"Player housing major part of game" (from 6 month demo)

I think Garriot will have to verify either way, if he didnt say that on video?! Still id like to hear it from him, so we can settle monthly fee or not!

 

Im not asking to play for free I played UO for 7 years and still go in now and again also LOTRO was subscription based when it was released I was far happier to pay the subs for it than I am now it's so called Play for Free. Its now just a dumbed down game for the masses I want a game for the serious gamer.

They can keep the shop and sell junk anyone will pay for that does not have an impact on any other players..
I don't want them selling Land Plots they should be only for sale within the game, They are not unlimited fancy trash items that anyone can design today and just stick in a shop.
And each account should be limited to one Plot

When I'm described as whinging, a Troll or someone who wants something for nothing, It will not change my views because they prefer to feel there money makes their voice stronger than mine.

 

I don't thing there will be a required monthly fee to PLAY the game... However, it sounds like (and reasonably so) that some elements we may opt into may have a monthly upkeep attached, possibly interchangeably between in-game currency and real cash.

For example... Let's say we have gold, silver and copper coins, which are really representative of a X,YYY.ZZ approach. Upkeep of a house may cost something like 5 gold or $5.00. If one is able to generate enough gold in a month, he can use that. Or pay $5. It's not really that much, when you think about it. those dedicated to gameplay should be able to earn at least 5 gold in a month.

As a balancing factor, when going to pay upkeep, it should always deduct gold before requiring real money. Say I have accumulated 2 gold. I would only need to pay $3 in upkeep instead of $5. This balances the equation so that one cannot horde gold and just pay with real money. Gold would be the primary currency. Output of coin rewards in a 30-day period by the game should be optimized around a minimum amount of upkeep requirements. This way, one person with one house that requires upkeep should be able to fully cover that upkeep through one month of dedicated play, thus not having to pay a penny of real money. Those who play less or who go beyond just one house would have to pay something to cover upkeep. This right there would discourage a lot of people from buying up multiple lots, post launch. We know that upkeep won't have to be paid on houses obtained by backers. But for the average player who comes in, likely not wanting to spend any real money beyond the purchase of the game, then they will likely CHOOSE to stick only with one plot and one house, which is realistically manageable through gameplay only, or simply not to obtain a house.

This makes it so that while some things might end up costing some real money to maintain, it will be entirely optional, It would not be a subscription, but it wouldn't be free to play, either. Depending on how deeply involved people want to be...

And this is all the more reason why Portalarium should seriously consider expanding on lot availability as soon as all pre-existing lots are bought up.

Also... Sale of lots should be facilitated by the game. As in I put my lot up for sale. The GAME would dictate the max price, equal to how much gold went into it. And another player could buy it from the game. I could not get back any more than I put in. That means the longer I have owned a lot the more I could ask for it. But just because I might ask for the maximum amount possible doesn't mean I should expect someone to pay it. But the sale of lots from one player to the other should be facilitated directly by the game.

 

Let's just say that the monthly upkeep fee serves the purpose of making sure that inactive players don't lock up lots. Lest people start whining about this too, remember that the person doesn't lose their property deed (the ability to place a house) or any of the stuff in the house (which persists in inventory), just the actual placement. If another lot opens they can plunk down there as they were before.

The upkeep fee also can be paid with in-game currency which gives players an incentive to be active in the world and not just log on once a month to keep from going inactive. This is one area where I want the fee, but not payable in real money because then inactive players who log in once a month to keep paying fees can just sit on houses. Even tax free lots from founders revert after a long period of inactivity.

I think there is a great balance with limited lots and with the fees in creating manageable, active settlements. Please no open housing so that one-day players can clutter up the world. Please no ghost towns full of houses with inactive players. Both extremes need to be avoided.

One thing that all the complainers on here don't realize is that the way it is being designed is to encourage active and interesting communities in the world. Having everything available to everyone sadly does not do it. I'm all for multiplayer games favoring active and committed players and rewarding them when they are and limiting them when they aren't.

 

I have to disagree with you on this point as multiple plots brought for $$ does not encourage an active and interesting community.
And no I don't want everyone to get a house, I want them to compete with everyone else by being active in the game.
Backers at Citizen & above are a different case altogether they should have one plot as a reward.

 

And would not the game run with more money if they sold even cheapers houses for lets say 50$ to the ones that cant afford these really expensive ones.

Yes that would increase the amount of money for developers to spend on developing the game and make it even more successful.

These houses could be out in the wild as in UO and would xreate a more happy community, except the ones that feel their house investment have been devalued of course.

20000 houses a' 50$ spread all over the map, it's 5 episodes so there will be alot of land, would give developers 1 million more to spend on getting a more successful game.

I honestly believe that one of the major issues with getting these cheap houses in the wild is that securing these really expensive houses real life money value is what is most important, not what would be best for the game. Some dont want us to be able to buy small houses in the suburbs/wild for 50$ cause it would have a negative impact on their expensive investment.

The economy of this "house market" seems to be be more important then getting more money to further develop the game which these small less exclusive houses in the wild would bring to the game.

And how developers could let players buy more then one slot to place a house on is not right.

 

This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of why Portalarium is using a dual scale map.
20,000 houses spread all over the map is not workable option.

If you really honestly believe a few wealthy players are keeping you from having a $50 plot of land, you just haven't done your homework.

 

And why is the dual scale map preventing small houses in the wild?

Yes i believe some of the ones that invested alot of money into their expensive houses dont want to see them devalued by cheap houses for the crowd in the wild.

And what homework?

This is about human behaviour.

 

The map is made up of random instances. If you place houses, that instance would have to be persistent. Portalarium would have to change the structure of the world. That's just not going to happen.

You're correct that people that have invested in property don't want to see the property devalued, but that's different from what you said before. You said you believe that is the reason Portalarium won't put cheap houses in the game. That's different.

And by homework, I meant do some research into how and why, so you'll know what you're talking about, and can make informed conclusions.

Plots are limited because Portalarium decided to keep them rare to drive the value up. They decided that having fewer higher value plots was a better way to raise money than selling thousands of cheap plots. It's a business decision that they made, and they are committed now. There's no going back.

 

I see.

Well that was a poor decision as i see it. A persistent instanced gameworld would have given more players an opportunity to place a house.

They could make some of these instances persistent maybe, cant be that hard to code.

I believe Portalarium listen to their high money investors. Isnt that why they have a dev+ forum that give more interaction btw certain players and developers?

I think they made a poor decision since a game like Star Citizen that gave the masses a possibilty to buy cheap ships (their version of houses) seems to have brought them alot more money and interest.

Me and many in my guild also pledged to help Star Citizen and even though they like fantasy games alot more i have a hard time getting them to invest in SotA.

 

Actually the ships are more like your character as described by Chris Roberts your hangar is more your home the place you would return to and upgrade/decorate.
Both games offer a similar mechanic original SC backers get to store any of their pledge ships in their hangar for free, just like early backers in SOTA can purchase land deeds and store their house on their plot for free.
For any new SC backers they would have to pay a fee for every ship stored in their hangar.

 

Difference is there are alot more hangars (houses) in Star Citizen then there is in SotA.

And i understand it is easier to place "houses" in outer space but it is still a business decision to not allow more then a certain few houses in SotA while Star Citizen have unlimited.

 

That's correct unfortunately Chris is going with instanced hangars unlike SOTA land deeds so different mechanic.
There has been talk of non instanced property in SC though it doesn't look to be cheap, I mean the only property right now you can get is a night club that costs $10,000. Perhaps after the game goes live they will restructure the pricing otherwise I'll be flying for a very long time before I'm able to afford anything like that.

 

I dont care if the houses were instanced.

Maybe click on a house figurine in your backpack and enter your instanced house would be a sollution to get more houses in this game.

And maybe make it so that your friends that is in party with you could also enter the same house instance? That way you could show how you decorated your house. Even have some PvP duels going on? Arrange a duel tourny in that instance?

I dont know just brainstorming abit.

 

A persistent world would cost more to maintain, because Portalarium would have to buy or rent a server farm.

I've given Portalarium lots of money, and I promise you, they don't take advice from me at all. I would never presume to tell them how to make a game.

And just let me clear up this perception of the Dev+ forums. We would like it to be a place where we could contribute and interact with the developers, but that's not really what happens. It's pretty much just a place where we can read about something a day or two before it's released to the rest of the public. There's more back and forth out in the public areas than in Dev+.

 

+1

 

Really dislike the idea of instanced homes, the idea that the property wasn't instanced in SOTA was a major draw card for me. I think its nice to be able to walk through a village and know that the property I see are owned by real people and the changes they make are of their own making.
PVP tournaments do sound like fun I'm pretty sure the City level deed you can get a arena in the basement that would be be pretty epic would love to join in on something like that.

I've seen some people discus perhaps instanced rooms at an inn, so maybe they might look at this down the track but for now I think they are simply to busy trying to get the base game out.

 

Instanced housing would destroy immersion. Beyond basements, I hope it never sees the light of day.

 

The night club Property in that pledge comes with a lot more valuable stuff than that.
Its the same with SotA look at all the stuff you get for the $11000 pledge a house is a small part of the whole, why do backers automatically think that the House becomes valued at the Pledge price.

For the $100 extra from developer $400 to Citizen $500 are lots of stuff that devalues the land plot to the value of about $10.
The $150 plot sale was just Portalarium rigging the Price in their favour,

 

they are all instanced housing now just have a different Town name, same amount of plots in each one.
The game overland map runs on the same principle you open a 1 meta shard but have to host the game on your computer instead of their Server.