🧙‍♂️ Brought to you by Peptides.gg — Use code UO20 for 20% off — GLP-1's, 90+ Peptides and more!

*GOLD SINK IDEA* DAoC House Deed Lease Concept

Started by Nails_Warstein · 2022-03-13 · 57 posts · General Discussions
#0
In Dark Ages of Camelot if you place a house in a designated area, you have to pay a lease.  What would players think about the possibility of being able to place a secondary house on low populated shards only?  The NPC that sells the house deed or the placement tools will only work on lower populated shards.  Perhaps players could only place them in Malas/TerMur so as to avoid blocking Castle and Keep placement in Tram/Fel.  Players would only be able to select smaller classic house styles, maybe small customizable would be okay, 500 max storage, the housing storage bonus would not apply to these houses.  Only subscription accounts can place these houses.  Make the cost like 1m/day, this could be changed.  Maybe even allow additional houses, but with each additional house increase the lease price.  Could make this a store item or feature if you don't like using it as a gold sink.

Alternative concept to personal placement.
Make them like New Magincia Stalls, you rent these little houses from designated areas within the game, they would only be available on low populated shards.  They could be like little villages and hamlets.  The game could make them fun by creating themes from Ultima lore.  If you do this method, you could open it up to EJ accounts who would pay sovereign instead of gold for them.  This concept would open it up to Atlantic, but perhaps increase the gold/sovereign price.

What would be the purpose?

1 - Might increase population on lower populated shards.
2 - Might encourage more community engagement.
3 - Might give players more reason to visit low populated shards.
4 - Might help players transition from one house to another.
5 - Gives a returning player, or quitting player time to consider their options.
6 - Gives a spot for visiting xsharders to store their idoc loot or storage for shopping.
#1
So the rich can become even richer?
#2
Pawain said:
So the rich can become even richer?
Well the idea was for the rich to become poorer hence the gold sink, 1m or higher per day lease cost.  Right now all we have are relatively cheap customizable castle/keeps and city titles as our gold sink.  Returning players leave after the vendor search sticker shock.  Deleting vet rewards from idocs was so dumb.  Returning players have to pay 50m for a charger or ethereal horse.  I've known so many just fed up with how expensive everything is.  Tired of the pay to win strategy going on since AoS 2003.  I'm for anything that makes the rich poorer.  Not sure what the argument against this would be, but please anyone change my mind.  
#3
FYI - I searched this topic before I posted, but guess I needed to use the keyword "sink", sorry if I was beating a dead horse here.  My idea is not exactly the same as theirs.  Hope people took the time to read what I wrote instead of basing it off previous debates.

https://forum.uo.com/discussion/comment/70966

#4
Nails_Warstein said:

Tired of the pay to win strategy going on since AoS 2003.  I'm for anything that makes the rich poorer.  Not sure what the argument against this would be, but please anyone change my mind.  
What do you think is paying to win?

I only pay for my subscription with real life $$ and in the game majority of my stuff is from me just playing the game. The things I do buy are for things I do not have time/desire to do like getting a 120 fishing scroll (I bought that). 

The argument against what you are suggesting is clear; you should only have 1 house per account (aside from Siege) and allowing players to pay for more is just going to allow certain people to monopolize the housing market with 1 account; ie go place castles on every shard they can and then try to sell those castle for a higher amount because of the organic shortage of housing that will be created when people start placing multiple houses.

No insult intended on this but I also think it's ironic that someone that is a broker (which it says in your tag line) is saying they (supposedly) are in favor of making the rich poorer. I feel like there is likely a hidden agenda in this request that's being disguised as wanting to make the rich poorer because ironically enough, if you want to have a house on every shard you can if you just sub more accounts which will inevitably make you poorer for subbing all those accounts, but probably makes it hard to create a buying frenzy for home when others aren't willing to sub more accounts. 
 
#5
In Dark Ages of Camelot if you place a house in a designated area, you have to pay a lease.  What would players think about the possibility of being able to place a secondary house on low populated shards only?  The NPC that sells the house deed or the placement tools will only work on lower populated shards.  Perhaps players could only place them in Malas/TerMur so as to avoid blocking Castle and Keep placement in Tram/Fel.  Players would only be able to select smaller classic house styles, maybe small customizable would be okay, 500 max storage, the housing storage bonus would not apply to these houses.  Only subscription accounts can place these houses.  Make the cost like 1m/day, this could be changed.  Maybe even allow additional houses, but with each additional house increase the lease price.  Could make this a store item or feature if you don't like using it as a gold sink.

Alternative concept to personal placement.
Make them like New Magincia Stalls, you rent these little houses from designated areas within the game, they would only be available on low populated shards.  They could be like little villages and hamlets.  The game could make them fun by creating themes from Ultima lore.  If you do this method, you could open it up to EJ accounts who would pay sovereign instead of gold for them.  This concept would open it up to Atlantic, but perhaps increase the gold/sovereign price.

What would be the purpose?

1 - Might increase population on lower populated shards.
2 - Might encourage more community engagement.
3 - Might give players more reason to visit low populated shards.
4 - Might help players transition from one house to another.
5 - Gives a returning player, or quitting player time to consider their options.
6 - Gives a spot for visiting xsharders to store their idoc loot or storage for shopping.
I agree that this could be looked into as an ingame possibility instead of the current pay to gain system where u need to pay for every single house. 

Anyway, they don't care about idoc, soulstones, returning players, marketing. The game is dying, so they expect the same population will keep paying for new accounts to get a new house.
#6
I'm neither for nor against the idea, if I want to play on another shard for a while without dropping an existing house I use boats, but just for the sake of clarity.
These houses would be of limited size?
They would be rented, not owned - similar to the function of Vaults?
They would be not-transferable, and therefore couldn't be sold?
#7
“this would benefit unsavoury people who travel to dead shards to farm power scrolls without being challenged and ship them back to live shard for free with shard shields.

it’s really unfair on those who risk doing champs on live shards only to have their rewards worth less even though they often have to put in more effort to fend off rivals.

Evidently people will naturally just do what benefits them personally to the deficit of the community. It is very sad”
#8
Yoshi said:
“this would benefit unsavoury people who travel to dead shards to farm power scrolls without being challenged and ship them back to live shard for free with shard shields.

it’s really unfair on those who risk doing champs on live shards only to have their rewards worth less even though they often have to put in more effort to fend off rivals”
To my knowledge a house is not a necessity for champspawn.

If your worry needs to be taken care, they can simply make champ spawn a special VVV system where at least 3 opposing forces are present before the Champ pops.  And if there is no PK we need to open 3 accounts to pop the champ. 
#9
Seth said:
Yoshi said:
“this would benefit unsavoury people who travel to dead shards to farm power scrolls without being challenged and ship them back to live shard for free with shard shields.

it’s really unfair on those who risk doing champs on live shards only to have their rewards worth less even though they often have to put in more effort to fend off rivals”
To my knowledge a house is not a necessity for champspawn.

If your worry needs to be taken care, they can simply make champ spawn a special VVV system where at least 3 opposing forces are present before the Champ pops.  And if there is no PK we need to open 3 accounts to pop the champ. 
In order to put scrolls in their respective books, they have to be locked down iirc. so a house would be a necessity to make it profitable.
#10
Seth said:
Yoshi said:
“this would benefit unsavoury people who travel to dead shards to farm power scrolls without being challenged and ship them back to live shard for free with shard shields.

it’s really unfair on those who risk doing champs on live shards only to have their rewards worth less even though they often have to put in more effort to fend off rivals”
To my knowledge a house is not a necessity for champspawn.

If your worry needs to be taken care, they can simply make champ spawn a special VVV system where at least 3 opposing forces are present before the Champ pops.  And if there is no PK we need to open 3 accounts to pop the champ. 
In order to put scrolls in their respective books, they have to be locked down iirc. so a house would be a necessity to make it profitable.
Yeah, that does not stop them from farming if they can fly off 170 + 125 items from their bank and back pack everyday. The house is for long term storage, commission vendors, crafting and display of shard bound rewards.

Make PS shard bound, then that rules out anything to do with house to zero.
#11
You could do it like the stalls in New Mag with pre build 7x7 Small Stone Workshop, 7x7 Small Marble Workshop or 8x7 Small Stone Towers only, you select house style with 4 vendors all ready placed in front of building (not on steps).  These stalls could be in the cities of Tram and Fel excluding New Mag, inside guard zones only just like New Mag, VvV cities would have to be set up where this area is outside that system.  This would allow safe travel for VS to any and all House Stalls.
Included
4 Vendors (normal Vendor fees apply)
6 chests  (125 items unlimited weight) 750 storage with 50 extra storage for deco (800 total).
Cost 100M a month paid accounts only so it does not compete with the extra storage system for EJ Accounts
1 Housing Stall per account per shard.
#12
You could do it like the stalls in New Mag with pre build 7x7 Small Stone Workshop, 7x7 Small Marble Workshop or 8x7 Small Stone Towers only, you select house style with 4 vendors all ready placed in front of building (not on steps).  These stalls could be in the cities of Tram and Fel excluding New Mag, inside guard zones only just like New Mag, VvV cities would have to be set up where this area is outside that system.  This would allow safe travel for VS to any and all House Stalls.
Included
4 Vendors (normal Vendor fees apply)
6 chests  (125 items unlimited weight) 750 storage with 50 extra storage for deco (800 total).
Cost 100M a month paid accounts only so it does not compete with the extra storage system for EJ Accounts
1 Housing Stall per account per shard.
100m a month seems alot  😂
But it is aligned to the OP's intent for a gold sink.

#13
Seth said:
You could do it like the stalls in New Mag with pre build 7x7 Small Stone Workshop, 7x7 Small Marble Workshop or 8x7 Small Stone Towers only, you select house style with 4 vendors all ready placed in front of building (not on steps).  These stalls could be in the cities of Tram and Fel excluding New Mag, inside guard zones only just like New Mag, VvV cities would have to be set up where this area is outside that system.  This would allow safe travel for VS to any and all House Stalls.
Included
4 Vendors (normal Vendor fees apply)
6 chests  (125 items unlimited weight) 750 storage with 50 extra storage for deco (800 total).
Cost 100M a month paid accounts only so it does not compete with the extra storage system for EJ Accounts
1 Housing Stall per account per shard.
100m a month seems alot  😂
But it is aligned to the OP's intent for a gold sink.

Everybody says 100M is chump change and they do want a GOLD SINK.  PSs alone could make you some good profit, LUCK Robe 35-40M.  There is a lot of stuff on a shard as long as you priced it for the shard and not ATL that would sell fast.
#14
You could do it like the stalls in New Mag with pre build 7x7 Small Stone Workshop, 7x7 Small Marble Workshop or 8x7 Small Stone Towers only, you select house style with 4 vendors all ready placed in front of building (not on steps).  These stalls could be in the cities of Tram and Fel excluding New Mag, inside guard zones only just like New Mag, VvV cities would have to be set up where this area is outside that system.  This would allow safe travel for VS to any and all House Stalls.
Included
4 Vendors (normal Vendor fees apply)
6 chests  (125 items unlimited weight) 750 storage with 50 extra storage for deco (800 total).
Cost 100M a month paid accounts only so it does not compete with the extra storage system for EJ Accounts
1 Housing Stall per account per shard.
One thing I forgot to add to my list and this is #1 on the list
YOU MAY NOT OWN A HOUSE ON THAT SHARD OR IT WILL CONDEAM ALL OF YOUR HOUSES ON THAT SHARD NO QUESTIONS ASKED.  I know this seams a little extreme but it  will prevent all of the ATL dealers taking all the House Stalls.

#15
Sorry but this just sounds so elitist to me. It might fit the Atlantic culture but I don't think it applies to the rest of the verse where few even know what a plat is, never mind even caring what it is.

Sorry but I just see it as another way for the circle of scripters to get richer and less opportunity for the daily common player. I don't know about anyone else but I'm getting tired of this game being about how to have more ways to line someone's pocket with money.



#16
Seth said:
Seth said:
Yoshi said:
“this would benefit unsavoury people who travel to dead shards to farm power scrolls without being challenged and ship them back to live shard for free with shard shields.

it’s really unfair on those who risk doing champs on live shards only to have their rewards worth less even though they often have to put in more effort to fend off rivals”
To my knowledge a house is not a necessity for champspawn.

If your worry needs to be taken care, they can simply make champ spawn a special VVV system where at least 3 opposing forces are present before the Champ pops.  And if there is no PK we need to open 3 accounts to pop the champ. 
In order to put scrolls in their respective books, they have to be locked down iirc. so a house would be a necessity to make it profitable.
Yeah, that does not stop them from farming if they can fly off 170 + 125 items from their bank and back pack everyday. The house is for long term storage, commission vendors, crafting and display of shard bound rewards.

Make PS shard bound, then that rules out anything to do with house to zero.
Never said it stopped them, I just said it would be less profitable. this idea would make it more profitable for them. at 1 mil a day that's 1 Legendary Anatomy scroll for 2 months for a house. This isn't needed. if you want a house on a second shard, open a second account, like most of us have already done.  as far as scrolls being shard bound, that will just drive the price up even higher, no thanks.
#17
Yoshi said:
“this would benefit unsavoury people who travel to dead shards to farm power scrolls without being challenged and ship them back to live shard for free with shard shields.

it’s really unfair on those who risk doing champs on live shards only to have their rewards worth less even though they often have to put in more effort to fend off rivals.

Evidently people will naturally just do what benefits them personally to the deficit of the community. It is very sad”
Well said!

But for Nails idea.  I could agree with a tent in certain areas of malas for a High fee. 2 chests that hold 125 items each, 6 lockdowns, no vendors.  

That would satisfy the need of a person transitioning to a new shard or living out of a suitcase.
#18
Yoshi said:
“this would benefit unsavoury people who travel to dead shards to farm power scrolls without being challenged and ship them back to live shard for free with shard shields.

it’s really unfair on those who risk doing champs on live shards only to have their rewards worth less even though they often have to put in more effort to fend off rivals.

Evidently people will naturally just do what benefits them personally to the deficit of the community. It is very sad”
They are going to continue to farm "DEAD SHARDS" with this they might keep the goods on that shard.
#19
Sorry but this just sounds so elitist to me. It might fit the Atlantic culture but I don't think it applies to the rest of the verse where few even know what a plat is, never mind even caring what it is.

Sorry but I just see it as another way for the circle of scripters to get richer and less opportunity for the daily common player. I don't know about anyone else but I'm getting tired of this game being about how to have more ways to line someone's pocket with money.



They will still script but maybe keep it on the shards they are scripting so we do not have to go shopping on ATL all the time
#20
I like all the feedback so far.  If this were done right, I think most people who took the time to analyze my suggestion could come up with a reasonable manner to create this utility for the betterment of the game.  I have griped about inflation in UO and the real world nearly my entire adult life.  I remember what it was like to save up for an all valorite armor set for 1m gold, only to get PKd and lose it within hours of sporting it outside city protection.  The staff created this ridiculous loot protection vet reward to save players pennies, and don't address that out of control inflation that makes playing without dying as much possible.  How can one even get a power scroll on their own if they die in cheap armor trying to get it.  Right now I am helping an entirely new player, and its very frustrating for them, and I've been doing this as being part of the Gentle Rest Inn guild on Catskills for 20 years.  I truly hope players understand this idea comes from a good place as someone who invests their time in this game, and wants it to prosper.

Personal side note.
I did notice the personal jabs, and I accept them for what they are.  Many people don't understand I broker for FREE, yes that's right, I broker for FREE any item in the game for gold across shards or otherwise.  I give free price quotes based on research.  I've done this for 18 years now after getting scammed too much.  Before weightless gold, I was brokering up to 100 trades for free a day much to my wife's ire.  The seller gave me the item, buyer gave me the gold, sometimes via vendors, and I exchanged them.  No one got scammed.  Occasionally I got a tip, but that was rare.  However if someone asks me to save them time and sell something for them on my own time, I do charge a percentage for that.  Flamestrike me if that bothers you.
#21
I like all the feedback so far.  If this were done right, I think most people who took the time to analyze my suggestion could come up with a reasonable manner to create this utility for the betterment of the game.  I have griped about inflation in UO and the real world nearly my entire adult life.  I remember what it was like to save up for an all valorite armor set for 1m gold, only to get PKd and lose it within hours of sporting it outside city protection.  The staff created this ridiculous loot protection vet reward to save players pennies, and don't address that out of control inflation that makes playing without dying as much possible.  How can one even get a power scroll on their own if they die in cheap armor trying to get it.  Right now I am helping an entirely new player, and its very frustrating for them, and I've been doing this as being part of the Gentle Rest Inn guild on Catskills for 20 years.  I truly hope players understand this idea comes from a good place as someone who invests their time in this game, and wants it to prosper.

Personal side note.
I did notice the personal jabs, and I accept them for what they are.  Many people don't understand I broker for FREE, yes that's right, I broker for FREE any item in the game for gold across shards or otherwise.  I give free price quotes based on research.  I've done this for 18 years now after getting scammed too much.  Before weightless gold, I was brokering up to 100 trades for free a day much to my wife's ire.  The seller gave me the item, buyer gave me the gold, sometimes via vendors, and I exchanged them.  No one got scammed.  Occasionally I got a tip, but that was rare.  However if someone asks me to save them time and sell something for them on my own time, I do charge a percentage for that.  Flamestrike me if that bothers you.
ROFL!
#22
Won't work.  Take siege for example.  Able to place a second house.   What happened?   Folks placed and left.  Never played.  Took up housing space for playing folks.   They are standing empty now for around 8 years.
#23
CharGar said:
Won't work.  Take siege for example.  Able to place a second house.   What happened?   Folks placed and left.  Never played.  Took up housing space for playing folks.   They are standing empty now for around 8 years.
If you read the post, the houses could be put in designated areas, so as not to take up space because that was a concern of my own as well.
#24
Instead of taking up valuable housing space why not take the space that's already being used for this idea that's in Magincia and turn it more into a market?

Which is it? Wanting to own valuable real estate or wanting to vendor?
#25
...as far as scrolls being shard bound, that will just drive the price up even higher, no thanks.
So true, this applies to all shard bound items, and in fact it reduces the availability in the long term.
#26
Instead of taking up valuable housing space why not take the space that's already being used for this idea that's in Magincia and turn it more into a market?

Which is it? Wanting to own valuable real estate or wanting to vendor?
That is why I suggested putting them in the Tram and Fel Cities as Housing Stalls.
#27
Instead of taking up valuable housing space why not take the space that's already being used for this idea that's in Magincia and turn it more into a market?

Which is it? Wanting to own valuable real estate or wanting to vendor?
The suggestion is for low pop shard, so there is plenty of land. 

For me I am thinking:

- Placing comms vendor
- Can lock down only deco.
- Fixed container space and location. e.g. comes with 4 built-in chests with up to 125 storage each.
- Not allowed to lock down containers or PS book if that is the issue. 

It needs ideas to make it attractive to majority of the rich veteran population without making it a tool for scripters, etc.

If they are not useful, then the houses will become white elephant and empty.
#28
It looks like a solid idea to me. I've long thought it would be cool if there were pre-built houses inside of towns that could be "leased" for as long as someone was willing/able to pay, that could be decorated but not customized. I dunno about 1m gold a day though, even for a gold sink that seems a bit much to me. I do like the idea of multiple houses per account for an escalating leasing price. The price could also scale according to the size/storage capacity of the house, if such options are available.

The downside of this idea is that this could conceivably result in less accounts. I imagine a chunk of Broadsword's revenue comes from house-holding accounts. On the upside, more gold leaving the system and players logged in more to pay for the houses.
#29
Or here is an idea.
Pay 12.95$ for another account, and place a house anywhere there is a spot. Shards aren't dead because people don't have the option to place a house, shards are dead because there are too many servers online for the amount of players left playing the game.

it's not rocket science, and the solution is not only simple, but the foundation for it has been being laid for the last few years now.
#30
gay said:
Or here is an idea.
Pay 12.95$ for another account, and place a house anywhere there is a spot. Shards aren't dead because people don't have the option to place a house, shards are dead because there are too many servers online for the amount of players left playing the game.

it's not rocket science, and the solution is not only simple, but the foundation for it has been being laid for the last few years now.
Exactly. I'm thinking the profit margins are getting a little thin for the people with a bunch of accounts trying to sell houses now a days based on the UO population. Could be wrong but why else would someone really push this? 

For what it's worth, you don't even need to pay the $13 a month every month to keep the house; just pay once every 3 months if you need to keep the slow selling house from falling. Pulse when you pay for the accounts to create a run on property (ie create the supply/demand). Only thing will be picking the right shard to do this on since there are so many. This is basically what the idea is suggesting; just on a single account level versus multi account level (cheaper for whoever is selling houses).
#31
gay said:
Or here is an idea.
Pay 12.95$ for another account, and place a house anywhere there is a spot. Shards aren't dead because people don't have the option to place a house, shards are dead because there are too many servers online for the amount of players left playing the game.

it's not rocket science, and the solution is not only simple, but the foundation for it has been being laid for the last few years now.
Shards are dead because you cannot live on low-populated ones. Nothing for sale at all. No powerscrolls, no weapon, even 0  wands to train a mage. 
It will be awesome if we will be able to sell stuff at cost of bank items. We have 125 -150 slots in the bank.  Let me use them.  This way people who come to farm PS will be able to sell ftuff for noobs. 

#32
keven2002 said:


For what it's worth, you don't even need to pay the $13 a month every month to keep the house; just pay once every 3 months if you need to keep the slow selling house from falling. Pulse when you pay for the accounts to create a run on property (ie create the supply/demand). Only thing will be picking the right shard to do this on since there are so many. This is basically what the idea is suggesting; just on a single account level versus multi account level (cheaper for whoever is selling houses).
This is part of a different problem though - the 3 month game.

But to Nails suggestion on the small house - gold sink idea - I like it.  Yeah there are logistics and details to work out.  I especially like the tent idea, I could see small encampments here and there of tents (gypsy style).  Little bit of extra storage, maybe allow a vendor (so people sell on their off-shards rather than bringing everything back to ATL).


#33
Kaz said:
keven2002 said:


For what it's worth, you don't even need to pay the $13 a month every month to keep the house; just pay once every 3 months if you need to keep the slow selling house from falling. Pulse when you pay for the accounts to create a run on property (ie create the supply/demand). Only thing will be picking the right shard to do this on since there are so many. This is basically what the idea is suggesting; just on a single account level versus multi account level (cheaper for whoever is selling houses).
This is part of a different problem though - the 3 month game.

But to Nails suggestion on the small house - gold sink idea - I like it.  Yeah there are logistics and details to work out.  I especially like the tent idea, I could see small encampments here and there of tents (gypsy style).  Little bit of extra storage, maybe allow a vendor (so people sell on their off-shards rather than bringing everything back to ATL).



Every time 10 paying customers pitch tents together they get a new city like feature..
#34
Kaz said:
keven2002 said:


For what it's worth, you don't even need to pay the $13 a month every month to keep the house; just pay once every 3 months if you need to keep the slow selling house from falling. Pulse when you pay for the accounts to create a run on property (ie create the supply/demand). Only thing will be picking the right shard to do this on since there are so many. This is basically what the idea is suggesting; just on a single account level versus multi account level (cheaper for whoever is selling houses).
This is part of a different problem though - the 3 month game.

But to Nails suggestion on the small house - gold sink idea - I like it.  Yeah there are logistics and details to work out.  I especially like the tent idea, I could see small encampments here and there of tents (gypsy style).  Little bit of extra storage, maybe allow a vendor (so people sell on their off-shards rather than bringing everything back to ATL).



I don't think it's really a "gold sink" idea if players are going to be placing vendors to make money on other shards; nor do I think it's really a gold sink if certain real estate tycoons are going to suck up all the land and then sell it off to the highest bidder. Let's call that what it is, which is self enriching to those few individuals. 

That said, I'm all for vendors on other shards which is what I think that's what the New Mag bazaar should be modified for. You can bid to place vendors now but those are more or less for commodities. I think they should keep the same thing in place (ie limited spaces and you must bid to keep the spot) but allow regular vendors so things like powerscrolls or artifacts can also be bought/sold. Using the bazaar style bidding would ensure that people don't simply stock their vendor once when they finally get a spot and then just leave it empty for the next 5 months. This would be more of a gold sink than allowing 1 account to place several houses (which inevitably would just be sold or used for vendors) because it opens up the possibility of a bidding war happening with the gold from that war going into the game; not the bank of X player.
#35
keven2002 said:
Kaz said:
keven2002 said:


For what it's worth, you don't even need to pay the $13 a month every month to keep the house; just pay once every 3 months if you need to keep the slow selling house from falling. Pulse when you pay for the accounts to create a run on property (ie create the supply/demand). Only thing will be picking the right shard to do this on since there are so many. This is basically what the idea is suggesting; just on a single account level versus multi account level (cheaper for whoever is selling houses).
This is part of a different problem though - the 3 month game.

But to Nails suggestion on the small house - gold sink idea - I like it.  Yeah there are logistics and details to work out.  I especially like the tent idea, I could see small encampments here and there of tents (gypsy style).  Little bit of extra storage, maybe allow a vendor (so people sell on their off-shards rather than bringing everything back to ATL).



I don't think it's really a "gold sink" idea if players are going to be placing vendors to make money on other shards; nor do I think it's really a gold sink if certain real estate tycoons are going to suck up all the land and then sell it off to the highest bidder. Let's call that what it is, which is self enriching to those few individuals. 

That said, I'm all for vendors on other shards which is what I think that's what the New Mag bazaar should be modified for. You can bid to place vendors now but those are more or less for commodities. I think they should keep the same thing in place (ie limited spaces and you must bid to keep the spot) but allow regular vendors so things like powerscrolls or artifacts can also be bought/sold. Using the bazaar style bidding would ensure that people don't simply stock their vendor once when they finally get a spot and then just leave it empty for the next 5 months. This would be more of a gold sink than allowing 1 account to place several houses (which inevitably would just be sold or used for vendors) because it opens up the possibility of a bidding war happening with the gold from that war going into the game; not the bank of X player.
Yup, how about allowing us to lock down the shard's shard shield inside the bazaar.

Once the shard shield is locked in the bazaar it becomes a Trading post. We can then transfer items from our primary shard house to that Trading post to sell items there, and without physically flying a character over. 

So in this way, Shard A can sell an item directly to a player on Shard B... instead of both Shard A and B meet at Atlantic to trade. Hopefully this will reduce the server load on vendor search, lag, etc on Atlantic. 

The following is ideal but should be difficult to work:
1) To have Trading posts on all shards,
2) All Trading posts to showcase the same items on my primary shard vendor.
3) Once the item is sold off on any shard, it's removed everywhere else. 

--- 
The gold sink works only if there is more gain than the gold lost. 

I don't think the smaller houses or plots will work as a gold sink. The real gold sink should just normal second house on any shard, but cost say 120mil a month. Ofcourse, the player can choose to pay $12.95 per month. It all depends if he has more real life money or too much gold - which is what a gold sink is for. 
#36
Why do you need to lock down a shard shield? Why wouldn't you just carry a few xfer tokens in your pack or bank?

It sounds like you essentially are suggesting a free / immediate cross shard trading post to instantly transfer items without going through the whole process of xfering and waiting 24 hours to be able to xfer again? So in your example; I want something transferred over from ATL to Origin I can put it on the vendor for whatever and then use my char (or account) on the other shard to grab it within the amount of time it takes to populate on vendor search. There is no way that should be allowed, it's way too easy to be abused. 

I disagree with your definition of a gold sink. You seem to be defining a business plan (ie you need to make a profit) whereas I'm defining an actual gold sink which you are paying for convenience with a potential for no monetary return on investment. People can justify dropping 30mil a month into a "sink" that goes down the drain if they are getting enjoyment or convenience out of it regardless if they actually make more money from that exact thing.

That said, I do feel like this idea is purely as you are eluding to which is a business plan. It's someone's idea to enrich their own pockets while disguising it as a gold sink. I think people would 100% buy up houses risking 30-50-100mil in a given month at the chance of making 300m+ on flipping those houses all while only using 1 account as not to hurt their real life pockets. Think about it. If each house cost them 1 million goal to upkeep they could have an account with 50 houses on a shard (50M "investment") and just need to sell 1 house for that much gold to be in the profit. As opposed to now that would be at least $10/month x 50 accounts - $500 real life cash on the line to make a few plat? That doesn;t make sense (from a business plan) so that's why you don't see it happening but I bet if they allowed accounts to own multiple houses for gold that would change.
#37
keven2002 said:
Why do you need to lock down a shard shield? Why wouldn't you just carry a few xfer tokens in your pack or bank?

It sounds like you essentially are suggesting a free / immediate cross shard trading post to instantly transfer items without going through the whole process of xfering and waiting 24 hours to be able to xfer again? So in your example; I want something transferred over from ATL to Origin I can put it on the vendor for whatever and then use my char (or account) on the other shard to grab it within the amount of time it takes to populate on vendor search. There is no way that should be allowed, it's way too easy to be abused. 

I disagree with your definition of a gold sink. You seem to be defining a business plan (ie you need to make a profit) whereas I'm defining an actual gold sink which you are paying for convenience with a potential for no monetary return on investment. People can justify dropping 30mil a month into a "sink" that goes down the drain if they are getting enjoyment or convenience out of it regardless if they actually make more money from that exact thing.

That said, I do feel like this idea is purely as you are eluding to which is a business plan. It's someone's idea to enrich their own pockets while disguising it as a gold sink. I think people would 100% buy up houses risking 30-50-100mil in a given month at the chance of making 300m+ on flipping those houses all while only using 1 account as not to hurt their real life pockets. Think about it. If each house cost them 1 million goal to upkeep they could have an account with 50 houses on a shard (50M "investment") and just need to sell 1 house for that much gold to be in the profit. As opposed to now that would be at least $10/month x 50 accounts - $500 real life cash on the line to make a few plat? That doesn;t make sense (from a business plan) so that's why you don't see it happening but I bet if they allowed accounts to own multiple houses for gold that would change.
If I recall the houses suggested where non customized and non transferable 
#38
Let's say this you get a wagon 50 item storage. Can be placed in little area of each town God knows umbra can use some love. 10 paying customers get together they obtain village status which creates a small new mag type market as long as they are charged 100 million a month i see no harm 
#39
All of this can already be done.
Why should we profit at Broadsword's expense? Want a house on a dead server? Buy another account and place it. If you can't be bothered to pay for your housing needs, then why should Broadsword support your financial endeavors when you don't support theirs?

You can dress this topic up as many different ways as you want, but the simple reality of it is that it only serves to benefit a very small percentage of the population and won't actually do anything to benefit the current state of the game.

You want trade on other servers? Nothing is stopping you from paying for another account to place a plot, setup vendors and stock them from Atl.
#40
So many great ideas here, and like anything they might add into the game, it may only benefit or attract a few.  This is true, how many of us have bought every single store item?  Not me.  Yet they keep adding more and more.  Its a process.  As long as it could help and not hurt the UO economy, I am for it.  Of course I wouldn't want the Devs wasting time on any idea that would be too time consuming and not very useful.  This is why we have these conversation.  Bounce ideas off each other.  Share comradery and express our passion for the game.  For all the naysayers, I appreciate your point of view.  Its made me think on it.  My mind is not yet changed.  I am still curious to see where this goes.

We do have these Britannian ships, and they sell the ships in the UO store, and they add storage to the game on any shard.  This idea isn't all that different.  Whether it be a lease in sovereigns, or gold for a nice gypsy wagon theme park, or traveling carnival tent town.  I can get on board with this.  It was not my original intention, but I can imagine promoting a role player event with this concept for farmer markets, a shard to shard trade show, or my personal favorite a Rares Festival where Mesanna doesn't even have to place houses, we just set up for these festivals and trade our rares.  Thank you all for indulging me in my flights of fancy.
#41
A traveling market caravan you can buy a vendor slot on it and it travels to each shard for a week... xxx real dollars to do each week..
#42
I feel the issue with UO is the population which is why its a sunset game. Asking existing players to pay for extra house on another shard to provide our services for free... someone just said why make this another job? Why bother to make vendor on low pop shard when new players can't pay, when vets can make millions selling rewards, or high end stuff to larger pop at Atlantic.

Why bother to pay another $10 a month to rent a new house on a low pop shard just to trade items that cost peanuts to help new players.

If really want to help, we are talking about 20 over shards.

#43
I don't know this idea would benefit gold selling players if the Devs implemented this in a way that only benefits the game, like making it only available through purchasing sovereigns.  Doesn't remove the gold to make things more affordable in the game to new and returning players, but its a novel idea regardless.

The game is in desperate need of gold sinks so that players don't feel they need to buy gold just so they can afford to play.  I am personally running out of gold all the time making scrolled bard tamers, gearing them with 10 mana increase armor, and taming Cus to scroll them.  Power scrolls are very expensive.  The average returning player has no hope of making enough gold or acquiring the necessary items on their own quickly enough to enjoy the higher instances within the game proficiently.  I theorize this is exactly why they are making New Legacy, because it evens that playing field.  Everyone starts new and fresh.  Meanwhile the out of control inflation on the original version of the game burdens us all.
#44
I picked yes, I like the idea of being able to rent storage space on another shard in general.

I think the idea would be a lot easier to implement if they avoided using space on the map, though, even on lower pop shards.

What about this twist to the idea: Inn Rooms.

Make a 2 or 3 different sizes of interior inn rooms, carve out a sizeable section of black space somewhere in the corner of one of the maps, and copy/paste a bunch of the rooms, and then make them available for rent via a system accessed from innkeepers.

Players setup/get to the rooms via any innkeper and/or a rune (similar to boat runes - get new one from innkeeper).

If rent goes unpaid, contents get auctioned like the safety deposit boxes.
#45
Is it just me or is most of what being asked for is provided by "Vaults"?
#46
Tim said:
Is it just me or is most of what being asked for is provided by "Vaults"?
That's just storage, so people who object to the idea because of the additional storage, are making a poor argument.  The purpose is for rp, vendor, safe, and add-ons.  All the other benefits of a house.  I also like the Inn idea if you can buy a key for a door, and have access to the room for the same purposes of a house.  Cool.
#47
Tim said:
Is it just me or is most of what being asked for is provided by "Vaults"?
That's just storage, so people who object to the idea because of the additional storage, are making a poor argument.  The purpose is for rp, vendor, safe, and add-ons.  All the other benefits of a house.  I also like the Inn idea if you can buy a key for a door, and have access to the room for the same purposes of a house.  Cool.
Maybe allow the use of Soul Stones and Power Scroll Books in bank boxes?

The with a vault you can live from a suitcase.
#48
you can rent housing and boats from other players possibly.  It seems everyone wants to do things individually instead of involving the community.  Set up housing brokers that rent housing and ships.
#49
Decent concept and might of helped when the game on the decline years ago... but it won't boost server pop at all.  Game is 25 years old and oldest active MMO (and the first true mmo).  You will never appeal to today's crowd with EC/CC clients. They're just too old.

If they really wanted to attract more subs, being that LostArk has shown major success in  isometric MMO market, they should consider dusting off KR and re-engineer some of the issues (i.e - some art).


#50
Remove or severely hinder the ability to play the meta game and make items all shard bound.  This would help the game play and help the communities have items to purchase on their shards.  The cross shard trading is the meta, not the game.  Each shard could have their own economy then instead of every shard having to price according to atlantic prices.  They have to price the items at atlantic prices because if they price them lower, then people just buy them up and transfer them, leaving the shard barren of trade goods and people will not play on shards with no economy or items to find/use/buy.
#51
Again I point out the only closed economy in UO is also the only healthy economy...
#52
Of_Beasts said:
Remove or severely hinder the ability to play the meta game and make items all shard bound.  This would help the game play and help the communities have items to purchase on their shards.  The cross shard trading is the meta, not the game.  Each shard could have their own economy then instead of every shard having to price according to atlantic prices.  They have to price the items at atlantic prices because if they price them lower, then people just buy them up and transfer them, leaving the shard barren of trade goods and people will not play on shards with no economy or items to find/use/buy.
This would apply if uo population is still healthy and shard transfer remain a paid service and not free (vet reward). This argument seems the same as asking to scrap the free shard transfer system? 

To create items, we would then need to rebuild same characters on each shard. Rather than selling our excess from our primary shard.

Then low pop shard will always stay low or worse because the current game are mostly old players. 
#53
Seth said:
Of_Beasts said:
Remove or severely hinder the ability to play the meta game and make items all shard bound.  This would help the game play and help the communities have items to purchase on their shards.  The cross shard trading is the meta, not the game.  Each shard could have their own economy then instead of every shard having to price according to atlantic prices.  They have to price the items at atlantic prices because if they price them lower, then people just buy them up and transfer them, leaving the shard barren of trade goods and people will not play on shards with no economy or items to find/use/buy.
This would apply if uo population is still healthy and shard transfer remain a paid service and not free (vet reward). This argument seems the same as asking to scrap the free shard transfer system? 

To create items, we would then need to rebuild same characters on each shard. Rather than selling our excess from our primary shard.

Then low pop shard will always stay low or worse because the current game are mostly old players. 

well people would migrate from the dead shards and they could eventually be shut off.  But it would work toward progress eventually.  Right now everything will just die.
#54
Of_Beasts said:
Seth said:
Of_Beasts said:
Remove or severely hinder the ability to play the meta game and make items all shard bound.  This would help the game play and help the communities have items to purchase on their shards.  The cross shard trading is the meta, not the game.  Each shard could have their own economy then instead of every shard having to price according to atlantic prices.  They have to price the items at atlantic prices because if they price them lower, then people just buy them up and transfer them, leaving the shard barren of trade goods and people will not play on shards with no economy or items to find/use/buy.
This would apply if uo population is still healthy and shard transfer remain a paid service and not free (vet reward). This argument seems the same as asking to scrap the free shard transfer system? 

To create items, we would then need to rebuild same characters on each shard. Rather than selling our excess from our primary shard.

Then low pop shard will always stay low or worse because the current game are mostly old players. 

well people would migrate from the dead shards and they could eventually be shut off.  But it would work toward progress eventually.  Right now everything will just die.
Yup, they can also leave the game if there is no shard transfer, instead of rebuilding all the characters.
#55
Seth said:
Of_Beasts said:
Seth said:
Of_Beasts said:
Remove or severely hinder the ability to play the meta game and make items all shard bound.  This would help the game play and help the communities have items to purchase on their shards.  The cross shard trading is the meta, not the game.  Each shard could have their own economy then instead of every shard having to price according to atlantic prices.  They have to price the items at atlantic prices because if they price them lower, then people just buy them up and transfer them, leaving the shard barren of trade goods and people will not play on shards with no economy or items to find/use/buy.
This would apply if uo population is still healthy and shard transfer remain a paid service and not free (vet reward). This argument seems the same as asking to scrap the free shard transfer system? 

To create items, we would then need to rebuild same characters on each shard. Rather than selling our excess from our primary shard.

Then low pop shard will always stay low or worse because the current game are mostly old players. 

well people would migrate from the dead shards and they could eventually be shut off.  But it would work toward progress eventually.  Right now everything will just die.
Yup, they can also leave the game if there is no shard transfer, instead of rebuilding all the characters.

that might be true as well, but they are leaving the game anyway now.  Just the people that are playing the meta would leave really, the rest could consolidate onto other shards.  Atlantic might be fun for some, but its way to overcrowded for me.  Other people might feel the same.  As with anything if its broken fix it.  The game is broken.  Lots of stuff needs fixed.  If the shards did consolodate some, less to fix, more players per shard.  RL money might suffer, but the game probably was not ment to be played in the meta, albeit it did happen, and now we have massive gold saturation, gold sellers, house sellers, item sellers all for RL cash.  I guess thats how some people want to play also.  Everything I say is just my opinion.  🙂  You have yours also.  also I think you could have shard transfers still, but you would be limited to what you can bring with.  Kind of like seige ruleset, except you cannot transfer on siege.
#56
Of_Beasts said:
Everything I say is just my opinion.  🙂  You have yours also. 
I think we are all facing the same problems:
  • Scarcity on low pop shard:
Shard-bound items only make rare (say an event) items even more scarce and rare. Basically, they become extinct on the low pop shards. On Atlantic, if the rewards are worth 200 minor arties, such rewards are sold on auction boxes. If you tell me where to buy the balron armor for much less for a newbie, I will buy up all. 

The majority 99.5% (?) of items in the game are non-shard bound are not even available on the low pop shards, so I don't know why anyone would expect shard-bound will definitely help ensure item availability on the low pop shard. 
  • Inflation:
 This is why we have this thread to suggest a possible gold sink for vets who are rich with >14 years account, who have access to all shards via the free vet tokens. 

None of the solutions are perfect as each has good and bad points. And I agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion. 

In my case, I prefer "availability" and a more "open" system to combat scarcity and inflation rather than lock-down to create "rarity", "scarcity" and isolating the shard to prevent cross-shard trading.

We know populations will continue to fall, but one solution will accelerate that, while the other will slow it down albeit it has other side effects. 

It is like those doctor's prescribed pills that could cure sickness and yet comes with side effects. We have to pick the best pill to stay in the game longer because regardless of whichever pill we take, we will all die one day.  


← Browse more General Discussions discussions