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!
Options
The Freehold lending and borrowing is annoying and why it should probably stay that way.
Lashing
Member
Why I think paying for access to someone's freehold as a formal system is probably a bad idea.
First we need to define a formal system and an informal system.
A formal system would be something like you buy something from a player stall. The seller gains gold and the buyer gains an item or service. There is no social exchange and there is no way to get scammed. You know what you are getting out of the exchange because the game tells you what you are getting.
An informal system is something like paying someone to guard you while you gather out in the world. This is a social scenario. The game does not tell you if the person will do their job. You have to trust that another real person is going to do what you paid them to do. Informal systems in a game like Ashes are important to maintain the level of sociability and politics they are looking to emulate.
Why I think turning a freehold from an informal social experience with people in your family to something that is a formal way to generate gold while not actively playing will not be good for the game. When you create a formal system, that means it is fully expected to be used. It becomes the normal way you do things. There is no room for that random moment of betrayal or even random moment of generosity that creates a memorable social experience.
When a freehold becomes a system that auto sustains itself via selling time slots for gold that becomes the best way to utilize the freehold. Because a freehold upkeep's itself, the freehold owner is now free to do other things at the same time to advance their character or make gold. Someone not selling their freehold is now not playing efficiently. It effectively undermines the point of the freehold system by encouraging people that do not even want freehold gameplay to buy them to generate passive income. Freeholds should go to people that actively want to maintain them. Not squatters who can indefinitely sustain taxes by not playing the game.
Keeping it an informal system where you can pay someone for access to a family sounds annoying, but being annoying effectively keeps it from being the normal way to play. I feel that making it a formal system would do way more damage to the freehold system than an annoying family swap meta. Keep freeholds in the hands of people that actually want to use them. They should never auto-sustain themselves in any way to keep them cycling to new owners.
First we need to define a formal system and an informal system.
A formal system would be something like you buy something from a player stall. The seller gains gold and the buyer gains an item or service. There is no social exchange and there is no way to get scammed. You know what you are getting out of the exchange because the game tells you what you are getting.
An informal system is something like paying someone to guard you while you gather out in the world. This is a social scenario. The game does not tell you if the person will do their job. You have to trust that another real person is going to do what you paid them to do. Informal systems in a game like Ashes are important to maintain the level of sociability and politics they are looking to emulate.
Why I think turning a freehold from an informal social experience with people in your family to something that is a formal way to generate gold while not actively playing will not be good for the game. When you create a formal system, that means it is fully expected to be used. It becomes the normal way you do things. There is no room for that random moment of betrayal or even random moment of generosity that creates a memorable social experience.
When a freehold becomes a system that auto sustains itself via selling time slots for gold that becomes the best way to utilize the freehold. Because a freehold upkeep's itself, the freehold owner is now free to do other things at the same time to advance their character or make gold. Someone not selling their freehold is now not playing efficiently. It effectively undermines the point of the freehold system by encouraging people that do not even want freehold gameplay to buy them to generate passive income. Freeholds should go to people that actively want to maintain them. Not squatters who can indefinitely sustain taxes by not playing the game.
Keeping it an informal system where you can pay someone for access to a family sounds annoying, but being annoying effectively keeps it from being the normal way to play. I feel that making it a formal system would do way more damage to the freehold system than an annoying family swap meta. Keep freeholds in the hands of people that actually want to use them. They should never auto-sustain themselves in any way to keep them cycling to new owners.
3
Comments
Steven kinda touched on this topic in the Theoryforge Q&A. He mentioned that simply opening up your freehold's services to the public means that there's no social aspect to that
You'd essentially just search for the nearest public freehold, go there, do your thing and leave, while the money automatically goes to the owner. No social interaction needed
On the other hand, if you need to be let into their family, you'd have to interact with the person. It's a bit annoying, as you put it, but I feel it's important
And lastly, to the point of efficiency, I agree: the best way would be to just open your freehold and let the money gather. Basically, automating the system. This would lead to everyone doing the same, since it's the best way. If freeholds can just automatically sustain themselves, this would further limit the opportunity for more players to have them
I think people have become so afraid of potential risks (whether it be scams or other) and so worried about spending a bit of time on social interactions, that they would rather just automate all of the inconveniences away. Leading to a more bland and forgettable experience, in general
I've noticed this a lot from the WoW community, which were so opposed to systems like Master Looter, because of the potential ninja. The system ultimately gets replaced by something that ends up being a bigger problem. But that's beside the point
If the guild helps you get that freehold, then it's a guild's freeholds, therefore it stands to reason that all benefits should go to the guild, not possibly to a competing faction.
When ever you are paying access for a freehold you are technically receiving perks like utilizing the processing machine ( turning raw material into usable ones , getting higher quality food without needing to get into a city, good if this is the case of reducing travel time or if you are a Red user and can't have access to the city without getting a spear from a guard).
You could probably put a restriction or a punishment for not cleaning/taking care/ under utilizing a part of the freehold such as the quality/quantity reduction. Possible to reduce the ones that just buy freehold and sustaining taxes if it was under utilized for a certain amount of time ( a month for example, where the player was not even in that space), which you can send a request to the mayor to give it away for bids.
Certain people are not playing efficiency, like sometimes I just want to smoke a pipe with my guildies in the freehold I see no problem in that.
From my understanding node works like a competition with other nodes, where the higher lv you get the more you have as benefit. In terms of social structure it's what you see when you go around it stopping by player housing and knowing that Bobby has the best looking house, knowing that there is a tavern where you can gain a buff from eating his ham and eggs sandwiches. Most likely the culture of different nodes will be different because there are other players residing there.
Granted if you are not in a node you won't get the benefits of a node, you won't have a chance into getting a mayor position ( which is essentially a social construct because of voting ). Imagine going into a node and they are racist towards the dwarves, I mean I see no problem there ( it is what it is ), but it's essentially group or groups of like minded people/guilds, when it comes to node building if we are talking in a perfect scenario. You can also be node-less I think, but not sure on that and how it will work really or if possible.
Causing wars between a node and understanding that the layout will change losing housing because of it, that in itself is an attachment to a place, could be emotional, could be due to loss of progress.
Firstly, guilds do not have exclusive rights to freeholds. You can get one without a guild
Secondly, money
Unrealistic. Most freeholds are owned by guilds. Guilds do have the rights, they own them.