1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

Multiple houses?

Discussion in 'UHall' started by Razeial, Mar 22, 2008.

  1. Razeial

    Razeial Guest

    Do to the recent surge of players playing on more than one shard, i propose we ask the devs to be allowed to have one house per shard. The room for it is there, but i wanted to know how others thought about this.
     
  2. if this were to happen, new players wouldnt have anywhere to place at all.

    i say, suck it up and pay for another account if you want another house. this keeps everything under control. some shards are so full (like atl) that an 18x18 will sell for close to what a castle does on legends.
     
  3. Razeial

    Razeial Guest

    In all honesty, i don't see UO getting all that many "new players" anymore :/
     
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Is there as many empty housing locations as there are filled?

    That was rhetorical, btw...
    Bad idea, basically.
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    We already tryed one house per shard, that gave alot of unused houses. Now where we don't have to refresh our houses, it would be even worse.

    Only way to do it is to allow a small second house, there can be placed on same shard or an other shard.

    This way, players will move the house if they move shard or drop their second shard. It can also be used to have both a Trammel and a Felucca house if one char is red.

    If we allow a house on each shard, players will end up with houses on alot of shards they never play and it will make it cost mills for new players to get a house. Think we tryed that already.
     
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Have you tried to buy a copy of UO lately? None of the game stores in my town have a copy of any expansions. How would we get new players with this kind of inventory? Yes I know KR is free to download but that is a problem in itself. Not trying to be pessimistic but is it asking too much for a store to have a copy of the game in stock?
     
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I don't think they don't have them on the shelves because they are sold out, I think it's because they don't sell enough to leave it on the shelves collecting dust. It's like your local grocery store keeping hmm... rotten fruit it a basket hoping someone will walk past and buy one. When there are games stocked daily that are bought daily why keep the garbage up!
     
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    NO. But I wouldnt mind seeing at least 1 other house allowed on the account only if its on a different server it would allow more people to try other shards/siege, (siege was at its prime when people could have a house on other shards had maby 10x+- the playerbase it has now.). It would also make a character transfer less of a pain. If you have 2 houses and you want to try a new shard and place a home you will be asked witch house you want to condemn by shard. I wouldnt mind seeing it as a 10yr vet reward or everyone able to use.
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I sure do miss having my small tower or villa on all those other shards I have skilled charactors on, and it sure would solve the problem of transfering items to other charactors. When they went to the one house per shard, I lost several places on those shards, and I would pay real cash for a housing token to place a small home [villa or log cabin size] on another shards that did not have to be refreshed like the old days
     
  10. <blockquote><hr>

    In all honesty, i don't see UO getting all that many "new players" anymore :/

    [/ QUOTE ]

    go hang out at new haven bank , even on atlantic there are usually at least 3 different 'young' people running around each day.
    you don't get 'young' from deleting a character and making a new one to do quest's so this lead's to the probability that there are indeed new players coming to UO each day.

    not to mention returning players and the (censored) that play WoW that come to there sences and relize that game isn't all that great.
     
  11. Setnaffa

    Setnaffa Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    By my estimate, there are 80,000 accounts. There isn't room for 80,000 houses per shard.

    A better idea would be to allow each player 972 housing tiles. Each account would be limited to one house on any specific shard, but they can keep placing houses on other shards until their housing tiles are used up. 972 tiles would allow 1 castle, 3 18x18's, 12 9x9's, or any combination in between.

    The reason EA will never do this is because there are alot of accounts that are only kept open because of the house the account has. If they allowed multiple houses or 972 housing tiles, they'd see alot of accounts closed after houses are consolidated onto fewer accounts.
     
  12. Guest

    Guest Guest

    As far as having a house on another shard, and then not playing it, i think a second house, "Anywhere", should have to be refreshed oncce every week. Just like boats have to be.

    And you can use Boats if you need some extra storage space. :)
     
  13. Guest

    Guest Guest

    ...

    Two houses, equivalent to the size of 1 castle and one 7x7, one house per shard.

    IMO.
     
  14. Guest

    Guest Guest

    NO.

    MOre importantly, HELL NO.
     
  15. I am for it. I liked other shards, well 2 but no house was no fun so I left.
     
  16. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    ...

    Two houses, equivalent to the size of 1 castle and one 7x7, one house per shard.

    IMO.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I can accept that except the part about one house per shard. Max two houses make sense. I don't think it should matter of they are placed on same shard or 2 different shards.
    If you place a house on a second shard and after a while stop playing your second shard, you will have zero reason to take down the house unless you start playing on a new second shard.
    If you can place both houses on your main shard, you will have a reason to take it down on the shard you stopped playing.

    You could make it so you had to refresh the house once each 3 weeks if on same shard as your main house.
     
  17. _Uriah Heep_

    _Uriah Heep_ Guest

    rtlfc

    Never Happen! If they allow more than one house per account, they will seriously be in trouble. Man those subs will drop, no idea how much, but i bet 50%. Take me for example, I have 3 accounts atm, do I play UO and enjoy it so much that I need 21 characters? nope [​IMG]
    It's all for the houses and storage. If I was allowed to have one more on the main account, I could cut MY subs by 66% hehheh.

    Yeah, we will never see this happen, I would bet on that!
     
  18. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    rtlfc

    Never Happen! If they allow more than one house per account, they will seriously be in trouble. Man those subs will drop, no idea how much, but i bet 50%. Take me for example, I have 3 accounts atm, do I play UO and enjoy it so much that I need 21 characters? nope [​IMG]
    It's all for the houses and storage. If I was allowed to have one more on the main account, I could cut MY subs by 66% hehheh.

    Yeah, we will never see this happen, I would bet on that!

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I not asking for another house on the same shard same account, what I would wish for is being able to place another smaller house on a different shard like before the one house one shard rule. We have 5 accounts, all of them have homes on Sonoma, The youngest account holds our vendor house, "Drake's Island". The two oldest accounts both have homes in trammel, one is the THB tower right across from the yew GY, the other is a 18x18 in northern Yew that we have set up to look like a villa. The other two we have are a little younger, one is our BOD tower and the other is the THB LP house, "the only Lock Picking house still around on Sonoma". All of these places are well used everyday and we are sure not going to drop any of them soon.

    However on other shards we have well trained charactors that have to stay at Inns, or if lucky are friended to homes of good people we know on those shards. Very few shards are we friended to someone's home. And not all of our charactors there are friended only one or two on those shards. And if "Like on Siege" the house is transfered those charactors lose friended status and most times we don't get any IM/ICQ message letting us know and it comes with a big shock to be sitting on the lawn outside the house, in a land of Felucca rules this can be dangerous.
     
  19. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Let's have tents back. One or two secures depending on tent style placed. Allowed one tent and one house on home shard, and one tent on another shard. Tents would have to be refreshed once a month. This way you could still take a vacation or something without worrying.
     
  20. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    rtlfc

    Never Happen! If they allow more than one house per account, they will seriously be in trouble. Man those subs will drop, no idea how much, but i bet 50%. Take me for example, I have 3 accounts atm, do I play UO and enjoy it so much that I need 21 characters? nope [​IMG]
    It's all for the houses and storage. If I was allowed to have one more on the main account, I could cut MY subs by 66% hehheh.

    Yeah, we will never see this happen, I would bet on that!

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Same reason they never will allow more than one char slot on Siege.

    But never say never, they did let all the BOD accounts go so who knows.
     
  21. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    In all honesty, i don't see UO getting all that many "new players" anymore :/

    [/ QUOTE ]

    go hang out at new haven bank , even on atlantic there are usually at least 3 different 'young' people running around each day.
    you don't get 'young' from deleting a character and making a new one to do quest's so this lead's to the probability that there are indeed new players coming to UO each day.

    not to mention returning players and the (censored) that play WoW that come to there sences and relize that game isn't all that great.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    A lot of the 'young' players in UO are dupers, scripters, or IDOC hunter's extra accounts to hold house spots. It's really a pain that they MAKE you start in New Haven these days even after giving you the gump on where you want to start.
     
  22. Breeze64

    Breeze64 Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    4
    you would run out of room like yesterday if they let us have more then one house per account.
    I have more then one account just for housing as do many others.
    can you imagine &amp; all the whinning that would go on because peeps couldn't place another house because there would be no room again.
    EA isn't going to give up that 13 bucks a month even if it is only every 3 months.

    I would really like to see all the osi &amp; other houses that are just sitting there because they are bugged or on trail accounts or whatever go away!
    I have a house next to one of mine that I never ever see anyone at &amp; nothing ever changes in it, the amountof items or the weights of the secured container never ever change either. I been there for 4 yrs now &amp; nothing zip zero zilch happens there!!!
     
  23. Guest

    Guest Guest

    A long time ago I made a suggestion about houses. My thoughts were:

    One additional house, on a designated shard, of limited size, not transferable, needing to be refreshed and sold as a token from EA.

    You would buy the code, claim the token on the shard of your choice.

    The house would be not more than 10 x 10 in size, you could customize it, demolish it, but not transfer it. It would be tied to your account like a soulstone.

    I never got as far as thinking what would happen if you demolished. A house deed maybe that you could place somewhere else on the shard, or take with you if you x sharded.

    Didn't happen, and probably never will. Pity, I'd like to be able to place a small shop on Siege separate from the house our chars live in.
     
  24. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    A long time ago I made a suggestion about houses. My thoughts were:

    One additional house, on a designated shard, of limited size, not transferable, needing to be refreshed and sold as a token from EA.

    You would buy the code, claim the token on the shard of your choice.

    The house would be not more than 10 x 10 in size, you could customize it, demolish it, but not transfer it. It would be tied to your account like a soulstone.

    I never got as far as thinking what would happen if you demolished. A house deed maybe that you could place somewhere else on the shard, or take with you if you x sharded.

    Didn't happen, and probably never will. Pity, I'd like to be able to place a small shop on Siege separate from the house our chars live in.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Not a bad idea but I would like to add.

    If the house is not visited of the account for 3 weeks, it will deed itself and the deed will go in your bank. The contents of the house will drop on the grown.

    It would not really help new SP players, when they can't transfer their deed from normal shards to Siege.
    Only way would be so if you demolished it or it drop, it will drop back on the account and you will have to choose new shard and get a token there
     
  25. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I don't think we should have one house per shard.... though I would like to see the ability to have a second house ....... per account.... even if they limited it to not having them both on the same shard...
     
  26. Theo_GL

    Theo_GL Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    6,405
    Likes Received:
    678
    One per shard is a bit drastic - but it would be nice to have more than one across all shards.

    I play about 5 diff shards and its really a pain on my non-main shards where I have no house. I really am not willing to pay for 5 accts just to have 5 houses.

    I would like to see a max of 3 houses per account and no more than 1 per shard.

    That way you could have say GL, Sonoma, Siege.

    It would give more ppl a chance to try Siege and allow you to have a 'secondary' shard when yours goes down for maintenance, patch, whatever...
     
  27. Breeze64

    Breeze64 Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    4
    one other problem with more than one house, is the IDOCers that would be taking advantage of that.
    I am sure there is many other problem that could from this too
     
  28. Guest

    Guest Guest

    The best solution would be to set how many titels you are alowed to have on your account. For each yer old your account is you will get more titels. This meens all can place and for each yer you can build out or place more houses.
     
  29. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    The best solution would be to set how many titels you are alowed to have on your account. For each yer old your account is you will get more titels. This meens all can place and for each yer you can build out or place more houses.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    No, all need to have equal opportunities no matter if new to the game or 10 years veteran.
    The game need new players.
    Same count of tiles for all accounts, new as well as old.
     
  30. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    In all honesty, i don't see UO getting all that many "new players" anymore :/

    [/ QUOTE ]

    go hang out at new haven bank , even on atlantic there are usually at least 3 different 'young' people running around each day.
    you don't get 'young' from deleting a character and making a new one to do quest's so this lead's to the probability that there are indeed new players coming to UO each day.

    not to mention returning players and the (censored) that play WoW that come to there sences and relize that game isn't all that great.

    [/ QUOTE ]Great. so you are saying you have about 100 new players per month (1,200 per year). Well, they better open up new land masses and shards to accomodate all the new players. Oh, BTW, you are an (censored) for that WoW comment.
     
  31. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    Great. so you are saying you have about 100 new players per month (1,200 per year). Well, they better open up new land masses and shards to accomodate all the new players. Oh, BTW, you are an (censored) for that WoW comment.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    UO may get that many new players on each shard but a new player are worth nothing if he quit after a month or two.

    Even on Siege we get new players but most do not stay and we are losing veteran players too. The question is, why do they not stay.
    I know Devs work hard to changes it and I hope it's not to late.
    Thanks to the firesouls between the devs, there is still hope.
     
  32. Olahorand

    Olahorand Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,336
    Likes Received:
    243
    <blockquote><hr>

    one other problem with more than one house, is the IDOCers that would be taking advantage of that.
    I am sure there is many other problem that could from this too

    [/ QUOTE ]

    well this would be solved easily: Already now you are stuck with the 7 day timer in case you have already a house on account while getting a second one.
    No IDOCer has 7 days time to wait - and the most use dedicated accounts for IDOCing anyway.
    While you have already a second house, maybe you should not even be able to place/buy another one so never any of your houses can become condemned due to placing/trading and you have to perform a choice?
    Still wishing, that there would be a chance to relocate an entire house with design, secures and lockdowns, security settings etc, be it on the same shard or while performing a shard transfer.
    A second official house or the ability to move would also help the people who are currently holding grandfathered houses. Here the only choice is to give up an house.
    One problem is that there is currently not much value in housing any more. A second house per account could help to reduce this AoS impact.
     
  33. Breeze64

    Breeze64 Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    4
    yeah IDOCer has a 7 day wait if they keep house, but if they drop the place that 7day wait is GONE!
     
  34. RaDian FlGith

    RaDian FlGith Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    323
    <blockquote><hr>

    The reason EA will never do this is because there are alot of accounts that are only kept open because of the house the account has. If they allowed multiple houses or 972 housing tiles, they'd see alot of accounts closed after houses are consolidated onto fewer accounts.

    [/ QUOTE ]I don't know about other multiple account holders, but if I could place multiple houses per account, then I'd add houses to each account.

    As I've said elsewhere, even the ability to add say a secondary 9x9 to each account (as long as it's on the same shard) would allow me (and others) to add small decorative buildings to RP settings, like a small guard tower or a memorial garden or whatever... stuff that could be larger plots, but that really tend to be left out because of housing limitations.

    Just my thoughts, but I think it'd be an awesome thing to have happen, particularly as housing isn't that difficult to find.
     
  35. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I'll drop $30 today for a second house token. I'd even do it for a 10x10 max. token.

    And I think the second house must be on a separate shard.