Poll: Number of houses per account...

2 per account is my preference

i think it should be reduced to 2 per account- so 4 total per individual.

a pvp area house, a tower for all my stuff, a vendor house, and another misc house for resource gathering or right outside a dungeon to drop off loot...

Two per account is a happy middle ground I could get behind.

If the worry is about one person owning 10 castles or Large Towers etc etc, why not cap it at one home at a cost value of XX gold value per account. Lets say anything costing more than a Sandstone or Villa?

This leave each player the ability to obtain at least 2 large value establishments for Show-off, Deco, Guild Hall, Town Castle etc etc.
This also gives each player the ability to place Vending housing, smalls to help out new players, Decoratable chateus (sp?), undesireable types hide-out houses, mining houses, crafting shops etc etc.

This is an interesting idea, more-so to me because its an outside-the-box idea. I didn't try too heavily to find a flaw with this proposal, however; What would be your solution in regards to this idea/change in a situation where Player A who already owns 2 castles, one on Account1 & another on Account2, was (for whatever reason) looking to buy a third castle from Player B who just happened to live next-door to Player A's castle(s).

This was just a quick question/concern I seen when thinking a bit more into how this change would realistically play out. I was curious as to what course of action you'd take here in the scenario above, or if you even would take action. Basically the system you described above (if coded in the context which I interpreted your idea) would restrict Player A from purchasing the castle from Player B, as he already owns a castle on each of his 2 accounts. Perhaps this was intentional and you'd also restrict buying/selling housing when these conditions are met?

Anyhow this post should not be taken as any type of official statement or relevancy towards the topic matter. I posted this mostly because the idea was constructive and had enough content/details for me to take a few moments and try to find/pick away at any potential flaws with it.

--Well, to be fair to those who have already purchased and placed multiples, I would probably say Grandfather any PLACED housing (if one is taken down to relocate, you will no longer be able to place the secondary without the upcoming conditions happening. As far as purchasing a 3rd (or even a second on the accound if the restriction has taken place), I believe back on OSI you had a grace period when you obtained more placed housing than you were permitted to own. If you didn't get rid of the new house or old house within a certain time period, the house placed first would fall (or was it the house that was not the most currently refreshed? I do not remember with 100% accuracy how this worked).

Also, on one other point that maybe set as an exclusion now that I think about it. Guild Fortresses...

Maybe set an exemption to this. Even if an account has placed a high end building, as fortresses are difficult to save up for and find a spot to place, it's most likely that multiple people in a guild have contributed to the purchase of the Fortress. I say it be allowed to not count toward the max placement in that situation. (maybe even be set as a "petition the GMs situation)

Although this can be easily abused but allow only the guild master of the guild to place an additional fort under the guild allowance. You could make it connected to owning the guild stone or something along those lines.

A more strict but less automated system could simply require paging a GM to check some special box for the player once he proved he is the guild leader of an established guild wanting to place a fort for guild purposes.

Agreed. And a guild stone would have to be placed within the Fortress, maybe a check slot on the stone to auto page a GM to complete the approval for allowing the fortress and a hi-value building on the same account.

I dunno about the GM having to be the owner as a guild turned nasty could vote the GM out of office, but the Current GM would definitely have to be the placer.

Theres a bunch of issues I can see coming up with fortress placement and Guildstone control, but it's an idea to get started with.