1 Instanced House Per Account

It fits the evil instances narrative better if you describe them as unwanted places you go to hide, instead of, say, a personal place where you can express yourself and display your achievements.

 

That sounds like some kind of disingenuous word manipulation for the purpose or trivializing and marginalizing your opponent into silence or something...
"Speak With Virtue"...

 

Hmmmm, somewhat similar to people, who are not moderators, coming in the forum accusing others of beating dead horses......the same people who usually do so........beating their own dead horses

 

Indeed. The side that doesn't want instanced housing at all tends to spin it as something that will keep people from interacting. I don't see instanced housing as much different than the houses. I am willing to bet that most people don't have their permissions set for the general public to enter. Maybe I'm wrong. It's true, people will spend time in their static houses/instanced rooms, but they won't be able to stay there forever. There will be other virtual human to virtual human interaction on some level. I don't know that anyone who logs into a game and spends any decent length of time in it would be able to go with zero interaction at all, every single time. It's not in our nature to do that. So on the whole, I think we'll be OK.

Now, regarding 1 instanced house per account, I don't think they should be full-on houses, nor do I think rooms should be granted to people. I think they should be rentable and not ownable and fill a void between zero ownership and static house ownership.

 

I agree.

I also believe it's most people's nature not to barge into other people's houses uninvited, so staying in your own "house" will be just as likely to close off interaction with other persons (not to mention the Single-Player and Friends-Only options that SoTA offers, and especially the Single Off-Line aspect).
Also, many people will spend their time soloing or with close friends and guildmates, they will also not be in town hobknobbing during the entire time they are logged in.

So really any talk or excuses about anything causing non-social behavior is really not even applicable to This game, SoTA at it's core is designed to eliminate and/or reduce social interaction and the need to interact directly with other players.

 

I'm not a fan of instanced housing, because I do like houses to actually be in the world. If there is a demand for more houses, I think more house plots should be opened. Let the towns grow or make new towns.

That being said, I do like the concept of instanced rooms for rent at the local Inn... I don't think that is too much to ask. It's like a Bank++.

 

Im all for them gettig funding but it seems a bit overboard especially after they hit 3 mil and they just keep widening the gap between haves and have nots

 

Most of the homeless people in UO were new players. Housing was always a goal to work towards. I guess this is anecdotal, but I never knew anyone in UO who had played for 6+ months and didn't have at least a one room house. Once you had played a while and earned enough money, there was always a chance to buy or place a house, because players were constantly selling old houses (either to move to a bigger house or because they were leaving the game) and abandoned houses were constantly decaying. In fact it was when UO disabled house decay for well over a year at one point that the house prices on eBay really exploded - the in game prices buying from other players also greatly rose during that time of course. So house decay was a good thing and helped keep prices in check, while also allowing players a chance at the fun of placing their own house. In my early UO days, I spent plenty of time camping house decays (mostly for the loot) and there usually weren't more than 1-2 other people at a typical decay site unless it was a well known house (maybe with popular vendors) or very close to town. Again, anecdotal, but that was my usual experience. Many times, I was the only one at the decay site when the house actually fell.

Players hoarding houses was more of a problem in the earlier days, as once UO implemented a one house per account rule, it became much harder to hoard them. Sure you could still hoard, but you were going to be paying to keep more accounts open. However, I am in full agreement with you that any game with player housing needs to have ways to prevent players from hoarding houses. One house per account, upkeep costs, and so on.

Trammel housing in UO was a mess because they opened way too much of it up at one time and the servers were overloaded (even though they rolled it on in phases according to house size). Also, a lot of people were on dialup back then. So yes, lag was unfortunately a major factor but even then, houses were not gone in hours. For weeks after they opened Trammel housing, you could still find spots to place small houses out in the wilderness if you went hunting for them. I know because although I already had a house at that point, I helped friends find spots for smaller houses for a long time after that. And within a few months after they opened Trammel housing, you were already seeing quite a few of those new houses decay, presenting new opportunities to place.

Now, to chime in on the original point of this thread... I don't like instanced housing at all. I feel that the whole point of player housing is lost if it's instanced. To me, ideal player housing is 1. a goal you have to work towards, and 2. the house is an actual part of the game world that everyone else can see. Owning a house should feel like an accomplishment that you can be proud of, and it should make you feel like you really live in this game world that you are playing in. Buying more bank storage (using in game currency), renting rooms at inns... things like that and more are all viable options for people while they are working towards owning a home. But instanced housing, especially instanced housing that everyone automatically gets, just waters down the entire concept of housing.

 

Apparently you weren't aware of all the Ebay house sales. Your experience is different, but it does not mean it was the same experience for every person, on every shard. There was such a housing shortage (in Trammel mostly) that people were selling them for cash on Ebay. One must take this into account, because accounts were banned over this practice. It wasn't a small problem. It was a huge problem.

Then if you don't like instanced housing, no one would require you to purchase it. The option should be there for those who would want it.

If people like the idea of rare housing, they will like Richard Garriott's plans for housing:

"Deeds are the crucial part of housing. You need one to claim a lot of land to build a house on it, and there are "reasonable odds" that all the deeds will be taken by Kickstarter backers by the time Shroud launches. This is because housing is persistent on Portalarium's servers and so manifests in a tangible cost."

"If you remember in Ultima Online, real estate was actually one of the highest value real-world money transactions that ever took place in the game," Garriott recalled. "The real estate in Shroud of the Avatar is far more limited than it was even in UO."

"Garriott seemed to be suggesting a real-money transaction for a house there, but a subsequent post about housing on Kickstarter didn't mention it. There it says new deeds may come available for in-game currency but they'll be rare and cost, likely, an arm and a leg."

Why create a problem before the game even launches? Apparently they believe it's a great & innovative idea. These quotes were from the article, Richard Garriott's Shroud of the Avatar: What's the Big Idea.

 

I am all for Portalarium selling anything & everything in our online store and the thought of somehow restricting someone's game play to help them feel the way you want them to feel is shear rubbish. "You" can play however "you" wish to play and so can everyone enjoy their own style of play. Want to buy a house or house plot in the online store, "then great", because it helps buy the new shoes for our Portalaium Employee's families and helps us keep them hard at work on our game. On the other hand if you want to work your chr hard in-game to be able to afford such a thing as a home & lot, "then that's fine too". But the thought that we wish to control and manipulate anyone to somehow give up real money to play our game and then set constricting rules just takes away from the appeal of some that may have wished to buy into it.

If you want another house then buy another account... and if you're poor, then go out each morning and help the paperboy because the cost of an account is very cheap... then work really hard in game in gaining some in-game currency and buy that second house that you've always wished for, or go back and ask the paperboy if you can stay on with him a bit longer and buy it in the online store.

There's no monthly fee for this game you know
This message is sponsored by;
"The Help Feed the Starving Portalarium Kids Foundation"
*They'll be glad you did
~Time Lord~

 

I was definitely aware of the eBay sales; probably more aware than most. UO had a more thriving eBay market than any online game before or since. I was a rares trader in UO, and even though I dealt only in in-game trades, I always kept an eye on eBay prices as a baseline. People sold houses on eBay long before Trammel. Like I said, the eBay market in UO was a thriving one and even people who didn't buy things on eBay often sold their stuff on eBay when they stopped playing. There being a "housing shortage on Trammel" was not a reason people sold houses on eBay - the fact that people were willing to pay cash for them at all was the only reason necessary, and like I said they were doing it long before Trammel. What did happen as a result of Trammel was major inflation because gold was so much easier to obtain without fear of being PK'ed. That was a much more serious problem affecting the price of obtaining housing from other players. Also, as I said, the fact that they turned off house decay for so long (if I remember correctly it was off from late 2000 until mid-2002) made the eBay prices skyrocket, because you couldn't place after decays anymore. But again, people would be selling the houses on eBay regardless, just as they sold everything else in the game on eBay. There was a much more significant housing shortage BEFORE Trammel, because they doubled the entire landmass with Trammel. But houses actually sold for less before Trammel, both in-game and on eBay. Again, that's mainly because of the inflation Trammel introduced as well as house decay being turned off.

Normally I am someone who prefers more options as well. I just think that rather than instanced housing, the other options that people have mentioned like rentable inn rooms, options to increase bank storage, and so on are better solutions. I am always in favor of having as persistent of a game world as possible in an MMO. Things that are instanced ruin immersion.

We are getting into two different issues here. That of instanced housing, and that of housing being too rare and/or being overly expensive and/or only being available for cash. Now, one may say that the former is a proposed solution to the latter. I agree that the latter is a problem, I just disagree on the solution. Instanced housing is very non-immersive and, if it's just automatically available to everyone, it does water down the concept of housing somewhat. But at the same time, I do share your concerns that housing in SotA will be too limited/expensive. I am more than willing to work for a house. In fact I like having that goal to work for. It's so much more of a worthwhile goal than just grinding away in the typical MMO to do nothing but gain another level. But housing can't be only available for real cash, as that also ruins immersion, and ruins the satisfaction of earning it in the game world. There should be nothing you can't earn completely with in-game currency and a reasonable amount of effort. Backers getting their first pick of lots is a great reward, but deeds being available only to backers is a problem for sure. And, while I feel that housing should be limited, and that it shouldn't be the case that 100% of people can all easily get a house without much effort, I do feel that if only a very small percentage of players can ever own a house, that's a problem as well.

 

richard garriott's idea for housing in this game is awesome. housing needs to be rare and meaningful and it needs to be a persistent part of the world. this gives people goals to work towards. it creates all kinds of social gameplay situations.


instanced housing is just totally worthless. no one will ever see it, it wont be part of the world and if everyone gets it then it's not special or meaningful.


what i really like is how he plans to make housing even more rare than it was in uo. a big downfall in uo was that they opened up way too much housing space.


believe me, you will love this housing system, when one day you only get a small one room house in a nicely laid out neighborhood then it will be tons more meaningful and cool than some crappy instanced house

 

I've played many games where there was instanced housing or events. It never ruined my gameplay.

Maybe it does for you, which is why you wouldn't participate in that if it became available.

It wouldn't ruin immersion for me.

 

To who? It wouldn't be worthless to me.

If you wouldn't ever see it, then it would never interfere with your personal "immersive" world.

No one suggested that everyone should or would "get it."

What I really like is how I won't waste more money backing or playing a game because of this. I simply won't play.

No thanks, I'll pass. I won't love it.

 

I don't mind housing being rare...within reason. All of these announcements and videos showing off the housing mean absolutely nothing if only a small percentage of the players have houses. Why would they spend so much development time on the housing feature if only a small percentage will actually get to use the feature? We all know that if only a small percentage of people of houses, people will be upset. But I'm sure that desires for revenue will have SotA adding more housing.

Poor carpenters...where will they put all those chairs they are making?

 

Well... Strictly speaking, that was done because many backers were basing their pledge level on how the housing turned out. The more depth and detail the devs added to the system, the more money they could garner in the early days.

The hex map world allows for a lot of flexibility in adding more town maps once the current set of them sells out. I'm sure there will be plenty for anyone actually interested in purchasing one in-game after release.

 

********
I hear you. I don't know why the pessimism on housing. It is disheartening, and poor publicity for the game to not focus on the possibilities of this game instead. So some will buy their house offline and some will work their way to it in game. There will be extra houses from peoples tiers perhaps that will be available somehow also. It is all going to work out. Why not focus on great ideas for our game?

 

You must have missed the quote I said above, by Richard Garriott: "there are 'reasonable odds' that all the deeds will be taken by Kickstarter backers by the time Shroud launches. This is because housing is persistent on Portalarium's servers and so manifests in a tangible cost."

New deeds may become available, but RG wants them to be rare.

In Kickstarter, the higher (housing) pledged tiers amounted to roughly 40% of funds. If the majority of housing is already paid for before the game launches, then how was this a wise business choice? The funds are already spent, with no future money coming in because there will be no more deeds to buy for real dollars. Unless they create either a black market or people start selling their houses on Ebay or the like.

To allow people more than one house per account increases the rarity. Again, not a wise choice. But there it is.

 

What makes you think I haven't?
In the past it's been my personal experience that some people actively try to grind out ideas that they don't like even if it wouldn't affect them in any way.
I suggested several times this idea...
~Perma-Death OPTION for off-line play.~
In no way would someone's off-line game affect anyone elses on-line or off-line game and it's strictly an "OPTION" , you would NEVER have to do it.

This was met by forum members repeatedly telling me that it is
-a waste of Devs time and effort
-a waste of backer's money (I'm a backer?)
-a waste of pixles...said on more than one occasion "PIXLES"
-just delete your character and start over-quit wasting everyone's time. (that's not how perma-death works and nobody who takes the time to play or even look it up would suggest it)
-you (as in me) don't belong here
-you (as in me) should sell your account

In many cases of dismissal and negative reception there were some of the same people who are non-stop on about Concentual/Non-Concentual FullLoot PvP.( Their version of risk vs reward is weak)
And also many people who only want to craft and not be fighters.
It was suggested as an "Optional" "OPTION".
Why continue to give ideas when they are drowned out or actively stomped on by other forum members?

Oh...we could be allowed to be Elves and Dwarves like in every other game, but RG put his foot down on that too.
So the only thing left is to do what Chris Spears asked us to do...point out potential flaws and let them know what might need to be looked at...that or sell my account because I 've been told I don't belong here...

 

***************
lol. Yes I know what you mean. My great ideas are not always popular. My showy armor is very unpopular by some, but oh well we keep trying.