Housing overpopulation

[TK-FourTwoOne]

Tron, thats pretty much exactly why this thread was made. The issue here is if houses were 1 per character during the t2a era, and even if they were, you have to take into consideration the points already made a million times - we don't have the same amount of players OSI did on a single shard, and there is no real way to limit someone from making more than 3 accounts exclusively to say, put smalls everywhere. To me that doesn't sound "accurate" at all.

[nickhimself]

I can understand why people think that having this many houses makes it feel more like t2a. The shard is crowded, nearly all of the great spots are taken, and sometimes it's very difficult to find a place for a tower or larger.

However, we aren't on OSI. We don't have thousands of subscribers. There shouldn't be thousands of houses. Houses should be less than or equal to the amount of accounts created. If there are 800 accounts, there should be <= 800 houses. Not <= 2400.

No one, and I mean no one needs 5 houses per account. If you think you do, you are fooling yourself.

[Pro]

no one really has 15 houses, most people barely have 2

[Tron]

Tron, thats pretty much exactly why this thread was made. The issue here is if houses were 1 per character during the t2a era, and even if they were, you have to take into consideration the points already made a million times - we don't have the same amount of players OSI did on a single shard, and there is no real way to limit someone from making more than 3 accounts exclusively to say, put smalls everywhere. To me that doesn't sound "accurate" at all.

These facts don't matter to me.

I don't care about the effects time has had on t2a mechanics or how some mechanics falter because of differences in today's gameplay. We don't have that luxury here. There is no picking and choosing. It's t2a, for better or worse.

This might be something that you feel isn't "accurate" and should be changed, but to me it is accurate (and actually is mechanically) and I have a laundry list of other things here that I'd love to see changed before this.

In the words of Derrick, these kind of things are a "slippery slope". You can't cater to some peoples mindset without stepping on someone elses toes, and in cases of accuracy, there should be no deviation. There hasn't been for major pvp changes that have dumbed down gameplay and there shouldn't be any made for a housing system that is already accurate.

[Mikel123]

The housing system isn't "accurate". There was never, to my knowledge, a limit on houses of one per character, in the history of UO. So to say it's already accurate is untrue. In actual UO, at first it was unlimited, then it was one per account with a grandfather clause.

The one-per-character rule on this shard is already on the slippery slope, along with a slightly nerfed mini-heal and a few taming nerfs.

[Tron]

The housing system isn't "accurate". There was never, to my knowledge, a limit on houses of one per character, in the history of UO. So to say it's already accurate is untrue. In actual UO, at first it was unlimited, then it was one per account with a grandfather clause.

The one-per-character rule on this shard is already on the slippery slope, along with a slightly nerfed mini-heal and a few taming nerfs.

It was 1 house per char during t2a.

[Lothain]

Just to inject a bit of factual information into the discussion, there are right around 1770 houses on the shard, or at least there were on Halloween. If there are more, it ain't many.

[BlackFoot]

was only about 700 houses this time last year
growing at a pretty consistant rate

[DrFaustus]

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.

Please find 13 houses I own.

Please.

[TK-FourTwoOne]

I've already found like 5 labeled FAUST PROPERTIES that were completely empty and in pretty great spots, sorry I don't have the time to look for all your random empty housing bro.

[Desto]

Being new I do not expect anyone to give up housing to accommodate new players. However I do think it would help the shard population grow if there was access to adequate housing. It seems so strange to walk through the world for hours and see keep after keep with no one playing. 1770 houses and shard population peaks of less than 500 players. Something is wrong with this picture. If all you want from the shard is to keep the first few hundred players happy I'd have to say you succeed. But if you want it grow you will need to attract new players and available housing would help to do that.

[Mikel123]

Oh dear. I haven't been wrong since like 1993. This is quite embarassing if it turns out I'm incorrect here.

I think the most houses I've had at one time was 11. I was using two of them, and the other 9 were to "save a spot" for future plans.

At the moment, I have:

castle - primary home for all of my characters
tower - my old home, pretty much not used at the moment but it's in a real cool spot
tower - blocking placement next to my castle; might become a newbie training tower
7x7 - blocking placement next to my castle
7x7 - blocking placement for a potential house
7x7 - vendor house

So pretty much I'm only using two of my houses, but I've blocked at least two other people from putting up towers. I don't feel like I'm being greedy, but at the same time, I wouldn't mind at all if a tighter limit was enforced, like 1 house per account.

[Tron]

Buying homes from players is much more t2a accurate than placing one yourself.

A t2a accurate reproduction would definitely be a scenario in which the vet players are in possession of majority of house spots forcing you buy a house from another player.

In t2a you didn't join a shard and place a house next week. You joined a shard and made enough money to buy a house for 3-4x deed price from another player.

It's not even like that here since even larger houses only go for around 20-30k over deed price, but it's still more accurate than a shard not full of houses.

[Biohazard]

...and houses falling everyday including towers. There isnt a problem

yea there isn't

There isnt alot of houses falling? Hmm Interesting..

I was saying... houses are falling, people are leaving. People leaving is often viewed as a problem. Though it's not just housing that causes this.

Inability to charge per acount + 3 account limit = non era-accuracy when it comes to housing space. Actually I take that back... it makes it SEEM like era-accurate housing space. But it is untrue... About a third of housing out there now is fake (falsely inflated).

Charging monthly per account or forcing a 1 account limit would solve this. Though its way too deep to turn back now (I'm guessing anyway.. I would think it would be done if a lot of people did not quit because of it). This affects way more than just housing as well.

No curb is in place. Take into account you can pretty easily get more than 3 accounts and its a problem to a percentage of people (the majority of votes in this case).

I must say, it felt good to repeat myself again after a long break.

[Galendae]

I am an avid IDOCKER. I am at the dropping of much of the housing on this shard. My observation is that the location is often more important then what is inside the idoc.

Case in point, Castle on Bloody Plains on TurkeyDAY. I scored all the loot on the ground worth grabbing while 4 diff people thru up small houses to claim the spot. They did not care about the loot, I was unopposed. They ignored a check for 1million lying on the ground.

Because to them the spot was more valuable then 1 million lying on the ground!!!

I own 3 smalls and a Tower for full disclosure.

I say one house per account, to be era accurate. So that will mean everyone gets a limit of 3 houses.

MY 2 cents.

Thanks
Galendae