Should house size still determine storage space?

[JC the Builder]

At first you were allowed to place as many houses as you could afford. Then it was cut down to 1 house per character. Then it was made so you could only have 1 house per shard. Today you are only allowed one house per account.

I don't think it is good for the game anymore that bigger house = more storage. If players were allowed to place smaller houses, they could live next to their friends. That can help build community. For example, I would like some people to live next to me but there is no room for max storage plots. It is also making the UO landscape quite dull to only see huge houses everywhere.

There would be two ways of going about making such a change. You could either grant all houses the same storage as a 18x18 (Keep and Castle retain same storage). Or they could add a method to obtain additional storage up to at least what an 18x18 provides. The most obvious method being you pay gold for it.

I think changes to house storage would help at least a little bit in creating static communities once again.

 

[shulginist]

I think that is a great idea.

 

[Lord Chaos]

Allow up to Castle sized storage, but make the cost a rising one, aka. the closer you get to castle sized storage, the more each storage point costs.

Like at 3000 storage points, each additional storage point costs 5.000 gold, at 3500 storage points, each additional storage point costs 6.000 gold and so on and so forth.

Would be a great money sink too.

 

[Zalan]

Doctor Who`s time tartus? Think small stone tower.(British TV series )

 

[RaDian FlGith]

TARDIS. Tartus is used on fish... (j/k... I know it's tartar...).

Time And Relative Dimensions In Space...

Not:

Time And Reactive Television Under Surveilance

*snickers*


As for storage... yeah, my suggestion would be keep the lockdowns for the various sizes the same. There's a good reason for those limits (ie: too much stuff loaded in a small space)... but all houses having max storage (18x18, not castle or keep) with regard to secures would be a good idea, and make an 18x18 less of an importance.

 

[Zalan]

TARDIS. Tartus is used on fish... (j/k... I know it's tartar...).

Time And Relative Dimensions In Space...

Not:

Time And Reactive Television Under Surveilance

*snickers*


As for storage... yeah, my suggestion would be keep the lockdowns for the various sizes the same. There's a good reason for those limits (ie: too much stuff loaded in a small space)... but all houses having max storage (18x18, not castle or keep) with regard to secures would be a good idea, and make an 18x18 less of an importance.

*tries to install a spell checker on Stratics*

Dammit Jim I`m a doctor not a computer programmer!!!!

*Returns the thread to its orignal purpose*

 

[Lord Chaos]

As for storage... yeah, my suggestion would be keep the lockdowns for the various sizes the same. There's a good reason for those limits (ie: too much stuff loaded in a small space)... but all houses having max storage (18x18, not castle or keep) with regard to secures would be a good idea, and make an 18x18 less of an importance.

Why exclude castles and keeps? They're huge and ugly, would be much nicer if we could have pretty houses with same storage, as long as we paid for it.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Why exclude castles and keeps? They're huge and ugly, would be much nicer if we could have pretty houses with same storage, as long as we paid for it.

Because there should remain a reason for having them, and some sort of consolation prize for not being able to customize them.

I get that they're ugly... but that's a whole different topic. They should have 5-10 styles for each that could be placed rather than the same single style footprints.

 

[Lord Chaos]

Because there should remain a reason for having them, and some sort of consolation prize for not being able to customize them.

They already have a consolation prize...their size, title and image. But either way, they're no more important than 18x18s or towers or other structures, apart from them taking up valuable real estate space.

I get that they're ugly... but that's a whole different topic. They should have 5-10 styles for each that could be placed rather than the same single style footprints.

Or just allow bigger than 18x18 plots, up to castle sizes plots, but allowing for less floors.

 

[Uvtha]

I would be THRILLED if the smallest houses could hold the same amount. There are lots of quirky, neat places where a small house would fit, but due to storage, I never pick them.

 

[Fink]

I would be THRILLED if the smallest houses could hold the same amount. There are lots of quirky, neat places where a small house would fit, but due to storage, I never pick them.

I have rune books filled with such locations, but I have both accounts tied up with a castle for max storage/deco and a Luna haus for convenience.

I would be happiest with an account-wide storage pool of some type, I suppose. Say a castle with max storage is 6563 items (very easy, since it is). Instead of that, you could opt for two or more smaller homes that amount to no more than that total. For example, my Luna place only takes up 3411 items. I could have another place that holds 3152 items or less on the same account.

You could have several smaller homes rather than one big place. You would get your full storage cap per account, but you could have greater flexibility with placement, size, and the number of player towns in which you reside. You could have a little Luna shop, a log cabin in the Britain woods, and a modest beach shack in Vesper. You could put all your eggs in one castle-sized basket, or have a different home for each character.

That's been my hope for many years, ever since they did away with multiple homes per account. I had one per character and they each lived more or less independent lives as they aren't related.

 

[Tukaram]

I would love to have a smaller house if the storage was the same as the 18x18. My house is only 10x10, 2 story, but the lot is 18x18.

 

[G.v.P]

Interesting thread, JC, thought you were against the question regarding more lockdown space per house at the last HoC, hehe.

I think housing should stay the way it is really. Any change would just promote hoarders. Newbies shouldn't really be collecting enough items to fill a castle anyway. Bad habit to encourage. Make it, break it, make it. That's the new age we live in.

The one thing that never changed about housing is that Castles and Keeps are worth something, not just because of the lockdowns, but because they are pretty much landmarks, rare to place, and in keeping with an Ultima of old. Have you ever been to a Castle IDOC? OMG. So, again, no, the system doesn't need to be changed.

On my shard, community was never about lockdown space. People are always willing to sacrifice house size to be part of something larger than extra item slots. Even look at Luna, for example. Who is going to pass up a smaller house when they can sell their stuff at a central hub?

LOL I can just see it now, some dude with multiple accounts places 7x7s around his 18x18 like little tool sheds. Eh. No thanks.

 

[MalagAste]

Yes

 

[Lady Michelle]

LOL I can just see it now, some dude with multiple accounts places 7x7s around his 18x18 like little tool sheds. Eh. No thanks.

Hmm tool sheds that seems like a great idea. You buy a tool shed deed place the tool shed in your house, and it gives you a % of what your house gives you for lock downs. You click on the tool shed, and your transported into the tool shed. Then you can decorate leave things in it do what you want.

 

[Jhym]

I have mixed feelings about it... personally I'd like to be able to place back at some smaller spots that I liked but keep more of the items and resources I have for decorating and such.

However, the devs have built us ALL to be hoarders from about mid second year. We're all scared to lose things, to not have backup armor or weapons, to not have that keg of potions and to not keep something that becomes super rare because no one else kept it.

How's about a compromise:

You can purchase storage items that hold unlimited stackables in them. So, for instance, you buy a log stack that you can put logs into. Only one type at at time, but unlimited amounts.

Same for ingots -- stack of ingots that you can pour as many as you want into. I'm sure there are many of us that have a dozen or so 60k stacks of various ingots.

Perhaps allow some items (like components, reagents) to be stored together, up to 8 or 10 stacks in the container and count as one item for housing purposes.

An example for that would be an alchemist's table, that can hold stacks of all reagents. Or a golden box that holds Peerless items.

In many cases, the junk we're holding is stacks of materials or items that really could count as one item if they'd just let us put the 60k stacks together as one. Commodities make perfect sense to allow storage in this manner, as there is no individual difference between single items.



As for the original thought... most likely if they do anything with this at all it would be upgrade codes like they did for the storage increase. Which everyone would immediately buy and then about a year or two later we'd be at the same point.

 

[Derium of ls]

convincing people to abandon their large homes and place a brand new small house is one step closer to server merges, oh God... Why did I say that!

 

[Uvtha]

convincing people to abandon their large homes and place a brand new small house is one step closer to server merges, oh God... Why did I say that!

I think lots of people WANT smaller houses. No need to convince anybody.

 

[sablestorm]

I think it's a good idea. If smaller homes had the same storage as larger homes, I'd be inclined to drop larger plots and consolidate in those tiny plots which are right now unused in our RP towns.

 

[Tukaram]

Great idea.
I've got a beautiful house spot for my fisherman but it would cost me way too much in storage spots. It's about 7x9 and if it had more lockdowns I'd happily demolish my big house.

 

[ingsmsico]

There's a good reason for those limits (ie: too much stuff loaded in a small space)

how do you know that? as far as I know, when you crate a house everything goes in a crate under the plot that takes up 1 square. seems to me you are just making stuff up.

 

[ingsmsico]

Interesting thread, JC, thought you were against the question regarding more lockdown space per house at the last HoC, hehe.

he did not propose more lockdown space per house. he just said that everyone pays the same 12.99 a month and should get max storage no matter where they put the only house they are allowed to have.

Any change would just promote hoarders.

how did you come up with this? regardless it's not true.

Newbies shouldn't really be collecting enough items to fill a castle anyway. Bad habit to encourage.

why is it a bad habit? why do you care? and what newbies are you talking about?

Have you ever been to a Castle IDOC? OMG. So, again, no, the system doesn't need to be changed.

so we can't change the system because of the possibility of castle IDOC's??? again this makes no logical sense.

People are always willing to sacrifice house size to be part of something larger than extra item slots.

this is not true. you are just making stuff up. JC is right, his idea will promote community. as it is now, everyone just looks around for a max storage plot and as a result no one has any neighbors.

 

[JC the Builder]

Interesting thread, JC, thought you were against the question regarding more lockdown space per house at the last HoC, hehe.

My thoughts are that people asking for more storage space are just hording too many items. Some guy once said he had like 2 castles and a 18x18, but needs more.

You can store nearly 3,000 items in the largest size plots. That is more than enough for general game play. If you don't collect items or do Bulk Order Deeds, you can easily get by with ~500 storage. If you decide to collect things or hold every magic item you loot, of course you are going to always desire more space.

But this topic isn't about increasing house storage, it is about allowing players to place smaller homes. There are so many areas where there is nothing but max storage homes. It is so ugly.

 

[Lord Chaos]

LOL I can just see it now, some dude with multiple accounts places 7x7s around his 18x18 like little tool sheds. Eh. No thanks.

He's paying for every one of those accounts, so whats the problem here? Every one of those accounts are worth as much as your main account.

 

[THP]

WELL........IF ITS NOT BROKEN DONT FIX IT...

IM KINDA HAPPY SAT IN MY CASTLE...Hehehheeeee

[saying that ive only got 100 free lockdowns left]

 

[Dryzzid of Atlantic]

I like the idea.

People with grandfathered houses sure would luck out.

 

[G.v.P]

Wow. Let me explain everything to you, ingsmisico, since you obviously just want more item space without having to pay or achieve a bigger house plot.

Interesting thread, JC, thought you were against the question regarding more lockdown space per house at the last HoC, hehe.

he did not propose more lockdown space per house. he just said that everyone pays the same 12.99 a month and should get max storage no matter where they put the only house they are allowed to have.

Heh, I pay $9.99 a month. Also, JC is asking for every house to have maximum lockdown space. Therefore, he is asking for more lockdown space per house, because the majority of houses are not maximum.

Any change would just promote hoarders.

how did you come up with this? regardless it's not true.

Actually, it is true. I bet you are hoarding at this very moment. And if you believe it not to be true, where is your proof or evidence to prove otherwise?

Newbies shouldn't really be collecting enough items to fill a castle anyway. Bad habit to encourage.

why is it a bad habit? why do you care? and what newbies are you talking about?

I suggest you watch "Hoarders" sometime. Maybe you've already been on that show, who knows. Never heard the phrase "pixel crack," huh? And as for newbies, they are the people whom, in a perfect world, would benefit from JC's plan. Any veteran worth their salt already has a string of houses. The reality is hoarders will just make more accounts to place houses hehe.

Have you ever been to a Castle IDOC? OMG. So, again, no, the system doesn't need to be changed.

so we can't change the system because of the possibility of castle IDOC's??? again this makes no logical sense.

JC is a vet, trying to help establish the masses with his idea to max all houses out, and I think and hope he understood what I was saying about Castle IDOCs. I'll assume you, however, have never been to a Castle IDOC, so you wouldn't really understand what a Castle IDOC represents.

People are always willing to sacrifice house size to be part of something larger than extra item slots.

this is not true. you are just making stuff up. JC is right, his idea will promote community. as it is now, everyone just looks around for a max storage plot and as a result no one has any neighbors.

I don't know what to tell you. My friends are less selfish than yours? You have no greater goal than achieving more item slots? I pay less than you for the same product? My experiences are different? I suppose since your world is inferior that means your people deserve a crutch. I guess your shard does not have any player-established towns? My shard is full of them, and I guarantee each one of those towns has at least one house whose owner had to make a sacrifice, or worked to get one of the spots.

 

[Gellor]

Interesting ROUGH idea. Here are some things I'd like to see if it was considered:
1) MAX storage the same as an 18x18. Make it so keeps and castles still are the big goal to have.
2) Make it so one has to BUY into a larger storage number with no chance of a "refund". For example, I place a 7x7(cost A). I pay to get max storage(cost B). I decide to collapse the house, I only get standard 7x7(cost A) back. Cost B goes to the gold maker in the sky.

I've considered some cool smaller spots in the past but anything less than about 1k-1500 items scared me away. (I JUST packed away 3k worth of items)

 

[G.v.P]

My thoughts are that people asking for more storage space are just hording too many items. Some guy once said he had like 2 castles and a 18x18, but needs more.

You can store nearly 3,000 items in the largest size plots. That is more than enough for general game play. If you don't collect items or do Bulk Order Deeds, you can easily get by with ~500 storage. If you decide to collect things or hold every magic item you loot, of course you are going to always desire more space.

But this topic isn't about increasing house storage, it is about allowing players to place smaller homes. There are so many areas where there is nothing but max storage homes. It is so ugly.

But, if this thread wasn't about house storage, it wouldn't pose the question "Should house size still determine storage space?" hehe, you know?

And I agree that a player can survive off of ~500, so even the smaller houses would suffice for an average UO lifestyle. I just placed a 10x12 with a friend to store BODs, and it's less than half maximum storage I believe (which depends on entitlement, however; I would have placed it w/ 1771 lockdowns, she placed it with around 1500 I believe). It fits all our BODs and we have maybe 800 lockdowns left, and I just made 19 powder from the BODs I could change for a 90% chance. Now, if we didn't have tailor BODs, then you manage smith BODs alone in a ~500 (we also have a bag full of imbue ingreds and other stuff that takes up a 125), but I also agree it's pretty hard to do both sets of BODs in a ~500.

 

[Assia Penryn]

I'd be okay with it, if they made it a functional gold sink. If you traded a house, the extra storage goes away and the new owner has to buy into it again. If you demolish it, you do not get a refund.

 

[Derium of ls]

I think lots of people WANT smaller houses. No need to convince anybody.

I'm on board with it too though, on Ls there was room for two smaller homes on a private island. But no way could they have held all of my junk =(

 

[JC the Builder]

Therefore, he is asking for more lockdown space per house, because the majority of houses are not maximum.

I don't think that is the case. It appears the majority of houses today have maximum storage. I run through areas which used to be littered by homes of all sizes and it is nothing except maximum storage houses. This could easily be determined by the developers or less so for a player who does an audit.

And I agree that a player can survive off of ~500, so even the smaller houses would suffice for an average UO lifestyle.

While it should be possible for a player to get by with the amount of storage smaller homes provide, that is simply not how people think. They want to get the most storage they can for their items. Thus, the average player will consider nothing except that magic........3,411?

I wanted to get the exact number so I just logged in and opened my house tool. Apparently there was a house storage increase I was not told about.

 

[Splup]

If I could have a smaller and more compact house with my keeps storage I would deffo go for it...

 

[ingsmsico]

But this topic isn't about increasing house storage, it is about allowing players to place smaller homes. There are so many areas where there is nothing but max storage homes. It is so ugly.

yes, we all pay 12.99, we should get max storage with any house type. I agree 100%. get it done Cal

 

[ingsmsico]

WELL........IF ITS NOT BROKEN DONT FIX IT...

it is broken. that is the point.

 

[ingsmsico]

Wow. Let me explain everything to you, ingsmisico, since you obviously just want more item space without having to pay or achieve a bigger house plot.

what does this even mean? I don't even know what the difference in prices for house plots is.... 18x18 is what like 900k or something? who cares...

Heh, I pay $9.99 a month.

Heh, good for you.

JC is asking for every house to have maximum lockdown space. Therefore, he is asking for more lockdown space per house, because the majority of houses are not maximum.

not true. he's asking for each account to have max storage space. everyone pays the (roughly) same amount per month and gets to place 1 house. it only makes sense that everyone gets the same storage space.

Actually, it is true. I bet you are hoarding at this very moment. And if you believe it not to be true, where is your proof or evidence to prove otherwise?

not true, I don't hoard. honestly though who cares if people hoard? why do you care?

I suggest you watch "Hoarders" sometime. Maybe you've already been on that show, who knows.

wtf are you talking about? no offense, but I am not going to waste my time watching that crap.

Never heard the phrase "pixel crack," huh?

the whole game is pixel crack. what is your point?

The reality is hoarders will just make more accounts to place houses hehe.

#1 they are going to do this regardless. #2 why is more accounts a bad thing?

JC is a vet, trying to help establish the masses with his idea to max all houses out, and I think and hope he understood what I was saying about Castle IDOCs. I'll assume you, however, have never been to a Castle IDOC, so you wouldn't really understand what a Castle IDOC represents.

I've been to 100's of Fel IDOC's so don't even go there. I still don't understand what your point about what a castle IDOC represents and furthermore, if anything, his proposal would clear the way for MORE castles.

I don't know what to tell you. My friends are less selfish than yours? You have no greater goal than achieving more item slots? I pay less than you for the same product?

how does JC's proposal give anyone more item slots? you get the same item slots you would have if you had an 18x18 in the middle of nowhere or a 7x7 in a player run town.

 

[ingsmsico]

I'd be okay with it, if they made it a functional gold sink. If you traded a house, the extra storage goes away and the new owner has to buy into it again. If you demolish it, you do not get a refund.

this doesn't make any sense either. it's a good idea. just implement it as is. why attach a "goldsink rider" to it when that is not necessary?

 

[Lord Chaos]

Because otherwise its just too easy and its a good way to wack two flies in one wack, both for this idea, but also to create a good gold sink.

 

[G.v.P]

@JC, and @the other user who quotes line by line, lol, "per" is a term meaning for each, or every, and is usually used to describe an average. If all houses were boosted to 18x18 storage, house space per house increases. That's just what would happen, you can refute it, but doesn't make sense to refute it.

Either way, I don't really mind, because the proposed changes don't effect me directly. And who is going to say no to more space, even if Mythic sells it? People have bought it before, they'll buy it again. However, to me, a player who has to choose becomes a better player, and the player who picks up everything and saves it for later is not as productive. Every player is entitled to their own playstyle, I just feel like encouraging hoarders is a bad thing and I would rather play with a smarter crop of players. And as I've said in this thread, the communities on my shard were built out of sacrifice and a desire to forge meaningful relationships with other players instead of a desire for "pixel crack." And I feel genuinely sorry for anyone who views the game as nothing but "pixel crack."

 

[Lady Storm]

OK I know I am going to get blasted for this but here goes ............

Put us all back to 1 house per shard per account is the only way to do it and make it work for all the players fairly.
Some shards (very few) dont have the space for but a small house. The vast majority of shards you can drive a mac truck through malas and not see a house where there were once only 1 square separated homes. Tram is getting that way(down to only big homes) on a good deal of shards too. Dont mention Fel ...... I just lost 2 of my neighbors of over 12 years who had to finally make the hard choice of closing down accounts and forfeting homes for the bigger lockdowns.

Holler and scream at me all you like but think of it this way that player who had to chose to drop an account/house left that shard possibly. This way the player base can branch out and play more then one shard. (first year players remember when gms told us to go to other shards make a few new friends when shards were buggy... this will give players the oppertunity to perhaps return.) It would also help Siege out so its a win win.

Who knows when the ecconomy gets better and $$ is more out there the accounts just might go back to old numbers, alot of possible returning older players are out there and this just might be the ticket to pull them back.

 

[kelmo]

Get rid of all the unused houses first. You know the ones I speak of.

 

[Lady Storm]

UNused? Kelmo, sweety first off SOME of those houses you say are unused might belong to players who ARE on other shards playing one day and on that shard the next. Just cause you cant see them dont mean they are abandoned.
I greatly admit there are houses out there that are stuck in loops and wont fall till hell freezes over.
I personaly have homes on 11 shards, I know I dont get to play each shard every day and I am guilty of ignoring a shard or two for a week or two at a time (due to fact of my stroke I cant sit at the computer like I use to for hours).
KEY NOTE : I pay for my accounts to have those homes.

Dev asked for houses that players thought might be bugged or on the idoc refresh list and lost to be turned in to them. If you feel a house is abandoned (account off for longer then 90 days) please let them know. I am sure a quick check of date of last paid play is on the accounts log can be done and clear up any of your quams about the house(s) you are concerned about.

 

[ingsmsico]

a player who has to choose becomes a better player, and the player who picks up everything and saves it for later is not as productive. Every player is entitled to their own playstyle, I just feel like encouraging hoarders is a bad thing and I would rather play with a smarter crop of players.

again, it does not encourage hoarders. I've explained this over and over. the max storage space per account will not be increased. any of these so-called "dumb hoarders" that you "don't want to play with" already have max storage houses and you are already playing with them.

why do you care how productive a player is?

And as I've said in this thread, the communities on my shard were built out of sacrifice and a desire to forge meaningful relationships with other players instead of a desire for "pixel crack." And I feel genuinely sorry for anyone who views the game as nothing but "pixel crack."

again, the entire game is pixel crack. and again, why does a UO community have to be defined by lax storage space? that makes no sense.

frankly, your logic flabbergasts me. I find it ironic you actually said you do not like this idea because the playerbase will somehow get dumber. you also said that relationships cannot be meaningful unless the people are in houses with low storage. lol!! where do you come up with this ****?

@JC, and @the other user who quotes line by line, lol, "per" is a term meaning for each, or every, and is usually used to describe an average. If all houses were boosted to 18x18 storage, house space per house increases. That's just what would happen, you can refute it, but doesn't make sense to refute it.

you are correct, average storage space will go up, but the housing situation in-game will make a lot more sense and everyone paying their monthly fee will get the same housing storage, which is fair. no one should be punished for placing a small house. the reason why there are huge houses all over the place is because there is incentive to place them. take away that incentive and people will place whatever house size they want where ever they want it.

 

[ingsmsico]

Get rid of all the unused houses first. You know the ones I speak of.

yeah, that's another big problem. why the Dev's have not dealt with that issue is totally amazing to me. I have dozens of houses on LS right now that have been there for years. all but 1 is bugged and should have collapsed a long long time ago.

 

[ingsmsico]

UNused? Kelmo, sweety first off SOME of those houses you say are unused might belong to players who ARE on other shards playing one day and on that shard the next. Just cause you cant see them dont mean they are abandoned.
I greatly admit there are houses out there that are stuck in loops and wont fall till hell freezes over.
I personaly have homes on 11 shards, I know I dont get to play each shard every day and I am guilty of ignoring a shard or two for a week or two at a time (due to fact of my stroke I cant sit at the computer like I use to for hours).
KEY NOTE : I pay for my accounts to have those homes.

why are you freaking out? no one is going to take your paid-for houses away from you.

Dev asked for houses that players thought might be bugged or on the idoc refresh list and lost to be turned in to them. If you feel a house is abandoned (account off for longer then 90 days) please let them know. I am sure a quick check of date of last paid play is on the accounts log can be done and clear up any of your quams about the house(s) you are concerned about.

this is ridiculous. the houses are bugged and the Devs need to figure out a way to make them fall on their end. it is not up to the players to deal with it.

 

[maroite]

Why not make it a % of someone wealth instead of a set number? Seems like 6000 gold per storage point after 3500 is way too cheap for some people who have billions.

It should be a percentage of all your wealth, including wealth on vendors, with a minimum amount through % required.

 

[Tukaram]

At first you were allowed to place as many houses as you could afford. Then it was cut down to 1 house per character. Then it was made so you could only have 1 house per shard. Today you are only allowed one house per account.

I don't think it is good for the game anymore that bigger house = more storage. If players were allowed to place smaller houses, they could live next to their friends. That can help build community. For example, I would like some people to live next to me but there is no room for max storage plots. It is also making the UO landscape quite dull to only see huge houses everywhere.

There would be two ways of going about making such a change. You could either grant all houses the same storage as a 18x18 (Keep and Castle retain same storage). Or they could add a method to obtain additional storage up to at least what an 18x18 provides. The most obvious method being you pay gold for it.

I think changes to house storage would help at least a little bit in creating static communities once again.

This is a very good, and simple, idea. Why is everyone trying to complicate it. Every house (except castles and keeps) gets the same storage. They can charge us x amount of gold or, more likely for EA, make it a micro-transaction.

I'd love to place a smaller house in a more private location, but don't want to give up the storage.

 

[Tek]

Why exclude castles and keeps? They're huge and ugly, would be much nicer if we could have pretty houses with same storage, as long as we paid for it.

Because there should remain a reason for having them, and some sort of consolation prize for not being able to customize them.

I get that they're ugly... but that's a whole different topic. They should have 5-10 styles for each that could be placed rather than the same single style footprints.

They should make them customizable as well.

 

[ingsmsico]

This is a very good, and simple, idea. Why is everyone trying to complicate it.

I agree 100%

 

[G.v.P]

again, it does not encourage hoarders. I've explained this over and over.

Actually, you've just disagreed with me in principal. The only thing you've explained thus far is you don't know anything about house costs. After that, I gather you really don't have much to provide other than your own ignorance.

why do you care how productive a player is?

Why do you not? I gave you my reason, yet you ask the same why, as if you were a child.

again, the entire game is pixel crack.

And again, I feel sorry for those whom feel like the entire game is pixel crack.

you also said that relationships cannot be meaningful unless the people are in houses with low storage. lol!! where do you come up with this ****?

You are horrible at debate. Since you have no source material to quote which supports this claim, I should first ask you in turn, where do you come up with this stuff? Players have had to make sacrifices to create towns, but they made those sacrifices because there is more to this game than virtual economy. In other words, the correlation between the necessity of lockdowns and community building is nonexistent. Those whom have had a strong desire for community have created communities however possible. Buying out neighbors, finding a different access point, winning out IDOCs. For someone who claims to visit 100s of Fel IDOCs, you really seem to have a limited appreciation, or understanding, of player towns.

everyone paying their monthly fee will get the same housing storage, which is fair. no one should be punished for placing a small house.

House placement is not an entitlement, nor was it ever. No one is guaranteed a house in this game, and monthly costs simply allow us to rent the game. After that, its up to the individual. Not sure why you think anyone is getting punished.

Based on your logic we are all victims. If Player A has more than Player B, everyone should get what Player A has. Nothing like a good communist doctrine which encourages people to work less in order to achieve the same as those whom have worked harder, right? Hey, might as well start a thread about wanting a free Tangle, or Dread Warhorse, or Planesword, huh?

However, I wouldn't mind if all players were given a 720 skill cap for free, or if all new accounts were allowed one free charger of the fallen per account so new players could start with all the same tools as the vets.