Fixing Player Housing

Lenn

The stated reason for these threats was not the above, but when asked, "Because I warned you to get out."

Others mentioned other reasons like "You're a suspicious subject." or "You're quite literally sleeping with the enemy, I'm afraid."

Alrena

Lenn said:

You didn't threaten to kill Keorin, you threatened to kill me. Personally. With a countdown at one point. Keorin had already left by this point.

I don't understand why you expect I would attack three Mhaldorians on my own when each of you are better PvPers than me, all of you were raid-ready, and I playing on a phone.

Given that you rudely interrupted me, despite me never doing the same to you, I don't understand why you'd expect me to play nicely.

The fact you left to Muurn lake soon after I left also strongly implies you were staying there because I was still there, eg. to make good on your promise if I didn't leave or in hopes I would have struck first.

Finally, if you threaten to kill someone, you should expect the opposite to be a possibility.

I expected you to leave after the first warning, let alone second, third and finally a countdown until we'd attack. I think we even mountkicked you away. It also wasn't Muurn Lake, but the subdivisions, and we left because Keorin returned with a few other Cyrenians to push us out. You were deliberately sitting in a room, outside of the house, in the subdivisions, with three Mhaldorians and were told repeatedly to leave.

Clearly we don't see eye to eye on this and derailing this thread. I know we interrupted you, that's fair. But you also got plenty of warning to leave and still weren't attacked! In return, you hire. In essence you killed me for seeing me break in someone else's house and then telling you to leave so you wouldn't get caught in the middle of it. There was absolutely no desire to kill you, or we would've after the first warning. We were trying to be somewhat considerate (yes, despite already being the jerks who interrupted, I know). The fact I didn't hunt you down for the contract should make it obvious I don't give two cents about killing you!

edit: In fact, that countdown came to give you a last chance. One of us wanted to kill you at that point so I started the countdown.

I'll stop now, promise. Sorry for derailing!

Tahquil

I have a lockable chest.

Lenn

Melodie said:

All right guys, lets maybe move the PK discussion to rants or something. I don't want to see this thread shut down. It's too important!

I think this discussion did reveal one issue that wasn't considered before.

While I understand where people are coming from, the view that only the plot owner should have the right to defend their house is at odds with how houses are often used.

Plenty of houses are used by people other than the owner (that is, without the owner even being present), and some even represent the combined resources and effort of multiple people despite having only one official owner.

Unfortunately, houses may only have a single owner, and any shared ownership is currently handled through door permissions and nothing more. Clan housing might fix this situation, though clan slots are limited and clans are themselves pricy, so I don't think every couple will want a clan of their own just to manage house rights.

Kiet

Hiring isn't the same as defending.

Lenn

Sorry, while I strictly disagree with your PK-centric outlook, in this case ownership has many other important roles, like deciding who can build unto the house, manage door access rights, etc.

I think the discussion is meaningful without delving back into arguing who gets to kill who.

Solnir

HEY GUYS WE SHOULD FIX PLAYER HOUSING, YEAH?

Reyson

Given you can technically hire for whatever reason you want, so long as it's not harassment and you deal with the consequences when people come to kick your ass for hiring for bad reasons, we probably don't actually need a code of laws about when you can and can't hire. 

In fact, a code of when you can and can't hire (as well as when you can and can't attack someone) is exactly the opposite of what the admins want, and removing a cause list has been hugely good for the game. If you want to break into houses, accept you might be hired on. If you're going to loiter in an unprotected house, accept you're tempting people into breaking in. Anything dramatic and out of the ordinary, admins can deal with via issues. 

You do you, and others will respond accordingly, all round.

If this is that nog a deal to you, make a new thread? This is actually a thread in which people are placing a lot of hope that something good will change, so maybe keep it focused?

On topic: @Nicola how come slaves aren't allowed in housing servants? Is it cuz some people are pervs that we can't have nice things

Aralaya

Reads title
How to fix Player Housing
Reads last page or two
This is when it's ok to hire on someone

Mindshell

Aralaya said:

Reads title
How to fix Player Housing
Reads last page or two
This is when it's ok to hire someone to be your housing servant

Alrena can come scrub my floors.

Torinn

@Skye makes an eloquent point, like always, but it's easily remedied.  Hang out in a prism-proofed room or move when you see prism incoming.  The second scenario interrupts you briefly but it's the price we pay for playing in an online game.  Prisms aren't "sudden" unless you've never seen them before.  They're even less "sudden" if you have monolith sigils down (which is just good security).

Mathilda

Wow, the entitlement. "I've come to your buddy's house where you're minding your own business because I want to raid and fight and you DARE seek retribution?"

Edit: With that said, I would absolutely love group-owned housing, if only to counter Mhaldorian legalism.

Kogan

Torinn said:

@Skye makes an eloquent point, like always, but it's easily remedied.  Hang out in a prism-proofed room or move when you see prism incoming.  The second scenario interrupts you briefly but it's the price we pay for playing in an online game.  Prisms aren't "sudden" unless you've never seen them before.  They're even less "sudden" if you have monolith sigils down (which is just good security).

Yeah but then you still have out of subs which people pay much more for. Where your city isnt there and the person can prism over and over and you can never even enjoy what you paid for without shelling out to make every room prism-proof because one person is bored and can ink a tattoo. Which does add up quite quickly. Alternatively you could have a few rooms you plan to spend time in prism-proof. We're still back at square one where I'm forced to log in every x amount of days regardless of whats going on in rl if I dont want someone in my house though. Which isn't okay.

Alrena

I don't think total, foolproof security should exist either. Prism-proofing a room isn't that expensive compared to some other things you could buy and prisming is the simplest method and most common method to break in somewhere. Even without prism-proof, you can move rooms. Yes, it's inconvenient, but with monoliths down it takes forever for the prism to go through.

The only thing that I agree should get a counter is the soul-rezzing method of breaking in somewhere because it almost exclusively targets people who went dormant.

Also, @Reyson I'm pretty sure admins actually cited people being icky in houses already as the main reason they're never adding 'slave' to servants. I just want a gardener, really. 

Skye

Torinn said:

 Hang out in a prism-proofed room or move when you see prism incoming.  The second scenario interrupts you briefly but it's the price we pay for playing in an online game.  Prisms aren't "sudden" unless you've never seen them before.  They're even less "sudden" if you have monolith sigils down (which is just good security).

Which was also one of my points:

It is pretty depressing that the onus is always on the person on the receiving end and not the person initiating things. We pay the price if we don't do it, and we still wind up paying anyway just to make sure it doesn't happen.

I don't accept 'you can just walk out of the room if someone tries to prism in' as a solution either. Because as I'm sure some people in the y700/750 games can testify: if someone is determined to make trouble for you, they're content to try and prism to you for hours on end.

I have several prism-proof rooms just so I can sit in my house. Even if they are 'cheap', they're not convenient to purchase when you have to compete with everyone else for the necessary wood.

It's pretty twisted that there are people who feel entitled to thrust their RP into my face on my private property and acting as if they should be allowed to do so because I did or didn't do X so I must be asking for it/deserved to have it happen to me. Sounds familiar? Yeah, it should.

Alrena

Skye said:

Torinn said:

 Hang out in a prism-proofed room or move when you see prism incoming.  The second scenario interrupts you briefly but it's the price we pay for playing in an online game.  Prisms aren't "sudden" unless you've never seen them before.  They're even less "sudden" if you have monolith sigils down (which is just good security).

Which was also one of my points:

It is pretty depressing that the onus is always on the person on the receiving end and not the person initiating things. We pay the price if we don't do it, and we still wind up paying anyway just to make sure it doesn't happen.

I don't accept 'you can just walk out of the room if someone tries to prism in' as a solution either. Because as I'm sure some people in the y700/750 games can testify: if someone is determined to make trouble for you, they're content to try and prism to you for hours on end.

I have several prism-proof rooms just so I can sit in my house. Even if they are 'cheap', they're not convenient to purchase when you have to compete with everyone else for the necessary wood.

It's pretty twisted that there are people who feel entitled to thrust their RP into my face on my private property and acting as if they should be allowed to do so because I did or didn't do X so I must be asking for it/deserved to have it happen to me. Sounds familiar? Yeah, it should.

While it's hard to argue with that point, I also feel it's not exactly what we're saying. For the most part, I think, we want to avoid more ship-level security. I also recognize it's a particulary annoying point for OOS plots. I've never had the problem of people being interested in just being a nuisance to me, beyond trying to rob me, so perhaps that is where the difference in how we view this comes from.

Perhaps another solution is possible then? Prisming begins to cost willpower, perhaps, with consecutive (failed) attempts costing more and more similar to how exterminations will see you run out of essence in 5-6 attempts. Makes it less appealing, at least, to be a nuisance just for the sake of being a nuisance.

Or maybe house guards just eject the invader after X amount of time, without being bashable. Similar to Minia ogres. Given enough time to kill someone, in the case of going after contract or bounty, but not enough to be a constant nuisance. A minute or two, perhaps.

Beyond that, I think the reference at the end was pretty far over the top. Again, I don't know how bad people got, but personally I prism in, check for loot and leave. All of that generally within a few minutes. Most of what I get, I even give back. I'd love to see housing become safe enough to be used, but without entirely shutting out the option for people to come after you. It can be made difficult enough that they'd only do so if it was worth the effort, such as for a bounty or contract.

Cooper

@Alrena

As someone who has been harassed for hours on end during almost every major world competition, I can confirm people are willing to do this. 

Torinn

That is nuts.  I wholeheartedly agree with exponentially increasing resource usage.

Alrena

Cooper said:

Alrena

As someone who has been harassed for hours on end during almost every major world competition, I can confirm people are willing to do this. 

Well yes, but that's not exactly when you're sitting in a house! And usually for the purpose of hindering you so you don't get your Staff or whatever else the goal of the competition is. Annoying, but not quite what Skye is referring to. Though I will believe you (both) on it, which is why I suggested some options to resolve it! Honestly I like the prism idea since it'd address the world competition thing too, or at least require a tiny bit more effort.

Melodie

Man, before I got a couple of no-prism rooms, I used to have so goddamn many prism attempts in my house. I think two of those were people chasing bounties - the other 20+ were people just wanting to get into the house, whether to hammeRP, break in and laugh at me and leave, break in to steal things, break in to steal things and demand food when I have nothing to steal else they'll kill me, break in to try and kill someone else in the house, break in to just see if they can, break in to...

Well, you get the idea. I love the manor, I love having it being out of the subdivisions, but god, more security and clan housing permissions would just make my life so much more bearable and more encouraged to invest into it further.

Keorin

In my mind, the problem with just saying that a house owner should buy no-prism or move is that it makes housing less safe then just standing in the city in a well-defended room.

I'm all for there being forms of risk with this stuff, but knowing I'd have to shell out for every room I wanted to sit in without risk of unprovoked interruption is a big reason why I've never wanted to bother with housing mechanics.

Achilles

Hmm, why not fix it so souls are not be able to go through closed/locked doors, that fixes the dormant owner issue (and adds security to shop storerooms).  Locked rooms can store your crap, you won't be standing in those very long.  

Housing upgrades should be more gold centric, this is a great gold sink and makes total sense IC, Proficy the mining industrialist can build a palace made of gold, Kaiu can rebuild Shallam with her herbal pharmaceutical fortune and so forth.  

Achilles

My first housing upgrade, a vault with a million sovereigns in it.

Lenn

I actually don't agree with keeping any risk element at all. The one thing this discussion revealed to me is that some of the playerbase of this game feels extremely entitled to have free access to my free time and personal space without fear of consequence, when they should in fact not.

Me saying housing should be as secure as ships are now was not sarcastic.

You cannot convince me that someone should have the right to bother me or anyone else in their own personal home. The argument that it could be used to avoid consequences is irrelevant as logging out can be used for the same purpose.

Instead, perhaps there could be a grievance system where you mark someone as having wronged you, and it gives you a personal timer like the mark contract timer which doesn't count down unless someone is outside of safe locations, allowing you to hunt them much later without concern if they spend most of their time in hiding since your initial grievance.

Reyson

Again, that's literally the opposite of the direction pk rules have been moved in, and that change has proven to be hugely beneficial to the state of pvp in general, in Achaea. 

Aegoth

Lenn said:

The one thing this discussion revealed to me is that some of the playerbase of this game feels extremely entitled to have free access to my free time and personal space without fear of consequence, when they should in fact not.

Oh sweet summer child, how very very wrong you are. Achaea is a game of conflict. No one is safe from that risk, nor should they be.  

Lenn

All the arguments I see against security (whether housing or theft) have a blatant element of "You should be at risk, but I should not be." It's insufficient that houses are insecure but people want to have zero consequence to abusing that insecurity as well.

However, the privacy of houses compete with the fairly iron-clad privacy of online messaging services. I see no reason to bother with a house for privacy when it'd take much less time and resources to just take any private RP outside the game.

Reyson

If your main objective is to spend time with a single person to the exclusion of the rest of Achaea, to the point where you don't want to interact with literally anyone else (not just not interact, but make the possibility of interaction nil), then... yes, probably not being on Achaea is a good idea. 

Accipiter

Reyson said:

If your main objective is to spend time with a single person to the exclusion of the rest of Achaea, to the point where you don't want to interact with literally anyone else (not just not interact, but make the possibility of interaction nil), then... yes, probably not being on Achaea is a good idea. 

Or buy a bed. You know, the item that is literally designed to do everything Lenn wants that is right there.

Lenn

Who ever said a single person? o.o

Even the private messaging of these forums supports as many people as I'd like.