PETITION/POLL: Please Portalarium put a hard cap on sales of Player Owned Towns

Land should be rarer than a "deed".

Also, whats worse than a land rush?......that will be ghost towns.

 

... except nobody wants to be able to buy a deed and not be able to place it. Port has stated that all deeds will be place-able. They don't want 100 village deeds to be bought but only 50 lots in the game to place them.

Deeds and lots should be 1:1. How many total lots/deeds should be available is the real debate and everyone has a different meaning to 'rare'. Is it 1% of total player base? 10%, 20%? What constitutes rare? I myself don't really know what would be a fair meaning to 'rare' yet.

 

Just to point out.... yes there will be ghost towns since POT's were introduced... can't get around it now. Port only promised limits based on the NPC towns for Lot/Deeds (ie there would be enough lots in NPC towns to place all the deeds)... but now that POT's exist there are more places to place those deeds (since they have not said they were increasing the number of deeds.)

 

So here's the current breakdown...
Store= total lots available in store.
Pledge 1 = totals lots provided to pledges (initial primary lot)
Pledge 2 = new secondary lots made available to some pledge levels)
(numbers based on Dallas's post in May 2015 of pledge counts...)

Lots:.......Row.....Village.....Town.....City.....Keep.....Castle
Store.........1000...........450...........100..........50...........0..............0
Pledge 1.....1106..........1866..........547...........83.......107............33
Pledge 2.....290............327............33.............0...........0.............0
totals:.....2396......2643.......680......133.......107.........33

Total lots: 5992

What throws this off is the unlimited lots available in game right now to be purchased. But in any case Port would need to plan on there being at least 5992 lots available in NPC towns by launch for all the ones that have been pledged or available in the store. Now if we only ever get 20k players that's a 30% availability... not very rare... but if there are 100k that's 6%... etc... rarity depends on the total size of the player base.

POT's don't actually impact the rarity of housing... just the number of places to place those houses.

(ps... sorry for the messy chart... trying to figure out how to get it to display... it looks ok in the editor but messes up on saving. Oh and my spread sheet messed up... fixing the numbers sorry... totals are correct now.)

 

No worries about going off-topic. Had it been my forum such a concept wouldn't exist nor be moderated.
Discussions need to go down new paths as well, and they usually divert back after a while.

Please note that I still think that Portalarium should hard cap them right now so that they can wait and see how successful they are at launch thus how many players and also how fast lots are taken.
Then with the market data they can adjust to that and either start selling more or not.

For longevity of the game I think it is more important at this point that Portalarium creates game-owned lot-towns, that can be rented or earned trough game play, not purely through purchase.

Like I said upstream, what happens if Notch shows up and purchase 250/500/1000 more pots? Then land lot rarity would plummet.
So they cannot have unlimited pots, there must be some breaking point.

 

These are great additional questions... my thread for POT questions kind of faded out...

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...estions-based-on-latest-update-on-pots.33850/

 

I would vote to put a hard cap on them but let's face it....it doesn't matter anymore. Whether they were simply not aware or it was done purposely, the selling of 230 POTs forced the decision to create instanced towns which allows them to keep selling POTs with no end in sight.

Also you bring up the big thing of simple Player Towns which are there just for player housing. Is that a thing that will happen or not because the world will be littered with mostly useless POTs?

What about the ability for players to buy POTs with in game gold? Is that still going to happen? I suppose so with instanced towns, but it means earning it through gameplay will not get you a town on the overland map.

 

It's possible that a number of overworld map locations are being reserved for in-game purchased POTs. I would hope at least one per region.

 

Unknown. They havent said anything about player lot towns since we were at 100 pots.
I like Miracle Dragon truly hope that they have planned for a bunch of game owned towns on the map which can be earned control over through game play.
But it's another unknown at this point.

 

"instanced towns" <-- not a thing lol

 

At this point, I guess we should be more specific with our labeling. All the towns in this game are instanced. But none of them are what we experience in most MMO's, where there's one in-game 'entrance', and everyone using this entrance goes to their own individual private copy of an instance.

The Devs consider basements 'instanced' because they aren't in the same instance as their house counterparts, they exist in their very own individual instances. But each basement still has it's own individual 'entrance' from the game world.

As of release 19, the closest the game has come to 'nested instances' is the Clink, or Sewers or a dungeon - all of which make sense to be nested. In most cases, nesting towns inside each other just doesn't make sense to me. And it takes away from the legitimacy of having an 'overworld map'.

 

Is just suburbs of a city really, i guess it will depend on how people set them up.

 

lol, actually they are quite literally instanced towns but what concerns me more is the idea that unlimited land for both POTs and housing space is being created here. It is being done without any rhyme or reason on the overland map to give any sense to player that there is indeed limited land to build which was one of the selling points of SotA.

 

only instanced in the sense that all scenes are, not how you are suggesting.

 

The way I see it, you need to have something in existence first before it expands.

Like my waistline.

 

I'm not sure how it became a main point except in your own mind. I didn't see anyone here saying POTs were the only reason game progress is delayed.

My own opinion is, if even one hour towards a KS appeal is delayed due to a non-stated selling feature, it's a delay. POTs are not the only reason for this.

 

It's usually a rare day when I agree with TEK, but here it is.

Although I'm not opposed to instancing, if it meets the needs of people and attracts more customers. What I do see is a shift away from what was originally intended for housing, even though I have strongly disagreed with what they originally intended.

POTs added a layer that is so complicated and throws a wrench in so many systems, I just get more confused the more I think about it.

 

So I look at the map of Novia now and it looks fairly busy with PoTs........then I remember that only half have been added.......that's kind of worrying.

There is no question in my mind about PoTs being oversold; this really is not a good thing as not only does it look bad but will probably have an effect on future funding for the game.

PoTs with no map access may well as be instanced housing areas.............you know one of those areas that made housing meaningless in most other games.

 

I disagree. I do not think they need to place that many lots in npc towns. I do think the pots should also be considered in the count. I do think that keep and castle lots will need to be carefully watched though. With so many pot owners there will be city governors begging for players to join their city. If there is a problem in the land rush, then sota should have backup residential areas they could lay down like they had before. I do wonder if they will allow the pot owners to lay out their town before the land rush if they want to, place names on lots, and/or designate the lots open to claim by anyone during the land rush.

 

Except. In. My. Own. Mind. Nice. LOL!! Such a way with words.

Actually, my mind aside, I added *qualifiers* because my original statement was this: "My point remains - PoT implementation is NOT the culprit when it comes to a delay of game release. End. Of. Story."

I felt it needed clarification based on this reply from Ashlynn

So there you have it. Nothing nefarious. Nothing odd going on in my mind. Just a simple courtesy of adding some qualifiers to my post to acknowledge what Ashlynn said.