Houses are in limited quantity? ? (Dev) Replied

Can someone explain this because I seriously want to own a house in this game and I'm sure tons of other people will too. Understanding that some people won't but they aren't involved in the scope of my question... So if there's a limited quantity of houses per town and only so many towns in the world then I guess this means lots of homeless people in SOTA?

If I can't own a house in this game then I won't play the game.. simple as that.. I'm all more for "living" in the game than playing the game..

Also.. is the only way to guarantee I'll get a house is to spend $500 on the "Citizen" pledge or will there be other and possibly cheaper options?

 

I hope so too. I don't look forward to having to fight other players for even the most basic housing location.

Considering how heavily this game utilises instancing I'd say adding additional housing land is completely within control of the dev team.

 

This is a concern for me, I do like the housing thing.

 

Why did you get the notion that houses are limited?
They might be limited per city, which is logical. But I doubt they're finite as in they'll keep adding cities and content so you'll have plenty more possible lots to buy a house in.
I don't think they're going to deny any player from attaining their own personal house.

 

Ori Klein> One of the 4 original SOTA Kickstarter videos.. can't remember which but RG specifically said houses will be of limited quantity and that not everyone will get one. So, assuming other people also watched that video or maybe yet another video where RG might have elaborated further on this.. ? Was the inspiration to my question.

 

The statement (and also as it came to pass in the history of UO, for example) is that housing will be limited in the beginning, and later will have more availability. The housing wasn't said to be limited to cities, and if this works like UO did, there were areas all over the 'world', along lonely roads, near dangerous places, etc., where houses/buildings could be placed. There was also the option of laying out your bedroll, building a campfire, and logging out safely. You also had the option in UO to log out inside of an Inn, or even in a bank safely. I have confidence that everyone will eventually be able to earn in-game gold and buy some type of house/building, or go in as co-owners, etc. Don't panic!

 

As per the Kickstarter page, it clearly details Housing as it will be implemented.

There will be a few thousand Village homes available, a few hundred Town Homes, and a few dozen City homes. Houses will only be in those three locations. Below is the exact wording on Housing from the KS page.

<blockquote>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.)

Once a house is purchased, players will need to pay regular taxes on it of course. But as a special thank you to select Kickstarter supporters, all housing obtained by making a Kickstarter pledge of Citizen, Lord, Baron, Duke or Lord of the Manor will be tax free for life! </blockquote>

 

With over 10,000 backers already, "a few thousand" village houses isn't going to cut it. I can certainly understand limiting the higher tier housing areas like cities and towns, but there are going to be a lot of disappointed players if they can't even place a village house. I understand that housing needs to be somewhat limited in order for real estate to have value, but that also needs to be balanced with giving everyone a fair opportunity to obtain some type of housing.

 

Fireangel&gt; Thank you.. my mind is more at ease now.. I was sooo sleepy earlier today when I replied to Ori Klein.. I don't even know now if I watched Richard say it in a video but I knew I read or saw it somewhere and I found it clearly states what I was getting at on the main Kickstarter page (under Player Housing).. but anyway, I understand now it was 'only' the houses available in the cities which would be limited and I didn't understand then there would also be an 'un-limited' amount of personal housing plots that anyone could buy, which I have no problem spending money for a house plot and in fact I kinda like that better cause it ensures it to be mine.

 

Housing will always be a difficult concept in online games and even though the initial rules are already outlined, they can always (and to my opinion will always) change.

It seems logical to me that, if the buildings are on common terrain, only a percentage of the players will have access to housing. This implies that when the player community changes size, the number of available houses should be kept proportional.

If the above holds up, all vacant plots will be taken up very quickly and getting a house, will probably mean that someone else loses it.
How this is going to be handled will be an important (and difficult to balance) mechanic of the game economy.

In the rules summed up by Liavain from the Kickstarter page the words "protection" and "taxes" stand out. Maybe less protected houses can be attacked in some way that make them available again. Failure to pay taxes (hopefully in ingame gold), can forfeit ownership, etc.

We'll have to wait and see...

 

I think "Protection" refers to the sieges that happen to some towns. If you watch one of the videos with him playing he talks about one town having a lightning field (tesla coil?) built that protects the town reducing the chances it gets sieged. Not that the house goes away but that it becomes unusable until someone saves the town from the siege. My guess is capital cities almost never get sieged whereas frontiers do get sieged more frequently.

Personally, I'd prefer some scarcity. One of the things that eventually killed Ultima Online was the fact that players became dispersed. Areas became completely empty because their were too many places to go and not enough players to fill up the world space.

 

I do have a problem with housing, in that I fear it could be overdone/overpopulated.

Let me explain.

I was in UO from the very beginning. As a European player I initially joined a US server because of course we didn't have a Euro server. I was there when the Euro servers launched. I was there for the Abyss server, which let me tell you was about the funniest thing I ever experienced. And I was there when the shards split into the two worlds.

Be that as it may, the single biggest problem I ever had was with housing. I was always a more casual than hardcore player, so naturally I rarely had any cash. I didn't have a mule or a toon for mining or tailoring, I did it all with my main toon.

So when I finally DID have the cash, there was nowhere to place a house. Nowhere. I carried that deed for a long time and man it was tough.

So my problem with housing is this. In this modern age with gold farmers, people who will play 24/7 and with greater than ever connectivity, it's my belief that unless how housing is handled has a radical overhaul from the UO days and is made fairer and more open to the more casual gamer, then very, very quickly we will have house saturation and the likes of me will never ever own a house.

Any thoughts?

 

My understandings it there are limited city, town and village houses because there is obviously only going to be so much space. I guess after that houses can go in random areas?

 

I'm very, very confused, so please someone explain this to me. I get that a game being created by "Lord British" has appeal, especially to those of us who have fond memories of UO online or even his single player role playing games.

I digress but is it safe to assume he has no legal rights to use any UO online intellectual property so this will have to be new creation.

My point here is reading the descriptions and watching the sometimes painful videos, Lord British and his staff have clearly said that this is a "single player" game. It is not an MMO. He has stated that the game will have a start and definite end to the story and the game. Unlike online persistent worlds. They also have mentioned that there may be some multi-player ability to the single player game. Heck, if you listen to the interviews this game is no where near being fleshed out let alone near completion. So anything that's is said by them is just pure speculation on thier part. Listen to thier interviews, they haven't even picked a combat system and for lack of a better term called it as I recall a card deck combat system...uhm ok.

At any rate, getting to my point about housing. If this is a single player game then why in the world and what kind of sense would it make to have limited housing in which I have to compete with other single players? If this was a online world then maybe it makes sense to have limited housing in some ways but in a single player game?

If its a single player game and you want to tax my house, ok I'll buy into it I guess. But unless I'm missing something here and I very well maybe, doesn't it seem awfully disingenuous to purposely limited housing in a single player game and then use that as one of the main draws to get players to contribute real money to the development of the game?

Now I can see maybe paying in advance for housing in a really great game knowing that the housing would be limited in an ongoing online game. But in a single player game that after I've played it through once I doubt I'll play again.

Someone set me straight as to why I should pay money for housing in a single player game?

Thanks,

Hurchu

 

Can players own more than one house? Could we end up with a situation where relatively few in-game wealthy people end up hoarding them, and auctioning them off for real money?

 

I hope we can own more than 1 lot. I'd love to roll play Donald Trump of the 14th Century.

 

Hurchu - Your post echoes my confusion about housing. I don't understand how persistent housing fits into the game model that has been described. I'm sure there are reasons to explain why housing is being setup the way it is, but I sure can't figure them out.

I hope we get some clarification soon in the form of a Kickstarter update. I think more people would be willing to spend a larger amount for a donation if they knew what the actual purpose of owning a house is.

 

Hurchu - exactly the question I have.

 

@Hurchu It doesn't appear to be a "single" player game. It appears from what I've seen so far is that it has a single player mode, and an Online mode. The online mode will have a single player plot-line however you will absolutely encounter others real players in game.

Best part about the single player plot is that you don't have to form a party to resolve or "finish" the game. However there is other elements that I heard mentioned which for instance "zoom into a forest zone and chop down trees for resources". To me that sounds like apart from the game "plot line" you can gather resources and build things to be sold or used.

So the single player idea seemed to me that it is referring to the plot of the game rather than the entire world experience. I seriously doubt that if you finish the plotline you will see credits and the game just stops on you. I think it is highly likely you can get involved in many social aspects as I'm assuming they will reveal as time goes on.

 

Owning a house is not going to be necessary for the game story. They are more for the people that are going to invest the time like they would in a MMO. If it is important to you, you may have to work for it. Hopefully, you'll be able to share a house with "roommates" just like in real life. Or join a big guild in a city.

I'm hoping (and will be pushing for during development) to be able to rent rooms in my house. That would be a good way to help with housing shortages.