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.

Player housing/ Freehold proposal since people seem to be worried

13»

Comments

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    I mean... I think most people ........

    "I mean... I think most people " There it is again!!
    Well I think most people want and love open world pvp and 99.9% of the people love hardcore pvp. (see how that works)

    The difference is, your conjecture can be proven false simply by looking at PvP MMO numbers, while Dygz can be proven correct by looking at games with open world housing and the demand for it.

    If you were looking at the situation with a brain, this wouldn't need to be pointed out to you. Instead, you are treating it like sport where it is "my team" vs "the other team". Looking at discussion in this manner causes people to ignore logic when it is presented to them, and often use hyperbolic statements like your above to enable them to ignore such logic.

    One need only look at the popularity of housing in Archeage to understand that Dygz comment is correct.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    willsummon wrote: »
    They are design so Freehold owners will need friends to get the most out of and protect their Freeholds.
    There is no real need to protect a freehold.

    The only time there is any call to defend a freehold is if your node loses a siege. If your node loses a siege, you will probably want to relocate your freehold anyway. You want to be near your market for both your supply and demand, and if there is no large node nearby, that market is almost definately further away now.

    As such, the defense of your freehold is limited to the materials you have stored there, as that is the only thing (at this stage) that you stand to lose.
  • Ayeveegaming1Ayeveegaming1 Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    I mean... I think most people ........

    "I mean... I think most people " There it is again!!
    Well I think most people want and love open world pvp and 99.9% of the people love hardcore pvp. (see how that works)

    The difference is, your conjecture can be proven false simply by looking at PvP MMO numbers, while Dygz can be proven correct by looking at games with open world housing and the demand for it.

    If you were looking at the situation with a brain, this wouldn't need to be pointed out to you. Instead, you are treating it like sport where it is "my team" vs "the other team". Looking at discussion in this manner causes people to ignore logic when it is presented to them, and often use hyperbolic statements like your above to enable them to ignore such logic.

    One need only look at the popularity of housing in Archeage to understand that Dygz comment is correct.

    LOL It went right over that dome of yours. Ya I know mine can be proven false because it was mocking his words. Please keep up. The point is neither of us proved anything.............
    vmw4o7x2etm1.png
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Ravicus wrote: »
    "I mean... I think most people " There it is again!!
    Well I think most people want and love open world pvp and 99.9% of the people love hardcore pvp. (see how that works)
    Yep. You can think that. And then we will see what actually happens.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    willsummon wrote: »
    The penalty system will likely keep most PVP in check.

    Depending on how well players get along with each other, each server could range pvp battlefield to a wonderland for crafters. Given the world map size, one area could be at constant war and another area be at peace.
    Part of the world can't really be at peace because PvP is possible everywhere.
    There is a large part of the map that is permanently FFA PvP the moment you enter.
    And there is no part of the map that is permanently PvE-Only.

  • Ayeveegaming1Ayeveegaming1 Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    "I mean... I think most people " There it is again!!
    Well I think most people want and love open world pvp and 99.9% of the people love hardcore pvp. (see how that works)
    Yep. You can think that. And then we will see what actually happens.

    Bill Envall comes to mind. "here's your sign" urrygaygnjnv.png
    vmw4o7x2etm1.png
  • willsummonwillsummon Member, Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Dygz wrote: »
    willsummon wrote: »
    The penalty system will likely keep most PVP in check.

    Depending on how well players get along with each other, each server could range pvp battlefield to a wonderland for crafters. Given the world map size, one area could be at constant war and another area be at peace.
    Part of the world can't really be at peace because PvP is possible everywhere.
    There is a large part of the map that is permanently FFA PvP the moment you enter.
    And there is no part of the map that is permanently PvE-Only.
    You are thinking from a no-consequence World PVP. Griefing, which is 90% of the problem in most MMOs, is stated to have penalties in AoC.

    Crafting guilds could come together and make it clear griefing PVP will not be tolerated where they are, and with penalties on griefing, they can enforce this.

    That being say, group endgame PVP could be insane.

    While not really mentioned one way or another. It is a logical guess that maps will not update in node area that have not been visits since changes in that node. Giving a fog of war situation.

    The possible exemption being the rise and fall of metropolis nodes.

    The game world of AoC is very, very large.

    If this is the case, which I hope, a crafty PVP guild can go to a far corner of the game world, where no one is at, and building a small kingdom, such as a city level node and vassal nodes for it. When that guild is ready, they can launch PVP attacks on the rest of the game world, with everyone else being unsure where the PVP guild is based at.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    I mean... I think most people ........

    "I mean... I think most people " There it is again!!
    Well I think most people want and love open world pvp and 99.9% of the people love hardcore pvp. (see how that works)

    The difference is, your conjecture can be proven false simply by looking at PvP MMO numbers, while Dygz can be proven correct by looking at games with open world housing and the demand for it.

    If you were looking at the situation with a brain, this wouldn't need to be pointed out to you. Instead, you are treating it like sport where it is "my team" vs "the other team". Looking at discussion in this manner causes people to ignore logic when it is presented to them, and often use hyperbolic statements like your above to enable them to ignore such logic.

    One need only look at the popularity of housing in Archeage to understand that Dygz comment is correct.

    LOL It went right over that dome of yours. Ya I know mine can be proven false because it was mocking his words. Please keep up. The point is neither of us proved anything.............
    No, my dude, it seems it is my post that went over your "dome".

    As I said, you are looking at discussion as team vs team (or perhaps "posters vs posters" - or PvP). This view of yours has then lead to you feeling you had to refute that post of Dygz - even though it is true. Since you had to then refute (or be seen to refute) something that was true, the only option you thought was available to you was that of hyperbole.

    The point is that Dygz was right (a statement that hurts me to type out - but true is true). Not just right, but there is ample proof out there that it is. Proof that you should be aware of if you want to get in to the deep end of a discussion on freeholds. I mean, why argue with someone as to the merits of freeholds if you aren't at least vaguely familiar with similar systems in other games?

    If you were vaguely familiar with it, you would know that what Dygz said is undeniably true - MOST people are not going to be content with an instanced appartment.
  • Ayeveegaming1Ayeveegaming1 Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    I mean... I think most people ........

    "I mean... I think most people " There it is again!!
    Well I think most people want and love open world pvp and 99.9% of the people love hardcore pvp. (see how that works)

    The difference is, your conjecture can be proven false simply by looking at PvP MMO numbers, while Dygz can be proven correct by looking at games with open world housing and the demand for it.

    If you were looking at the situation with a brain, this wouldn't need to be pointed out to you. Instead, you are treating it like sport where it is "my team" vs "the other team". Looking at discussion in this manner causes people to ignore logic when it is presented to them, and often use hyperbolic statements like your above to enable them to ignore such logic.

    One need only look at the popularity of housing in Archeage to understand that Dygz comment is correct.

    LOL It went right over that dome of yours. Ya I know mine can be proven false because it was mocking his words. Please keep up. The point is neither of us proved anything.............
    No, my dude, it seems it is my post that went over your "dome".

    As I said, you are looking at discussion as team vs team (or perhaps "posters vs posters" - or PvP). This view of yours has then lead to you feeling you had to refute that post of Dygz - even though it is true. Since you had to then refute (or be seen to refute) something that was true, the only option you thought was available to you was that of hyperbole.

    The point is that Dygz was right (a statement that hurts me to type out - but true is true). Not just right, but there is ample proof out there that it is. Proof that you should be aware of if you want to get in to the deep end of a discussion on freeholds. I mean, why argue with someone as to the merits of freeholds if you aren't at least vaguely familiar with similar systems in other games?

    If you were vaguely familiar with it, you would know that what Dygz said is undeniably true - MOST people are not going to be content with an instanced appartment.

    Opinion again....
    vmw4o7x2etm1.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    I mean... I think most people ........

    "I mean... I think most people " There it is again!!
    Well I think most people want and love open world pvp and 99.9% of the people love hardcore pvp. (see how that works)

    The difference is, your conjecture can be proven false simply by looking at PvP MMO numbers, while Dygz can be proven correct by looking at games with open world housing and the demand for it.

    If you were looking at the situation with a brain, this wouldn't need to be pointed out to you. Instead, you are treating it like sport where it is "my team" vs "the other team". Looking at discussion in this manner causes people to ignore logic when it is presented to them, and often use hyperbolic statements like your above to enable them to ignore such logic.

    One need only look at the popularity of housing in Archeage to understand that Dygz comment is correct.

    LOL It went right over that dome of yours. Ya I know mine can be proven false because it was mocking his words. Please keep up. The point is neither of us proved anything.............
    No, my dude, it seems it is my post that went over your "dome".

    As I said, you are looking at discussion as team vs team (or perhaps "posters vs posters" - or PvP). This view of yours has then lead to you feeling you had to refute that post of Dygz - even though it is true. Since you had to then refute (or be seen to refute) something that was true, the only option you thought was available to you was that of hyperbole.

    The point is that Dygz was right (a statement that hurts me to type out - but true is true). Not just right, but there is ample proof out there that it is. Proof that you should be aware of if you want to get in to the deep end of a discussion on freeholds. I mean, why argue with someone as to the merits of freeholds if you aren't at least vaguely familiar with similar systems in other games?

    If you were vaguely familiar with it, you would know that what Dygz said is undeniably true - MOST people are not going to be content with an instanced appartment.

    Opinion again....
    It isn't opinion though, it's just fact.

    Most players in Archeage had housing, because people really enjoyed having housing that was a part of the games world.

    Then you can look at a game like EQ2 - the game had instanced only housing. WIth the exception of using housing for it's economic purposes (was the best way to sell items), most players didn't use housing at all.

    Yet, an argument could be made that the EQ2 population would be more inclined to wanting in game housing than the Archeage population - despite the opposite being the case.

    Or you can close your eyes, ignore what has happened in the past, and just claim that everything you are unaware of is just opinion.
  • Ayeveegaming1Ayeveegaming1 Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    I mean... I think most people ........

    "I mean... I think most people " There it is again!!
    Well I think most people want and love open world pvp and 99.9% of the people love hardcore pvp. (see how that works)

    The difference is, your conjecture can be proven false simply by looking at PvP MMO numbers, while Dygz can be proven correct by looking at games with open world housing and the demand for it.

    If you were looking at the situation with a brain, this wouldn't need to be pointed out to you. Instead, you are treating it like sport where it is "my team" vs "the other team". Looking at discussion in this manner causes people to ignore logic when it is presented to them, and often use hyperbolic statements like your above to enable them to ignore such logic.

    One need only look at the popularity of housing in Archeage to understand that Dygz comment is correct.

    LOL It went right over that dome of yours. Ya I know mine can be proven false because it was mocking his words. Please keep up. The point is neither of us proved anything.............
    No, my dude, it seems it is my post that went over your "dome".

    As I said, you are looking at discussion as team vs team (or perhaps "posters vs posters" - or PvP). This view of yours has then lead to you feeling you had to refute that post of Dygz - even though it is true. Since you had to then refute (or be seen to refute) something that was true, the only option you thought was available to you was that of hyperbole.

    The point is that Dygz was right (a statement that hurts me to type out - but true is true). Not just right, but there is ample proof out there that it is. Proof that you should be aware of if you want to get in to the deep end of a discussion on freeholds. I mean, why argue with someone as to the merits of freeholds if you aren't at least vaguely familiar with similar systems in other games?

    If you were vaguely familiar with it, you would know that what Dygz said is undeniably true - MOST people are not going to be content with an instanced appartment.

    Opinion again....
    It isn't opinion though, it's just fact.

    Most players in Archeage had housing, because people really enjoyed having housing that was a part of the games world.

    Then you can look at a game like EQ2 - the game had instanced only housing. WIth the exception of using housing for it's economic purposes (was the best way to sell items), most players didn't use housing at all.

    Yet, an argument could be made that the EQ2 population would be more inclined to wanting in game housing than the Archeage population - despite the opposite being the case.

    Or you can close your eyes, ignore what has happened in the past, and just claim that everything you are unaware of is just opinion.

    I am not the blind one here. You are just fanatical in your arguments and cannot see anything else but your own propaganda.
    vmw4o7x2etm1.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    I mean... I think most people ........

    "I mean... I think most people " There it is again!!
    Well I think most people want and love open world pvp and 99.9% of the people love hardcore pvp. (see how that works)

    The difference is, your conjecture can be proven false simply by looking at PvP MMO numbers, while Dygz can be proven correct by looking at games with open world housing and the demand for it.

    If you were looking at the situation with a brain, this wouldn't need to be pointed out to you. Instead, you are treating it like sport where it is "my team" vs "the other team". Looking at discussion in this manner causes people to ignore logic when it is presented to them, and often use hyperbolic statements like your above to enable them to ignore such logic.

    One need only look at the popularity of housing in Archeage to understand that Dygz comment is correct.

    LOL It went right over that dome of yours. Ya I know mine can be proven false because it was mocking his words. Please keep up. The point is neither of us proved anything.............
    No, my dude, it seems it is my post that went over your "dome".

    As I said, you are looking at discussion as team vs team (or perhaps "posters vs posters" - or PvP). This view of yours has then lead to you feeling you had to refute that post of Dygz - even though it is true. Since you had to then refute (or be seen to refute) something that was true, the only option you thought was available to you was that of hyperbole.

    The point is that Dygz was right (a statement that hurts me to type out - but true is true). Not just right, but there is ample proof out there that it is. Proof that you should be aware of if you want to get in to the deep end of a discussion on freeholds. I mean, why argue with someone as to the merits of freeholds if you aren't at least vaguely familiar with similar systems in other games?

    If you were vaguely familiar with it, you would know that what Dygz said is undeniably true - MOST people are not going to be content with an instanced appartment.

    Opinion again....
    It isn't opinion though, it's just fact.

    Most players in Archeage had housing, because people really enjoyed having housing that was a part of the games world.

    Then you can look at a game like EQ2 - the game had instanced only housing. WIth the exception of using housing for it's economic purposes (was the best way to sell items), most players didn't use housing at all.

    Yet, an argument could be made that the EQ2 population would be more inclined to wanting in game housing than the Archeage population - despite the opposite being the case.

    Or you can close your eyes, ignore what has happened in the past, and just claim that everything you are unaware of is just opinion.

    I am not the blind one here. You are just fanatical in your arguments and cannot see anything else but your own propaganda.

    I didn't say you are blind, I said you have your eyes closed.

    You are purposefully not understanding a basic premise because if you do, you have to admit that "your side" is wrong in this specific situation.

    Any time anyone resorts to claiming the other sides points are propoganda, they have already run out of valid arguments to make.
  • Ayeveegaming1Ayeveegaming1 Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    I mean... I think most people ........

    "I mean... I think most people " There it is again!!
    Well I think most people want and love open world pvp and 99.9% of the people love hardcore pvp. (see how that works)

    The difference is, your conjecture can be proven false simply by looking at PvP MMO numbers, while Dygz can be proven correct by looking at games with open world housing and the demand for it.

    If you were looking at the situation with a brain, this wouldn't need to be pointed out to you. Instead, you are treating it like sport where it is "my team" vs "the other team". Looking at discussion in this manner causes people to ignore logic when it is presented to them, and often use hyperbolic statements like your above to enable them to ignore such logic.

    One need only look at the popularity of housing in Archeage to understand that Dygz comment is correct.

    LOL It went right over that dome of yours. Ya I know mine can be proven false because it was mocking his words. Please keep up. The point is neither of us proved anything.............
    No, my dude, it seems it is my post that went over your "dome".

    As I said, you are looking at discussion as team vs team (or perhaps "posters vs posters" - or PvP). This view of yours has then lead to you feeling you had to refute that post of Dygz - even though it is true. Since you had to then refute (or be seen to refute) something that was true, the only option you thought was available to you was that of hyperbole.

    The point is that Dygz was right (a statement that hurts me to type out - but true is true). Not just right, but there is ample proof out there that it is. Proof that you should be aware of if you want to get in to the deep end of a discussion on freeholds. I mean, why argue with someone as to the merits of freeholds if you aren't at least vaguely familiar with similar systems in other games?

    If you were vaguely familiar with it, you would know that what Dygz said is undeniably true - MOST people are not going to be content with an instanced appartment.

    Opinion again....
    It isn't opinion though, it's just fact.

    Most players in Archeage had housing, because people really enjoyed having housing that was a part of the games world.

    Then you can look at a game like EQ2 - the game had instanced only housing. WIth the exception of using housing for it's economic purposes (was the best way to sell items), most players didn't use housing at all.

    Yet, an argument could be made that the EQ2 population would be more inclined to wanting in game housing than the Archeage population - despite the opposite being the case.

    Or you can close your eyes, ignore what has happened in the past, and just claim that everything you are unaware of is just opinion.

    I am not the blind one here. You are just fanatical in your arguments and cannot see anything else but your own propaganda.

    I didn't say you are blind, I said you have your eyes closed.

    You are purposefully not understanding a basic premise because if you do, you have to admit that "your side" is wrong in this specific situation.

    Any time anyone resorts to claiming the other sides points are propoganda, they have already run out of valid arguments to make.

    Yawn......
    vmw4o7x2etm1.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Ravicus wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    I mean... I think most people ........

    "I mean... I think most people " There it is again!!
    Well I think most people want and love open world pvp and 99.9% of the people love hardcore pvp. (see how that works)

    The difference is, your conjecture can be proven false simply by looking at PvP MMO numbers, while Dygz can be proven correct by looking at games with open world housing and the demand for it.

    If you were looking at the situation with a brain, this wouldn't need to be pointed out to you. Instead, you are treating it like sport where it is "my team" vs "the other team". Looking at discussion in this manner causes people to ignore logic when it is presented to them, and often use hyperbolic statements like your above to enable them to ignore such logic.

    One need only look at the popularity of housing in Archeage to understand that Dygz comment is correct.

    LOL It went right over that dome of yours. Ya I know mine can be proven false because it was mocking his words. Please keep up. The point is neither of us proved anything.............
    No, my dude, it seems it is my post that went over your "dome".

    As I said, you are looking at discussion as team vs team (or perhaps "posters vs posters" - or PvP). This view of yours has then lead to you feeling you had to refute that post of Dygz - even though it is true. Since you had to then refute (or be seen to refute) something that was true, the only option you thought was available to you was that of hyperbole.

    The point is that Dygz was right (a statement that hurts me to type out - but true is true). Not just right, but there is ample proof out there that it is. Proof that you should be aware of if you want to get in to the deep end of a discussion on freeholds. I mean, why argue with someone as to the merits of freeholds if you aren't at least vaguely familiar with similar systems in other games?

    If you were vaguely familiar with it, you would know that what Dygz said is undeniably true - MOST people are not going to be content with an instanced appartment.

    Opinion again....
    It isn't opinion though, it's just fact.

    Most players in Archeage had housing, because people really enjoyed having housing that was a part of the games world.

    Then you can look at a game like EQ2 - the game had instanced only housing. WIth the exception of using housing for it's economic purposes (was the best way to sell items), most players didn't use housing at all.

    Yet, an argument could be made that the EQ2 population would be more inclined to wanting in game housing than the Archeage population - despite the opposite being the case.

    Or you can close your eyes, ignore what has happened in the past, and just claim that everything you are unaware of is just opinion.

    I am not the blind one here. You are just fanatical in your arguments and cannot see anything else but your own propaganda.

    I didn't say you are blind, I said you have your eyes closed.

    You are purposefully not understanding a basic premise because if you do, you have to admit that "your side" is wrong in this specific situation.

    Any time anyone resorts to claiming the other sides points are propoganda, they have already run out of valid arguments to make.

    Yawn......

    Well, if you put it that way, I guess you have a valid point and my day is ruined.

    Oh wait, what point?
  • Noaani wrote: »
    It isn't opinion though, it's just fact.

    Most players in Archeage had housing, because people really enjoyed having housing that was a part of the games world.

    Ok that assumption made me laugh more than the average ones Noaani.

    "Most players in Archeage had housing" because it was a no-brainer huge plus benefit to have in generalized economical/strategic aspects with almost no risks or drawbacks[other than literally taxes(that could be dealt with through alts)], to the point even its specific location could dramatically increase the overall value of the houses and people would put as many properties up as they could (many intentionaly creating land choke points to deny people extra land mechanically inflating property prices).

    I know you want to win some argument but please, no AA straight up lies if possible...
    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Noaani wrote: »
    It isn't opinion though, it's just fact.

    Most players in Archeage had housing, because people really enjoyed having housing that was a part of the games world.

    Ok that assumption made me laugh more than the average ones Noaani.

    "Most players in Archeage had housing" because it was a no-brainer huge plus benefit to have in generalized economical/strategic aspects with almost no risks or drawbacks[other than literally taxes(that could be dealt with through alts)], to the point even its specific location could dramatically increase the overall value of the houses and people would put as many properties up as they could (many intentionaly creating land choke points to deny people extra land mechanically inflating property prices).

    I know you want to win some argument but please, no AA straight up lies if possible...

    See, I don't disagree with your point here. Having housing in Archeage was a huge benefit.

    However, take this back to the comment Dygz made that is correct - most players won't be content with an instanced appartment in Ashes.

    Does your point here not simply back that statement up?

    Because that is the reason the point made by Dygz is actually true - thre is a massive advantage to freeholds over instanced housing in Ashes, so most people will not be content with instanced.
  • edited July 2023
    Noaani wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    It isn't opinion though, it's just fact.

    Most players in Archeage had housing, because people really enjoyed having housing that was a part of the games world.

    Ok that assumption made me laugh more than the average ones Noaani.

    "Most players in Archeage had housing" because it was a no-brainer huge plus benefit to have in generalized economical/strategic aspects with almost no risks or drawbacks[other than literally taxes(that could be dealt with through alts)], to the point even its specific location could dramatically increase the overall value of the houses and people would put as many properties up as they could (many intentionaly creating land choke points to deny people extra land mechanically inflating property prices).

    I know you want to win some argument but please, no AA straight up lies if possible...

    See, I don't disagree with your point here. Having housing in Archeage was a huge benefit.

    However, take this back to the comment Dygz made that is correct - most players won't be content with an instanced appartment in Ashes.

    Does your point here not simply back that statement up?

    Because that is the reason the point made by Dygz is actually true - thre is a massive advantage to freeholds over instanced housing in Ashes, so most people will not be content with instanced.

    "most players won't be content with an instanced appartment in Ashes."

    Sure lets rationalize this assumption for you.

    Q: Who exactly wouldn't be content with an instanced appartment in Ashes?

    A: People who desire freehold aspects that can't be acquired with an instanced appartment(A.K.A T4/T5 Grandmaster Processors), so for the statement to make sense "most players" would need to be desiring to become Grandmaster Processors, which is unreasonable.

    Considering the logic of waterfall production, the majority of players will most likely be gatherers that will feed the production chain, the rest will be processors and crafters(hard to currently predict which there will be more of).
    (i will disregard the small number of RP clowns who would want it for the pure open world house clout and no functionality).

    So no, my point does not back the statment, not at all, you can take AA houses slam them as instanced, it would eliminate the quantity/territorial aspect of its specific economy, but wouldn't touch the rest of the insane generalized economical/strategic economy aspects, making them still absolutely desired by the majority for their purpose.

    It's important to make clear that AA Housing generalized economical/strategic economy aspects affected the entire economy from gathering all the way up to crafting, Ashes freehold will only affect Top tier processing.

    Btw Noaani any opinions about the insane popularity of FFXIV Instanced housing?
    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Q: Who exactly wouldn't be content with an instanced appartment in Ashes?

    A: People who desire freehold aspects that can't be acquired with an instanced appartment(A.K.A T4/T5 Grandmaster Processors), so for the statement to make sense "most players" would need to be desiring to become Grandmaster Processors, which is unreasonable.
    You are assuming only people wanting to get in to processing will want a freehold.

    That is an interesting take on the whole situation. An unfounded take, but an interesting one regardless.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    Q: Who exactly wouldn't be content with an instanced appartment in Ashes?

    A: People who desire freehold aspects that can't be acquired with an instanced appartment(A.K.A T4/T5 Grandmaster Processors), so for the statement to make sense "most players" would need to be desiring to become Grandmaster Processors, which is unreasonable.
    You are assuming only people wanting to get in to processing will want a freehold.

    That is an interesting take on the whole situation. An unfounded take, but an interesting one regardless.

    No idea where you got that assumption from, Noaani, this is not about wanting or not wanting to have the freehold, everyone will want it, even if to just put their hands on it to help a processor friend, sell it for nice gold or sell family slots. It is an resource.

    It's about not being content with the instanced appartment as a form of housing in regard to freeholds and their difference.
    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    No idea where you got that assumption from, Noaani, this is not about wanting or not wanting to have the freehold, everyone will want it
    And thus Dygz point is true.

    Most people are not expecting to be content with instanced housing - they will want a freehold. That is literally the point being made here.

    Please don't become one of those people that join an argument and pick a side just because of the people in the argument. You know I am not overly keen on saying Dygz is right - but in this situation he just is.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    And thus Dygz point is true.

    Most people are not expecting to be content with instanced housing - they will want a freehold. That is literally the point being made here.

    Nope, Dygz point isn't true.

    Because even if most people wants freeholds for whatever purpose, most people can still be content with having an instanced apartment because its better to have one than not have one. It's not exclusionary Noaani, that's the second time i see you trying to pull a Black-or-white Fallacy against me hahaha.
    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    And thus Dygz point is true.

    Most people are not expecting to be content with instanced housing - they will want a freehold. That is literally the point being made here.

    Nope, Dygz point isn't true.

    Because even if most people wants freeholds for whatever purpose, most people can still be content with having an instanced apartment because its better to have one than not have one. It's not exclusionary Noaani, that's the second time i see you trying to pull a Black-or-white Fallacy against me hahaha.
    I think your understanding of the word "content" is off here.

    As always, there are a few. However, the best to use for this situation is "a state of satisfaction". Many players - perhaps even most players - will have an instanced appartment in Ashes. However, that does not mean they are satisfied with that - they are not content with it.

    Most players will want more - whether that is in node housing or a freehold.

    I mean, that is kind of the point of the system. There is supposed to be a demand on limited housing options, people are supposed to want it, meaning people are supposed to not be content with instanced housing.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    I think your understanding of the word "content" is off here.

    As always, there are a few. However, the best to use for this situation is "a state of satisfaction". Many players - perhaps even most players - will have an instanced appartment in Ashes. However, that does not mean they are satisfied with that - they are not content with it.

    Most players will want more - whether that is in node housing or a freehold.

    I mean, that is kind of the point of the system. There is supposed to be a demand on limited housing options, people are supposed to want it, meaning people are supposed to not be content with instanced housing.

    I certainly do understand the everlasting greedy human desire for more and better.
    But i also do understand that people can be very content by having something very good specially if its near the apex of the best instead of nothing.
    Like wanting iPhone 14 but still being content by having your iPhone 12 instead of nothing.

    The main divisor of Freehold and instanced housing is the Freehold top tier processing.
    Isn't it reasonable to say only processors will never be content without a freehold, while people who aren't processors will still certainly want the freehold but can still be content with instanced housing instead of nothing?
    So there will certainly be demand for them, such level of demand varies from person to person.

    But it seems like for you content means "completely satisfied" instead of simple content.
    Your semantics and unusual meanings always amazes me.
    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    But i also do understand that people can be very content by having something very good specially if its near the apex of the best instead of nothing.
    Freeholds offer the ability for players to progress in processing, they allow players to set up businesses, they allow players to influence the spawn rate of resources and mobs in the game world, they have storage space, they allow players to have some control over a portion of the otherwise chaotic game world, they allow players to display their style to others, they give players a PvP free space in the open world (even if only indoors), they give player a guaranteed means of gathering.

    What does instanced housing do again?

    If instanced housing was close to freeholds in terms of functionality, I'd agree with you that Dygz is wrong. However, freeholds have function, instanced housing essentially does not.

    Using your iphone example, freeholds may be an iphone whatever (don't care, Apple is the most evil company in tech, I don't follow their products and think significantly less of people that use them), but an instanced appartment is more akin to a Motorola DynaTAC 8000x.

    The leasehold suggestion I have made would fit your comments here of housing that is near the apex but not the best. That is something I would expect many people to be content with.
  • edited July 2023
    Noaani wrote: »
    Freeholds offer the ability for players to progress in processing, they allow players to set up businesses, they allow players to influence the spawn rate of resources and mobs in the game world, they have storage space, they allow players to have some control over a portion of the otherwise chaotic game world, they allow players to display their style to others, they give players a PvP free space in the open world (even if only indoors), they give player a guaranteed means of gathering.

    Freeholds offer the ability for players to progress in processing, they allow players to set up businesses.

    they allow players to influence the spawn rate of resources and mobs in the game world
    citation needed.

    they have storage space
    instanced housing also has.

    they allow players to have some control over a portion of the otherwise chaotic game world
    irrelevant.

    they allow players to display their style to others.
    Players can also check your style if they visit your instanced housing. quite irrelevant still.

    they give players a PvP free space in the open world (even if only indoors) Insane relevance :D

    they give player a guaranteed means of gathering.
    instanced housing also has.

    Do you wanna try again tho?
    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Noaani wrote: »
    Freeholds offer the ability for players to progress in processing, they allow players to set up businesses, they allow players to influence the spawn rate of resources and mobs in the game world, they have storage space, they allow players to have some control over a portion of the otherwise chaotic game world, they allow players to display their style to others, they give players a PvP free space in the open world (even if only indoors), they give player a guaranteed means of gathering.

    Freeholds offer the ability for players to progress in processing, they allow players to set up businesses.

    they allow players to influence the spawn rate of resources and mobs in the game world
    citation needed.
    Actions like ridding an area of invasive species or performing crop rotations on freehold farms may have a positive effect on that area's land health value.

    they have storage space
    instanced housing also has.
    Perhaps.

    they allow players to have some control over a portion of the otherwise chaotic game world
    irrelevant.
    When we are talking about player desire (content), things players may desire are not irrelevent.

    they allow players to display their style to others.
    Players can also check your style if they visit your instanced housing. quite irrelevant still.
    Not even remotely the same thing.

    Only people that already know you will come and visit your instanced home.
    they give players a PvP free space in the open world (even if only indoors) Insane relevance :D

    they give player a guaranteed means of gathering.
    instanced housing also has.
    Other than essentially pot plants - which appear to be their own thing that also happen in freeholds - citation needed.
    Do you wanna try again tho?
    Nah, we're still working through this lot.

    It is entierly possible that there may be some expansion on what you can do in instanced and in node housing. However, we can't really talk about what may happen.

    As we know now, they are wholely inadaquate.

    To be honest though, I don't want instanced housing to be adaquate. Adaquate housing should mean players have an hour or more (ideally 90 minutes or more) of activities they *can* do in their housing per day - and I don't want people spending that much time in their instanced house.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    We're up to calling people 'RP clowns' now?
    Y'all know how Jamberry Roll.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    willsummon wrote: »
    You are thinking from a no-consequence World PVP. Griefing, which is 90% of the problem in most MMOs, is stated to have penalties in AoC.
    I'm not thinking about griefing. Open Seas is FFA PvP.
    Griefing is not possible there.
    And, there can be plenty of PvP on the mainland that is not griefing.
    Especially with Caravans and Castle Sieges.


    willsummon wrote: »
    Crafting guilds could come together and make it clear griefing PVP will not be tolerated where they are, and with penalties on griefing, they can enforce this.
    I'm not talking about griefing PvP.


    willsummon wrote: »
    That being say, group endgame PVP could be insane.
    Ashes doesn't have an endgame.


    willsummon wrote: »
    While not really mentioned one way or another. It is a logical guess that maps will not update in node area that have not been visits since changes in that node. Giving a fog of war situation.
    The possible exemption being the rise and fall of metropolis nodes.
    Not a literal fog of war. We'll have to see how maps update.
    That has nothing to do with areas of peace.
    Dunno why we would only be considering Metros.


    willsummon wrote: »
    The game world of AoC is very, very large.
    If this is the case, which I hope, a crafty PVP guild can go to a far corner of the game world, where no one is at, and building a small kingdom, such as a city level node and vassal nodes for it. When that guild is ready, they can launch PVP attacks on the rest of the game world, with everyone else being unsure where the PVP guild is based at.
    It's going to take more than one guild to build a City.
    And that Node will very like be Sieged before reaching the City Stage.
    I wonder if it can considered to be a PvP Guild if they don't PvP before Stage 5.
    Most likely the guild will have to do some PvP to have the resources and services to reach Stage 5.
Sign In or Register to comment.