UO Second Age

Rammar wrote:

Bloom wrote:I don't understand why you all think the rules aren't specific. 1 house per char, 3 account max. Those are rules, there doesn't seem to be any grey area. The trouble is knowing who is using multiple accounts - which is also, specifically, against the rules as well. There isn't any grey area.

Except that is not the case. There has been, and continues to be (to the best of my knowledge) an allowance to log into other's accounts (3 total at a time ofc). "For account upkeep" iirc, whatever that means. The problem is, where one person might take this to mean 'refreshing', another might take it to mean 'refreshing condemned', moving loot, getting holiday items, holding/xferring houses, etc. There seems to be enough leeway to get away with any excuse assuming you admit no fault. This also doesn't even touch on those that log in to more than 3 accounts with, and without, permission.

Ultimately there is no reason for allowing it imo. Friend someone if you expect to be gone a while. If you expect to be gone more than 3 months (condemn), with zero chance to log in, chances are you either don't care all that much to bother yourself, or you're very unlikely to ever come back and should have deeded/banked.

I agree that it is wrong to have an exception for players to refresh eachothers houses. However, I disagree that players on a leave of absence should lose their homes. I am thinking of people in the military or other professions that require long traveling times. In these cases, I think that staff should freeze the decay on thair homes for a set period of time that they would agree to before they leave. After that, it would have to be tough luck, just like if anyone else didn't refresh when they knew they would go IDOC.

The notion that players should be allowed to refresh each others accounts is what is ruining the overall limit and creating "grey" exploitable areas of the rule. To my mind, it seems that we ought to be looking at ways to fix the issue that do not require players to use others accounts under any circumstances, and that will also be fair to players who must leave the game for extended periods of time.

Elph wrote: I agree that it is wrong to have an exception for players to refresh eachothers houses. However, I disagree that players on a leave of absence should lose their homes. I am thinking of people in the military or other professions that require long traveling times. In these cases, I think that staff should freeze the decay on thair homes for a set period of time that they would agree to before they leave. After that, it would have to be tough luck, just like if anyone else didn't refresh when they knew they would go IDOC.

The notion that players should be allowed to refresh each others accounts is what is ruining the overall limit and creating "grey" exploitable areas of the rule. To my mind, it seems that we ought to be looking at ways to fix the issue that do not require players to use others accounts under any circumstances, and that will also be fair to players who must leave the game for extended periods of time.

Who said they should lose their houses? This is a social game, they have plenty of opportunity to trust a fellow player to hold and maintain their houses for the duration of their leave. This is coming from someone who refreshes multiple people's houses with and without ownership. Fact is, anyone who requires someone to refresh greater than 3mo (condemn) is more than likely gaming the system. Sure, a couple might be in the armed services (only ones i know of never came back), but most are just lazy and currently playing other shards. ... and who really cares in that case, by their own actions they certainly don't.

Completely agreed that no one should use anyone else's accounts under any circumstances. As a shard we could have saved a lot of grief, and players, had that been better established.

Rammar wrote:Completely agreed that no one should use anyone else's accounts under any circumstances.

I have to agree with this. People who play here know there is house decay, if you can't be arsed to refresh your house or know you will be gone for longer than 3 months, you shouldn't be able to keep your house. That is the point of a house decay system no? Move your things into a friends house or your bank and redeed your house if you are concerned about a long leave of absence. Having one person refreshing 15 houses plus their two friends who have 15 each is simply absurd.

^ This.

15 character limit is a good thing and overall, good for the server.
15 house limit is a bad thing and overall, bad for the server.

Would be nice to try some incremental lowering of the house limit. For example, let's say there should be a 2 house per account limit (so 6 houses total for any given person). We could give everybody 6 months notice that they need to take their house count down to a maximum of 6. That would give everyone time to sell/trade real estate, get their loot stored, etc., in a fair and non-panicky way.

Yes it would crash the housing market (hurting mostly the already wealthy players) but would encourage people to come to the server since it would be easier to place and/or buy larger houses/keeps/castles/towers/etc.

I used to own 15 houses. I felt like a pig and sold all but 4 of them. And one of those is sitting empty, and is being sold.

I'm a firm believer in property rights but what good is it to hold 15 houses if it means that our housing policy is helping to kill the server?

I'm fine with keeping the 15 house limit, in the interest of the all-important era accuracy. The problem here is people using "friend's" accounts to get beyond that limit. I have to agree with Rammar. The use of other people's accounts should not be allowed at all. Here's the way I see it, if you're leaving for an extended period of time (for whatever reason): If you trust someone enough to give them your login and password, surely you trust them enough to simply transfer ownership of the property to one of their characters, right? There should be no need to give them your login info.

Apocalypse wrote:If you trust someone enough to give them your login and password, surely you trust them enough to simply transfer ownership of the property to one of their characters, right? There should be no need to give them your login info.

This is a very good point. Any word Derrick?

Elph wrote:

Apocalypse wrote:If you trust someone enough to give them your login and password, surely you trust them enough to simply transfer ownership of the property to one of their characters, right? There should be no need to give them your login info.

This is a very good point. Any word Derrick?

^ Opens up the can of worms for abuse. Staff don't have the time to sit around and monitor what are legitimate and non-legitimate transfers. Thus, Abuser A and Abuser B could hold nearly infinite houses (smit9352).

Capitalist wrote:

Elph wrote:

Apocalypse wrote:If you trust someone enough to give them your login and password, surely you trust them enough to simply transfer ownership of the property to one of their characters, right? There should be no need to give them your login info.

This is a very good point. Any word Derrick?

^ Opens up the can of worms for abuse. Staff don't have the time to sit around and monitor what are legitimate and non-legitimate transfers. Thus, Abuser A and Abuser B could hold nearly infinite houses (smit9352).

What? I don't understand. An owned house is an owned house. The limit of one per toon would still be there.

If your buddy had 15 homes and offered to hold 3 for you then they would first have to get rid of three of theirs.

Capitalist wrote:^ Opens up the can of worms for abuse. Staff don't have the time to sit around and monitor what are legitimate and non-legitimate transfers. Thus, Abuser A and Abuser B could hold nearly infinite houses (smit9352).

Abuser A and Abuser B could only hold a total of 30 houses with the proposed system.

If it were against the rules to log on to another person's account, there would be no way to abuse the housing system short of IP manipulation.

Treysta wrote:

Capitalist wrote:^ Opens up the can of worms for abuse. Staff don't have the time to sit around and monitor what are legitimate and non-legitimate transfers. Thus, Abuser A and Abuser B could hold nearly infinite houses (smit9352).

Abuser A and Abuser B could only hold a total of 30 houses with the proposed system.

If it were against the rules to log on to another person's account, there would be no way to abuse the housing system short of IP manipulation.

Right. There's no way to prevent IP manipulation, but it makes it much more of a hassle for people.

The solution is definitely to get rid of the loopholes with using others' accounts.

Capitalist wrote:^ Opens up the can of worms for abuse. Staff don't have the time to sit around and monitor what are legitimate and non-legitimate transfers. Thus, Abuser A and Abuser B could hold nearly infinite houses (smit9352).

I think this makes it more difficult to abuse the system. There will always be those who find ways to circumvent the rules. The point is to make it more difficult for them to do so. Right now it's too hard to prove whether or not abuse is occuring.

Apocalypse wrote:

Capitalist wrote:^ Opens up the can of worms for abuse. Staff don't have the time to sit around and monitor what are legitimate and non-legitimate transfers. Thus, Abuser A and Abuser B could hold nearly infinite houses (smit9352).

I think this makes it more difficult to abuse the system. There will always be those who find ways to circumvent the rules. The point is to make it more difficult for them to do so. Right now it's too hard to prove whether or not abuse is occuring.

No, it's not. I've spoken with staff extensively about this, and they to me.

Capitalist wrote:

Apocalypse wrote:

Capitalist wrote:^ Opens up the can of worms for abuse. Staff don't have the time to sit around and monitor what are legitimate and non-legitimate transfers. Thus, Abuser A and Abuser B could hold nearly infinite houses (smit9352).

I think this makes it more difficult to abuse the system. There will always be those who find ways to circumvent the rules. The point is to make it more difficult for them to do so. Right now it's too hard to prove whether or not abuse is occuring.

No, it's not. I've spoken with staff extensively about this, and they to me.

It would obviously be difficult. Unless they have code in place I am not aware of it would literally take detective work. On a server with even this many people it would take a lot of time and energy to find someone breaking the rules.