1 Instanced House Per Account

Then you did not read the quote DarkStarr was responding to in the quote link I posted. - https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...tion-sequence-process.8442/page-7#post-146654

Sir Stile Teckel asked, "Oh wait... The people that took vacations from work, played hooky from school and played for 48-72 hours... Already bought then using the gold their guild mates gave them or that they bought with real money.. Theres no lots left to claim and on top of that you blew past a lot of story trying to do it."

So yes, there will be in-game lots available for gold after the game ships. Lets say there are 5K in-game lots available after the game ships and 10K citizen - LOTM lots available through pledging and from the add-in store. All of those will be in the game.

I don't know where you got your information from.

 

I read what you quoted. And again, I'm confused where this says there will be half as many in-game deeds/plots available along with those sold for real money. All I've read is that no one with a deed will be left without a plot to claim.

-edit-

This is true, but at no point while playing Star Citizen will there be no ships available for purchase. There's no finite limit to specific classes of starship, but instead specific models. You'll never be threatened with the appearance of gated content because you didn't invest hundreds of dollars during development, or because you didn't gather the funds fast enough. The inevitability of waiting, the uncertainty of what will be provided to non-citizen level pledges while they focus their fundraising on property deeds is the warrant for concern. Star Citizen isn't gloomed over with the question, 'when I finally get into the game, will there be any starships left?' The lack of clarity, with the continued focus on property deed's real money value is in turn devaluing all intermediate pledges between Adventurer and Citizen, unless paired with an add-on deed. And in turn that add-on deed, no different from what might be available through in-game means, is devalued by the lack of clarity of that system.

 

Interesting. So if a player takes greater risk then they should receive a greater reward? What if other players didn't risk as much, or perhaps very little, but received the same reward? Meaning that the reward wasn't actually... well... limited.


How familiar this sounds.

 

Vague arguments made against selective quotes does not make for logical, reasonable, or effective conclusions.

 

To try and help here, try this link
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/lot-deeds-never-oversold.5733/

I think the thing to remember is that a house isn't required to play the game. Owning a home is actually more of a goal, there will be plenty of lots available to purchase in-game at launch (albeit it could take several months if saving). You will also find people who will be happy to share their homes (this is what I for the first few years in UO) whether that is free or they could ask for rent.

Even when all lots are taken, there will be a housing market of people buying and selling houses.

My advice is if you are really desperate for a house, either pledge to citizen or just buy a village plot from the store.

 

Deliberately vague, but I'm amused all the same. You are saying that risk should be rewarded an that the concept of being "limited" is good. I said the exact same thing before in a different thread with a different context, to which I recall you debated. Somehow I figured you understood what I was saying, I could see that in your responses and this confirms it. What you said in this thread was logical and agreeable.

 

Well, EQ2 did that years ago, so it's entirely do-able today. So, yes...

 

Thanks for digging that up, E/M. I'd heard it referenced, and believed those that said it had been said, but it's nice to know the source of the quote.

 

I would agree with Envy / Midian

"Even when all lots are taken, there will be a housing market of people buying and selling houses.
My advice is if you are really desperate for a house, either pledge to citizen or just buy a village plot from the store."

Instance housing cheapens the game imho.

 

In what sense? It's something that no one ever sees -- literally -- unless they own it. So how could it cheapen the game for them?

 

Ah, thank you. They'd do themselves a favor by making that kind of information easier to find.

And while I have to agree that a house isn't required to play the game, that it is a goal, it's also a global goal - it'd take a very specific roleplaying decision to produce a character who had no interest in a house. Because in the end, it's quite an advantage and beyond that advantage, it's the doorway into a large portion of the game's intended content. I'm much less worried now that I've read that, I am excited for the social aspects that'll emerge out of the homeowners who open their doors to other players, it's one of my favorite memories about UO (I also quite enjoyed both experiences of having a house in a highly trafficked area, and one out in the wilderness.) But it's hard to kick away some of the concern, and I don't think it's completely tied to the worry of not having a house or the opportunity. I think it's the tunnel vision aspect of the fundraising since housing was announced. That they seem to be, understandably to degrees, building up the scarcity of plots while not delving heavily into the in game options. They want money, I get it, if I really truly want a house, I should buy it, I doubt anyone actually needs to be told that. It's also a deterrent though. Not to say that it's one they won't overcome, but it does produce the expectation that such an integral area of the game will always be tied to your bank account first, and the game world second.

You can dismiss this concern as complaining, but it's not really about my personal options within the game, but about the funding of future episodes and I think just my aversion to the current trend of P2W. I want this to be the next step in computer based roleplaying, but not with that. There are amazing things being attempted to move the genre forward and I get that the dialogue system, and other elements, needs far more development time to become fodder for new pledges. I just don't want to see housing as the backbone for all future income, because I don't think it'll produce long term unless it really does detriment the opportunities in game.

 

It doesn't cheapen the game. Allowing instanced housing will only attract new backers.

Restricting housing will do nothing but cause frustration, hurt feelings, and bad press.

 

Personally, I have no problem with instances housing...

Except...

The game I pledged didn't include instances housing, and no provisions were made in either the timeline or the budget to undertake the development of an additional major subsystem of the game.

What would you have them cut to make room for instances housing?

Personally, I can think of nothing I would be willing to have sacrificed to make room for this.

If it's something they wish to pursue for a future episode, more power to the idea.

 

Unless we get some sort of comment on feasibility or desire the point is moot.

 

Here is some of Richard's thoughts (care of smack) on this from April, so it's a year old and he might not be thinking exactly on these lines anymore.

https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum...fter-playing-release-1.5234/page-2#post-94166

In short, there are a couple problems.

• UO-type sprawl - If there is a place to put a house, there is a house. Richard sees this as a problem not just because of endless houses, but because any neighborhood not your own is boring and you are just going through it to get somewhere else.
• Instanced 'stuff' - More compact, and no endless boring neighborhoods. But the opposite problem of the sprawl is that no one ever sees your stuff.

This leads them to the dedicated lots in a city built around central services. You might have to go through a neighborhood or two to get to the center, but it's not endless, and you generally know the pattern of how to get to the services no matter what new town you enter. In Richard's mind, this leads to an increased likelihood of quality player shops, and not just 'everyone has a shop so I suppose I should too.'

The issue to me, is that he's fighting against instanced housing as the be-all, end-all solution for SotA housing. I think he's correct. HOWEVER, I think rent-able instanced housing as a secondary option would be great for the world. They would have limits that make it clearly not as desirable then real lot housing, but still give the player an opportunity to experience the feeling of having a small space they can call their own.

The section on limits from my paper on the matter...

This makes instanced rooms really just a fancy bank box. The plus is that it gives the player a place that they can call their own. It allows then to create a connection with the world without having to wait until they can afford a lot and house. It could be a stepping stone to real home ownership, and bridges the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots.'

No, it probably won't be slated for Ep1 launch, but it's entirely possible it would be done exactly the same as basements. The only difference is the UI/NPC and the code that handles that. Permissions and instancing the area would be 'free.'

 

I'm in agreement with you, LoneStranger.

If anything, limited instanced housing will greatly increase the value and demand of persistent housing, which will benefit those with deeds.

 

Instanced housing offers an 'unlimited' and probably cheaper alternative to persistent housing thus damaging the player housing market when it forms.

In am very 'anti' instanced housing and I really hope it doesn't appear. If it does it shouldn't be anything more than a rentable room in an inn that only the player who rents it can enter.

I would much rather see other players renting rooms in their houses than seeing instanced ones.

 

Shutting a large number of players out of the persistent housing market by limiting supply is also damaging. Discouraging new backers from pledging by limiting access to the housing market is also damaging.

Instanced housing doesn't have to be unlimited. It can be subject to any number of limits from higher taxation to severe limits on floorspace.

Instanced housing can also be a big draw in enticing new backers. This increases the demand for instanced housing.
It can also give players a taste of the housing system, which increase the demand and value of persistent housing.

This shouldn't be about preserving our privileges over those of new backers and those who quite simply can't afford to pay for housing. We should be aiming for inclusion and appealing to the greatest number of gamers possible. New backers = more cash = more development.

 

@herradam

No one will ever make a decision on playing this game on the basis they could have an instanced house. I know no game where an instanced house meant anything.

I remember when I started playing UO, my first goal was just to have a boat. After that I wanted to have a strongbox in the guilds house. After that I bought and shared an 8x8 house with a few friends.....my ultimate goal was to own a castle......10 years later I owned 2.

The real solution is to create 'inns' that can be owned by players ...... The number of rooms can vary based on the size of the inn. These rooms can then be rented by true player contracts.

There is absolutely no need for instanced housing in a game that will have so many persistent houses.

 

Just for clarity, a player can actually pay for a lot/house with in-gold......it doesn't have to be for $. This will be both the case before all lots are taken and after by trading with players.

No one is being left out here.