Player Run Towns - Updates?

[HardCore]

The topic of player run town add-ons, era accuracy, stuff, was brought up last October. Has staff made any head way on what the new guidelines will be going forward? Players offered to assist in some ideas for rules, but staff wanted to take it on themselves. As much as we are all trying to keep the shard as active as possible (players and staff), it's no mystery that securing land, working towards a guild town, maintaining up keep, etc. is something that would interest many.

Not looking to start a player/staff war here, just interested in another update to UOSA. As always, thanks to Boomland and Anarcho for all the coding/events/super awesome stuff and to all the active players both in PvP, PvM, guild building, mutiny!, IRC battles, etc. that are keeping this the best UO free shard out there! Yar!

Original player town add-on thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6439

Last years player vs. staff battle: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6051

[Boomland Jenkins]

There have been no advances on this as far as I can tell. However, since there's been an absence in staff-to-staff conversation on this (for many months), I am willing to hash out some ideas with players that I can then present to other Staff for implementation. Obviously not all ideas will be able to get implemented, but getting a jumpstart on this with community feedback seems to be the best (only?) way to get the conversation.

I will be in the IRC room called ##imatown anytime I'm on IRC for the foreseeable future. I invite you to join the room and provide suggestions on how we can reshape the town/guild add-ons. Let's get a conversation going so I can get a policy draft setup for review by Kaivan and Anarcho.

[Roser]

Hardcore, your second link seems to be pointing to the wrong forum post.

I'm not sure how exactly staff envisions re-introducing town add's but here is my two cent's...

I believe the benefits of having a solid town add on program will be a big deal for the server community. They reward active players with the high honor of having their own mark on the land, which likely leads to increased goal based activity and player retention. Being part of a guild that builds their own town gives special meaning to those involved and to the server landscape as a whole. This facet of Secondage has been absent for to long.

In the past players who sought out town add's had to ask the community (players) if they are worthy or not, I don't like that idea as it is prone to trolling and butt hurt enemies giving biased opinions. I would rather the decision be left completely to the staff's discretion as staff should have zero conflict of interest on the matter.

Clearly define the rules on how to obtain town add's and the costs associated. I suggest breaking this down into two category's - exterior and interior add's. Have a per tile cost for exterior add's, for example, roads costs X amount of gold/resources per tile thus making larger roads cost more than smaller. Have interior add's cost X amount per property type, small houses cost less than castles.

I would like to see an option for replacing a player house within the town for a structure of roughly equal foundation size - perhaps this could be a category of its own "replace structure". It would be pretty neat to see a house spot transformed into a unique structure such as the old URK fort near the desert of compassion, or a fire pit, or a duel arena etc etc....

Costs - In the past town add's have had an initial cost of gold/wood/ore and perhaps some other resources, this is perfect and I think it has been done well and should continue to be part of the add on process.

Upkeep on the other hand, I've never been a fan of - relying on GM's to essentially debt collect at the end of each month to keep towns from decaying seems tedious and unnecessary to me. I suggest the add's be tied to nearby house signs in the town, so if a house fall's a portion of the add's fall.

Furthermore, I think the decay of inactive towns should be left up to staff's discretion, they have in the past slowly decayed towns that seem absent of players to the point where all the add's are eventually deleted - I do suggest clear communication to inactive guild town members that their town is in danger of decaying, which should be covered by the appearance of decay in the town (in the past the POD dock slowly started to burn down and enemy pirates moved in to the town before it was completely deleted). If a town has made it to a decay stage, it should then fall on the players of that town to rebuild (new initial cost) or risk further decay/deletion.

That's all folks, I hope to see this program re-introduced soon.

[morgan1109]

I like everything Rose said. The only change I would make is the add-ons should be run like vendors. You have to constantly feed them gold or they pack up and disappear.

It serves the same purpose as Roses decay section, however while they are active it provides a very good gold sink. On of UO’s main problems is it doesn’t have enough ways to get gold out of the system. This causes inflation problems, etc. Town add-ons would be an excellent way to draw additional gold out of the system. You would accomplish two very good goals for the server in the process.

The add-ons would eventually decay away if nobody is feeding them gold, etc.

[SirEricKain]

Completely agree with Rose, I wouldn't change a thing to his method.

If thousands of ingots/boards are required initially to start a town that should be a sufficient gold sink.

Obviously if a city goes in-active the GM's would delete as they have in the past, which would prompt further gold sinkage for anyone else entertaining a guild town notion.

[WarmApplepie]

Wtb stable in TG plz

[bigbob]

why dont we just do it the way origin did it back in the day? isnt that what were supposed to be trying to do here?

[morgan1109]

Ingots and boards don't get gold out of the system. You can acquire ingots without expending gold, or you can buy ingots from someone else. When you by from someone else the gold is simply being transferred between individuals not eliminated which is what you need to stop inflationary pressures.

It's the same reason the silver rewards don't get gold out of the system. You are simply transferring gold with silver when you trade for your silver. The gold still exists in the world. Until you can buy silver with gold at an NPC vendor, the silver reward system will not impact the inflationary pressure.

It's the nature of the process. The only way to get gold out of the system is to get people to buy stuff from NPC vendors, or having gold sinks (like player vendors). Player town items would be a great way to eliminate some of the excess gold in the system.

Right now reagents are the only real gold sink in the game. Sadly reagents are the best way to create gold via farming, so it actually doesn't help at all. That leaves player vendors and houses as the main gold sinks. Since you can redeed houses, it's honestly only the ones that fall that actually do anything for a gold sink. So pretty much player vendors are how we eliminate gold currently...

[Brules]

I agree with Rose suggestions as well. What I DO NOT AGREE WITH is how the staff have handled it recently by arbitrarily deleting items "just because" without fomrally making any policy changes OR alerting potentially affected guilds of said policy changes. Ie: Kaivan directing Boom to just go out and "delete stuff" is total bullshit.....come up with a new policy or stick to the old one until a new one is crafted.

It is stuff like that that drives people away from this shard.

I would like to see the previous changes Boomland made reversed until a new policy is in place then adhere to your policy and not deviate "just because".

[WarmApplepie]

I agree with Rose suggestions as well. What I DO NOT AGREE WITH is how the staff have handled it recently by arbitrarily deleting items "just because" without fomrally making any policy changes OR alerting potentially affected guilds of said policy changes. Ie: Kaivan directing Boom to just go out and "delete stuff" is total bullshit.....come up with a new policy or stick to the old one until a new one is crafted.

It is stuff like that that drives people away from this shard.

I would like to see the previous changes Boomland made reversed until a new policy is in place then adhere to your policy and not deviate "just because".

normally i would've call you a titty baby, but with the sever numbers being so piss poor lately im all in favor of keeping players happy. So ill +1 this guy

[Boomland Jenkins]

. Ie: Kaivan directing Boom to just go out and "delete stuff" is total bullshit.....come up with a new policy or stick to the old one until a new one is crafted.

Just a correction here. Kaivan did not direct me.

Derrick had agreed that removing some, but not all add-ons in areas where guild towns have become inactive, eyesores such as areas with pathways built around housing layouts that had changed or for areas that had potential house placement being blocked. Leaving behind a "history of the shard" at each area was important and in many cases, items removed were minimal compared to what was left behind.

I know Brules is upset over the land in Moonglow. [$$$]'s rune tower was given exterior decorated landscaping to host events and to be a place of community. They had (and still have most of) a vendor tent, added walkway, light landscaping, and a dock/pier.

An example of what was removed is as followed: 33%to 50% of their docks and a patch/row of flowers in front of the tower.

This similar approach was taken in a handful of areas with staff add-ons that had no regular activity that even remotely represented what the guilds or communities were doing at the time they got their add-ons.

[Kaivan]

Ie: Kaivan directing Boom to just go out and "delete stuff" is total bullshit.....come up with a new policy or stick to the old one until a new one is crafted.

I know that Boomland has already responded to this, but I would just like to point out the following: I'm certainly fine with players criticizing me for doing certain things, and I know that I'm generally viewed as the "bad guy" when things aren't done to bolster the immediate fun of those who voice their opinions on the forums, but please, try to at least be critical of things that I've actually done instead of just conjuring up ideas about what I've done and blaming them on me.

[Capitalist]

Brules has posted nothing but butthurt for the last 50+ posts. The end.

[Brules]

Vega the above has nothing to do with this topic of discussion.

I just want the staff to either come up with a concise and well thought out process / rules or enforce the previous system without arbitrarily going off the reservation and doing whatever they choose "just because".

In the previous system guilds had to supply gold/resources for their add ons and pay for upkeep. Well you don't charge upkeep, you don't have any process for that in place so you decide to just delete based off of a perceived activity level that there really is NO set standard for.

You all are hard asses about era accuracy and how it is handled/implemented/changed, but in instances like this you seem to just do what you please when you please. Kaivan is over the top in how he justifies era accuracy, but a subject like this has been languishing for YEARS with no change or effort to correct it.

So please either stick to the old system (charge for upkeep) or come up with a new system. This shard is stagnating/losing people who are into this sort of thing. Take HC for an example, he and his guild should have well earned some add ons by now, but the lack of any movement on this subject has subjected them to add on purgatory. I am suprised they haven't moved on to another shard by now.....

A lot of our good RP'ers have all left for a variety of reasons, but a lot of it is tied to this very issue that seems to be in a constant state of "working on it".

[sircharlestha3rd]

HC is here to stay and don't whine like you.

You haven't logged on in years.

Go to another shard.

U suck.