Final Wipe and Lot Selection

I am RF at lord level and could be one of these "poachers" and so I am seeking some advice. Where are these preferred lots? Will Owls Head be attractive after release? Will anyone care what goes on in Hidden Vale in a few months later in the game? Britteny and other important are not even in the game yet and who knows where the game/economy will evolve.
Please tell me where to place my blacksmith so I make a ton of game gold and sell it for a decent ROT on my "investment".

I am seriously afraid to post this as I might get some bad comments.

 

even if you do, don't sweat it.

and to answer all of your questions: it is ALL speculation and that is why it is such a hot topic.

 

They could do random "technical " outages, week long server offline periods, after the final wipe. That will drive the message that it's not a launch. All those that want to think final wipe is launch are bound to get it eventually.

 

That would be counterproductive towards improving their image. Again, rather than being threatened by the fact that some folks will consider it a launch, I'd focus more on them presenting as quality a game as possible when the final wipe takes place.

 

It would not lessen the quality of the game. It's a momentary pause in access.

The main thing would be desiding if people believing the game is launched matters as much as irritating people with down time.

Those that want to push the idea that final wipe is launch are self inflicting harm. Will that harm spread to an unmitigated level.

Is it worth correcting? I say nope because in 6 months after the game is running full steam no one will care. If the game is good it won't matter.

 

Rather than being punitive towards the final wipe, I think they're better focused on providing the best gaming experience. The Devs can decide, and from what I've seen so far, they don't appear to be sweating the semantics.

Making players defensive after the world goes permanent would just generate more drama, not less, imo.

 

Today, an answer is: place it as close to the zone-in of an NPC or PRT housing hex as possible, or nearest a central teleport location (as in the case of Ardoris).
That way, convenience will ensure your location is popular, because players won't have to travel as far to reach your vendor.

However.

There's two things that are unknown. 1) If transition location, at zone-in, will ever be selectable? 2) If teleportation to an arbitrary specific location, within a housing hex, will ever be possible?
Regarding the first one..
It seems likely, but is not certain, that at some point for housing hexes, you'll be able to select the entrance/exit/transition point, when you zone in. That is, when you click "Enter" from the overworld map, you'll get a list (like West, North, NorthEast, SouthWest, Main Gate) with possibly either the last selection or Main Gate as the default. Perhaps after you've visited those other entrance/exit/transition points, they'll appear in the list. If that is true, or ever will be true, then the land rush is less terrible, because if people can select that, there's not just a single desirable zone-in location. Of course, the argument could be made that being close the default entrance will still be more desirable.

Second one...
So far, what's been outlined is that players will only ever get fast travel back to their house or a town crier. If that remains true, then having your vendor nearest the town crier will be a desirable location. However, it's not as important as other considerations, because of course, not everyone in the game will bind to that specific town crier, but it still is worth keeping in mind. The real question is if mark/recall functionality, that is, arbitrary location teleportation (in addition to the town crier and house) will ever be a design goal. If so, then the land rush is ultimately -almost- meaningless, because where your house is will have almost no impact, provided your vendor maintains a stock of desirable goods. People will simply mark there, and recall when they want to buy, and then be on their way.

At least, that's my perspective.

 

Thanks Agra.
I agree desirable locations will be made by players, good well-stocked vendors and reasonable prices will quickly come to be the most important variables.

 

To the comments of many on higher level pledgers, let me put myself out there as a case study. I'm being open an honest here so people can speculate less about what I am up to. You can then form your own conclusions. This also may be redundant with other posts - but no one can read these long threads in their entirety anymore.

First, know that I pledged higher to support the game and be immersed not just in the game but in the development of the game. This was my highest priority, not housing.

Second, regarding housing, my initial idea was that I would select a keep lot at land rush. I like the bigger size and what I can do with it. For example, I am writing a story "in scene" that I will release for everyone in my keep lot this release. I think I am not alone here... All things being equal, I think higher level pledgers want to inhabit the biggest lot they can.

Third, I am probably not going to select a keep lot at land rush. Why? The few they have placed (with over 170 to be added probably in PRT's) have very low value locations. Take Owl's Head: the keep and castle lot are off the main axis of travel between the entrance and the city center. Take Ardoris: the one castle and two keep lots seem like they are nested close to the entrance. However, they are turned so that players shoot past them unless they are intentional about diverting from the main travel axis.

Now to this point, Port. is doing nothing technically wrong. They didn't promise that castle and keep lots would have great locations. However, the poor locations, combined with the value of placing a vendor on your lot, encourage all higher level backers to go for location over the size of lot they actually purchased at land rush. That is the choice they have made in designing lot placement, which is their choice to make. There is no data on how many will do this... some will choose POT's, some may not even care about location. But I can't imagine I am unique.

The reason people are feeling slighted is that only x% of lots will have good locations in every tier. Higher level backers don't have to snap up EVERY lower level lot of a certain type, just the good locations. Then, the next levels will choose to place lower as well. City will choose village/row, Village will choose row. Thus, there is a realistic possibility that when they open up your level, good locations will already be gone, and everyone will end up operating based on the same motivation. It is not just the highest levels (castle/keep) that are the problem. This behavior will occur with city/village players too.

I hope people understand that I am not doing this to be rude, but to squeeze the most value out of my contribution. If Port. changed the lot placement and made keep lots more attractive (and not just 1 or 2 to fight over), then I would be happy to settle in a keep lot.

Vague notions like fairness don't really get us anywhere here. Game design and economics are driving it. With the current design, this is a rational choice higher level backers will make. Don't hate me for being rational! You can encourage me to be altruistic and take a poor location keep lot anyway, but I feel I've already been somewhat altruistic with the amount I've given.

I've shared my thinking a few times on this forum already. I've done my part to give this data to Port. Let's hope the land rush doesn't confirm our fears but only strengthen our hopes for what this game can be.

 

Agreed. What we have paid for is a deed (or two) and a starting position in the land rush. We have not paid for guaranteed outcomes, so all we can do is make intelligent choices based on our deed and starting position.
That will inevitably involve tactical decisions.

 

Another argument for Central Markets.

 

True.

Then, the success and sustainability of the game has nothing to do with what developers say. If devs say it's successfull and the game income dries out in six months because customer opinions, in the end, mattered A LOT, then we will look at this thread with hindsight, and see that someone really had 20/20 with their oh-so-easily dismissed "opnions".

 

What Vyrin wrote basically covers it all.

The ideal scenario was that the pledge tier was a perfect pyramid, with each upper level being 30% of the size of all lower levels combined - thus the accomodation "+30%" would avoid any possibility of what we're doom-calling here.

Unfortunately, rather than a flattish pyramid, we have a very vertical truncated cone. Which is great for cash, and bad for everything else - I'd love to hear the voice of ImmersionBreakers when we run around a city meeting dozens and dozens and dozens of barons, dukes, lords, etc. and no peasants!

A very reasonable, yet totally impossible to implement NOW, solution would be designing cities with higher level lots in most desirable locations (location, location). If castles were righteously at the center of every NPC town, surrounded by keeps, then a belt of city lots, and so on till the row lots were in the outskirts of the settlement - or away from trade/craft hubs - we wouldn't be even having this discussion.

 

I'd use Britain in U7 as a main example of this layout, where you have the castle, shops, museum, etc with the small homes around the periphery of the city.

Again, I don't personally like the housing balloon they're trying to promote, since it's doesn't seem a sustainable model. The best way for the game to remain profitable and bring new players is with story and gameplay content.

 

Hmmm... That's something which is missing from big cities right now. Some cultural buildings like museums or theatres.

 

How about being able to rob gold from banks if you "find" the key and sneak past the guards? Would make it easier to save up for a bigger property, and would help with taxes. I know I could work for the gold, but robbing it is easier.

 

and if caught, what do you think an appropriate sentance should be?

 

Why, the guards instant teleport to you and instant kill you, of course!

 

..its made in the "spirit" of Ultima, by the guy who made Ultima 7?

Thats not a simple, logical, and compelling reason? I was sitting around the lunchtable at work discussing MMOs with the CTO and lead developer of my tech team one afternoon, when my boss mentioned that @RichardGarriott was creating a new online MMO in the vein of Ultima Online. I immediately web searched for this game, read all I could about it, and donated a couple hundred bucks right away for that reason above alone. Then I downloaded the client and joined in with R10.

I certainly dont believe everyone should have this level of motivation, or would. Though, there are many of us here, those of us whom were Ultima fans since we were young kids, which know why this strays for the norm, and know the reason(s). Its compelling enough for us, for sure!

 

Beating Exodus (Ultima III) was essentially my introduction to playing RPGs for life. I'm here because I think if anyone has a chance at innovating an MMO (including redefining that term), it's these folks. That doesn't make me abandon my personal perspective on what is fun, lucrative, or prescient in game design. Throw money at the screen if you like; I prefer to take a measured approach. If the kickstarter had said, instead of what it did, "Richard Garriott is making a new game, send money with no questions asked", yeah, I'd probably have sent some; but that's not the situation we find ourselves in. I think we are all still figuring out what level of accountability receivers of crowd funding have and the way to interact with old backers, new backers, and future customers. Hopefully, an equitable explanation of their decision is forthcoming that deals not only with the development timeline, but a transparent explanation of the potential dollar to gold exchange issues they are hinting at by letting the economy equilibrate before launch.