Destructible Houses Combined thread /Mod

[Arxon Havenloft]

It would have to be a method of sieging. And while it may seem like overkill it's really just griefing at it's highest form. Maybe just to piss you off, maybe because they want to put their house in your location, maybe because they want something that you are storing within the home. It's just another grief tactic.

You cannot compare housing to the real world. In the real world I would have insurance on my home, and all materials within it. Upon it's destruction I'd become rich enough to buy 2 houses. I'd also likely be aware of whatever war would include my home and be able to take precautions. In the game anyone could come strolling by with a wish to ruin you. You'd never know until it was over and everything that you've worked for is already gone. Yes, people can lose everything in real life. But I wouldn't call it fun. So why implement something that isn't fun into a game? It just doesn't sound like a good development choice.

For me the decision is simple. Housing was one of the top 3 reasons why I never cancelled my UO accounts. It was one of the most incredible features in any game that I've ever played in any genre. It was near perfection. The only change that I would make to such a great system would be to decrease the possible size of the homes. When they get too big they are just blobs that take up too much space. Smaller homes are much more interesting to look at. I wouldn't want to see anything larger than what the size of a Large Marble was in UO.

[Stump]

MO is made in Fantasy Medieval Times, and you cannot get insurance in these days. Everytime some barbars from other village could attack your house and burn it. Dont make enemies, nobody is running arround and destroing houses without reason (and if there is some guys, then they would be quickle executed by other players). It's all about community.

Why you everywhere giving your Casual gamer Ideas, jus for YOUR safety, and for YOUR fun?. This is full-loot game, with minority is hardcore players (other kids will be scared beacause of such "hard to survive" game, as it was in UO), and I think it is good.

[rejekt]

As long as it's not something small that can destroy a player house and requires a certain form of dedication and preperation I can see it being ok.

Though if you caught wind of their target, could try to empty the house and sell it before they get it there. Now that would be funny to watch some poor chap who just bought a house get it destroyed. :x

[Arxon Havenloft]

There is nothing that can be said to me to make me believe that any player deserves such punishment. They have a right to play just like everyone else and if you take away everything that they've worked for then you are just torturing the innocent. That is not an approach that I want to see the devs make it's just that simple for me. I understand that some people thrive on torturing the innocent.. It's been proven in just this thread alone. But that doesn't make it right. You want to go around destroying houses, do it to the people that can defend against it. Attack a guild.

[Stump]

admiralnlson: "If you don't want your house to be destroyed, you build it in a safe area. End of story."
And there will always be people who are willing to help.
So, do you have something more to say?

[Arxon Havenloft]

There are no such thing as safe areas or safe zones.. at least there shouldn't be.

I don't know who would be there to help.. how would they even know what is happening? Basically it's just giving those with power even more power. If a large guild feels the need to remove you of your home it will be done, simple as that. The 6 or 7 people that you find randomly around you that may want to help wont be of much assistance against that kind of force.

Besides, who wants to go to work each day in the real world wondering if they are going to have a home to come back to Mortal? It's just another thing to stress about. Go figure, a game giving you stress.. Don't most people play games to reduce or release stress?

[Stump]

It feel like you didn' read this thread...
The "safe zones" can make group of people or guild. Something like Feudal Pact in Medieval Times.
Yes, there is no safe places, everywhere you can be killed. And if some guild just destroyed your house, then go to the oposite guilds. Where is community, there is safety. In such dangerous wordls like MO, where everytime you can be killed and all your stuff can be destroyed, people was benn forced to make groups and build cities. Same as Medieval Times. At least you can build house with some friend or what...
You want safety, you can get it. You just dont think "how you can get it?" without ruining realism. Everything was discussed in this thread.
If you dont want to worry about your house (what is impossipble), go to the city. You will get safety, but you must make Pact with that guild which city is.

"Don't most people play games to reduce or release stress?" - No. Or atleast all that I know.


Every problem that you mentioned have its solve. Just read discussion from the begining... There is genious Ideas.

[rejekt]

Which is why decay is a perfectly fine way to handle houses and lack of use, rather than straight up destroying them.

I do think some people are trying to expect the impossible and taking the meaning of "sandbox" a little too far.

[Stump]

Originally Posted by rejekt

Which is why decay is a perfectly fine way to handle houses and lack of use, rather than straight up destroying them.

I do think some people are trying to expect the impossible and taking the meaning of "sandbox" a little too far.

You are wrong. Thats not too much. Do you read discussions about Caravans, and do you ever seen UO "wildernes", full of Indestructable player houses.
Devs sayd that there will be Player made cities, then I think make players naturaly make cities, because of safety.
I think with non-destructable houses, you would lost lots of interesting fun.

Ha! I get one more idea with houses!
Lets say, later in game (maybe after five years of playing) you are going with your new friend who just created account. In the forest you see the ruins and say: "Ahhh... I remember this city... Good times there was... I remeber when one night it was attacked by barbarians, lots of people died in this cruel batle. Then there was a....". That would be natural World history, Lore made by people. All ruins and signs of what was some time ago would make all world more realistic and entertaining.
I hope you get me.... Natural ruins, editable terrain where old mines become dungeons, no insta-travel, imagine what awesome game MO would be.....

[rejekt]

I remember running around and seeing all the houses and getting annoyed at times, but it also made me chuckle that some of the people had to find some a remote location that there were monsters running around everywhere.

I see where you're coming from, don't get me wrong. Which is why I'm teetering on this idea in my mind. For one I can understand that the loss would be pretty brutal. Being at school, work, or where ever one might be should not be a long enough period to destroy ones homestead.

I totally agree that player-made lore and history would be some of the best stories ever.

[OMGPIE]

I think this is the closest poll I have seen.

[Zigkirby]

Originally Posted by Heliopios

You should get a mace and start hitting the support columns in your house. See how long it takes for that house to go down.

That's not the point. Unless there's some serious consequence there's no safety unless you build in a city, which, honestly, is dumb. While I understand there should be a certain amount of risk with everything, unless you're part of a powerful organization you can't even have a house? I mean, sure, you're basically target practice in EvE if you're not part of a major corporation, but you shouldn't be pigeonholed and restricted by something like that.

[admiralnlson]

Originally Posted by OMGPIE

I think this is the closest poll I have seen.

Especially since like half a dozen of people who voted "No" regretted it afterwards when we found a compromise (on page 5-6 or something).

[Arxon Havenloft]

Of course I've read the discussion from the beginning. As I almost always do. When I don't I specifically state it at the beginning of my post. If you've read it all then you should already see that I don't want to live in someone stupid guild's "Town or City". The words Housing and City just don't mix well.. I want to live on a lake, or near the mountains. I want peace and solitude where I can relax.

I don't want anything to do with guilds other than my own 5-6 man guild. Why is it only 5-6 members? Simple.. Those are the only people that I can trust to be loyal, responsible, just, and mature. I hate large guilds and I hate all that there is to do with anything concerning large guilds. It's just not fun for me, and the majority of players aren't a part of them anyways so I don't see myself as a minority here.

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be an option for those that are interested, I just don't want to be forced into it. Plain and simple. I play these fantasy world games to take my mind off of reality and realistic issues.. I like to immerse myself into a better world, one in which I can be successful in. The more stressful the game becomes the less I will be able to have that feeling.

To me it seems as if it should take large amounts of attackers to destroy things such as buildings.. It only makes sense that way. So I would assume that guild vs guild would be the best scenario for destructible structures. That is fine with me. You want to destroy something destroy a guild's fortress.. But not everyone wants to be a part of that action. Shadowbane proved that. There is room in this game for both audiences. Let player housing remain indestructible. It's an extremely fair compromise.

Originally Posted by Stump

Lets say, later in game (maybe after five years of playing) you are going with your new friend who just created account. In the forest you see the ruins and say: "Ahhh... I remember this city... Good times there was... I remeber when one night it was attacked by barbarians, lots of people died in this cruel batle. Then there was a....".

You can talk about stories that way but you'll never see them.. The ruins probably woudln't exist later on.. You home would probably have been replaced by the guy's home that decided he wanted your spot and sent his entire guild after you in order to get it. The battle probably even took place while you were at work or asleep.

[ketrine]

Houses and vendors should be destroyable. If I dont want my house anymore I should have every right to /destrystructure_plot07.

Now should houses be destroyable by non-owners? Perhaps not!

[admiralnlson]

Originally Posted by Zigkirby

That's not the point. Unless there's some serious consequence there's no safety unless you build in a city, which, honestly, is dumb. While I understand there should be a certain amount of risk with everything, unless you're part of a powerful organization you can't even have a house? I mean, sure, you're basically target practice in EvE if you're not part of a major corporation, but you shouldn't be pigeonholed and restricted by something like that.

If you got the time, you should read this thread (completely ) : here.

You'll see that the request for destructible houses has nothing to do with risk vs reward. It's about territory control, which is something that the devs said would happen.

[admiralnlson]

Originally Posted by Arxon Havenloft

To me it seems as if it should take large amounts of attackers to destroy things such as buildings.. It only makes sense that way. So I would assume that guild vs guild would be the best scenario for destructible structures. That is fine with me. You want to destroy something destroy a guild's fortress.. But not everyone wants to be a part of that action. Shadowbane proved that. There is room in this game for both audiences. Let player housing remain indestructible. It's an extremely fair compromise.

Not at all, because if houses are indestructible, we will never EVER have territory control.
(btw lol, how would indestructible houses be a compromise in a indestructible houses vs destructible houses debate? xD)

If members of my worst enemy guild start to build indestructible houses on the lands I'm supposed to control, then what do I do? Ask them nicely to move out?

Mortal Online's overview page says you will be able to "rule entire nations". That is NOT just Keeps control.

Like you said, it should take lots of efforts to destroy buildings. That means if you don't have big-time guilds as enemies, you will never have your little house on the prairie destroyed. Regardless of it being destructible or not.

[ketrine]

I dont want my house to be destroyed. I dont want to destroy anyone's house. I really don't understand why anyone would want this unless it was the house of someone who hasn't logged in in 2 years and is wasting space.


If you want to PvP fine. If you want to shoot me in the back and take the [shriveled rat claw] i just looted from the swamp rat, fine. But don't destroy everything I have worked for in the game while I am at work or asleep. I am not a hardcore player. I don't expect to be the best or the fastest on the server, but I want to play and have fun in a sandbox setting like I did in SWG. (I didnt make it in time for UO.) This game sounds very fun, but if anyone can burn my house to the ground for fun, why would I want to build one in the first place?

Life has enough problems. Dont add this one to our game.

[Soulein]

It depends on how MO deals with player made city assets. In a "Shadowbane like" scenario, players would build their houses within a player made city. All structures within a city are protected by the "central structure" and are given invulnerable status. When a siege occurs, a window is set by the defenders and at the appointed time the invuln status is removed. The attackers need the capture or destroy the "central structure", and the defenders need to destroy the structure or item (in Shadowbane it was a large menhir called a banestone) that removes the invuln status. When either condition is met, the window ends.

With this system, you can have the stability and protection of a location to sell your goods, while at the same time providing a tempting target to would be attackers. A prosperous city, chock full of merchants peddling expensive wares and rare resources would encite a loot fest should any attackers breach the walls and start breaking down doors.

[admiralnlson]

Originally Posted by ketrine

I dont want my house to be destroyed. I dont want to destroy anyone's house. I really don't understand why anyone would want this unless it was the house of someone who hasn't logged in in 2 years and is wasting space.

Life has enough problems. Dont add this one to our game.

omg will you people at least TRY to understand?
Even better, if you realize you don't understand why people would want destructible houses, how about you just don't post until you do?

The most important thing to understand is that, if you don't want to be involved in warfare, then you just WON'T.
Doesn't matter if your house is destructible or not, it WON'T be destroyed. Is that so hard to understand really? If you don't believe me, read the 10 pages (again?) and you'll get how it would work.

The houses being destructible is only something that people involved in guild warfare will experience.
If you were saying "I want to be involved in guild warfare but don't want my keeps or houses destroyed", then it would be interesting.

But if you don't want to be involved, then leave it alone. You won't have your destructible house destroyed.

[Apollo]

Exactly, Admiral has it right on. The whole point of burning houses is land grabbing. Burning keeps and houses has to do with the entire theory of nation building. If you don't want to have your house burned down then be sure to get on the good side of the faction that is closest. Welcome to a sandbox game people. Pay the faction whose land you are on a protection fee and problem solved....

[Arxon Havenloft]

Originally Posted by admiralnlson

Like you said, it should take lots of efforts to destroy buildings. That means if you don't have big-time guilds as enemies, you will never have your little house on the prairie destroyed. Regardless of it being destructible or not.

It isn't difficult to make enemies. All it takes is to have a home in a spot that a guild wants to put a home in and voila, you're an instant enemy. Or say you are displaying something of value that a guild would like to have. Popularity also brings enemies.

I understand your argument for territorial control and the only response that I can come up with is that each home built within a player run territory or traded to other players within a player run territory must be given permission to do so by the controllers of that territory. If the home was built before such control was given/taken then the controllers remain powerless over the home until it is once again traded.

Of course players like me can just build in areas that are not controlled so that we don't have to bother with any of that nonsense.

My compromise was for large scale siege battles to remain guild vs guild as there is no possible honor in a full scale siege battle vs a solo player's home. The thread is about destructible housing yes, but it just doesn't make sense for me to see massive warfare used on solo player's homes. Especially when they just don't have the manpower to protect against it.

As for the Shadowbane method of buildings not being destructible until a fortress has been over run.. That was already brought up earlier on in this thread (on the first few pages somewhere), and it is a little better as it would give you time to get all of your stuff out of the home, etc.. But I just don't want to be involved in any of this guild vs guild shit to be honest. I want UO housing back, lol. I don't understand how anyone that had a home in UO could ever want anything different.