Would you place a smaller home if they?

[Lord Drakelord]

If they allow you place a smaller house, Villa or smaller, on other shards without losing your declared primary home would you place? This would be on other shards only, not your primary home shard. You would of course have to log in on those shards to refresh these smaller homes say every 15 days [two weeks for Vacations periods]. I would in a heartbeat myself as we have charactors on most shards that live in the Inns and keep all thier stuff in the bank.

 

[Luna du Selene]

Yes, and for the same reason

 

[ShadowJack]

Yeah that rule never made sense to me



with trammel added there has always been spots for smaller houses

 

[Arcus]

What I would rather see is the ability to "downsize" large home but keep the same storage. For whatever reason I like the small towers. Always have. Even on my 18x18 I built a small tower with the rest grass and deco.

 

[phantus]

I'd like to see a max footprint that allows houses to be placed in any pattern available. IE if 20 be the max then you could place 2 10x10 houses. So on...

That and make every house with the same lockdown limit.

 

[Lord Drakelord]

What I would rather see is the ability to "downsize" large home but keep the same storage. For whatever reason I like the small towers. Always have. Even on my 18x18 I built a small tower with the rest grass and deco.

My daughter alway liked the Villa, so on her 18x18 sits a villa with a basement

 

[ultima online]

na ild offer up mine, if i was allowed to, to someone else who wanted too. im not fussed at placing a small house on any other shard other than my own, if other people want to do it fair play to them, its just not an option that interests me

 

[Strawberry]

A second smaller house on any shard would be an excellent idea (as would allowing each account a certain amount of square footage to be used for one or several houses). Only allowing the two houses to be on separate shards would be of little use to most players and a godsend to scammers.

 

[jelinidas]

I have always wanted a house on SP, but not willing to give up my Cats home. I love the idea, even if it was a 8x8.

 

[Ailish]

One of the big reasons I don't play on Atlantic much anymore is that I did not have a house of my own and I had no interest in dropping the keep I have on Napa for a small house on Atlantic.

However, I have nothing against small houses! On a different account I recently placed a Marble w/Patio on a plot a Large Tower would actually fit ... but I hate towers so much! And ... I always did want a Marble w/Patio, back when there was no house available at all

 

[Flora Green]

I would have voted yes except I don't wish to refresh. Things happen that prevent us from logging in. I was absent 3(maybe 4?) months last year for reasons I had no control over. While the game isn't anything near as important as what was going on IRL, when I was able to return it was nice to know my things were still there.

Otherwise, I am right there with you. The one house per account was a stupid rule to begin with.

 

[Crystal Canyon]

I always thought what they should do is to give you so many "squares" per account. That way you could place either one large house or several smalls ones and decide if you want to use all your "square" footage on one shard or several.

It would make it easier for people to play other shards if they had some sort of storage there, and give them the options of using all there space on one plot of several.

 

[Norrar]

id happily place a smaller house, need another for rp reasons anyway.

 

[Devil's Advicate]

What we need is some apartments or condo's. I nice little room somewhere that all the chars for your account can swap stuff. 2 chest 250 secures and 10 lockdowns for deco. Nice little efficancy. Short run from a city. The rent pays the guards to keep the riff raff out.

Peace
DA

 

[Patty Pickaxe]

I answered no, mainly because Siege is the only shard I play on. I have no need to place a house anywhere else. However, I would not be opposed to the idea as long as the need to refresh is in place. I understand things happen in RL that people have no control over, HOWEVER if there was no refresh requirement, many shards would be filled up with empty houses that no one ever lives in. Hell, that is the case now! Do you really want to double the problem?

@Devil's Advicate- I always thought it would be great if we could rent out rooms at the inns in the cities. I think most rooms have at least one chest. Of course, I image that would be a coding nightmare!!

 

[Lord Drakelord]

I answered no, mainly because Siege is the only shard I play on. I have no need to place a house anywhere else. However, I would not be opposed to the idea as long as the need to refresh is in place. I understand things happen in RL that people have no control over, HOWEVER if there was no refresh requirement, many shards would be filled up with empty houses that no one ever lives in. Hell, that is the case now! Do you really want to double the problem?

That a big reason why I put the refresh in it. I understand if you were absent due to service overseas, but to not have the refreshing would give us the problem we had with the small towers people placed all over. Also not refreshing the smaller homes would give IDOC hunters something to do as well . Besides if you friended some folks they could refresh the house for you during your absent. I would love to place a smaller home on several shards where I have a GM charactor. On Siege I have a elder archer, be nice to place a small house near Trinsic so I could pop over for fun and games when Sonoma is down, etc..

 

[Infiniti]

I voted yes. I would love a small house on Pac and there are tons of small plots on most shards available, from what I've seen anyways.

 

[THP]

Indeed if every player placed a second house on a second shard there would still be heaps of empty land all over UO... AND I MEAN heaps of empty land

 

[SeaCaptain]

I would have to agree I would place in a heart beat. thats one reason I dont travel to far to other shards lol

 

[the 4th man]

I voted nay, as I am lucky to have time to play the one shard I'm on let alone two......

 

[Setnaffa]

Of course I would.

Now ask yourself this question....where is everyone going to place all these fantasy houses? In the clouds? There is nowhere near enough space for every account to place a second house; even if it is a 9x9.

And to those who say there would be plenty of space. You are kidding yourselves.

 

[Infiniti]

Of course I would.

Now ask yourself this question....where is everyone going to place all these fantasy houses? In the clouds? There is nowhere near enough space for every account to place a second house; even if it is a 9x9.

And to those who say there would be plenty of space. You are kidding yourselves.

I don't know what shard you are playing on but on LS there is lots of room for small houses to be placed.

 

[Nystul]

Because I find on average 10-15+ IDOCs a week I vote yes.

 

[Flora Green]

I simply wouldn't bother with a second house per account if refresh was a requirement. Not everyone has friends to refresh the house if something comes up for the owner. One should be able to return to the game after an absence and have their house intact as long as the account remained active and paid.

 

[Uvtha]

Nope. I only play siege. I have no interest in other shards, although I do have a grandfathered house on LS.

 

[Traveller]

No, I wouldn't. Not because I don't want to, but because having to refresh it every 15 days kinda beats the point in paying for the account. If I pay I don't want to be bothered, even if i feel like to take a 2 months break. If I pay I want to be able to play as much as I want on my primary shard, and go to the secondary (which would be siege) whenever I feel like it, not being forced to remember every 15 days to refresh it.

I don't know for how many people that goes, but the fact that I can't have even a 7x7 house on siege while keeping at least a small house on my home shard (or vice versa, I suppose I might declare siege my primary shard and my home shard a secondary) is the reason I have closed my account (otherwise, instead of not playing anymore I would be playing almost exclusively on siege, at the moment). Of course I realize that if everybody in the game were allowed this there probably would be much overcrowding. So... it's a problem, isn't it?

Edit: since I would like a second house, but without decay, I didn't vote in the poll.

 

[Setnaffa]

I don't know what shard you are playing on but on LS there is lots of room for small houses to be placed.

So are you saying half the housing space is available on LS? How about 30%? There might be room for 100 houses. Even 200. That would give a grand total of about 4,000 house for all Shards. Do you think that is enough for 100,000 accounts? OK. Let's say there are only 50,000 accounts.

Even a 9x9 requires a plot of about 13x15 to place it. Only one 9x9 would fit on a plot that would hold a 18x18.

 

[Violence]

Having only 1 home makes you really pick your shard although Coownership removes that if someone trusts you enough and grants it to you on another shard.

Just pick your shard will you? Everyone's afraid of choices and their down-sides hence gimps. No need to be gimp in housing too. ;P

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

No thanks. I like seeing spots for 18x18s all over Siege. If this came into play there would be a bunch of homes placed for people who spend no time on the shard and prevent the people who do play, fewer spots...la

 

[Lord Drakelord]

No thanks. I like seeing spots for 18x18s all over Siege. If this came into play there would be a bunch of homes placed for people who spend no time on the shard and prevent the people who do play, fewer spots...la

You know why I don't play Siege on my Elder archer anymore, because of the one house one shard rule. Used to have a L shape outside Trinsic but gave it away when I took over the THB tower on Sonoma. Now I been ofter to be a friend at several houses there but I rather have a place of own but not lose my Tower on Sonoma.

 

[Traveller]

Having only 1 home makes you really pick your shard

Or makes you close your account. As I did.

 

[Coppelia]

I play on one shard. I can't play on several shards at the same time, thus I should be splitting my time between shards. I'm not sure how being less present helps any community.
I'm not interrested in messing up housing estates market.

 

[Annabelle1]

I always thought what they should do is to give you so many "squares" per account. That way you could place either one large house or several smalls ones and decide if you want to use all your "square" footage on one shard or several.

It would make it easier for people to play other shards if they had some sort of storage there, and give them the options of using all there space on one plot of several.

I really like this idea I would definitely go for this.

 

[azmodanb]

I voted yes... would be nice to have another house even a 7x7, on another shard so I could move to another shard and not have to live out of my bank or another persons home.

BUT i would rather have a second house even a 7x7 on my current shard.

 

[The Home Guild]

If we were allowed to have max storage on a small shack of love i'd take that over a castle.

 

[Eslake]

Even if they allowed each account to place 1 7x7 on a shard other than their primary home, there would be no space left for housing on any shard inside a week.

Eg 1: placing where there are No obstructions, just wide open flat terrain without rocks trees or spawn. a 7x7 actually uses up 9x15 space because you cannot place withint 1 tile e/w or within 4 tiles of steps north (or south of your own steps). ((and steps are 1 tile themselves))

Eg 2: a space big enough to fit an 18x18, meaning obstructions e/w are 20 tiles apart, and 24 n/s. Placing a 7x7 in the center of that space uses ALL of it. There is no space left on any side of it to place the smallest house.
(a 7x7 just used up 20x24)

 

[Strawberry]

Aside from the obvious scams that would happen if the second house had to be on a different shard, also consider how many people would snap up small houses in good vendors spots on Atlantic or other popular shards just so they could rent out the space and xshard the money back to themselves every few months. The popular shards would be hurt by such a rule and they wouldn't be compensated by having extra players because the absentee landlords would continue to play on their primary shards.

A small house or an amount of square footage we can distribute between houses on one or several shards is a great idea. Restricting it by requiring the houses to be on different shards would cause problems.

 

[RoseBlue]

of course ! we should be able to have houses on every shard we play on,I think, especially nowadays when there are few players : this would bring some life back on most shards BUT I still would prefer the ability for us to Xshard freely via a moongate.