[Proposal] Additional Ultima Online House Code

Lord_Frodo

JackFlashUk said:

Lord_Frodo said:

mis said:

@ Mesanna @ System

In the same way that there is 'Ultima Online 7th character space code' or 'Ultima Online bank hosting and storage upgrade code' as an add-on, I propose 'Ultima Online additional house code'.  

The reason for this proposal is for those who for example have their private house and additionally want a store or castle for the guild.  

The code would be only one additional construction per account and not cumulative, being in total 2 constructions.

I would like this proposal to be valued as it may be useful for some people.

UO would lose way too much money from all the house holding accounts.  Forget the 1-4 account holders, look at the accounts like UO Relator and people like that that could shun down half their accounts, that is a lot of money.

Would that allow players to place houses at plot prices instead of being fleeced by such sellers ? Don’t they have RMT sites for their houses?

if this ensured players didn’t have to spend excess of 1P for an 18x18 in Atlantic I will help them pack for pastures new myself 

just take a look around Atlantic.  How many plots are 4 sale or 4 sell

Inflated prices by one or two who are NOT there for the good of the players I certainly will not miss

with regards to the person you mention, I seem to remember there were a series of YouTube videos showing what a great community champion they are, you ever watch them ?

Having 2 houses on one account would only allow you to have 2 houses, that does not mean you are guarantied to place another house.  If you think you are good enough to beat the house placing accounts then be my guest.

Lord_Nythrax

mis said:

I already sent this afternoon the proposal to the company, so they will value and study if it is beneficial or not.

In situations like yours, where you say that it would allow you to close 40 accounts, it is the company who must evaluate this type of situation, if it is in their interest that users close their passive accounts, passive in the sense that they are land conservation accounts and not for playing.

This study and evaluation should be done internally by the company.

They're going to take one look at it and go "No thanks we don't want to lose all the subscription income LOL!" just like every single other person who saw this. Your suggestion was dead on arrival.

McDougle

Lord_Frodo said:

mis said:

Lord_Frodo said:

UO would lose way to much money from all the house holding accounts.  Forget the 1-4 account holders, look at the accounts like UO Relator and people like that that could shun down half their accounts, that is a lot of money.

I use translator to communicate and I don't know if the translation doesn't express everything correctly or there's something I don't understand, but I'm surprised, the two players who wrote that, do you pay exclusively a subscription to maintain a build without using the characters of those accounts or are they speculations? I'm amazed.

You are the second user to repeat again that the company would lose money, as if implying that they exclusively pay a subscription to have a build.

Don't those players use the characters on those accounts, the bank, etc...?

I would like to remind you that if one of these players with more than 20 items in their bank, stop paying subscription, when the account becomes EJ in an automated way, the bank is blocked and they can not take out a single item inside.

Not to mention all the limitations of EJ, do you really think that there are players who exclusively pay money for a build without using the account for anything else (special metals, gems, etc...)?

@ Lord_Frodo @ McDougle with transparency and honesty, are you paying a subscription exclusively for a construction without using the characters and all the benefits that a subscription account implies (as if to imply that you don't care if your account is EJ because you don't use it, you pay exclusively for maintaining a terrain)?

We are talking about people that sell houses in UO and other sites.  They have many house holding accounts that do nothing but hold a house and with your idea they could close 1/2 of those accounts so EA/BS/UO would lose that income.

Once again you fail to read the OP  clearly stated the proposed second house would not be sellable 

mis

The question is that if the company accepts the proposal and wants to implement this code, it should evaluate and find a way to maintain those subscriptions and at the same time offer this additional in-house code.

Adding restrictions, like for example, it cannot be transferred, limited to the same fragment where the other land is located, limitation of size and storage and those details that they need those who do subscription for maintaining land, nobody maintains something for maintaining, there is always a reason and that is where they can look into and make both the additional house code and the need to maintain the subscription exist.

Pawain

I have 4 accounts,  I have never sold a house. 

I am also surprised with how many have 10 plus accounts.  I played 1 toon until ML came out.

Lord_Frodo

McDougle said:

Lord_Frodo said:

mis said:

Lord_Frodo said:

UO would lose way to much money from all the house holding accounts.  Forget the 1-4 account holders, look at the accounts like UO Relator and people like that that could shun down half their accounts, that is a lot of money.

I use translator to communicate and I don't know if the translation doesn't express everything correctly or there's something I don't understand, but I'm surprised, the two players who wrote that, do you pay exclusively a subscription to maintain a build without using the characters of those accounts or are they speculations? I'm amazed.

You are the second user to repeat again that the company would lose money, as if implying that they exclusively pay a subscription to have a build.

Don't those players use the characters on those accounts, the bank, etc...?

I would like to remind you that if one of these players with more than 20 items in their bank, stop paying subscription, when the account becomes EJ in an automated way, the bank is blocked and they can not take out a single item inside.

Not to mention all the limitations of EJ, do you really think that there are players who exclusively pay money for a build without using the account for anything else (special metals, gems, etc...)?

@ Lord_Frodo @ McDougle with transparency and honesty, are you paying a subscription exclusively for a construction without using the characters and all the benefits that a subscription account implies (as if to imply that you don't care if your account is EJ because you don't use it, you pay exclusively for maintaining a terrain)?

We are talking about people that sell houses in UO and other sites.  They have many house holding accounts that do nothing but hold a house and with your idea they could close 1/2 of those accounts so EA/BS/UO would lose that income.

Once again you fail to read the OP  clearly stated the proposed second house would not be sellable 

Nowhere in the OP does it state that the 2nd house could not be sold.

McDougle

Lord_Frodo said:

McDougle said:

Lord_Frodo said:

mis said:

Lord_Frodo said:

UO would lose way to much money from all the house holding accounts.  Forget the 1-4 account holders, look at the accounts like UO Relator and people like that that could shun down half their accounts, that is a lot of money.

I use translator to communicate and I don't know if the translation doesn't express everything correctly or there's something I don't understand, but I'm surprised, the two players who wrote that, do you pay exclusively a subscription to maintain a build without using the characters of those accounts or are they speculations? I'm amazed.

You are the second user to repeat again that the company would lose money, as if implying that they exclusively pay a subscription to have a build.

Don't those players use the characters on those accounts, the bank, etc...?

I would like to remind you that if one of these players with more than 20 items in their bank, stop paying subscription, when the account becomes EJ in an automated way, the bank is blocked and they can not take out a single item inside.

Not to mention all the limitations of EJ, do you really think that there are players who exclusively pay money for a build without using the account for anything else (special metals, gems, etc...)?

@ Lord_Frodo @ McDougle with transparency and honesty, are you paying a subscription exclusively for a construction without using the characters and all the benefits that a subscription account implies (as if to imply that you don't care if your account is EJ because you don't use it, you pay exclusively for maintaining a terrain)?

We are talking about people that sell houses in UO and other sites.  They have many house holding accounts that do nothing but hold a house and with your idea they could close 1/2 of those accounts so EA/BS/UO would lose that income.

Once again you fail to read the OP  clearly stated the proposed second house would not be sellable 

Nowhere in the OP does it state that the 2nd house could not be sold.

Once again you failed read I didn't say they stated it in the first post only that they had Cleary stated it..

Kalsey

I now have 3 accounts, had 6 until we were able to place a second house on Siege.  I closed 3 accounts then simply placed another house on Siege with my remaining 3 accounts.

All my accounts are paid accounts.  If we were able to place a second house, I would drop another account, and also gain a house?  That would mean I would have 4 houses with 2 accounts.  All paid accounts would be able to double their houses.

Lord_Frodo

McDougle said:

Lord_Frodo said:

McDougle said:

Lord_Frodo said:

mis said:

Lord_Frodo said:

UO would lose way to much money from all the house holding accounts.  Forget the 1-4 account holders, look at the accounts like UO Relator and people like that that could shun down half their accounts, that is a lot of money.

I use translator to communicate and I don't know if the translation doesn't express everything correctly or there's something I don't understand, but I'm surprised, the two players who wrote that, do you pay exclusively a subscription to maintain a build without using the characters of those accounts or are they speculations? I'm amazed.

You are the second user to repeat again that the company would lose money, as if implying that they exclusively pay a subscription to have a build.

Don't those players use the characters on those accounts, the bank, etc...?

I would like to remind you that if one of these players with more than 20 items in their bank, stop paying subscription, when the account becomes EJ in an automated way, the bank is blocked and they can not take out a single item inside.

Not to mention all the limitations of EJ, do you really think that there are players who exclusively pay money for a build without using the account for anything else (special metals, gems, etc...)?

@ Lord_Frodo @ McDougle with transparency and honesty, are you paying a subscription exclusively for a construction without using the characters and all the benefits that a subscription account implies (as if to imply that you don't care if your account is EJ because you don't use it, you pay exclusively for maintaining a terrain)?

We are talking about people that sell houses in UO and other sites.  They have many house holding accounts that do nothing but hold a house and with your idea they could close 1/2 of those accounts so EA/BS/UO would lose that income.

Once again you fail to read the OP  clearly stated the proposed second house would not be sellable 

Nowhere in the OP does it state that the 2nd house could not be sold.

Once again you failed read I didn't say they stated it in the first post only that they had Cleary stated it..

Others have said it but the OP never has in any of her posts

Barkley

I'm coming at it from a different angle. I'd like to have a second house but on a different shard. I like starting new crews from scratch and it would be much easier with a house. Someday I might get another subscription, but I'd be more likely to pay an extra couple of bucks per month for another house on my current sub than to sign up for an entire new sub... but I guess it would earn vet rewards so I'll keep thinking about it. But I've been thinking about it for several years now and haven't done anything about it yet, and probably never will.

Kalsey

Barkley said:

I'm coming at it from a different angle. I'd like to have a second house but on a different shard. I like starting new crews from scratch and it would be much easier with a house. Someday I might get another subscription, but I'd be more likely to pay an extra couple of bucks per month for another house on my current sub than to sign up for an entire new sub... but I guess it would earn vet rewards so I'll keep thinking about it. But I've been thinking about it for several years now and haven't done anything about it yet, and probably never will.

When they allowed a second house on Siege, I wonder if it would have been better, all around, to just allow a second house on any shard?  Yes, it would be nice to have a second house on another shard, maybe bring more activity to it, and at the same time move some unused house plots that sit idle on Siege?

Just open the option of moving a second home from Siege to another shard?