Poll: What is more important? Housing or meaningful quest and choices with real consequences?

What's cool is where these two parts of the game can intersect. In Lord of the Rings, Bilbo Baggins returned to his home where he could write a book about his adventures, put his sword Sting on display, put away his ring in a box.

I have to admit, I'm not sure where never-melting snowmen families fit into this, though.

 

So you say that because housing is done excessively - because it is the only "finished" part of the game - this is seen as what the players want?
Hey, they are not interested in offline and quests - we haven't done there much yet and there is nothing to do there yet but players must hate it for sure. So let's concentrate on housing!

 

Lord Dark Moon can think what he wants. But since the powers to be offer off line mmorpg then it is my decision not Lord Dark Moon's. And I did vote for epic stories. But until you wannabe kings and dictators pay all I have invested in this game, then you can maybe suggest as to what I should do.

 

Oh they do matter, especially the ones that go 5+ pages long. The devs do listen. I have seen many times now that large opinionated threads change the direction of this game. Just look at R36, the idea of one big "noob" guild to help new people out was removed off the table.

 

I tried to do that once. It got deleted, with the message:
Your post was deleted. Reason: Don't post non-nonsensical responses that have no discussion involved.

 

I like flowers...

 

Depends on which game you want SotA to be a successor.

For UO, it's housing that everything revolves around it. People train, hunt, accrue wealth to obtain house and decoration. People get together and create their own quests and contents.

For Ultima series, the game would revolve around intricacy of quests made by the game makers.

 

Well in U7, UW1, UW2, U8 and U9 I always had a little, well decorated space of my own lol. So hard to say.

I do know though in UO not everyone ends up wanting a house, and many players only have a house for storage and don't decorate. Mostly PvPers are like this because they only care about one thing. Action.

 

current results look unsurprisingly even. go figure

 

Pardon my confusion here. When you state "Kill an NPC, Burn down a town", are you suggesting that this action only be for you, or for the entire population that is playing the game at the time?

 

...yeah. If someone's not actively playing somewhat, then that would not bee cool. Is that the case with the OP?

 

I don't see it as an either/or. I see it as an 'and', plus crafting, plus a heckuva community. *shrug*

 

I would like both personally. But if I had to chose one I would go for epic story and consequences! Just makes things more interesting over all. I mean there is only so many times I can redecorate my house or whatever before its just like yeah I don't care anymore :/

 

As there are different choices to make during quests it would basically mean "for you".

 

I think it would be great if story/game elements were able to block people from their or other's houses. Houses and towns should feel safe, but we should feel the need to have to work toward that safety that we crave in them. Nothing bands people together like a common enemy, a cause worth fighting for could be the freedom we desire to live in peace. Bring it on!

 

I don't see it as a one-or-the-other-question. Getting housing straightned out (especially on the technical side of instancing) would open up so many oortunities for a meaningfull story. About that part with the consequences... that IS a double-edges sword actually. I've already seen lots of complaints about that quest in Soltown with the lovepoem, where players complain, that they want to change their decision... What I try to say with that is, that probably only a few folks truely understand what making decisions with consequences means (probably not only in the scope of a game like this...) And there are certain restrictions to the possible consequences, since this is also a multiplayer-game. You cannot let one player live in a prospering happy-go-lucky version of the world, and another in the all-lies-in-ruins version. You have to have some kind of status-quo you come back to, probably changing/developing that status-quo (for everyone) based on the overall-decisions and actions of the players. But giving each player his complete own version of the world... well, that would be singleplayer only then. What CAN and SHOULD be done are special events a player can participate... be it as part of a general event in the game or as part of a questline, where a player (or a group of players) enter an instanced version of a scene... a city under siege/attack... natural oder unnatural desaster... whatever... but once that's done the players will need to return to the general/status quo version of the world.

 

To be honest: You could say the same about those "rpg-purist"... go play some solo rpg more to your liking if you don't like it here... but that would also be rude and unfair... those kind of comments are not really helpfull or constructive

 

This brings up the question if the single player offline mode will offer those kinds of visible consequences...
On the other hand, The Elder Scrolls Online does this. Let the NPC die or save him. For me his dead, for you he is not.

 

Actually no, you are just wrong.

 

As I already said in another post:
The technology is out there.
I don't have to see the NPC's you see.
If it's important for the progress of the party I will just have to deal with the fact that I either can't see who you are talking to or I just see a generic npc. Or I just get forced into the leaders instance.
Important is that everything reverts back to the coiches I made as soon as I am out of the party.