House reduction

[BlackFoot]

how many people actually have that many houses :/
the idea that its some huge problem and is out of control is pretty funny
i know most of the oldest and longest lasting players on the shard and non of them have reached half of the housing limit.

[Hicha]

how many people actually have that many houses :/
the idea that its some huge problem and is out of control is pretty funny
i know most of the oldest and longest lasting players on the shard and non of them have reached half of the housing limit.

I'm sure there are people who own an outrageous amount of houses, but there are also people who only own 1 or 2 homes, which balances it out anyway in my book.

I own 3; 1 of them is just a 7x7 so I don't have an immediate neighbor, and the other is a brick I'm just sitting on.

[Murugan]

i hate it when math and statistics make a point :<

[snip] it proves my theory that a FEW people own 15 or MORE houses, and the MAJORITY own the "respectible" amount of 3 or so.

Just because the "math" makes it appear that everyone owns 5 house does not mean shit. I for one no longer own a single house. I also know / run and opperate other friends accounts in which they ALSO do not own any houses.

So, lets just take the 5 RL friends IPS out of that total, and the KNOWN fact that there are no houses owned by them. Then re-do your stupid math, and what do you get? MORE houses per IP. Now, the 5 account example would marginally change the number, but my point to all this is that there are plenty of IP's that do not own houses, and even more that probably only own one MAYBE 2. So your "math" is [snip]in the head because your just proving that a select group of people own or claim to need more then 3 houses.

And to clear it up, I would be all for grandfathering the houses if this rule got changed. This way the [snip]about people needing these houses for new players, museums, guilds and more could stand as this type of venues would not be affected, however the practice of buying and selling would be.

BUT to further this argument, I UNDERSTAND that nothing is going to be done about it, and never thought that this post would result in the revolution of UOSA housing. But are you claiming that anyone with concerns, thoughts, or suggestions should STFU because "its not going to change" This is the [snip]I am talking about! But enough about that, Im done with this topic because I clearly "threatend" too many people here. I am sure the shard is saddened by my suggestion.

[BlackFoot]

yes im sure many of the people responding with very level headed responses, suggestions and opinions are terrified of change

[Kaivan]

i hate it when math and statistics make a point :<

[snip] it proves my theory that a FEW people own 15 or MORE houses, and the MAJORITY own the "respectible" amount of 3 or so.

Just because the "math" makes it appear that everyone owns 5 house does not mean shit. I for one no longer own a single house. I also know / run and opperate other friends accounts in which they ALSO do not own any houses.

So, lets just take the 5 RL friends IPS out of that total, and the KNOWN fact that there are no houses owned by them. Then re-do your stupid math, and what do you get? MORE houses per IP. Now, the 5 account example would marginally change the number, but my point to all this is that there are plenty of IP's that do not own houses, and even more that probably only own one MAYBE 2. So your "math" is [snip]in the head because your just proving that a select group of people own or claim to need more then 3 houses.

And to clear it up, I would be all for grandfathering the houses if this rule got changed. This way the [snip]about people needing these houses for new players, museums, guilds and more could stand as this type of venues would not be affected, however the practice of buying and selling would be.

BUT to further this argument, I UNDERSTAND that nothing is going to be done about it, and never thought that this post would result in the revolution of UOSA housing. But are you claiming that anyone with concerns, thoughts, or suggestions should STFU because "its not going to change" This is the [snip]I am talking about! But enough about that, Im done with this topic because I clearly "threatend" too many people here. I am sure the shard is saddened by my suggestion.

First and foremost, lets try and keep this civil. We don't need to be attacking others in this manner.

Secondly, while I understand your desire to see the system changed, this isn't something that we are simply plugging our ears and screaming *la la la* as loud as we can in order to avoid the situation. This is a clear cut case of accuracy, and because of our mission statement, we can't make any compensation on that stance.

Finally, when you consider the math that was posted beforehand, the point that you make gets in to the finer details of things which are usually impossible to ascertain. For example, our rule of 3 accounts per person allows people who live in the same household to acquire extra accounts if need be. If we account for the theoretical multiple players per IP (our average player to account ratio sits at about 1.6-1.7), then we could logically add players to the overall count. In that instance, the average number of houses per player would go down. But again, who is to say exactly how many people play from a given IP that each own a few houses (or one), or how many people who play from unique IPs possess no houses? Because that isn't something that we have the tools to determine, it is safe to say that we can balance out the total number of players per IP to 1, and to evenly distribute the housing among those IPs.

[Murugan]

Kaivan,

I understand that it is not era accurate, I "thought" it wasn't. If you read my first post I clearly had that assumption. I only blew up over it because no one ever takes that into consideration, and thus it does sound like people are doing the la la thing to the issue. Trust me, I too want this shard to be era accurate, that could have stopping this post from the start.

Second, you didn't get my point about the math then, because that was exactly what I was trying to prove. This number / this number is not how you do math for every situation.

Gicod - I played from the BETA of OSI, to the uo:r era. I never played production AoS or better. (don't even know if that was the next thing after uo:r) Hence the reason why I play on UOSA. Now, to further that, There was what, 30 maybe 50 or 75 patches during that time? I remember a few times where it seemed like we got patches every day, and that was not including servers going down to place a patch asap. Now I asked this before, WHAT DATE is this shard supposed to be era accurate from? the Last day of T2A right before uo:r came out? If so, then there should be no reason for anything to have EVER been changed because the OPEN patch notes detail everything that was update and changed each time it was done so. SO the shard should have opened day one, as a perfect match to UO before the uo:r era. So your comment about me not knowing the "rules" is stupid because this game is 13 years old, and I have since played on numerous free shards. Peoples minds get a little "fuzzy"

All I know is the day I stopped playing osi shards, was the day they "newbied" everything, and started protecting the stupid players. I never got to see a housing crisis on OSI, so I can't believe we have one here.

AND to further my argument, IF OSI (or EA) allowed 1 house per character, it was also based on the fact that 95% of the people had only one account, and in my opinion, if you wanted to pay that extra money each month, well then you got your extra house spots. So, because we offer FREE accounts, and 3 of them at a time this rule is OPEN to be discussed.

If they wanted to give an "extra" account then the original intended for, then how about (2) houses per account, giving players a 6 house max (unless of course they used friend accounts)? this could balance out the issue and perhaps keep some people happy still. But once again, I never intended this to change the way of this shard, just simply open up a discussion.

[Bigoud]

i am against this house reduction because clearly the shard isnt full yet, still plenty of spots all around

however, i am supporting a way to remove houses for account that are no longer used by their owner account

its too easy to have friend create accounts, place house, then quit because they dont care about UO, but you are still like co owner, or friend and can enjoy it..

[BlackFoot]

i litterally jsut palced a castle above brit

[Freeza]

how many people actually have that many houses :/
the idea that its some huge problem and is out of control is pretty funny
i know most of the oldest and longest lasting players on the shard and non of them have reached half of the housing limit.

The only person I know to have 15+ houses is Bag Of Tricks (BOT), don't see him too much anymore either.

i litterally jsut palced a castle above brit

Stop taking all the house spots, you greedy bastard...

[Hicha]

It don't matter how many, The point to all this is no one needs more then 3! Nuff said

What fucking point did you think it makes? MORON, it proves my theory that a FEW people own 15 or MORE houses, and the MAJORITY own the "respectible" amount of 3 or so.

Notice the contradiction? If the majority own a "respectable" amount of houses, with only a few own a lot, how can there possibly be a "housing crisis?"

Also, you look like a complete FOOL whenever you randomly CAPITALIZE words to place EMPHASIS as if you think people can't READ.

[Hicha]

AND to further my argument, IF OSI (or EA) allowed 1 house per character, it was also based on the fact that 95% of the people had only one account, and in my opinion, if you wanted to pay that extra money each month, well then you got your extra house spots. So, because we offer FREE accounts, and 3 of them at a time this rule is OPEN to be discussed.

If they wanted to give an "extra" account then the original intended for, then how about (2) houses per account, giving players a 6 house max (unless of course they used friend accounts)? this could balance out the issue and perhaps keep some people happy still. But once again, I never intended this to change the way of this shard, just simply open up a discussion.

Maybe the three account limit on UOSA should be expanded to include access to "friend" accounts as well. I like how people like yourself claim there should be a rule to prevent people from placing excessive houses (even though its technically era accurate,) yet those same people never claim to implement a rule from people using excessive accounts.

"I swear they play, just not at the same time I do."

[Teph]

But no one wants to come play on a shard that is already bunched for houses, and only has 100 - 200 players at which 80% are assholes.

isnt super overpriced housing era accurate?

i was a millionaire on uor and still never bought a small house even

[Murugan]

trust me i am all for limiting the accounts also. Just because i log onto a friends account to keep it from ever being deleted does not mean i have any use for those accounts. Having 9 accounts would just mean to me, I had three times the same characters i have now. Which simply isnt the case.

And no, if a large amount of the players have the "respectible" amount of houses and a few go nuts, it does not mean anything, other then there is a handfull of people who have more houses then they need.

And the use of CAPS in a sentance is used to emphesize a word. For example : It really pisses me off to see morons posting on my thread. is not the same as, It REALLY pisses me off to see MORONS posting on my thread. See you can read the first one and say, Who thats a strong comment, but when you read the second one, you know i am REALLY pissed off, and the caps on MORONS means Im referring to you.

But i am glad that it bothers you so much!

[Derrick]

Currently on UOSA a house will become condemned in 90 days if the account is banned, or 360 days if the owner has not logged in.

This will change in a future publish to 30 days if banned, and 180 days if inactive.

[Pristiq]

And the use of CAPS in a sentance is used to emphesize a word. For example : It really pisses me off to see morons posting on my thread. is not the same as, It REALLY pisses me off to see MORONS posting on my thread. See you can read the first one and say, Who thats a strong comment, but when you read the second one, you know i am REALLY pissed off, and the caps on MORONS means Im referring to you.

Hi! I'm a bold sentence!

And I'm italicized!

Don't forget about underlined!