Siege Housing

[Limlight]

What would you guys say to being able to have a house on Siege and on 1 production shard?

I mean...if you guys are completely different and I cant transfer on your shard. Do you really care if I have a house on Atlantic or Pacific?

Or are you completely appalled at that idea.

Because to be honest. Housing is one of my favorite things about UO and its one of the main reasons I dont play more on siege. Bank is full...nowhere to put anything....and I dont plan on selling all my Atlantic stuff.

 

[Petra Fyde]

This a road we've been down before, and to be honest, opinion is just as divided on this as on the idea of an additional character on accounts.

On the other hand, about the only thing you'll get this lot to agree on, is that they can't agree on anything

 

[Gellor]

I'd like to see something done on housing... not sure what though.

1) The two houses per account but only one per shard is kind of appealing.
2) Take a random number, call it total storage, and say you can have as many houses as you'd like but the storage on all of them total up to total storage. Maybe have that number be castle value. Thus, you can have as many houses as you'd like across any number of shards... again limited to one house per shard.

 

[OldAsTheHills]

What would you guys say to being able to have a house on Siege and on 1 production shard?

I mean...if you guys are completely different and I cant transfer on your shard. Do you really care if I have a house on Atlantic or Pacific?

Or are you completely appalled at that idea.

Because to be honest. Housing is one of my favorite things about UO and its one of the main reasons I dont play more on siege. Bank is full...nowhere to put anything....and I dont plan on selling all my Atlantic stuff.

I am in the same stituation. I will not drop my house on Atlantic without upgrading there. I need the storage on Atlantic.

You like me will have to either squat at someone's place, use ships for extra storage, or be selective of what to keep...good luck.

*stares*
Yahaxithonix

 

[Cat Crimson]

Whilst being able to go back to more than one house would be nice, especially now even on the most crowded prodo shards you can easily find housing spots, I do not see it happening. I had to give up a house on Atlantic to place on Siege *shrug* yes it was a tough decision even though I don't play there much now, there is a lot of personal history to the houses there and Drach plus I caretake accounts for friends.

 

[MoonglowMerchant]

What would you guys say to being able to have a house on Siege and on 1 production shard?

I mean...if you guys are completely different and I cant transfer on your shard. Do you really care if I have a house on Atlantic or Pacific?

Or are you completely appalled at that idea.

Because to be honest. Housing is one of my favorite things about UO and its one of the main reasons I dont play more on siege. Bank is full...nowhere to put anything....and I dont plan on selling all my Atlantic stuff.

I think it is a great idea.

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

No frickin way!!! The minute they allow multiple shard housing, the open spots would disappear here on Siege. Most of the people who would place here would only do so, so they could have a house here to store things. It wouldn't increase population and then the people who wanted to move here wouldn't be able to place a home of their own.

As it is right now, Siege has areas where player run towns can be created, with your proposed chance, that option would end.

Either drop your house on the other shard, or learn how to live out of the bank with a combination of help from friends and placing ships to store your added loot...la

 

[God_Majere]

no way

 

[Spree]

If they did allow a 2nd house it should only be limited to a small 8x8 and play by the old house rules needing to be refreshed.

I think all the houses should have to play by the old house rules private house with invisible force fields don't be long here.

 

[nightstalker22]

No frickin way!!! The minute they allow multiple shard housing, the open spots would disappear here on Siege. Most of the people who would place here would only do so, so they could have a house here to store things. It wouldn't increase population and then the people who wanted to move here wouldn't be able to place a home of their own.

As it is right now, Siege has areas where player run towns can be created, with your proposed chance, that option would end.

Either drop your house on the other shard, or learn how to live out of the bank with a combination of help from friends and placing ships to store your added loot...la

Well said Rico... The main reason I quit playing 7 or 8 years ago, was because my bank box was full, and there was no available space to place a house...

This was pre trammel, pre Ilsh, pre a LOT of land.... I think you are dead on about how the landscape would fill up with housing, but no population increase.

On Atlantic, people make trial period accounts just so they could take the lot, and try to sell it like a real estate agent before the trail period account expires. They fixed that issue recently, making accounts be older than the trial period before you could place, but people from all shards who are used to only having one house would all pick Siege to have their second house, to sell the real estate, or possibly to sell the real estate so they have start up capital before coming here to stay.

Anyone can scoop up enough gold from spawns to buy an empty lot in a days time.

 

[MerchantAtHome]

but people from all shards who are used to only having one house would all pick Siege to have their second house, to sell the real estate, or possibly to sell the real estate so they have start up capital before coming here to stay.

Anyone can scoop up enough gold from spawns to buy an empty lot in a days time.

Wouldn't having more people come to Siege be a good thing?

 

[nightstalker22]

Wouldn't having more people come to Siege be a good thing?

Yes, if they were actually here playing, not just marking runes to leave at the bank to advertise their empty 18 x 18 lot for sale (with ICQ number on house sign ), then logging out.

 

[MerchantAtHome]

Yes, if they were actually here playing, not just marking runes to leave at the bank to advertise their empty 18 x 18 lot for sale (with ICQ number on house sign ), then logging out.

Everyone who plays on Siege currently has all the houses they want. If a bunch of people suddenly came to the shard, somehow got the gold for 18 by 18's, and placed them, WHO WOULD BUY THEM?

 

[ChumBucket]

Wouldn't having more people come to Siege be a good thing?

Not if they are all realtors in it for a quick buck, and not going to stay here to actually play the game. I agree it would be nice to be able to lure people away from their Trammel homes, thereby convincing them to discard all their worldly possessions, and come to Siege. And, I will admit, your idea would draw a few. But all the empty spots on Siege would be gone within a month, only to be held by absentee landlords who care only about selling the plot, then converting the gold into RL cash or cross-sharding to another location. What would happen when the plots weren't sold? They would sit, empty, preventing anyone else from having the opportunity to place a legitimate home. And they would be an incredible eye-sore, as well.

Sorry, gotta disagree with the whole 2 (or more) house thing...

 

[Patty Pickaxe]

I agree with Rico. I think the shard would fill up with "vacation" homes. So many people start out here, but end up going to back their old shard, never to return. Do you think- if they were allowed to place a 2nd house here- they would drop it before returning back to their shard. I don't. I think they would leave it just in case they ever chose to play here again. We already have so many homes that haven't seen it's owner in years.

If I agreed to a second house, it would agree to Spree's idea- the second home could be no bigger than an 8x8 and had to be manually refreshed like the old days. I would also suggest that it apply for EVERYONE on EVERY shard- not just a second house on Siege. That way we would get more production shard people with with us or against us. It would not be "another Siege thing" .

But wouldn't that be a HUGE undertaking by the devs? You saw how long it took for them to change the code for RoT. It could take them years to figure out how to code a second house with manual refresh.

 

[MerchantAtHome]

Not if they are all realtors in it for a quick buck, and not going to stay here to actually play the game. I agree it would be nice to be able to lure people away from their Trammel homes, thereby convincing them to discard all their worldly possessions, and come to Siege. And, I will admit, your idea would draw a few. But all the empty spots on Siege would be gone within a month, only to be held by absentee landlords who care only about selling the plot, then converting the gold into RL cash or cross-sharding to another location. What would happen when the plots weren't sold? They would sit, empty, preventing anyone else from having the opportunity to place a legitimate home. And they would be an incredible eye-sore, as well.

Sorry, gotta disagree with the whole 2 (or more) house thing...

I could place a half dozen houses on Siege right now. I could do the same on Atlantic or Lake Superior. You name the shard, I could place there.

So, why don't I? After all, according to your logic I should be able to place there and sell the houses for RL cash or gold.

The answer of course is that there is no demand. If there were a demand, those spots wouldn't be open.

It is ludicrous to think people would come to Siege, work to get enough gold to buy large housing plots, and then try to sell them. BECAUSE THERE IS NO DEMAND.

And if a bunch of people came here to place houses, played Siege for a bit, and were never heard from again, I'd take that. Because, if you allow people to give Siege a try, some will stay. And at this point, some is better than none.

The population of the shard is so low at the moment that anyone who thought to try Siege would log in, visit a few banks, see absolutely no one, and never come back.

 

[Chad Sexington]

I'd say yes, only if the 2nd house is a tiny 7x7 classic house.

 

[ChumBucket]

I could place a half dozen houses on Siege right now. I could do the same on Atlantic or Lake Superior. You name the shard, I could place there.

So, why don't I? After all, according to your logic I should be able to place there and sell the houses for RL cash or gold.

The answer of course is that there is no demand. If there were a demand, those spots wouldn't be open.

It is ludicrous to think people would come to Siege, work to get enough gold to buy large housing plots, and then try to sell them. BECAUSE THERE IS NO DEMAND.

And if a bunch of people came here to place houses, played Siege for a bit, and were never heard from again, I'd take that. Because, if you allow people to give Siege a try, some will stay. And at this point, some is better than none.

The population of the shard is so low at the moment that anyone who thought to try Siege would log in, visit a few banks, see absolutely no one, and never come back.

Bitter much? If you think the idea will fly, then by all means go suggest it to the DEVs. Hold a poll. Have a bake sale. But please, lose the anger. It isn't becoming, and it just shows a lack of restraint.

<<this portion edited out because I was shortsighted, apologies>>.

As for your assertion the sale of home plots on other shards for RL cash does not take place, I beg to differ. I hail originally from Lake Superior, and I still have characters there to talk to friends on. Houses sell for big money there, whether in gold or cash, and they sell frequently. After all, I sold my own home there to move to Siege, and I can say I made a very tidy sum of gold in the process.

 

[nightstalker22]

I could place a half dozen houses on Siege right now. I could do the same on Atlantic or Lake Superior. You name the shard, I could place there.

So, why don't I? After all, according to your logic I should be able to place there and sell the houses for RL cash or gold.

The answer of course is that there is no demand. If there were a demand, those spots wouldn't be open.

It is ludicrous to think people would come to Siege, work to get enough gold to buy large housing plots, and then try to sell them. BECAUSE THERE IS NO DEMAND.

And if a bunch of people came here to place houses, played Siege for a bit, and were never heard from again, I'd take that. Because, if you allow people to give Siege a try, some will stay. And at this point, some is better than none.

The population of the shard is so low at the moment that anyone who thought to try Siege would log in, visit a few banks, see absolutely no one, and never come back.

You make some very good and valid points...no, there isn't any demand currently, and this is the time to place the plots. If EA markets SA: Expansion properly, then the demand will be there, if people sit on their cheap investments long enough to capitalize on them.

 

[Lord_Puffy]

No No No, we dont need inactive people taking up castle spots with their 7x7 plots they forgot about. thanks but no thanks.

 

[Lord_Puffy]

Everyone who plays on Siege currently has all the houses they want. If a bunch of people suddenly came to the shard, somehow got the gold for 18 by 18's, and placed them, WHO WOULD BUY THEM?

LIES!!! How many people own castles? How many people would like to own a castle? EVERYONE just about? Well if you have people with their 7x7-8x8 plots blocking the castle spots that veterans have been dieing to have since their start here. Does that make an impact? I believe so, on our current population which if it gets any lower will be non exsistant... dont **** off the current players to make inactive/prodosharders happy.


I think it would be a little lame personally but so have alot of the recent patches/publishes.

 

[MerchantAtHome]

Bitter much? If you think the idea will fly, then by all means go suggest it to the DEVs. Hold a poll. Have a bake sale. But please, lose the anger. It isn't becoming, and it just shows a lack of restraint.

Your original post asked "What would you guys say to being able to have a house on Siege and on 1 production shard?" If you are not ready to hear the answers, then do not ask the question.

As for your assertion the sale of home plots on other shards for RL cash does not take place, I beg to differ. I hail originally from Lake Superior, and I still have characters there to talk to friends on. Houses sell for big money there, whether in gold or cash, and they sell frequently. After all, I sold my own home there to move to Siege, and I can say I made a very tidy sum of gold in the process.

It's not anger, it is frustration with the same tired old arguments.

Look, here is a thought exercise for you. Imagine a free shard, one with a low population like Siege. Imagine going there and placing a house and trying to sell it. Now, imagine going there and placing 100 houses and trying to sell them. What kind of luck do you think you'd have?

Alternatively, imagine Sonoma (the only US shard with a lower population than ours). Lets say that EA offered everyone on Siege a free house on Sonoma. How many people do you think would:

1. Want to play there?
2. Take the time to get gold to place a house?
3. Be able to sell that house once they placed it?

You say you were able to sell your house on Lake Superior. That's great. I imagine it must have been in a nice spot because I could go to LS and place an 18 by 18 right now. There are only so many good spots. On Siege, those are mostly taken. What is left are the spots no one on the shard wants. So, why not offer an opportunity for players from production shards to place here? Since the only spots that are available are the ones no one on Siege wants, we have absolutely nothing to lose.

It will never happen. The EA team can't properly code swamp dragon armor. They will never, ever mess with the housing code.

But, it would be awesome for Siege if they did just what the original poster suggested.

Entirely too many people here are against any sort of change. They would rather watch the population drop, literally one player at a time, until there is no one left to interact with. As a matter of fact, we are past that point now.

So again, what is the harm?

 

[MerchantAtHome]

Everyone who plays on Siege currently has all the houses they want. If a bunch of people suddenly came to the shard, somehow got the gold for 18 by 18's, and placed them, WHO WOULD BUY THEM?

LIES!!! How many people own castles? How many people would like to own a castle? EVERYONE just about? Well if you have people with their 7x7-8x8 plots blocking the castle spots that veterans have been dieing to have since their start here. Does that make an impact? I believe so, on our current population which if it gets any lower will be non exsistant... dont **** off the current players to make inactive/prodosharders happy.


I think it would be a little lame personally but so have alot of the recent patches/publishes.

If there are castle spots available now, then go ahead and place one. Since there aren't any spots now, adding 1000, or 2000 houses to the shard won't matter. There won't be any less spots for castles than there were before.

 

[MerchantAtHome]

You make some very good and valid points...no, there isn't any demand currently, and this is the time to place the plots. If EA markets SA: Expansion properly, then the demand will be there, if people sit on their cheap investments long enough to capitalize on them.

SA is an opportunity to make money off existing players, nothing more, just like UOML. When I see a Stygian Abyss box in Best Buy, I'll believe otherwise. However, since it has already been indicated that SA won't be in stores, the idea that it will generate new players is preposterous.

Since it isn't going to be in stores, the only people who will know it even exists are the ones already playing UO.

 

[Spree]

LIES!!! How many people own castles? How many people would like to own a castle? EVERYONE just about? Well if you have people with their 7x7-8x8 plots blocking the castle spots that veterans have been dieing to have since their start here. Does that make an impact? I believe so, on our current population which if it gets any lower will be non exsistant... dont **** off the current players to make inactive/prodosharders happy.


I think it would be a little lame personally but so have alot of the recent patches/publishes.

They should do away with Castle and Keeps the only reason anyone has them is storage. They are a big waste of space, give the large brick and the L shaped castle and keep lock downs. Any place that has become dominated by castles and keeps have become ghost towns.

 

[Bruin]

No frickin way!!! The minute they allow multiple shard housing, the open spots would disappear here on Siege. Most of the people who would place here would only do so, so they could have a house here to store things. It wouldn't increase population and then the people who wanted to move here wouldn't be able to place a home of their own.

As it is right now, Siege has areas where player run towns can be created, with your proposed chance, that option would end.

Either drop your house on the other shard, or learn how to live out of the bank with a combination of help from friends and placing ships to store your added loot...la

+1

Only way I'd agree to it is if both their Siege home and Prodo shard home were subject to the old decay rules. Otherwise all the trammies would just open up a home here on siege for the one day that they think they'll try Siege and all available land would be gone. Yes, there are plenty of available spots on prodo shards, but could you imagine taking the entire playerbase of the 20 prodo shards and saying 'hey you can have a free house on siege!'.

 

[Tjalle]

Someone in another thread like this on U.Hall suggested another option.

Increase the bank box.

Perhaps they could make it so that if your account has a house on another shard then you get 1000 storage space in your bank box.

Then if you place a house here you will have one week to empty your bank box before it goes down to 125/150 items.

Or something like that...

 

[MerchantAtHome]

+1

Only way I'd agree to it is if both their Siege home and Prodo shard home were subject to the old decay rules. Otherwise all the trammies would just open up a home here on siege for the one day that they think they'll try Siege and all available land would be gone. Yes, there are plenty of available spots on prodo shards, but could you imagine taking the entire playerbase of the 20 prodo shards and saying 'hey you can have a free house on siege!'.

I think that logic is way off, for reasons I already explained.

Even if thousands of people came to Siege and farmed up enough gold to place a house, why would it matter?

Everyone that plays Siege already has houses. The spots won't fill up, but so what if they do? What do you lose? Nothing.

On the other hand, it provides motivation and opportunity for players who do have interest in Siege to migrate here.

I'll take the trade.

 

[a ghoul]

I don't think we should have more than one house per account. Hell there is already a ton of houses on siege that just take up space the owners haven't been seen in who knows how long. All we need is more houses taking up space. Oh ya just take the bullet and start up another account for you siege home if you want one that bad.

 

[OldAsTheHills]

Wouldn't having more people come to Siege be a good thing?

Yes, if they were actually here playing, not just marking runes to leave at the bank to advertise their empty 18 x 18 lot for sale (with ICQ number on house sign ), then logging out.

I am Yahaxithonix the House Censustaker. I am getting sick of seeing
empty lots. I am petitioning King Casca for warrants against house owners
who have not improved upon their stewardship of the lands of Britannia.
Failure to do improvement should be countered with...TAXES!

May the powers that be... grant my petition if King Casca does not!

*stares*
Yahaxithonix

 

[Petra Fyde]

It might be possible, but here's the restrictions I'd impose:

Limited size
need to refresh
Extend the 15 day rule to say that 2nd houses can only be placed when the character placing also has 'veteran' status on the chosen shard - that's veteran by uo.com's character definition, ie 700/720 points? Not all would choose Siege as their 2nd shard. Some East coast players playing Atlantic might choose a 2nd home on Cats for eg, some Europa players might place a home on Drachs.

 

[rieley]

When an owner clicks the security on a door, maybe there could be an option to 'code' the door? We have co-owners, friends, guild, add 'code'. Where you enter a pin number. Then, before a person could open the door, the pin number would need to be entered.

This could open up hotels and boarding rooms, player run. A person comes to Siege, rents a room. This may bring in new players to try Siege out.

MHO

If players were given a second house on Siege, chances are most would set a house here. Why not? Anny/Vet gifts to trade? Many of us did give up our production shard homes because we plan to play Siege. I have five charaters in Atlantic sitting on beatles holding my belongs there. What would it do to bring a player from ALL the shards and allow them to place housing in Siege? Wouldn't there be more houses in Siege than say Atlantic alone?

What do you all think of providing room rentals at INNs and private run hotels?

 

[Cat Crimson]

There seems to be a lot of assumption here that people who have homes on other shards live in Trammel. Not so, at least not for me - never have lived in Tram or ever will. Also, I am not starting out here ( as some other people have assumed off board, in a kindly sense though ) I have been here for several years, living out of my bank box quite happily.

It was not so much a need for storage that prompted me to take the step of demolishing a house on another shard and placing one here as a wish for somewhere quiet and private I could work and think and gather resources. I am happy with my small house, my needs are not extravagant. Would I use it less or be less committed to the shard if I had been able to place in addition to a house on another shard ? No, but I do not regret the sacrifice of the other house, although it was painful, for the memories of the place. Siege is where I enjoy being most right now and I don't really see that changing.

The idea of going back to some form of manual refreshing if people were allowed to place a second house on any shard, not just Siege, has a lot of merit. There are a lot of reasons why people actively play more than just one shard and not all of them sinister or denoting lack of commitment.

 

[FrejaSP]

What would you guys say to being able to have a house on Siege and on 1 production shard?

Never!!, There are other ideas to solve this problem, Increase bank box to 2000 items or rent out rooms in town houses or build a few big houses with rooms for rent.

I mean...if you guys are completely different and I cant transfer on your shard. Do you really care if I have a house on Atlantic or Pacific?

We care if you have a house on Siege years after you gave up playing our shard. We don't need alot ghost houses, we need houses with active Siege Players

Because to be honest. Housing is one of my favorite things about UO and its one of the main reasons I dont play more on siege. Bank is full...nowhere to put anything....and I dont plan on selling all my Atlantic stuff.

Give up a house on normal shards or get a second account or join a guild and live in guildhouse.

 

[Nickster]

I just have to wait until my Siege har is 15 days old then i will be placing one there and saying goodbye to my Europa house.... i will miss it... but after just a week on Siege there is no going back!
i will keep my chars on europa for old times sake but can't imagine going back to a prodo shard again, Siege is so much closer to the UO i fell in love with all those years ago, if you want a house there then you should be willing to have it as your only house i say

 

[FrejaSP]

They should do away with Castle and Keeps the only reason anyone has them is storage. They are a big waste of space, give the large brick and the L shaped castle and keep lock downs. Any place that has become dominated by castles and keeps have become ghost towns.

Or maybe they should be limit to being guild houses. In TDO, we offer members without a Siege home, a corner for 2 locked chests and a few funitures. Keeps only have good useful rooms in the south towers.
When we get a castle, we will have 6 useful rooms in the towers.

I wish a new kind of strongboxes. Should work much like rentet vendors.

I buy a deed, set up how many tiles, could be 4x5 and lockdown limit.
Each 125 lockdown (max 4) will take 2 vendor spots from house sign.
I now place the rented space like if it had been a multi tile add on and target the char I want to rent it too.
I set up if it will auto renew like with vendors.

From now of, I can't access the tiles unless the renter friend me. Also I can't customize house if rented tiles in the house.
The renter will get a little sign, working like a house sign, also showing status of rent.

The renter can lockdown on his tiles.

I can access the sign and cancel the rent like with a vendor. If I cancel it, all lockdowns on the tiles will go to the renters bankbox, when the rent run out.

 

[Skylark SP]

*edit* Weird...Chumbucket's post is not the one I clicked to quote. I guess I should proofread better. So, this is now adjusted to be a general comment directed towards anyone who thinks that just because there is no RL sale demand for housing on Siege, and further that many people already have multiple accounts they could use to place a house on Siege now if they wanted, so having a "free" placement on Siege per account would not affect Siege housing...

You are forgetting an important part of the scenario. To place a house on Siege now you would have to devote ONE OF YOUR ACCOUNTS to do so. If you could place a house on Siege without that being a requirement, think of the possible complication of 28 other shard populations being able to place on our one shard WITH NO COST/SACRIFICE, and multiply that "free" house by the number of accounts for each player and our shard ends up an empty trailer park if even a fraction of the curious take advantage of that option.

-Skylark

 

[Gellor]

I do understand the "squatter" concern. I'd say there is a 50/50 chance of it becoming an issue if multihousing per account became a reality.

But if all the good spots are taken up already, what are people going to squat? A 12x12 in the middle of trinsic swamp? *confused*

Also as mentioned, the reason Siege isn't squatted now is because of no market for Siege houses. I'm not sure that will change with allowing more housing.

Plus, I think most people would flock to a shard other than siege. Siege is a tough shard where you don't get things instantly... it takes a good 2-3 weeks to gain skill to be competitive. By the overall tone of posts in UHall, people don't want tough or slow... they want everything fed with a silver spoon and they want it YESTERDAY

*shrug* I'm kind of mixed on this issue since I play another shard or three besides Siege

 

[Mook Chessy]

After 7 months here on Siege and alot of fun I finally sold my Luna house on Atl (not an easy piece of real estate to get) needless to say if the all of a sudden gave a second spot I would be pissed.


IMHO plenty of people try Siege, I see new char all the time but the fact is Siege is hard and most people can't handle it.

Think about it, you work all day get home, do all the stuff we do then finally get to log into UO. You grab the great Dagger you looted of a Lizardman, put on the one piece of Mana Regen armour you looted of a Harpie and off you go to grind ROT, when Bam your PKED!

That grey screen is enough for most to say screw this!

As I have said in past posts to me this is the key to the Siege Community, no jerkoff kids wrecking my game!

One only needs a quick look in on a prodo shard to see just how bad it is!!

So I say No NO NO one house only... Keep Siege the way it is.

I must say that I truley think the best way to raise the Siege population is to continue to tout its praises on Uhall. It was Kelmo's true passion for the shard that got me to take the leap!!!

 

[QueenZen]

About the only way I would agree would be IF EA UO opened up the AOS lands that they so far do not permit houses upon that have NOTHING even on them and *could* be utilised for some Immigrant housing project.. ie IF you own a home on some other shard and wanted one here ON ONE ACCT np but nothing larger than a vila or log cabin and only IN specified ...immigrant land try Siege see if ya like it land mass. There are lots of pixel lands empty cuz they are in AOS lands literally not used cuz EA never permitted housing there and NOTHING is even going on in some of those areas. Those *could* be utilised for some immigrant *trailer park* and it would leave the real lands of Siege presently available useable for those whom decide TO place here and play here more perma like. . not the yet undecided...ie set up like some 90 trial period their homes decay in these AOS lands after 90 days...at which time they can then decide to perma house here ie sell home or get rid of home on their other shard OR.....open another acct. to house their Siege chrs. here and keep their homes wherever on their orig older acct.

BUT EA created this one house per acct issue cuz they WANT MONEY. IE if one wishes to keep a home on a shard they were /are upon and also want a Siege home..............simple solution......EA money making one forced ..open another acct. to place on ANY other shard you may wish to play upon besides are main one.

I have always had 4 accts. active nearly since 98. *sometimes more* When I made the decision to play here more full time I had to get rid of pricey real estate two houses side by side used for Chesapeake museum of UO Chessie history..yrs worth of history ..to enable 2 accts. and all 4 of my siege chrs. to be housed here...and the older yet 2 accts there. *but EA thus gets 4 accts of rl gp off of me per month* THEY want it that way ..one house per acct or .........pay them for more accts. or we have to make that tough choice keep house we HAVE or had elsewhere ..or give it up for where we DO wish to place ...doubt they will change housing rule of one home per acct. simply cuz it nets them more money keeping that rule. And it is shards wide...some folks place on every shard even if they seldom use those accts or homes creating houses sitting all over unused .........even on Chesapeake I see it ...dead inactive homes on accts that play *elsewhere* and ditto for here and other shards.

We all like the housing feature ...kinda miss having the old rule of more than one home on ONE acct. like it used to be ...but even there on the other shards be then a larger nightmare 5-7 chrs. on one acct...owning homes all over if they change the rules.......to yes even having all the homes they want THERE and saving one chr. on one acct to hog up spaces here.

So maybe it sucks but in the end EA UO's housing rule simplifys everything..and nets THEM more money...want a home on some other shard we all have to own another acct. or 2 or more.

I have 2 homes here sometimes 3 and 2 on Chesapeake..or visa versa depending what I need em for when per season. 50 50 here there but I pay for the *privilege to be multishard housed* ! Just as EA wants it ! $$ for them.

 

[Lorddog]

no wait ... I have a solution!

lets take all the basic foundation lands and create a copy of them. then in the moongate have a link to those lands. we could also make it so noone could attack you in those lands - make it safe for the yahoos.

*ponders if this has ever been thought of before*



I vote no to more housing.
I vote to do away with castles and keeps as spree says.
I vote yes to condos build with ocean view. open to only those who have no house here.

Lorddog

 

[QueenZen]

*smacks him*

ye beginning to sound like Lord British there sir.

I mean seriously..............when Missy Minax and other evils scared the KING what he do but get some fancy pantser mages together and they created spells and magic gone weird and we ended up with our king shouting FLEE TO TRAMMEL instead of standin our ground fightin or dying with dignity in the ...land we were all born upon !!

I mean evil can go too far too and end up some sort of metalica nightmare transformer like Lord Blackthorn ended up then in a grave perma like .......but he never created some fleeing newbie land ordering citizens to FLEE crime and danger like British had done.

 

[MoonglowMerchant]

What would you guys say to being able to have a house on Siege and on 1 production shard?

I mean...if you guys are completely different and I cant transfer on your shard. Do you really care if I have a house on Atlantic or Pacific?

Or are you completely appalled at that idea.

Because to be honest. Housing is one of my favorite things about UO and its one of the main reasons I dont play more on siege. Bank is full...nowhere to put anything....and I dont plan on selling all my Atlantic stuff.

Since we are discussing ideas that will never get implemented...here is one.

Change all housing back to refresh rules. Instead of two weeks, make it that houses have to be manually refreshed by the owner once a month.

Then, allow multiple houses per account like it used to be but make it a vet reward.

One house at one year, two at two, three at three, four max.

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

no...la

 

[QueenZen]

Since we are discussing ideas that will never get implemented...here is one.

Change all housing back to refresh rules. Instead of two weeks, make it that houses have to be manually refreshed by the owner once a month.

Then, allow multiple houses per account like it used to be but make it a vet reward.

One house at one year, two at two, three at three, four max.

So that means I could have 16 houses here on Siege alone ? hehe

 

[nightstalker22]

I must say that I truley think the best way to raise the Siege population is to continue to tout its praises on Uhall. It was Kelmo's true passion for the shard that got me to take the leap!!!

That is correct sir, that is the only way we will raise the population. I need more people to loot and steal from! * evil grin *

We need to advertise this Werewolf game for tomorrow on other shard boards. No skills are required, so freshly new characters can play... they can watch the tournament this weekend, and get a feel for Siege...

 

[MoonglowMerchant]

no...la

In theory, is your objection to that idea that you don't like the manual refresh or that you don't like the idea of multiple houses on the same account or something else?

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

I posted an explaination ealier in the thread...la

 

[MoonglowMerchant]

I posted an explaination ealier in the thread...la

I read your other explanation as a rebuttal to the idea the production shard players be given the option to place an extra house on Siege.

This idea is that all players be allowed to place extra houses based on account age. So, production shard players would have the option of not placing, or placing those houses on other production shards, or placing one or more on Siege.

Additionally, Siege players would have the option of placing extra houses here or on other shards.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but formerly we didn't have restrictions on the number of houses we could have per account. They just had to be refreshed every two weeks.

So, how would allowing people to place a limit of four houses per account with a monthly refresh be worse than it was then?

I understand no changes to housing are coming, it's just for discussion.

I really don't understand your insistence on keeping the shard empty. There is a lot of empty space right now. You see that as a good thing. I see that as a bad thing.

We don't need to maintain all that empty space for players who will never play here. We need to offer incentives to get people to play here. Allowing them to have a house here would be an incentive.

Oops, I'm back to the original point now.

 

[nightstalker22]

We don't need to maintain all that empty space for players who will never play here. We need to offer incentives to get people to play here. Allowing them to have a house here would be an incentive.

Why don't they just make it so that the new character spawns with 1,000 gold, a book, candle, dagger, and a 18x18 house deed?

No incentives need to be given to get people here, if you bribe them here, someone else will offer more somewhere else and bribe them away. They need to want to be here, and thats what all these new event ideas that keep popping up are all about!