Community Hangout - Towns/Housing

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Violation Clauth, Sep 27, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jatvardur

    Jatvardur Avatar

    Messages:
    2,020
    Likes Received:
    3,002
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CH

    I'm still available, just couldn't make the test.
     
    mbomber and Miracle Dragon like this.
  2. Raven Swiftbow

    Raven Swiftbow Bug Hunter

    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    2,327
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Louisiana
    I would like to participate.
     
  3. Violation Clauth

    Violation Clauth Avatar

    Messages:
    3,247
    Likes Received:
    7,594
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Missunderstood! Corrected, thanks! :)
    Seat saved!
     
  4. Violation Clauth

    Violation Clauth Avatar

    Messages:
    3,247
    Likes Received:
    7,594
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Hangout starts in just about 40 minutes... here's the "watch" link!

     
  5. Jatvardur

    Jatvardur Avatar

    Messages:
    2,020
    Likes Received:
    3,002
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CH
    Live now!
     
    mbomber and Duke Violation like this.
  6. Jatvardur

    Jatvardur Avatar

    Messages:
    2,020
    Likes Received:
    3,002
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CH
    A lot of great topics discussed and quite a lot of points to follow up on. One of the most pertinent is what happens to a town when the owner is missing (or similar). Worth having a topic / poll for that... But I'm off to bed!

    Edit
    Forgot to add, there is a simple solution to pot player banning: instance banning. A player can be banned from the instance of the player town owner. Perhaps the game sets the town owner's instance as the main / master instance. Everyone can join if there is space, unless you are banned.

    This means that the hex is still open to all players but griefers can't run naked and perform "helicopters" at weddings. ;-)
     
    Gaelis, mbomber and Miracle Dragon like this.
  7. Violation Clauth

    Violation Clauth Avatar

    Messages:
    3,247
    Likes Received:
    7,594
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    That's another great option... we had about 80 minutes of chat about this after we went off air and I can say I like some of the things we'll be testing.

    A few of the options at hand:

    Hex ban: the player has been banned from using your hex in OPEN PLAYER ONLINE mode (they can still enter your hex in offline/spo/fpo, just not in opo).
    Guards: Allow the towns to get NPC guards and call them on players.
    Jail: Allow the citizens of the town to arrest people and put them in jail (which basically would temporarily ban them from the hex while their avatar appeared in their jail or something along those lines)
    Towers: Like you see in the pvp arenas currently... player owned towns start with these "anti PK" towers that would discourage people from entering a specific area. If you go into that area while in ACTIVE PVP (not open pvp flagged... but if you engage in combat, like taking a hostile action against someone) the towers would attack you. These towers, like the other buildings, could be upgraded to be very strong (like the current in-game towers two shot you... these could grow to that point as well).

    And now your idea of instance bans...

    I think all have their ups and downs... I think my final idea of the perfect resolve would be something like this:

    All PvP towns CANNOT Ban people.
    All PVE Towns CAN ban people temporarily (30 day max).
    When swapping between PVP/PVE modes your town has it's ban list completely cleared and all bans reset (so that person you banned can come back and attack you when you go into pvp mode).

    I think this is the most fair and balanced system that could benefit both the PvPer and the RPer in this ROLE PLAY GAME environment.

    That's my two cents... everyone else feel free to toss their change in the pot below! :)
     
  8. Miracle Dragon

    Miracle Dragon Legend of the Hearth

    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    6,313
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Currently: Zhongxian, Chongqing, China
    I like the idea of town owners being able to ban others from their personal instance of the town, I wonder if at the same time, they can set themselves to be automatic masters of their own town's instance whenever they come online? (or in the case of Duke Violation, perhaps he would want to set his 'vengeance bot' to be the master)

    I do wonder if this type of banning has the potential to be overly complicated.. Here's an example:
    --------------------
    I live in your player owned town. I made a friend while adventuring in the wilds, who likes to come and visit me often at my home in your town (perhaps as a frequent purchaser of my crafted goods). One day while i'm not online, this particular friend becomes a disturbance and gets themselves instance-banned.. no big deal to them, they really just visit the town to access my vendor anyway..

    Later that same day, I login to the game. Do I suddenly live in a ghost town, because someone on my friend-list who i would frequently be matched with via SPO exists on an empty version of the town instance, so I'm matched onto that same instance? Does this mean I have to un-friend this person in order to continue to live in your town? How would I even figure that out? Will SPO have to make all citizens always exist on the same instance? Does this mean we have to like everyone in our town, or risk missing out on all the main town player-run events?
    -------------------

    These are the questions that run through my head. I hope there are simple solutions to these types of problems. I fear that this type of over-complication has the potential to make the game difficult to enjoy for everyone.
     
    Jatvardur, Gaelis and Net like this.
  9. Net

    Net Avatar

    Messages:
    3,727
    Likes Received:
    11,178
    Trophy Points:
    153
    I think it would be great if towers could be used to ban people. E.g. you could update them with list of people they should attack if they entered the hex/town. They would work for both PvE and PvP towns. (PS: this would sovel Miracle Dragon's problem because he would still visit the main instance but his friend would get killed if they ventured toward the city from the spawn point.

    Anyway I think that PvP towns should have options to ban people to be able to deal with them without attacking them and forcing them to leave. I think that especially smaller towns could have problems with PKs using their towns as training grounds or HQ... It is quite impossible to defend 20 people town against 100 member guild. And forcing them to go into PvE does not seem like the best way to solve potential issues.

    I also would like to see hybrid towns, where PvP is allowed/possible only in the part of the town.
     
  10. Gaelis

    Gaelis Avatar

    Messages:
    902
    Likes Received:
    3,914
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Germany
    Thank you for this hangout, was very interesting to listen to:)

    My thoughts about some things for PoT's :

    -To have not really PoT ghost-towns the nature should be able to reown lots after a while until someone will put a house on it again.
    Means if a lot is unclaimed a while you should see grass and trees, flowers or other things on it ( not really know if this allready happens right now) so it fits to the hex-biom.
    - I would like to see the ability to decorate more than the lots in PoT, to have some decoration which can be placed everywhere ( maybe special decoration marked for outside of lots and given to owners )
    - I would like owners to have permission to put some decoration in their NPC-houses ( or give trusties permission to do so)
    - Owner should be able to bann players from their town if they don't accept town rules ( like "...run naked and perform "helicopters" at weddings")
    - PoT's should be able to have NPC traders which sell the same stuff I can get in NPC-towns
    -huge PoT's should be able to flag only a part of the town for PvP if they like to do so ( with warning like : be careful, you are entering the outlaw zone of the town )
     
  11. Jatvardur

    Jatvardur Avatar

    Messages:
    2,020
    Likes Received:
    3,002
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CH

    Yeah, that's a tricky one. You would normally match instances with friends but if your friend has been banned from a particular instance then it becomes tricky. The simple / naive answer is that your friend's negative rep also affects you because you are hanging out with a 'bad guy', therefore you should keep better company. Don't hang out with murderers if you don't want to be associated with them. However, I don't think the game needs to be that harsh on you.

    It is an interesting dilemma. Let me think this through in stages....

    The instance that your friend is banned from only pertains to that hex. Let's assume (for simplicity) that both of you are logged in but are in an NPC town (so not the town where your friend is banned). If you travel to POT where you friend is banned, and you are not grouped with that friend, then you would be able to enter the master instance. If you are grouped, then perhaps you can enter no problem but your friend can't.

    If you were to log into the game and you last logged out in that town, then you would load that town but you would (presumably) match on your friend first. However, as you are not banned from the master instance then you should have the option to switch. If you were also friends with the town owner then you would (probably) default to the master instance rather than a secondary instance with your friend. I think they game should assume virtue first.
     
    Miracle Dragon and mbomber like this.
  12. Net

    Net Avatar

    Messages:
    3,727
    Likes Received:
    11,178
    Trophy Points:
    153
    I have finally finished watching the whole hangout. It was quite interesting during the end.

    There are imho two major issues with PvP vs PvE on town vs avatar level. The town owners should be able to set rules. However people flagged for open PvP should not have safe zone where they can hide.

    Town owners decisions should have priority imho. They should have several options (preferably for different areas of the town) and same should work for lot owners (with different rules inside of the house, outside of the house and in the basement).
    - No PvP for anyone
    - Avatars can choose whether they are PvP or not (default value)
    - Open PvP

    The issue with avatar based PvP is, that someone who hates PvP will never go into Open PvP town. That is minor issue. The bigger issue is, when someone is flagged for PvP, they should not have safe spots anywhere. They should not have priority over town owner either. So imho avatars flagged for open PvP should be unable to visit No PvP areas at all, unless they get rid of the flag. If they could visit and keep the flag, they could disrupt events. If they visited them and they would go into No PvP mode, they could avoid consequences. So No PvP zones should be closed for them, just like Open PvP zones are unaccessible to people who want to stay in the PvE mode.
     
  13. Sir Frank

    Sir Frank Master of the Mint

    Messages:
    4,065
    Likes Received:
    10,927
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Player owned towns purchased with real cash should never be turned over to other players, or repossessed by Portalarium, unless the owner chooses to transfer ownership.
    If the owner dies, and any remaining residents don't object, then MAYBE it would be ok for Portalarium to take possession and open the plots up to the public.
    There are solo and friend play modes to this game, and player owned towns are supposed to be, among other things, a way for people to have remote housing.

    If I buy a holdfast ,it should always be mine.
    If my holdfast is placed at location x,y, it should always be there.
    If I play Episode 1 and then go inactive for several months to wait for Episode 2, I should not log back in to find other players owning my town or plots in my town.

    There are a few possibilities:

    Ghost town or not, it's a part of the world, and harms nobody being there. It was purchased with real cash, and should remain forever as my mark on a world I helped create. The NPC's will not mind.

    If I am the only person living in my holdfast, it might be packed up after I've been inactive for a while. But when I log in for Episode 2, it should unpack at the same location, just how I left it, so I can continue where I left off. (But really, it should not be packed up.)

    If I let a couple of friends live in my holdfast and then go inactive, my friends should be able to continue to enjoy the private community for as long as they are active. If they go inactive, then the town might be packed up until such time as any of us logged back in to continue the adventure. (But really, it should not be packed up.)

    Players more focused on making Shroud an MMO should not lose sight of the fact that there are solo and friend only modes.
     
    Myrcello, mbomber, cartodude and 7 others like this.
  14. Net

    Net Avatar

    Messages:
    3,727
    Likes Received:
    11,178
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Well, while I agree with most of it, I think that there should be ways for player communities to buy and operate towns, not just single players. And I think that owners should have option to have 'Trustees' who have the same rights as owners.

    POTs owners should also during town creation process select how the town is operated when owner goes missing (e.g. for 6 or more months):
    - Nothing happens
    - Nothing happens as long as owners of lots are active, else...
    - Owners of lots vote for Governor who will have same rights as owners (with the exception of moving/deleting the town).
    - Player X gets the ownership or Trustee status
    - Town goes to Portalarium and turn into NPC/player controlled town
    - Town is deleted

    Also some towns might not want ot have single owner, they might want to have Council or other form of executive power... towns imho should work like guilds rather than like individual lots. Sure some people want to have 100% control over towns they buy and I really support them to have options to do so, but in my experience most of great communities are less absolutist and have several players at top. And some towns might be funded by three or more guilds... these should not have single owner. Rather the owners should have control over various districts of the town. Not sure if such functionality is planned, but I think it could really help in many cases.
     
    Miracle Dragon and Arianna like this.
  15. Sir Frank

    Sir Frank Master of the Mint

    Messages:
    4,065
    Likes Received:
    10,927
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Kansas City

    That's all fine for MMO style play. However, I don't think there is a sane way to have multiple owners of a town. However, if a way can be found, that's great.
    But my point is still that there are solo owners, and their preferences need to be considered.
     
    cartodude, Ronan, Arianna and 2 others like this.
  16. Drocis the Devious

    Drocis the Devious Avatar

    Messages:
    18,188
    Likes Received:
    35,440
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Gender:
    Male

    Agreed. But I'd like to see succession planning tools available for both groups and single player owners.

    As a town owner with a town population of one, I'd like to be able to set some conditions that only occur in the event that I haven't logged in over the course of 18 months.
     
  17. E n v y

    E n v y Avatar

    Messages:
    4,641
    Likes Received:
    12,961
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    England


    I cannot agree more with this.

    I can honestly say that when people start talking about how player towns should be deleted or re-possessed and passed to other players, my blood starts to boil. Even if a player is banned who owns the hex, Portalarium should be talking directly with that player to come to reasonable agreement.

    I am 100% behind options where an owner can sell/pass ownership. I am 100% behind the idea that an owner can give another player permissions without passing ownership. However none of this should ever be compulsory.

    As far as I am concerned, I bought it.......it's mine even if I go inactive for a month, 6 months or years......when I return I expect to be able to walk right back into it. For those who doubt that players will return, all I can say is that I have played UO for about 15 years, I have quit 4 times, I logged in for the first time last week for about a year.
     
  18. Drocis the Devious

    Drocis the Devious Avatar

    Messages:
    18,188
    Likes Received:
    35,440
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Gender:
    Male

    There should be a way for multiple players to share ownership. I'm surprised that Portalarium hasn't developed a way for people to "buy into" a town by purchasing shares. That would give players that don't have $750 to $5000 the ability to secure an investment in the town by paying a smaller share.
     
  19. Jatvardur

    Jatvardur Avatar

    Messages:
    2,020
    Likes Received:
    3,002
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CH
    Naively, player towns are so few that they could be dealt with on a case by case basis. We don't expect many player towns to go inactive all at the same time. Given the level of investment, then a more bespoke solution may be better. No hard and fast system but rather an understanding with the devs. Can handle it all via emails.

    Succession planning doesn't necessitate that a town is lost. Change in ownership could be temporary. And owners could opt out.
     
    mbomber, Miracle Dragon and Net like this.
  20. E n v y

    E n v y Avatar

    Messages:
    4,641
    Likes Received:
    12,961
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    England
    When there is prolong inactivity from a town owner as well as anyone named as having the permissions to administrator the town, I probably wouldn't have any issues for NPC housing to start to appear on empty lots in order that the scene becomes more meaningful. This would be on the basis that as soon as the owner returned, the NPCs could be evicted.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.