Page 1 of 2
Regarding houses
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 11:42 pm
by Tiffany Crewe
I know that having restriction to how many house value you can have is good. I liked it when it was first introduced as it allowed new players to have a chance to buy a house. However, I think it should be somewhat modified. Simply put, I would like to be able to own more houses for role playing purpose. I have 5 characters in my account, and I do not want them to all live under the same roof. Unless you design all your characters to be in the same family, having all your characters live in the same house isn't really realistic. But if I am to separate them, that means that I can only get 5 small houses. While some of my characters are designed to be less wealthy, other merchant characters are suppose to be rich. If I want to get a big house for my rich character, I won't have enough house value to shelter my other characters, and the present solution is to put all my characters into the big house, regardless some characters are designed to be against each other.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but cities outside of Britain are very empty, especially on Malas. We have a lot of empty houses all over the world. With less players now, house possession should not be a problem. Of course, I don't believe we should remove house values altogether, but we should find a way to limit the house ownership while allowing more flexibility. I am thinking to count house value with cities independent of each other. In this way, we can own more houses while preventing someone monopolize the entire Britain or something. This will also allow population expansion into other parts of the world.
We can also try something like expanding total "possessable" house value, but limit to the number of houses can be owned per city. Or we can count house values with characters in the same account indpened from each other.
This is meant to be a discussion thread. Please input your thoughts and suggestions. I want to know what people think about this matter, and how possible it is. Ideally, we can all discuss this to come up with a desirable solution. Please respond thoughtfully to reduce any possible flaming.
Re: Regarding houses
Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 11:44 am
by Kent Strider
No, lessen the house value actually. So annoying for old rich players to keep stacking up cool houses.
Re: Regarding houses
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 11:26 am
by Bella Pious
And I am getting tired of hearing such a comment, again.
(1) In my opinion, the first reason why you get a house is because you need it to train and store. That's why you see so many houses so poorly decorated, with things just locked down and doors locked. When you actually get enough houses/containers, then you have the luxury to use your lockdowns for decoration purpose. So, why is it better, to see empty towns and poorly decorated houses, than to have them decorated to inspire a desire of making a beautiful house in others?
(2) Why is it a problem for you, or someone, to get a nice house on this shard? I really cannot understand this because there are A LOT MORE good houses in this shard and very few people playing. Oh spare me the talk on how fast a certain profession can make gold than the others. For how long since the item-wipe? And big time-warp again and again? I have not given up once, working consistently towards what I aim for. Some rather new players -- who joined after the item-wipe -- worked hard to gain their property as well, without the help from any old and rich players. I endured it, so did they. Perhaps before you think things come easy and fast for others, you need to ask yourself what you have done with the time you spend in game and how much time you have spent. I would say if someone has worked hard for a desirable place, that person would have gotten one.
(3) People enjoy different things in this game, and each spends his/her time in game according to such priority. To me, at least, getting a desirable house and decorating it IS the fun, and therefore, priority of the game. I'd rather spend hours decorating the house than training a skill. Maybe you can't understand it, just like I can't understand why some find hunting fun, but it doesn't mean people shouldn't have some respect on how others enjoy the game.
(4) Tiffany's post is suggesting perhaps there could be a way to separate each character's houses, so they won't get mixed up, instead of set a total limit of 50. I am afraid though, Tiffany, it requires a new script and may not be possible at the present state.
Re: Regarding houses
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 2:22 pm
by Mike
Kent Strider wrote:No, lessen the house value actually. So annoying for old rich players to keep stacking up cool houses.
+1
Re: Regarding houses
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 8:17 pm
by Kent Strider
Mike wrote:Kent Strider wrote:No, lessen the house value actually. So annoying for old rich players to keep stacking up cool houses.
+1
Because Bella, people like you that don't actually play take great outlaws towns AKA Cove and make them unavailable to people that actually want to use them and do something with them. Face the fact that your inactive and quit trying to stockpile houses.
Re: Regarding houses
Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 6:45 am
by Frog Morton
Kent Strider wrote:Mike wrote:Kent Strider wrote:No, lessen the house value actually. So annoying for old rich players to keep stacking up cool houses.
+1
Because Bella, people like you that don't actually play take great outlaws towns AKA Cove and make them unavailable to people that actually want to use them and do something with them. Face the fact that your inactive and quit trying to stockpile houses.
This is true the Union wanted to buy out cove but all we saw was afk macroing people and inactive stockpiled houses.
Re: Regarding houses
Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 6:49 am
by Maeros Gouranga
Maybe higher taxes and faster deca y rates to discourage stockpiling?
Re: Regarding houses
Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 7:19 am
by Boris
I seriously doubt that house value (or anything else in your house sign) will be changed, because a large system is build around them.
Perhaps the taxing system could be changed, but the amount of whine it would create, is too much for my ears.
What comes to housing and filling up the lands in general, I'm a supporter of "close Malas" campaing.
- Boris
Re: Regarding houses
Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 11:00 am
by Kent Strider
To be completely honest, Imperial should be done away with and Malas closed. Imperial has been completely unnecessary for a loooong time.
Re: Regarding houses
Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 2:29 pm
by Frog Morton
1. Raise taxes!
2. Removes malas!
4. Remove Imp!
3. Add Union guards!
4. Replace hp of law...
5. Raise house costs!
6. Allow afk non public macroing since apparently everyone does this all ready...
7. Fix the vains...
8. Allow guild coloring of items such as clocks...
9. Socialize and subsidize the crappy classes no one likes to play.
10. Ten...