Several of the housing prices are incorrect, specifically initial lot prices and rent.
http://camelot.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=1839
"Lots will start at 95 platinum each. We expect that there will be very few takers at that price! If a lot goes unpurchased for an hour, the price will come down. If the parcel of land still remains unwanted, the price will drop still lower, and so on until someone decides the price is right (or the lot costs a single platinum piece - that's the minimum cost)."
"The rent costs per week of the houses are two percent of their initial cost, which works out to 20 gp, 200 gp, 800 gp, 2 pp in weekly rent based upon these prices"
According to a Zam post of a 1.63 patch instilled June 2003 (4 months before 1.65), initial lot prices were a minimum of 1p (currently at 300g). In addition, the formula for rent is 2% of initial house cost - the current scaling I am unsure of, but after 20g for cottage rent the prices are not correct (40g for Villa, etc.). Considering ZAM posts have been frequently used to reference information relevant to patch 1.65 this evidence should suffice, however compounding evidence for the rent formula exists on the Camelot wiki which, while presenting incorrect housing values in the grid, clearly states the previously stated formula for rent calculation underneath.
http://camelotherald.wikia.com/wiki/How_much_do_houses_cost_and_how_much_is_the_rent_for_each%3F
"Rent is equal to 2% of the purchase price of the house, paid weekly."
Finally, as may have been mentioned before, the ZAM post is also evidence of DC/Snowdonia/VF porters existing upon 1.65, which have yet to be implemented.
1. Create a character.
2. Go to housing zone.
3. Check costs.
Alter rent prices to 2% of initial cost per week.
Alter lot cost to 1p minimum.
[Potentially] Add additional portal merchants.
http://camelot.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=1839
http://camelotherald.wikia.com/wiki/How_much_do_houses_cost_and_how_much_is_the_rent_for_each%3F
|
Issue was invalid:
Invalid |
| 5 players say this report is valid, 1 disagrees |