Only allowed to place one Lot

To my mind it is absolutly necessary to have an upkeep cost system that is scaling depending on the amount of lots / houses you are holding. Without anything like that we will end up in a world where players are hording lots / houses. This should not happen ...

Of course there need to be some ingame mechanisms to avoid situations like what you described.

Still I would love to see a system which would provide such a degree of freedom for players ingame ...

 

'They' didn't sell houses for real money but other players did. True it was subscription based, but for all you know house rent could actually form a 'type' of subscription.

 

They will make as many lots as they need to to fulfill the demand as it is when the world-design-deadline hits.

If they've sold 5000 lots deeds through tiers, and 350 through the addon store, then they'll place 5350 lots plus some amount. If they sell 10000 lot deeds through the tiers, then they'll place 10350 lots plus some amount. I don't think people buying lot deeds now or having multiple lot deeds really affects the number of extra lots they'll place for the johnny-come-lately folks.

 

RG said it is a Buy to Play game no subscription required to play the game.

extract from Village Plot advert.
Village Lot Property Deeds purchased through the Add-On Store will have an in game currency tax that must be paid monthly or the lot reverts to being for sale and the Lot Deed is returned to the owner.

 

Well quoting your own favourite phrase "everything is subject to change"..........oh and by the way, you don't actually need a house to play the game.

 

The topic seems to have strayed from 'Should they allow multiple plots per account' to 'Should there be a limit on housing estates'.

My take is there should not be a limit per account because it simply will not function in the way the OP seems to intend.

Unless I misunderstand the intention is to prevent one person owning multple plots and 'monopolising' areas unfairly.

Given we can see that multi boxing is a common and sometimes 'allowed' practice it is reasonable to assume that the majority of people who would be interested in buying up land for their own benefit will do so regardless of account limits as accounts are not expensive when compared to the relative cost of lots.
If peopel run heal bots and pay a sub for it I don't doubt the people the thread is aimed at preventing from negatively affecting the market will not be stopped by this measure.

Especially when plots have a real world price opf around $200 set by portalarium it is conceivable that real world value will remain attached to them and desirable locations will be 'profitable'.

So, the desire to limit to one per account will impact the players who legitimately wish to aquire property over a career of playing SOTA but do nothing to those that would wish to abuse the system who will simply purchase additional accounts.

The real contention here is just the finite resource. One which, if the supply changes will severly affect the value of those who pledged at the higher tiers. It would not be prudent to change the product after so many purchased at those levels with that understanding.

 

I was just thinking of early days in UO.

You could own a ton of places [houses] , if you had the gold to do so. But you also had to have the key to get in, could't port to them ,and if you got killed , looted [Took your key] you lost you house. Very risky just to go home .You had to refresh them once a week, by opening door. you could own a deed that could be looted on death PvP or NPC. Some times the Mob that killed you took you stuff and you had to find them and kill them to get you stuff back." I remember killing Mobs that had house deeds and other items."
It also might take you some time to find a space to place the house you had a deed for. I mean in months.
If you lived on a boat , and left the plank out to board , someone passing by could walk aboard and loot your things . A passing boat could open a plank to your boat, and loot your stuff. To say nothing about camp sites bed rolls, or tents.
Funny to think this was the closest to real life game I've played to date.

 

Purchasing additional accounts means more money for further game development. I am all for that, so I would say: Make them jump that hoop.

 

For it to be close to real life it lacked an element and it had one not at all like real life.

It lacked characters permanently dying.
It had the possibility for a criminal to have 4 non-criminal characters that would make good use of the loot.

This is one reason I prefer games where characters are gone when they die =)

 

It is too early to start using numbers for any estimation. As you pointed out having 54 cities with 500 plots each offers a substantial amount of housing. Still we know nothing about how many plots each city will have or how many people will play the game and want a house, so the whole assumption business is pointless. The only middle option I seen so far is instanced inn rooms, but I dont see instanced housing as a viable option. Look at the good it did to LotrO, a waste of money and time that isnt utilized to the extend intended. SotA devs dont have that much funding to waste.

 

Indeed, I have continually pushed for instanced rooms as a way to supply a 'home' without removing the value of a 'house.'

The communal living is interesting. I could see an area built like that as an alternative to a traditional town, and use the instanced room idea to keep the player density higher.

 

True in LOTRO it was under used but that is really down to a different game type.
LOTRO is a quest levelling game not a sandbox if the mechanics changed were the crafting became an important part of the game creating the best items with workstations in the houses LotRO neighbourhoods would become vibrant communities.

 

Multiple lots owned by one person would not be an issue at all in my opinion if a the combination of desirable persistent housing and a lesser option in form of instanced housing was available.

The strongest argument for instanced housing is that it is a completely scalable solution where availability of additional units can be changed pretty real time. In particular the system works for an arbitrary number of players and everyone can experience the features already developed for persistent housing. Multiple lots for those wanting them would not diminish the gaming experience of others and are a non-issue without an artificial lot shortage.

 

This is an extract from the Kickatarter page

Player housing:
Player housing will live in the persistent shared world, so real estate will have location value.
The least expensive housing can be found in Villages, which offer the highest density of low-cost housing. The core of a village will include basic services that will encourage players to both visit and settle in the area. Villages are a great place for an ambitious adventurer to hang their hat. (Only a few thousand Village homes will be available to players in-game.)
Towns on the other hand, offer more protection and amenities than Villages. The larger amount of available services will further increase traffic flow to your home or business. Plots of land will be larger as well, allowing players to build bigger houses. Towns are an excellent place to start a business while affording moderate levels of safety. (Only a few hundred Town homes will be available to players in-game.)
A City provides substantial protection for players, with large, vital services to draw players to visit and spend their coin. Cities can be protected by large defensive structures like Tesla towers, and offer luxuries not found in Towns or Villages. Cities also have the largest and most valuable homesteads. Be aware though, that the most valuable properties are available to very limited number of players and will likely be in high demand! (Only a few dozen City homes will be available to players in-game.)

 

That post caused a lot of ruckus already and has been addressed... "we will make sure there is a significant number of lots available for in game purchase at launch" - DarkStarr, https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/lot-deeds-never-oversold.5733/

 

Sorry but what is "a significant number" in this context?
A significant number compared to what?
I would interpret significant as "not small compared to". Compared to backer lots even a thousand would not be small.
Such a non-statement does not even begin to address the concerns raised.

Essentially all he confirmed is that lots were not oversold and that some (what ever he regards as significant) will be purchasable in game.
As far as I can tell that contradicts in no way what wagram posted.

 

To me significant number means :
Take number of plots sold + xxxx additional plots to be available in game = plenty of plots available.

 

Well as you see, significant means something quite different for the two of us, and unless clarified this discrepancy will not disappear.
(I do however wonder how "plenty of plots" goes along with what RG said all along.)

Let's suppose for a moment that my interpretation of "significant compared to the number of backer lots" was right.
Would that be fine with you?

To make it even simpler, let's assume:
The number of lots obtinable in game equals the number of backer lots given out. Notice that with my interpretation of "significant" this is definitely significant.
Would that be fine with you?

 

If you really think that makes your game better , Easy enough, just delete your characters if you die.

 

Here:
sig·nif·i·cant
[sig-nif-i-kuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. important; of consequence.
2. having or expressing a meaning; indicative; suggestive: a significant wink.
3. Statistics. of or pertaining to observations that are unlikely to occur by chance and that therefore indicate a systematic cause.