UO Second Age

There is no need for a server wipe, such as another thread currently is debating.

But why is there little housing available, with only 10-20 players (unique) online?

There are a lot of things that are not era accurate on this shard, and one of them is the amount of accounts that someone is able to use (unlimited with a VPN), place a hundred houses, and refresh them for years without actually playing and contributing to the shard.

I propose that we need to wipe housing from accounts that do not have sufficient in game time. This would not be a requirement to have characters logged in for X amount of time during a week or two, but it would be much broader, perhaps over a month or two time-span. There could be case by case exceptions with the approval of staff members.

This would increase the daily shard population (forcing log ins for hours, not seconds), making it more attractive for new players, and it would REMOVE, unused, wasted housing and everything that comes with it (billions removed from the UOSA economy).

Flame away crybabies.

Era inaccurate af. What would uosa43 think?!

But that would be "unfair" to the people who "worked hard" to buy a house on a dead shard that they log in every 10 days to refresh.

I possess some answers to the OP.

Firstly, nothing that is not mechanically era-accurate is ever likely to be implemented here. Administration possesses their own stance regarding multiple accounts and multi-clienting.

As to the shortage of housing-spots, there must exist a large population of accounts that are 5xhouses, and all only in refresh (or, "extremely-casual-playing") mode, and I think that is unfortunate, and a detriment to the shard's health. However, I can't blame any/all non-cheating players for wishing to safeguard their in-game possessions. Many, I'm sure are waiting for some form of change, here, hedging their bets that they might find reason to play more often.

Now, there does exist a limit on "refresh housing": the owning-account of any property must log-in at least once within any six-month span, or the house will be condemned, and can not be refreshed; not much, really, I concede, but it exists.

Players have let their properties fall: UOSA has, in fact, lost some huge assets; Rune-Libraries, and such.

And yet there is still a placement shortage for anything larger than a 7x7.

Yet, because of the huge population on OSI, things were no different then: everything bigger than a 7x7 was already placed …

I can't conceive of any solution, era-accurate or otherwise, that would be fair to all players.

SS

Is housing still an issue here? Just starting out for the first time and I'm already tired of stabling / inn log-outs. I haven't placed as of yet since I'm broke as a joke but it was certainly on my short list....

SighelmofWyrmgard wrote:I possess some answers to the OP.

Firstly, nothing that is not mechanically era-accurate is ever likely to be implemented here. Administration possesses their own stance regarding multiple accounts and multi-clienting.

As to the shortage of housing-spots, there must exist a large population of accounts that are 5xhouses, and all only in refresh (or, "extremely-casual-playing") mode, and I think that is unfortunate, and a detriment to the shard's health. However, I can't blame any/all non-cheating players for wishing to safeguard their in-game possessions. Many, I'm sure are waiting for some form of change, here, hedging their bets that they might find reason to play more often.

Now, there does exist a limit on "refresh housing": the owning-account of any property must log-in at least once within any six-month span, or the house will be condemned, and can not be refreshed; not much, really, I concede, but it exists.

Players have let their properties fall: UOSA has, in fact, lost some huge assets; Rune-Libraries, and such.

And yet there is still a placement shortage for anything larger than a 7x7.

Yet, because of the huge population on OSI, things were no different then everything bigger than a 7x7 was already placed …

I can't conceive of any solution, era-accurate or otherwise, that would be fair to all players.

SS

Individuals refreshing houses without playing are a HUGE poison to the shard. Imagine if 2,500 accounts/USD were not accounted for. That's a lack of $25,000+ PER MONTH. OSI easily had 2,000+ per server.

DIVETX wrote:Is housing still an issue here? Just starting out for the first time and I'm already tired of stabling / inn log-outs. I haven't placed as of yet since I'm broke as a joke but it was certainly on my short list....

Are you talking mount or pack-animal? Pack-animals would have to be stabled but, if you are mounted when you log-out, your mount logs-out with you. You could find 7x7 spots here and there, pretty much everywhere; larger might require some searching. I think it was during UO:R that OSI imposed a limit of one house per account. As I stated in the other thread, the ruleset here is t2A: during t2A, players were permitted one house per character.

uosa44 wrote:Individuals refreshing houses without playing are a HUGE poison to the shard. Imagine if 2,500 accounts/USD were not accounted for. That's a lack of $25,000+ PER MONTH. OSI easily had 2,000+ per server.

I agree, completely, but I can conceive of no valid solutions. Someone who is both really canny and really savvy at house placement can still find spots. There exists an additional "twist", however: there are players who choose to 'hog' castle/keep spots, by the cunning placement of a L-Shape/Patio/Tower.

Placing and occupying 'your dream home' on UOSA is no easier now than it ever has been, in spite of the reduced actively-playing population.

SS

I disagree that housing is an issue at all right now. I roam the map from time to time and there are plenty of grass spots for larger homes (bricks, patios, L-shapes, towers). Take a walk north of Yew, or either south or northeast of Vesper, or north of Cove, or even near the Britain moongate there is a 2-story spot that I'm tempted to take. Keep or castle placement may be near impossible (might be some open spots in the swampy areas). But if you're expecting premium housing to just fall into your lap, forget about placing and pony up the gold. Post a buy thread on the forums or ask around on Discord. Find someone who sells at reasonable prices (they do exist - I saw Fox selling a nice keep for small deed over cost the other day on Discord).

All that to say -- there is no need for a housing wipe. Housing here on UOSA is more open and affordable than it has been in years.

Markus wrote:I disagree that housing is an issue at all right now. I roam the map from time to time and there are plenty of grass spots for larger homes (bricks, patios, L-shapes, towers). Take a walk north of Yew, or either south or northeast of Vesper, or north of Cove, or even near the Britain moongate there is a 2-story spot that I'm tempted to take. Keep or castle placement may be near impossible (might be some open spots in the swampy areas). But if you're expecting premium housing to just fall into your lap, forget about placing and pony up the gold. Post a buy thread on the forums or ask around on Discord. Find someone who sells at reasonable prices (they do exist - I saw Fox selling a nice keep for small deed over cost the other day on Discord).

All that to say -- there is no need for a housing wipe. Housing here on UOSA is more open and affordable than it has been in years.

The housing of this server is the equivalent of a 2,000+ population OSI server. The server popluation is about 15-20 players, think about that.

How can this server increase it's population when large groups of players (yes, guilds etc, not just individuals) take a look and see that it would be very hard to establish a guild residence. Sure, you can probably buy a keep from someone else, but then every member of the guild has to buy a personal large house too.

I never mentioned a housing wipe. I just brought up that there should be a minimum playing time to keep your house. Hell, even if you log in and ghost the house, at least it increases the shard population which will attract more players.

ANYONE saying this isn't era accurate, well EVENTS are not, and were removed at one point because so, but then brought back. So REMOVE events if you want accuracy.

uosa44 wrote:

Markus wrote:I disagree that housing is an issue at all right now. I roam the map from time to time and there are plenty of grass spots for larger homes (bricks, patios, L-shapes, towers). Take a walk north of Yew, or either south or northeast of Vesper, or north of Cove, or even near the Britain moongate there is a 2-story spot that I'm tempted to take. Keep or castle placement may be near impossible (might be some open spots in the swampy areas). But if you're expecting premium housing to just fall into your lap, forget about placing and pony up the gold. Post a buy thread on the forums or ask around on Discord. Find someone who sells at reasonable prices (they do exist - I saw Fox selling a nice keep for small deed over cost the other day on Discord).

All that to say -- there is no need for a housing wipe. Housing here on UOSA is more open and affordable than it has been in years.

The housing of this server is the equivalent of a 2,000+ population OSI server. The server popluation is about 15-20 players, think about that.

How can this server increase it's population when large groups of players (yes, guilds etc, not just individuals) take a look and see that it would be very hard to establish a guild residence. Sure, you can probably buy a keep from someone else, but then every member of the guild has to buy a personal large house too.

I never mentioned a housing wipe. I just brought up that there should be a minimum playing time to keep your house. Hell, even if you log in and ghost the house, at least it increases the shard population which will attract more players.

ANYONE saying this isn't era accurate, well EVENTS are not, and were removed at one point because so, but then brought back. So REMOVE events if you want accuracy.

Shut up?

Capitalist wrote:Era inaccurate af. What would uosa43 think?!

Events are Era inaccurate af. shut up?

Someone seems butt hurt about this thread.

uosa44 wrote:

Capitalist wrote:Era inaccurate af. What would uosa43 think?!

Events are Era inaccurate af. shut up?

Someone seems butt hurt about this thread.

I'm the one writing a thesis...

I spent a hour or so roaming the map this weekend and came across 3 spots where a keep could be placed. If there are keep spots open, I'd say it doesn't seem to be an issue.

Apocalypse wrote:I spent a hour or so roaming the map this weekend and came across 3 spots where a keep could be placed. If there are keep spots open, I'd say it doesn't seem to be an issue.

The amount of placed housing to player ratio is so bad, that it prevents the shard from growing.

But this shard is filled with individuals that suffer from compulsive hoarding disorder.

uosa44 wrote:

Apocalypse wrote:I spent a hour or so roaming the map this weekend and came across 3 spots where a keep could be placed. If there are keep spots open, I'd say it doesn't seem to be an issue.

The amount of placed housing to player ratio is so bad, that it prevents the shard from growing.

But this shard is filled with individuals that suffer from compulsive hoarding disorder.

He just told you that with very little effort you can place a keep. This is the second largest house type on the shard. Limited housing spots hasn't been an issue for some time now.