Housing overpopulation

[Tron]

First let me say that I am not asking for anything from anyone. I don't want a policy change. I don't want a castle and I sure don't want to get in the middle of an argument. I WOULD like to see more people on the shard. I think this is a great idea to keep an era accurate shard running. I can remember the first time I logged into UO and the old treasure chest creaked open to let you log in. Fond memories in deed. I'm new and have worked a first characer up enough to afford a deed and will place a small house to help me gather the resources to trade up. When the time time comes I will place a larger home or pay a fair price to someone just like I did on Atlantic way back when. If I held lots of empty houses and worked to refresh them I would be pissed if I was forced to give them up due to a change in "rules" of the world. I would encourage all those players who own the hundreds of empty houses I pass to recruit new players to fill the homes. More people means more fun in the long run and more access to afforable housing will help recruit more players. If anyone has a large patio in a decent spot and wants a respectable neighbor let me know.

[SJane3384]

Ugh...I swore I wouldn't ever come back and argue in this thread. Yet here I am. The utter idiocy has driven me to it.

Not only that he also pointed out it took him 5 hours to place, while running around with a friend. FIVE HOURS TO PLACE A LARGE PATIO.

That just means the guy is either a moron, or a liar. I can think of two spots for one right near a town off the top of my head.

I understand since you've never worked an actual job, that busting your ass for like 10 hours a day might seem like a stretch ...... Guess what, people can go for a lot longer than 10 hours a day in UO.

You can't argue about someone not working a real job and then talk about playing 10hrs a day every day. If you have a real job/life then you CAN'T play UO ten hours a day. Plus sitting around with your Big Gulp and bag of Doritos playing UO isn't exactly "busting your ass".

Your claiming other people are raging? Your either an alt, or one of Joshua Lee's many, many accounts. You cannot be for real, this is just to entertaining.

Agreed. This just reeks of Joshua Lee.

[Oderus Urungus]

Placed a keep and a large brick right behind it that fits a tower last night by that Tutle bay place.
Wasnt even an IDOC space was just OPEN

If you cannot place anything here your not trying hard enough..

[alcon]

Yeah, I just helped a new player place a small not far from Minoc next to a tower, looks like it could fit a few more. However, I believe all the tower/castle spots are taken... but there was housing over pop on t2a because I remember my bro would make sure he was on at a specific time because they would create or open (not sure exactly) new land and there would be tons of people waiting to drop houses. I think housing in Lost Lands would be cool, but I don't think there are very many spots that could even be used.. once again I may be wrong on that as well so don't quote me on it.

[DrFaustus]

IDOCS pop up weekly here.

The housing population is a NON-issue. People just like to whine about it because they can't farm up their castle and place it in prime real-estate for deed price.

Like I said, almost any spot should be attainable, for the right price. Stop hoarding your gold and start spending! A healthy housing market only makes this game more fun.

[Li Meiyang]

IDOCS pop up weekly here.

The housing population is a NON-issue. People just like to whine about it because they can't farm up their castle and place it in prime real-estate for deed price.

Like I said, almost any spot should be attainable, for the right price. Stop hoarding your gold and start spending! A healthy housing market only makes this game more fun.

Agreed, this post really says it all on this issue AFIC.

I dropped 240k on a small a while back. Why? I *wanted* it and that's how much it took to motivate the owner to sell.

[Zorce]

IDOCS pop up weekly here.

The housing population is a NON-issue. People just like to whine about it because they can't farm up their castle and place it in prime real-estate for deed price.

Like I said, almost any spot should be attainable, for the right price. Stop hoarding your gold and start spending! A healthy housing market only makes this game more fun.

Agreed, this post really says it all on this issue AFIC.

I dropped 240k on a small a while back. Why? I *wanted* it and that's how much it took to motivate the owner to sell.

Wow which one did you buy?

[Biohazard]

the only way we are recreating the t2a housing situation, is by doing exactly what we are doing

Why make it sound like certain mesaures were taken to make the housing situation seem like it is accurate? this is not the case. The way housing is now is merely a side effect of being able to have multiple accounts with no curb.

No, I just find it hilarious that someone clearly thinks they should be able to *place* a keep/castle after 2 weeks of playing a 2 year old shard.

The funny part is they could if people were limited to 1 account.. therefore 5 houses. Instead people can make supposedly only 3 accounts. Most people know that as a farce though.

Exactly, a prestige building, which is all a keep/castle really is, should be a long term goal to work towards, if everyone could simply go place a status symbol building after 2 weeks, those people would not play longer than a month. What goals would they have to work towards? Instant gratification = less likely to be a long term player. Slow achievement of goals = solid medium to long term player in my opinion.

PS. Hows looking for those inaccuracy's in the housing policy going TK?

So instead of making it hard to build characters and making it harder to gain money and resources and overall just having a good economy... we should make the ability to place a "large prestigious house" the crown jewel? The only reason you have to wait to place a castle or keep or tower is because the house space is fucked up. The amount of houses you see right now should not be (in relation to the amount of actual players). So what do you say about being able to 7x a character in a week or less? is that ok? The fact that you can accumulate enough gold to buy a castle in a week(but of course not place it).. this is also ok?

I would encourage all those players who own the hundreds of empty houses I pass to recruit new players to fill the homes. More people means more fun in the long run and more access to afforable housing will help recruit more players.

Or maybe just have normal housing and let people place houses themselves?

[Tron]

the only way we are recreating the t2a housing situation, is by doing exactly what we are doing

Why make it sound like certain mesaures were taken to make the housing situation seem like it is accurate? this is not the case. The way housing is now is merely a side effect of being able to have multiple accounts with no curb.

No, I just find it hilarious that someone clearly thinks they should be able to *place* a keep/castle after 2 weeks of playing a 2 year old shard.

The funny part is they could if people were limited to 1 account.. therefore 5 houses. Instead people can make supposedly only 3 accounts. Most people know that as a farce though.

Exactly, a prestige building, which is all a keep/castle really is, should be a long term goal to work towards, if everyone could simply go place a status symbol building after 2 weeks, those people would not play longer than a month. What goals would they have to work towards? Instant gratification = less likely to be a long term player. Slow achievement of goals = solid medium to long term player in my opinion.

PS. Hows looking for those inaccuracy's in the housing policy going TK?

So instead of making it hard to build characters and making it harder to gain money and resources and overall just having a good economy... we should make the ability to place a "large prestigious house" the crown jewel? The only reason you have to wait to place a castle or keep or tower is because it is because the house space is fucked up. The amount of houses you see right now should not be (in relation to the amount of actual players). So what do you say about being able to 7x a character in a week or less? is that ok? The fact that you can accumulate enough gold to buy a castle in a week(but of course not place it).. this is also ok?

I would encourage all those players who own the hundreds of empty houses I pass to recruit new players to fill the homes. More people means more fun in the long run and more access to afforable housing will help recruit more players.

Or maybe just have normal housing and let people place houses themselves?

There was no account limit during t2a, so in a sense, we should be able to have 102391039 accounts here, but that's too much bullshit.
The limit is 3, and for a reason, Derrick decided, and with that limit, comes the housing limit by default.
Are you trying to argue account limit now too tho? Or are you just looking for something to back up the argument in this thread?
We have "normal" housing here, so I don't even know how to address that one. And as far as the "why not make other stuff worth more (characters? whatever else you may have meant) instead of houses" argument, that's not your decision. I for one think a robust housing market is a good thing, I'd rather have that then people spending 200k on a vanq halb or whatever else because a UO CONSTANT money sink, like housing, is weak on our shard after we stop simulating the t2a era housing situation. Which even now we're not up to par on. For this to be like real t2a, every small anywhere needs to be 100k or more from another player, and large houses need to be 10-30x deed price. Since we cannot simulate players that don't exist to make this market a 3000 player market, we have players with 15 houses doing it instead.

And it is 100% t2a accurate to be able to farm enough gold for a castle in a week and not be able to place it. It's 100% t2a accurate to have to buy a castle anywhere from another player for a HUGE markup.

I'm failing to see why anything you just said is pertinent in an argument to make any changes to the current systme.

[Caswallon]

So instead of making it hard to build characters and making it harder to gain money and resources and overall just having a good economy... we should make the ability to place a "large prestigious house" the crown jewel? The only reason you have to wait to place a castle or keep or tower is because it is because the house space is fucked up. The amount of houses you see right now should not be (in relation to the amount of actual players). So what do you say about being able to 7x a character in a week or less? is that ok? The fact that you can accumulate enough gold to buy a castle in a week(but of course not place it).. this is also ok?

Except I never mentioned any off that stuff, which is completely off topic, and belongs in another thread. If you bother looking in the relevant threads you will see how I feel about those topics, which makes your points directed at me, well, pointless.

Lets say we have 600 players, we have about 1800 houses, so even if it were 1 house per account, guess what that works out as? 1800. So no, it would fix nothing, there is plenty off space, I have covered probably 70% of the map today looking for Reindeer, there is so much space but people are too lazy to run more than 2 screens from a moongate or guard zone. I have seen at least 5 tower spots, and dozens and dozens of brick/patio/L spots. This over population is in your head.

And no, I dont think you should be able to *place* a castle on a two year old shard. Two weeks yeah, two months yeah, maybe even six months, but not two years.

[Biohazard]

There was no account limit during t2a, so in a sense, we should be able to have 102391039 accounts here, but that's too much bullshit.

im not arguing there was no limit. There was something in place to limit people from making accounts. This was called real world money. It was 10 bucks an account.

The limit is 3, and for a reason, Derrick decided, and with that limit, comes the housing limit by default. Are you trying to argue account limit now too tho? Or are you just looking for something to back up the argument in this thread?

I have been arguing the account issue for a while. housing is just 1 side effect. The real issue is accounts with no curb in place to stop people from making as many as they want.

We have "normal" housing here, so I don't even know how to address that one.

By normal (OSI-esque) housing i mean that if normal policy and mechanics were in place you would see half as many houses as you see now.

And as far as the "why not make other stuff worth more (characters? whatever else you may have meant) instead of houses" argument, that's not your decision.

I said nothing about increasing the worth as in making their actual value more.. I meant to make them less prevalent.. thus it increases their overall value. What sounds like more of an accomplishment? Ten 7x GM chars that took 7 total weeks to make or Ten 7x GM chars that took 7 years to make?

I for one think a robust housing market is a good thing.

I think so too but unfortunately this fuzzy feeling you have from a robust housing market just isn't really true to form when it comes to mimicking OSI. The reason housing even had any inflation on OSI is because there were really that many people playing. It wasn't just 300 people with 5 accounts.

Since we cannot simulate players that don't exist to make this market a 3000 player market, we have players with 15 houses doing it instead.

This wasn't put in place to simulate the housing.. it is merely a side effect of having multiple free to make accounts.

And it is 100% t2a accurate to be able to farm enough gold for a castle in a week and not be able to place it. It's 100% t2a accurate to have to buy a castle anywhere from another player for a HUGE markup.

It is not accurate at all to farm(strictly) a million gold on OSI. Indeed it would have been a challenge to place a castle though.

I'm failing to see why anything you just said is pertinent in an argument to make any changes to the current systme.

it seems like a stretch that you are going to say that nothing I said is worth anything in this argument.

[Biohazard]

Except I never mentioned any off that stuff, which is completely off topic, and belongs in another thread. If you bother looking in the relevant threads you will see how I feel about those topics, which makes your points directed at me, well, pointless.

I know you didn't say any of that.. I was trying to bring up an analagous scenario.

Lets say we have 600 players, we have about 1800 houses, so even if it were 1 house per account, guess what that works out as? 1800. So no, it would fix nothing, there is plenty off space, I have covered probably 70% of the map today looking for Reindeer, there is so much space but people are too lazy to run more than 2 screens from a moongate or guard zone. I have seen at least 5 tower spots, and dozens and dozens of brick/patio/L spots. This over population is in your head.

Theres maybe 300 unique IP's.. Im not complaining about the space either... its the terms through which this space is taken up. I would love to see a world full of houses with no space to place anything.... In a world with 2000 unique IP's not 300

And no, I dont think you should be able to *place* a castle on a two year old shard. Two weeks yeah, two months yeah, maybe even six months, but not two years.

I don't either.

[Caswallon]

Except I never mentioned any off that stuff, which is completely off topic, and belongs in another thread. If you bother looking in the relevant threads you will see how I feel about those topics, which makes your points directed at me, well, pointless.

I know you didn't say any of that.. I was trying to bring up an analagous scenario.

To further your argument with irrelevant points that dont pertain to this [non]issue in any way, shape, or form?

Lets say we have 600 players, we have about 1800 houses, so even if it were 1 house per account, guess what that works out as? 1800. So no, it would fix nothing, there is plenty off space, I have covered probably 70% of the map today looking for Reindeer, there is so much space but people are too lazy to run more than 2 screens from a moongate or guard zone. I have seen at least 5 tower spots, and dozens and dozens of brick/patio/L spots. This over population is in your head.

Theres maybe 300 unique IP's.. Im not complaining about the space either... its the terms through which this space is taken up. I would love to see a world full of houses with no space to place anything.... In a world with 2000 unique IP's not 300

There are not 300 unique IP's. Your saying that those 300 people all play 7 days a week, 24/7 when that is obviously not true, or even possible. As I stated before, there are maybe 100-150 people who probably play on a daily basis[IRC crowd + a few more], then minimum the same amount again who probably play 3-4 days a week[x2 to keep the numbers consistent], then probably the same again who play 3-4 hours a week. The only person who truly knows is Derrick but I think there are at least 600 unique IPs playing, I would put it closer to 800 but who knows.

And no, I dont think you should be able to *place* a castle on a two year old shard. Two weeks yeah, two months yeah, maybe even six months, but not two years.

I don't either.

The funny part is they could if people were limited to 1 account.. therefore 5 houses. Instead people can make supposedly only 3 accounts. Most people know that as a farce though.

Could/should, interchangeable from where im standing. Your saying they could do this if the housing limit was tighter, therefore they should be able to, this is your argument, is it not?

And just for the record, I would like and totally agree with 2 per account/6 per IP, which is 1 over the majority in era limit of 1 per character, that most people with 1 account would have had. For the record.

[Mikel123]

Guys, as far as castles go, it doesn't matter whether it's 1 house per account or per character or per IP.

There's around 45 castles placed on this shard. There's around 60 spots MAX, assuming no one with a tower, keep, 2-story, or even 7x7, was blocking some space needed. So as long as there's 60 people on a shard who had 1,000,000 gold before you, it's completely irrelevant. You're not placing a castle.

[Biohazard]

To further your argument with irrelevant points that dont pertain to this [non]issue in any way, shape, or form?

housing space is not an issue... it just is not real. it's also not correct when it comes to mimicking OSI. All i was saying was there are more things to work towards than just housing.

There are not 300 unique IP's. Your saying that those 300 people all play 7 days a week, 24/7 when that is obviously not true, or even possible. As I stated before, there are maybe 100-150 people who probably play on a daily basis[IRC crowd + a few more], then minimum the same amount again who probably play 3-4 days a week[x2 to keep the numbers consistent], then probably the same again who play 3-4 hours a week. The only person who truly knows is Derrick but I think there are at least 600 unique IPs playing, I would put it closer to 800 but who knows.

it was just a round number im not arguing playerbase.. 300, 500, or 800 it doesnt really matter. We could even have the actual ratio of 3 accounts:1 house and the rules could still be the same as now and i would still be arguing as it would be improper to allow people to have the option to have that many houses without some sort of limiting factor.

Could/should, interchangeable from where im standing. Your saying they could do this if the housing limit was tighter, therefore they should be able to, this is your argument, is it not?

Not everyone you are right.. but it would be much more feasible and more obtainable given the limited spots to place a castle to begin with. castles and keeps are a very special case as it is due to sheer size.

And just for the record, I would like and totally agree with 2 per account/6 per IP, which is 1 over the majority in era limit of 1 per character, that most people with 1 account would have had. For the record.

For the record i agree with any limit greater than the current.