Latest Drama: Only 1 house/structure per account

Slapshot1188

Seems like a very silly rule given that you cannot co-own a house with other characters but SV has decreed that you can only own ONE structure per account.. so only one of your characters can have a house/shed etc and the others are SOL.  Why in a sandbox game would unsharable housing be limited to one per account?

 

http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/70189-unhappy-about-house-change-reimplimination.html

 

Even some of the die-hards like PrinceReaper are threatening to quit if they go through with this.

 

darthturtle1

Today, 02:01	#28 (permalink)
MolagAmur Newbie     Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: ApeX Rep Power: 1	This. game. is. so. fail. it. kills. me. "Hi guys, your houses are being deleted now because we suck at addressing game issues. 6 months later we find out the bug, now we are going to take your houses worth a couple thousand gold per away from you. " Best Regards, SV Devs

 

Jakdstripper

personaly i agree with this.

 

the server is already getting littered with houses and storages that only serve  as re-equip/re-stat hubs for red players (too oftern all owned by the same few large red guilds taht never seem to run out of money even thou they do nothing but pvp all day) too lazy to go back to their keeps or red towns. most of the time houses just sit empty and unused bogging down the server, when there are new players that can't find decent spots were to put up their own house. 

 

your house should be your residence, your daily hub of activity and main asset not just a conveinient storage for whne you happen to need some gear in that part of the map.

 

 

 

  

Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Jakdstripper

personaly i agree with this.

 

the server is already getting littered with houses and storages that only serve  as re-equip/re-stat hubs for red players (too oftern all owned by the same few large red guilds taht never seem to run out of money even thou they do nothing but pvp all day) too lazy to go back to their keeps or red towns. most of the time houses just sit empty and unused bogging down the server, when there are new players that can't find decent spots were to put up their own house. 

 

your house should be your residence, your daily hub of activity and main asset not just a conveinient storage for whne you happen to need some gear in that part of the map.

 

 

 

  

 I understand the game world is small and thus there are limited spots for houses. That said... it's supposed to be a sandbox.  If I want my house to be "convenient storage for when I happen to need some gear in that part of the map" well... that's the idea behind a sandbox.  You give me the tool and I decide how to use it.  Why should I have to choose between a house for my crafter or a house for my warrior?

The solution is simply to make the upkeep on houses matter.  Thus you wouldn't want to have houses that you didn't need.

username509

It was 1 house per account since the very beta.  What else is new?

Yes you can "coown" a house with other players.  You add them to your list of players who can enter your house, give them a key, and now they "coown" it.  

darthturtle1

Originally posted by Jakdstripper

personaly i agree with this.

 

the server is already getting littered with houses and storages that only serve  as re-equip/re-stat hubs for red players (too oftern all owned by the same few large red guilds taht never seem to run out of money even thou they do nothing but pvp all day) too lazy to go back to their keeps or red towns. most of the time houses just sit empty and unused bogging down the server, when there are new players that can't find decent spots were to put up their own house. 

 

your house should be your residence, your daily hub of activity and main asset not just a conveinient storage for whne you happen to need some gear in that part of the map.

 

 

 

  

Anyone that has been playing since release knows how that is possible jack.

darthturtle1

How the hell does owning a gate translate into you using up your house slot.  I think this is a ploy by SV to get people to get multiple accounts.  Or you are stuck being the person who owns the gate for your guilds keep and you can not have your own house.

#32 (permalink)

Bronzen18 Focus Group   Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Fond du Lac, WI Guild: The Silver Skull Rep Power: 2

Quote: Originally Posted by ForsakenRankor  Quick update on the "assets" portion from Discord and Gratian: <[GM]Discord >gate is a house <[GM]Discord>we have not enforced it, yet but when we do you could possibly lose one <[FORSAKEN]-RanKor>got it..thanks <[FORSAKEN]-RanKor> Gratian, quick question: can an account have a gate AND a house? I was unclear after reading Discord House post.... <[GM]Gratian > I believe you will need to split it  <[GM]Gratian > but let me check real quick <[FORSAKEN]-RanKor> kk <[GM]Gratian > how long will you be around? <[FORSAKEN]-RanKor> for a while tonight <[GM]Gratian > no probs <[GM]Gratian > leave it with me <[FORSAKEN]-RanKor> will do. Just hit me up later <[GM]Gratian > no probs  <[GM]Gratian > RanKor?  <[GM]Gratian > Gates will also count as a house, so you cannot have a gate/house on the same account <[FORSAKEN]-RanKor> got it...thanks a bunch Gratian So there you have it folks......  Sad....and fucking stupid.

 

darthturtle1

Today, 04:09

#34 (permalink)

princereaper Focus Group     Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: england,london Rep Power: 3

I can't believe the developers are willing to do this to the population over a bug that existed ingame for six months with no previous mention of it being a bug instead of just changing it so that it is one asset per char. Before I read this, I thought that the developers did change it. Because one asset per account is very limiting. You are willing to mess up a majority of the population for a bug you haven't fixed for over six months?  How can we call this a sandbox game when you can't even build and own a house and a gate on one account. Also how do you expect the engineer class to work???? am I not meant to have a house on my account now to actually have a engineer that can build houses for other people? Do you expect us to buy another account? what happens if you got a keep and a tier 3 house? that 2500gold vs 5000gold.... Its not even about owning 2 houses. It about being forced to buy another account to just own a gate/keep/shed or to play the engineer class. I got a engineer, if they change this. I am going to have to delete that engineer, which I spent over a month maxing out. I am against wiping peoples assets because player assets are no small joke. Stop putting house spots all over the world. __________________

Bingo!  I guess this is one of SV's measures to get more revenue.....

GrayGhost79

This is awsome lol. SV never dissapoints when it comes to this kind of stuff. Sure Ultima Online changed things up on people in regards to the houses..... BUT.... they let people keep the multiple houses they own because they knew better than to delete things that took a lot of time and resources to get. They grandfathered in the other houses so you got to keep them. 

 

Why does SV refuse to learn from others? 

Toferio

I am inclined to agree that the game world getting littered with houses looks bad and is unimmersive, sandbox or not. With that in mind, the rule of one house per account makes sense. But as usual, SV are showing their imcompetence in design by not taking into account that people may have a red and a blue on same account. Or one character may be a spy. In both cases, you would not want your chracters sharing the house, it may not even be possible if it is close to a populat blue zone.

One can argue that it is up to you to plan it. I argue bad design. But that could be stomached down, however including GATES into the rule is the stupidest move I've seen. You are forcing someone to take it for the team and instead of a house build a.. gate. Well done SV, you have proven that instead of designers you have monkeys randomly rolling dice.

darthturtle1

People were able to own more then one asset for longer than 6 months. 

 

Today, 05:33

#35 (permalink)

Evilgypsy Member     Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: USA Buffalo, NY Guild: The Silver Skull Rep Power: 2

The thing is reaper this isnt a 6 month old problem. I have had a keep, a Gate, and a house on my main account (one on each character) since 2 months after release August 2010. It was reported to the Dev team and discord by me back then and reported it again each time i got a new keep (3 more times) over the following year. It was never addressed or fixed. Most vets of older guilds that first got keeps in game all know/known about it since the original TC patch from a year and a half ago. I never cared either way except for the gate thing. Its retarded, I mean really like a mentally handicapped person came up with that idea, its almost as bad an idea maybe more even then resting being a primary skill. But its decisions like these that make me happy i put off resubbing, Ill sit wait and see how SV handles this before i spend the cash.

I was playing UO when they changed the rule from 1 per character to 1 per account.  At the time I owned 5 houses.  UO had the brains to relaize to grandfather in the old houses.  If they started deleting assests people worked for I am sure half the game would of quit.

I am %100 positive this is a ploy for SV to get people to buy more houses.  It is %100 retarded that owning the gate to pallisades counts as your 1 asset.  Who the hell would not want a house to own a gate?

Energyo

It's always been one house per account.

EDIT: Okay I re-read your post and I see you're talking about one structure per account. Yeah that's pretty stupid but again that's been that way for a long time and yes it's a really fucking stupid rule/bug.

 

Slapshot1188

Prince must be reading the thread as he makes the same suggestions and argument that I make:

 

 

Today, 18:45

#47 (permalink)

princereaper Focus Group     Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: england,london Posts: 6,422 Rep Power: 3

Lol i think they should fix the tax system, then all the houses will decay......because right now people can stop playing and the house won't decay. Also I read UO had something like this, the developers just let people keep the stuff and corrected it. Also what about my co-ownership........... House decay would completely resolve the issue.....with TC taxes....hmmm yes..... The world is sooo small as well. I don't think anything is going to change to be honest.....they need to bring in house decay and expand the world more to resolve it, not make us transfer our assets to guild mates or onto other accounts. There are like 5 houses next to mine, which have inactive players.... those houses are still going to be there even after this "fix" __________________

Simply fix the tax/upkeep system and the situation resolves itself. If I need to support 3 houses for all my characters it's going to be a huge drain on my bank account so I won't build 3 unless I' gonna be using them.

 

 

Celusios

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Seems like a very silly rule given that you cannot co-own a house with other characters but SV has decreed that you can only own ONE structure per account.. so only one of your characters can have a house/shed etc and the others are SOL.  Why in a sandbox game would unsharable housing be limited to one per account?

 

http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/70189-unhappy-about-house-change-reimplimination.html

 

Even some of the die-hards like PrinceReaper are threatening to quit if they go through with this.

 

I think you misread what he said... he said that he would quit *IF* they remove people's assets. What he also in turn failed to read is that they're giving people time to take their assets before it gets wiped and they get nothing.

GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Celusios

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Seems like a very silly rule given that you cannot co-own a house with other characters but SV has decreed that you can only own ONE structure per account.. so only one of your characters can have a house/shed etc and the others are SOL.  Why in a sandbox game would unsharable housing be limited to one per account?

 

http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/70189-unhappy-about-house-change-reimplimination.html

 

Even some of the die-hards like PrinceReaper are threatening to quit if they go through with this.

 

I think you misread what he said... he said that he would quit *IF* they remove people's assets. What he also in turn failed to read is that they're giving people time to take their assets before it gets wiped and they get nothing.

Slaphsot said : Even some of the die-hards like PrinceReaper are threatening to quit if they go through with this. 

You reply: I think you misread what he said... he said that he would quit *IF* they remove people's assests. 

 

Both of you said the same thing ... including the "if". Was it because he didn't type if like this? *IF*

 

And sure... people have time to clear their assests before they get wiped. The problem is two fold, where are they going to put all that stuff? They can't co own houses or anything so it will come down to asking a friend/guildy to hold on to it for you. The second issue is ... people are still losing their assests. Houses, Gates, and Keeps are assests and I think it will hurt more to lose these than it would be to lose whats inside for many. 

 

So Slapshot got it wrong by saying the same thing you did and PrinceReaper should have kept reading because they aren't losing their assests they are simply losing the assests that took the most gold/time/effort so it isn't a big deal and SV of course is doing so without giving the player base anything in return like the ability to co-own structures and etc. considering this is a guild based pvp game a move like this isn't very promising. 

Celusios

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Celusios

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Seems like a very silly rule given that you cannot co-own a house with other characters but SV has decreed that you can only own ONE structure per account.. so only one of your characters can have a house/shed etc and the others are SOL.  Why in a sandbox game would unsharable housing be limited to one per account?

 

http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/70189-unhappy-about-house-change-reimplimination.html

 

Even some of the die-hards like PrinceReaper are threatening to quit if they go through with this.

 

I think you misread what he said... he said that he would quit *IF* they remove people's assets. What he also in turn failed to read is that they're giving people time to take their assets before it gets wiped and they get nothing.

Slaphsot said : Even some of the die-hards like PrinceReaper are threatening to quit if they go through with this. 

You reply: I think you misread what he said... he said that he would quit *IF* they remove people's assests. 

 

Both of you said the same thing ... including the "if". Was it because he didn't type if like this? *IF*

 

And sure... people have time to clear their assests before they get wiped. The problem is two fold, where are they going to put all that stuff? They can't co own houses or anything so it will come down to asking a friend/guildy to hold on to it for you. The second issue is ... people are still losing their assests. Houses, Gates, and Keeps are assests and I think it will hurt more to lose these than it would be to lose whats inside for many. 

 

So Slapshot got it wrong by saying the same thing you did and PrinceReaper should have kept reading because they aren't losing their assests they are simply losing the assests that took the most gold/time/effort so it isn't a big deal and SV of course is doing so without giving the player base anything in return like the ability to co-own structures and etc. considering this is a guild based pvp game a move like this isn't very promising. 

No I was stating he forgot one vital part. The part in which he said *IF* they remove people *whom have already done its houses*. That was the important part not told, the way it was said was that if they blocked people in the future from doing it too. 

As for the second part, yes Prince and you need to stop crying. It's a game, and at the end of the day I think SV has made it clear these little threats dont matter. They're fully content with a hundred person online game. I'm all for what they're doing. They did not intend for people to have more than one asset per account then it shouldn't be. Think of it this way... they cannot enforce this to new players if they see that old people who exploited a bug are capable of. 

TL;DR

Drop those damn houses, one per account. Who cares if PrinceQQBear or you quit?

GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Celusios

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Celusios

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Seems like a very silly rule given that you cannot co-own a house with other characters but SV has decreed that you can only own ONE structure per account.. so only one of your characters can have a house/shed etc and the others are SOL.  Why in a sandbox game would unsharable housing be limited to one per account?

 

http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/70189-unhappy-about-house-change-reimplimination.html

 

Even some of the die-hards like PrinceReaper are threatening to quit if they go through with this.

 

I think you misread what he said... he said that he would quit *IF* they remove people's assets. What he also in turn failed to read is that they're giving people time to take their assets before it gets wiped and they get nothing.

Slaphsot said : Even some of the die-hards like PrinceReaper are threatening to quit if they go through with this. 

You reply: I think you misread what he said... he said that he would quit *IF* they remove people's assests. 

 

Both of you said the same thing ... including the "if". Was it because he didn't type if like this? *IF*

 

And sure... people have time to clear their assests before they get wiped. The problem is two fold, where are they going to put all that stuff? They can't co own houses or anything so it will come down to asking a friend/guildy to hold on to it for you. The second issue is ... people are still losing their assests. Houses, Gates, and Keeps are assests and I think it will hurt more to lose these than it would be to lose whats inside for many. 

 

So Slapshot got it wrong by saying the same thing you did and PrinceReaper should have kept reading because they aren't losing their assests they are simply losing the assests that took the most gold/time/effort so it isn't a big deal and SV of course is doing so without giving the player base anything in return like the ability to co-own structures and etc. considering this is a guild based pvp game a move like this isn't very promising. 

No I was stating he forgot one vital part. The part in which he said *IF* they remove people *whom have already done its houses*. That was the important part not told, the way it was said was that if they blocked people in the future from doing it too. 

As for the second part, yes Prince and you need to stop crying. It's a game, and at the end of the day I think SV has made it clear these little threats dont matter. They're fully content with a hundred person online game. I'm all for what they're doing. They did not intend for people to have more than one asset per account then it shouldn't be. Think of it this way... they cannot enforce this to new players if they see that old people who exploited a bug are capable of. 

TL;DR

Drop those damn houses, one per account. Who cares if PrinceQQBear or you quit?

I got a refund on my pre-order before launch so no worries about me quitting. And it would probably be a good idea for you to quit using things like "QQ" or words like crying until you have a better grasp of there meaning. 

A move like this will cause people to quit. I nor you nor SV can say how many will or won't the only thing that is certain is that some will. Yes, it was intended to be 1 per account... due to one of the numerous bugs MO has players were allowed to own more than 1. It happened, people invested time and in game currency in to these things. It is not crying to point these things out, actual developers and publishers have already come across this problem and found proper ways  of dealing with it. SV would be wise to take a page from those that actually have experience with running and developing MMO's. 

 

Now sure you can say SV is fine with 100 people playing, we know that isn't the case. There is only so many people they can lay off before MO sees no more development and then what happens to the potential that keeps those playing around? It vanishes. 

 

They keep stating they are trying to turn things around and make MO profitable........... what do you think is going to happen when investors and such find out SV doesn't care about turning MO into a profitable endeavor? Do you think they will be happy with 100 players?

 

Dropping the houses doesn't matter to me one way or another, the way they are handling it is just simply unprofessional and bad for relations with their player base. But it seems you don't care about that and it seems you feel that SV doesn't either which is fine. It just seems to me if you wanted the game to be around longer you and SV would care about these kinds of things. 

Celusios

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Celusios

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Celusios

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Seems like a very silly rule given that you cannot co-own a house with other characters but SV has decreed that you can only own ONE structure per account.. so only one of your characters can have a house/shed etc and the others are SOL.  Why in a sandbox game would unsharable housing be limited to one per account?

 

http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/70189-unhappy-about-house-change-reimplimination.html

 

Even some of the die-hards like PrinceReaper are threatening to quit if they go through with this.

 

I think you misread what he said... he said that he would quit *IF* they remove people's assets. What he also in turn failed to read is that they're giving people time to take their assets before it gets wiped and they get nothing.

Slaphsot said : Even some of the die-hards like PrinceReaper are threatening to quit if they go through with this. 

You reply: I think you misread what he said... he said that he would quit *IF* they remove people's assests. 

 

Both of you said the same thing ... including the "if". Was it because he didn't type if like this? *IF*

 

And sure... people have time to clear their assests before they get wiped. The problem is two fold, where are they going to put all that stuff? They can't co own houses or anything so it will come down to asking a friend/guildy to hold on to it for you. The second issue is ... people are still losing their assests. Houses, Gates, and Keeps are assests and I think it will hurt more to lose these than it would be to lose whats inside for many. 

 

So Slapshot got it wrong by saying the same thing you did and PrinceReaper should have kept reading because they aren't losing their assests they are simply losing the assests that took the most gold/time/effort so it isn't a big deal and SV of course is doing so without giving the player base anything in return like the ability to co-own structures and etc. considering this is a guild based pvp game a move like this isn't very promising. 

No I was stating he forgot one vital part. The part in which he said *IF* they remove people *whom have already done its houses*. That was the important part not told, the way it was said was that if they blocked people in the future from doing it too. 

As for the second part, yes Prince and you need to stop crying. It's a game, and at the end of the day I think SV has made it clear these little threats dont matter. They're fully content with a hundred person online game. I'm all for what they're doing. They did not intend for people to have more than one asset per account then it shouldn't be. Think of it this way... they cannot enforce this to new players if they see that old people who exploited a bug are capable of. 

TL;DR

Drop those damn houses, one per account. Who cares if PrinceQQBear or you quit?

I got a refund on my pre-order before launch so no worries about me quitting. And it would probably be a good idea for you to quit using things like "QQ" or words like crying until you have a better grasp of there meaning. 

A move like this will cause people to quit. I nor you nor SV can say how many will or won't the only thing that is certain is that some will. Yes, it was intended to be 1 per account... due to one of the numerous bugs MO has players were allowed to own more than 1. It happened, people invested time and in game currency in to these things. It is not crying to point these things out, actual developers and publishers have already come across this problem and found proper ways  of dealing with it. SV would be wise to take a page from those that actually have experience with running and developing MMO's. 

 

Now sure you can say SV is fine with 100 people playing, we know that isn't the case. There is only so many people they can lay off before MO sees no more development and then what happens to the potential that keeps those playing around? It vanishes. 

 

They keep stating they are trying to turn things around and make MO profitable........... what do you think is going to happen when investors and such find out SV doesn't care about turning MO into a profitable endeavor? Do you think they will be happy with 100 players?

 

Dropping the houses doesn't matter to me one way or another, the way they are handling it is just simply unprofessional and bad for relations with their player base. But it seems you don't care about that and it seems you feel that SV doesn't either which is fine. It just seems to me if you wanted the game to be around longer you and SV would care about these kinds of things. 

You make some great points, I must be honest. I do care about SV and their future... but I am more concerned above progression over the current process. My point was I do not care if Prince quits the game or anyone else (I included you last time), as long as progression is made. You cannot enforce a policy that you let slide in the past... or whats the purpose in having a policy?

I would rather see people quit now and them move onto a better system and one as you said more profitable. In the long run people want fairness. How would it be fair that because someone came out and exploited bugs gets to keep their keeps and housing they aren't supposed to have.

I do think though these people deserve some sort of compensation. At least at minimum give them the gold and supplies it took to achieve such places. Do not leave them high and dry. SV at this point has recognized they're in the shitter and is trying to address it in my opinion. This is a good step for me to get massive guilds and such a harder time to be established. I like it.

Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Celusios

How would it be fair that because someone came out and exploited bugs gets to keep their keeps and housing they aren't supposed to have.

 Perhaps you can clarify this for me.  Is there anything at all in game that says you can only buy one structure per account?  It's also not listed on the "Exploit List":

The Following are Considered Exploits:

• 
  Resurrecting through a palisade wall
• 
  Resurrecting another player inside of a structure from the outside
• 
  Accessing a structure without the use of a key, or in any other illegal fashion
• 
  The Roof of a Keep is considered as part of the "Inside of the Structure"
• 
  Remaining inside of a locked structure that you are not a friend of upon logout.
• 
  Climbing a palisade wall
• 
  Spamming friend request
• 
  Using the "Quick Turn" on mounts
• 
  Using a fledgling character for safe storage or transport
• 
  Blocking entrances with pets in towns

This capability has existed for over a year... it's simply not possible that SV was unaware that folks were building structures with all their characters.   So what communication has been taken since launch to explain that accounts should only have one structure? 

darthturtle1

As a former house owner ( I sold my house because I realized it was not worth the time I put into it) I feel the main reason people are raging is, your one house is not linked to all of your characters.  Also there is no such thing as co-owning.  The reason people built a house for each toon is so they can have a storage spot, since all your toons can not access the house one of your toons made.  I just find it funny that UO had and has better housing tools than an MMO realeased in 2010. 

How hard it is to code a house on 1 account linked to all of your toons?  And why should palisade gates count as a house??  This "bug" has been out pretty much since release.  SV has known forever people are buildling multiple houses for accounts.  Why did they not stop it in beggining.  Like I have said this is just a ploy to get people to buy new accounts especially the people who have the Keep and the Pallisades on their account. 

If the taxation and decay system actually worked in the game you would not see a lot of the houses.  There are houses standing, built by people who have not played in months..  It is kind of retarded you see more houses than players or pve. 

Celusios

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Celusios

How would it be fair that because someone came out and exploited bugs gets to keep their keeps and housing they aren't supposed to have.

 Perhaps you can clarify this for me.  Is there anything at all in game that says you can only buy one structure per account?  It's also not listed on the "Exploit List":

The Following are Considered Exploits:

• 
  Resurrecting through a palisade wall
• 
  Resurrecting another player inside of a structure from the outside
• 
  Accessing a structure without the use of a key, or in any other illegal fashion
• 
  The Roof of a Keep is considered as part of the "Inside of the Structure"
• 
  Remaining inside of a locked structure that you are not a friend of upon logout.
• 
  Climbing a palisade wall
• 
  Spamming friend request
• 
  Using the "Quick Turn" on mounts
• 
  Using a fledgling character for safe storage or transport
• 
  Blocking entrances with pets in towns

This capability has existed for over a year... it's simply not possible that SV was unaware that folks were building structures with all their characters.   So what communication has been taken since launch to explain that accounts should only have one structure? 

If Starvault says it's not supposed to of happened and they intended to have one house per account... then it is an exploit. Listed or not is an exploit. What the problem at hand is with you and them is that at the end of the day it's Starvaults game and what they deem a exploit or something not supposed to be there is their choice.

I don't see how in modern gaming era's people somehow think the virtual property they play on is their own because it has their title on it in a game they don't own.

Celusios

Originally posted by darthturtle1

As a former house owner ( I sold my house because I realized it was not worth the time I put into it) I feel the main reason people are raging is, your one house is not linked to all of your characters.  Also there is no such thing as co-owning.  The reason people built a house for each toon is so they can have a storage spot, since all your toons can not access the house one of your toons made.  I just find it funny that UO had and has better housing tools than an MMO realeased in 2010. 

How hard it is to code a house on 1 account linked to all of your toons?  And why should palisade gates count as a house??  This "bug" has been out pretty much since release.  SV has known forever people are buildling multiple houses for accounts.  Why did they not stop it in beggining.  Like I have said this is just a ploy to get people to buy new accounts especially the people who have the Keep and the Pallisades on their account. 

If the taxation and decay system actually worked in the game you would not see a lot of the houses.  There are houses standing, built by people who have not played in months..  It is kind of retarded you see more houses than players or pve. 

 

The pallisades and keeps should not be counted against anyone. To me that is and always will be the dumbest shit. You mean to tell me someone has to buy another 35USD~ game plus 15 a month to hold a pallisade? That is a scam.

Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Celusios

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Celusios

How would it be fair that because someone came out and exploited bugs gets to keep their keeps and housing they aren't supposed to have.

 Perhaps you can clarify this for me.  Is there anything at all in game that says you can only buy one structure per account?  It's also not listed on the "Exploit List":

The Following are Considered Exploits:

• 
  Resurrecting through a palisade wall
• 
  Resurrecting another player inside of a structure from the outside
• 
  Accessing a structure without the use of a key, or in any other illegal fashion
• 
  The Roof of a Keep is considered as part of the "Inside of the Structure"
• 
  Remaining inside of a locked structure that you are not a friend of upon logout.
• 
  Climbing a palisade wall
• 
  Spamming friend request
• 
  Using the "Quick Turn" on mounts
• 
  Using a fledgling character for safe storage or transport
• 
  Blocking entrances with pets in towns

This capability has existed for over a year... it's simply not possible that SV was unaware that folks were building structures with all their characters.   So what communication has been taken since launch to explain that accounts should only have one structure? 

If Starvault says it's not supposed to of happened and they intended to have one house per account... then it is an exploit. Listed or not is an exploit. What the problem at hand is with you and them is that at the end of the day it's Starvaults game and what they deem a exploit or something not supposed to be there is their choice.

I don't see how in modern gaming era's people somehow think the virtual property they play on is their own because it has their title on it in a game they don't own.

 I think the point went over your head. 

 

It is NOT listed as an exploit.  They have KNOWN this was happening for over a year.  So I will say it again... It is NOT listed as an exploit, and they have known about it for over a year.  So why was it not listed as an exploit if they knew it was happening for over a year?  Oh.. that's right, because they didn't have an issue with it.  Now, they are out of money (again.. see other thread here: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/336816/Star-Vault-Notice-of-Extraordinary-General-Meeting-.html ) so they are going to try and make people buy additional account to keep the assets they worked for and built over the last year.

 

If space is a concern because of the tiny game world, the better way to address it is by a tax/maintenance fee/whatever on each building.   This would eliminate all the empty buildings that exist due to dormant accounts.  It would also force people to think really long and hard before buying a second house because they will have to play enough to support both structures.

 

This suddenly deciding that having more than one structure per account is an "exploit" appears to be a blatant cash grab.  What's next?  Deciding that having two craftng characters on one account is an exploit?  So if you want a butcher/cook and an armorsmith you will need to buy a second account?

 

As to your point about it being THEIR game and they can make and change the rules at will... sure they can.  I totally agree.  But they can also be called on it as well, and players can decide to quit in protest. 

Celusios

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Celusios

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Celusios

How would it be fair that because someone came out and exploited bugs gets to keep their keeps and housing they aren't supposed to have.

 Perhaps you can clarify this for me.  Is there anything at all in game that says you can only buy one structure per account?  It's also not listed on the "Exploit List":

The Following are Considered Exploits:

• 
  Resurrecting through a palisade wall
• 
  Resurrecting another player inside of a structure from the outside
• 
  Accessing a structure without the use of a key, or in any other illegal fashion
• 
  The Roof of a Keep is considered as part of the "Inside of the Structure"
• 
  Remaining inside of a locked structure that you are not a friend of upon logout.
• 
  Climbing a palisade wall
• 
  Spamming friend request
• 
  Using the "Quick Turn" on mounts
• 
  Using a fledgling character for safe storage or transport
• 
  Blocking entrances with pets in towns

This capability has existed for over a year... it's simply not possible that SV was unaware that folks were building structures with all their characters.   So what communication has been taken since launch to explain that accounts should only have one structure? 

If Starvault says it's not supposed to of happened and they intended to have one house per account... then it is an exploit. Listed or not is an exploit. What the problem at hand is with you and them is that at the end of the day it's Starvaults game and what they deem a exploit or something not supposed to be there is their choice.

I don't see how in modern gaming era's people somehow think the virtual property they play on is their own because it has their title on it in a game they don't own.

 I think the point went over your head. 

 

It is NOT listed as an exploit.  They have KNOWN this was happening for over a year.  So I will say it again... It is NOT listed as an exploit, and they have known about it for over a year.  So why was it not listed as an exploit if they knew it was happening for over a year?  Oh.. that's right, because they didn't have an issue with it.  Now, they are out of money (again.. see other thread here: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/336816/Star-Vault-Notice-of-Extraordinary-General-Meeting-.html ) so they are going to try and make people buy additional account to keep the assets they worked for and built over the last year.

 

If space is a concern because of the tiny game world, the better way to address it is by a tax/maintenance fee/whatever on each building.   This would eliminate all the empty buildings that exist due to dormant accounts.  It would also force people to think really long and hard before buying a second house because they will have to play enough to support both structures.

 

This suddenly deciding that having more than one structure per account is an "exploit" appears to be a blatant cash grab.  What's next?  Deciding that having two craftng characters on one account is an exploit?  So if you want a butcher/cook and an armorsmith you will need to buy a second account?

 

As to your point about it being THEIR game and they can make and change the rules at will... sure they can.  I totally agree.  But they can also be called on it as well, and players can decide to quit in protest. 

Exactly. That is what I addressed earlier to. I said who cares if they quit. I believe this is a step in the correct direction as to fixing this game. The problem originally for me was that they tried so hard to make it a sandbox game they forgot to add the factor of 'game' to it. Clearly as you said they're running out of space, which is an excuse of Starvault of course. This might not be the best solution, but it is a solution.

I'm all for it... maybe because im looking into the future more so than the response of the present. I see it as in the future with 1 house it will allow for the content of the game to still be present and not house spammed like UO use to be. Sorry for the current players and their losses, but if MO is going to survive it needs to start looking at changes to have a successful future.