Some players really enjoy player housing just os some enjoy crafting, adventuring, raiding, PvP, PvE... the list goes on. The more of these mechanics you can include in your game the broader your audience.
If you don't enjoy player housing then don't partake. But expecting VR to drop any plans they might have for this simply because you don't care about it is enormously selfish. It's akin to someone demanding VR drop plans for whatever your primary motivation is.
It's because "Housing" provides not only a place of respite but it can be converted into your own little wonderlands where you're free to forge to how you like.
Want your own private crafting station? Housing.
Want to build an exquisite house so you're toon will live in luxury? Housing.
You want your own private maze so you can watch your friends struggle traversing it? Housing.
You want to build your little village? Housing.
You want a little private space in the world to call your own? Housing.
That's why there is a need for housing, it only adds more to the enjoyment of the product and suffice to say. The only game out there that did housing GREAT was wildstar still as you can not only do the things I listed but more. I would link you to videos showcasing all of the cool houses that was built in the game but sadly nearly all of them were not recorded. But for the sake of clarification I managed to find at least 1 video that shown some of them. Here is the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOE3XxUWy0U
From a purely cynical/mercenary perspective, player housing exists as a time and currency sink to slow some percentage of the server population down in their consumption of content. The same can be said for crafting, fishing or any other element which doesn't have some required direct impact on your ability to slay and gather more loot. Let's say 5% of the online server population is in town making cloth tunics or arranging furniture, that's 5% who aren't increasing the load in dungeons, farming drops and increasing overall mudflation. Those players who put significant time and effort into housing or crafting have a larger investment in Pantheon and are less likely to cancel their subscription. The more invested people become, the greater their loyalty to the game world.
From a larger perspective, housing, crafting and fishing add depth to the game. Brad's vision of making worlds, not just games involves a multi-dimensional environment where players feel like they inhabit the game, not just logging in to play Spank The Dragon. This immersion involves many aspects which may not seem to have a direct impact on the hacking and slashing. Why do games need music?
As to the debate on open or instanced housing, there seem to be two major concerns. Open world housing has run rampant in some games where towns were surrounded by what could only be described as urban sprawl. In extreme cases I think players are imagining player-run convenience stores at the mouth of every dungeon. It can definitely get out of hand. At the other extreme are the instanced housing systems where each house/apartment was isolated behind a door. Once you were in hour house, you were completely cut off from all player interaction - not the sort of thing most of us want to see in a game where #communitymatters.
The sweet spot may be instanced neighbourhoods, where players have yards, neighbours and perhaps a generic merchant or two or even a banker. Instanced neighbourhoods allow for interaction while controlling the sprawl aspect.
Pantheon is an MMORPG. While some gamers are almost entirely focused on the MMO, there are those who place considerable emphasis on the RPG. Arguably it's the RPG which gives the depth and longevity to a game - assuming the MMO aspects are well thought out.
SugarWood said: Not sure I really understand the need or point of housing. I see the debate on open vs instanced and it has gotten a lot of response but why do we want or need it in Pantheon?
I completely agree with SugarWood on not needing Housing. I simply can't see the point of this mini-game within these kinds of games. I actually think it takes away from the overall experience of the world, the same can be said about guildhalls.
We had housing and guildhalls in EQ2 and it depopulated the crafting zones and the cities as people could do everything from the guildhalls so there was no need to be in the cities at all.
Housing for me is a downtime mini game, Similar to hanging out at the tavern chatting, exploring leisurely or crafting ect…, where as the main game is adventuring in to a dungeon for kills and loot.
Downtime activities give me at least, something to do while I enjoy the game in a more relaxing tone in between the call to arms. A MMO with nothing but GO GO GO KILL KILL KILL, is just call of duty style gameplay, log in,kill,log out, very boring.
I'm neither for nor against housing. What I am against is VR adding more and more features without even getting the previously promised one finished. You want housing? Wait for a #%@% expansion. This game does not require housing for it to be successful. They can add it after release when they have a larger full-time staff that can implement it in a decent amount of time. Right now VR has far more important game mechanics and world building to finish.
P.S. and why are you starting a whole new thread when just a few lines down there is already an existisng thread on housing??
Nusser said:
We had housing and guildhalls in EQ2 and it depopulated the crafting zones and the cities as people could do everything from the guildhalls so there was no need to be in the cities at all.
Contested housing would resolve that issue. Alternatively, if housing was instanced, removing the ability to perform all tasks from within your home would resolve that issue. It's not inherently the fault of housing.
Personally, I don't understand the point of this thread. Some people love housing in MMOs, myself included. Suggesting that an entire system or feature be canned because it's not your cup of tea is pretty absurd.
Vandraad said:I'm neither for nor against housing. What I am against is VR adding more and more features without even getting the previously promised one finished. You want housing? Wait for a #%@% expansion. This game does not require housing for it to be successful. They can add it after release when they have a larger full-time staff that can implement it in a decent amount of time. Right now VR has far more important game mechanics and world building to finish.
P.S. and why are you starting a whole new thread when just a few lines down there is already an existisng thread on housing??
I agree that this question would be better served in the other housing thread.
But I also believe that like major parts of any game, if it's going to be in the game eventually then it will be more functional and efficient for VR to include it in the overall game design right from the start rather than grafting it in at a later time. So the other thread seeking opions about it makes sense to me.
Nusser said:I completely agree with SugarWood on not needing Housing. I simply can't see the point of this mini-game within these kinds of games. I actually think it takes away from the overall experience of the world, the same can be said about guildhalls.
We had housing and guildhalls in EQ2 and it depopulated the crafting zones and the cities as people could do everything from the guildhalls so there was no need to be in the cities at all.
I agree with you about putting any services like Crafting Stations (or vendors) in Guild halls that are already available in the cities. I'd be strongly against it in Pantheon.
As far as Guild halls in general, I think its a very complex issue. Most people have a large number of casual acquaintances, a smaller number of friends, and a smaller number of close, personal friends. Having unstructured time together to engage in one-on-one interactions with someone is a very important factor in deepening that connection from acquaintance to friend to close friend. Guild halls serve a valid purpose in advancing that affect and make a lot of sense in a game as openly based on social bonding as Pantheon.
At the same time, the actual size of server population can have an enormous affect on the situation. The bigger the population, the better the G.H. serves that bonding effect. If the population is too small, then there's a counterproductive affect of Guildmates becoming closer friends 'at home' while making fewer friends and acquaintances in the wider world. Which ultimately is the source for new friends and close friends.
I think player housing is different. How much time a player spends socializing in towns or hunting groups vs. alone working on their house is - in my opinion - more a function of their personality rather than whether they have a house. They could choose to be alone in the game without a house. Since Pantheon will be difficult to solo in, I believe giving them housing will increase the amount of time they spend in game, draw in some players who wouldn't have tried the game otherwise, and increase the chances of them continuing their subscription longer. Thus giving the rest of us a longer lived game to play and make friends in.
First Vandraad is totally right that implementation of housing is an expansion feature and has no business being in the initial launch. I would suggest that VR know the rough shape of how they want housing to be implemented so it fits into the current and future design without too much rewriting.
Player housing has a few side benefits and is also an enabler of player generated content.
Player housing gives the collector/arranger somewhere to put their stuff other than their precious limited inventory. Personal attachment to a game world is largely a function of a feeling of personal ownership, there are studies but I’m too lazy to link them.
For reasons of immersion and content control player generated content in the open world can be disruptive. A partially behind closed doors area that players can be in control of can facilitate a lot of social game play that just doesn’t work very well out in the open game world. There are many implementations to make this function but again its not critical to the adventuring games initial launch but it contributes to “Worlds not Games”
Its something to do. May sound dumb but putting in housing will give players something else to do. The more it interacts with underused adventuring zones the more replay ability you get out of the manhours spent generating that content.
@Sugarwood
You have the gist of it for personal housing for most people. SWG also had the ability to place merchants in different locations. Its possible for there to be a "player shop" instance implementation that was focused on making shops with vendors that players control the price and what is on the vendor and what they will buy as well as a possible place to mount their trophies. There are many ways to go about it with a little clever thinking.
Just to potentially put some minds at ease - VR has stated multiple times that while they would like to do housing, they see that as an expansion feature. There is NO danger of a housing system slowing down the game's launch.
As for the rest of the debate, I will simply quote Brad: "Worlds, not Games."
((As for the rest of the debate, I will simply quote Brad: "Worlds, not Games."))
This. Also having things to do other than speed-level delays the inevitable progress to maximum level and reduces the number of players at maximum level griping about having nothing to do. Also things to spend in-game money on reduces currency bloat.
Housing isn't just a sop to those that enjoy it - important as having happy customers is for any game. It is fully supportive of basic development principles for Pantheon. So are cosmetics. So are housing decoration items - maybe as much so as cosmetics. Though these are somewhat meaningless until housing is added. Look at EQ2 - housing is big there and many people spend enormous amounts of time and money on items to go in houses and significant content has no other reward than housing items.
Housing is not for me but if they can figure a way to have it improve the game overall for most people ... without taking away from the game design ... then I won't gripe too much if it gets implemented.
I personally just think it's important for people to be in the world, not in their houses (and yes, I read the arguments above disputing that idea). I like to see players in the cities, at crafting stations, in chat. Even players who would prefer not to be bothered, or want to be alone, they are part of the world.
Ranarius said:Housing is not for me but if they can figure a way to have it improve the game overall for most people ... without taking away from the game design ... then I won't gripe too much if it gets implemented.
I personally just think it's important for people to be in the world, not in their houses (and yes, I read the arguments above disputing that idea). I like to see players in the cities, at crafting stations, in chat. Even players who would prefer not to be bothered, or want to be alone, they are part of the world.
I can understand wanting the cities to be bustling with life, However inconveniencing players by restricting things like “crafting stations” to within city-hubs as a means of forcing players to that location is wrong, and meaningless.
I’m there performing a chore, no different that if I was an NPC running a routine.
Worse yet, how does that impact the possibility of player shops, there is no global auction house, possibility not even a local one, so are we dumping are wares onto NPC merchants in towns?
I’m all for making city’s more attractive to players, but it needs to be areas of interest that are exciting, entertaining, and not necessity related. Taverns with games of chance, alternative income professions, Dueling arenas with player betting, ect…
... forcing players to that location is wrong, and meaningless...
Disagreeing with something doesn't make it wrong and meaningless. Forcing players to locations is what this game is all about, the choices you make about how to spend your time will be the determining factor for how your character develops. I didn't read anything in the game tenants that said they were hoping to make the game easier for players. I totally get that there are differing opinions on the topic, but I don't get how one opinion is wrong and meaningless.
...Worse yet, how does that impact the possibility of player shops, there is no global auction house, possibility not even a local one, so are we dumping are wares onto NPC merchants in towns?
I'm not actually sure what you're asking here. I do not believe there will be player shops, or an auction house (of any kind). But that doesn't mean you'll dump your wares onto NPC merchants either. You will sell your wares to other players by talking to them, physically meeting them in a location, and making the trade. I might have misunderstood your thought though. Sorry if I did.
HemlockReaper said:Ranarius said:Housing is not for me but if they can figure a way to have it improve the game overall for most people ... without taking away from the game design ... then I won't gripe too much if it gets implemented.
I personally just think it's important for people to be in the world, not in their houses (and yes, I read the arguments above disputing that idea). I like to see players in the cities, at crafting stations, in chat. Even players who would prefer not to be bothered, or want to be alone, they are part of the world.
I can understand wanting the cities to be bustling with life, However inconveniencing players by restricting things like “crafting stations” to within city-hubs as a means of forcing players to that location is wrong, and meaningless.
I’m there performing a chore, no different that if I was an NPC running a routine.
Worse yet, how does that impact the possibility of player shops, there is no global auction house, possibility not even a local one, so are we dumping are wares onto NPC merchants in towns?
I’m all for making city’s more attractive to players, but it needs to be areas of interest that are exciting, entertaining, and not necessity related. Taverns with games of chance, alternative income professions, Dueling arenas with player betting, ect…
I don't see it as "inconveniencing players by restricting things" as much as I would see adding crafting stations for housing or guild halls as adding unnecessary conveyance to the point of eliminating the MMO from a MMORPG. Any conveyance that takes away from the Massively Multiplayer part of the game I would hope the Dev’s steer clear of. So many things in the genre have been ruined in the sack of convieyance and QOL that it's gotten us to where we are today. Ultimately what it will depend on, what do the Dev’s think of such things, not you or I.
Housing and Guild Halls I'm OK with.
Didn't Brad once mention in a blog where he talked about guilds being able to do Open World "encampment's" that they could pick up and move along to new areas, where any player could use them thus eliminating the segregation, while still offering some of the convieyance?
Housing can be fun, wonderful and useful.
Not the kind of urban blight that games like Arche Age and UO gave us. But well thought out housing like Vanguard had. (remember, this is non-instanced.)
Housing also creates mechanics that infuse the game with function, as well as accelerating the economy and giving lower level starter players a means to gain needed revenue.
In Vanguard, a game that Brad had some part in. Houses had to be assembled from components that crafters had to make. Higher level components , higher level crafters.
The components were made from more common ingredients such as wood and stone that needed to be harvested in quantity. This created a market for new and lowbie players to sell wood and stone that were easily harvested to raise skills, but a nuisance for higher level players to bother with.
Once complete housing gave players expanded storage and a sense of personal space in a large non-instanced world. As well as the satisfaction from the construction.
Nusser said:SugarWood said: Not sure I really understand the need or point of housing. I see the debate on open vs instanced and it has gotten a lot of response but why do we want or need it in Pantheon?I completely agree with SugarWood on not needing Housing. I simply can't see the point of this mini-game within these kinds of games. I actually think it takes away from the overall experience of the world, the same can be said about guildhalls.
We had housing and guildhalls in EQ2 and it depopulated the crafting zones and the cities as people could do everything from the guildhalls so there was no need to be in the cities at all.
As cool as the virtual houses were in EQ2, they were a joke compared to a non-instanced persistent world.
And EQ2 was not created by Brad. It was a Smedley instanced hot mess. Nothing in Pantheon will be EQ2ish.
Unless you played Vanguard with true in-world housing, you have no idea how well it can work and how beneficial it can be to all levels of players and the economy.
Ranarius said:I'm not actually sure what you're asking here. I do not believe there will be player shops, or an auction house (of any kind). But that doesn't mean you'll dump your wares onto NPC merchants either. You will sell your wares to other players by talking to them, physically meeting them in a location, and making the trade. I might have misunderstood your thought though. Sorry if I did.
Just to make sure everyone is operating on accurate information. Visionary Realms has not told us what their plans are for buying and selling goods. They have said that they were not inclined to do a global auction house and were exploring the idea of regional auction houses or some other systems. But what they decide to do and how they decide to do it is still wide open.
From a community perspective, you will find a vast range of opinions on what the right method is. Some people believe that all trades should be strictly player-player and that no in-game tools should exist to facilitate the economy. Others believe that the game should use some variation of an auction house system. A few (like myself) believe that there is not a one-size-fits-all answer and that a variety of mechanisms, including hireable NPC merchants, should be implemented which are used depending on the characteristics of the transaction. Regardless, there is no confirmed answer from VR on this one and no one knows what their answer will be when the time comes.
Zorkon said:
Didn't Brad once mention in a blog where he talked about guilds being able to do Open World "encampment's" that they could pick up and move along to new areas, where any player could use them thus eliminating the segregation, while still offering some of the convieyance?
In one of his blog posts Brad talked about the idea for outposts, or semi-permanent campsites that adventurers would set up and maintain out in the wilderness. The system was not a replacement for player housing but his idea was that a guild might "own" an outpost, in that they were the people who set it up and got it running initially. As far as we know, the idea was only that - an idea - and if it's something that VR is planning to implement down the line, it may change dramatically from what Brad described. My personal take is that it was very similar to how player camps worked in SWG, where you get a kit (that could have different services built into it) and you go out to a place in the wilds and set up your campsite, and then others can take advantage of your camps services. That's still a really broad description, but at least during that discussion with Brad, that's what it felt like to me.
SugarWood said: Not sure I really understand the need or point of housing. I see the debate on open vs instanced and it has gotten a lot of response but why do we want or need it in Pantheon?
I completely agree. hopefully it will hold off for an expansion, if ever. I really do not want it in Pantheon, ever.
Also, I am sorry you were attacked in the very first post..
HOW DARE YOU SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS ON THESE FORUMS!!!! STOP BEING ENORMOUSLY SELFISH. gah.... /s