What about those of us who would like a new house?
Heather Stefanek
it is fair for us to not at least have a grace period to place and then move
out of our old house. Sure even small houses are hard to come by but I've
always wanted one just a little bigger. Its really lame because most of the
older players have 5 each and now we newer players can only have one? What
good is having vendors then? I know most people dont want to make their only
house open...
the Lemon Merchant
Well, the grace period idea I could see, though I'm sure there's some
exploitable loophole somewhere..
As for the public/private homes, you can always share a house with a
friend. Use one for your private needs, and open the other as a
shared vendor house. Works nicely.
-Katie
Bunk
I think the other thing people will come to realize, is that many
people who currently have private houses might as well make them
public under the new system. Since everything that isn't locked down
or secure will decay, house looting will now be completely a thing of
the past. Some people will still want private houses for one reason
or another, but for the most part public houses should now work fine
for most of us.
Bunk. [PAG] of SP
Quaestor
> On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 21:41:38 -0400, "Heather Stefanek"
> <Nuku...@worldnet.att.net> simply wrote:
>
> >While I can understand OSI limiting each of us to one house, I cant see how
> >it is fair for us to not at least have a grace period to place and then move
> >out of our old house. Sure even small houses are hard to come by but I've
> >always wanted one just a little bigger. Its really lame because most of the
> >older players have 5 each and now we newer players can only have one? What
> >good is having vendors then? I know most people dont want to make their only
> >house open...
>
> Well, the grace period idea I could see, though I'm sure there's some
> exploitable loophole somewhere..
It's easy. To place a house, all other houses on that account must first be set
to a status that does not allow them to be refreshed. In 10 days time it must
either be sold, traded, or lost. Or the new one could be sold, then the old one
set back to refreshable. This would be fairly easy to implement. I suggested it
nearly a year ago. No response.
Eric A. Hall
> Some people will still want private houses for one reason or another,
> but for the most part public houses should now work fine for most
> of us.
Only if they are lockable. I use my private house as a safe spot where I
can hide from the gangs that run through my neighborhood. My GM Merchant
has zero fighting skills. If I can't lock the door while I'm working
I've got no benefit from owning a house in the first place.
My fisher/treasure guy needs to lock the door when he's sorting through
loot, too. I need to put that treasure chest on the ground and build
piles of crap, choosing what to store, sell or discard. Having an open
door while doing this is an unnerving though.
Lars Friedrich
> > Some people will still want private houses for one reason or another,
> > but for the most part public houses should now work fine for most
> > of us.
> Only if they are lockable. I use my private house as a safe spot where I
> can hide from the gangs that run through my neighborhood. My GM Merchant
> has zero fighting skills.
> If I can't lock the door while I'm working I've got no benefit from owning
a house in the first place.
Or does 'working' mean 'unattended macroing' ?
Not to mention that those gangs can kill you with earthquakes and meteor
swarms inside your locked house, so what..
> My fisher/treasure guy needs to lock the door when he's sorting through
> loot, too. I need to put that treasure chest on the ground and build
> piles of crap, choosing what to store, sell or discard. Having an open
> door while doing this is an unnerving though.
How about doing this on your boat?
How about locking down a table right before the entrance before you start to
sort, so that people can't enter?
Whew..
I feared you actually had good reasons to be against the "one house per
account" rule..
Eric A. Hall
> > If I can't lock the door while I'm working I've got no benefit from
> > owning a house in the first place.
> And he can't ban...
The ban list is quite limited. Between the reds and the house looters in
my neighborhood, I'd be through that list within a few days.
> Or does 'working' mean 'unattended macroing' ?
If you read my posts you'd know I don't do that. But I understand you'd
rather be cute than actually have an intelligent debate.
> Not to mention that those gangs can kill you with earthquakes and
> meteor swarms inside your locked house, so what..
No they can't. EQ won't kill a player, and MS only works when you're in
a certain spot. On the other hand, if I can't lock the door then they
can lob purples, shoot corp pors and do lots of other fun stuff
(including EQ and MS). Thanks for making my point!
> How about doing this on your boat?
You're shitting me, right?
> How about locking down a table right before the entrance before you
> start to sort, so that people can't enter?
Including the other residents of the house. Yeah, smart.
> I feared you actually had good reasons to be against the "one house
> per account" rule..
Whatever.
Pam
I sort through my stuff as well after fishing up MIB's and, on
occasion, I might need to step away from the computer for a brief
moment (answer a door, phone, etc...) and don't like the feeling of
vulnerability of being a sitting duck for anyone who might want to
come in and wreak havoc. On occasion, my husband and I like to spar
in our home and I just don't want people walking in. When I was with
my old guild we'd often get together in the guildmaster's tower and it
was public and numerous assholes liked to come in just to be annoying.
Yes, we could simply ban them but it's much nicer to just be able to
lock the door!
Pam
Pacific
On 04 Oct 1999 07:52:31 PDT, "Eric A. Hall" <eh...@ehsco.com> wrote:
>Only if they are lockable. I use my private house as a safe spot where I
>can hide from the gangs that run through my neighborhood. My GM Merchant
>has zero fighting skills. If I can't lock the door while I'm working
>I've got no benefit from owning a house in the first place.
>
Lars Friedrich
> > > If I can't lock the door while I'm working I've got no benefit from
> > > owning a house in the first place.
> The ban list is quite limited. Between the reds and the house looters in
> my neighborhood, I'd be through that list within a few days.
Conclusion: Only pks who want to kill you have to be banned
There are 50 accounts in your neighborhood that want to kill you? Weird
Perhaps they want to kill you because you have a private house with a lot of
stuff..ever thought about that?
> > Or does 'working' mean 'unattended macroing' ?
> If you read my posts you'd know I don't do that. But I understand you'd
> rather be cute than actually have an intelligent debate.
I desperately try to find arguments. Due to the fact that you don't deliver
them, I have to make assumptions
*shrugs*
> > Not to mention that those gangs can kill you with earthquakes and
> > meteor swarms inside your locked house, so what..
> No they can't. EQ won't kill a player, and MS only works when you're in
> a certain spot. On the other hand, if I can't lock the door then they
> can lob purples, shoot corp pors and do lots of other fun stuff
> (including EQ and MS). Thanks for making my point!
Banned persons can't open the door of a house. And speaking about certain
spots:
On certain spots they can't target you with spells (or anything else) due to
LOS
> > How about doing this on your boat?
> You're shitting me, right?
Should I?
Again, you didn't say any reason why not, you just repeat your 'not
possible' (although in variations..)
> > How about locking down a table right before the entrance before you
> > start to sort, so that people can't enter?
> Including the other residents of the house. Yeah, smart.
You really must have a lot of traffic that goes through your house if it is
a problem to lock down an item while you sort your loot and to remove it
when you are finished.
How much time do you need to determine if you will keep the wooden shield of
defense or not?
How much time does it take to unlock a table when a friend wants to enter or
leave the house?
How much loot do you hoard before you start to ID?
When there is so much traffic that goes through your house, how comes it
doesn't get looted every day when you have such an aggressive neighborhood?
I assume that the people you call 'other residents of the house' have a
house key.
*shrugs*
Any reasons why you are against 1 house per account?
Eric A. Hall
Lars, you are obviously not playing the same game that I am. Many folks
here have stated that they need a private residence. I am not "abusing"
the game or doing any other outlandish stuff; I'm just looking for some
security. As such, making having to choose between a public house or a
private house, I will choose the latter (as will many others). Nobody
cares if you can't grok this.
> You really must have a lot of traffic that goes through your house if
> it is a problem to lock down an item while you sort your loot and to
> remove it when you are finished.
ONLY the owner can lockdown/release an item. The owner of my house is
one of the seven characters that shares this house. The treasure/fisher
guy is not the owner. If he's sorting crap out and another resident
comes home, then I gotta logout, get the owner, release, lockdown,
logout and log back in, all while hoping that I don't get locked out of
the shard for some reason, or that my house doesn't get raided while I'm
gone, or any other number of things.
Wouldn't it just be easier to keep the locks and keys?!!?!! DUH!
the Lemon Merchant
>I also like to feel safe behind a locked door for these very reasons.
>I sort through my stuff as well after fishing up MIB's and, on
>occasion, I might need to step away from the computer for a brief
>moment (answer a door, phone, etc...) and don't like the feeling of
>vulnerability of being a sitting duck for anyone who might want to
>come in and wreak havoc. On occasion, my husband and I like to spar
>in our home and I just don't want people walking in. When I was with
>my old guild we'd often get together in the guildmaster's tower and it
>was public and numerous assholes liked to come in just to be annoying.
>Yes, we could simply ban them but it's much nicer to just be able to
>lock the door!
Use the hiding skill/spell when you must leave the computer. And, if
I read correctly, your husband and you have seperate accounts -- each
of you could place a house, and use one for your private sparring and
storage, and leave the other public for vendors and more storage.
I don't know -- I'm one of the "have nots" in housing. Just the one
building would be glorious, even if I shared it with 3 other people
or 10 vendors. But, for the people who are willing to team up with
others to have one private house and one public, I fail to see it as
anything but a win-win situation for everyone.
-Katie
Lars Friedrich
> Lars, you are obviously not playing the same game that I am. Many folks
> here have stated that they need a private residence.
who will say that they need that, too.
If they have a good reason, is another thing.
Not to mention that they can have a private residence, but not with vendors.
Not to mention that even more people say that they actually want to PLACE a
house.
> I am not "abusing" the game or doing any other outlandish stuff; I'm just
looking for some
> security.
I never looted a public house (not many ways to loot it legally) but I was
in quite a lot of private ones.
There goes your security.
> As such, making having to choose between a public house or a
> private house, I will choose the latter (as will many others). Nobody
> cares if you can't grok this.
I can live with that decision, not with the "I need a private and a public
so let us keep x houses per account" movement that is going on here {x>1}.
> > You really must have a lot of traffic that goes through your house if
> > it is a problem to lock down an item while you sort your loot and to
> > remove it when you are finished.
> ONLY the owner can lockdown/release an item. The owner of my house is
> one of the seven characters that shares this house. The treasure/fisher
> guy is not the owner. If he's sorting crap out and another resident
> comes home, then I gotta logout, get the owner, release, lockdown,
> logout and log back in, all while hoping that I don't get locked out of
> the shard for some reason, or that my house doesn't get raided while I'm
> gone, or any other number of things.
The other residents are not friends who can ban?
This still leads to the question why you don't sort the stuff on the fisher
boat (I assume you have one)
or not right after the char got the treasure at the bank or why you don't
sort the crap with the owner of the house instead of the fisher or why you
don't make the fisher the owner of the house or...or...
There are so many possible solutions for your "problem" that I find it
really silly that the only solution you seem to see is your "private house".
Except you have other problems you don't want to tell..?
> Wouldn't it just be easier to keep the locks and keys?!!?!! DUH!
Yes, my life would be much easier with 10 castles and 1000k in the bank,
too.
That is not the point though, a balanced world where actually everyone can
have a house is the point.
And right now I don't see any valid reason why there should be a x-amount of
houses per account (x>1) and your posts didn't show me any good reason
either, so..
That is my point of view.
*shrugs*
Eric A. Hall
> Except you have other problems you don't want to tell..?
Because I'm trying to stop this thread. You're distracting from the
merit of the original point by arguing over irrelevant and erroneous
details. Your whole argument thus far is that public house are just as
secure as private houses, which but you knows is not the case.
> This still leads to the question why you don't sort the stuff on the
> fisher boat (I assume you have one)
Boats are only slightly more secure than the town square. Even you
should know this from your little misadventure the other day. The number
of boat-invasion exploits is mind blowing. As to the exact matter of why
I don't sort loot on the deck, well there's only one secure tile on a
large boat, and the trunk is going to be sitting on it. If I were to
sort stuff there, I'd be making piles in unsecure spots. Since I'm also
an easy target, whatever is lying around my corpse is going to be within
grabbing range. Maybe I'd be better off to sort it at home where I can
lock the freaking door! Isn't that why OSI gave us private houses in the
first places?
> or not right after the char got the treasure at the bank or why you
Chest + contents of bank box > item count limit
> don't sort the crap with the owner of the house instead of the fisher
Owner is a fighter (see below) and has no room for item id.
> or why you don't make the fisher the owner of the house or...or...
Because when the shit hits the fan and I'm fighting off a home invasion
I want my best fighter to have the most options. EG, owning the house so
he can change the locks. This has already happened once where I got
killed by a ganker gang while recalling into my neighborhood. My fighter
changed the locks immediately and then killed two of the four reds,
without my having to screw around with any extra logins.
> There are so many possible solutions for your "problem" that I find
> it really silly that the only solution you seem to see is your
> "private house".
NO. They are only solutions to YOU because you aren't playing the same
game as I am. These might work for you but that does NOT mean that they
are useful for everybody! Or did OSI change the game to "Lars' Idea of
Ultima Online" and nobody told me?
> > Wouldn't it just be easier to keep the locks and keys?!!?!! DUH!
> Yes, my life would be much easier with 10 castles and 1000k in the
> bank, too.
Irrelevant and Inane.
> That is not the point though, a balanced world where actually everyone
> can have a house is the point.
Yes I agree. If the game HAD BEEN developed (past tense emphasis) to
support this model -- OR IF OSI MAKES ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO SUPPORT THE
EXISTING MODEL (future) -- then yeah it would be feasible to limit
accounts to one house. But without some kind of changes to accompany the
player-driven world, there will be a lot less of the player-driven stuff
in the game. Neighborhoods will become suburbs. You'll have to recall to
town to buy anything or attend a guild meeting. Is this what you want?
All I'm saying is that if they want to limit to one-per-account then
they need to address the issues related to guild houses and vendor
houses in particular. If they can't do that at the same time as they
institue housing limits, then raise the limit so that it is two-per
account UNTIL there's some sort of mechanism that allows for the current
model to continue to function under the new rules.
You're saying that changes aren't needed to support the old model.
You're wrong, as the many of us who do not open public houses will have
to prove. If you personally would choose live in a private house with no
locks, well that's either very big or very foolish of you. Only time
will tell. But don't assume we all will make that decision, because many
have already said they won't.
Jeez, and this latest round is from my saying I'd even be willing to
compromise and live in a public house if I could lock the door, but you
won't even let me have that! Phht! Why even have houses at all? No
wonder I want to end this by not responding to your niggling points!
I would also like to point out that it is entirely feasible to limit
ownership of houses in the new lands (whenever that happens) to those
accounts who do not already have ANY houses. That will prevent the land
rush that we all fear, but would not interfere with the issues of public
versus private housing.
THE END
the Lemon Merchant
wrote:
>in the game. Neighborhoods will become suburbs. You'll have to recall to
>town to buy anything or attend a guild meeting. Is this what you want?
My guild already must do this, as 16 members are a bit tedius to cram
into the small 1 room house our guildmaster has. Only 3 other members
have houses, all of them also being 1 room.
>All I'm saying is that if they want to limit to one-per-account then
>they need to address the issues related to guild houses and vendor
>houses in particular. If they can't do that at the same time as they
>institue housing limits, then raise the limit so that it is two-per
>account UNTIL there's some sort of mechanism that allows for the current
>model to continue to function under the new rules.
Solution: Share housing with others.
><snip>
From where I stand on the issue, people with multiple houses or the
'need' for multiple houses should be forced to make the choice between
public and private. If they want one of each, they should buddy up
and share. Before I see people allowed to keep both their homes, I
sure hope that everyone else on the shard has a chance to own at least
one.
-Katie
Uwe Fischer
Lars Friedrich <lars.fr...@privat.kkf.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
2j5K3.329$C7.5...@newscene.newscene.com...
> And he can't ban...
1. The ban list is limited.
2. Ever tried to ban an attacking guild with more than 2 people? You must
have very quick reflexes.
3. If a craftsman works, he has to concentrate to his work, not the
surrounding.
> Not to mention that those gangs can kill you with earthquakes and meteor
> swarms inside your locked house, so what..
Only if you are not standing in the middle while hidden. I allways hide in
the middle of my house and it is secure.
> How about doing this on your boat?
How about pirates?
> How about locking down a table right before the entrance before you
start to
> sort, so that people can't enter?
But they can open the door and cast on him.
> Whew..
> I feared you actually had good reasons to be against the "one house per
> account" rule..
He has, you simple didn´t see them. But this is only true for the small
houses. In a larger gouse, you have seperate lockable room for beeing
secure. There is no need for having more than one bigger house.
Regards
Grizwood, Seneschall (MTB), Drachenfels
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/autumnvision/
Uwe Fischer
> I need a full set of invulnerability plate and I guess I get a lot of
people
> who will say that they need that, too.
> If they have a good reason, is another thing.
What has this to do with the houseing problem that we try to dicuss here?
> Not to mention that they can have a private residence, but not with
vendors.
> Not to mention that even more people say that they actually want to
PLACE a
> house.
There are so much people out there with 5 big houses, towers and more. Why
srew up those people with 2 small houses first?. I can live with a limit
of one house per account. But not one small house.
> I never looted a public house (not many ways to loot it legally) but I
was
> in quite a lot of private ones.
> There goes your security.
My house was never looted. It is allways closed. I never walk arround with
the key and there is a line of tables behind the door. That is my
security.
> I can live with that decision, not with the "I need a private and a
public
> so let us keep x houses per account" movement that is going on here
{x>1}.
It´s not a point of "I need". It´s a point of "I want". And if I can´t, I
have to deal with it. But I must not be lucky witch it. There is still the
option to run as many accounts, as I "want" houses.
> This still leads to the question why you don't sort the stuff on the
fisher
> boat (I assume you have one)
because of Pirates.
> or not right after the char got the treasure at the bank or why you
don't
> sort the crap with the owner of the house instead of the fisher or why
you
> don't make the fisher the owner of the house or...or...
> There are so many possible solutions for your "problem" that I find it
> really silly that the only solution you seem to see is your "private
house".
> Except you have other problems you don't want to tell..?
Macroing for example:)
> Yes, my life would be much easier with 10 castles and 1000k in the bank,
> too.
I don´t think so. You would spend your whole UO-life with refreshing you
castles:)
> That is not the point though, a balanced world where actually everyone
can
> have a house is the point.
Here I agree with you. And that´s as it is in the moment. Everyone can
have a house. You must not place a new one. Simply buy a used house.
> And right now I don't see any valid reason why there should be a
x-amount of
> houses per account (x>1) and your posts didn't show me any good reason
> either, so..
> That is my point of view.
Good, that this is not everyones point of view.
Uncle Milty
>
>
>> Except you have other problems you don't want to tell..?
>
>merit of the original point by arguing over irrelevant and erroneous
>details. Your whole argument thus far is that public house are just as
>secure as private houses, which but you knows is not the case.
>
>> fisher boat (I assume you have one)
>
>should know this from your little misadventure the other day. The number
>of boat-invasion exploits is mind blowing. As to the exact matter of why
>I don't sort loot on the deck, well there's only one secure tile on a
>large boat, and the trunk is going to be sitting on it. If I were to
>sort stuff there, I'd be making piles in unsecure spots. Since I'm also
>an easy target, whatever is lying around my corpse is going to be within
>grabbing range. Maybe I'd be better off to sort it at home where I can
>lock the freaking door! Isn't that why OSI gave us private houses in the
>first places?
>
There may be only 1 secure tile on a large ship, but *FIVE* chests can be
stacked on that one tile. You only need 3 chests to sort stuff: 1 chest for
stuff to be sold, one chest for stuff going to the bank, and one chest for
stuff going to the house. Sort by moving stuff from one chest to the other.
By the time I have 5 chests stacked on the deck, I have collected as many as 17
chests, altogether.
Fish can be piled on other tiles on the ship, along with footwear. Who cares
if it gets stolen? Somebody desparate enough to steal a pack full of boots and
sandals needs them worse than I do.
Boat invasions? Boats are more secure, now, than they've ever been since the
game started. Recall off a master key, from your house or from the bank, and
NEVER carry a key on you. Keep a copied key in the hold to refresh the ship
with. Never take a horse on a boat. Never park in the same place twice, never
park close to a town. So much for the exploits.
Hell, there's even an exploit for moving the stuff from the ship to your house,
but you'll have to find it somewhere else, I'm not going to explain it here.
>> or not right after the char got the treasure at the bank or why you
>
>Chest + contents of bank box > item count limit
>
>> don't sort the crap with the owner of the house instead of the fisher
>
>Owner is a fighter (see below) and has no room for item id.
>
>> or why you don't make the fisher the owner of the house or...or...
>
>Because when the shit hits the fan and I'm fighting off a home invasion
>I want my best fighter to have the most options. EG, owning the house so
>he can change the locks. This has already happened once where I got
>killed by a ganker gang while recalling into my neighborhood. My fighter
>changed the locks immediately and then killed two of the four reds,
>without my having to screw around with any extra logins.
>
>> There are so many possible solutions for your "problem" that I find
>> it really silly that the only solution you seem to see is your
>> "private house".
>
>NO. They are only solutions to YOU because you aren't playing the same
>game as I am. These might work for you but that does NOT mean that they
>are useful for everybody! Or did OSI change the game to "Lars' Idea of
>Ultima Online" and nobody told me?
>
>> > Wouldn't it just be easier to keep the locks and keys?!!?!! DUH!
>> Yes, my life would be much easier with 10 castles and 1000k in the
>> bank, too.
>
>Irrelevant and Inane.
>
>> That is not the point though, a balanced world where actually everyone
>> can have a house is the point.
>
>Yes I agree. If the game HAD BEEN developed (past tense emphasis) to
>support this model -- OR IF OSI MAKES ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO SUPPORT THE
>EXISTING MODEL (future) -- then yeah it would be feasible to limit
>accounts to one house. But without some kind of changes to accompany the
>player-driven world, there will be a lot less of the player-driven stuff
>in the game. Neighborhoods will become suburbs. You'll have to recall to
>town to buy anything or attend a guild meeting. Is this what you want?
>
>All I'm saying is that if they want to limit to one-per-account then
>they need to address the issues related to guild houses and vendor
>houses in particular. If they can't do that at the same time as they
>institue housing limits, then raise the limit so that it is two-per
>account UNTIL there's some sort of mechanism that allows for the current
>model to continue to function under the new rules.
>
Bob Roland
Merchant) wrote:
>From where I stand on the issue, people with multiple houses or the
>'need' for multiple houses should be forced to make the choice between
>public and private. If they want one of each, they should buddy up
>and share. Before I see people allowed to keep both their homes, I
>sure hope that everyone else on the shard has a chance to own at least
>one.
Well, IMHO the best patch ever was the housing patch....because of the
ability to make housing public. Before this there were vendors on
peoples porches, but there weren't real stores.
I just don't see people running little shops if *all* they could have
was one house. I used to run a little store on Sonoma that became a
small center of activity. I like to think it added to the game.
Under your rules, that store never would have come into being.
Housing could be solved by maintnance and bidding. I just don't think
we'll see either of those any time soon.
The Great Bob
Visit the Siege Perilous Comic strip!
greatbob.uoboard.net
Brandy
Uncle Milty <no_r...@email.net> wrote in message
news:B5995857CE2A2070.6A74188E...@lp.airnews.net...
>
> There may be only 1 secure tile on a large ship, but *FIVE* chests can be
> stacked on that one tile. You only need 3 chests to sort stuff: 1 chest
for
> stuff to be sold, one chest for stuff going to the bank, and one chest for
> stuff going to the house. Sort by moving stuff from one chest to the
other.
> By the time I have 5 chests stacked on the deck, I have collected as many
as 17
> chests, altogether.
>
I used to do this. Then I found out the hard way that when you sail across
a server line there is a chance of a stacked item disappearing.
Brandy (WE, LS)
Lars Friedrich
> > I need a full set of invulnerability plate and I guess I get a lot of
> people
> > who will say that they need that, too.
> > If they have a good reason, is another thing.
> What has this to do with the houseing problem that we try to dicuss here?
only tell them that they don't need more, they just want more.
If you don't see how this fits into the discussion..
> > Not to mention that they can have a private residence, but not with
> vendors.
> > Not to mention that even more people say that they actually want to
> PLACE a
> > house.
> There are so much people out there with 5 big houses, towers and more. Why
> srew up those people with 2 small houses first?. I can live with a limit
> of one house per account. But not one small house.
Hu? What are you talking about?
> > I never looted a public house (not many ways to loot it legally) but I
was
> > in quite a lot of private ones.
> > There goes your security.
> My house was never looted. It is allways closed. I never walk arround with
> the key and there is a line of tables behind the door. That is my
> security.
And? How does this make my statement false? If you would have read his post,
you should have noticed that he obviously does not want to use lockdowns to
seperate the house into different areas. And this 'I never walk around with
the key' is impossible, because you have to walk from the recall spot to the
door with the key.
> > This still leads to the question why you don't sort the stuff on the
fisher
> > boat (I assume you have one)
> because of Pirates.
A lot of pirates in the guard zone.
> > That is not the point though, a balanced world where actually everyone
> can
> > have a house is the point.
> Here I agree with you. And that愀 as it is in the moment. Everyone can
> have a house. You must not place a new one. Simply buy a used house.
Oh, great idea...not to mention that I have to pay the greedy former house o
wner, I also have to pay uomarket or I get screwed..
> > And right now I don't see any valid reason why there should be a
x-amount of
> > houses per account (x>1) and your posts didn't show me any good reason
> > either, so..
> > That is my point of view.
> Good, that this is not everyones point of view.
And?
Lars Friedrich
> > And he can't ban...
> > Or does 'working' mean 'unattended macroing' ?
> 1. The ban list is limited.
> 2. Ever tried to ban an attacking guild with more than 2 people?
Yes
I had a red char in my house who was waiting to get blue again. I had a lot
of visits from various npk guilds..
> You must have very quick reflexes.
F12, Target, F12, Target, F12, Target, F12, Target
How much time do you need for that?
> 3. If a craftsman works, he has to concentrate to his work, not the
> surrounding.
> > Not to mention that those gangs can kill you with earthquakes and meteor
> > swarms inside your locked house, so what..
> Only if you are not standing in the middle while hidden. I allways hide in
> the middle of my house and it is secure.
You are such a great guy.
> > How about doing this on your boat?
> How about pirates?
How about inside the guarded zone but away from the coast?
> > How about locking down a table right before the entrance before you
start to
> > sort, so that people can't enter?
> But they can open the door and cast on him.
And? What will happen if he doesn't manage to ban them before he dies?
Nothing..oh sorry, 10% fame loss..
> > Whew..
> > I feared you actually had good reasons to be against the "one house per
> > account" rule..
> He has, you simple didn´t see them.
I'm talking about <good> reasons. And the definition of 'good' is a point of
view thing.
> But this is only true for the small
> houses. In a larger gouse, you have seperate lockable room for beeing
> secure. There is no need for having more than one bigger house.
And why can't people place large houses when they need one? Because 10000
people have 50000 small houses...
Lars Friedrich
> > Except you have other problems you don't want to tell..?
> Because I'm trying to stop this thread. You're distracting from the
> merit of the original point
have vendors at the same time.
> by arguing over irrelevant and erroneous
> details.
Actually, you started with the details. Bunk said
"but for the most part public houses should now work fine for most of us."
and you told us why you want to have a locked door.
> Your whole argument thus far is that public house are just as
> secure as private houses, which but you knows is not the case.
Actually my argument was, that private houses are not more secure than
public houses.
> > This still leads to the question why you don't sort the stuff on the
> > fisher boat (I assume you have one)
> Boats are only slightly more secure than the town square. Even you
> should know this from your little misadventure the other day. The number
> of boat-invasion exploits is mind blowing. As to the exact matter of why
> I don't sort loot on the deck, well there's only one secure tile on a
> large boat,
How about using the hold to sort?
*shrugs*
> > or why you don't make the fisher the owner of the house or...or...
> Because when the shit hits the fan and I'm fighting off a home invasion
> I want my best fighter to have the most options. EG, owning the house so
> he can change the locks. This has already happened once where I got
> killed by a ganker gang while recalling into my neighborhood. My fighter
> changed the locks immediately and then killed two of the four reds,
> without my having to screw around with any extra logins.
As I said..your private house is not more secure than a public one..
> > There are so many possible solutions for your "problem" that I find
> > it really silly that the only solution you seem to see is your
> > "private house".
> NO. They are only solutions to YOU because you aren't playing the same
> game as I am.
I adopt my playstyle to the game mechanics and don't want that the game
mechanics adopt to my playstyle. If I see that there is a necessary change
(and limiting the amount of houses to one per account is necessary imo) then
I'm for that change, no matter if it will hurt my playstyle.
> These might work for you but that does NOT mean that they
> are useful for everybody! Or did OSI change the game to "Lars' Idea of
> Ultima Online" and nobody told me?
They didn't change it to 'Eric A. Hall street' either. I say what I think
and you say what you think.
> > That is not the point though, a balanced world where actually everyone
> > can have a house is the point.
> Yes I agree. If the game HAD BEEN developed (past tense emphasis) to
> support this model -- OR IF OSI MAKES ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO SUPPORT THE
> EXISTING MODEL (future) -- then yeah it would be feasible to limit
> accounts to one house. But without some kind of changes to accompany the
> player-driven world, there will be a lot less of the player-driven stuff
> in the game. Neighborhoods will become suburbs. You'll have to recall to
> town to buy anything or attend a guild meeting. Is this what you want?
You won't believe it but there are actually people who say that they don't
need a private house just to sort their loot..
If your argument would be true, then on Siege Perilous (One house per
account..) would have very very few public houses. Take a look.
80% of the houses are public.
> All I'm saying is that if they want to limit to one-per-account then
> they need to address the issues related to guild houses and vendor
> houses in particular.
What issues? That you feel unsafe when you sort your loot in a vendor
house?
> You're saying that changes aren't needed to support the old model.
Right. They are not needed to support it. I don't say that I'm against
changes to support it further though.
> You're wrong, as the many of us who do not open public houses will have
> to prove. If you personally would choose live in a private house with no
> locks, well that's either very big or very foolish of you.
I don't have a problem with living in a public house.
> Only time will tell. But don't assume we all will make that decision,
because many
> have already said they won't.
That is fine. I can live with that. But don't assume that I will sit back
when you shout around that two houses or a locked door is a 'must have' for
every person, because it is only for your playstyle (perhaps) a 'must have'.
> Jeez, and this latest round is from my saying I'd even be willing to
> compromise and live in a public house if I could lock the door, but you
> won't even let me have that! Phht!
Perhaps I wasn't very clear there. I don't have a problem when they
introduce the "vendor on porch of private house"..fine..Why not, it'll solve
a lot of problems..
But I don't want that they go the "Okay, we won't give you locked doors &
vendors, so we will give you two houses per account instead" way. I want the
'one house per account' no matter what.
I hope this made my point of view more clearly. No need for a vendetta..
Eric A. Hall
> I adopt my playstyle to the game mechanics and don't want that the
> game mechanics adopt to my playstyle.
I'm not looking for that either. I'm asking that the game mechanics
continue to function pretty much as they have for the past two years,
especially wrt the concept of player-owned public services.
Uncle Milty
>
>
>Uncle Milty <no_r...@email.net> wrote in message
>news:B5995857CE2A2070.6A74188E...@lp.airnews.net...
>>
>> stacked on that one tile. You only need 3 chests to sort stuff: 1 chest
>for
>> stuff to be sold, one chest for stuff going to the bank, and one chest for
>> stuff going to the house. Sort by moving stuff from one chest to the
>other.
>> By the time I have 5 chests stacked on the deck, I have collected as many
>as 17
>> chests, altogether.
>>
>
>a server line there is a chance of a stacked item disappearing.
>
>Brandy (WE, LS)
>
>
>
I had this happen also, once. I don't remember if the chests were stacked on
the secure tile, or behind it. The one thing I'm sure of, is that my sailing
partner at the time had one of the chests open at the time. Since then I only
open the chests when I am sitting still, and haven't had a problem with things
on the secure tile. I still get things "washed overboard" that were placed
elsewhere on the deck.
Brandy
> In article <omnK3.477$yP.4...@harpo.ctel.net>, no...@nowhere.com says...
> >
> >
> >Uncle Milty <no_r...@email.net> wrote in message
> >news:B5995857CE2A2070.6A74188E...@lp.airnews.net...
> >>
be
> >> stacked on that one tile. You only need 3 chests to sort stuff: 1
chest
> >for
> >> stuff to be sold, one chest for stuff going to the bank, and one chest
for
> >> stuff going to the house. Sort by moving stuff from one chest to the
> >other.
> >> By the time I have 5 chests stacked on the deck, I have collected as
many
> >as 17
> >> chests, altogether.
> >>
> >
across
> >a server line there is a chance of a stacked item disappearing.
> >
> >Brandy (WE, LS)
> >
> >
> >
>
> I had this happen also, once. I don't remember if the chests were stacked
on
> the secure tile, or behind it. The one thing I'm sure of, is that my
sailing
> partner at the time had one of the chests open at the time. Since then I
only
> open the chests when I am sitting still, and haven't had a problem with
things
> on the secure tile. I still get things "washed overboard" that were
placed
> elsewhere on the deck.
>
In my case, the stack was on the secure tile and none of the chests were
open. I called a counselor and was told that it was an old bug. I have
never had a problem with unstacked items as long as they are on the center
line of the boat though, but that does limit the number of MiBs you can fish
up at one time.
Brandy (WE, LS)