Only allowed to place one Lot

POLL
From the chat, Chris answers some questions:
Chris April 3, 2013 - 5:40 pm @anthony, currently we believe 1 person, 1 house
Chris April 3, 2013 - 5:42 pm The current design is that you can own multiple deeds but you can only claim one lot. you can only trade a deed if it is not attached to a lot.

Is this still the case or does the Oklahoma land rush also mean Portalarium speak with forked tongues.

I think with the land deed being the only limited item in SotA.
No one should be allowed to place more than one land deed per account, I know some will feel they are so deserving they will need to set up multiple accounts as they believe they have to own everything.
Anyone that owns 2 or more will now just have to put them up for sale after game release.

In Gaming Greed is not Good, save that for RL

 

If a gamer really enjoys having multiple houses, and can spend the time in game or otherwise muster the resources to do that, then let them have at it I say.

But it should be balanced. For example only one tax-free deed, so that there is a burden for maintaining many others.

And on the issue of 'land rush,' that could be addressed simply by limiting how many deeds will be in the public's hands to start. The monetary pledging approach effectively does this - consider, how many people will pledge for two city deeds?

 

Why is it greed to want more than 1 house? Maybe I am trying to reserve a lot for my friends who are not able to afford a lot...

 

You are forgetting that this game will be free to play. If you do not allow multiple houses/lots per account, people will just make more free accounts.

 

They have sold lot deeds to people who already have lot deeds via their pledge tier. I don't see this changing.

I don't think it matters in the long run. It's not going to make lots harder to get; they'll make as many as they need for launch and then some.

 

@wagram - The development team has already taken the stance that multiple deeds can be owned by one account. Take the Add-on store for example. There is no exclusion from purchasing extra deeds if you already own one.

@Gracekain - This game is not free to play; you still have to purchase the game to play it. The development team has stated that you can only have one account for each purchased copy. People will not be able to have multiple accounts unless they purchase multiple copies of the game.

 

Right. I know you have to purchase more copy of the game. Small price to pay to have a second house if it was decided you could only have one. But that isn't the decisions

no monthly fee in my opinion is a free to play game.

 

Free to play means free to play. It means no entry fee to have the privilege to play.

What is interesting is that there is a great chance that the game is free for a week or two or four so someone can try it out. Richard has mentioned this in the past as a possible way forward to pull in more people. You don't have to convince your friends to buy the game; you convince them to download. They get to try it out with no financial investment. There would probably be some level cap on it too.

I also wouldn't be surprised if Episode 1 became free to play when Episode 2 or 3 launched. The idea would be to pull more people in, since after a new continent is introduced many players might migrate over to the new area. New people also equals greater add-on items purchased.

 

Many games have some kind of trial account. I think WoW lets you go to level 20 before buying the game. But you can't trade or possibly other things. You still really have to buy the game to progress.

I don't specifically care if one person owns 1000 deeds, until I know what kind of advantage they have.

 

To be honest I have several plots, but part of the purpose of me doing this is to allow friends to use them and treat them as their own. They will pay me rent to cover monthly upkeep costs.

I don't really see this as being a negative part of the game.

 

SWTOR has the free to play option instead of the monthly subscription. The game is so limited in the Free to Play mode I stopped playing altogether (had to prioritize my gaming finances and SOTA won my gaming money).

So I know what you mean.

 

Yes I know they made the call to allow multiple plots per account ( A Very bad decision in my view)
But is this statement still valid or as another rule change been made since Kickstarter finished:
Chris April 3, 2013 - 5:42 pm The current design is that you can own multiple deeds but you can only claim one lot. you can only trade a deed if it is not attached to a lot.

 

I see it as being very negative if lots become extremely limited or no longer available and you have some players who own several of them. For every one who claims to be a philanthropist, handing out lots to friends, there are going to be those who just hoard them, do nothing useful with them, charge through the nose for newer players to "rent" them, or try to use them as currency for getting others valuable/rare things in the game they want that can't be bought in the store (which could then be construed as pay to win). If this starts happening, you're going to get a lot of disenfranchised players quitting or others never joining because of it.

Personally, I like the idea of limited housing in SotA. It makes it that much more valuable. But there needs to be some fairness and limits to land ownership, so we don't end up with a game divided between the land haves and have-nots. I'll have a real problem with the game if you have a bunch of players who can't have housing through playing, and one of the reasons why is because several individuals bought up multiple lots.

Disclaimer: I'm at a pledge level that gets a deed that comes with everything I'll need as far as housing goes.

 

It was made very clear that some elements will change..........personally I don't really see this as a 'biggy'.

If a player wants to own multiple houses, they will do it regardless what the rule is.

 

You will never be able to limit one house to one person.

If they limit it to one per account, people will just get more accounts.

 

The theory is that if you aren't going to pay money by the time you get to level 20, then you probably aren't hooked enough to spend money afterward. They would have to subsidize your used system resources on their servers to allow you to continue to play.

On the other hand, it's often a plus to have more people online. People are a form of content for others to consume, via PvP or buying and selling items. In a game like SotA, where a majority of the active load is going to be on the client machines, maybe some of the typical limits can be removed to encourage the players to continue playing, even if they aren't allowed to fully use the content. Could one of the limits be no housing? It would be another player that could 'rent' from existing players or in a potential instanced room situation. Not sure it would be worth buying a second lot for, at least in the short term, but maybe.

 

I can't argue against that, but it's no reason to add in the ability to make it easier (and cheaper) by letting them manage all of that on a single account.

If there is a realistic (yes that's subjective) amount of available land for players to come into the game the first few months after release and acquire lots purely through gameplay, I think that's fair enough. To me that's kind of the sweet spot between not enough lots and an over abundance of lots. Then more land should open up with the following episodes (or possibly through special quests/events in Ep. 1).

 

This is no longer a true statement.

You will be able to place all your lots, but only the lot you get from your pledge tier will be tax free. Your add-on lots will be placed after all the pledge tier lot windows, and by that point the highly sought after lots will be all gone. This means that the add-on lots will likely be in the lower-traffic areas, perhaps in the back corners of the settlements. The advantage of owning more than one lot in that case is likely to spread out across the land and make it easier to dump resources. That's not a unique advantage, as anyone with friends they trust could set themselves kindred to each other and share a room or corner for storage.

 

Thing is an account is $45

As it stands a plot half price is $400 or $550 for citizen.

For anyone prepared to purchase another house, $45 is a drop in the ocean. It wont turn people off, they would still spend $445.

 

It's arguable. If someone is going to use a loophole to get around a limitation, then either close that loophole or just open it up so everyone has that advantage. Since it'll be really hard to limit people to one account, might as well just let everyone claim multiple lots. The only reason they might not is because it's extra money for them when people buy another account. On the other hand, there is no subscription so that money is short lived and minimal in the long run. They'd be better off just leaving it be. The person would have to work harder to keep that extra lot anyway, which translates into money sinks, participation content, and perhaps more add-on purchases.