06-17-2009, 03:04 PM
I don't know what the big deal is about this... you are making a big friggen stink about something that is not a big deal.
Addressing your comments...
1) This creates more work then is needed. Not only would we have to check all the existing houses and log them for reference purposes, we would have to constantly update that log, check for houses that people don't bother to get approved, check new houses that people actually did post about, etc. Even if we changed the housing system (which is a ***** to do actually) people could still place empty lots all they wanted and I don't think any staff wants to hop around the world like an idiot looking for them. Sure we could add a new logging method for housing but that just eats up system resources. All in all this idea is a waste of staff time as well as unfair to players considering you are suggesting that they need to babysat even when making houses...
2) Who is anyone to say what is ugly or anything along those lines. You said have the staff team vote on it but someone might make a house that has no value or meaning to anyone but themselves. I have seen people recreate houses that used to be near their old house elsewhere for a nostalgic feeling. Again, you want to put too much regulation and limits on players for no damn reason as well as waste staffs in game time.
3) Work 16 hours a day, only play an hour a week? 80 don't care, tick tock!
Stop suggesting limitations and pointless rules.
4) Another suggestion about limiting? How shocking
Look even if there was a limit that doesn't fix a damn thing. Eventually, without decay, the world will be full and there is no arguing that fact. Houses add up and rarely get removed. If the playerbase doubles so does the house count, and if those players leave their houses don't thus accumulating the house count. You don't seem to understand that eventually all land will be taken up one day without decay.
It doesn't matter what you think a player needs and doesn't need. That isn't up for you to decide. If they want to blow their money on some houses, who cares? As long as they are active and participating in the shard let them buy all they want. Granted there may be a maintenance fee for excess houses but it still wouldn't be putting a limit on anyone.
I am totally against any form of limitations, especially when the simple fix here is a house decay. We could even link it to accounts, log in to refresh. That is not much to ask once every 3 months.
All in all this is starting to annoy me. You are arguing something that won't effect existing players and it has like a 1% chance to piss of someone if they return one day. Meanwhile it would make several players happy, not just the ones who posted here but the countless pages and queries about places that are taken by players who quit.
Addressing your comments...
1) This creates more work then is needed. Not only would we have to check all the existing houses and log them for reference purposes, we would have to constantly update that log, check for houses that people don't bother to get approved, check new houses that people actually did post about, etc. Even if we changed the housing system (which is a ***** to do actually) people could still place empty lots all they wanted and I don't think any staff wants to hop around the world like an idiot looking for them. Sure we could add a new logging method for housing but that just eats up system resources. All in all this idea is a waste of staff time as well as unfair to players considering you are suggesting that they need to babysat even when making houses...
2) Who is anyone to say what is ugly or anything along those lines. You said have the staff team vote on it but someone might make a house that has no value or meaning to anyone but themselves. I have seen people recreate houses that used to be near their old house elsewhere for a nostalgic feeling. Again, you want to put too much regulation and limits on players for no damn reason as well as waste staffs in game time.
3) Work 16 hours a day, only play an hour a week? 80 don't care, tick tock!
Stop suggesting limitations and pointless rules.
4) Another suggestion about limiting? How shocking
Look even if there was a limit that doesn't fix a damn thing. Eventually, without decay, the world will be full and there is no arguing that fact. Houses add up and rarely get removed. If the playerbase doubles so does the house count, and if those players leave their houses don't thus accumulating the house count. You don't seem to understand that eventually all land will be taken up one day without decay.
It doesn't matter what you think a player needs and doesn't need. That isn't up for you to decide. If they want to blow their money on some houses, who cares? As long as they are active and participating in the shard let them buy all they want. Granted there may be a maintenance fee for excess houses but it still wouldn't be putting a limit on anyone.
I am totally against any form of limitations, especially when the simple fix here is a house decay. We could even link it to accounts, log in to refresh. That is not much to ask once every 3 months.
All in all this is starting to annoy me. You are arguing something that won't effect existing players and it has like a 1% chance to piss of someone if they return one day. Meanwhile it would make several players happy, not just the ones who posted here but the countless pages and queries about places that are taken by players who quit.