With every release I despise player housing more and more

I will be forever against any type of HOA like rules

 

I suggested this in another thread...

NPC Towns (i.e. Owl's Head, Kingsport, etc...) should have stacking rules (2 levels only) and should count OUTSIDE assets that are duplicated as extra to the overall OUTSIDE item count of a lot. This will "cut down" on the creativity in NPC towns, but also give some needed conformity to the core game.

Player Towns (i.e. Braemar, Ravensend, etc...) should be divided into ISLAND and MAINLAND. Towns on the Mainland would have the same rules as NPC Towns. But Islands would be free reign for players to do whatever they wanted.

Player Owned Towns (Vengeance, Liberty, etc...) would be completely up to the player owner.


I think this provides a fair way to regulate player housing without completely destroying player freedom.

 

I agree Sir Cabirus, it's important to not throw around phrases like "the majority thinks this way". It's often hard to tell what the majority of players thinks about anything, since if players really don't like something they will often stop playing the game and leave it with a "new" majority of people.

 

I love the fact that people are building these sorts of houses and structures. I know exactly the lot from the first post. Every time I see it, I marvel at the time and complexity of it. You can tell just by looking at it, that it pushes the boundaries and physics of the game and that's why we need them. I don't have the creativity or time or even talent to build something like that. Does it fit with the style? No, but who the devil cares? That house and all the others will be plowed under in a couple of weeks. But without them and the ingenious/devious building skills of their owners, bugs won't get found and the collisions errors won't be seen.

I think the only reason people are making these structures is because they can! Most of these items won't be as readily available in the release and I doubt you can own so many, and I doubt anyone will have that as their home in the final game for years to come. Keep in mind, this is a test bed! The game is a proof of concept - a playable demo. We are so far away from release it's futile to get distressed about how people put houses together. This isn't the final world. This isn't how it will look. Keep calm. If you haven't filed a bug then just enjoy playing the game and let other people stress the system.

You may find them silly, but they are absolutely necessary.

 

Not sure if this is technically possible.

But a Ignore Lot option on the Lot Sign?

Just wondering how this technically could work.

Maybe if you press the Ignore Button it will show only for the player on this area the offline mode presentation of this Lot?
So instead loading from the server you will have at the ignore lots area the version from your own computer?

But you will not be able to enter it, just visualy see it. And if a other player enters it he might just blur away?

 

I think that would be the worst thing we could do. Players can already play Single Player Online mode (in the future) and Single Player mode, which effectively removes them from the community. There's no reason to go to the extreme of letting people remove your player home from their very sight. This is essentially instancing by another name.

 

I see your point. And this is the reason why we need some rules. Just to keep as much players as possible in the Multiplayer Online mode. And this means to cut the extremes.

 

That is false actually. SPO will still see those houses....it doesn't effectively remove them.

I don't think anyone is asking for that, but obvious stacking rules are a must....we have structures stacked high and floating furniture. I think reviewers will think negatively of the game if they see this.

 

What I meant is that SPO removes other players from the community. I know the housing is still there.

 

Ahh ok sorry

 

We should make a poll to find out how many would actually not play the game anymore if this stays this way?

 

I don't think polls are all that usefull on the forums to be honest...you only get the active members of the community voting and to be honest it isn't entirely a game breaking bug just something that should be addressed.

 

Always the same, whenever there is a game that allows players to be creative there are always other players who find what they do either ugly or offensive.

Personally I think there should be more consideration and tolerance from both sides. It is actually in no ones interest for strict rules to be imposed in the game.

 

There are people that are looking for this type of play in a game. Removing it would just limit the number of people that would be interested in playing the game.

So I dont think the game should restrict creativity like this at all.

Instead I think this should be left in the players hands on how they want to play. They can play offline and not see any of it.

Or they can group together and make the game how they want it their space. Like what was already suggested, owners of POTs can set any kind of rules that they are willing to enforce.

 

Recommendation.

How about a simple Information System for us players to communicate the owner of a Lot about our feelings of the Lot?

For example if you click on the Sign of a LOT there will be this Text:

If you like the Decoration on this Lot give it a Thumps up! - This way players get a motivation to create beautiful lots.
They will love to see if the new decoration they did caused new Thumps up.

Some might be proud to have alot of Likes for the Lot.

Maybe even write this information on the Homepage: Highest Rate of Decoration Thumbs Ranking.


I would be against a Thumbs down.


But this would defiantly be a first step to motivate players , even players who want to sell stuff from there lot , to decorate it good.



Myrcello

 

No one is saying you can't place anything anywhere, and I think it's getting a bit off tangent on that.

What I am saying at least, is that there should be stacking rules for items...that's just common sense, not a restriction...I mean what effective reason for fountains to stack? or items that generally are not meant to stack?

 

You either have a negative impact on the creativity of the the players or a negative impact on the game experience of players.
On the one hand you don't want to have restrictions on player houses because this has a negative impact on the players but on the other hand you are willing to accept that this offends other players and has a negative impact on their game experience.
So one group is losing. One group will get a negative game experience. Thinking about this it seems that you either have a sandbox or an atmospheric game...

 

I'm not sure how that should affect having stacking rules on items?

 

I think the same.

It's Pre-Alpha and it must all of this testing; the better the result will be!

 

Exactly. The Multiplayer will be more sandbox in the world and the single play will have the better 'feel' to it. It is a win win.