UO Second Age

I know I don't, uh, play here anymore, but I thought of this last night while trying to avoid real work.

Currently there effectively is a 15 house limit per player. And this may not seem so bad. There are still plenty of spots left to place houses, even castles.

BUT there are two problems.

(1) Some people own a lot of valuable real estate that they don't use, i.e., I believe one person owns most of the houses around Yew Moongate.

(2) Long term growth will require fewer houses per player.

So here is my proposal: A one house per account rule. Effectively, three houses per player. This would near completely solve problems 1 and 2.

There, of course, would be the rather unhappy downside of people losing houses they have placed. But such people already have 4+ houses. Boo hoo. Plus, the housing changes could be phased in along the following lines:

Day 1 - Announce new house limits. A message appears to you when you open a house for the first time since the announcement is made. Also, make a lot of noise on the forums, MoTD and over server wide announcements. No one will be caught off guard.

Day 7 - Implement limits on placing new houses.

Day 30 - Drop houses beyond the limit of 3. I'm not sure how you can do this. Maybe by hand even. By then most people will have brought their houses down to 3. People that haven't will face someone else deciding which houses to drop and all of their goods hitting the ground.

A drawn out, step-by-step procedure gives people time to adjust. I picked 30 days because I think that is how long it takes a house to decay. I don't know for sure.

Day 31 - Build a giant statue of chumbucket at WBB.

I agree with all but the statue. I always felt like the number of allowed houses would, in the long term, bite people in the butt.

The only positive side to lots of houses is that it creates the T2A feel of 'less available land' and helps drive the cost of homes up.

i have spent retarded hours settin up my hosues, i dont wanna have to take em all down

BlackFoot wrote:i have spent retarded hours settin up my hosues, i dont wanna have to take em all down

Which reminds me...fewer houses per person means fewer items and faster save times for everyone ^_^

nay, you can fit a retarded amount in a small house,
item hoarding is upto the player not his house

Chum, while this does sound like a good idea it has one major flaw.

Wifi.

I can access 3 other unsecured networks in my house. What does this mean? It means that I can make 3 extra accounts per IP address, and will be able to place 9 extra houses, for a total of 12, hence, destroying your plan.

This would not be fair to people that do not have access to other IP addresses, and therefore, this should not be patched in.

How about changing the decay times from 30 days to a lower limit? OSI was around 10-12 days I believe. While that is a little low, a quick fix could be to change the decay to 24 days. This way, the people that only log in once a month to refresh their house will get a nice little surprise

why try to fix it if it aint broke

do not change the decay time, even if this idea is enacted

if the population of the server grows (lets say 400+ uniques) then i support the idea of limiting amount of houses per account.

I disagree with this proposal.

The less area to place houses drives real estate value up. I remember in t2a and UOR OSI a small house could sell for anywhere between 250k - 800k depending on the location because there was no where to place a house. I'm not claiming that UOSA will get to a point where you can't place a small house, however if theres no more rooms for castles, keeps, or even towers....prices could be drawn up.

BlackFoot wrote:i have spent retarded hours settin up my hosues, i dont wanna have to take em all down

Certainly, this is a downside. It seems to me though that it is outweighed by the benefits.

Ronk wrote:

BlackFoot wrote:i have spent retarded hours settin up my hosues, i dont wanna have to take em all down

Which reminds me...fewer houses per person means fewer items and faster save times for everyone ^_^

This is a really good point.

BlackFoot wrote:nay, you can fit a retarded amount in a small house,
item hoarding is upto the player not his house

A good counterpoint.

Kefka wrote:Chum, while this does sound like a good idea it has one major flaw.

Wifi.

I can access 3 other unsecured networks in my house. What does this mean? It means that I can make 3 extra accounts per IP address, and will be able to place 9 extra houses, for a total of 12, hence, destroying your plan.

This would not be fair to people that do not have access to other IP addresses, and therefore, this should not be patched in.

How about changing the decay times from 30 days to a lower limit? OSI was around 10-12 days I believe. While that is a little low, a quick fix could be to change the decay to 24 days. This way, the people that only log in once a month to refresh their house will get a nice little surprise

If you have more than 3 accounts, you are already violating the rules. BAN I SAY! BAN! Besides, that the restriction would not keep some people from cheating and thereby having a small edge does not show that the restriction is seriously flawed.

BlackFoot wrote:why try to fix it if it aint broke

It isn't quite broken, I'd say, but it certainly has serious drawbacks as it currently stands. And those will become more serious as time passes and the shard grows.

Teknix wrote:do not change the decay time, even if this idea is enacted

Yes, you should want long periods of time before the house decays. Not everyone can play everyday or even every week. And it is sometimes nice to go on long UO vacations and still be able to come back to your belongings.

if the population of the server grows (lets say 400+ uniques) then i support the idea of limiting amount of houses per account.

Crab: I don't think high house prices are good. Opinions vary I suppose. For my view, I'd say it is better than more people have access to desirable areas, e.g., near moongates, than other players be able to make a huge profit without contributing to the economy, i.e., making goods, collecting resources, etc.

chumbucket wrote:Crab: I don't think high house prices are good. Opinions vary I suppose. For my view, I'd say it is better than more people have access to desirable areas, e.g., near moongates, than other players be able to make a huge profit without contributing to the economy, i.e., making goods, collecting resources, etc.

I completely agree.

I wonder how many people arguing against the housing limit are currently holding houses in places of interest in the hopes of making a profit.

i have houses in places of interest, but never intend to sell them
i have a house for every active char i use, i keep em all seperated

BlackFoot wrote:i have spent retarded hours settin up my hosues, i dont wanna have to take em all down

lol I can remember plenty of retarded hours doing things that osi changed. Welcome to Ultima Online!

I think its kinda gready to cry when some people say maybe 15 houses are to much..

I mean sure there are still spots lets but, that is the crappy spots...

wow i can place a house with a vendor where ? in a forrest wow, i bet many will come.

What about all those emtry houses with nothing in it, and used for nothing around all towns.

we better not give any new players the option to place a house and a vendor near a town.

Kinda a bad signal to send to new people to the server like me.

Is it really so bad with a 1 house each account?

or i guess new people just need to eat shit or pay 1mill for a small house at a decent spot.

well if a house is empty and taking up a great spot you never knwo what that person is using it for

to say they arent doing exactly what you would do with it so this means they are jsut hoarding spots is unfair

maybe they just operate out of the single secure container and pvp from the house in a location of interest

i have my hosues all decked out and loaded up, is it unfair that i earned them and make exceptional use of them unfair to new players? or do i have to transfer one of each of my houses to all of my inactive friends accounts and then were all good?