UO Second Age

Agreed. Glad you've come around Bioharzard =P

I rather enjoy knowing there's like NO spots for castles/keeps. This fuels a housing market that forces people to wheel/deal, value property based on location and other aspects.

Kinda the way it should be.

DrFaustus wrote:
Kinda the way it should be.

And the way it WAS!

It WAS that way because the servers had thousands of people playing, not 300 who have 15 houses each.

Restrict the housing to 1 per account.

Just ask for 1 per character (5 per account) is fine and ERA accurate.

Now the problem comes up... how many free accounts does one have just to gain additional housing?

I like how the players that own like 600 houses are the only ones actually saying they like this policy, the attempts to justify the NEED to have 15 houses on all your accounts are so incredibly weak in this thread its depressing. Its interesting to see players act like they deserve every castle/keep spot on this FREE SHARD because they came upon the server first. Its also funny how they think they're doing the shard a "service" by making a highly inflated real estate market that only the absolute richest partake in. This shard needs a housing change, 1 per account and and all others should not be "grandfathered" because that is completely skipping the issue. Nicks argument(which has been any sane persons argument this thread)is really all you need anyways, OSI was a server you PAYED to play on, with THOUSANDS of players. This server is FREE to play on, with a few HUNDRED players. I coloured coded the important words and capitalized them, just so you guys don't miss them.

Oh and ps, leaving the game for months only to have your friends refresh your empty houses in those prime spots? That is so beyond retarded it is hard to comprehend, the fact that it can be done indefinitely just blows my mind.

Agreed with the above...while house per character may be technically accurate, we are talking about a shard that has seemingly limitless accounts (3 accounts per ip means 15 houses base, let alone the fact that other accounts can be created on other ips and then accessed by the same player...)...making it rather easy for a single player to own dozens of properties.

Another point Id like to make that goes off of the above: For those that place houses, leave the shard/go to other servers. In T2A (or on OSI in general) there was a monthly cost in order to keep accounts, meaning there was an investment associated with keeping those properties. While it is technically accurate that a player could own multiple properties and log in once a week (or have a friend do so) just to refresh them, there was a financial burden involved meaning most players would just sell off/give away their properties rather than pay a monthly cost to a game they dont play just for keeping some imaginary property.

Again, this is a problem with going 100% technically accurate while disregarding many rules and features that kept such systems in check. IE:Multiply the number of houses ownable by allowing many multiple acounts....eliminate any burden or investment in the shard and allow players to leave without consequences.....Youll end up with a very abused system....thus why we see so much real estate being tied up by a much smaller playerbase.

TK-FourTwoOne wrote:I like how the players that own like 600 houses are the only ones actually saying they like this policy

Not true. I own 1 house on one account, and one shop on the other. That's it.

TK-FourTwoOne wrote:Oh and ps, leaving the game for months only to have your friends refresh your empty houses in those prime spots? That is so beyond retarded it is hard to comprehend, the fact that it can be done indefinitely just blows my mind.

I do agree with this. If you can't take the time to renew stuff yourself, than you shouldn't be able to have it.

nickhimself wrote:It WAS that way because the servers had thousands of people playing, not 300 who have 15 houses each.

Like I said, it is STILL accurate because there was three times the population we have. So 3 accounts x 1 player = 3 players x 1 account. Which both equal 15 houses, and the same amount of land used.

I'm willing to bet that the argument of "All you old players who have 15 houses" is false.

I don't have 15 houses, or even 14 for that matter.

Sjane, you haven't been here long enough to buy many, many houses. Are you trying to say you wouldn't have if you had been here longer than 2-3 months? Your argument about us *roughly* having the same amount as OSI server would have(900-1000 players? somehow i think back in the hayday of UO each shard had at least 2k, maybe im wrong though)is quite flawed, considering way more than just a few people end up using multiple accounts, even on P2P. You just can't have the ability to have that many houses placed per account and expect the shard to continue to grow as much as it should, believe it or not, new players do base opinions on a shard depending if they can place a house or not without having to pay 50k or its value as a "fee". If you want the server to grow, you can't hoard that much land. You can keep making the "but its accurate!!" claim but it just won't fly until we have a good 1k unique IPs, and I honestly doubt that happening if even at this point it can be a hassle to place houses larger than a small.

Faust, are you not the owner of "FAUST REAL ESTATE" or whatever its called? If so, saying you don't own 14 or 15 houses but infact owning like 13, doesn't change the argument....at all.

If you are arguing that you should be allowed to have 15 houses because OSI was overcrowded so this server should be as well, you are relying on a seriously weak and greedy aspect of the current housing situation.

One house per account. Only the house owner should be able to refresh. <-- Solve two issues with one fix.

I've only been on this server for little over a week and have been out making money in hopes of placing a patio. I almost have the cash but haven't been able to find a spot. It seems no matter where you go there are house's, towers and keeps stacked on top of each other but seldom do you see anyone in them. It's a shame that a server with so much promise and setup the way UO was supposed to be played has such a housing problem that it would discourage most new players from starting here.

I had no Idea of the housing Issue until I started looking, but couldn't believe that a server with 300 to 400 on primetime could have so many houses placed until I found out that you could have a total of 15 if you were running 3 accounts. I'm still looking for a spot but have also started looking for another server. I don't plan on paying large amounts of gold to someone who is sitting on 15 houses that they don't need but have them just to make a buck.

Here's a question for all of you with this property just sitting so you can sell it eventually. What good is it if the server starts to drop off or gets stagnant with no growth?

Look, if you're complaining about not being able to place a patio, maybe you should go somewhere else. There's probably 100+ spots to fit a 14x14 on this shard. Go take 30 minutes and actually look for one. You might not get one where you want, but if you have patience you'll surely see some cool spots open up as time goes on as well.

I think the 15 houses per person is ridiculous, but to say there's no 14x14 spots is uninformed whining.

I placed a keep yesterday and can personally say I know of at least three spots where a large house or tower can fit.

It'd be a lot better if there were only one house per account, but there ARE spots.

Fish wrote:I've only been on this server for little over a week and have been out making money in hopes of placing a patio. I almost have the cash but haven't been able to find a spot. It seems no matter where you go there are house's, towers and keeps stacked on top of each other but seldom do you see anyone in them. It's a shame that a server with so much promise and setup the way UO was supposed to be played has such a housing problem that it would discourage most new players from starting here.

I had no Idea of the housing Issue until I started looking, but couldn't believe that a server with 300 to 400 on primetime could have so many houses placed until I found out that you could have a total of 15 if you were running 3 accounts. I'm still looking for a spot but have also started looking for another server. I don't plan on paying large amounts of gold to someone who is sitting on 15 houses that they don't need but have them just to make a buck.

Here's a question for all of you with this property just sitting so you can sell it eventually. What good is it if the server starts to drop off or gets stagnant with no growth?

While you guys criticize him....he's not complaining because a patio is impossible to place, but remarking on how a server could be so full with a playerbase so small. I agree with him, its ridiculous that this shard has very few good spots left when the playerbase is so small (comparatively, that is). There's no sense in giving players the option to have 15+ houses, just so they can sit on them, sure there might be a few spots left, but what if a few dozen more people join?...We should let people have a half dozen houses while others cant place simply because they came here first?....Im all for accuracy but 15+ houses is far from accurate.