universal housing - i said it

[Poo]

so i think the game is at the point where a lot of people have finally caught up to me and are playing on numerous shards not just their main and a backup.
is it time that maybe the powers that be look at allowing us to place a small cottage on every shard?

most shards are ghost towns when it comes to housing and you can place a small thatched roof pretty much anywhere.

is it time?
i think its getting there.
nothing worse then getting bored at home and going to roll out on another shard for a bit and having to drop stuff behind the old bank wall and leave it there for another toon, or get fancy and log in another account and have a beetle friended to everyone and just use it as a cold drop.

would be so much nicer to just have a small house in the woods somewhere i could recall into and repair my suit and stuff.

i believe the time has come.
we have seen how it worked on Siege and yes there was some growing pains but i think it leveled out now.

really miss having all those 'return to brit' free houses years ago.
*sigh*

 

[Gem]

Back in the first year you could have five houses per account I understand why they cut it back, but it would be nice to do something like this.

 

[TheMiner]

Back in the first year you could have five houses per account I understand why they cut it back, but it would be nice to do something like this.

I dont see it happening. But if it did, I'd say limit it to a main house. Whatever size, then allow no more than say 2 sm stone and plasters wherever.

If it were to happen and it's a cold day in hell idea, it would be a terrible idea to not have a limitation of some sort.

But I remember seeing things like a LG tower w a sm stone n plaster on the roof. But I'm guessing those have all been demolished in one way or another by now.

 

[MissEcho]

What they should do is allow you to have ONE extra house per account for production shards that allowed max storage of an 18x18 (similar to how you can have an extra house on siege/mugen).

So if you are gonna go play for a while on xxx shard you can place, play there, and if you then want to move to another shard, bank your stuff (fill up bank and sit on loaded beetle) demolish that house and place again on the new shard, while maintaining your existing 'home shard' houses. Second houses on prodo shards should NOT be castles or keeps as otherwise people will just hog those spots and permanent residents may never be able to get one.

I think that would be a happy medium rather than allowing people to place a house on every shard. If they open it up to one per shard I know I would end up placing 'just in case I wanted to play somewhere when I may never actually do that. I know I am not alone there so it would soon be that there was NO places for permanents.

Don't really see the point in making them only tiny houses. Up to an 18 x 18 should be fine on most shards if you can ONLY place on one other.

 

[WarderDragon]

Didn't this create problems on Siege?

I like the idea of having a second home on another shard. But I worry that this would just be a way for opportunists to hog prime real estate and never actually invest in their secondary shard.

 

[TheMiner]

Didn't this create problems on Siege?

I like the idea of having a second home on another shard. But I worry that this would just be a way for opportunists to hog prime real estate and never actually invest in their secondary shard.

In this scenario, most might opt for ATL, that's fine and dandy. But me, I'd go for Baja as it was my original shard, which is now GL.

But like you said. I dont know that without shard shields, at least for me. I might not use it much. Which I suspect is the issue most players would have is sure, it's an easy placement. But using it short of creating guys on that shard to train and play is another due to the transfering issue.

But w shields in 3 yrs. I'd bunny hop every other month just bec. Sure, my old friends may not play any more or those that do. Dont play much, but its still a nostalgia thing for me even if shards are identical and one would argue, why go there if you don't have to.

But I'll at least play til EA / BS decides to turn the lights off. Whether that's 1 yr or 10. Who knows...

 

[Cerwin Vega]

I've had a similar idea but id be happy if they would just let us place a 7x7 on just one other shard... this is much less than one house on every shard and i know they wouldn't even do my idea let alone yours... but it definitely would be nice!

 

[MissEcho]

Didn't this create problems on Siege?

I like the idea of having a second home on another shard. But I worry that this would just be a way for opportunists to hog prime real estate and never actually invest in their secondary shard.

This would actually solve the problem on siege if you could only have one extra house on siege OR prodo shard. As I said, allowing houses on every shard people will place just because they can not because they 'need'. Just as what happened on siege, people placed not to play but 'just in case'.

A lot who placed on siege who never play there may move their house to LS or Origin or whereever else they may actually play.

Doing it one extra house per account means you can play other shards, but that you don't end up placing a bunch just because you can.

I currently have 3 account open, one extra house means I can place 3 more. If it was every shard it would mean I could place 30-40 houses, big difference.

 

[Danpal]

Have main shard any size. Then maybe 2nd house max storage size then any after that 7x7 small tower and below.

Would love to have a base on other shards

 

[Gem]

I've had a similar idea but id be happy if they would just let us place a 7x7 on just one other shard... this is much less than one house on every shard and i know they wouldn't even do my idea let alone yours... but it definitely would be nice!

I agree--I would be more likely to claim and use more sg=hard shields I would be fine with restrictions on number and/or size.

 

[Drakelord]

Used to have a small tower across several USA shards (way back). It was all we needed. Then the rule for one house one shard and since Sonoma is where we had the sand stone, we decided to keep it. This is when we had just the one account. Still miss having those small towers.

 

[Danpal]

Used to have a small tower across several USA shards (way back). It was all we needed. Then the rule for one house one shard and since Sonoma is where we had the sand stone, we decided to keep it. This is when we had just the one account. Still miss having those small towers.

I know the feeling Atl was my main shard but back in the day had about 10 to 12 grandfather smalls around the shards. Lost them when I quite the game.

 

[MalagAste]

Used to have my own small tower on GLs and my son had a Villa on Pac... but then I needed a bigger house and had to get a second account so I could...

 

[Cerwin Vega]

Maybe if we said they could sell us a house token from the online store for real money this idea would gain some traction

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

How about the availability of a tent on another shard?
Give our indigenous peeps some long overdue love

 

[chester rockwell]

I think they should demolish any housing greater than 5x5. Decoration is lame. It lags the server. It only looks good to people that get into that crud.

#defundcastles

 

[Lord Ron Fellows]

They would immediately lose maybe 50% of their subs if this were the case. So, no.

 

[mana hit]

Yup

 

[The Zog historian]

Back in the first year you could have five houses per account I understand why they cut it back, but it would be nice to do something like this.

Actually it was unlimited. You could place as many as you could, and all required to refresh a house was holding a key. There was no concept of ownership (by character let alone account) until the January 1998 housing publish that set a limit of one house per character.

A primary reason the land was filled with houses was that so many were rendered useless by a thief or PK that got a key. They'd keep refreshing a house out of spite, and either party would hope the other would quit the game so the house would become usable.

 

[Blackstar]

For practical purpose while maintaining the company's profitability & discourage hoarding, I'd rather suggest "upgraded" account option.

I suggest increase in housing ownership options per each account with additional fee in monthly subscription.
For example, if one agrees to pay twice the monthly payment amount per month, he gets to place another house.

 

[Drakelord]

For practical purpose while maintaining the company's profitability & discourage hoarding, I'd rather suggest "upgraded" account option.

I suggest increase in housing ownership options per each account with additional fee in monthly subscription.
For example, if one agrees to pay twice the monthly payment amount per month, he gets to place another house.

No way would I pay a double monthly payment per month just to get another house! Back when they had the house keys there was no insurance, insuring the house key would stop problems of losing them. Still with todays options we should be allowed to place on other shards much like we can place on Siege. We have four accounts, and have four homes on Sonoma and three on Siege. If they can do that then they can allow us to place across other shard one house, per shard, per account.

 

[MalagAste]

Long ago it was proposed that every account be given the ability to have up to 32x32... So if you want to have a bunch of 8x8s on multiple shards then so be it... or if you want them all on one shard... or you want 4 18x18's then you have 4 ... If you want a castle you have a castle... or a keep and an 18x18 or whatever combo up to 32x32...

Siege/Mugen wouldn't count though as you get 1 house there per account period.

 

[TheMiner]

For practical purpose while maintaining the company's profitability & discourage hoarding, I'd rather suggest "upgraded" account option.

I suggest increase in housing ownership options per each account with additional fee in monthly subscription.
For example, if one agrees to pay twice the monthly payment amount per month, he gets to place another house.

That's one of those cold day in Hell options. But that option already technically exist because if somebody wanted to they could just open a second account and just co own other characters.

 

[MalagAste]

If I was paying twice the payment I'd want twice the stuff which you do when you have more than 1 account ... It wouldn't make sense to pay 2x the payment and not have 7 more characters... get my drift...

If I paid an extra 2 bucks a month for a second house on the account yeah probably go that route but paying double would just be stupid.... if you are going and willing to pay that you may as well just get a second house holding account.

 

[TheMiner]

If I was paying twice the payment I'd want twice the stuff which you do when you have more than 1 account ... It wouldn't make sense to pay 2x the payment and not have 7 more characters... get my drift...

If I paid an extra 2 bucks a month for a second house on the account yeah probably go that route but paying double would just be stupid.... if you are going and willing to pay that you may as well just get a second house holding account.

I'd pay up to half sub, tiered at same discounts if paid up to 6 month blocks for a second house. But limitations of allowing only a second house would have to be in place for sure in lieu of someone truly wanting more, in which case. Pay for a second account or don't.

But as someone pointed out back a bit, maybe a limitation of the second house of a max size of 18x18.

It's not like it would even be hard to tell primary from secondary, because they already used to be able to do that back when.

 

[petemage]

Just open free shard transfers for all. Problem solved and a lot more.

 

[TheMiner]

Just open free shard transfers for all. Problem solved and a lot more.

I don't know that I would go that far about problem solved LMFAO

That's an entirely different subject...

 

[Lythos-]

I'd rather them do away with a few shards to combine the population not help spread it even further.

1 East, 1 West, 1 Midwest, 1 Euro 2 Asian would be a good start. Not counting the Seige/Mugen shards.

 

[TheMiner]

I'd rather them do away with a few shards to combine the population not help spread it even further.

1 East, 1 West, 1 Midwest, 1 Euro 2 Asian would be a good start. Not counting the Seige/Mugen shards.

And if this was 15 years ago, that wouldn't even be an idea. But now, you can figure out the math on your own but that would just make the Atlantic situation so much worse.

 

[TheMiner]

Setting aside my last reply, let me digress for a moment...

Regarding sharp population.

Whatever happened to possibly getting this on steam or whatever the heck EA / BS was talking about to help the game? I seriously hope it wasn't the thing about Seasons which is kind of cool.

 

[Deschet]

I like the idea of a total area footprint per account. Want a castle? You can burn up your total on one shard. Happy with something smaller? I personally play on more than one shard and would love to have a tiny base on a few.

 

[TheMiner]

I like the idea of a total area footprint per account. Want a castle? You can burn up your total on one shard. Happy with something smaller? I personally play on more than one shard and would love to have a tiny base on a few.

Thinking about it I kind of really like this idea the most bec it allows a player to have damn near what they want on any shard. Even if it is a few stone and plasters spread out.

But if I were to personally back an idea in any way shape or form, this would actually be the one to go with.

 

[The Zog historian]

How about the availability of a tent on another shard?
Give our indigenous peeps some long overdue love

Tents so someone could place a vendor like the old days? Combine this with the footprint idea: as long as you don't have a castle on any shard, you can place one tent in addition to any other house.

Now you have me thinking, imagine being able to place a wigwam or teepee and the PC crowd going bonkers.

 

[TheMiner]

I don't recall if I ever actually saw one, because it was before my time. I think I came in early 02.

But does someone have a picture of what the tents used to look like?

 

[The Zog historian]

Tent - UOGuide, the Ultima Online Encyclopedia

www.uoguide.com

They were actually done away with as part of the January 1999 housing publish. I don't have screenshots myself and don't remember the green ones, but the blue one's definitely correct. On Sonoma, the Britain-Yew-Skara crossroads area was filled with them, just a little 7x7 footprint and a spot to put a vendor (one vendor per house, before any concept of private/public housing). I don't recall that the chests could be lockpicked, but I never knew anyone who used them as storage. It was too easy to get jumped in the days when everyone and his uncle had high hiding.

Publishes back then weren't given numbers, and it was probably the biggest since the noto system was replaced. Whoever thinks housing is hard to place on Atlantic, imagine every shard having hardly any 7x7 spots. I wasn't the only one offering 25K to anyone who knew where to place a large patio. Every little spot was taken up, around the coasts of Jhelom, around the mountains of Covetous or Fire.

Edit: ha, I still have it! Also several named vendor deeds.