Personal Housing


Pathfinder Online

51 to 78 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

At launch, DAoC's capital cities were bustling hubs of player chatter, filled with crafters and their customers.

A month after the launch of housing, they were ghost towns.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Maybe some kind of cosmetic housing, could be developed with a specific "mini"-kickstarter ? Like, some kind of preorder, which will be refunded, if they don't get what they estimated necessary.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:

At launch, DAoC's capital cities were bustling hubs of player chatter, filled with crafters and their customers.

A month after the launch of housing, they were ghost towns.

I anticipate the same regardless, once settlements are introduced. In fact, it would be inadvisable to remain attached to the primary starter cities - else you'd not gain higher levels of gear and training.

(just a comment)

Goblin Squad Member

Kitsune Aou wrote:
Guurzak wrote:

At launch, DAoC's capital cities were bustling hubs of player chatter, filled with crafters and their customers.

A month after the launch of housing, they were ghost towns.

I anticipate the same regardless, once settlements are introduced. In fact, it would be inadvisable to remain attached to the primary starter cities - else you'd not gain higher levels of gear and training.

(just a comment)

Of course settlements are going to loot all the player activity from the NPC towns.

What I wouldn't want to happen is to see personal housing loot all the player activity from the settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

This is a sandbox game with a lot of RP potential. Personal housing will be a part of it eventually. The only question is how will it be implemented within the framework of the game and vision of the founders. I would love to see certain hexes eventually opened up to housing plots (at the devs discretion) and houses as part of the main world instance. You find a spot that's eligible and plop down your house. I think it should be fairly expensive to attain a house, not everybody who just started the game should get one. As much as 1 year of game time or more before you could even think about it. This also lessens the potential for ghost neighborhoods from people who play the game a few months, buy a house, and abandon it.

Goblin Squad Member

I think it would be hilarious to have a high leveled wizard in the future have his or her own wizard tower and have other players raid it for loot.

Goblin Squad Member

Perhaps there could be POIs that function like suburbs to their main Settlements. Villages on the outskirts of major cities.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Banesama wrote:
Perhaps there could be POIs that function like suburbs to their main Settlements. Villages on the outskirts of major cities.

Nothing we build in this game is going to qualify as a city. We're not going to be creating the next Absalom, or Korvosa, or Riddleport. We're building villages and towns.

Honestly, (and I say this as an RPer and advocate of player housing in most games) I sincerely hope we don't get player housing in this game. The issues with instanced housing (and instancing in general) have already been brought up, but the depopulate what should be the social hubs of the game, and divide the playerbase. So if they're not instancing them, we end up with the following scenarios:

Case 1) It takes up settlement real estate: It will never get used. Settlements will already be pressed for space to build structures everyone. They're not going to waste space on something that benefits only a tiny percentage of their membership.

Case 2) Housing as PoIs: No player will be able to hold a house by themselves against a company who wants to take that PoI to serve their entire company. You can make the argument that an entire company could work together to get one person a house, but that's just not going to happen often enough to justify the effort. If you replace single houses with neighborhood POIs, then you end up with the urban sprawl problem (see below).

Case 3) Separate "housing plot" locations for people to build on: Either you have so few spots as to fail to justify the system, or you have so many that you end up with an urban sprawl totally inappropriate for the River Kingdoms.

What I think might be a workable compromise would be something along the lines of guild halls or company HQs. Whether in settlements or as PoIs, this provides a single structure benefiting an entire company of players.

Goblin Squad Member

I personally don't have a strong opinion about personal houses. If they come into the game, I'm not even sure I would bother with that feature unless there was some type of advantage like storage space. Otherwise, I would probably use whatever Banking (Storage) system my settlement offers.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

People will be talking about the latest episode of Game of Thrones, and the optimum fighter/cleric build for soloing purple ogres. I hope that the people holding OOC discussions will be respectful toward the RP-ers, and the RP types will tolerate the OOC conversations.

There was a mention earlier of EVE's Walking in Stations. To put it as succinctly and uncontroversially as I can: CCP never fully implemented Walking in Stations. They gave each character a small guest room in each space station, with a (locked) door to the (never implemented) public corridors. They also announced that Incarna (the re-named Walking in Stations) would receive the bulk of the developers' attention for the next year, and improvements to the core game would resume after that year.

Some players hated being stuck in a room alone, when they'd been promised public gathering places. Many other players hated the idea that development would be focused away from the basic game for a year or more.

I don't think that anyone was happy to see that the initial microtransaction clothing store offerings cost a lot of money (I recall a conversion rate of approximately $75 for the most expensive item). Even the people who wanted to buy leather jackets and flight goggles also wanted to be able to show them off in common areas. As it was, they couldn't even visit each other's staterooms to show off their purchases.

The avatar creation system was very flexible. I saved copies of many character faces, and I still use them for tabletop Pathfinder characters. All that flexibility didn't count for much, though, when people only saw a static picture (usually head and shoulders) of each character.

Virtually everything that could be done badly in the Incarna launch was instead done terribly.

For the record, I really wanted the system to work. I wanted to be able to play out Deep Space 9 or Babylon 5 style space station scenarios. I was no more satisfied with the actual result than the people who hated the idea of "paper dolls" in their spaceship game.

Edit: Okay, I pretty much failed at "succinct", but I hope my description was relatively unbiased between the pro- and anti-avatar camps.

Goblin Squad Member

Just think of what a settlement could do if placing housing allowed them to create unique choke points and side alleys a prepared defender could use to resist hostiles. Or dispersed weapon caches. Probably something to lobby for after OE though.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

After OE sounds about right to me, too.


I wonder if tiny farms or homes outside a settlement would be possible, and as a game mechanic they can only fall if the sovereignty of the hex was taken over. In the real world with consequences for attacking the ruling power would take much effort in eradicating potential village raising groups. In the game there is no way to keep them down via martial force or threat of martial force; due to that a bit of game hand waving would be needed.

Urban sprawl would be out of place, but it would be realistic for there to be small homes not in a settlement, and certain number of homes in the settlement. If a settlement population gets big enough then it should get bigger geographically so that those homes are POIs. They should have taxes, costs and such for their maintenance. Perhaps they are the "family" home of which you the protagonist is the bulk earner. It would help flesh out the NPCs in the area as perhaps being related to players somehow, and frankly I want to be a part of the logistics chain rather than the hero in armor, giving me a village to tie to helps me get "into" the role. With that I wonder if the outside of your home at least has to be from a template designated by the settlement because even if it were possible to do, I wouldn't recommend allowing players to design a house from the ground up. The reason to not allow player building shape/skin is the TTP factor (Time To Penis), being about 5 minutes in any MMO or multiplayer scenario.

Grand Lodge

I am fine with considering a Farm PoI to be more than sufficient for myself, and as for others many will find similar refuge working Hideouts, Mines, Logging Camps, and Piers.

Shrines will be the "home" for Divine Roles, and the practice yard will host the Martial characters. Crafters will be found in another district along with their appropriate buildings.

I hope to see plenty of 'Rooms to Rent" at Inns and the like, possibly providing income for the PoI managers, and functioning for sleeping purposes.

As for the long term, I see these housing arrangements to be very much like temporary outposts that have a consumable components to setup, and can be "raided."

The Wizards Tower sounds great and all but if a PC can just pop one up wherever we will see dozens of them in a week.

Goblin Squad Member

Another take on these questions, based on Bringslite's format:

Problem: Land clutter

Solution: make them destructible, and limited to the space enclosed in your settlement's walls. Player housing would be part of the settlement that could be taken or destroyed during a siege. Available land space could also depend on the settlement's level.

Drawback: you lose your housing if you lose a siege. That make your settlement even more worth defending it.
_____________________________________________________________

Problem: Development cost

Solution: mini Minecraft in PFO ? Limit this to predefined building blocks (pieces of wall, floors, roofs, windows, doors).

Drawback: adds another subsystem to the game.
_____________________________________________________________

Problem: Safe storage is not "kosher" to the game.

Solution: guild vault with limited space. Make the amount of space depending on the settlement's level, and allow player to rent to other players (trade, trade, trade !). Everything else could be either destroyed if your settlement is taken, or partly looted.

Drawback: players don't like to lose their things, but it's what adds spice to the game

I added an idea about siege warfare and player build fortresses on Ideascale: Siege warfare: building fortresses.

Seeya,
Moonbird

Scarab Sages

In the PFO concept, I guess the personal instanced houses are off of the table. There are various reasons for that. A safe place seems contraditory to our sandbox ideology, from player interations aspect and storage too.

The customization concepts is always nice, but seems to render more problems than fun, from the point I see. In fact, the whole idea must be consider only after OE, because priorizations. But I would like if the customizations are open to world buildings or assets of the entire settlement (thinking on hexes improvments of civlization per exemple), Company Halls, Inns, etc...

Goblin Squad Member

I would find the asthenic of population growth visually displayed by dwellings within the settlement appealing. But, I don't see a house personal to me important unless it had some good benefits.

One interesting benefit I can see: Since there is player collision a bank could become overcrowded. Time to learn to cue.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've actually come to really like the way we just click a door to bring up a full-screen UI for crafting.

Goblin Squad Member

above edit cue = queue

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dario wrote:
What I think might be a workable compromise would be something along the lines of guild halls or company HQs. Whether in settlements or as PoIs, this provides a single structure benefiting an entire company of players.

I like this idea, but obviously only if it can be destroyed just like any other Settlement building.

It would be really cool to be able to go into other folks settlements and see how certain companies got enough money and resources to build and decorate their HQ.

Grand Lodge PFO Community Manager

I really REALLY enjoyed when they launched a Housing expansion in DAOC. Man I had a mansion, a guild mansion and I had trophies from crap I killed. It was so awesome. I spent HOURS and HOURS redecorating my yard.... It was BAWS!

Goblin Squad Member

Maybe when a settlement gets to a certain size or DI level it can build an apartment building and rent them out. The apartment building would take up space and DI like anything else, but the settlement would make the income from selling the units to individuals, and take in the periodic upkeep revenue. It would give an incentive for a settlement to add a large building to its footprint, but that building would not train or support anything, just generate income. And if sacked all the loots (or 75% like a corpse) would be lootable. That would make the stakeholders really want to defend the settlement and prevent their precious abode from being destroyed.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:

At launch, DAoC's capital cities were bustling hubs of player chatter, filled with crafters and their customers.

A month after the launch of housing, they were ghost towns.

This exactly what I do not want to see happen. Any mechanism that has the potential to remove players from play even willingly is counterproductive for goal of the game.

Goblin Squad Member

If player housing is accessible by the public, I'm all for it, though I doubt the Devs want the potential extra load it would create on servers. If done this way, as it was in UO, then housing does not take away from player interaction. You would see shops, Company halls, etc.

If done as instanced housing, it becomes a huge cause of player isolation, where individuals and groups disappear from player interaction outside their select few while they decorate and interact in private.

Scarab Sages

But guys. Aren't Settlements our personal coletive house to live, customize and utility?

Goblin Squad Member

Elorebaen wrote:
Guurzak wrote:

At launch, DAoC's capital cities were bustling hubs of player chatter, filled with crafters and their customers.

A month after the launch of housing, they were ghost towns.

This exactly what I do not want to see happen. Any mechanism that has the potential to remove players from play even willingly is counterproductive for goal of the game.

Artificial compulsion to public vulnerability isn't desirable. It isn't enough that you want everyone where you can get at them whenever you feel like it.

Issuing a demand that there should be nothing that allows seclusion, even if that is what a player desires, is a usurpation of player independence. To me it is anathema.

Far better to make a social environment that players want to take part in.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:


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.

Much less it's entirely counter intuitive to the purpose of the cosmetic item. A player is almost certainly going to do everything in their power to hold onto a one-of-a-kind item, vie threading or otherwise. Yet, the entire purpose of a cosmetic item is to put it on display, thus assuming it's removed from your inventory and no-longer threaded.

Why are you giving a player a significant reward and then having them risk its non-pvp related benefits to pvp-related actions? I can understand this choice with Gear, as you risk the use of the item against others, but this isn't the case with unrelated cosmetics.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Elorebaen wrote:
Guurzak wrote:

At launch, DAoC's capital cities were bustling hubs of player chatter, filled with crafters and their customers.

A month after the launch of housing, they were ghost towns.

This exactly what I do not want to see happen. Any mechanism that has the potential to remove players from play even willingly is counterproductive for goal of the game.

Artificial compulsion to public vulnerability isn't desirable. It isn't enough that you want everyone where you can get at them whenever you feel like it.

Issuing a demand that there should be nothing that allows seclusion, even if that is what a player desires, is a usurpation of player independence. To me it is anathema.

Far better to make a social environment that players want to take part in.

I can respect someone's right and desire to play a single player game. Wanting a single player option within a sandbox mmo which is explicitly being designed around player interaction seems to miss the point.

If someone wants seclusion, he can fire up Skyrim. Nobody is making you log into PFO. If you want to log into PFO, you should be somewhere I can assassinate you.

51 to 78 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Personal Housing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online
Pathfinder Online