that adds up to 66. Or you could have 4 8x8 houses in game..... a Keep is 24x24 so you could potentially earn a free extra 7x7 someday. If you have a castle too bad you have a castle. I feel letting people have a an extra 7x7 could fill up some of the landscape again and make the game feel a bit fuller. People used to die for a 7x7 anywhere in this game a while back ... And we dont have to do it by account age, it was merely a suggestion could be a expansion of some sort or really any idea is a good idea.

 

[yars]

I hate to say it, and I've never ever said it before, but UO as we know it, on EA/Mythic servers, is finished. It will not go on forever. The subscriber base has continued to decline month after month, year after year and nothing the devs or EA has done has stopped it. Eventually UO won't be profitable and it will be shutdown. If it makes it five more years I'd be very surprised. Nevertheless I'll likely still be here 'til the very end. Regardless the devs have done very little the last few years that to me improved my game experience in UO.

Some of you seem to know absolutely nothing about customer service. Good customer service is about giving your customers what they want. We are paying customers. Instead EA has taken away from what we've been able to have before. They raised subscription rates with the promise of better game design and improved customer service. The game is debatable, the customer service however is a resounding failure and ultimately is what has driven more players away from UO with maybe the exception of cheating. Even then that's tied in directly with customer service and their failure to do anything about the cheating.

Anyways, whatever, if we could have two houses per account and you close your account, fine. You'll eventually reopen it once you collected another mountain of pixel crack that you just can't live without. If anybody is still in need of additional houses just for storage, with Spring Cleaning going on, then you are keeping entirely too much crap. Maybe excluding very large rares collections and museums.

thi

This +100, and if they allow more houses per acct,it would turn into everyone being a real estate broker as well as a "collector".

 

[Lady Storm]

Everyone is mixing apples and oranges here..

Size or house type is not the point.

Accounts are stable and if the last CS is to be beleaved we have gained a few more players. Returning and new. But the question is really the impac on EA $$???

EA washed its hands of us when it handed UO off to Mythic. Now mind you Mythic is under Bio-Ware's thumb. Look who is our LP.

You all are forgetting we had no limits till we yelled for more house space... This would be paid for space or how about an amendment to satisfy all you panic ppl. raise the rate per month. 15$ to have what should still be our rights.

 

[lupushor]

I'm 100% for some fresh addition to housing types. New non-customs models would be a perfect 15th expansion gift. Also, a twist in plot plans would be great. How about new L-shaped plans, + cross plans, H or U-shaped plans that could fit a tree in their lawn?
I found the Magincia 15x15 solution pretty dull. Maybe it's time for some exotic changes I believe some new large housing solutions are in order, maybe even something bigger than a castle, hehe.

 

[Woodsman]

If they wanted to raise a quick bit of cash for UO, they could put out a housing booster pack with new house designs. Do half a dozen decent designs and there'd be plenty of people buying them.

 

[old gypsy]

If they wanted to raise a quick bit of cash for UO, they could put out a housing booster pack with new house designs. Do half a dozen decent designs and there'd be plenty of people buying them.

I'd be willing to bet even an option to buy a tent would work. A tent with one secure chest, intended as a temporary residence that would have to be refreshed every few days. When not in use, it could be packed up again till the player wanted to use it again, and it wouldn't cause anyone to drop accounts. It might be handy for the miners in game, and even more appealing for role players. I can think of numerous reasons this might be a popular addition to put on the Origin buy-list.

 

[Carharrt]

I would pay good money to have castle lockdowns in a lil 7x7 or any house.

I`m a fan of the classic styles,hate designing them 18x18 cubes, so it would be nice to have all the lockdowns of a bigger house in a house I`d prefer to own.

 

[Woodsman]

I'd be willing to bet even an option to buy a tent would work. A tent with one secure chest, intended as a temporary residence that would have to be refreshed every few days. When not in use, it could be packed up again till the player wanted to use it again, and it wouldn't cause anyone to drop accounts. It might be handy for the miners in game, and even more appealing for role players. I can think of numerous reasons this might be a popular addition to put on the Origin buy-list.

I'd pay $5 for a tent that is treated like a house - no manual refresh. Doesn't even have to be a Harry Potter tent with like 20 rooms. Just a tent with a couple of chests and a cot.

 

[old gypsy]

I'd be willing to bet even an option to buy a tent would work. A tent with one secure chest, intended as a temporary residence that would have to be refreshed every few days. When not in use, it could be packed up again till the player wanted to use it again, and it wouldn't cause anyone to drop accounts. It might be handy for the miners in game, and even more appealing for role players. I can think of numerous reasons this might be a popular addition to put on the Origin buy-list.

I'd pay $5 for a tent that is treated like a house - no manual refresh. Doesn't even have to be a Harry Potter tent with like 20 rooms. Just a tent with a couple of chests and a cot.

A once a week refresh would be desirable, I think, to prevent a tent from being used as another way to block house placement for indefinite periods of time. Tents might best be viewed as portable, short-term living arrangements.

I also think a tent purchase should be limited to one per account... not one per character.

 

[Woodsman]

A once a week refresh would be desirable, I think, to prevent a tent from being used as another way to block house placement for indefinite periods of time.

By that token, small houses can also be used to block house placement.

Personally I think they need to ditch the RtB first and foremost. You talk about blocking house placement. If I played Atlantic, I'd be pissed as hell at all the RtB houses.

 

[gunneroforgin]

A once a week refresh would be desirable, I think, to prevent a tent from being used as another way to block house placement for indefinite periods of time. Tents might best be viewed as portable, short-term living arrangements.

I also think a tent purchase should be limited to one per account... not one per character.

Add the tent to camping skill???? Maybe? i am just saying.

 

[Warpig Inc]

Ya the tent.


New account sub time where we can pay for whole year at once. Get a code for a tent token when paying for a year.

Four tokens can be combined for a tent deed. Account bound deed for tent for the account that combined the tokens. Tent last for a year on a house sign timer. At one year goes IDOC so need to one year four more accounts for another set tent token. Place tent deed and move or just target the old tent with same bonded account and refresh the timer. 2000 lockdowns for a 7x7 plot. 4 vendor max.

With the tokens not account bond they would have a gold trade. Be some good spending gold for one account players.

 

[Uriah Heep]

If they wanted to raise a quick bit of cash for UO, they could put out a housing booster pack with new house designs. Do half a dozen decent designs and there'd be plenty of people buying them.

Or even better, they could put out a booster that finishes up the tile sets we already have? The missing pieces, the odd corner that wont match, the stair rail that goes down a tile away from the steps...

 

[Zosimus]

I have avoided this topic because truly I am against adding more houses to one account. To avoid an argument I will agree to one thing if they Devs and Bioware would do such a thing.


If Bioware would allow accounts to hold one more house there has to be restrtictions to it if they didnt charge real money for them.

1) A classic house only ( 3 houses max)

2) Has to be refreshed weekly or pay gold weekly as rent to keep house.

3) Designated areas near cities only for housing. Meaning the devs could clear out an area make them look like a real neighborhood by plots and paths.

4) Same shard or alternate shard can be chosen ( Up to 3 shards can have one house on each shard or all 3 houses on one shard)


If Bioware would charge extra on an account with real money:

1) Any style house

2) Can be placed anywhere

3) Treated like current housing rules.

4) Different shard only and up to 4 shards with one house on each shard only.


Like I said I'm against it but I would agree to something along the lines above if it benefits the community.

 

[Uriah Heep]

3) Designated areas near cities only for housing. Meaning the devs could clear out an area make them look like a real neighborhood by plots and paths.

Oh please God, no. Anyone who wants to knwo why I totally hate this idea, meet me in Magincia for a demonstration.

 

[Zosimus]

Oh please God, no. Anyone who wants to knwo why I totally hate this idea, meet me in Magincia for a demonstration.

Can you elaborate?


On the choice you quoted under the classic house style only. So those houses can not be customized just the classic style.

Is that your issue with Mag?

Plus I said near the city not in the city.

 

[old gypsy]

Oh please God, no. Anyone who wants to knwo why I totally hate this idea, meet me in Magincia for a demonstration.

I love Magincia!. So much, in fact, that I recently moved there.

 

[Lady Storm]

Zosimus fellows excuse me for a second...

I have played this game from day one... let me refresh your memorys.

Well past the addition of Trammel and before the addition of customizable housing we had 1 house per shard rule. It was put in to stop the 1 house per character so the addition of new land was less required. The Dev had a great idea to shut us up about more housing room... The shards were getting full and we were pretty full of players so it didnt look like a bad idea at the time. How wrong that Dev team was...
Hence the 1 house per account throwing many of us into grandfathered status but wanting a customizeable one too or at least some of the features.
It also ended alot of players from going to Siege to play as they had a home else where and as many can tell you working out of a bank box SUXs. Many who had a few accounts shifted around to get the new customs and it for a bit was ok. Players felt shafted by EA and slowly we lost alot of players.

Now you say like it was always 1 house per account like its a badge of honor.....

Gentilmen and Ladys it was a punishment for asking for more.

We now have been here 15 years.. an Icon of a game that made others think and evolve. You need to get your heads out of the sand EA has trained you to expect and get some guts to expect better.

If you have not seen the vast open spaces of UO then get your buns out there and look...

*oh if they let this happen (runs in panic) we will close down.....* this attitude has been the working model for many here for over 3 years. Get a grip...

I have read here for months that so many of you have cut back to lower number accounts that its not funny. Still some are doing the 1 month on 2 months off to keep houses... and some are out right stealing with the RtB homes.
(I will admit I have done the rotation off/on bit to conserve money in hard months so I cant cast stones at ppl who do it.)

I dont wish to see UO in perril but your being too hard on the game and the money that they get in. I seriously think many would return if they totaly went back to the open house account plan and adopted the Wow plan for customer happyness. We have been fortuante to play for 15 years and with forward thinking and a more player friendly policy UO will go well beyond 20 year or more.

Asking for a second house is not much to ask. This for 15 years.

 

[Uriah Heep]

I admit most of my issue with Magincia is that I don't feel it is what we were promised. I thought we were gonna rebuild the town...isn't that what we were told? And the market system, don't even get me started. It's nothing like what some of us expected.

And it's not even a city anymore. Magincia can't be called a town now, it's just an island with a bunch of houses and empty stalls, for the most part. has too much of a cookie cutter look to it.

If they wanna let us have a second house, do it. Simply. Without rewriting all the rules and where and how you can place. There's free land for the taking, everywhere but Atl. Do any of you really think we are gonna grow to the point that there is a housing shortage???

 

[Woodsman]

I admit most of my issue with Magincia is that I don't feel it is what we were promised. I thought we were gonna rebuild the town...isn't that what we were told? And the market system, don't even get me started. It's nothing like what some of us expected.

And it's not even a city anymore. Magincia can't be called a town now, it's just an island with a bunch of houses and empty stalls, for the most part. has too much of a cookie cutter look to it.

My ideal picture of New Magincia would be a fully built city with people moving into the pre-built homes, not the mini-Luna that we got.

 

[Zosimus]

Sorry Lady Storm but as I mentioned in my first post I was against it but I also said for sake of argument and posted ideas "IF" it would benefit the community.


My head is not in the sand. I think I know UO quite well and EA.

Truly I hope they go with your idea and dont charge a dime for it. I know most likely they wont unless they make $$$$ off of it. I know that the extra $$$ will go into EA for a good cause.

I would prefer bug free and consistent content more than items anyway. Thats just me.

 

[Lady Storm]

It was not aimed at you Zosimus, but at all the doubters that claim "For the Good of the game..."
You and I are the dinosaurs of UO. We know the truth.
To EA we are floss....
We gave them years of $ and helped them through times when their main products were failing (how we forget ea's main intrest is the madden football type games)

True that if they were to give us what would in my opinion a good thing for UO and just might help keep players around more by allowing more diverse play on more then one shard (we all know bank box play is short term at best before the person tosses up their hands and quits or worse yet picks a shard they are not all too happy with to end the pain int he tush exsistance.)
Some do far worse.. they quit all together and leave UO not to come back.

You all might find you would be spending more money for things when it would seem the opposite would be true. How many of you buy more of the Rustic packs?? for the garden bed??
And how many have begged to be able to buy some of the items seprately, even rewards??
Each purchase of a boat, ex pac or legacy token is a month of game play or more.

All our spending on things at the origin store (this counts in the uogamecode store too) add up to alot of months worth of play time money. WE deserve to be treated better.

15 years devoted to game play on UO... many think I am batty for paying for a game that has no real value amd wastes time I could be putting into a better project to help me in RL...

To explain it I tell them one thing ... Sanity. If not for UO to meet good friends and spend quality time with my son and nephew all these years would be empty of the joy they have given me.

I deserve to be treated with respect by a company I have paid every month for 15 years to.

I ask for all of you not just me the simple thing of a second house period. Not some gadget a player will sell for mega millions or some fruity toy to dazzle the crouds at luna bank. Just the right to have a second house anywhere, any size we can aford, on any shard we choose.
PERIOD.

 

[old gypsy]

Lady Storm, I think we should remember that a business like EA is primarily interested in in making a healthy profit on its products. If players were given the option to have an additional house as large as they wanted, many accounts currently active now would close, causing a significant loss of revenue to EA and bringing us closer to the day when they decide to shut down UO.

One small house with limited storage would be less likely to create the foregoing situation. For that reason, I support the idea of a second small house (with limited storage) for each account. I don't agree with the proposal that the second house should have no limits on size and storage.

 

[Tina Small]

Lady Storm, I started playing in late 2004. I gradually added or was gifted with enough accounts to finally reach the point where I was paying to keep 20 something accounts open year-round. I finally started to decrease that number and for a while last year even experimented a bit with paying for 2 or 3 accounts every 3 months because of waning interest in UO. But during the years I was paying to keep so many accounts active, it was because I was having fun in UO and felt like I was getting sufficient value for the amount of money I was paying.

Now, with so few people playing and the lands so deserted, the idea of asking UO to let me make a one-time payment to acquire a second house on an account strikes me as a sign of losing faith that UO is going to be around for much longer. It feels like we're telling EA we don't believe all that empty land will ever be filled once again with new or returning players. It feels to me like asking the owner of a shop that has a "going out of business" sign on his windows for an even deeper discount on the goods he has for sale.

And the idea of asking EA to allow placement of keeps and castles in Malas...the thought of that just makes me ill. I always liked Malas, Tokuno, and Ter Mur just because they didn't have castles and keeps. It always seemed to me like the place where new players could run around and not be constantly reminded of their lack of wealth and "status." Running through areas in Fel and Trammel dominated by keeps and castles...meh, it never did anything for me except make me think of how much space was being hogged by one player paying the same amount to play the game as I was paying.

I guess I just have a different perspective on things than you do, since I only have half the time in the game that you have. I just find it really disappointing though that at a time when the game is suffering for lack of players, it feels like the few remaining players would rather pester the devs for "more stuff," rather than pestering them with ideas on how to get more players into the game so that EA can justify adding more developers, designers, and artists. It's a sinking ship and instead of asking to have the holes plugged, we just want to fill it with more "stuff."

 

[Felonious Monk]

Everyone is mixing apples and oranges here..

Size or house type is not the point.

Accounts are stable and if the last CS is to be beleaved we have gained a few more players. Returning and new. But the question is really the impac on EA $$???

EA washed its hands of us when it handed UO off to Mythic. Now mind you Mythic is under Bio-Ware's thumb. Look who is our LP.

You all are forgetting we had no limits till we yelled for more house space... This would be paid for space or how about an amendment to satisfy all you panic ppl. raise the rate per month. 15$ to have what should still be our rights.

I respect your view points,however....
I cant see giving ea a single penny more for ANY reason what so ever. This game has been literally ignored or taken for granted for years at a time. Im questioning more and more why am I supporting this lack of Q&A. Why am I supporting a corporation that creates more bugs as time goes on? If I don't pay an account it becomes blocked. We can count on that. Yet people have free storage with rtb housing. Account Management was a huge problem. IMO the better parts of this game have been introduced by players and man I bet ea loves that! Imagine buying a new car and being informed you may need to adjust a few things to actually get the performance we promised because well....we already have your $. Thx for your biz! ea then sticks to the business model of under funded and overworked employees who will leave after a year or so. Insuring that cycle repeats and no one learns to improve the dreaded spaghetti code that Must not be fixed!
I'm becoming increasingly embarrassed that Ive supported uo with all I get in return.
Mods if you cant respect my opinions based on my 14 years of experience because its to negative move this to S&R. I think giving ea more $ for anything confirms how low the payee's standards have become.

 

[Lady Storm]

Tina my friend you are not alone in the accumulation of accounts gifted you by past friends. How the hadies do you think I got over 53 accounts??? And I pay for 46 (soon to be 42 I got lucky and got a bigger house on a few shards and merged 2 to 1) We are not the only one's in this boat...

For 15 years of loyal play and payment to ask for the boon of a second house no matter the size is little to ask them for. UO is so empty but people do shuffle as I do around the shards and play when and where they have found pockets of fellow players. We are social animals and the need for company is strong in many... the reason Atlantic is soo full now is the poster child for this point.

We dont need go for a tiny house.... there is too much openess in uo to limit the size or lockdowns.

It dont need to be on the same shard but can be.... you deserve the choice.

You all have put soooo much fear in the what if's that you loose sight of the benifits...

Yes many will cut back, downsize when they can put 2 on one ...but how many are already doing that now with the 30 days on 85 off routine??

Then again many have that finger of doom pointed at UO.... If i listened to that retoric way back when Ty use to spout it at us all the time in 2000 and forward till she quit and guess who got her 4 accounts? Hawk and I would listen to her as good friends do and hear all her reasons why UO was on its death bed... year after year went by... UO was dieing I tell you was her chant... Its 2012 UO is still here 12 years of her telling us UO was about to die...

If you want a real bug to pick at kick the guys on the private shards to get back in the REAL game and pay for it....

As for a 15 year gift I stand by my thinking WE need the freedom of a second home somewhere... I want to have them give you a gift worthy of the years you have spent in UO.
Not some junk that will collect dust or be tossed in the trash can...

Maybe ..... just maybe...... if new and returning see more active players on the shards many will stay and more will return. UO is far from dead..... so stop the doom of Ty's rantings please and look forward to more years in UO.

 

[old gypsy]

I remember when there were far too many houses around. Maybe I'm alone in feeling this way, but the last thing I want to see is a dramatic increase in large houses blanketing the land. If an option for a second house was implemented and size wasn't limited, you know people will place the largest houses they possibly can, anywhere they can possibly fit.

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

Everyone is mixing apples and oranges here..

Size or house type is not the point.

Accounts are stable and if the last CS is to be beleaved we have gained a few more players. Returning and new. But the question is really the impac on EA $$???

EA washed its hands of us when it handed UO off to Mythic. Now mind you Mythic is under Bio-Ware's thumb. Look who is our LP.

You all are forgetting we had no limits till we yelled for more house space... This would be paid for space or how about an amendment to satisfy all you panic ppl. raise the rate per month. 15$ to have what should still be our rights.

I respect your view points,however....
I cant see giving ea a single penny more for ANY reason what so ever. This game has been literally ignored or taken for granted for years at a time. Im questioning more and more why am I supporting this lack of Q&A. Why am I supporting a corporation that creates more bugs as time goes on? If I don't pay an account it becomes blocked. We can count on that. Yet people have free storage with rtb housing. Account Management was a huge problem. IMO the better parts of this game have been introduced by players and man I bet ea loves that! Imagine buying a new car and being informed you may need to adjust a few things to actually get the performance we promised because well....we already have your $. Thx for your biz! ea then sticks to the business model of under funded and overworked employees who will leave after a year or so. Insuring that cycle repeats and no one learns to improve the dreaded spaghetti code that Must not be fixed!
I'm becoming increasingly embarrassed that Ive supported uo with all I get in return.
Mods if you cant respect my opinions based on my 14 years of experience because its to negative move this to S&R. I think giving ea more $ for anything confirms how low the payee's standards have become.

Huh?

Damn near every product in the world was improved upon or made better by customer feedback/ideas. Whats your point?

You referenced cars specifically so lets talk about those in comparison.

Every car ever built has spent multiple hours in the dealers repair shop. There are specific 'lemon laws' just for cars because every manufacturer in existence puts out alot of total duds.

Based upon this alone UO has a great track record.

Then factor in the fact that no players ever 'worked' to come up with the ideas they gave to the devs. People had fun playing the game and along the way came up with great ideas and add-ons. They were not forced to do this. They obviously did this out of love for the game. You are resentful of that now? Maybe at 1 time you obsessed over the game and became hyper-involved and now you feel let down? I feel sorry for you, truly

 

[chise2]

I remember when there were far too many houses around. Maybe I'm alone in feeling this way, but the last thing I want to see is a dramatic increase in large houses blanketing the land. If an option for a second house was implemented and size wasn't limited, you know people will place the largest houses they possibly can, anywhere they can possibly fit.

Yeah I would not have a problem with a second house being allowed if there was a limit on size and storage. But like you said if there was no limit people would just place the biggest they could whereever. People would place castles on low pop shards that they rarely or never play just so they can say they have one. Not to mention as has been pointed out before there would be a mass account shut down if there was no limit. Because the only reason some people keep multiple accounts open is to keep their houses. Such a mass account shutdown would likely be the nail in the coffin for UO. And no I am not a doomsdaysayer but I am also trying to be realistic.

 

[Gothic Nightwind]

I would love to see customizable castles and keeps. Im also for having a second house on another shard (s). Would give a good change of pace being able to play multiple shards and have a place to store your loot besides the bank. As for all the comments about UO being finished, that was said last year and the year before that,etc. Ive been playing since 97 and this game holds a special place in my heart. Can anyone name a mmo currently or in the past that has as much as UO does? Granted the graphics are dated but i still think the dev team is on the right track on making things better. They should of tried this hard 5 years ago and maybe not as many people would have left. just my 2 cents.

 

[Felonious Monk]

Huh?

Damn near every product in the world was improved upon or made better by customer feedback/ideas. Whats your point?

My point is I expressed my opinion based on the op. Your post seems to focus on me alone.

You referenced cars specifically so lets talk about those in comparison.

Every car ever built has spent multiple hours in the dealers repair shop. There are specific 'lemon laws' just for cars because every manufacturer in existence puts out a lot of total duds.
As a reference if companies such as EA were held to obey the same lemon laws I don't think we would be navigating so many bugs.

Based upon this alone UO has a great track record.
Based on this in my opinion uo is substandard compared to other games ea maintains

Then factor in the fact that no players ever 'worked' to come up with the ideas they gave to the devs.
Im not sure how your using the term Worked in the above sentence or how it applies.

People had fun playing the game and along the way came up with great ideas and add-ons.
To me this sentence seems to contradict your preceding sentence.

They were not forced to do this. They obviously did this out of love for the game. You are resentful of that now?
I still have love for the game as I have 2 accounts open. If anything I have become more aware of the lack of Q&A publishes receive before release. I do have a resentment about paying for accounts for 14 years non stop while receiving very buggy expansions and patches.

maybe at 1 time you obsessed over the game and became hyper-involved and now you feel let down? I feel sorry for you, truly

If I ever did obsess in a hyper-involved way it may have been in uo's 2&3 year.
A looooooong time ago. I can promise you the word obsession in no way describes my current relationship with Ultima Online.
All in all good post. I appreciate your questions
Rock on dude