I hope that houses are destroyable

OFC if you owned a house and it was destroyed, it's contents would automatically get put in a safe-care for you.

Or, if you failed to pay taxes your house is foreclosed (like near a major hub where rent is inflated).

I would like to see house that are 'flagged' as criminals which can be attacked and looted.

I would like to see houses that are plainly destroyable by some.

Pay taxes and stay good then your house is saved and not attackable...

There could be a number of players revolving around a certain individual's
'hold up' in his house. Attackable yet defended well. Eg, many players trying to take down one powerful individual who has many enemies.
This could be a sort of type of property that is 'flagged' for this sort of thing.
If defeated the area would cease to be occupied by him and new contracts could be made for other players, for example.

 

Will there be a way of self-restoration or auto-reset properties over time?

I know players want to own a home for eternity but IMO I don't really find that feasible or attractive for a online game.

Sure, if you want to develop side-content specifically for 'personalization' then great.

Yet there is still this massive unknown of how central 'hubs' and if openworld will even exist and function.

 

it doesn't make sense
if your house is destroyed, so should all your posetions stored inside the house

have you every seen an earthquake or a tornado that only destroys your house, and leave everything else intact?
of course not
that's just ridiculous.

it's all or nothing.

if you want destroyable houses, you need to have its consequences as well of all destroyed items, that might even implies the Kickstarter items

 

They've stated that housing is not going to be destroyed, but if your village/town/city gets taken over by the 'bad guys' during a siege it can become unavailable until that village/town/city is taken back. This is the PVE aspect of the game.

Now the guild run PVP based cities, sure, make buildings vulnerable. What you will find tho is if possessions will be destroyed, they won't be stored in those buildings. Instead of completely destroying buildings, break them to the point that what's inside becomes lootable possibly. Doors are smashed in, vaults are cracked, etc.

 

Destroyable houses is a bad idea, I can see way too much griefing. I can literally envision large PvP based guilds going around and destroying all the homes in entire villages and towns.

Someone you don't like just bought a house? Destroy, over and over and over again until they quit. I can see so many abusive ways to that.

Now if there were certain, re-determined areas like strongholds and guild cities that were destroyable that had entire guilds protecting it and you knew what you were getting into when you bought it AND there were extra rewards for having it? Oh ya, go destroyable for sure.

Personal homes though? They should be untouchable so long as rent is paid.

 

I agree they should be undestroyable as long as the taxes are current. If they are in default, then sure, why not let it be vulnerable.

 

@AllGamer: some times tornadoes will rip the walls and ceiling off and leave everything, it's been known to happen, not with F5 though, but smaller tornado's

Back to the topic, player houses are immune to damage from sieges, but NPC building are not, because they don't want the player to lose items. A house is a spot to protect your possessions, along with defining who you are, by how you decorate, or make a business.

Also have they said that if your in a town when a siege happens will you get kicked out of the city? I hope their is a warning. that its going to happen like in 15 minutes, so I'm not left outside only with blacksmith tools, to help fight to retake the town.

 

has that question been addressed yet?

logically if a siege happens while we are still in town, we should be locked inside the town, and play town Defence roles

while people stuck outside, they'll play the rescuer / Calvary role to save the people inside the town

 

@AllGamer: they did say our house doors would still be locked, even after the catapults were taken out, we would only be able to access it after the siege was over, be ironic to be locked in ones house or just outside of it during a siege, severely limiting you ability to help

 

I would like to see player housing taking also damage but not completely destroyed during sieges. In my mind it looks silly if only NPC building take the hit. No items would be lost however, only visual effect and maybe some debris to clear up or lift up a knocked over cupboard. Players would then need X amount of certain resources to fix their homes.

 

I think there should be (at least) two tiers of housing:

1) Anything that someone has payed real life money for shouldn't be destroyed. Whether this is KS or some future cash shop.
2) Some housing should be associated with guilds winning and losing sieges. So If my guild owns castles x, there should be a nice house for some number (not necessarily all) to live there. But those are subject o me holding the territory. I'm willing to accept that some box of stuff is magically saved. But random furniture, etc should probably be lost.

 

Home repair doesn't sound too bad. We will already be denied access to our homes during a siege, so short-term consequences of a siege are already under consideration.

PvE sieges feel different to me than PvP damage to a building.

 

I don't like this idea that houses can be destroyed by being attacked by human players. Houses behind on taxes should be foreclosed on by the city and auctioned off. Contents of the house could either be included or returned to the original owners bank (space permitting). I lean towards the side of including.

I'm interested to talk more about damage to houses though. I only see this as an inconvenience and basically just another tax to owning a house. What sort of game mechanics can be achieved when a house is damaged? Basically people will have extra incentive to protect their village/town/city so their house doesn't incur damage and an additional money sink for repairs. I already think there is enough incentive for fighting off these attacks for the simple fact that your house becomes inaccessible if the town is overtaken so protecting it from damage hardly adds much given the circumstances of what happens if you lose the town.

 

I like the idea of house damage, but not house destruction. It's the old argument of realism vs fun/gameplay. Most games don't force you to eat and drink every few game hours in order to keep your character alive, as this is not fun. Losing your hard-won, or very expensive house due to events largely outside your control would make many people want to quit playing altogether. However, being overwhelmed in a siege, or not defending well enough could very well take your house down a level, or cause damages that need to be repaired.

 

Pls no destructable houses
It will be exploited in a very bad way

 

My initial thought was exactly to introduce the house damage for immersion reasons. It just adds a nice touch to "realism" if you wish. As a game mechanism, yes it would probably be just a money/resource sink hole and i can understand that some players might see it only as an inconvenience, the same as eating or drinking to stay alive or healthy (personally i love these small basic things).

But yes, taking down a house level if there would be such sounds like a good suggestion too. Maybe the repairs could be a community effort so no individual should carry a burden. The village could have a total amount of certain resources needed for repairs and anybody could contribute to benefit all.

I'd like to hear more ideas about this topic also.

 

Probably there would be no random destroying of homes which are owned and maintained but in some circumstances could become vulnerable

- player home is abandoned and/or cluttering the world in which case a whole city could vote to destroy the building
- player has accepted and lost some sort of duel or war in which case a certain amount of time is alloted to take ownership. If ownership is taken then building can be destroyed

I see this as something that could also happen over the longer term as opposed to instantly destroying a home. Example being a group of player literally attacking squares of the building 100's or 1000's of times to destroy one small piece.

Also keep in mind that a home under protection (home upgrade?) of the city guards will not be attacked without being attacked by city guards.

 

Not only do I hope this does not happen, I would be very surprised if it did. Considering that ability to place items anywhere for decorative purposes someone may have spent hours and hours setting up their home just so and any function of destruction would undo that time spent.

Neat idea but I'm afraid it's unworkable in a practical way.

 

I'm a UO Pre-trammel fan and open world PvP advocate, however, I think destructible homes don't really have a place here.

*UNLESS* the devs devised some system where some homes *could* be destroyed, like those in a guild at full war with another guild and understand the consequences involved.

Otherwise, for the most part, players invest heavily in decorating their homes and showcasing rares. Having all homes so easily destroyed would take away from this aspect.

House decay and house looting are a whole different issue. I think some of the scenarios you mentioned would fit best for house decay. Perhaps after one doesn't pay rent after X days.

 

Damaged houses after a siege I could go for. However, completely destroying houses I'm not a fan of.

Go ahead and destroy public buildings that would need to be rebuilt or repaired. Make an event out of it. The more you rebuild, repair, or improve after a seige, the better village/town/city gets. But leave the player houses alone.

-my 2 coppers