Destructible Houses Combined thread /Mod

[Myst]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

It is far more interesting to me to see communities of destructible houses where people bond together through common interest to defend their real estate than rows and rows of track housing, wherever you could find a place to drop down your mini-museum.

That's exactly the way I see things, thanks for saying it.

[Sorjak]

The poll is dead even now.

Guys, destructible housing isn't something we want just so we can lord over people, or even just because we're hot for realism in the game. Most of us that want it, I think, just honestly think it'll make the game 1. Stick to its promise of being a true sandbox better, and 2. actually make MO a better game experience.

I don't necessarily agree, but I can see you Indesctrutibles wanting something less harsh than full on, all houses being destructible at all times. That being said, there's been so many compromises and attempts to come to common ground that have been ignored, that it's getting ridiculous.

The best two so far: Make it so that you can request protection from a nearby city with a keep, be it NPC or Player owned. This will make your house indestructible for as long as the keep stands or you pay your taxes (if they demand one). If you don't like the tax, move or get your neighbors together and start a revolution.

The escrow system, where you can set certain items within your house to be safeguarded in case your house is destroyed.

Honestly, what's wrong with these? Or even a hybrid of both.

[Traceur]

something i would not object too, as far as "hybrids" go, is the ability to save a blueprint of your house, including decorations and item locations, and then be able to accurately "resurrect" (rebuild) if you have the same resources and items as well as the money to pay for the construction, or alternatively if the guild offering you protection has some form of player-made insurance service and hasn't gone bankrupt.

[Lachrymose]

Originally Posted by Traceur

something i would not object too, as far as "hybrids" go, is the ability to save a blueprint of your house, including decorations and item locations, and then be able to accurately "resurrect" (rebuild) if you have the same resources and items as well as the money to pay for the construction, or alternatively if the guild offering you protection has some form of player-made insurance service and hasn't gone bankrupt.

as far as the house and decorations go, this would be a good idea, but as far as non-decorative items, like storage containers, weapons, armor etc. they shouldn't be so easily replaced. i think if this was used together with the escrow system it would work just fine. you wouldn't get all your items back, but you could protect the ones you really wanted. then, you'd still have to pay for the resources to rebuild your house, but if you created some intricate design with elaborate decorations, you wouldn't have to recreate it from scratch.

@sorjak: i don't think paying off a local guild should make your house indestructable, but rather you could pay them merely for their protection. or maybe you wouldn't have to pay them, but instead you would both mutually benefit. you get their protetion and they get your business whenever you need goods or services.

[Traceur]

though i don't like the escrew system, for me that goes together with impenetrable banks...but given that (not to my preferences) we may have impenetrable banks anyway, i guess it might be a good middle ground which would make people use houses as storerooms despite being destructible, rather then put it all in the banks. again, i'd rather not have invicinble banks at all but if we do have them then the esrew system makes sense...

as for the blueprint system, the items would be replaced if you supply the items (or i suppose if the escrew system took them :-/ )... but not automatically.

[Lachrymose]

Originally Posted by Traceur

though i don't like the escrew system, for me that goes together with impenetrable banks...but given that (not to my preferences) we may have impenetrable banks anyway, i guess it might be a good middle ground which would make people use houses as storerooms despite being destructible, rather then put it all in the banks. again, i'd rather not have invicinble banks at all but if we do have them then the esrew system makes sense...

as for the blueprint system, the items would be replaced if you supply the items (or i suppose if the escrew system took them :-/ )... but not automatically.

oh, i see. so it would just keep track of the location of the items, so you wouldn't have to rearrange them.

also, i guess i should have been more clear. i was thinking more of a way to "secure" certain items, or have sort of an escrow system, but only a limited number of items would be protected, and the larger the house, the more items could be "secured." this would be a good enough compromise, b/c i'm not too keen on logging in to find my house destroyed and all my valuables looted.

as far as destructable/lootable banks go, it could work if banks were extremely well guarded (unlike most MMO's, there's maybe a couple guards and a banker standing out in the open). also, banks shouldn't carry every bit of money invested in it, since they should technically be investing a large portion of it. so even if someone was to rob the bank, it's not like everyone's money would be totally gone, instead maybe 2% or so could be stolen, and then 2% of everyone's money would be gone.

as far as items go, i'm not so sure how that would work. i guess he could just take whatever items caught his eye. this could be difficult though, since items aren't physically stored inside of the bank. maybe he could go browse through characters' individual accounts and steal whatever from whoever he chose.

[Sorjak]

@Lachrymose: That was the original compromise that someone posted about 400 posts ago on this thread. I'd like it if we could make it kinda like mob protection in the game as well, but in order to appease the indies (people who favor indestructible housing), the compromise was set up to include that as well, so they'd feel safe and secure as long as they were in with a good guild.

I guess i wouldn't really mind the escrow system, as long as (forgive me for the reference) it's something like the way Runescape handles which items you keep after death. It should only be around 15% of your total items, but you get to pick them.

This makes it so there's still an incentive to give some thought as to where you put your house (in a place you know it'll be protected), but it also lessens the harshness of losing everything to a house ganker.

[Lachrymose]

yea, the idea of "mob protection" is a good one, but paying a guild off to make your house indestructable? i don't think that's necessary. if the guild is being paid, they'll treat the house as if it was one of their own buildings. depending on how npc guards work, they might even put some patrolling guards to wander the streets of the nearby communities.

that coupled with the "limited escrow system" (as you mentioned, i think only 15% or so of your items should be protected) would be a perfect balance imo. the consequences are harsh enough so that you'll do what you can to protect your home (live near other houses, pay off guilds, etc), but they wouldn't be so severe that if your house were to be destroyed, you'd be shit outta luck.

[Arxon Havenloft]

The only way to ensure player protection from a guild is to penalize them in some way if they fail to do it. Even then I doubt they'd do it with any real sense of urgency.

I know that I said that I'd like the "escrow" system because I would still have my things. But just the thought of losing my placement annoys the hell out of me. Maybe if we were given a "Hold" time before anyone else can take your plot after it's destroyed? So I have 3 days or so to come up with the money to place a new home in the same plot before someone else can come by and take it? I can just see it now.. "Come on guys, guild meeting and my place, and don't forget, I moved yet again for the 3rd time this month to that hill above the graveyard".

Really I just don't see how I could ever trust or feel safe in my home with destructible housing implemented. I don't trust other players as much as I trust the police, and those who choose to destroy my home suffer no consequences for it. I never go to work in the real world worried that my house wil be gone, so there is nothing realistic about destructible housing. And that's a lot of gold to just be throwing out the door. I'd rather have to deal with perma death to be honest.

[Arxon Havenloft]

Originally Posted by Traceur

great idea, and in-game i would love the opportunity to be part of (either sides of) a democratic revolution or a socialist union of citizens demanding safe guard for their services, i think it's a fantastic idea. why would you want it hardcoded though? wouldn't the game be more fun if you'd actually have to play through that revolution instead of it being handed to you by the game on a silver plate?

Mostly because I'm not sure what 50 or so home owners have the power to do against a 200+ member guild.

Originally Posted by Traceur

what gives you the right to have your houses defended for you without doing anything for it? your not defending it yourself, your not helping or paying anyone who is defending it for you, you just want the game's code to do the job. you want a reward for doing nothing? what's the fun in doing nothing? why should non-fun [lack thereof] activities be rewarded? that's essentially bad game design in itself.

So don't make it the game's code. Just give me my "God's" protection. If he sees my home under siege he'll cast down lightning and flood such siege weapons away. It's not that I don't do anything. Of course it's no fun "doing nothing" (not doing anything). What is fun is playing the game and not having to worry about something that isn't fun ruining everything that you've ever played for.

Originally Posted by Traceur

it's almost as bad of an idea as the idea of 'people building keeps to be attackable'.

unless your proposing that they'll need to own a keep in order to be able to build siege weapons which can attack other keeps.

Well, of course they wouldn't be able to buld them, use them, and not have a target of their own. Yes, you would need a keep in order to build them using that idea.

Originally Posted by Traceur

all i ask is to not be lied too. if Mortal Online isn't a free for all player versus player game it should not advertise as such. lying is exactly what got AOC into it's current position.

Player vs Player? Yes. Free for All? Yes. House vs House? No.

Now I'm not a selfish person. I'd like for everyone to get what they want. That is why I've been trying to come up with compromises. What compromises have you come up with?

Edit: And for whoever gave me bad rep telling me to "learn to read".. Can you please do it again and tell me what you think I haven't read? There is little on these forums that I haven't read, so if you believe that I have missed something, feel free to let me know. I'm not perfect and I welcome any knowledge that you could "try" to enlighten me with. However, "Learn to read" isn't going to fix anything.

[Traceur]

Originally Posted by Arxon Havenloft

Mostly because I'm not sure what 50 or so home owners have the power to do against a 200+ member guild.

strategy, guerrilla tactics, player skills, economical warfare...

Originally Posted by Arxon Havenloft

Player vs Player? Yes. Free for All? Yes. House vs House? No.

FFA PvP includes the player's avatar and the player's property - full loot & destructible housing. if you say "FFA PVP except for houses", it's no longer FFA. it has safe zones, and it's no longer full loot, it has property (houses) which can not be looted or destroyed. my request is simple: if Mortal Online is not a full PvP game and has safe zones despite saying otherwise, it shouldn't have lied to us and it should correct the mistake before going down the same road of AOC.

Originally Posted by Arxon Havenloft

Now I'm not a selfish person.

yes, you are a selfish person - your request the entire argument is to get the same affect of someone protecting you (indestructible housing) without having to give anything in return. that is selfish by definition.

Originally Posted by Arxon Havenloft

I'd like for everyone to get what they want. That is why I've been trying to come up with compromises. What compromises have you come up with?

no, you haven't tried giving any real compromise. for god's sake, your suggesting the equivalent of "PvP flaggs" for destructible houses, your giving us the same "curtesy of compromise" that themepark games give PvP in general?

but just the same, it isn't a real compromise. it looks like it for themepark players but they think PvP is all about "seeing who's better", because as achievers they usually interpret things by the size of the e-penis, but they don't actually get the whole concept of PvP, of survival and freedom, or why "flagging" doesn't really supply it. they are allowing you to do the specific action (fighting players) without understanding the point behind the action.

and your doing the same mistake with destructible housing, "allowing us to do the specific action but not getting the point behind it". it's not that any of the destructible houses fans here have a particular fetish for siege warfare - allowing us to "conduct sieges via a flagging system" doesn't make this any more of a game we'd want to play, just like PvP flags don't make a game any more of a game you'd want to play. we want the sense of community it supplies, the large scale politics, the complex weave of interdependencies, the sense of being meaningful in your actions and baring a mark upon the world.

instead of allowing us any of that, you think that simply "optional siege warfare" is the answer... and it's utterly pointless, it doesn't make you happy and it doesn't give us anything of the reasons we want it in the first place. basically it doesn't solve anything - you may thnk you compromised, but the fact is you got your shallow gameplay world and we got nada.

[Shinzon]

The only people who are voting against destructible housing, after hearing the multiple arguments on how they will encourage player interactions just out of pure necessity, are the ones that have no interest in participating in any sort of community. They are here to play an MMO as if it was a single player RPG; choosing to alienate themselves instead of striking out deals with other people.

You can never get what you want a 100%, and if you always push to that, you will end up alienating yourselves even further. Respect, Honor, Integrity, are a two way street, you cannot simply label yourself one without actually giving anything to the other people, that if that is done; that is called arrogance.

Guilds will not want to simply gank every single house that suddenly pops up on their territory; what is the point of that? When the said guild spent insane resources to both establish and protect their territory from PKers, Bandits, and other Guilds. If a player chooses to move into guild territory, they are saying that they trust the said guild. The guild will benefit from increased population; possible taxation, and increased trade. While the player benefits from protection and resources that are not available anywhere else.

In any case; there are still "NPC Cities" which will allow for a more "Mechanical" protection, where you don't have to deal with other players.

MMO's are made for the player interaction, and nothing else; all features that discourage or mechanize that interaction should be shot down with no mercy, as it is the interaction between players (Good or Bad) that really makes an MMO. Also players that don't seek to be part of the community and instead be complete isolationists should go play a single player RPG instead.

Much like Traceur, I do not want vegetarian trash advertised as a savory meat dish.

[Reverend Mundane]

I just skimmed some parts of this thread, so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet.

How about some kind of geography-based compromise? Indestructible houses in 'civilized' areas, relatively small areas around capitals, where houses can only go down because of decay and lack of upkeep. Destructible houses everywhere else. Give some real incentives to building your house in unsafe area, like faster access to resources and dungeons (these naturally won't work if the world is not large enough and travel is too fast or instant). Maybe some kind of bonus to crafting.

I don't personally care much of decorating my house or building mini-museums, but I don't want to kick people who like them out of the game either.

Also... destroyed houses should leave behind a permanent ruin. Nothing too fancy, don't want to kill the server, but something little to give some kind of sense of history to the game world.

[Lachrymose]

@arxon: i disagree, i think if players were paying a guild for their protection, or providing them with trade/business, the guilds would indeed protect them with upmost certainty. if i were being protected by a nearby guildhall and my house was destroyed, i would probably move to a new location, near a more capable guild. an intelligent clan would realize this is bad for business, not only b/c they're losing 'customers' but b/c enemy clans could be gaining their business.

going off what shinzon said, any feature that would otherwise promote community building, player interaction, etc should be highly considered. any features that could potentially discourage any of these things don't have a place in an MMO and are better suited for a single player RPG. there really shouldn't be any compromising here, as sustaining social interaction should be of upmost importance in an MMO (after all, it's what MMO's were created for). and that goes for everyone playing.

you may say you're an "outlaw" so you don't need society, or you're a "rebel" so it doesn't make a difference to you whether or not everyone else buddies up and forms a community. but trust me when i say this (note my 6-point-whatever 'socializer' rating), that's total bullshit. even a 'rebel' needs an organized social system to rebel against. and an 'outlaw' distinguishes himself by secluding himself outside of an established structure of laws, and yes, there will be laws. maybe not de jure laws, you'll probably never be taken before a court, but there will definitely be de facto laws, and the people acting as the judge, the jury, and the executioner will be the entire society acting in accordance with social mores that can only evolve within such a community.

in the past, i've always enjoyed playing a character that secludes himself from society, but without a society to seclude myself from, it means nothing really.

@the reverand: houses leaving behind a permanent ruin would be cool at first, but when land starts to get scarce and rubble litters the landscape, you're going to regret it.

[Reverend Mundane]

Originally Posted by Lachrymose

houses leaving behind a permanent ruin would be cool at first, but when land starts to get scarce and rubble litters the landscape, you're going to regret it.

Make the world big enough. Make it possible for players to remove a ruin, but make it costly, time-consuming and tedious enough, so it won't be done just for kicks, but only when there's real need for the land the ruin is on.

Or just allow building over a ruin. With ruin naturally disappearing when the house is built.

[Traceur]

Originally Posted by Reverend Mundane

I just skimmed some parts of this thread, so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet.

How about some kind of geography-based compromise?

check the "geography" link in my signature - that is exactly what I'm suggesting, simply by designing the terrain in an intelligent way which would make indestructible housing make sense (under the assumption that siege weapons are needed to destroy a house).

[Arxon Havenloft]

Originally Posted by Traceur

FFA PvP includes the player's avatar and the player's property - full loot & destructible housing. if you say "FFA PVP except for houses", it's no longer FFA. it has safe zones, and it's no longer full loot, it has property (houses) which can not be looted or destroyed. my request is simple: if Mortal Online is not a full PvP game and has safe zones despite saying otherwise, it shouldn't have lied to us and it should correct the mistake before going down the same road of AOC.

Well if all that you are worried about is housing being safe zones than why not simply allow for players to be able to break in and kill you even if you're in your home.. Housing doesn't have to provide a safe zone. I'd actually prefer it not be a safe zone. It can definitely be irritating to be engaged in combat with someone and he flees into his home to be untouchable. So yeah, why not render that option invalid?

And now I am understanding a bit more about what you are after. I was under the impression that you guys wanted siege warfare for the ability to build large siege weapons and to control and strategize with massive armies. To be able to storm a Keep and overcome it. But what you really want is community? Hell, you don't even need siege battles for that. There are a lot of things to aid community... One of them being implemented I believe such as no forms of instant-travel in a massive world. Where you guys don't ever want to leave a specific region of the world. You'd like to play house and talk to neighbors and stuff. Which is community play I guess, it's just that I'd rather be out hunting with my friends defeating dungeons or finding PvP skirmishes. Considering that there's no gaurantee that my friends will even be able to find a place to put a house that is near me that calls for a lot of travel on my end. Sure we could build a keep, but what's the point if it's just going to get sieged over and over again by a guild much larger than my 10 member max guild.

Originally Posted by Shinzon

The only people who are voting against destructible housing, after hearing the multiple arguments on how they will encourage player interactions just out of pure necessity, are the ones that have no interest in participating in any sort of community. They are here to play an MMO as if it was a single player RPG; choosing to alienate themselves instead of striking out deals with other people.

True to an extent. You see I'd love to participate in a community deserving of my participation. As a roleplayer, I love finding others throughout my travels. Fighting side by side with eachother and all of that.. It's just that most people make me sick. Finding the rare players that I enjoy playing with is hard for me and takes a lot of time. I don't like to be forced to play with idiots, morons, annoying 13 years olds, annoying adults, female gamers, gankers, exploiters, cheats, bad tempered blame throwing high pedestal egotistical losers, etc.. This are much of the reasons why I don't enjoy large guilds.

In my opinion being a part of a community is the same as being a part of a large guild. Except, with a guild, you have more choice in the matter of who your company shall be. With a community it's just a matter of rolling the dice and hoping for the best. Which will not happen.

Originally Posted by Shinzon

Guilds will not want to simply gank every single house that suddenly pops up on their territory; what is the point of that? When the said guild spent insane resources to both establish and protect their territory from PKers, Bandits, and other Guilds. If a player chooses to move into guild territory, they are saying that they trust the said guild. The guild will benefit from increased population; possible taxation, and increased trade. While the player benefits from protection and resources that are not available anywhere else.

I just don't believe that. Besides, placing my house in an empty spot has nothing to do with a guild. I'm just placing it before someone else does. If I happen to find a better spot later, I'll move. If it happens to be on guild territory than so be it. As long as I don't lose my spot. I just hope that I'll be lucky enough to find an area large enough for all of my real life friends to find spots near mine (within walking distance). Which will likely not work out but I have my fingers crossed. You've obviously never heard of a land rush. When this game releases, most of the available plots of land to place a house upon will be used up within the first 5 hours or so. Unless they cost a ridiculous amount then it may take a week or so.

I intend to so all of my trading and shit in a real town, where a lot of other players will be. Unless a guild keep just happens become so popular that every player on the server just wants to do their trading there. I go where the crowds are. As far as protection is concerned, I don't expect to receive it. I expect them to tax me, and let me fend for myself. What am I gonna do if they don't? Move out? Where? All of the housing spots are taken by then and even if I would be lucky enough to find another one, what about my friends? You see, there's more to it than what you imply.

Originally Posted by Shinzon

MMO's are made for the player interaction, and nothing else; all features that discourage or mechanize that interaction should be shot down with no mercy, as it is the interaction between players (Good or Bad) that really makes an MMO. Also players that don't seek to be part of the community and instead be complete isolationists should go play a single player RPG instead.

Agreed, except I dont' want to be turned into anyone's "bitch" because of it. I want to have fun just like everyone else. And rules need to be in place for that because not everyone is just gonna say "well he needs to have fun just like us so let's leave him alone". In games like these there are often more bad interactions than good. Evil influences online play a lot more than good ever possibly could. It's not like the real world. People do things to intentionally piss you off and in the real world I could just beat the living shit out of them but I'm helpless behind a damn screen.

There are rules in the real world, it's just that people have come to accept them and it makes life a little bit more worth living. Without those rules there would be chaos, and likely we'd of all commited suicide by now. It shouldn't be any different within the game.

Originally Posted by Lachrymose

@arxon: i disagree, i think if players were paying a guild for their protection, or providing them with trade/business, the guilds would indeed protect them with upmost certainty. if i were being protected by a nearby guildhall and my house was destroyed, i would probably move to a new location, near a more capable guild. an intelligent clan would realize this is bad for business, not only b/c they're losing 'customers' but b/c enemy clans could be gaining their business.

Have you guys never played MMOs before? People aren't like this. Again, the only way to gaurantee player protection is to penalize them for failing. Such as making them repay you for all of your lost goods or something. And even then, they'll only show up if they care to. Losing a home means nothing to them as someone else will have one up in your spot within the week. Besides, where am I going to go? Finding a plot of a land to fit 5-8 houses for my and my friends isn't easy. I doubt that I'll even be able to do it in the beginning with all of the land open. So how am I going to do this 6 months into the game? They know you wont leave because you've got nowhere else to go. They will protect themselves, and good friends. If they feel like a little PvP they'll consider fighting enemies off of their land but don't ever think it's because they care about you..

Destructible housing is a bad thing, mark my words. But I always have Darkfall, so whatever.

[Shinzon]

I understand your concerns;

The principle source of friction associated with Strategic play is limitation, specifically limitation of choice, and the consequent disempowerment this can lead to. The Rational temperament which drives this style of play is associated with a need for autonomy, and players who prefer the Strategic play style have a strong need to feel completely in control of their play – to have the freedom to make choices about how that play will proceed. When insufficient choices are provided, this creates a state of powerless limitation.

And that is my concern; from the article:

http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_...egic_play.html

Also I would suggest that you read the complemantary articles if you found the above relavent:

http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_...ical_play.html
http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_...ical_play.html

They are also good reads in isolation not pertaining to this. Going by those articles, you are a very strong logistical player.

To me a guild in a game like MO is to provide overarching protection and order, to stabalize a region from gankers, gold farmers and griefers, and if possible to form an attachement with players that go through that guilds territory. Because of this I tend to hold people to higher standards, until that is broken at which I would proceed to throw them out the window with no mercy...