Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

Number of Apartments in a Node

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.
GJjUGHx.gif
«1

Comments

  • I don't think there should be any limits or ways to stop people from having a place in a node. The limit of taxing cost is enough, the more places you own the more money you are paying.

    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.
  • CROW3CROW3 Member
    I wouldn’t limit the number, I’d limit their capability.
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    Dolyem wrote: »
    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.
    This. Low hundreds in metros would imply way lower in <lvl6 nodes, which seems to mean that a ton of people will be absolutely homeless.

    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.
  • DolyemDolyem Member
    CROW3 wrote: »
    I wouldn’t limit the number, I’d limit their capability.

    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.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DolyemDolyem Member
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    I don't think there should be any limits or ways to stop people from having a place in a node. The limit of taxing cost is enough, the more places you own the more money you are paying.

    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.

    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.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • akabearakabear Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited July 2023
    Interesting questions.

    a ) Providing for everyone in every city (everyone wins a prize approach) vs B) providing a sweet spot amount, then the community gravitate to other nodes is the one they want to be at does not have capacity.

    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!
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member
    edited July 2023
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    I don't think there should be any limits or ways to stop people from having a place in a node. The limit of taxing cost is enough, the more places you own the more money you are paying.

    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.

    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.

    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.
  • NerrorNerror Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited July 2023
    Unless they are changing this as well, we know apartments get progressively more expensive to purchase the more units are already sold in the node:
    The prices for these apartments will fluctuate depending on the number of units already sold in the city.

    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.
  • DolyemDolyem Member
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    I don't think there should be any limits or ways to stop people from having a place in a node. The limit of taxing cost is enough, the more places you own the more money you are paying.

    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.

    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.

    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 own and eventually have it become the top tier.

    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.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DolyemDolyem Member
    Nerror wrote: »
    Unless they are changing this as well, we know apartments get progressively more expensive to purchase the more units are already sold in the node:
    The prices for these apartments will fluctuate depending on the number of units already sold in the city.

    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.

    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
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Dolyem wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    I don't think there should be any limits or ways to stop people from having a place in a node. The limit of taxing cost is enough, the more places you own the more money you are paying.

    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.

    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.

    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 own and eventually have it become the top tier.

    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.

    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.
  • DolyemDolyem Member
    edited July 2023
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    I don't think there should be any limits or ways to stop people from having a place in a node. The limit of taxing cost is enough, the more places you own the more money you are paying.

    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.

    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.

    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 own and eventually have it become the top tier.

    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.

    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
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Song_WardenSong_Warden Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Stacks can be infinite but they shouldn't be.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • rocsekrocsek Member, Founder, Kickstarter
    edited July 2023
    So in reading the wiki about node and Zones of influence it seems like there might be roughly 2000 homes or less available in any tier 6 node.

    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.
    "Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    rocsek wrote: »
    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.
    They want 50k people on one server. Even if there is 5k "homes" in a whole lvl6 node system, that's still only a half of the server's population. And 5k is such a high overestimate currently that it's nowhere near reality (as we know it).

    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".
  • rocsekrocsek Member, Founder, Kickstarter
    NiKr wrote: »
    They want 50k people on one server.
    And that's fine. In testing we'll hopefully see what the numbers are, and If its not a good number maybe they 3, 4, or 5 times the amount I listed. We just have to get in when they let us and test things out.

    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.

    "Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
  • Dolyem wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    I don't think there should be any limits or ways to stop people from having a place in a node. The limit of taxing cost is enough, the more places you own the more money you are paying.

    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.

    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.

    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 own and eventually have it become the top tier.

    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.

    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

    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.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Apartments are instanced housing.
    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.
  • rocsekrocsek Member, Founder, Kickstarter
    Dygz wrote: »
    Apartments are instanced housing.
    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? ;)
    "Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
  • DolyemDolyem Member
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    I don't think there should be any limits or ways to stop people from having a place in a node. The limit of taxing cost is enough, the more places you own the more money you are paying.

    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.

    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.

    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 own and eventually have it become the top tier.

    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.

    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

    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.

    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?
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    rocsek wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Apartments are instanced housing.
    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? ;)
    Depends who wins... :wink:
  • DolyemDolyem Member
    Dygz wrote: »
    Apartments are instanced housing.
    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.

    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?
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Dolyem wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    I don't think there should be any limits or ways to stop people from having a place in a node. The limit of taxing cost is enough, the more places you own the more money you are paying.

    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.

    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.

    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 own and eventually have it become the top tier.

    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.

    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

    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.

    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?

    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.

  • KilionKilion Member
    If I read the wiki correctly, the nodes system is fully developed, it would give us
    • 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 the
    • 3x 5 castle nodes which can also reach tier 3
    • and let's say for good measure 5 tier 3 or above nodes that are independent of the vassal system.

    That 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
    Of course, this "issue" could then be mitigated by the players via a transfer to a server where the current player base is not having high demand for apartments and real estate. And I think there is a chance that this is what will happen:

    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.
    The answer is probably >>> HERE <<<
  • If they're too badly limited, then presumably the same people that would get the freeholds first would also be the same people that would get the apartments first. Meaning that there wouldn't be any housing option for anyone playing a little slower or for anyone who joins the game after initial release.



    Haven't read the other comments, so someone may have already brought this up....
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
  • FantmxFantmx Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    I think what we are seeing is the majority of a servers players will be homeless and citizenless.

    Rovers unite.
  • rocsekrocsek Member, Founder, Kickstarter
    edited July 2023
    So a single person can own 3 homes? You don't have to be a citizen to own a home, but you have to own a home to be a citizen. If that is right something is off with that formula
    "Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
  • Question, will apartments be instanced?
    m6jque7ofxxf.gif
  • FantmxFantmx Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Yes
  • FantmxFantmx Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    rocsek wrote: »
    So a single person can own 3 homes? You don't have to be a citizen to own a home, but you have to own a home to be a citizen. If that is right something is off with that formula

    That is what they have said. Probably for the real estate possibilities.
Sign In or Register to comment.