UOGamers Community

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • To obtain new Razor updates, please reinstall Razor from our new website.

Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

Do you like these proposed changes to housing?

  • Yes

    Votes: 63 38.0%
  • No

    Votes: 103 62.0%

  • Total voters
    166
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

foofoo

Sorceror
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

Ryan said:
1) Players are flagged combative by the server if they match one or more of the following criteria:
1a) The player is criminal;
1b) The player has 5 or more kill counts;
1c) The player is in a faction; or,
1d) The player is in a guild which is either order, chaos, or has 1 or more mutually accepted guild wars.
2) Houses are flagged combative by the server if any combative player that is either a friend, co-owner, or owner of the house has been in the house within the last two minutes.
3) Combative houses do not permit players to either eject (via remove thyself) or ban (via i ban thee) any other players. Additionally, pre-existing bans on combative houses have no effect.
4) Finally, existing trash barrels must be removed prior to replacement.

I thoroughly agree that house hiding needs to be cut down. However, making it so factioners, warring guilds, and reds can never ban is a little extreme. Just a criminal/recently in combat check would be sufficient in my opinion. Also I think that if an attackee (the co-owned/friended person who is attacking) attacks another person within the house other than the attacker, he/she should be allowed to ban em.
 

kabes

Wanderer
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

No no no no no...

I dont like this idea one bit... One of the main reasons I love this game is because I can retreat to a house and chill.. Not once has a house saved me from getting killed by people who truelly had it in for me.. In fact, I have been killed more times in my house then outside. The house is your one piece of virtual goodness and you should be able to pick and choose who you want to share it with. To me this is a one of the most important aspects of the game.

I am new to this server but the second I was introduced I loved it. I have been playing for about 3 days now and have allready made donations because I want to stay. The announced change would deffinately ruin the feel for me.

I personally love not being able to roam the UO world freely.
 

Anima-hybrid

Wanderer
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

I definately agree with Elliot Ness. Basically thats my same thought on this. It's your house, you paid for it. You should be damn well able to ban anybody who enters your house. I do agree with not being able to ban people when you're flagged...thats understandable. But to seriously erase it all is EXACTLY one sided. I, as well, have said no.
 

Reuip

Wanderer
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

I think that this doesnt help the problem entirely, because at the very least, blues can still attack reds, etc. and run and hide from them in their houses.

If the problem being addressed is house hiding, I think this solution would work the best: Make it so that banning is disabled if and only if you have recently been an aggressor once your aggressive stage wears off, banning is in place again. This would work for everyone, and still give reds/factioneers/etc. the ability to keep unwanted people out of their house. Some people who do factions might want to be able to still run macros or stock, or decorate, or anything and the one place they are safe to do so is in their house.


Making it so that only people that are 'aggressive' cannot ban/bans lifted temporarily would be the best because it would eliminate house hiding completely for any character that attacks a person and retreats to their house. Yet at the same time, allow any character that isnt trying to be combative to have a place to retreat to and be safe.


I think this is the best solution overall, because personally, PKs live all around me, and I have a Faction character, and sometimes it'd be nice to sit in my house and not have to fight off the PKs that obviously outnumber me everyime I come home.

EDIT:
Ryan said:
Basically what I'm asking is this:

If someone attacks you should they be able to retreat to a house. I don't really like putting artificial limitations on players but we all know (especially factioners) that house hiding is a terrible problem.

I think that this was the original question that people answered YES to (not everyone said yes of course). My thoughts are that it should be universal, and only under those circumstances, not permanently.
 
Z

ZugZug

Guest
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

Still waiting for someone to touch on the "leave house" option. It's going to be very unfair when you successfully defend yourself from a gank squad at your own home and then they simply leave house and come and try again until they kill you because you can't ban them.

People expiot the problem now and if this new system is added they will be able to expliot it even more.
 

Verengan

Wanderer
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

Ok I agree that if you are an agressor to someone you cannot ban THAT person and only THAT person. If that person is already on the ban list THAT person will be able to run in after you, but only if YOU attack that person. If they attack you then you should be able to ban them from your house. That is the only way I would agree to any changes.
 

MaSsAcRe420

Wanderer
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

i disagree.. if its your house and the person coming in is unwanted, then regardless of if your a criminal or not you should be able to ban the person
 
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

There's benefits to keeping it the way it is, and to changing it. So tbh, I don't give a shit what happens. :)
 

Verengan

Wanderer
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

MaSsAcRe420 said:
i disagree.. if its your house and the person coming in is unwanted, then regardless of if your a criminal or not you should be able to ban the person

Well I wasnt saying if you were criminal, I was just saying that if you are an agressor you cannot ban those who you aggressed.
 

Droidx

Sorceror
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

What if you have to run to your house via ganking.. 1 on 6 should have the right to get on there property and ban away.
 

GradGT

Sorceror
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

What about this- say you recall to your house to grab some supplies and there's a Korean PK Guild waiting for you, so you have to waste who knows how much time outrunning koreans while people are waiting for you to return because some people rely on their houses for PvP. This happens to me a lot.


So what, people won't be able to house hide, they'll still run non-stop. Bitches will be bitches!

I think these changes will just piss off more people, if 50 percent of the player base doesn't like the idea then that's more people that will quit and less players there will be on the shard. That's not what we want is it :/
 
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

house pvp is at an all time high.
however its sad to say, it seems pvp will be at an all time low if people are not allowed to hide in their houses.

at least people are showing their true colors.
 

Flipper

Knight
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

Dammit, it looks like E. logged on all their banned and alt accounts to make the vote in favor of "No, I need my house"

Make houses like duel pits, where you can be safe inside them but can't get in em if you're being attacked.
 

Anima-hybrid

Wanderer
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

I doubt everyone got on an alt or banned account to click no. Maybe some sure...but not all. Alot of people do disagree though. Just difference on views and opinions. Either way..Whatever happens, happens. Just hope this poll gets counted on and not done behind our backs. This should be for the players. Thats what matters. :)
 

GradGT

Sorceror
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

Flipper-hybrid said:
Dammit, it looks like E. logged on all their banned and alt accounts to make the vote in favor of "No, I need my house"

Make houses like duel pits, where you can be safe inside them but can't get in em if you're being attacked.

Wait I changed my mind

I like Flipper's idea but it would be better if people inside could still attack eachother freely for macroers sake, but people outside could not attack the people inside. A little complicated I know, but I think that would work out great for everyone and if this happened people might be inclined to give eachother presents out of happiness
 

GradGT

Sorceror
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

Yea whatever just leave it how it is and PvP where there aren't houses around,

and just stop it
 

AquaticElf

Wanderer
Re: Proposed changes to housing ruleset:

I don't quite understand some of the logic by these proposed changes. It seems to aid blues in all accounts.
Ryan said:
ANiceUoPlayer said:
Ryan man, its too one sided... if u want the Pk rate to go down devise other ways... It should* be if a combative player starts trouble he cant house hide, that to me sounds fair, and will bring down the house warring. However calling all reds, greys, factions, order/choas as combative doesnt make sense.

If its for ONLY Combative Parties then im' down, and its resonable. otherwise sorry i'm a no , it just seems like your pushing for something, and if you could be discrete with what or how you want your server to evolve inform us, and ask the public...
This has nothing to do with "PK's".

This is to PROMOTE field fighting and stop house hiding.
Someone already addressed this, but I think Ryan misunderstood his post.

It obviously has something to do with PKs. Let see that list again:
1a) The player is criminal;
1b) The player has 5 or more kill counts;
1c) The player is in a faction; or,
1d) The player is in a guild which is either order, chaos, or has 1 or more mutually accepted guild wars.
Now lets say if a blue attacks a red. Then the blue runs into their house. The blue; even though he's an aggressor; is completely protected by his house.

Now lets say if a red is attacked by a blue. Then the red runs into their house. The red; even though he's only defending himself; is completely unprotected by his house.

***

The system would have to be based on aggressor status. Drop criminal as well, since people become criminal when resurrecting their red friends.

Overall though, I'm against the whole system, even with aggressor check only.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top