Much faster housing decay.

[Pappy]

There's a few prime spots that are being held by people who don't play on the server anymore but are holding onto those plots for w/e reasons.
Perhaps reduce the timeframe down from 6 months to 1 or 2. Then perhaps add an additional time requirement for a person to be logged into game & NOT just sitting AFK in Luna bank.

 

[Kestrel]

Reducing the decay time might help with that but I would go a step further and reduce the number of houses on any given account to 3 or 4, I don't know why anyone would need more. On OSI you get one and on the last free shard we played you got two, you were only allowed one account each as well, my husband and I had 4 between us and that was fine. I quite enjoy house decorating but he's not so bothered.

 

[Xeno]

I hope it stays as is. I don't need any prime locations and people are going to be people. The time allows for someone to have life stuff happen and not have to worry about refreshing their house right away. With vendor search, people can find your items and travel to your house even if it is out in the boonies. Eventually those that don't play will grow bored with renewing or forget to renew. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Kestrel]

The places that I consider nice spots I'm pretty sure nobody else would want, possibly people want spots in Luna, but vendor search makes those spots less valuable, I haven't really gone browsing Luna shops for many years. I actually find Luna pretty ugly so I wouldn't want a spot there if I was offered one for free, I like the coast for my boat and trees and a mountain nearby for gathering resources.

 

[Miral]

if i suddenly had powers, i'd delete all the housing in Mistas as I think 99% of the housing there is for sale by players I'm told are long gone from playing and try and build a secondary social hub there, maybe move the pet vendors there as Magincia is ass ugly too

oh how I dream

 

[Magus Zeal]

I still say accounts with more than say, 3 houses, should be levied a hefty server tax for maintaining those "additional" houses.

 

[Miral]

I still say accounts with more than say, 3 houses, should be levied a hefty server tax for maintaining those "additional" houses.

make it more than 4, i have 4 houses

 

[Pappy]

Unlimited housing = silly
The tax idea for players over xyz houses sounds good to me but Dam might not be interested in trying to code that.
I can see wanting an extra house for trading/decoing but we ARE allowed i think 4 accounts on this server per ip#
I personally have 3 accounts & 3 houses.
Am somewhat of an active player & since i've had little luck getting new players to come here, i try to get those that do to stay a while.
Housing should be for those whom are active on the server.
Sure IRL things can happen (military deployment/computer dying)
but a lot of people seem to have discord on their phone & could DM Dan if they were going to be out of the loop for a while to make exceptions.
I know Dan likes gold sinks, a scaling tax on housing beyond 3 per account sounds like a good one to me.

 

[Omalley]

Im not trying to put words in Dans mouth, but i do remember this discussion coming up multiple times over the years, and from what I gather, limiting accounts to set number of houses, would only effect those who havnt reached that cap yet.. as those of us who enjoy crafting and housing would be grandfathered, so all those house plots out there, would still be there.. 2 of the biggest house hoarders on the server are also the two most afk players on the server, another supposedly quit and is selling all thier shit, another doesnt want to sell houses, cuse he doesn't actively try.. or cant ever come up with a fair price.. Im a fan of reducing the time in which it takes for a house to decay, and make it retro-active i played on Pandora years ago, they did this... and it did the trick, NTM the day it happened was frikin crazy! so much loot from houses just laying around!

My vote is for shorter time limits on house decay, and make it retro-active.

 

[BooshBooshBoosh]

Maybe give us the option to "tag" 1 house per account. The tag leaves that house under the current IDOC timer. Every other house gets placed on an accelerated timer.

 

[Miral]

just save some hoarded arti's for the rest of us

 

[RedBeard]

Simple, make decay rate 3 months in certain regions: Luna, Zento, other prime/exclusive locations (decided on), and Mistas. Keep all other areas 6 months.

 

[Miral]

I've had a run around the different facets and I'm pretty sure we are heading into IDOC-armageddon in a month or two

 

[Yamztime]

As a player who is on hiatus, but planning on returning, I'd be really frustrated if I came back to discover the timers were changed retroactively. Just because I can't play now doesn't mean I don't want to return and enjoy my luna house.

 

[Dan]

As a player who is on hiatus, but planning on returning, I'd be really frustrated if I came back to discover the timers were changed retroactively. Just because I can't play now doesn't mean I don't want to return and enjoy my luna house.

There are no intentions of changing any aspect of housing on Heritage at this time. This does not mean stop the discussion. Should a need ever arise ideas could be taken from this thread.

If, in the future, this ever changed though the first step would be announcing the change 6 months in advance to account for current decay times.

 

[Gremlin]

lower the decay time, the amount of useless houses is ridiculous, these ppl don't even play and alot are just tryin to sell spots they don't even use. imo it's being abused. OSI is like 5 days or somethin. I'm not sayin go that far but ffs, there's more empty customs than there are actually used houses on this shard. Any reason why we wouldn't want to say cut it in half to three months?

 

[Ludafish]

I agree with OP. This housing situation is ridiculous. Limit houses or reduce the timer in half. Even half the current timer is still too long. I think 60 days is a totally fair time span for houses to decay.

Ive been scoping a house that has been greatly worn for about 40 days now, and that is kinda ludicrous in the grand scheme of things.

You make housing fall more, you create more pvp and action for current players, events, etc.

People holding property and logging in once every 6 months ARE NOT PLAYERS. They should not be given this absurd luxury.

 

[RedBeard]

Shortening the time is not the way to handle it really, since many of those non-players will just log in more often. I say 90 days is good. Require a long elaborate quest to refresh the house instead.

 

[Cid]

Shortening the time is not the way to handle it really, since many of those non-players will just log in more often. I say 90 days is good. Require a long elaborate quest to refresh the house instead.

Hmmmm, interesting idea! I have a number of houses but they are all of the classic design, not just plots. I'm also an active player who uses / visits my houses on a regular basis.

On other UO servers that I have played on, even the OSI server, Catskills, I used to make a tidy profit doing IDOC's. On Heritage however I just can't get used to the lengthy timer but that's just me...

A quest might be the way to go, some questions about details tho...
1. Would 1 finished quest refresh all houses associated to that account? IP address?
2. Would the quest be so difficult that a non-combatant crafter char couldn't finish?
3. In the case of guild houses, could any guild member do the quest? Even if not associated with the account that owns the house?
4. How often would the quest need to be repeated? Daily, weekly, monthly, each quarter?

In concept, I like the idea but with all matters, the devil is in the details....

 

[RedBeard]

Hmmmm, interesting idea! I have a number of houses but they are all of the classic design, not just plots. I'm also an active player who uses / visits my houses on a regular basis.

On other UO servers that I have played on, even the OSI server, Catskills, I used to make a tidy profit doing IDOC's. On Heritage however I just can't get used to the lengthy timer but that's just me...

A quest might be the way to go, some questions about details tho...
1. Would 1 finished quest refresh all houses associated to that account? IP address?
2. Would the quest be so difficult that a non-combatant crafter char couldn't finish?
3. In the case of guild houses, could any guild member do the quest? Even if not associated with the account that owns the house?
4. How often would the quest need to be repeated? Daily, weekly, monthly, each quarter?

In concept, I like the idea but with all matters, the devil is in the details....

Some ideas I thought of to answer your questions.
1. Could be per account, unless per house is more effective.
2. Not meant to be difficult in combat, but time consuming and using locations needing boat or non-mark/recall etc.. Quest items that are non-moveable in pack, deleted when dropped, have a timer. Perhaps randomized locations/items. Moving questers, not always in same location? Force players to play in order to maintain their property. Quest difficulty should be proportionate to the amount of time one can let their house decay.
3. No. You could always make the items in the Guild House accessible to multiple guild members in order to salvage them in such an event...
4. Repeat quest every time any house decay reaches a set time limit

This needs more input and further discussion of course.