Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
I'm saying you wouldn't become a citizen of a node you can't get housing in. So you would have either a house, apartment or freehold in the node you became a citizen in. You fight for your node because if your node is destroyed, your house, apartment or freehold will be destroyed with it. There are a few other benefits to becoming a citizen of a node beyond housing, but access to housing seems to be by far the most compelling reason to become a citizen and that's what you're fighting for when you defend your node.
Are static houses actually superior to apartments beyond the "cool factor" of having your housing be a part of the open world?
I've come from MMOs without housing systems as well as MMOs with housing systems. I just don't see the appeal of a house. A freehold I mulled over because my Alt would be a Processer but that wasn't for the home aspect, it was a business choice. I don't see homes/housing as an integral part of an MMO experience. If I want to build a home I'll play The Sims. If we go corrupted we can't access a lot of stuff anyway so I guess I'd be a roamer like a corrupted player with the freedom to go corrupted if required.
Also when a node is destroyed it goes back to zero. Maybe it won't be "hot property" anymore, because it requires lots of work before the node grows and provides benefits. Maybe prices will go down after destruction. It's not the same to buy a house in a node 4 than on a node 1.
I don't disagree with this view. A lot of MMORPGs are based on heroic fantasy, and I'd argue that the true home of heroic fantasy adventurers is the local tavern. I think the idea of just letting players be wandering adventurers is something the game should support.
That said, it looks like the housing is going to come with a few pretty major benefits, such as the furniture giving you various buffs or utility, your bed giving you some kind of rested experience/buff for free and I assume certain higher level crafting benches. At least, if we assume that the stuff that was inside the freehold houses will also be available inside static houses and apartments. It's also worth noting that being a citizen of a node will also give you access to certain higher level crafting benches whether you own a house or not, so while not really a reason to defend your node, it's a reason to become a citizen, at least if you're going to go deep into the crafting profession system.
Power, exclusivity, access to a select few group. Plus if you own a house you could trade or get enough gold for a Freehold.
The wiki says "Apartments are internal only (instanced) spaces within a node that offer some housing functionality.[4] "
Not sure if there's a difference though
What will probably happen is that other nodes, adjacent to the one destroyed in the siege, will now be able to grow larger. If the 'next node over' is level 2, it may grow to level 3 and soon sell freeholds.
They're limiting the number of freeholds a player can own to 1 per account. If a guild has a hundred active members, they'll only ever be able to secure a hundred freeholds. That said, I don't know how big guilds are going to be.
Wouldn't that wipe all housing now?
It does. All houses are gone and you no longer citizen. I mean, that's good, it gives time for new players. Maybe some will move and renounce citizenship in other nodes for a chance of a larger static house
Not sure that will be welcomed. Guild association will be important in family's. I really don't want to share my family with random citizens.
Even if it makes the family system weird, it's more important to avoid what is essentially an exploit. Your family will probably need to be citizens of your node to get access to your freehold.
I would consider being able to effectively own a freehold of a node you're not a citizen of by using the family system to be an exploit. You're getting the premier benefit of node citizenship without having to pay taxes to the node.
So what does the freehold owner have exclusive rights to that his or her family doesn't?
Which sounds like the family gets full access to the freehold without having to pay taxes to the node, unless there's some aspect of the freehold that ONLY the actual owner can use.
You can only be a citizen of one node at a time. I'm saying they should be citizens of the freehold's node.
I'm not sure why farmers are balking. 9 farms would make everyone rich as creases.
Renting a property is not being the owner. Renters don't pay property taxes.
I've not watched the stream (dont have the time), but I want to check my understanding is correct.
Players bid on essentially the rights to place a freehold somewhere on a very large piece of land. Once they have the rights to do so, they can place their freehold where ever they like within that very large piece of land.
Acquiring this land is an auction at first, but once owned by a player can be sold either directly, or via an auction.
Is this basically correct?
Nikr said the first sale is auction. Second sale onwards can be direct sale or auction. You must be level 50 and complete a quest to bid. I think you can place the freehold on any plot within the plot but you can't overlap two plots half and half. You'd be better getting freeholds in different places if you want more than one due to the losses incurred after a successful siege.