Additional House on Other Shard

dvvid

I wonder what the devs and community think about the option of being able to purchase the ability to place a house on a different shard after a certain amount of time (3 years maybe?) of active subscription.

I'm sure the idea is just simply, get another account, but that just seems less efficient of an option.  We pay for an account and can have access to all shards but will never be able to have a complete experience on any of them besides our main shard and Siege or Mugen.  Paying for additional accounts would still be worthwhile for those wanting more than one house on a shard, more than 7 characters on one shard.

On my main account, I have a house on ATL and Siege and all character slots used up.  I'd like to develop some new character templates on different shards and interact with different communities/people.  The workaround solutions to make being homeless on a shard are not ideal (remaining character slots and EJ accounts for storage, ships you have to constantly refresh for storage, hoping you can trust someone not steal your stuff if you we're able to use secure containers in someone else's house).

Some new life could be brought to less populated shards as a result of this time-based option of purchasing a single house on a new shard.  Perhaps it can only be done once per account, as well. 

Pawain

Someone taking up a Castle spot and never playing on the shard is not a good idea.  Too many private Castles are owned by players you have never heard of now.

The EM event invaders don't seem to have trouble with character development.

dvvid

I’d like to experience a shard in a more meaningful way than just stopping by for events. 

I’d also think the secondary house would collapse if not refreshed. 

Rorschach

Some personal bickering has been removed. Stay on the topic and leave personal agendas out of the discussion. Thank you.

Seth

Could be a gold sink idea, with pricing of castles say 25 times it's current price.

It is for veterans who are filthy rich and inflating the worldwide economy. 

Yes and it should require refreshing so they don't just buy and park it there. And if they forget, even better. Plats of gold are removed from the system.

Pawain

Having one extra house per account would be fine if that house were limited to 18x18.  Naw I don't really think that is a good idea either. 

You can get a house on any shard now. Just pay the monthly subscription price.  Then delete the house when you want to try another shard.  Your other accounts can be co owners to all your houses.

Lord_Frodo

NP it will only cost you $60 every 6 months, it is called open another account

gay

You can already pay for an extra house by opening a new account and incidentally enough it comes with 5-7 extra character slots.

Personally I think that I would rather see the game downsize and dead servers shut down. Create a new withdrawl only warehouse server to hold the contents of people's houses, banks and character inventories with no time limit on removing items and let them choose what server they are migrating to from a list of servers intended to stay up. Then select a server for each timezone. US West, US Central, US East, Europe, Asia, and then the novelty servers (Siege and Mugen, and I shouldn't have to say this but don't allow re-location to these two servers). We really don't need any more than that for servers given the state of the game today and it's low player count.

Let communities re-build themselves by putting them together, instead of continuing to pay the cost of maintenance and uptime for servers hosting derelict communities of bygone eras. Lose your special house because your server went down, and now you cant find a castle spot? Guess what, 7x7 plots just became valuable again, play the game and rebuild yourself because with the correct warehouse you didn't actually lose anything. And because I know someone will mention it, player memorials, nobody says you cant have a memorial of someone re-placed somewhere on a new server. Or maybe even the devs can allocate a special hall of "Sosarians who have fallen" which can have a statue of the player that says their server and whatever else that falls within the memorial guidelines.

Idk I probably de-railed a little bit from the subject of the original post, but the abundance of housing space on dead servers is what came to mind when thinking about making use of it by giving players additional housing on a single account.

McDougle

gay said:

You can already pay for an extra house by opening a new account and incidentally enough it comes with 5-7 extra character slots.

Personally I think that I would rather see the game downsize and dead servers shut down. Create a new withdrawl only warehouse server to hold the contents of people's houses, banks and character inventories with no time limit on removing items and let them choose what server they are migrating to from a list of servers intended to stay up. Then select a server for each timezone. US West, US Central, US East, Europe, Asia, and then the novelty servers (Siege and Mugen, and I shouldn't have to say this but don't allow re-location to these two servers). We really don't need any more than that for servers given the state of the game today and it's low player count.

Let communities re-build themselves by putting them together, instead of continuing to pay the cost of maintenance and uptime for servers hosting derelict communities of bygone eras. Lose your special house because your server went down, and now you cant find a castle spot? Guess what, 7x7 plots just became valuable again, play the game and rebuild yourself because with the correct warehouse you didn't actually lose anything. And because I know someone will mention it, player memorials, nobody says you cant have a memorial of someone re-placed somewhere on a new server. Or maybe even the devs can allocate a special hall of "Sosarians who have fallen" which can have a statue of the player that says their server and whatever else was on the original memorial.

Idk I probably de-railed a little bit from the subject of the original post, but the abundance of housing space on dead servers is what came to mind when thinking about making use of it by giving players additional housing on a single account.

We need erosion any place that hasn't been visited in xxx days erodes...conversely on Atlantic we need land mass growth..

Lord_Frodo

gay said:

You can already pay for an extra house by opening a new account and incidentally enough it comes with 5-7 extra character slots.

Personally I think that I would rather see the game downsize and dead servers shut down. 

What is a "DEAD SHARD/SERVER"
1. no longer alive
2. (of a piece of equipment) no longer functioning, especially because of a fault.
3. (of a place or time) characterized by a lack of activity or excitement.

So which shard falls under any of these?  NONE
And the Lady herself said that NO SHARD will be deleted.
Not everybody wants to play on an over crowded shard.

Pawain

We will all be together in NL, so his wish will come true "soon".

gay

Lord_Frodo said:

gay said:

You can already pay for an extra house by opening a new account and incidentally enough it comes with 5-7 extra character slots.

Personally I think that I would rather see the game downsize and dead servers shut down. 

What is a "DEAD SHARD/SERVER"
1. no longer alive
2. (of a piece of equipment) no longer functioning, especially because of a fault.
3. (of a place or time) characterized by a lack of activity or excitement.

So which shard falls under any of these?  NONE
And the Lady herself said that NO SHARD will be deleted.
Not everybody wants to play on an over crowded shard.

Well what players want and what is financially feasible are two things that are completely different, and it's something we might all learn sooner rather than later in UO. We're more than likely coming to a cross road in what is practical and sustainable, and what can be culled in an effort to re-allocate money in a more practical way. And I feel like New Legacy is going to serve as a resounding stepping stone towards that end. As far what the "Lady Herself" has said, I prefer to look at what she has done as actions speak louder than words. She has been systematically stripping servers of what once made them unique from one another over the last few years, and has been more than open about her intention of doing just that. Which can then open the door to saying "Every server is just a clone of one server, and there is no rational uniqueness. The points of interest anybody is concerned about are left over EM decorations or artifacts from people who quit two decades ago."

There are plenty of servers that meet the criteria of no longer active, but I'm not going to get into making a list of 20 servers and why just to be met with "well i seen two people doing a treasure map once five years ago on THAT server so NYEH!" And you're right not everyone wants to play on an "over crowded server" except that The current population of the game overall is indicative of what once would have occupied maybe four servers in the past. 

I would gladly forfeit my atlantic and baja castles to once again log into official UO and regularly see people actually out in the world again. Somewhere outside of luna/wbb/genchat/fotm farm spots. To happen on guilds or groups of strangers/friends adventuring around.

To quote: "Thus is the world in which you are born, live, and die. Britannia that was once Sosaria now exists as a thousand worlds, each with it's own peoples, history and destiny."

Every server has it's people, they've made their histories, and now it just seems like it is time for us to see our inevitable destiny of being brought back together to make new histories. Hell, maybe even just one US-Central server called Sosaria. #bringbacksosaria (I joke, regions are important.)

Now we've definitely hijacked the original intention of this thread, and I won't be replying to continue that derailment. If you create a thread for this however I would love to continue this conversation there.

Lord_Frodo

gay said:

Lord_Frodo said:

gay said:

You can already pay for an extra house by opening a new account and incidentally enough it comes with 5-7 extra character slots.

Personally I think that I would rather see the game downsize and dead servers shut down. 

What is a "DEAD SHARD/SERVER"
1. no longer alive
2. (of a piece of equipment) no longer functioning, especially because of a fault.
3. (of a place or time) characterized by a lack of activity or excitement.

So which shard falls under any of these?  NONE
And the Lady herself said that NO SHARD will be deleted.
Not everybody wants to play on an over crowded shard.

Well what players want and what is financially feasible are two things that are completely different, and it's something we might all learn sooner rather than later in UO. We're more than likely coming to a cross road in what is practical and sustainable, and what can be culled in an effort to re-allocate money in a more practical way. And I feel like New Legacy is going to serve as a resounding stepping stone towards that end. As far what the "Lady Herself" has said, I prefer to look at what she has done as actions speak louder than words. She has been systematically stripping servers of what once made them unique from one another over the last few years, and has been more than open about her intention of doing just that. Which can then open the door to saying "Every server is just a clone of one server, and there is no rational uniqueness. The points of interest anybody is concerned about are left over EM decorations or artifacts from people who quit two decades ago."

There are plenty of servers that meet the criteria of no longer active, but I'm not going to get into making a list of 20 servers and why just to be met with "well i seen two people doing a treasure map once five years ago on THAT server so NYEH!" And you're right not everyone wants to play on an "over crowded server" except that The current population of the game overall is indicative of what once would have occupied maybe four servers in the past. 

I would gladly forfeit my atlantic and baja castles to once again log into official UO and regularly see people actually out in the world again. Somewhere outside of luna/wbb/genchat/fotm farm spots. To happen on guilds or groups of strangers/friends adventuring around.

To quote: "Thus is the world in which you are born, live, and die. Britannia that was once Sosaria now exists as a thousand worlds, each with it's own peoples, history and destiny."

Every server has it's people, they've made their histories, and now it just seems like it is time for us to see our inevitable destiny of being brought back together to make new histories. Hell, maybe even just one US-Central server called Sosaria. #bringbacksosaria (I joke, regions are important.)

Now we've definitely hijacked the original intention of this thread, and I won't be replying to continue that derailment. If you create a thread for this however I would love to continue this conversation there.

LMAO  So you failed to read the part about the Dark Lady saying it will never happen and again you did not find one "DEAD SHARD" and here we all thought Atl was just teaming with people but according to you it is also a "DEAD SHARD"

Archangel

gay said:

You can already pay for an extra house by opening a new account and incidentally enough it comes with 5-7 extra character slots.

Personally I think that I would rather see the game downsize and dead servers shut down. Create a new withdrawl only warehouse server to hold the contents of people's houses, banks and character inventories with no time limit on removing items and let them choose what server they are migrating to from a list of servers intended to stay up. Then select a server for each timezone. US West, US Central, US East, Europe, Asia, and then the novelty servers (Siege and Mugen, and I shouldn't have to say this but don't allow re-location to these two servers). We really don't need any more than that for servers given the state of the game today and it's low player count.

Let communities re-build themselves by putting them together, instead of continuing to pay the cost of maintenance and uptime for servers hosting derelict communities of bygone eras. Lose your special house because your server went down, and now you cant find a castle spot? Guess what, 7x7 plots just became valuable again, play the game and rebuild yourself because with the correct warehouse you didn't actually lose anything. And because I know someone will mention it, player memorials, nobody says you cant have a memorial of someone re-placed somewhere on a new server. Or maybe even the devs can allocate a special hall of "Sosarians who have fallen" which can have a statue of the player that says their server and whatever else that falls within the memorial guidelines.

Idk I probably de-railed a little bit from the subject of the original post, but the abundance of housing space on dead servers is what came to mind when thinking about making use of it by giving players additional housing on a single account.

I would hate playing in a crowded shard. In my tiny shard we have a thriving community, so NO, if it's not broken don't fix it!

Seth

Pawain said:

Having one extra house per account would be fine if that house were limited to 18x18.  Naw I don't really think that is a good idea either. 

You can get a house on any shard now. Just pay the monthly subscription price.  Then delete the house when you want to try another shard.  Your other accounts can be co owners to all your houses.

I think limiting the secondary house to a classic, and anything smaller than the larger tower might be worth considering. The classic houses should also use less memory than custom housing - which should be a paid privilege.

I am currently paying 3 full accounts and 1 seasonal, but if I need a small house on every shard then I cannot afford to pay 26 x $60 every year. As a professional cross-shard trader, we need a warehouse on each shard. 

keven2002

Seth said:
As a professional cross-shard trader, we need a warehouse on each shard. 

I could be wrong on this but I don't think it is the desire of the Dev team to have a bunch of professional cross shard traders period. Like many things with UO, I think the original intent of cross sharding was based on a problem we had at that time which was allowing people to transfer to new shards (or less populated ones). Then the shard shields were introduced and as more people met the account age to have them more and more people found the perks of cross sharding.... to the point where we are today.

That said, I don't think they are going to make it easier or more beneficial to be a professional cross-shard trader. I also do not think they are eager to essentially give people more storage (ie xfer a few hundred things to all these other shards and use them as remote storage units). They have always said "hoard less", which I know is ironic because they keep giving us holiday gifts / EM drops etc without giving them cleanup points to entice people to trash them.

AmberWitch

gay said:

I would gladly forfeit my atlantic and baja castles to once again log into official UO and regularly see people actually out in the world again. Somewhere outside of luna/wbb/genchat/fotm farm spots. To happen on guilds or groups of strangers/friends adventuring around.

To quote: "Thus is the world in which you are born, live, and die. Britannia that was once Sosaria now exists as a thousand worlds, each with it's own peoples, history and destiny."

Every server has it's people, they've made their histories, and now it just seems like it is time for us to see our inevitable destiny of being brought back together to make new histories. Hell, maybe even just one US-Central server called Sosaria. #bringbacksosaria (I joke, regions are important.)

Now we've definitely hijacked the original intention of this thread, and I won't be replying to continue that derailment. If you create a thread for this however I would love to continue this conversation there.

For me, these are the most important statements I've seen written in any of the forums about this game in a long, long time.

Lord_Frodo

Seth said: As a professional cross-shard trader, we need a warehouse on each shard. 

If you have 3 paid accounts than you already have at least 17 warehouses with at least 375 items each how much more storage do you need.  That is 6375 items total. 

Seth

Lord_Frodo said:

Seth said: As a professional cross-shard trader, we need a warehouse on each shard. 

If you have 3 paid accounts than you already have at least 17 warehouses with at least 375 items each how much more storage do you need.  That is 6375 items total. 

Warehouse is just one example.
I need a
- shop to sell shard bound items on every Shard.
- display cases to showcase my EM drop that happens to be shard bound.
- to place commission vendors for shards with low pop that don't have certain common and useful items

Nice to be able to do even a small house on every other shard without paying for one new account per shard.

Lord_Frodo

More houses per account get a resounding NO NEVER GONNA HAPPEN so says the Dark Lady so give it up or open more accounts plain and simple.

Archangel

Seth said:

Lord_Frodo said:

Seth said: As a professional cross-shard trader, we need a warehouse on each shard. 

If you have 3 paid accounts than you already have at least 17 warehouses with at least 375 items each how much more storage do you need.  That is 6375 items total. 

Warehouse is just one example.
I need a
- shop to sell shard bound items on every Shard.
- display cases to showcase my EM drop that happens to be shard bound.
- to place commission vendors for shards with low pop that don't have certain common and useful items

Nice to be able to do even a small house on every other shard without paying for one new account per shard.

Oh what a fun game... I mean, job!   

Seth

Lord_Frodo said:

More houses per account get a resounding NO NEVER GONNA HAPPEN so says the Dark Lady so give it up or open more accounts plain and simple.

Yeah, nothing we post here will happen anyway
Not even debugging the bugs. 

Archangel said:

Seth said:

Lord_Frodo said:

Seth said: As a professional cross-shard trader, we need a warehouse on each shard. 

If you have 3 paid accounts than you already have at least 17 warehouses with at least 375 items each how much more storage do you need.  That is 6375 items total. 

Warehouse is just one example.
I need a
- shop to sell shard bound items on every Shard.
- display cases to showcase my EM drop that happens to be shard bound.
- to place commission vendors for shards with low pop that don't have certain common and useful items

Nice to be able to do even a small house on every other shard without paying for one new account per shard.

Oh what a fun game... I mean, job!   

Sigh, that is true. 

username

Oh no no no no! You can't allow additional houses on other shards, then people that claim you aren't a '''resident''' can't use that garbage argument anymore!

Better yet... as a player of a dead shard, delete them. Waste of resources, better off pooling any server resources to one or two 'mega' shards to make the those run super smooth. Could save money on the EM program too: 20 some EM's -> 1 or 2.

dvvid said:I'd like to develop some new character templates on different shards and interact with different communities/people.  The workaround solutions to make being homeless on a shard are not ideal (remaining character slots and EJ accounts for storage, ships you have to constantly refresh for storage, hoping you can trust someone not steal your stuff if you we're able to use secure containers in someone else's house).

Good luck. My observation is that players on these shards are so toxic (see my thread that was trolled to infinity) it's almost not even worth interacting with the majority of them.

Lord_Frodo

Shut down "DEAD SHARDS" will equal "DEAD UO"  No customers, no game.

Seth

username said:

Good luck. My observation is that players on these shards are so toxic (see my thread that was trolled to infinity) it's almost not even worth interacting with the majority of them.

So you condemned the Majority of a group just because of One interaction. What observations and statistics do you have to substantiate your claim?

Hippo

With the NL expansion taking up most of the developers' time and energy, it's a pipe dream to expect any major changes in the near future. But similar to what Seth mentioned above, allowing off-shard traders to setup a tent/counter to buy or sell items on a temporary basis - something like a Mid Eastern Bazaar or the medieval Trade Fair - would be great.  A gypsy wagon or pavilion like tent would suffice.

Victim_Of_Siege

Hippo said:

With the NL expansion taking up most of the developers' time and energy, it's a pipe dream to expect any major changes in the near future. But similar to what Seth mentioned above, allowing off-shard traders to setup a tent/counter to buy or sell items on a temporary basis - something like a Mid Eastern Bazaar or the medieval Trade Fair - would be great.  A gypsy wagon or pavilion like tent would suffice.

Kind of like how these work now? 

McDougle

Victim_Of_Siege said:

Hippo said:

With the NL expansion taking up most of the developers' time and energy, it's a pipe dream to expect any major changes in the near future. But similar to what Seth mentioned above, allowing off-shard traders to setup a tent/counter to buy or sell items on a temporary basis - something like a Mid Eastern Bazaar or the medieval Trade Fair - would be great.  A gypsy wagon or pavilion like tent would suffice.

Kind of like how these work now? 

Then they'd have to talk to us small shard folks..

Victim_Of_Siege

McDougle said:

Victim_Of_Siege said:

Hippo said:

With the NL expansion taking up most of the developers' time and energy, it's a pipe dream to expect any major changes in the near future. But similar to what Seth mentioned above, allowing off-shard traders to setup a tent/counter to buy or sell items on a temporary basis - something like a Mid Eastern Bazaar or the medieval Trade Fair - would be great.  A gypsy wagon or pavilion like tent would suffice.

Kind of like how these work now? 

Then they'd have to talk to us small shard folks..

Oh right . . .

Seth

Victim_Of_Siege said:

Hippo said:

With the NL expansion taking up most of the developers' time and energy, it's a pipe dream to expect any major changes in the near future. But similar to what Seth mentioned above, allowing off-shard traders to setup a tent/counter to buy or sell items on a temporary basis - something like a Mid Eastern Bazaar or the medieval Trade Fair - would be great.  A gypsy wagon or pavilion like tent would suffice.

Kind of like how these work now? 

No this sxxx

Victim_Of_Siege

Seth said:

Victim_Of_Siege said:

Hippo said:

With the NL expansion taking up most of the developers' time and energy, it's a pipe dream to expect any major changes in the near future. But similar to what Seth mentioned above, allowing off-shard traders to setup a tent/counter to buy or sell items on a temporary basis - something like a Mid Eastern Bazaar or the medieval Trade Fair - would be great.  A gypsy wagon or pavilion like tent would suffice.

Kind of like how these work now? 

No this sxxx

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but they work fine and fit the need for selling things on a shard you don't have a house on.