Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Number of Apartments in a Node
Dolyem
Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Steven said Apartments are a default building in a node that can have the number of available apartments increased based on the nodes research choices.
My question to the community is do you think apartments (not houses/freeholds) should be limited in number? If not, why? If so, why? What limitations should be put on them?
I feel apartments should be limited by the stage of the node as to emphasize overpopulation/homelessness, prompting those without homes to move to and assist other nodes. But simultaneously, I believe the TOTAL number of all available apartments across all nodes on a server should equal the number of intended players on a server. Allowing for the guarantee of having some form of baseline housing for each player, but not the guarantee of where it will be. Again, this is for apartments, not houses or freeholds.
My question to the community is do you think apartments (not houses/freeholds) should be limited in number? If not, why? If so, why? What limitations should be put on them?
I feel apartments should be limited by the stage of the node as to emphasize overpopulation/homelessness, prompting those without homes to move to and assist other nodes. But simultaneously, I believe the TOTAL number of all available apartments across all nodes on a server should equal the number of intended players on a server. Allowing for the guarantee of having some form of baseline housing for each player, but not the guarantee of where it will be. Again, this is for apartments, not houses or freeholds.
0
Comments
Trying to make things over realistic needs to have a reason gameplay wise as well. So there would need to be a positive and negative of limited housing, and in such a way where people also can't abuse it.
I'd prefer if homelessness was a choice, with its own benefits. And everyone should be able to have a home at the same time, as long as they want one.
I agree their limitations should be a fraction of what houses or even freeholds are capable of. Enough to at least satisfy the want/need for housing but limited enough to make a house or freehold still a goal to be desired.
Then what's stopping everyone from flocking to all of the metropolis nodes? I feel like there needs to be some limit so that players have to spread out and cause conflict. Unless there is a citizenship limit I don't know about.
a ) Providing for everyone in every city (everyone wins a prize approach) vs
Wonder if for freeholds and apartments in the city if there was some kind of nodal control the mayor could regulate to increase or decrease to get the "goldilocks amount". (not too few, not too many, just right) And through that regulation, the success and/or failure of a node by its under/over population becomes an issue the mayor has responsibility over. No longer a GM issue, but a live player/community issue.. sure to be wrong at first leading to cities failing and people moving, then later when the dynamic is understood .. balanced!
Most people will go to popular spots, that will also have a price point in itself though, that is just how things work.
But we can't forget about the feeling some people will feel married tot heir own node even if it isn't the highest level. With the vassal system both them get benefits from each other to some degree.
If i had a node I liked a lot I might not relocate my guild to that one since I'd want to grow out our own and eventually have it become the top tier.
I think perhaps that cost to purchase should be the main limiting factor, so if someone really wants to be in a particular node they can, even if the price is 10 times that of an apartment bought early on.
If there is an absolute max number of people a node can support for some reason, sure, hard limit it to that.
There is also an aspect of trade-offs though. Does a node focus on more housing for citizens, or for other beneficial things like crafting places or temples or whatnot. So to avoid cookie cutter nodes, I think it's ok to have a hard limit per apartment building, but I think it should be a very generous number so people aren't locked out of moving into a node with their friends in all but the more extreme examples.
As for utility in apartments, I think some crafting stations should be allowed. Cooking for sure. Maybe alchemy. But not both at the same time due to space constraints. Definitely not smithing.
This still doesn't prevent everyone from moving to one node. Its just hoping people don't. Should there not be a system in place to keep everyone from just moving to the same spot? Price point is one thing that helps gate purchasing apartments in a populated node, but we dont know to what degree it will increase.
I can agree with this. And yea, I think apartments should have some processing/crafting capabilities but nowhere near to what would be capable with a freehold.
The main benefit I see to limiting apartments is simply that it would cause players to naturally spread out across the world
No othering prevents everyone going to one node, people have the freedom of choice. It is up tot he systems, and peoples desire for politics that will not have everyone work together. I see casuals going to the best spot for them, while competitive players will move to try to do what they want to win. IT will be a relationship between both types of players deciding where people go to on top of the other points imo.
Wouldnt that still happen with limits to node apartments? I feel like it emphasizes the Node System with competition between nodes to limit their housing as opposed to allowing an entire server to potentially occupy 6 metroplis nodes
Lets start with Low hundreds, so lets say 450 apts. for tier 6, tier 5 under that so lets say 350x2 each there, and 250x2 each for the level 4s, and maybe 150x2 for level 3s. Add in each nodes in node houses and freeholds. It seems to be roughly 2000 under a tier 6 influence. I'm just spit-balling numbers here. There can be I think 5 areas like this in the world, but depending on an area you can potentially have other level 5 areas with the same type makeup, just no tier 6 above it. So just looking at it this way it seems there will be a lot of housing. It may not be the exact spot you want to be in, but you'll more than likely be able to find a home.
I said all that to say, the way they are implementing this doesn't seem unreasonable to me (yet). Of course this is subject to testing as is everything else.
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
Oh and btw, every player can have 3 potential housings. Freeholds, in-node houses and apartments. Let's assume that in-node stuff is barely even a blimp in the whole amount. If there's, say, 2k freeholds in the game - that's 2k apartments that are not owned by non-freehold people. Because those who can afford a freehold will definitely have an apartment.
I'm all for segregating players into power groups and access tiers, but I'd prefer if it was a pyramid that includes everyone on the server, rather than a "60% of the server that literally have fuck all", "39% that might have smth" and "1% that have everything".
Also depending on the actual "use" of a home, not everyone will want or need one. I've played a few MMOs that had housing that I never really used. As long as there are places to rest, store items, level professions etc most people will be happy. The people that really must have a home will make it a priority, but to me as an average player, as long as there isn't some MAJOR reason or benefit, I think there will be lots of people that just wont care if they have housing.
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
WE still need to hear more about nodes and how they work. I don't think we will have a case where everyone is in one node since people will want to build their node up and be the new top dogs.
Also it be pretty lame if your guild couldn't be in a node because of housing being split up or forced out.
There will also be open world houses.
There will also be freeholds.
And a bunch of people homeless - which is precisely what Sieges are for.
Wouldn't sieges just make MORE people homeless?
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
The guild splits is definitely a concern.
And while we do need more more info, I am simply going off of the way nodes seem to be designed. That design being to create conflict and competition to constantly try to upgrade your own node and downgrade nodes preventing you from doing so. Its perfectly reasonable to say that if you allow the option for people to just sign up with the best node without a limiter on how many can join, that'd be bad for that sort of competitive system right?
Well yes, what I was advocating for is to give incentive for people to move to less populated areas for housing vs having to hang out homeless in a tier 6 node. I'd say doing this would promote more sieges since it would spread players out across the world, in theory. If a large portion of the world is guaranteed to be homeless, what nodes would they fight for?
If everyone went carebear and was int he same node it would be boring that is for sure. But i believe competitive players and ones that want to pvp will want to own their own node since it sets you apart. I'm bias but that would be enough for me to move away and fight the other node. I feel other players will be like that as well, wanting to have their own node and run things.
I feel this gets into node talk early when we are waiting on this months stream though lol. I'm speculating but ways to help is add challenges that will both make people happy and unhappy to help with friction. So between buffs node can give, things you can lose if you don't do things right with the node, etc. Which all those things can add friction for players to have them move away or come to your node.
- 5 Metropoli,
- 10 Cities,
- 10 Towns,
- 20 Villages
to a total of 45 Nodes at or above Tier 3 This is within the vassal system so we might have to add theThat would give us around 65 +T3 nodes, which would all have at least 50 apartments available, leading to 3250 apaterments. That number is indeed a bit small since Steven has said it should be possible and is the intent that people can own a freehold and an apartment at the same time. So as a mayor of a new village (or higher) there is a HUGE incentive to expand living space to "steal" citizens from other nodes and establish a strong Node based on demographics. While that is indeed something that is possible and provides and interesting political aspect with the number of limited freeholds I could imagine that the player base of some servers will find that number highly insufficient causing frustration more than anything.
Off topic segment
Ashes has a bunch of systems that are so impactful that some servers could feel like complete trash because players want too much of the same thing while other servers where interests in the game aspects are more diversified are an absolute fantastic place to play on.
That being said: Since the maximum capacity should not ever be reached (as that would mean that nobody is successfully sieging anything) I would hope that expanding on the apartment capacity of a Node is not impairing a Nodes other progression options too much.
Haven't read the other comments, so someone may have already brought this up....
Rovers unite.
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
That is what they have said. Probably for the real estate possibilities.