House reduction

[Lord Cavewight of GL]

But what ever, if you guys are happy with a server of 400, 100 of which are actually online or active, then more power to you! I am simply trying to open everyone's eyes to ways to make this shard look more appealing, but no one wants to hear that, because it takes away from their ability to hoard houses!

Just would like to point out that the player base will not decrease because empty land is unavailable.
Nor will it deter new players joining secondage.

If anything lack of housing space will be a major plus for the economy and will resemble the conditions most players faced in 1999.

All the people who are complaining about the housing situation also conveniently seem to forget about the whole IDOC and decay system....

But none of this is really important as nothing will be changed about housing.

PS. Sorry for bumping the housing thread.

[Murugan]

Just would like to point out that the player base will not decrease because empty land is unavailable.
Nor will it deter new players joining secondage.

If anything lack of housing space will be a major plus for the economy and will resemble the conditions most players faced in 1999.

All the people who are complaining about the housing situation also conveniently seem to forget about the whole IDOC and decay system....

But none of this is really important as nothing will be changed about housing.

PS. Sorry for bumping the housing thread.

How will it NOT deter people from joining? Who wants to come to a server, start a new character, and know they have to save up for a castle to buy a keep. But all that aside, IDOC is another topic, I agree we should increase this decay to make it Era Accruate. And it does not "resemble" the 1999 economy because in 1999 when there was a housing crisis, it was because there was a shit ton of people online. And the server was fun, different people to kill, etc. Also, what did OSI (or EA) do to "fix" the housing issue, THEY CREATED NEW LANDS!

Everyone wants this shard to be so Era accruate, but then why didn't Derrick just run around dropping rocks so there was 50% LESS house spots from the start! This would have made the opening of the shard era accurate instantly!

STFU with the Era Accurate shit and housing. When we have 10,000 players, Ill say house issues is era accurate. OSI allowed 1 house per char, but everyone had one account. So, 5 houses per player was a max, unless you paid the extra money for a second account, which you still could not log onto at the same time!

So, fix 3 accounts, fix IDOC, Fix multi-client and make everything Era accurate, otherwise, Keep picking and selecting what you want to fix and change as it fits. Its the same thing OSI did which caused them to loose so many players. They Newbied there game. They made it so people couldn't lose things, or get looted.

P.S> - im just making a point, I do not think this shard would last if you could not multi-client or have more then one account. FYI

[coolstorybro]

i just started here maybe a month or two ago. i was kinda pissed because it looked like it would be hard for me to get any kind of house. now i have a 2 story and tons of gold. its really easy to save up money once you can cast EV (barding never did it for me, but i also only had 50 magery on my bard).

when i had a small house, using a table wall, i had enough room to store more than i'd ever need really. i think its just like that other guy said, it takes a little more effort than just buying a deed to get the really sweet houses. seems pretty era accurate to me.

now that i'm getting a little bit of juice behind my characters, i think the housing market here is really cool. i did like that change they made recently where friends can't refresh houses forever, though.

my 2c

[Lord Cavewight of GL]

How will it NOT deter people from joining? Who wants to come to a server, start a new character, and know they have to save up for a castle to buy a keep. But all that aside, IDOC is another topic, I agree we should increase this decay to make it Era Accruate.

I guess your right man, Who would want to "save up" for a castle or a keep? I think the proper way to deal with this is a auto-castle creation system, When you start your character your assigned a random castle placed in green arces. That way everyone will get a castle and the shard will grow beyond our wildest expectations into a golden age of Ultima Online.


O yes, and IDOC is another topic....
Lets not mention houses fall every day on second age it might detract from my silly argument.

[Oneiros]

I've been here a little over a week and I am mostly a noob (though I did play UO during this era on OSI servers, just didn't learn much about the game). I thought a house would be crazy hard to get, but I had one within 4-5 days. I also thought it would be hard to find a spot, but I found a spot in what I think is a very cool location within about 15 minutes of starting my search for suitable house spots. I am not concerned with the fact that I may have to pay a premium in the future to upgrade because I have everything I need now. Anything else is eye candy, and I'd like to get in on the housing market myself some day, so more power to the people who speculate.

[Biohazard]

How will it NOT deter people from joining? Who wants to come to a server, start a new character, and know they have to save up for a castle to buy a keep. But all that aside, IDOC is another topic, I agree we should increase this decay to make it Era Accruate.

I guess your right man, Who would want to "save up" for a castle or a keep? I think the proper way to deal with this is a auto-castle creation system, When you start your character your assigned a random castle placed in green arces. That way everyone will get a castle and the shard will grow beyond our wildest expectations into a golden age of Ultima Online.

is that really the conclusion you drew from what he said?

[Lord Cavewight of GL]

How will it NOT deter people from joining? Who wants to come to a server, start a new character, and know they have to save up for a castle to buy a keep. But all that aside, IDOC is another topic, I agree we should increase this decay to make it Era Accruate.

I guess your right man, Who would want to "save up" for a castle or a keep? I think the proper way to deal with this is a auto-castle creation system, When you start your character your assigned a random castle placed in green arces. That way everyone will get a castle and the shard will grow beyond our wildest expectations into a golden age of Ultima Online.

is that really the conclusion you drew from what he said?

What did I miss biohazzard?

That he said , you save up for a castle to buy a keep?
I guess since I didnt reply directly in that context your assuming I dont know what he was typing....

My reply was directed at the notion of, you have to save to buy... the largest houses in the game.

[nightshark]

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.

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.

I underlined and bold the important information in those two paragraphs. Now hopefully you can CLEARLY see that if there is a "housing crisis" due to inactive players, its created by people like YOU.

if we are aiming for era accurate housing, they should decay in 7 days

don't understand how the shard housing should not be reduced because of era accuracy, then have super long house decay times which remove one of the coolest features from the game (IDOCs)

[Kaivan]

Actually, the exact decay time is some time in approximately 11 days. We haven't pinned down exactly how long that is yet so we don't have it in.

[Murugan]

it is a losing argument with so many stupid comments. I can not even state my opinion because I guess they are simply wrong. Bio, it really is not point in dealing with these guys.

Points I have been trying to make:

Shard was crowded on OSI due to a large player base, NOT 100 - 400 people who loved to own 15 house or more

Offline shards are maintained because of a playerbase, attracting new players AND keeping old ones is where its at.

The enitre Era Accurate argument is lame and stupid, because this shard (like any) will pick and choice which ones to follow and which ones to bend.

There is NO REASON for a shard who insists on staying 100% true to the Era, to constantly change. This game is 13 years old, and the Era which has published notes, we are trying to "Stick to" was from 1999. Point is, it should have opened, and said this is it, like it or leave it. Instead the damn shit changes each week, with an update here, or a change there. Point in case, agro assults for thieves has changed (a year or so ago), deeds were once not newbied, now are, runebooks were not Newbied, now are, you used to see kill counts but no longer can . . . sure moving to an "era accurate" movment, but kind of false advertising, because this "era" spanned for more time then the last day of its OSI exsitance. Meaning, if we mirrored the shard on the release of second age, it would still be JUST AS ACCURATE as if we mirror it to the last day of second age!

Eitherway, Im done with this argument! Ill perhaps be back when the shard dies, and desides to be re-born and bring back the original playerbase and more that this shard has seemed to lose over the years!

[Lord Cavewight of GL]

Shard was crowded on OSI due to a large player base, NOT 100 - 400 people who loved to own 15 house or more

Your correct about this.

However, you seem to want to put in non-era accurate mechanics regarding housing simply because our playerbase isnt the same. This doesn't make much sense.

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

Eitherway, Im done with this argument! Ill perhaps be back when the shard dies, and desides to be re-born and bring back the original playerbase and more that this shard has seemed to lose over the years!

Alot of the arguments you make seem to be based on a fictional account of the real situation.

How many players does it seem we have lost over the years? Last time I logged in we have been peaking over 700 every single night.. this time last year it peaked around 250-300. Sounds like we have gained players.

[Sandro]

810 online atm

edit: 831 now..

[Murugan]

However, you seem to want to put in non-era accurate mechanics regarding housing simply because our playerbase isnt the same. This doesn't make much sense.

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

What is non-Era accurate? I am suggesting we go MORE for Era accurate, and reduce it to 2 houses per account to allow it to be more like the 5 houses per player. And you do not think that playerbase and housing has no impact on each other?

Alot of the arguments you make seem to be based on a fictional account of the real situation.

How many players does it seem we have lost over the years? Last time I logged in we have been peaking over 700 every single night.. this time last year it peaked around 250-300. Sounds like we have gained players.

Don't know if you ever played the 1999 or prior Era that this shard is following, but what are you claiming are "fictional accounts"?

I guess I i have not looked at the current player base in a while. I am actually impressed with the current players online. My accounts for the players we lots rests in the players and guilds that used to play and were very active in the past. but if they have been replaced, and then some, then I guess I must retract my statment. I was very un-aware of the playerbase being what it is. Well done UOSA.

[Lord Cavewight of GL]

What is non-Era accurate? I am suggesting we go MORE for Era accurate, and reduce it to 2 houses per account to allow it to be more like the 5 houses per player. And you do not think that playerbase and housing has no impact on each other?

You ask me what is non-Era accurate about what your saying, then suggest something non-Era accurate.
T2A you had 5 houses per account - limiting to 2 would be considered inaccurate.

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.

If you were shard shopping would you quit one with overcrowded houses and move to one thats empty? Obviously a new player would pick the shard with overcrowded houses.

No one is going to quit over a lack of empty land.
Can they still place houses without any empty land? Yes because ALL houses decay.

Don't know if you ever played the 1999 or prior Era that this shard is following, but what are you claiming are "fictional accounts"?

The fiction I was referring to was your mainly your claim of a declining playerbase. You seem to have thought our playerbase was declining and you made a point to say it. Obviously thats not true but you went out of your way to say that in defense of your opinion.

But it also refers to your ideas that a lack of housing space negatively impacts the shard when in fact it is a leading indicator of a shard with a very strong playerbase.

[Murugan]

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 statments 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!

I understand that 2 houses per account is not ERA accurat, i was suggestion dropping it to make the FEEL era accurate because of the amount of houses each player DID own on OSI.

Why do you not comment on my comments about making everything Era accurate then? IE. no multi-client, implementing the anti-macro laws (this might not have been T2A accurate), or some of the other things i mentioned.

I admitted to being wrong about the playerbase, when I started these arguments, we had 300 or so clients online, and of those, it seemed like it was no more then 100 players all running 3 accounts. If this has changed, well done! But it still does not change the fact that you are wishy-washy on your comments!