Owyn is already quoted as saying this wouldn't happen.
Housing Discussion
- Thread starter Owyn
- Start date
Laughing Skull
Elder
I've seen this as well. However, it just makes so much sense for them to implement some kind of scaling tax system. As it is now, it is NO decision at all to upgrade to the biggest plot available and this is what folks do. Hell it is what I would do. However, if you had some type of scaling tax in place it becomes a real decision whether or not to upgrade. You have to balance whether or not you want to pay the fee for the increased room/storage. It's fine if you wanna take up the housing space for multiple plots to place your 30x30, but you should have to pay for it. Those extremely large houses should be meant for GUILDS only. Guilds should easily be able to afford it..... or, give guilds a discount or something.
I mean, I have a CY and a small wagon I use as a vendor. Currently (since Blizzconline), I'm taking a bit of a break from Outlands for WoW to level up some classic characters in anticipation for the Classic TBC release. From here, I don't know how consumed I will get with end game WoW content nor do I know how long this hiatus will last. My UO progress is going to stall out, but hell I'm just gonna sit on my two houses cause there is no reason for me to sell and put the land back into the hands of an active player. I'll log in 2-3 times a week to refresh, make one dungeon run to keep up on mechanics and call it a day.
It is no decision to upgrade a house because it is bigger, more desirable, more secures, more fun. Who wants trailer park world. Fun things in games are good.
Things that are unfun and push players away generally are bad ideas. On top of bringing real world bad feels into a game.
It also punishes ALL players and not just those refreshing. Which is a larger negative force to almost the whole playerbase, when simply lowering idoc timer just gets the those hanging on by a thread.
The devs clearly enjoy the subsection of gameplay that is grindy. An expensive housing market is a good thing for them. Incentivises repeat play. The carrot on the stick is even more rewarding when achieved. More people do more aspect and such to farm for the house. More aspect, more effort, more time = a retained player. People who complain about current housing prices are either.
1. Calling out blatant overcharging. Some seem to confuse the corner case of a house ask of triple market as "the housing market" when there are well priced houses for the level of gold on the shard, every single day.
2. Players white knighting for noobs for some reason, because they bought a small two years ago for 500k and dont factor in changes to farm economy over that time.
3. Rare new player complaining who wouldnt play long if housing was instanced and free anyway. Again, carrot on a stick.
No offense, but this is a dead horse and clearly not happening. For good reason. The housing economy is actually very well balanced to the farm here and I think theyve done a great job.
Laughing Skull
Elder
I totally get what you're saying. I even realize this topic may be a dead horse, but I do see that something needs to be changed if the population increase and housing price increase continue on at the current rate. Enhancing the Inn system might be the solution.
In processing this, something doesn't sit right to me if a solo player has a house (or 2, or 3) the same size as most guild houses. I understand the deeds are freely there for anyone to purchase, but... maybe I'm just an outlier in this train of thought.
I just think there needs to be some drawback to owning a house that size. I think most of the population should live in mid-range houses. Over time small and medium houses are going to be wiped out so larger houses can be placed over them (where available).
The inn system will help a lot. I dont think it is needed as a release valve for housing, or that housing needs a release valve, it will just be great for folks forced into the housing market when they dont really want all that.
I see no problem with someone owning a big house if they earned it. The drawback was earning it.
I think you are overhyping this idea of large houses eating away at the countryside. It actually shows how the market isnt fully matured yet even. Youll see at some point if pop dips those houses revert. Its all very natural. No offense, I just say this to ease your worry, but if I had to guess you havent played many shards full cycle, and that is where this assumption of large houses eating the world comes from, and when I project into that assumed mindset it makes sense, but isnt true. Its just a market being a market, combined with the farming economy.
You also have to factor in peak populaton. It could stay here, it could go higher, it could go higher and stay there for years. However it is VERY VERY dangerous to make big changes, worse yet negative force changes, at peak population because if it is drastic it becomes reflexive to the inverse and you can suddenly crash your shard over what seems like something small.
In my opinion, chill and see what happens. I think its operating quite healthily and naturally at the moment.
I see no problem with someone owning a big house if they earned it. The drawback was earning it.
I think you are overhyping this idea of large houses eating away at the countryside. It actually shows how the market isnt fully matured yet even. Youll see at some point if pop dips those houses revert. Its all very natural. No offense, I just say this to ease your worry, but if I had to guess you havent played many shards full cycle, and that is where this assumption of large houses eating the world comes from, and when I project into that assumed mindset it makes sense, but isnt true. Its just a market being a market, combined with the farming economy.
You also have to factor in peak populaton. It could stay here, it could go higher, it could go higher and stay there for years. However it is VERY VERY dangerous to make big changes, worse yet negative force changes, at peak population because if it is drastic it becomes reflexive to the inverse and you can suddenly crash your shard over what seems like something small.
In my opinion, chill and see what happens. I think its operating quite healthily and naturally at the moment.
Laughing Skull
Elder
I guess I can agree with this.
This conversation has clarified, for me, where my position is. My main concern is unneeded landmasses being added - I want to avoid this at all costs (lets try any other avenue first..... Inn system or taxes). If it is a slow, small, minor evolution that is in conjunction with a storyline, that is one thing. But I don't want to add landmass to disperse the player base.
This is the most fun I've had playing a game in...... I can't even remember when. I love the constant interaction with everyone from noobs to griefers. My explanation doesn't even do this justice, but I literally can't do a thing in game without someone altering my playstyle - which is badass, exactly how I would expect an online virtual world to play out. The path original UO went down just has me.... well..... traumatized.
Im definitely in agreement about land being added. In my opnion instanced rental rooms only work if they are somewhat nudging people out the other end to housing. Which they have clearly been in agreement with and done. Therefore people who stay long term really just fit the mold and work well with it and are in minority, which would be fine.
Totally in agreement with the last paragraph, which is why I am a little bit on the offense on these points. This is the one shard in history that might work long term, so I want to see it work. But its a very treacherous tightrope.
TheTechnicals
Novice
Fine line between creating a grindy gameplay, and creating an environment where new players can't possibly hope to own a house for over a year or via blind lucky drop of iris shoes. I agree with you that people should have goals to aspire towards, but you're ignoring the other, arguably more important reason for implementation of a tax system, which is rampant inflation.
Low inventory certain contributes to the housing prices, but the fact that people are ABLE to cough up 100's of millions in gold for premium real estate suggests that inflation is exploding and the systems in place to sink gold are simply insufficient. Gold reforge tools and lottery tickets just aren't cutting it.
Really seems to be the only way to have a progressively scaled gold sink that affects large gold hoarders more than others.
It's still beyond me how anyone with a house worth 1m+ can't be bothered to generate 20k or so per week to keep it alive. Do you end-gamers just sit around and deco all day?
AreYouKidden
Legendary
Yes.. or they burnt out "earning" their over priced home, and it's in refresh mode every 28 days.. But it's their right?
To All:
Honestly housing situations, and people fit in all sorts of categories - there are people who stay in smaller homes because they don't want to over-indulge, others who go huge, because it's just their thing, and there are guilds in big homes. It's a sandbox, the mechanics are there, no reason not to play it how you want. But that's sort of the issue, the mechanics are wrong in my mind - they should be built to promote active players in houses, to keep the overworld an active, happening place - and to require more effort to those over indulging and eating up housing space. A 30x30 blocks 8 other people from owning a home, multiple homes also do the same, and inactive houses just leave a dull and boring landscape - it's always exciting seeing people even if they are just idling - it's better for the long term health of the shard.
I'm a huge fan of Upkeep & Taxation. It promotes activity through having to keep supplying your home house from falling into a state of decay or IDOC (more involved than just logging in) which puts homes back into the active market quicker and promotes living in your means by taxing those who have multiple properties.
Reality though - staff have said there are no reliable ways for account groups, and IP tracking to work. So the limit of 1 house per IP, will never be a thing, nor will taxation for multiple homes - so really all solutions need to be focused on the over indulgence on the single home, and keeping housing in active players hands.
Laughing Skull
Elder
One thing I always wondered is why did they stop there? I mean why limit it to 1 per account? What is the difference? I'm not asking to be an ass. Just curious, I have no understanding of how things work on the back end. Couldn't that same argument be applied to reasons why we shouldn't limit houses to 1 per account?
You think it takes a year to farm 1m gold on this server? What?
There are houses for sale every day on the vendor....
I had one specific model house I wanted. It was many multiple millions and took me about three weeks to save and when I did I had 4 to pick from in 3 days.
A lot of bleeding hearts for some reason when it comes to housing over a problem that doesnt exist. If I say any more Im just repeating my previous posts.
PS they are making new gold sinks all the time. See these new horses etc. They cut down on gold released from farming a bit. Its not that players cant pay upkeep on their houses its that its a terribly unfun idea and why Owyn said it wouldnt happen.
Last edited:
Laughing Skull
Elder
I mean I can see both points of view here and I think it is a matter of perspective. If you think (placed) player housing should be available to newer players, then prices are beginning to become unreasonable. If you think player housing is end game, then the sky's the limit.
I guess my view is beginning to shift on this topic. Why should newer players have access to housing from the get go? The Inn system is a perfect solution until you can save for a placed house. The only argument I have seen in support of newer players having access to placed housing is for the enjoyment factor and player retention. Unfortunately, I don't think this is sustainable. Everyone can't have a house. The land mass just does not support it - and it never will.
I guess placed housing is just gravitating to an end game thing. Let the market be free and do what it does. If an 8x8 ends up selling for 5 million - who is to say that price is incorrect? I've seen gate houses sell for crazy amounts, this is due to their rarity. Maybe we have to come to the realization that housing may move into more of a end game, rare item purchase.
People that got here first obviously scored big, but that is just the way it works. People that got here first got to farm things for crazy XP amounts, people that got here first got to have access to some rare items that aren't around any more, people that go there first got to place moongate houses, people that got here first got to keep their society items for a long time, people that got here first got to build up their resource supply with recall farming, etc....
AreYouKidden
Legendary
The people who got here first, also didn't get to sell aspect items for 20-50k ea, maps for 5k a level, or clothing drops for millions... Couldn't buy up anything on a whim, because they felt like being a blood aspect warrior instead of what they had... or buy a full spell book off a vendor..
Two very different worlds - both eras have their pros and cons - but they just are what they are - no point in lamenting what was, just look forward to what is..
Two very different worlds - both eras have their pros and cons - but they just are what they are - no point in lamenting what was, just look forward to what is..
Laughing Skull
Elder
Right, that was the whole point of my post. Things are different now and so is the housing market. Starting early you could get in for relatively cheap. Now it's turned into more of a rare-type, end game market. And the Inn System looks like it is a good middle ground.
HeliumFreak
Novice
My issue is i run across the landscape on a regular basis and i see many houses with literally nothing in them, totally empty, not for sale and "Like New". So whoever owns it has no interest in using it, or selling it they just want to horde it. Also i see many houses with over 2 weeks + of no refresh. I work away from home and i do so for 4 weeks at a time 80 hours a week no days off. Even i could find 2 minutes in a week to refresh a house.
IDOC timer should be reduced to 2 weeks.
IDOC timer should be reduced to 2 weeks.
If you don't need to why would you?
Change the idoc timer and people would just refresh more often, that's not a solution just adding additional annoyances to people.
HeliumFreak
Novice
On the flip side if you make it more annoying for people who clearly arent playing then maybe they will give their house to a friend who is playing, or sell it or let it drop.
getofftheshed
Novice
solution is simple. Wipe shard at end of the year, make it a big event.
Come back correct this time. 1 account per IP. 1 house per MAH. No multi-boxing in dungeons from launch this time.
Do that and damn, outlands would be UO again because there is nothing "UO" about having 3 accounts, multiboxxing dungeons(which you could do at outlands launch), and having 15 characters.
Come back correct this time. 1 account per IP. 1 house per MAH. No multi-boxing in dungeons from launch this time.
Do that and damn, outlands would be UO again because there is nothing "UO" about having 3 accounts, multiboxxing dungeons(which you could do at outlands launch), and having 15 characters.