Homes for sale (discussion)

So It seems that everyone feels good about the proposal to have the individual privileges (like homes) for sale.

My current proposal is to cap them per userlevel. Since people now will have to pay for each home, I would suggest to raise the new cap from the existing one slightly.

I played around with some formulas to price the homes. I do not want them to be too cheap or the price going up too steep.

So I currently propose a base price of 10 and ramp up the price cubically (^3) per number of homes. So the Formula is Cost = ((# of homes) ^ 3) x 10 Uncs

So the first one is 10 uncs, the second one is 80,
3rd = 270,
4th = 640,
5th = 1’250,.
6th is 2’160 and so on.
The tenth home is 10’000 Uncs.

I think this sounds to me like a good progression where people will have to have spent some time and money on the homes and cannot get them just easily, but they also do not seem that extremely far away.

One would also be able to sell a home, but let’s say for only 50% of the purchase value (sorry but I do not really want to get your used and probably messy homes back). Jokes aside, homes will get expensive on the higher count and people will have to think before they buy. But let’s say you planned a project in the kingdom and bought a home for that and then you change your mind, the money should not be lost 100%.

The current progression & new proposal for maximum number of homes is:

  • Guest: 1 (remains 1)
  • Settler: 4 (new 6)
  • Citizen: 4 (new 8)
  • Architect: 5 (new 10)
  • Designer: 6 (new 15)
  • Master: 7 (new 20)
  • Elder: 8 (new 50)


25 thoughts on “Homes for sale (discussion)

  1. Such an awesome development more homes are glorious and much desired.

    1.25 mil for the 50th home seems…. steep.

    I think a lower factor with a higher base might be better as per simulations below:
    Note: vote calculations based on 500 uncs / day for single account voters…

    @BASE = 10
    @FACTOR = 3.0
    5th = (5 ^ 3.0) x 10 = 1250 ( ~ 3 days voting )
    12th = (12 ^ 3.0) x 10 = 17280 ( ~ 35 days voting )
    20th = (20 ^ 3.0) x 10 = 80000 ( ~ 160 days voting )
    50th = (50 ^ 3.0) x 10 = 1,250,000 ( ~ 2500 days voting, or about 7 years for that final level )

    @BASE = 50
    @FACTOR = 2.5
    5th = (5 ^ 2.5) x 50 = 5590 ( ~11 days voting )
    20th = (20 ^ 2.5) x 50 = 89442 ( ~178 days voting )
    50th = (50 ^ 2.5) x 50 = 883883 ( ~ 1768 days voting, or about 5 years just for that final level )

    @BASE = 50
    @FACTOR = 2.0
    5th = (5 ^ 2.0) x 50 = 1250 ( ~ 3 days voting )
    12th = (12 ^ 2.0) x 50 = 7200 ( ~ 15 days voting )
    20th = (20 ^ 2.0) x 50 = 20000 ( ~ 40 days voting )
    50th = (50 ^ 2.0) x 50 = 125000 ( ~ 250 days voting )

    @BASE = 100
    @ FACTOR = 1.5
    5th = (5 ^ 1.5) x 100 = 1118 ( ~ 3 days voting )
    12th = (12 ^ 1.5) x 100 = 4156 ( ~ 9 days voting )
    20th = (20 ^ 1.5) x 100 = 8944 ( ~ 18 days voting )
    50th = (50 ^ 1.5) x 100 = 35355 ( ~ 71 days voting )

    Personally I like the final simulation best of the lot, the lower tiers are still obtainable easily enough but the higher end doesn’t get unobtainably ridiculous.

    • If we assume that 50 is something that should be achievable without going to extremes, I agree with you. On the other hand, I guess we have to discuss if 50 homes is not a too high number and once we agree what should be the ultimate max for an elder be, then we talk about how expensive that maximum should be.

      • I think thats a fairly important distinction to be made. Far as im concerned anything over 20 is bonus. Is this change a potential precursor to considering more purchasable rewards? Will i have to choose to spend money on homes or other perks soon enough?

        • Yes. I will most likely do the same with anything that is scalable and limited by user, meaning deposit slots and additional lots. But people will keep what they have now. New users and new upgraded users will be affected.

          • this is an awesome plan. Gives some really nice incentives to play economically.

            The numbers really are secondary discussion points….

            Any of the numbers I’ve seen kicked around work for homes, they’re utterly priceless.

    • I like base 50, but..

      What would anybody do with 50 homes, honestly? Why not just give everybody /tp at that point? I propose a cap at 30.

      So there are livestock farms, hostile farms, chest rooms, and the rest are land areas owned and friends. How many homes would a person need to develop something and have a neighbor?

      I only say 30 and not 20 because: A, I know some people have over 50 lots (largely undeveloped) and B, I might use that number to showcase the world quickly at some point…


      • To clarify, when I say undeveloped I mean the user is inactive with the lot’s development.

  2. I support Unc’s formula. If Unc is able to get all voting sites working that can bring you 700 unc per day.
    Just my 2 cents.

  3. This sounds good. Thank you Unc for your effort to our community.

    So as an elder I have eight homes currently. Under this model if I wanted to change a home at my friend’s empire lot to his flatlands lot the most economical way to do so would be to sell the empire lot and get half credit back on my eighth home (0.5 * 5120 = 2560 Uncs) then purchase the new eighth home in flatlands (5120 Uncs). The net cost being 2560 Uncs to change an eighth home, right?

    If I can get by with four homes then it would cost half of 640 or 320 Uncs to change homes as long as I sell the old home before I buy the new home?

    • No – if I understand you correctly. A “home” is a slot in the database where home information is stored. You can edit that slot and change the name of the home and it’s destination anytime. If you want to have more slots, then you pay.

      • Cool, so one time purchase of ninth home and I keep the ability to set nine non-static homes. These prices are cheap.

        • That’s what I thought. If we look at the cash or assets the elder users have in terms of kindgom lots etc, the prices are not expensive for the bottom bunch of lots that they have already now anyhow.

    • I agree.. not that I can have 50 homes but having 10 that’s double what I have now. Is very powerful for me. Allowing me to gather and sell items and build quicker should grow the economy also.

  4. I like Uncs formula as well. It is very expensive if you just collect uncs with voting. That means if you want more homes you need to buy and sell items in the shop. I think this will stimulate the shop economy and make the uncs people collect worth more. I for one use my uncs if I am feeling lazy at a build and don’t want to go back to my storage and look for items. I only do this because the number of lots I have is enough at the moment and I have no other reason to save uncs. Now I would. I would be much more careful how I spend my money in the future with this plan. It is also one more reason to vote every day or as often as you can. Which in turn improves our status on server lists, which brings in more new users and in turn makes the server and in server economy stronger. I think it is a very good idea.

    • I agree with the stimulation of the economy theory. However, I feel a few more things would help- like adding a query for damaged tools, certain books with a particular enchant, and so on. Anything to make more room for those high-demand items. The 50 slots for each item type is confining.

      Non-sequitur. But oh well. Thats up for another discussion

      viva la economy!

      • Yeah this is not meant in the first place to stimulate the economy, if that happens, fine, but otherwise it’s solving a completely different issue.

  5. I like the idea of buying more homes. I have enough for what i do right now but to expand resources i would need more homes. It makes me happy to have that option available. Al though the thought of spending like 10’000 uncs or more on home will still be hard i would have to save up and sale more in shop.

  6. i like it, expands more territories to explore without having to run across the map for an hour

  7. The best part about this is it will make new players play longer and allow a more communal experience. It’s difficult for lower ranks to get a sense of the others being neighbors if they’re a million (exaggeration) blocks away.

    ***The only thing that could possibly make it more of a community is if we brought back contests or a concentrated group build – that is what this server was founded on and is a model to inspire greatness.

    Homes are good to have, however, if everybody actually made a modest home on a modest space that others shared then that is a true community. (redo spawn, redo spawn!) Hmph, anyways..

    I know this progress is awesome and thank you for your effort, Unc! I just try to push out some old ideas as new ones when the chance is good :)

    • I know it’s off-topic, but I wonder if many people realize that the latest crop of architects, myself included, have never seen a contest on Uncovery. It would be very intimidating to participate in one without having seen the process first hand, but a contest would be such a great motivator to do something awesome!

  8. Those prices do not seem too expensive, even if you only get your Uncs from voting. You get 400/500 per day (depending on which site is working), which you can easily double or more if you’re willing to sell the valuables that you get as present for voting.. It’s only a matter of regularity and patience before you own several dozens of thousand Uncs.

    Tip: if you ever receive Diamond/Emerald Ore by voting, don’t you ever break it, not even with a super enchanted pick.. stock it or sell it. Some rich people use them for buildings.

    • I like the idea bacause it will promote voting for the server.

Comments are closed.