House reduction

[Lord Cavewight of GL]

Why would playerbase have any impact on how many houses we should own?

Does the playerbase and housing have an impact on eachother?
Yes it does, The less available houses the more likely a new player will stay.

I can not win with these statements by you. How can you say one thing in one comment, then completely change sides on the next post? I guess no matter what you say, your going to be right!

Is English your first language? You have two quotes:
1. Why would playerbase have any impact on how many houses we should own
2. Does the playerbase and housing have an impact on each other, yes they do.

These are what people like to refer to as different topics.
See a topic is a whole other subject. So ill walk you through this.

1. Why would playerbase have any impact on how many houses we should own
Explanation, Why should the amount of players secondage has compared to OSI impact how many houses "we should own" as in, Why should we negate era accuracy because of our playerbase ?

2. Does the playerbase and housing have an impact on each other, yes they do.
Explanation. the amount of available housing impacts how many players decide to play here and stay. To add an example, If we had completely empty land a player is more likely to leave the shard.

As I hope you can clearly see these are two completely different topics.

One involves why the playerbase should not negate Era accuracy..
While the other explains a relationship between housing and who decides to join or quit the shard..

I really hope you understand the difference.

[Biohazard]

again you avoid the fact that everyone can make 3 (or more) accounts.. it's the same thing that every person in your shoes averts their eyes from. its not about what effects what.. obviously the current situation works.. the point is it is not correct. 3 free accounts and multi-clienting in itself negates era accuracy.

[Lord Cavewight of GL]

again you avoid the fact that everyone can make 3 (or more) accounts.. it's the same thing that every person in your shoes averts their eyes from. its not about what effects what.. obviously the current situation works.. the point is it is not correct. 3 free accounts and multi-clienting in itself negates era accuracy.

I wasnt aware the cost of accounts was a mechanic?
Whats the server code for account cost again?



Heres the question you have never answered:

Why is people owning 15 houses a bad thing? How does it negatively impact the shard.

[Biohazard]

I wasnt aware the cost of accounts was a mechanic?
Whats the server code for account cost again?

Heres the question you have never answered:

Why is people owning 15 houses a bad thing? How does it negatively impact the shard.

its not about what effects what.. obviously the current situation works.. the point is it is not correct.

working and being correct are 2 different things. i have actually answered that one a couple times

era accuracy ≠ mechanical era accuracy... era accuracy encompasses more than just mechanics.

[Lord Cavewight of GL]

I wasnt aware the cost of accounts was a mechanic?
Whats the server code for account cost again?

Heres the question you have never answered:

Why is people owning 15 houses a bad thing? How does it negatively impact the shard.

its not about what effects what.. obviously the current situation works.. the point is it is not correct.

working and being correct are 2 different things. i have actually answered that one a couple times

era accuracy ≠ mechanical era accuracy... era accuracy encompasses more than just mechanics.

Ahh I see its not "correct"...
Why isnt it correct again? Because people had to pay monthly per account?

Would it be "correct" to charge per account, I guess it would and it would border on illegal as well.

Why are you even arguing for things completely outside the realm of possibility on a free shard?

This shard has stated its goal is "era-accurate mechanics".
Housing is era accurate mechanic wise, there's not much more to say.

[Biohazard]

Ahh I see its not "correct"...
Why isnt it correct again? Because people had to pay monthly per account?

yes

Would it be "correct" to charge per account, I guess it would and it would border on illegal as well. Why are you even arguing for things completely outside the realm of possibility on a free shard?

no, you could just have one account instead and not charge for it. im not arguing for anything like that.. simply saying how it was while staying within the realm of legality.

[Lord Cavewight of GL]

no, you could just have one account instead and not charge for it. im not arguing for anything like that.. simply saying how it was while staying within the realm of legality.

On OSI I could have as many accounts as I wanted.


How would limiting accounts to one be "correct"? I didn't have only one account on OSI

[Biohazard]

On OSI I could have as many accounts as I wanted.
How would limiting accounts to one be "correct"? I didn't have only one account on OSI

it wouldnt be.. the point is there was a curb in place to keep every person from creating 3 or more accounts.. to be fully correct something like charging per account or limiting it to 1 account unless you choose to donate for a second or third.

[Lord Cavewight of GL]

On OSI I could have as many accounts as I wanted.
How would limiting accounts to one be "correct"? I didn't have only one account on OSI

it wouldnt be.. the point is there was a curb in place to keep every person from creating 3 or more accounts.. to be fully correct something like charging per account or limiting it to 1 account unless you choose to donate for a second or third.

To charge for accounts or donate for accounts would be borderline illegal and would get us shut down.

This shard will never be pay for play, so why keep posting about it?

[Biohazard]

To charge for accounts or donate for accounts would be borderline illegal and would get us shut down.

This shard will never be pay for play, so why keep posting about it?

you really dont know anything on the subject so why speak on it?

[Lord Cavewight of GL]

To charge for accounts or donate for accounts would be borderline illegal and would get us shut down.

This shard will never be pay for play, so why keep posting about it?

you really dont know anything on the subject so why speak on it?

Why make a post with no content? Its a little childish to resort to insults.

[Biohazard]

Why make a post with no content? Its a little childish to resort to insults.

It wasn't an insult. just saying you dont know anything about the fine line of what it takes to make it illegal.

[Lord Cavewight of GL]

Why make a post with no content? Its a little childish to resort to insults.

It wasn't an insult. just saying you dont know anything about the fine line of what it takes to make it illegal.

One, yes it would be illegal to charge people to play EA`s creation.

It sounded like you were commenting on my lack of knowledge on housing sorry I took your post the wrong way.

[Biohazard]

One, yes it would be illegal to charge people to play EA`s creation.

you are not outright charging for shard usage though in my scenario. you get base shard access.

[Lord Cavewight of GL]

One, yes it would be illegal to charge people to play EA`s creation.

you are not outright charging for shard usage though in my scenario. you get base shard access.

Two things:

1. Pay for access even if basic access is included is illegal.
2. Adding a major advantage for donators is much worst then any perceived problems with housing.