Fixing Player Housing

Jurixe

I made an extremely similar thread exactly one year ago, which you can find here. 

The State Of Housing

For that reason, I won't rehash all my arguments, but simply lay out the problems as I see them and suggested solutions.

PROBLEM

--------

- Player housing is unsafe.

  - Soul theft

  - Prisms

  - Player attacks

  - Requires constant upkeep for basic security

- Player housing is inconvenient.

  - Requires walking through the subdivision

  - Feels disconnected from the city

  - Much easier to stand in a random city room with guards

- Player housing cannot be shared.

  - Building RP-heavy homes like clan houses or family homes is discouraged due to the inability to grant permissions for doors or furniture

  - Expensive upgrades are much less desirable

- Player housing is inferior to ships.

  - Ships are impenetrable if just kept in harbour.

  - Invulnerable to theft, prism and attacks, and has enhanced privacy and continent-wide shipreturn.

  - Ships already have the added functionality of transport, trade, PVP and PVE.

  - Ships are currently more desirable than houses for security and storage, not even necessarily for the seafaring aspect.

WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM?

----------------------

Housing has enormous RP potential and could be a huge gold sink with the right motivation. It just seems to make no RP sense that characters should aim to buy a ship instead of a house if their primary reason is security and storage. Housing as it is currently feels underdeveloped and is prohibitively expensive for being purely cosmetic; there is no incentive for players to invest in developing it into an RP tool when ships provide both utility and peace of mind.

SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS

-------------------

Instead of looking at housing as a cosmetic option, we should treat them like coveted end-game content to spend gold on that combines utility and prestige. Make them desirable enough, certainly more than ships, to constantly upgrade and use. Upgrades can be expensive but players should at least be offered the option. 

Note that the suggestions below are not meant to be all implemented together; rather it's a question of choosing which would be most suitable.

Security

  - Introduce a new housing upgrade akin to a permanent monolith sigil. Players can still resigil as normal without it.

  - Restrict souls from walking through or reincarnating in subdivision houses. There is usually no interaction involved whatsoever in house theft. It just preys upon the people who use houses as they are meant to be used and can't log in to upkeep sigils. 

  - Make each house a new area on its own, the way ships are.*
  - Provide lockable chests only available in houses. The capacity could be restricted and you could have only one chest per room.

Alternatives:
  - Make ships in harbour the same area as the harbour (so prismable, area attacks will work there etc). I'm sorry, ship owners, but ships being their own area are just too OP and this is a big reason why housing will never be able to surpass ships. Making them the same area as harbours would bring them on par with houses, but they'd still be reasonably safe.
  - Ship owners can still purchase non-prism, monolith (if added) upgrades.

*: If houses are made separate areas, contracts should not tick down there.

If people are going to hide on ships regardless, they may as well do it in a house where it makes more sense and they can RP with people. I am aware this opinion will not be popular, but short of downgrading ships, I see no way around it.

Convenience

  - Allow the use of HOMERETURN to return to a room in your house. The same requirements apply as to SHIPRETURN.

  - Possibly add the HOMERETURN function to a room in the city. If the house is made an area on its own, then players should return to that city room when they leave.

Justification: To bring it up to par with SHIPRETURN. 

Sharing

  - Allow organisation, family and other legitimate RP clans to build clan-owned housing. This helps to further legitimise their status, especially families, and gives housing RP importance.

  - Allow a maximum of one room per member of the clan (except the clan leader) or one room per ally of the house owner where the leader/owner can grant the room dweller individual door/furniture placement/room edit perms. The owner/clan leader still has the power to create/edit/delete rooms as usual.

  - Allow clan members/personal allies to use housing upgrades such as stables.

  - Allow clan members/personal allies to HOMERETURN to their personal room.

ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS

----------------------

- Coming back to life in your own room after death would be an interesting way to encourage housing use.
- Give more choices and functionalities for servants.
- Add more unique housing upgrades - an ice box that produces customisable food similar to the stone flowerpot, for example. Or house pets.
- I don't know if this can be done, but it would be nice to connect the rooms built on adjacent plots to your 'main' building in some way. There seems no point to owning plots on, say, an entire island when you only need one to build on.
- Please let me customise the door leading in. I have a portcullis >(

Note: I am not advocating (largely) for the downgrade of ship features as ships can and do double as housing. But I firmly believe that player housing can be given a more important role in Achaean life, and so mainland housing should be just as appealing and functional, if not more so, than ships. Ships already have many advantages and don't need to outweigh the benefits of mainland housing. I realise ship owners may not agree with me, but we'll have to agree to disagree there.

I would also like to hear how many of you would use houses if these changes were implemented, or whether housing would become more attractive to you. If not, I'd like to hear about what would make it attractive to you. 

I'm sure I've missed a few things, so feel free to comment.

Chiam

Player housing are partial endgames for many MMOs out there. I'd like to buy and own a house if it had any utility/less inconvenient
however at its current state even if I was given a 5000cr house I'd still be claiming my afk territory in some random guard room

Xaden

One thing that the veil and gem changes made abundantly clear was just how many people spend time on ships. AFK or not.

I think if you degrade the security of ships you lose those people for a solid proportion of the time they are normally online. 

The argument that these people are adding nothing to the game by sitting afk somewhere is a good one but.. we've all seen the raves about how great it is to see so many names on QW and I think the benefit of making the game look more populated is one that we'll see pay off with time.

So... my point: Don't degrade ships. Upgrade houses.

Or at least do the latter BEFORE you do the former.

Jurixe

I'm actually fine with ships remaining the way they are, but I know they're a source of annoyance for the PK crowd (understandably) and so I wanted to try and find a happy medium. The overarching idea is to make player housing more appealing than ship housing in a functional as well as cosmetic way, and security is a huge part of that.

I'd actually suggest that more people might be willing to stay online if they could be confident that their security was assured. They might be afk here and there because tending to kids or busy doing something else, but at least you might have the chance of interacting a little with them, even if not a full scale face to face thing. If I knew that my character couldn't be safe, I'd just log off, which is perhaps not what we want to encourage in this day and age.

Tesha

Security is the biggest thing for me. Some security upgrades are available but they're costly. No-prism and privacy both have to be purchased separately. This would be one thing if it was for your entire house, but it's for a single room. Without these, you're subject to threat of infiltration with prism, or crazy creepy spying with sapience. If you get creative with outdoors rooms, you're open to track, and there's no counter to that once they're in.

Atalkez

I also have a portcullis, so opening a door is really annoying for the thematics. Like the OP states, it’s inconvenient to get to it (I have an island in the far northwest of the subs), less so to get back. I could put my Gravestone there, but not everyone has that ability. Outdoors being open to track is a good example. Realistically, there could be a gold purchase for anti track too.

It’s very expensive in comparison to ships, even if they are made to be more equitable. A ship is largely a one time purchase, you don’t really have to custom anything or buy any additional features, they’re already available inherently. I really don’t see any way to make housing better without making ships more susceptible to infiltration or attack. 

I like the idea of expanding on the servants system, and lockable containers that are actually useful. A permanent sigil (or a butler to refresh it from a coffer (strongbox) in case of absence) is really a no brainer.

Housing also has the added benefit of working hand in hand with the mining system, since it uses commodities for the room credits etc. Ships exist entirely on their own ecosystem, and really don’t remove any gold from the game once purchased. Housing will continue to do so every day, if it’s made to be attractive properly.

I do think the ‘no safe spots’ argument is entirely overblown. Outside of the craziness that is soul door bypass thieves, theft is a much smaller problem than it used to be. Random attacks don’t happen, and if they do, they’re not usually legal. If there is a bounty or contract, well you earned that interaction by your own actions. Accept that it’s a possibility and be wary of it. Just absolute immunity unless you’re feeling nice is silly. I’m all for making it very difficult for someone to get to you, but impossible simply isn’t a good design.

Jurixe

The issue with outdoors rooms being a security risk is another flaw that I'd like to address - it seems a bit silly that my outdoors garden can't actually be 'outdoors' because of security. It would be nice if no-prism were just amended to encompass all forms of travel to that location - that would then make it more worth it to get it per room as now you don't have to worry about monoliths either.

Kiet

Technically housing doesn't remove gold either beyond what mining already does, and mining already seems to have a pretty high use.

Atalkez

Would be easy to make the upgrades pure gold instead of commodities, while leaving all of the room credits on the mining ecosystem. Happy medium can be reached there!

Edit: I’m personally not interested in taking the invulnerability of ships and slapping it on housing. There should be some very slight ability for people to get to you, not 100% impossible.

Rangor

I remember when regen rooms were introduced and bought for guild halls it was awesome (because we actually needed to rest to recover endurance/wp then), and made the guild halls a bigger gathering point. (until we didn't really need to go sleep/rest to keep up wp/endurance anymore)

New investable room powers could be added such as.. Small bonuses could be given to certain rooms that are invested with them.. like.. rest here for 30 minutes and get 5% xp bonus for the next 30 minutes.. Room with the Rite of Dawn effect.. etc.

I think house halls could do with similar stuff, but perhaps earned through IG events instead of only hard cash.

Solnir

Just posting to voice my support in response to the initial post, hoping admin sees more people agreeing. Carry on discussing.

Ismay

Sorry, but just no to the ship part. Veils and gems are gone. We have no other way to have any private time at all (and no, not for mudsex related activities). While I think interaction is important in these games, I also strongly feel that privacy is just as important. Keep on this road, and we'll end up having players just log out, which is never a good idea.

Personally, I don't do a lot of sailing, but I use my ship frequently as a safe harbor. This would take most of the functionality away from ships for me, and frankly, I'm done with things I buy here losing personal value.

So, no. I can't give support to anything that lessens ship function.

Aralaya

Love all of these ideas, especially allowing family/clan members to build in houses.
If someone else bought the plot you're using, and then goes dormant, you cant update the house ever since only they are allowed to build. It's really annoying

Cailin

I don't mind paying gold for stuff like this (although admittedly it would be end game for me, as I can't afford it yet), but I will never build a house until some of these ideas become available (to buy).

Laedha

I like all of the other ideas for upgrades and cool things, but I don't think ships should be downgraded because they keep people from using houses. I played before ships and people didn't use houses much more then, they're just too inconvenient and unsafe most of the time. People won't start to use them more until it's more fun.

I think there are some good arguments for why ships should not be quite as 100% safe and impermeable as they are, but that should be a separate conversation. Nerfing ships won't cause people to start using subs houses. 

Atalkez

>Has ship
>Doesn’t care to sail or use it for intended purpose
>Thinks that’s okay

Glad we’re being realistic!

Ismay

>Has ship
>Sails some, but gets chased by players trying to sink said ship
>Thinks it is ok because I am slowly sailing more, as I can avoid being sunk. Not experienced enough to do much solo against these players whose sole purpose is sinking other ships. I'm learning as I go.

Yep, I'm being entirely realistic since this was how ships functioned when I bought one.


Also, I didn't start out being sarcastic, and I'd appreciate it if you disagreed with the same level of respect.

Atalkez

I’m not being sarcastic. Arguing from the standpoint of ‘It’s worked this way since I bought it!’  is not realistic and holds next to no water.

We discuss making changes that can be good for the game. Ship invulnerability isn’t good for the game, as detailed by several people now. Bring some points that aren’t legacy use, and I’ll take them a bit more seriously.

Reyson

If you want to afk anywhere, why not get a bed or use a journal? Not sure I buy the argument that people logged in but not interacting at all is at all better than said person logging out, except maybe to pad the qw list (but that brings its own problems, the biggest of which is the impression of widespread absentmindedness).

Xaden

Ship invulnerability has its benefits and its drawbacks.

As has been pointed out.

If you make my ship vulnerable then I qq whenever I need to go mindless for an unspecified period of time.

And it won't just be me.

We'll be back to the game looking small again.

Ismay

All I'm basically seeing is RP potential and gold sink. Both of which a ship also serves.

Look, I couldn't care less how much love housing receives. It doesn't interest me because most housing is located within cities. If you leave a city, you lose your house, and all that money put into it. With a ship, I have much more security for my purchases, for now that is.

I'm all for adding ship benefits, plus some, to player housing if that's what people want. Just stop downgrading credit purchases and instead, increase functionality in the needed areas. No one likes to buy things, only to have them lose perceived value. It's making me hesitate spending money on larger ticket items.

Laedha

Atalkez said:

I’m not being sarcastic. Arguing from the standpoint of ‘It’s worked this way since I bought it!’  is not realistic and holds next to no water.

We discuss making changes that can be good for the game. Ship invulnerability isn’t good for the game, as detailed by several people now. Bring some points that aren’t legacy use, and I’ll take them a bit more seriously.

Nothing has really been detailed. The only reasoning given was to bring ships in line with player housing, which I think is a different conversation. 

I think it is a valid argument that some people will play less if they don't have a safe spot, especially since the main purpose would not be combat, it would be theft. Or assholes who prism in and then kill ship crew because they feel like it. 

I was one of the people who said I think there are some valid points for why ships should be less invulnerable but I don't think the OP's reasoning is good enough. Come up with an actual proposal maybe. 

Atalkez

If you think your item is devalued because it’s adjusted to actually be a more realistic mechanic, and not a ‘buy and forget’ thing - then that’s an issue with your mentality in general. Achaea is a living breathing world, it’s clearly stated in the purchases help file. You can’t reasonably expect things to ALWAYS work X way. They’re going to be adjusted, and tweaked, as problems/issues arise and are discussed, when a fair adjustment is provided. Classes get changed constantly, but you don’t see people complaining that their class is suddenly devalued. It’s just been changed slightly.

They could change every artie I own, and while I may be wary of some of them, if I know the end result is better for the game, I’m not going to complain. Ships being completely invulnerable isn’t a good mechanic, no matter how you characterize it. The admin agreed at one point, when they allowed prism to work from harbours, but it got reversed due to outcry of people that owned ships. It wasn’t an elegant solution, because largely there was no alternative, which is what we’ve suggested with housing.

I don’t believe that’s a good reason to leave a mechanic in place that’s illogical. That’s why I’ve suggested making housing more on par with ships, and bringing ships down a notch to make them both equitable.

Edit: I dunno, the OP details exactly the problem, and offers fair solutions. Not sure what else you could expect?

Laedha

What is your actual proposal here?  You don't seem to actually be responding to any arguments, just ranting about people's mindsets. 

I am not complaining about anything being devalued, or complaining at all. I'm saying that changing ship functionality will affect a lot of people and it has some major side effects (like being able to kill people's ship crew). Making all ships in one harbour within the same prismable area is going to bump up theft immensely, far more than subs houses. During major gold trades, you'll have 15+ ships coming into predictable harbours at predictable times. Captains bring people aboard to complete trades, and those people could be prism targets. Cabins can't be locked, as far as I know. Part of the difference between ships and houses is that ships actually are functional, they're one of the best investments for non-dragons to earn gold. I think the admin should be cautious about making them more vulnerable to theft and invasion because of how that might interact with their other functions. 

What exactly do you want to change about ships? 

Ismay

Why shouldn't ships in harbors be safe areas for players? I mean, if it's because players are starting pk and running to ships, to avoid consequences, then simply put a timer on pk commands and boarding ships.

Yes, Achaea is a changing world. But there simply -has- to be some constant. Otherwise, no one is going to spend money here. My class has been changed more than I can even relate, but I haven't had much to say about it because I don't feel that those changes have made the class completely undesirable to me. There is a big difference in losing all perceived value than small changes for the good of the game. Ships, in their current incarnation, do not negatively impact Achaea, imo. Who cares if some players like to spend time on their ships? They'll just do the same with housing if you do what you're talking about here.

Aralaya

The fact that a ship is better than housing for security is really... strange though.
A floating hunk of wood in a harbor is safer than a hunk of wood in a subdivision in a guarded city?

Solnir

I don't "ship", but how do you shippers feel about this?
Make ships safe out to sea, but in area if in harbour. Move one room out, don't be 100% afk, and you'll be fine?

Atalkez

Sorry if you see my posts as ranting, not my intent! My mindset comment was directed at Ismay stance that, because she bought it for X purpose, it should always retain X purpose. My point is that the arguments being used are, to me, largely from a mindset that ‘I don’t want my toy to change!’ - which is silly.

The OP provided the problem, and solutions, as have been discussed in the past and recently again. I’ve proposed several things to upgrade housing so that it’s an equitable replacement to the aspect of ships that are in contention, while still retaining a bit of the danger of being in a real world that is alive.

What do I want changed about ships? I want them to not be used to avoid repercussions for your actions, which they can be. I’d like for them to be used for their intended purpose, which is seafaring, not a glorified lockbox. I understand people want privacy, and I support that. I don’t think ships should be that mechanic, and have said as much. They shouldn’t serve that purpose, because that’s simply not what a ship is supposed to be for! It doesn’t need the extra benefit of insane storage/privacy while also being the only realistic way of reaching so much more of the game. You should be buying a ship to sail to islands, or to ship trade, or to be a pirate. You shouldn’t be buying a ship to store stuff on, and to hide, because they can’t be assailed once in harbour. The mechanic is backwards, if a house inside your home city is less secure than a random ship in a random harbour.

The comment about the harbours and ship trades being predictable, I’m not sold on. You’re not guaranteed that every captain is going to do them at the same time. Also, if you’re bringing several people in and out of your ship - why should that not be a security issue anyway? You seem to be making my argument for me with those scenarios!

I know lots of people maybe think I’m an asshole, or whatever, but my intention isn’t to bring up points specifically to make people mad. I bring up issues that I perceive, offer solutions that may work, and go from there. I support a lot of what the OP stated, and have offered solutions alongside it. The mechanics of ships, as they currently operate, just seem ass backwards and I’m speaking on it. I happen to have more free time today than normal, so I’ve been watching the thread closely!

Shirszae

Solnir said:

I don't "ship", but how do you shippers feel about this?
Make ships safe out to sea, but in area if in harbour. Move one room out, don't be 100% afk, and you'll be fine?

No. This was already tried and it sucked so it got reversed. 

Ships are fine. Houses are just too lackluster at present. They are too expensive, too inconvenient to reach, too inconvenient to keep even acceptably secure.  And I say that as someone who actually enjoys and has a text house, but building it just feels meh because its just so much for so little.

Solnir

Shirszae said:

Solnir said:

I don't "ship", but how do you shippers feel about this?
Make ships safe out to sea, but in area if in harbour. Move one room out, don't be 100% afk, and you'll be fine?

No. This was already tried and it sucked so it got reversed. 

I wasn't around for that, so I didn't know. How did it "suck", though? That's very ambiguous.

Nazihk

This whole conversation is pointless.

There are only two kinds of player housing in the world.

There is housing that is not 100% absolutely secure, and there is housing that will actually be used.

Pick one.