I've read that there are no plans to make anything like this available for now due to the constriction of resources but what do you think in the future, does a customizable home of your own appeal to you?
Let's say PO is the success story most of us hope it is, perhaps in a future content expansion
Owning your very own house and a key to it just kinda binds you even more to the virtual world that your character lives in.
The only downside is that the demand for houses would be great and land limited since for me instanced housing is out of the question and making the wilderness look cluttered with houses like it happened in UO is not at all immersive either. So maybe houses should be really expensive so sharing them is a more common thing!
What do you think?
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dunno. The other game that I am following heavily (and are invested in) is Shroud of the Avatar, and that game seems to be all about the (non-instanced) housing. Thing is, that entire game is built around it so they can anticipate. The amount of land-plots that at one time will be availabe is mind-boggling, even if they keep housing somewhat rare (which is the goal).
Having said this, when you look at some of the screenshots from PFO you notice that the layout of a settlement is *very* spacious. There is off course room needed for utility buildings, an Inn and such, but there is room for a lot of regular houses too: you can see several of them lined up already, and the settlement plot still looks very empty.
The world of PFO seems spacious enough too, but I do not think they will want to allow housing outside of settlements, not sure though(urban sprawl). They have to keep things "Pathfinder" approved.
I can see them doing shared housing in the Settlements: several people are owner of the same house, and you can decorate stuff. I think this is one of those things that needs a serious request from a large percentage of the playerbase though. Not everyone is into decorating a house, the percentage may be lower with the PFO crowd.
As an aside, houses at this point have no interior yet (are not enterable) except the Inns, but Ryan has stated that at some point, they will be.
I agree with you with the No instancing, it would totally fly against the face of what PFO is (One huge world with accountability) and I do not think they want half of the playerbase hiding in their instance. One of the things I am looking forward too, is actually seeing players in Settlements, and instancing would ruin that (apart from the PvP issues during sieges and incursions and stuff).
I do remember something about some utility buildings being instanced (like a smithy for crafting) but I hope I am wrong, I would not like that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, personal storage (that could get lost/looted during a siege) could be one of them. This would make a siege a lot more interesting, if there are hundreds of player-vaults waiting for you to ransack.
Another nice effect could be, that when a siege is imminent, you may see rag-tag groups of refugees leaving town, trying to rescue their belongings by hauling them to the next safe town.
You could imagine the carnage. Every single bandit group would land near that town and circle like vultures. :)
Players from allied/friendly nearby settlements could come to their aid, trying to escort them to the safety of their own settlement. All kinds of cool scenarios could develop.
Though to be honest ''Look at my shiny new...'' is a big income source for non-sub MMO's like guild wars 2. So it has to be a big motivator for many people!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with both of you, the cool thing is that if you make those "shinies" lootable, you have made the feature relevant to the core-mechanics of PFO.
Another nice side-effect is, is that you can enter valuable items into the game that are very much coveted by many, as a replacement for all those Weapons and Gear that you see in a PvE Raid game. PFO will have a somewhat different economy when it comes to weapons and armor, because there will not be unique Uberloot dropping like candy from Boss mobs. There will be weapons and armor that will be hard to get (and expensive and take long to make) but hardly any (or none?) "one-off" items, if I understand Ryan correctly.
With decoration items, you can go all out on the uniqueness and rarity, since it will never cause an unbalance in something as important as COmbat.
So a Woodworker could very well make a one-of-a-kind Grandfather clock, the dial inlaid with Iridiscent Dragon scales, that becomes mighty valuable. And then someone else loots it during a siege...... a great loss, but your character itself did not loose great power(which the loss of an Uberweapons would do).
I guess we might as well implement Stealing then! A Rogue with high stealth and Move Silently skill, trying to steal back your clock.....
Though I think that would fall under GW's "players do not like bad stuff happening to them without the possibility to act themselves" adagio. With which I agree, btw.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see it as belonging or possessing a building/settlement provides useful functions for you and your group that interconnect with each other:
1. safe storage
2. taxes
3. shop front/trade hub
4. facilities such as skill-training
5. building buffs
All that jazz does what a personal home is supposed to be, bar the graphical reality of wandering between 4-walls.
But I think Taverns will allow for that to allow for socialization and food-healing etc. Maybe music too.
I think a lot of games have the build this virtual object as a side-mini-game to actual the RPG and it does not do much bar give people their owned private space in the game as part of self-image. Get into interior design etc. Of course that becomes quite lucrative which leads to devs churning this stuff instead of working on the game as a whole. Idk did eve have walking in space stations when what players really wanted was more work on the actual game for contrast?
I think other games will do that thing better: Voxels and Real-Estate-the-RPG and/or something like UO such as shardsonline where players have simple graphics but tons of control to make anything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We talked about this last year sometime, I can't recall the exact thread, I'm afraid.
I'd love personal homes, especially being able to reskin and redecorate them but the developers have said that they have no current plans to allow individual dwellings. Whether or not it will ever happen in PFO I have no idea, but it certainly won't be for a long time if it does.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I myself would favor instanced personal housing. They way I see it is that you have several tiers and types of residential buildings. From shacks to town houses to villas. A specific number of players will be able claim a home inside each building. Once you elect to enter your home building you will be transported to your own instanced home interior. While I think it would be nice to have non instanced housing with customizeable exteriors I don't see it being within the resource budget of the game.
Housing could potentially add some interesting game play. Does the settlement build a teniment block that has room for a hundred players or the nicer town houses that can fit half that man but provide more rent income? Should the settlement build the much requested residential buildings or the training hall that could give them the edge in war?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like our keeps to have living quarters for officers and barracks for the common members and sleeping quarters in most buildings. That way if your a black smith you can easily claim you live in the blacksmith building, which has a bed upstairs. WoW kinda had this in a lot of the capital cities and they weren't even player housing. They were just stores or work shops with living quarters and that alone lead to so much immersion.
I think personal housing though is a bad idea as it would lead to the world feeling cluttered... I mean just look at Landmark... I mean I love landmark but go to a populated world and... Just god...
I think housing should be restricted to a very small number in each settlement and you'd have to pay rent to the acting lord or whatever to live there. Because as said I don't just want to find a house in the middle of the wild, considering where we are, I don't think anyone would survive to tell the tale of their summer home in goblin infested wilderness.
Likewise the common use of putting houses in a seperate realm of existance of everything else... hate it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I understand the allure of personal housing, but I think with the focus this game has on community properties, funneling attention into personal ones is counterproductive.
Indeed. I think it would be a nice touch for blacksmith's and other such buildings to have living quarters, but really I don't want them to waste more time on it than that, at best.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Player housing is, at the end of the day, a nice to have, not a need to have, so I can understand Goblinworks not wanting to throw resources at it early in the game, as other things should take priority.
That said though, it would certainly be VERY nice to have something like officer housing in the keeps, or just baracks, inns and hostels which could host a number of players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand the allure of personal housing, but I think with the focus this game has on community properties, funneling attention into personal ones is counterproductive.Indeed. I think it would be a nice touch for blacksmith's and other such buildings to have living quarters, but really I don't want them to waste more time on it than that, at best.
It's a drain on dev resources but more importantly for the game structure it drains player resources and focus away from community minded efforts and into personal spaces. Players get more caught up in their new virtual couch than building that inn POI the settlement needs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are hideouts gone? I've been away and haven't caught up on everything. They seemed like a happy alternative to a house ploped down in the world.
I would have no issue with people being able to drop houses down anywhere, if they were not fully secure and always open to attack/theft.
What you don't want to see is what happened in SWG, where you have huge fields of houses around every major city.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Like any other investment players would have to consider the opportunity cost. Some players may put a very high value on customizing a personal space. Other may put a higher value on projects that help the community and provide a "tangible" benefit. Ownership is a very important part of keeping players invested in a game. Only a small percentage will have any real control over a settlement or POI. I think a simple housing system would go a long way toward curing players of the listless MMO vagabond syndrome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've read that there are no plans to make anything like this available for now due to the constriction of resources but what do you think in the future, does a customizable home of your own appeal to you?
Personally, the only reason I want a personal house is for personal storage. If I can get personal storage in a community area, that's fine with me.
I understand a lot of folks (like my wife) really like to decorate their houses. It seems to me this is wasted if those personal spaces aren't seen. I would think being able to decorate a community space would be satisfying, and I think doing so as a community, instead of effectively solo, would be in-line with the overall focus of the game. I'd certainly be interested to hear from folks who personally enjoy decorating with respect to this, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've read that there are no plans to make anything like this available for now due to the constriction of resources but what do you think in the future, does a customizable home of your own appeal to you?Personally, the only reason I want a personal house is for personal storage. If I can get personal storage in a community area, that's fine with me.
I understand a lot of folks (like my wife) really like to decorate their houses. It seems to me this is wasted if those personal spaces aren't seen. I would think being able to decorate a community space would be satisfying, and I think doing so as a community, instead of effectively solo, would be in-line with the overall focus of the game. I'd certainly be interested to hear from folks who personally enjoy decorating with respect to this, though.
I like the idea of community buildings, like the barracks or an Inn or Smithy with rooms upstairs, that could eventually be decorated by those who think this fun. Those barracks/Inns could have a couple of lockers/vaults/chests that can be accessed for personal storage by anyone affiliated with that building, to make that building a bit more personal to you.
The decorating feature is most likely a thing of the far away future, since this seems a complicated feature to implement. But putting a few beds above a smithy, and a few lockers/vaults for storage not so much.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always been a fan of "Instanced Housing Blocks"
Instead of having your own personal instance, there are publicly accessible "Settlement Residences" areas. There may be 20 or 30 lots in the same "instance". The number of instances available to a settlement may be dependent on size or other factors such as DI investment. In order to reach your House you need to remember which instance it is in. Because the instanced blocks are publicly accessible, if you know where a friend lives you can also enter their instance and drop by their house. Or if you just want to see what kinds of buildings other people placed and just look around you can randomly enter instances and browse. Perhaps player-owned storefronts would be a reason to go looking to random instances.
A key is to be able to have decent names for the instances. So you could say...
"I am at Lot 12 in the Cerulean District" - or even "Stop on by my place. I live in Brighthaven at 12 Cerulean!"
Something like this should be pretty good at making housing areas feel populated without the land clutter. There are space restrictions, but doing really well in your settlement will give you plenty of room. It ties you to the well-being of your settlement because the better it does the more people who can buy houses there!
My problem with instanced housing is I need to be able to invite friends and show off. If I can't, what is the point?
My problem with in-world housing is the clutter problem.
Being able to roam through smaller instanced maps gives the public in world feeling without all of the clutter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand the allure of personal housing, but I think with the focus this game has on community properties, funneling attention into personal ones is counterproductive.
If you make the limitations on personal properties and the ability to access them tied to community properties, you actually tie individuals more strongly to the community. If your personal house is accessed through your player settlement, and the number of personal houses is dependent on the player settlement spending resources for the room to build them, then players will be much more interested in making their settlement awesome enough so that everyone who can afford a house can get one. It also makes defending the settlement all that more important because if the settlement is lost, you lose your house too!
Tie those personal investments to the well-being of the whole community and you will see a lot of community involvement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Problem: Land clutter
Solution: Instanced "Branches" within the town hall for Sponsored Companies. Within the "branches" instanced "homes" or suites for individuals. Instanced public housing for others in a plot used/designated as "Residential"
Drawback: Not as attractive as visible standing structures.
_____________________________________________________________
Problem: Development cost
Solution: Sell em in the store. Regulate inter player trades for a further revenue.
Drawback: Expensive to program. Hard on the servers?
_____________________________________________________________
Problem: Safe storage is not "kosher" to the game.
Solution: Nothing else in a settlement has been suggested as being "lootable" until a settlement falls.
Drawback: Players almost universally hate having their stuff taken. It would "maybe" be a sacrifice that must be accepted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With their budget and small team, I realize that player housing is far down on the list of possibilities for PfO. There are numerous other obstacles to it as well...
I would like to say though, I had houses in UO. Getting a house and going to work on it was one of my very first priorities/goals (starting a new character). It was "way high" on the list of what made UO "fun".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would really hate any instanced housing. Nothing as worse as the "empty MMO" syndrome. One of the reasons I am looking forward to PFO is because everyone will be in the same world, even though someone may be half a continent away.
What about sieges: will instances be disabled? How about an incursion of stealthy enemies that you are at war with: the moment they unstealth to create some havoc, everyone flitters away into their instances(not you brave PvP vets off course!)?
The next step will be private crafting stations ----> empty settlements.
I juist find the whole idea of being able to move your person into a dimensional pocket that is completely separate from this huge world that is built on accountability counterintuitive, unfun and counterproductive.
Personally I am hoping that *Settlements* will be those places where you get that cosy feeling of being "home", where you can feel safe, where everybody knows your name. People you know, gathered around the forge at the Smithy, gathered in the Inn, or at the Trading Post.
Every member that has made himself disappear into his dimensional pocket is one too many, in my opinion.
Apart from the (easy to implement) community buildings with some bunks/beds/small rooms, and possibly storage, I am hereby dropping the entire idea of personal housing. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I juist find the whole idea of being able to move your person into a dimensional pocket that is completely separate from this huge world that is built on accountability counterintuitive, unfun and counterproductive.
This is kind of what I was getting at about "solo decorators". It may be that they too must embrace a paradigm-shift towards community-oriented housing and decorations in the same way that solo adventurers must embrace a paradigm-shift towards community-oriented adventuring.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Tyncale
Fair points and valid. You just can't give everybody everything that they want. At least not until a multi-billionaire decides to go "All In" on an MMO. ;)
I am wondering why instanced housing would have to have any ways to keep people out more than say... good doors, good locks, and spells... all of which could have counter skills/spells?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would really hate any instanced housing. Nothing as worse as the "empty MMO" syndrome. One of the reasons I am looking forward to PFO is because everyone will be in the same world, even though someone may be half a continent away.
What about sieges: will instances be disabled? How about an incursion of stealthy enemies that you are at war with: the moment they unstealth to create some havoc, everyone flitters away into their instances(not you brave PvP vets off course!)?
The next step will be private crafting stations ----> empty settlements.
I juist find the whole idea of being able to move your person into a dimensional pocket that is completely separate from this huge world that is built on accountability counterintuitive, unfun and counterproductive.
Personally I am hoping that *Settlements* will be those places where you get that cosy feeling of being "home", where you can feel safe, where everybody knows your name. People you know, gathered around the forge at the Smithy, gathered in the Inn, or at the Trading Post.
Every member that has made himself disappear into his dimensional pocket is one too many, in my opinion.
Apart from the (easy to implement) community buildings with some bunks/beds/small rooms, and possibly storage, I am hereby dropping the entire idea of personal housing. :)
My example of using instances is less private and empty and more like having smaller sub-maps. When you enter the residential area, you choose which sub-map to visit. You would not be limited to where your house is located, you could go to any of them and wander around! But unless you have a key or the building is marked public you probably are not getting in. Sizes of the districts would be subject to developer discretion.
In my concept, access to a personal house is tied directly to being part of a settlement. If your settlement fails, you lose your house. If your settlement does well, the limit of the number of houses raises so that more people can get them. It gives you more to lose and more to gain by participating in the well-being of your settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My example of using instances is less private and empty and more like having smaller sub-maps.
Are you familiar with LOTRO's housing neighborhoods? That was what I thought of when you were describing this.
My problem with those is that folks don't hang out there unless there's something interesting to do there, so they're usually pretty empty. If there is something interesting to do there, then everyone will be hanging out there instead of in the non-instanced areas, and then the non-instanced area is pretty empty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would prefer it that people who are good at decorating (and I have seen some awesome stuff) would use their skills for the benefit of the town and decorate Community buildings. It could even be so that trophies (maybe certain weapons or amors or head of an escalation Boss-mob) of players could be hung on walls of those community buildings. That way there is a personal touch to it. And I would get to see your awesome weapon. Walking into the Inn and seeing the old, broken Bastard Sword of Banditslaying that belonged to your Settlement leader hanging above the fireplace is so much cooler then having to visit some instance to see it on a wall of a house that you have no emotional ties with.
Apart from the above, which could happen anyway, I think I could live with instanced personal housing if those houses would take away *zero* utility from the community assets of the Settlement. So no crafting or banking or browsing the local auctionhouse from within your instance.
Edit: the neighbourhoods in both LOTRO and Everquest are prime examples of completely desolate spaces. Nothing more sad, while standing in front of the residential gate, then having to pick your neighbourhood from a list of around 200 neighbourhoods, that all have space for 72 homes and 2 Guildbuildings of which an average of 4 are actually occupied(72/4) by a house from someone that most likely has abandoned the game 6 months ago anyway but his house is still being paid from money in escrow.
I honestly have *never* encountered another player in both my Lotro and EQ neighbourhood.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My example of using instances is less private and empty and more like having smaller sub-maps.Are you familiar with LOTRO's housing neighborhoods? That was what I thought of when you were describing this.
My problem with those is that folks don't hang out there unless there's something interesting to do there, so they're usually pretty empty. If there is something interesting to do there, then everyone will be hanging out there instead of in the non-instanced areas, and then the non-instanced area is pretty empty.
I am not familiar with either LOTRO or Rift housing schemes. I've played UO which had the purely open world houses and Final Fantasy 11 which had terrible low-customization personal housing via instances. That is about the extent of my MMO housing experience.
I will say that the point about people hanging out in places is true regardless of the situation. They will go where something interesting is. But who has to say that interesting thing is always in the same place? It gets kind of dull when you hold a party in the same tavern all the time, or troublesome when two groups are trying to hold different things at the same time in the same place.
As a long-time roleplayer in other MMOs, I will claim that combining personal elements like housing in publicly accessible places would be a large draw and retention factor for that population. But then I also understand that this game is not so interested in catering to that audience as of yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Edit: the neighbourhoods in both LOTRO and Everquest are prime examples of completely desolate spaces. Nothing more sad, while standing in front of the residential gate, then having to pick your neighbourhood from a list of around 200 neighbourhoods, that all have space for 72 homes and 2 Guildbuildings of which an average of 4 are actually occupied(72/4) by a house from someone that most likely has abandoned the game 6 months ago anyway but his house is still being paid from money in escrow.I honestly have *never* encountered another player in both my Lotro and EQ neighbourhood.
Maybe the problem is that they have 200 neighborhoods? What if each settlement only has one - or only starts with one. And they have make large one-time expenditures of DI and construction materials for each neighborhood they wish to add.
The idea is that there is not room for everyone to have a house unless the players provide the ability for the settlement to make the room. And by only adding neighborhoods when necessary, it prevents everyone from setting up in an empty neighborhood unless they are the first ones to a newly constructed one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would go on to add that residential areas are your prime areas for social functions and gatherings. Do not create personal crafting stations or other skill-use functions for houses. Keep those in the settlement proper. This would build a dynamic of 'Business Area' and 'Leisure Area' in the settlement.
Which would also be nice, because it is annoying when everyone crowds around a single area like a bank or a single tavern and you cannot talk to anyone or even see your game messages because the chat window is overloading.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that gatherings and areas for social functions are *the* most important things to actually have in the non-instanced space. Why would you want to do that in an instance? I enter my settlement and it is desrted: but in some dimensional pocket that I can not see they are partying? Or the Settlement leaders are in gathering in someones house? I would much rather see them sitting in the Inn, it is the sort of stuff that could make this game unique.
I think there could be enough community areas in a large settlement to hold a lot of social happenings: GW could add an arena, you could have several Inns, a party-tent, a music chapel, a course, whatever.
Also I always sortoff liked it when I see a clump of players standing around somewhere. Never had any problems with chat either. Stuff like this can easily be handled by adding a few more crafting benches to a room or forges to a Smithy. I have never seen this become a problem in any other game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that gatherings and areas for social functions are *the* most important things to actually have in the non-instanced space. Why would you want to do that in an instance? I enter my settlement and it is desrted: but in some dimensional pocket that I can not see they are partying? Or the Settlement leaders are in gathering in someones house? I would much rather see them sitting in the Inn, it is the sort of stuff that could make this game unique.
I think there could be enough community areas in a large settlement to hold a lot of social happenings: GW could add an arena, you could have several Inns, a party-tent, a music chapel, a course, whatever.
Also I always sortoff liked it when I see a clump of players standing around somewhere. Never had any problems with chat either. Stuff like this can easily be handled by adding a few more crafting benches to a room or forges to a Smithy. I have never seen this become a problem in any other game.
You are focusing too strongly on the instanced aspect. The areas would be publicly accessible. We may as well make the argument that we should get rid of multiple player settlements and only have one settlement so that everyone is in the same place and can see when something is going on.
As for the crowding issue - I do not mean that it limits access to the crafting benches or forges. I mean that storytelling roleplayers cannot immerse themselves in story because the chat goes 20 lines per second and is mostly Out of Character chatter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As an aside, my adamant support of finding something that will work is that I feel Customizable Player Housing is one of the largest features from UO that has been missing in pretty much all subsequent MMOs. Every known attempt to do so has been pleasant to see, but never really implemented well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't get it: what do you mean by publicly accessable? Why would you want to put that in an instance? Why not smack in the middle of the Settlement itself? Have you seen how big they are? Or are we not talking about an instance anymore?
So I come at some gate in the settlement and then I zone into an public residential instance? Why is this necessary? You have this gate, with nothing behind it I take it(after all it is nothing more then a zoning point). You see players popping up and disappearing in front of this gate. If you go through the gate, you see those players again, but now in an instance. Why? Maybe I am misunderstanding you.
Your "we may as well" argument is completely lost on me, btw. Wanting to see the players of my own settlement and the happenings that are relevant to my own settlement = getting rid of the whole framework of PFO because Tyncale wants to see what is happening with.......everything and everybody?
I think there is a name for what you did there, but my English unfortunately does not reach such heights. :(
ALso, may I point you to Shroud of the Avatar? I mean it, I am quit heavily invested there myself. (Knight) :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't get it: what do you mean by publicly accessable? Why would you want to put that in an instance? Why not smack in the middle of the Settlement itself? Have you seen how big they are? Or are we not talking about an instance anymore?
So I come at some gate in the settlement and then I zone into an public residential instance? Why is this necessary? You have this gate, with nothing behind it I take it(after all it is nothing more then a zoning point). You see players popping up and disappearing in front of this gate. If you go through the gate, you see those players again, but now in an instance. Why? Maybe I am misunderstanding you.
Settlements are meant to be places for 100s of players. And building construction area in a settlement is purposefully limited so that the settlements need to determine what specialties they will take in their training and craft buildings and collaborate with other settlements for what they do not have.
Given this limited space and 100s of players, it is not going to be ideal to pick and choose who can and cannot have a house. That breeds resentment. Instead of thinking of it like an instance, instead rather think of it like a separate area of the map that is linked by a portal disguised as a gate. The purpose of this is to provide room for the player housing without cluttering up the contiguous map area.
Without having the zoning instance, you do not have enough physical space to provide opportunity for players to have their custom housing. It is all about expanding the area that can be used for this specific but not game-critical feature.
Your "we may as well" argument is completely lost on me, btw. Wanting to see the players of my own settlement and the happenings that are relevant to my own settlement = getting rid of the whole framework of PFO because Tyncale wants to see what is happening with.......everything and everybody?I think there is a name for what you did there, but my English unfortunately does not reach such heights. :(
I purposefully exaggerated your stance into a greater extreme to show a failing in the logic of the argument you were making, which sounded to me like you did not like the idea of people being able to host and have events outside of your immediate awareness.
My point is that happens all of the time. And a lot of storytelling role-players like to be able to have safe and secluded side-areas to play out their stories. Current games tend to lack these, barring going into an instance. But in those scenarios, the number of participants is limited by a party-size to get into the same instance.
Publicly accessible neighborhood areas provides more space to retreat to with your group of 10 friends without being forced to hear the 30 folks standing at the bank talking about the latest Game of Thrones episode.
ALso, may I point you to Shroud of the Avatar? I mean it, I am quit heavily invested there myself. (Knight) :)
Not quite as heavily invested... only a Royal Artisan. But yes, I am well aware of the game and the housing element was my big selling point. I managed to stumbled across it back in Late Feb when they were doing the Extended Backer period. Though I was too busy the last couple weekends to play the test releases. I downloaded this weekend's one and may be trying to pop into it tomorrow if I can find the time.
If I had discovered it first, I may never have even backed PFO to be honest. But I am so invested financially and socially into PFO at the moment that I am trying to make it the best possible game I can. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As an aside to the things I care about in a game... Guild Wars 2 released a feature patch not long ago that made changes to wardrobes, item skins, and dyes. My characters no longer have any personal wealth as a result, but a crap-ton of color options for gear. XD
I couldn't tell you what changed in regards to combat balance changes. I think there were some. But that stuff is less important to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, our views are too different to reconcile, but that's fine. :)
Did you mean dye-colors in GW2 are now unlocked account-wide? That was quit a change, but one that has been asked for from pretty much day 1, as I recall.
Did you get all dye-colors? I must admit, there were some nifty colors. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, our views are too different to reconcile, but that's fine. :)
Did you mean dye-colors in GW2 are now unlocked account-wide? That was quit a change, but one that has been asked for from pretty much day 1, as I recall.
Did you get all dye-colors? I must admit, there were some nifty colors. :)
That is indeed the patch I am referring too. I am far from all of the colors, still. Did a trading post binge and started from the cheapest up. It aggregated to lots of gold. But I think I have most of the commons and quite a few uncommons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wouldnt mind it, HOWEVER i dont think it should be general.
Settlements should have the option to be able to provide housing. Housing would obviously limit what other kinds of building you can have since its taking up room. Housing should have a very high resource cost for the settlement and the owner. Even then it should be limited in quanitity.
So its something a settlement can do to show up.
