UO Second Age

More regulations on housing! Tax the rich! Redistribute the wealth!

GuardianKnight wrote:Too many houses owned by the same people and just being held. 15 houses per person. This was ok on OSI because you were paying for 3 accounts. It isn't ok here because it's free, obviously.

It should be 5 houses per IP. This would open up space for any new player that comes here and we'd lose a lot of the complaining that new players do about not being able to get a house.

The way housing is right now, it more mimics a exploit to the system, rather than a game feature.

The housing issue is not as bad as it appears. As an example, I took a quick sampling of the total number of houses in the world, and assumed that the number of unique IPs on the server at the same moment that I counted the total number of houses was both the total number of players who played on UOSA, and that none of the IPs actually had more than one person behind it. The resulting number of houses per IP was only at 9.74 under these extreme assumptions. So, when it comes to houses, UOSA really doesn't have some pandemic problem.

Bunch of of dropped our houses and quit, kaivan. We became part timers.

Look at the BIG housing and then check the ip of people who actually login. How many of those massive castles are owned by people who actually play? I'm thinking less than half.

This isn't a recent thing. I've done this comparison pretty much every time that the housing issue has come up over the last year, and it's been nearly the same each time, 9 to 10 houses per person under the most pessimistic assumptions possible.

Kinda dumb to argue with you.
I'll agree with you because you have more information than I do....Kinda like debating the president on foreign policy..

I'm not trying to dissuade any debates about an issue, I'm just trying to provide data so that players have better knowledge about what's going on.

RoadKill wrote:How does this exactly help the situation? Wouldn't we just be in the same place again after 2+ years?

as fun as a wipe sounds I think this guy is totally right. to go a bit further, I doubt we would have much of a difference in wealh/thousing distribution after some given amount of time. It's like the pareto distribution of wealth; the smaller percent basically always holds more of the society's wealth. I'm sure in a video game this is even more true; the rich players get way way rich compared to someone who doesn't play.

I see the people who are "getting rich" after playing a year as the same type of people who hold a huge amount of gold in the game right now, except they just "got rich" over many years instead of one. So it is hard to feel that this is a problem when it's something that will just naturally happen, and yea I don't think housing is too difficult since the prices are so close to deed price.

GuardianKnight wrote:Bunch of of dropped our houses and quit, kaivan. We became part timers.

Look at the BIG housing and then check the ip of people who actually login. How many of those massive castles are owned by people who actually play? I'm thinking less than half.

I agree with you GK but isnt that pretty "era accurate"?

The "housing crisis" (or lack there of), is no where near as bad as people act. I have placed mediums and bought and sold mediums for as little as deed +5-15K within the last few months.

Tons of small spots out there, and the only ones that fetch markup are for premium or specific locations.

Keep/Castle is another story... But this is nothing new to UO.

I do agree that the accounts owning 15 larges with multiple castles/keeps are a little much... but at the same time, many player run towns are owned by one or two guys which would come to an end with 1 house/account changes.

An idea would be to assign a housing "points system" per account with each house size counting against your cap, maybe allowing something like 1 large (keep/castle) 2 medium (tower/brick/L/Patio) and 2 small per account. If done right, the points could work out that you could choose to place the above combo, or perhaps 2 larges, or 3 mediums or something.

I actually think a system like this could be a nice compromise between the 5 houses / account and 1 / account.

But in the end... Nothing really needs to be change IMHO.

I spoke with Derrick, and there will indeed be a server wipe. As soon as Taylor Swift gets back together.

Re: number of houses... the average (mean) number is meaningless, as people are complaining about a positively skewed distribution. Sounds like people are more interested in the median number of houses, which is, I dunno, 1.25 houses/IP. And they're saying, if the people who own >5 were limited to 5, then the total house ownership population would rise. Which is most likely correct (unless you assume lowering the limit to 5 would encourage current non-hoarders to begin to hoard).

I've placed 3 mediums and 1 small using only one account (I only have 5 characters). None were purchased. It just isn't all that hard.

here's an idea! to expand on what roadkill said, how bout.. server wipe, and remove silver.. get rid of all the trammel!

I agree, i think they need to some how force a limit per a IP 3 hours per 1 ip. and anymore maybe punishable by a ban or something. as a new player it seems insane like all the exploration has been taken out by all these people taking the whole housing market. Makes me wish UoSecondage age has 2 shards, one where anyone can own as many houses as they want like this and then a more strick one i hope the server crashed like it did and some how wipes all saves, and then we are forced to start over,

Kaivan wrote:
The housing issue is not as bad as it appears. As an example, I took a quick sampling of the total number of houses in the world, and assumed that the number of unique IPs on the server at the same moment that I counted the total number of houses was both the total number of players who played on UOSA, and that none of the IPs actually had more than one person behind it. The resulting number of houses per IP was only at 9.74 under these extreme assumptions. So, when it comes to houses, UOSA really doesn't have some pandemic problem.

That number is not true though, you know that not ever IP has 9.74 houses, most have none, so that still makes a few ips that have 50+ houses to compensate for those that have none.

Griffeth wrote:I agree, i think they need to some how force a limit per a IP 3 hours per 1 ip. and anymore maybe punishable by a ban or something. as a new player it seems insane like all the exploration has been taken out by all these people taking the whole housing market. Makes me wish UoSecondage age has 2 shards, one where anyone can own as many houses as they want like this and then a more strick one i hope the server crashed like it did and some how wipes all saves, and then we are forced to start over,

Players here are not allowed to own as many houses as they want. Players are allowed, at maximum, 15 houses due to our 3 account per person limit.

Griffeth wrote:

Kaivan wrote:
The housing issue is not as bad as it appears. As an example, I took a quick sampling of the total number of houses in the world, and assumed that the number of unique IPs on the server at the same moment that I counted the total number of houses was both the total number of players who played on UOSA, and that none of the IPs actually had more than one person behind it. The resulting number of houses per IP was only at 9.74 under these extreme assumptions. So, when it comes to houses, UOSA really doesn't have some pandemic problem.

That number is not true though, you know that not ever IP has 9.74 houses, most have none, so that still makes a few ips that have 50+ houses to compensate for those that have none.

Actually, this isn't true. For one, for players to own 50+ houses, they would need to have more than 3 times the legal number of accounts, and have houses placed on all of them. This is a very unlikely scenario, and is grounds for termination of accounts when it happens (also, assuming this is a problem, the same issue would exist for a 3 house per IP rule as well). Additionally, the more pragmatic and evidence based position with housing is that not all players are logged in at the exact same time, and in fact, many players only play on specific days. This more reasonable position gives us a much better idea of the number of houses per IP (this doesn't even include multiple players behind each IP), which is a lot closer to 3.7 per IP, assuming that 90% of the IPs we see on a daily basis are unique players, and that it accounts for all players on UOSA.

Kaivan wrote:[ Additionally, the more pragmatic and evidence based position with housing is that not all players are logged in at the exact same time, and in fact, many players only play on specific days. This more reasonable position gives us a much better idea of the number of houses per IP (this doesn't even include multiple players behind each IP), which is a lot closer to 3.7 per IP, assuming that 90% of the IPs we see on a daily basis are unique players, and that it accounts for all players on UOSA.

I agree there, since this if free shard and there is no incentive to donate other then just having a fancy title in the forum. Could possible make some kind of gold allowance that needs to be in the bank for each house to be paid. But i guess there would be a dramatic change of the game. I just heard many people say that it would be harder to be paying say 15x3 a month for 45 each month to maintain the three accounts, could take into effect, cause really the only limiting factor of unlimited free accounts is land mass. its not growing any larger.

EDIT:
ADD= Like it would not even have to be a substantial amount, say for the lowest house priced at 44k gb for the deed, would be deducting say 4.4k from the bank each month. Then where the largest the castle would be deduction around 106k each month from the bank. Or if you paid/dontated, could be some kind of premium that would wave the fee. ((I know alot of people who have been playing this server or even just everyone in general will hate my ideas)) <- But they are just ideas to try and work with the world, and over come some of the problems that have arisen on this established shard. Maybe one day some one will think of implementing my idea on a shard that is still in development to combat the Monopoly that has happend on this shard.

Griffeth wrote:

Kaivan wrote:[ Additionally, the more pragmatic and evidence based position with housing is that not all players are logged in at the exact same time, and in fact, many players only play on specific days. This more reasonable position gives us a much better idea of the number of houses per IP (this doesn't even include multiple players behind each IP), which is a lot closer to 3.7 per IP, assuming that 90% of the IPs we see on a daily basis are unique players, and that it accounts for all players on UOSA.

I agree there, since this if free shard and there is no incentive to donate other then just having a fancy title in the forum. Could possible make some kind of gold allowance that needs to be in the bank for each hose to be paid. But i guess there would be a dramatic change of the game. I just heard many people say that it would be harder to be paying say 15x3 a month for 45 each month to main tain the three accounts, could take into effect, cause really the only limiting factor of unlimited free accounts is land mass. its not growing any larger.

EDIT:
ADD= Like it would not even have to be a substantial amount, say for the lowest house priced at 44k gb for the deed, would be deducting say 4.4k from the bank each month. Then where the largest the castle would be deduction around 106k each month from the bank. Or if you paid/dontated, could be some kind of premium that would wave the fee. ((I know alot of people who have been playing this server or even just everyone in general will hate my ideas)) <- But they are just ideas to try and work with the world, and over come some of the problems that have arisen on this established shard. Maybe one day some one will think of implementing my idea on a shard that is still in development to combat the Monopoly that has happend on this shard.

I'm not sure what connection between donations and housing you are pointing to, but the point that I was making is that under much more realistic assumptions, the number of houses per IP is so low that the extra accounts have no significant effect on the total number of houses that are actually owned. Thus, there is no real "monopoly" of housing on UOSA, and no preventative measures need to be put in place.