Why do we have the current housing system?

Aye I did a pretty good job, thanks.

One idea I can come up with is offering two kinds of houses.

Make a set of small houses that have OSI Renaissance rules. Two Secures with no weight limit, a few lockdowns and item decay ACTIVE
Anything up to ... Small Stone Tower ? Or limit it to the 43k 7x7 one story sheds ... they're MUCH cheaper than any other house. You can afford them pretty early in game.

Take another set of larger houses that have the UOR rules... like any house above 50k ? 100k ?

You can safely assume anyone with more than 100k gold has spent enough time on this shard to understand the UOR housing rules.
Plus, the larger houses offer much more space for security setups.

If you want to have a larger house you have to play by the felucca housing rules.

I would love this system alot. If you want to have a large, representative house, gotta play by UOR rules. But you can choose from six super cheap tiny sheds where you can rely on OSI:R rules.

How would that not be a vector for abuse, like you stated about the new player program? There is no counter balance to it; for the lowest price in the game you would get 100% total security. Thats not in the spirit of this shard's goals, IMO, and would absolutely be abused by people in place. Why buy a fortress, if you can place up to 15 small, completely 100% secure, impenetrable houses?

I don't think theres any way you could implement a system like you're suggesting, without completely altering the rules for housing here -- by merits of the massive difference in what each would provide, it has to be all or nothing with a housing system like this. Anything in between is just opening up for larger abuse and revealing of the very problems with this housing model for this shard.

Who would want 15 of those ugly little barns ?

You can't do any decoration on it, the capacity should be limited - few lockdowns, reduce it to one secure container if you want to avoid abuse. Item decay in small houses will make the a lot less attractive.

I would still want a large house as soon as I can afford it. It can hold unlimited items, has space for lots of decoration ...

It's all about a good balance, don't make the small safe houses too attractive but still offer an affordable house, easy to use house for new or occasional players.

Edit with more ideas:
- Limit them to 1 per account
- Do not allow veteran/platinum add-ons in those houses
- Allow placement only in restricted areas (Noobtown) Great place for you to punish some Trammies for their weakness. Stop Corp-Por'ing yourself !!

There already is balance in housing because everything from a 7x7 to a Fortress can be %100 secure when you practice proper house security. It is not that complicated and requires no adjustment to accommodate anyone who doesn't know how to manage it.

I know of people who will never have anything more than a 7x7 because all they require are PvP supplies and a small + bank box are more than enough.

I'm rich now and no longer concerned with young player problems.

It's funny to see how trammie some people here get when it comes to their CY though !
The "Detect Hidden in the CY" thread was a great read in contrast to this thread.

People demanding strict felucca housing rules even for cheap small homes are suddenly considering trammie rules for the courtyards of their castles and fortresses.

At least be consistent when enforcing felucca housing:

I realized what I don't like about the UO:R housing system.

Why is there a weight limit for the secure containers ?

That's the only thing really bugging me. Is that how it was before Trammel or is this a shard specific rule brought in for a purpose ?

Why not lift the weight limit for the secure containers ?

My valuables are usually very heavy because I'm do lot's of crafting for the time being. It sucks not being able to stuff them into secure containers ...

This was how housing was before the Trammel changes -- from pre-T2A through the initial UO:R patches. The secure container weight restriction came later, along with the lockdown changes in general.

Eeehm ..

That was confusing. So was there a weight limit on secure containers in pre-Trammel housing or did they implement that later ?

Yes, from the introduction of secured containers in houses, until the introduction of Trammel housing changes, there was always a 400 stone weight limit on secure storage.

The tradeoff in the Trammel housing system, is the number of lockdowns -- as everything in a secure is now calculated against a lockdown. A single secured container consumed 125 lockdowns, period, even if nothing was stored in it. This was the tradeoff for unlimited weight in the lockdowns -- either you chose to have up to 3 secured, with no weight limit containers in a small, with an overhead of 50 additional lockdowns, or you had up to 425 individual lockdowns. The current system, imo, is much more flexible in terms of storage; albeit at the cost of being able to 100% secure items with high weight.

BTW -- if you're just looking to store items in bulk securely, like resources... just lock them down. I keep my ingot collection locked down on the patio of my marble workshop for ease. They are not usable when locked down, nor can they be moved by anyone below co-owner.

Edit for clarification: I realize when I say the limits of whats allowed in the Trammel housing system SOUNDS like a significant boost on what can be done with a house; but its a misnomer to think that. Any container locked down, will also lock down all items within it -- they count towards your total available storage within the house. So, you could have a total of 4 containers in a house; 3 secures and one lockdown, COMPLETELY tap out your available lockdowns, and still not even fill the lockdown container. 425 items, containers included if not secure. Add on top of that active item decay within houses, and you're hard limited to a total storage of 425 items. Conversely, in a standard small, you can build your secure wall with housing addons, which do not take lockdown space, secure 1 container and lock down 24 more. That gives you 400 stone/125 items of secure storage, PLUS an additional 3000 items in storage that is only as secure as you make it. On top of that, you have deco options that don't include fighting with lockdown limits or item decay. To me, its a no brainer which system is better.

Well I do start to appreciate the UO:R housing system ...

During my Carpentry training I lots of crates and just stacked & locked them down.
hehe ... now i can store a quazillion items !

Well seems like I need to set up a lockdown & release macro for most of my chars and get used to lock down stuff like crazy.

Every character I have, is setup with hotkeys for "I wish to lock this down" "I wish to release this" and "I ban thee" at a bare minimum.

When I do utilize secure walling (as I stated earlier, I just detect *EVERY* time, in or out, when I leave and don't use secure walling) -- I prefer to use a placed trash barrel as the access path. I usually build a wall of useful house addons (small forge, anvil, wheel, loom) with the center spot left empty. Like Blaise, I had hot keys as he laid out, but also had one for "I wish to place a trash barrel". Axe barrel, step forward one step, hit macro key, you're done.



It leaves you with 4 more free lockdowns, and looks better. Any house addons that are unpassable will work -- this was just my preferred design. That house was public as well, cuz I was too lazy to deal with keys at that time -- and I was never looted. Killed in my house a few times, but not looted.

Yes, I agree. I think the current housing system is far too strict and more of a hassle than anything. I propose we remove the ability of house looting. It really is a nuisance to have to set up home security. For example, every day that I come home to my fortress I have to recall to the outside of my house, hit a macro that recalls off a tune inside a secure bag which takes me to my courtyard. Then to top it off, I have to walk inside and hit another macro that chops my trash barrel, followed by ANOTHER macro to replace the trash barrel. Whew, that was exhausting just typing that up.

Second, I would like to make mention of the fact that it is rather ridiculous to be forced to have so many damn containers for all of my supplies. Consequently, I am left with less room in my house which would otherwise be filled with some nice trees, or potted plants. I suggest we remove the item limit on locked down containers so I can cram as much junk as I want into ONE container..how cool would that be?!?

In closing I would just like to reiterate that having to lock doors, or set up barricades is simply too tedious and is just plain ugly looking. Also, having to recall into your CY via a secured bag on the doorstep is likened to being forced to crawl through a window in your RL house EVERY day you come home. #ridiculousness

P.S. I spend way too much time acquiring my gold/supplies and would appreciate it if the moment I dropped an item in my pack it becomes newbified, so, we may as well go ahead and disable stealing as a skill while we're at it. Fuck it, can we just open a gate to trammel already?

I <3 Mandevu!!! lololololol

Feluccian fo life, bi***es!

know this is a late reply, but you don't have to keep all your resources in containers, things like hides can be
locked down on floor. I don't like the idea of home invasion, but...it is a far Superior system with home security, than in the old days, when who ever had the house key, basically held control of your house. I don't know about Fel, because I only owned a home in Trammel, but if I recall; no one could even walk on your steps let alone enter your house. I think that Trammel aspect possibly encouraged us to be lazy.. I do enjoy home security. I find it less disruptive to my play style, than losing houses to pkers.


Westra