We can rent a vendor, why can't we rent secure container?

[Guest]

Special on Siege, players with Siege as second shard need a place to call home.

It could work like rented vendors, only the renter will have access to the secure and if he of some reason can't access it (locked doors), he can access it via house sign.
There will be a fee to the system, just like with vendors. could be 1000gp a week and the house owner can demand a fee toom just like with rented vendors.
If paid, the house owner will have to give a month's notice to cancel the contract.

Sure there should be a limit for how many secures an account can rent. Maybe max 4 if no house on the shard and only one if the account do have house on the shard.

If the renter want to place a house, he will have to cancel the contract for all but one secure (remove auto renew) and he won't be able to renew them after he place a house.

 

[deadite]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why not just ask for an increase in bank storage for Siege? Seems like that would be a lot easier to implement...

With the one character limit (read: one bank box limit) and the one house limit (that many Siege players have placed on their "home shard"), I think you would have a pretty good argument for getting bank storage increased for Siegers.

EDIT: Typos and such.

 

[Guest]

Yes increased bank storage will work too and be easier. However my idea would allow the homeless players to live in the player towns in a friends house.

I can place a box for a new player now but it will count against my private storage and it won't be safe for the new player as I will have full access to it and can kick him from the house and keep his box with items.

This idea will be a better deal for the renter and if he stop playing, I can cancel the contract and he will have a month to move most important stuff to the bank.

 

[deadite]

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea...

I guess I was considering how much dev time is spent on Siege and how the basic idea of your request could be fulfilled realistically.

 

[Guest]

True but this idea may work on other shards too, alot do play 2 shards. Also it could be useful in vendor houses, where players could rent a secure together with their vendors.

I believe they copy most of the code from vendors, only the limit part will may give problems.

 

[Guest]

Maybe a special exception should be made for siege where you're allowed to place a 2nd small house if you already have one on a prod shard, or perhaps institute something along the lines of a safe deposit box.

 

[imported_UONutt]

I for one would be happiest with a second house option. The option for a second house would be Seige only.

I've played a "regular" shard for almost 4 years. I have a house and a guild house - 2 accounts. I'm used to home ownership. On Seige I feel out of place - even though i have a bank box and friends have offered storage space in their house.

Having a house on Seige - even a small one - would go a ways to making me feel more a part of Seige. It would encourage my spending more time and effort there.

Just my opiinion.

 

[Guest]

We can't allow a second house on Siege. It would mean thousand of ghost houses placed of players who once started on Siege but gave up again.
Only way to allow a second house on Siege would be limit to a small house and the account who own it would have to refresh it each 2 weeks.

 

[Africanus]

"We can't allow a second house on Siege. It would mean thousand of ghost houses placed of players who once started on Siege but gave up again.
Only way to allow a second house on Siege would be limit to a small house and the account who own it would have to refresh it each 2 weeks. "

Who is we, THEY most certainly can and should. This will help promote the shard which is badly in need of players. Hopefully the house ownership will promote more activity on the shard.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

This will help promote the shard which is badly in need of players. Hopefully the house ownership will promote more activity on the shard.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would work like if you pee in your pants to get warm. It would work a short time, then everything would be worse.

If every account could place a second small house on Siege, without need to refresh, it would work great a short time, then the shard would be filled of ghost houses and there would be no land left for new players who want a second house on Siege.

Without refresh all this former SP players would have zero reason to take down their house as it would not give them a house on an other shard.

With rented secures, we would be able to control it and kick the secures if the players stop playing Siege.

 

[Guest]

I understand a second house on Siege would be a great help for many. If just I knew, players would remove their second house again if they decide, Siege is not for them.

 

[Olahorand]

Therefore the general allowance for a second house on a different shard would be better - players would have to make a choice then.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Therefore the general allowance for a second house on a different shard would be better - players would have to make a choice then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, if only allowed on Siege, Siege would get a problem. If a second house is allowed on any shard, players would drop the house to place on a shard they play.