Era accurate Housing is not era accurate

[Eaglestaff]

Because it is not era accurate to -not- have to pay a monthly subscription for an account. Thus, arguing that the current housing system operates under era accuracy is a false pretense because the housing system is tied to the account system and the account system is not era accurate. Grandfather the current owners and implement some limitations.

[Lupos]

Agreed... whilst the house cluttered landscape does feel era accurate, 75% are totally empty. Every time I've said, people didn't have 3 accounts in secondage age era, some smartass pipes up and claims they did.

I think one house per account would really solve alot of the issues here.

[Dagon]

except one house per account is not era accurate. don't try to argue for accuracy while suggesting to implement something not accurate.

i had more than one account on OSI *shrugs*, i know i def had 2, i dont remember if i ever had a 3rd..

it's also not era accurate to be paying for high speed internet.. what do you want to do about that?

it's also not era accurate to have <1000 people on the server..... should we hire some chinese gold farmers to fill up the membership?

how about you just donate $10-$15/mo per account to Derrick for the server so you can feel accurate on the issue and stop suggesting something this ridiculous.

[Eaglestaff]

how about you just donate $10-$15/mo per account to Derrick for the server so you can feel accurate on the issue and stop suggesting something this ridiculous.

It's not that I want to be era accurate on this issue. Im simply appealing to the shard's mission statement in such a way as to address something that I feel IS ridiculous; ie: 250 people online and so little room for housing. I'm all for bending the rules if you like. An arbitrarily selected limitation on housing is less ridiculous than having a small percentage of the population owning the majority of the real estate and calling it "era accurate". Isn't it? Would it be ridiculous for houses to decay on a one week timer like they did?

[yossarian]

I was thinking about this the other day. I think the majority of people had only 1 account back in the day, meaning only 5 houses. I dont know if there is a good way to limit the number of houses across 3 accounts, so perhaps a compromise is 2 per account?

[Karik Verlee]

I dont see the problem at all. The only house that you really can't buy is a castle. Smalls you can place everywhere. Large houses you can place still or buy them super cheap. Im can't get rid of a 2-story for 197k. Yes that is a two story deed plus 5k.

Suck it up.

[Dagon]

I'm all for bending the rules if you like.

Would it be ridiculous for houses to decay on a one week timer like they did?

bending the rules is not the shard's mission statement... you are just all over the map on the issue.. make up your mind.. accuracy or not?

and 14 days decay is era accurate, where did you get one week from? if it were one week then it would be implemented here.....

[yossarian]

Its not the cost. I just wish that half the houses were not empty.

[fooka03]

Actually

House decay rate has been doubled (it is now approximately 11 days from perfect condition to its destruction).

That is era accurate. (from http://wiki.uosecondage.com/?title=Ulti ... 03/18/1998) I mean three days don't make a terribly huge difference but just the same.

As a compromise on this issue, my suggestion is to cap each account at three houses. As far as in era goes, one account was the norm, two happened on occasion, and three or more was practically unheard of. Capping each account at three houses brings the total for one person to 9 which is a little more in line with the upper limit you would potentially see from any one person on osi (10).

[Omnicron]

Just my little horn in. I would be fine with 2 houses per account. 3 would be more than enough. Grandfathering what houses everyone has right now also sounds like a good idea.

[Dagon]

house decay used to be 90 days here, so i guess you should be happy about small things.

i see some info about OSI servers recently about house decay being changed to 21 days, and prior to that it was 14.. so even with lack of evidence maybe it was changed to 14 days at some point, or maybe it was a > 2000 patch that changed it to 14.. who knows.

but your argument still fails by suggesting an inaccurate fix.. the only argument you have is to change the decay rate to the last information we have about the decay time, 11 days.. and that still wont do anything to alleviate house hoarding.

[Eaglestaff]

I'm all for bending the rules if you like.

Would it be ridiculous for houses to decay on a one week timer like they did?

bending the rules is not the shard's mission statement... you are just all over the map on the issue.. make up your mind.. accuracy or not?

and 14 days decay is era accurate, where did you get one week from? if it were one week then it would be implemented here.....

The rules are already bent. The account system is never going to function the same way on a freeshard the way it did then. It's a gray area in terms of what is technically era accurate and what is era accurate in practice. Sure you could have a house for every character and if you had 3 accounts you could have fifteen houses. That would be technically accurate. But that's not how things were back then in a practical sense. We cannot rely on our good ole technical "era accuracy" to provide the same guidelines when it comes to accounts. Accounts have no influence on any part of the game mechanic except this one. It is more reasonable to deal with the account system from a standpoint of practicality than saying that everyone can have 15 houses and calling that "era accurate". Isn't it?

[MatronDeWinter]

If co-owners did not exist (or were unable to own other houses), the number of homes on the server would significantly decrease.

Co-owners are not accurate, and if they were (which they are not), it is not accurate that they can own other houses.

[fooka03]

If co-owners did not exist (or were unable to own other houses), the number of homes on the server would significantly decrease.

Co-owners are not accurate, and if they were (which they are not), it is not accurate that they can own other houses.

Truth.

And also, it wasn't an argument I was posting, merely a suggestion to make things seem more era accurate (in regards to houses per person, not per account). Of course our other option is to cut down the max accounts per IP to two to achieve the same effect. That, however, would probably do a lot more harm than good where adjusting house limits still maintains a large degree of era accuracy (in having multiple homes per account) while also improving the empty housing situation.

Tbh, I want to see the effect of removing co-owners before really taking up the banner on one side or the other. I have a feeling that more houses will be used once you lose the ability to be "owner" of a single house with every character a person has.

[MatronDeWinter]

I have a feeling that more houses will be used once you lose the ability to be "owner" of a single house with every character a person has.

I agree, though the majority of houses will still be empty and "for sale deed + 50k pm <name>". The 3 account limit still allows alot of room for non-used 50/50 newbie characters to place all over the land.

I swear the majority of house owners on UOSA are newbies lol.