Why the needless emphasis on housing?

UO, Lineage2, and DAoC are really the three games people have looked to the most as far as "how to make a PvP MMO." Although today, you'd have to include LoL and FPS games if you're just focusing on PvP/combat mechanics. Camelot Unchained is probably the best comparison to SotA in this case because it has an emphasis on crafting and housing, as well as PvP in the vein of old school DAoC (as well as being indy Kickstarter).

I also have a large number of friends waiting for the next PvP oriented game. We had 100+ playing gw2 betas, but it mostly fell flat after launch. They just couldn't figure out how to make PvP matter, although it was mechanically very good.

 

Well, trouble with me is, I start toying with the numbers and potential outcome. But to try and keep the post on topic, I'd like to use the figure of 250,000 units in game sales. Because to me, that should be a low end estimate, based on who is drawn to RG's games over the course of 2 decades or so (Ultima series, Tabula Rasa & UO combined, this should not be a difficult figure to assume). In other posts, I mentioned housing numbers and rarity. So the more buyers, the more the potential shortage. I mentioned before, not to insist on my viewpoint, but only from speculation. There is no absolute fact in any of this. But it can be useful to speculate.

I have said that if only 27,000 backers from KS got a house, we would need 180 cities with 150 plots per city to enable them to get a house (the 150 is the max number RG mentioned he'd like to see). We'd have to consider if it's conceivable to have a landmass that accommodates 180 cities. But that aside, even if it was, if all 27,000 backers were able to get a persistent house, that would equal roughly 10% of all players.

So when the tier pledges and donations part of the website make it sound like housing is a core and central feature, they're focusing on maybe 10% of the population.

Now, if we don't get even half that many units sold, we'd still need 90 cities. And that would equal maybe 20% of the population. Again, that would be a small part of the game in comparison to how much it's been promoted to raise funds.

Many of those tiers and add-on plots are still available. And we've been promised there will be a lot more available for gold in the game, once game is launched.

It's speculation as to how many people will even want housing. It's speculation as to how many will only want to play single player or MMO. So the figures can be adjusted to take that into account. But in my own mind, 20% of the population desiring a house would be a very low number. Considering the land grabs we saw in UO, I guess I'm expecting the same in SotA, especially since they've built that in as such a good reward system for backers. But if only 20% of all people buying the game wants housing, it may be no problem. But then again, it's useful to consider worst case scenarios.

But let's say only 20% do want housing. Then again, the title of the thread begs an answer.

 

I have pledged $80 as a founder. I have desperately wanted to up my pledge to +Citizen levels but I am still waiting for more info on death, PVP and a host of other details in general. I also feel that the devs have dropped the ball a little when it has come to regular communication of game features and stuff in general. I hate to say it, but Pen of the Avatar is terrible and boring. They should take a leaf out of Star Citzens book when it comes to the way they engage with the community. The only reason why they have not got more pledges is because of them, Portalrium.

Richard Garriott has already admitted some fault, particularly with their decision to use the crappy native art to demonstrate the game. This would have turned a bunch of people off, straight of the bat.

On that note, I have pledged a bucket load of money with Star Citezen because of their brilliant professionalism and their ability to communicate finer details of their game. Death of a Spaceman is an excellent example of that. I would have been more then happy to spend even more money on SotA (I like the fantasy genree more) but i truly believe the RG and the team have not earned that trust yet. They started of great, but unlike the Star Citzen guys, they failed to keep pushing the limits. However, in saying that, Richard Garriott has had some terrible failures in the past years so I guess thism ight made some people sceptical too.

 

Because selling real estate is what is paying the wages to build this game

 

Good post with valid points.

The thing is though, however we didnt consider a third aspect to housing ( we mostly discuss people wanting a house or people not wanting a house ), Which is Want vs 'Need' when it comes to housing.

If housing is relativly easy to get ( Say UO, it was possible to get a house if you just get enough money ) then everyone would want to get a house. I mean why not, its only benifits. And in UO, you *NEED* To have a house due to the extremely limited alternatives ( only 125 items in bank, in a game like UO is exremely small ) .. There are no alternatives. I think that is one of the main reasons people wanted a house, and got one.

But then we look at WoW for example, where there is no housing. People have survived just fine without houses, as the alternatives has been mae possible with larger banks, but also guild banks... Therefor housing isnt needed.

So, if we smack these two together, mix the WoW storage system with the UO housing system, what would we get from that? It is obviously not known , as i am yet to see any game try it. But we could assume that housing would be popular still for the E-peen factor if nothing else, but people would obviously do without.

My point im trying to make is, aslong as you dont make it by design so a house is absolutely a must have, then people wont be forced to work towards a house, or be punished for not having one. and i really hope to see this happening in Sota, having houses being nice and all, but people without house should be able to keep up somewhat when it comes to storage space in banks.

This would mean that everyone who really want a house CAN get one ( at a high price, nothing wrong with that ) , but those who dont feel its essential, can play along.

My own opinion, thus far.

 

Nogitsune, welcome to the forums. Please refer to a few posts back on the actual numbers. I didn't want to repeat myself. Thanks. =)

 

Well, housing was not easy to get in UO. It wasn't as limited as SotA housing will be. Maybe it depends on what point a person started subscribing to play UO. If it was after the decline, houses were easier or easy to get. But at its peak, it was a problematic issue. No one who went through those days can forget how frustrating it was and the outcries from people who had tried for years and couldn't due to Ebay businesses, etc.

Right, and we really don't know what they plan for bank storage, but if it's limited, it will cause these kind of issues. Neither of us knows at this point. But what I do know, is what's written as one of the advantages to owning a house in SotA: "Dramatically increases your storage space. Your house can be filled with decorations, and you can place chests at your house to expand your player inventory."

Totally agree. If they were to design it in this way, and announced they would, I think it could alleviate people's concerns over this issue. But remember, they can't go overboard, because if they make owning a house useless, it will devalue the price of persistent houses, which RG promised he would not do. So you see, the concerns persist because of statements like this. And imagine that those who invested at higher tiers might be a bit miffed if they trashed the housing market by making storage a non-issue.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the term E-peen.

Totally agree, and something I've been saying all along. Getting higher tier homeowners to agree with that strategy, though, may be quite another issue.[/quote]

 

[/quote]


I dont agree that housing was hard to get, there were always small houses here and there for sale when i started, but i should add that i joined UO with Trammel and started there. But i could not get a house in trammel at all, so if you are refering to that, then i agree. but smallish fel houses were always for sale somewhere. I worked for 2-3 months to get myself a small house in the middle of felucca swamp, but it was worth it. So worth it. And that is what i want to see here, people working for the houses, and it should not be impossible to get, and i know for a fact that it wont be, because they have said it, and i have trust in this team, or i wouldnt throw as much money as them as i do.

Even if housing in sota Dramatically increase storage space, doesnt mean its needed, if you have any idea what im trying to say. I mean, im thinking in terms of "normal" storage being in the WoW region of space, and then adding housing on top of that.. meaning that if you are a horder and love items, then yes, you will want a house. if you dont want/cant spend enough time earning a house, well then you dont need to, you can go by just fine..

And to comment your 2 last paragraphs in the same one, i can just say that increased bank storage wouldnt devalue housing. But i have rarely heard you or anyone else discuss banking storage ( I appologize if you have, i have missed it ) , all i have seen is instanced housing, which i personally as you probably could tell already is STRONGLY against, because not only does it greatly damage Emersion(spelling again?) , but it also greatly devalue housing in general, not ONLY for high level backers. I think you cant compare instanced housing to banking systems, because banking is what you NEED, its only for storage. Instaced housing will be all that housing has, just cheaper... And that would devalue normal housing. Maybe that is another topic, i don't know. It's hard to know where the line goes in these discussions.

 

Not just that. If you had been around since the beginning, before there was a Trammel/Fel split, you would know it was impossible to get a house except by scalpers on Ebay. When the Tram/Fel split came, there was a horrible land rush. Every plot in Trammel was taken in the course of a few hours when they opened up the game to house placement.

The housing population literally doubled overnight and still it was impossible to get a house in Trammel. It was easier in Fel, it's true.

SotA won't be this way, so I can't predict how it will be, and you can't compare the 2. But if it was anything like UO, it will be quite a challenge for newcomers to own a house.

But this is off-topic, and I only answered to what you were talking about.

I know you trust in the development team and their decisions. I only trust what I see in writing.

 

Yes - I saw you posting many times, but what they did (using psychology) has already worked. Financially, there is no corpse to dissect so questioning the effectiveness of the sales methods is like a 2014 feasibility study on reaching the moon.

Artificially creating and selling status combined with a sense of urgency (of a land rush) pushes certain buttons in humans and was a masterful stroke by someone who knew human behavior very well. You can't just ignore the forums exploding with interest in housing topics, even amongst the 65% not taking part of the land rush.

 

A brilliant strategy, to say the least. Grab the funding while letting the customer satisfaction become secondary. Let those customers duke it out in the forums. It encourages backer interaction!

It has another beneficial side benefit: people who were, at one time, turned off to the idea of open PvP full loot are now completely on board if they decide to design that into the game.

I mean, it's such a great strategy to estrange 65% of the lower tier funding backers. At least they have 35% more funds to finance the game!

 

Or a kinda way to describe it is to "grab the funding ahead of time so they tell the beancounters to go to hell when they try to interfere with game design"


As for the other beneficial side effect, isn't it interesting that a "medieval life sim" would come with its own built in class tension? But, that is only assuming the non landed 65% are all estranged, that seems to be a stretch. If they were, they would hardly be voluntarily backing the game.

I think if we scratch the surface of many of those with "ethical concerns" we will quickly discover the underlying paint job is very bright green.

 

UO had lots of shards so the housing was there if you switched shards. So an option easy to create 10 to 20 times the housing, with a dedicated PvP shard. Is this a design must or a Server capacity issue.
This is not WOW if you are a crafter you need lots of resource storage. In MMO's I have played since UO the item stacks in 100's. UO used to also have a weight limit of 400 so you could store 1000's of each resource
Instanced housing is a more Personal type of bank storage. Backers are not investors in it for a profit. read the Kickstarter rules.

 

Can you stop sounding like a broken record already, it's starting to get pathetic.

Nice try, Though.

 

If wagram said this here or elsewhere, I hadn't seen it yet. So it wasn't a broken record to me anyway.

Actually, I had forgotten about the 400 stone weight limit for 125 items. That's really making me more curious how they will design bank storage. The sheer number of crafting items are quite a lot more in SotA and I hadn't considered that either.

In any case, the dramatic increase in storage space that housing will provide, as touted in the add-on store probably is speaking to this issue. Why only a majority of players would need that, it's hard to say. But probably they've focused on crafting only for 10-20% of players as well.

 

Well, I'm one of those "they" kinda people, who, when I've started analyzing fundraising and game focus, have withheld anymore funds. All in perspective, friend.

Edit: And I sincerely hope I'm in the minority who feel this way.

 

So, almost 2 months later and still: the main homepage new visitors see first advertises housing in the same exact way, with housing taking up 2/3 of the space.
So much for changing that over once there is other things to show

The misleading advertisement continues I guess...

 

Once again I have to point out that this is not totally accurate about UO. Yes, people sold houses on eBay in UO just like they sold every other possible item in UO on eBay - the game had a thriving eBay market. Did people place houses when housing opened in Trammel just to resell them at a profit? Absolutely! But that would have happened with or without eBay. Trammel housing was in major demand. However houses were always available, and by available I mean in the game, using only in-game currency. Could you walk into the shop, buy your deed, and immediately run out and place your house? No, that would be rare. But it was nowhere near impossible to get a house in Trammel even back in 2000. I know this because I camped collapsing houses all the time, and even in Trammel houses were constantly falling, often with few or no other people around. Plus, I often found locations for small one room houses out in the wilderness that people missed. In addition, players were constantly moving up to bigger houses - sell their one room so they could buy a villa, sell their villa to buy a tower. There were always, always, always houses for sale from other players for in-game gold. Was it expensive? Sure, in Trammel you'd likely pay 5-10x the deed price (or more after they made the bad decision to turn off house decay for so long), but they were still always for sale. If you wanted a house and you had the gold, you could find a house for sale (with the exception of castles since they were so rare).

So I don't understand why you are always describing this "impossible to get a house due to eBay" situation in UO that simply wasn't the reality. You do say that it was "quite a challenge for newcomers to own a house" and yes, that is a much more accurate statement to make. And by newcomers, I would define it as playing for less than ~3 months or so. But that makes sense, as housing is a very expensive item and it takes time to learn the game and earn money. After that, the majority of players had enough money to at least buy a one room house from another player.

 

UO had a weight limit of 425 per container, yes; however, that weight limit did not apply to bank boxes or secured chests in your house. Only the item limit applied in those cases. (Also, each character in UO had their own separate bank storage, so if you made all 5 characters you could actually store a total of 625 items in your bank with unlimited weight - in retrospect, this was actually quite a lot of storage for people without houses, as the smallest one room houses only had 425 max item storage themselves. However, it was of course easier to share the storage among your different characters if you did have a house.)

 

You said you found property available all the time. Well, I was a single mother that worked full time. I didn't have tons of spare time to constantly scour for a one room cabin site, nor did I have time to camp the collapsing homes. Nor did many of my friends, who had active, busy lives as full time students or employees. I tried finding in-game sales but had absolutely no luck except in Fel, and I bought a two level stone house there for in-game gold. Those weren't too hard to find. But placing a house that had a sufficient amount of storage was not possible for me. I bought a house from Ebay for $200. This was after playing UO for 3 years.

I know I'm not alone in my experience. I'd say far more people had my experience than you're debating against.