Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Freehold - Aquisition, ownership and risk
Sjelden
Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
There are 30 or so threads discussing Freeholds, and nearly all directly or indirectly touching on the pros and cons of the current design of the Freehold system, more specifically related to aquisition, ownership, and artisans (processing).
All these previous threads contain a range of well argumented reasons for why this is good - or bad. Topics for these threads touch on topics like;
- Availability
- Content gated behind Freehold access
- Large guilds cornering character development
- Risk of loss of player investment
- Player retention post launch
- Loss of players pre launch
Personally, I see possible benefits and challenges with the current design.
Nothing lasts forever - this seems to be the only constant in the world of Verra.
Equipment degrade, nodes can be destroyed, harvested resources can be lost, and more importantly, houses and Freeholds can be lost. As a core design philosophy, there is nothing wrong with that.
But reading both a significant portion of these threads , and trying to read between the lines, it seems the large pushback comes not from the design itself - but the gap between expectations and reality. The expectations that all players could partake in, and even master, Farming or Animal Husbandry, is in large part based on information coming from Intrepid Studios.
Sales of cosmetics for Freeholds solidifies the expectation that all players can choose to own a Freehold.
I believe Intrepid Studios underestimated the number of players that got invested in this project, largely due to the dreams and hopes tied to certain gameplay activites that now seem gated behind unachievable gameplay elements.
It is safe to assume Steven and his employees are more than capable of analyzing their design scope, and identify potential consequences.
Is Ashes of Creation a game mainly for the successful large guilds? If it is - should it be? If it should be - how will that impact recruiting of new players? How will such a design cater to personal goals?
I am all for restricted and exclusive content. I support the notion that leveling to max level should be a daunting task that takes a long time, that achieving household ownership should require a large investment on the players part, and that risk of loosing equipment, progression and rescources add to the experience in form of risk versus reward.
But selling a dream (in the form of cosmetics for premiums) only to change the communication (if not the design or intent) regarding Freeholds is unfortunate.
I agree that selling Freeholds solely for gold without an investment in the node will lead to hoarding of landclaims seems like a horrible idea, and that enforcing a significant level of node investment to unlock land aquisition is a far better solution.
Edited.
All these previous threads contain a range of well argumented reasons for why this is good - or bad. Topics for these threads touch on topics like;
- Availability
- Content gated behind Freehold access
- Large guilds cornering character development
- Risk of loss of player investment
- Player retention post launch
- Loss of players pre launch
Personally, I see possible benefits and challenges with the current design.
Nothing lasts forever - this seems to be the only constant in the world of Verra.
Equipment degrade, nodes can be destroyed, harvested resources can be lost, and more importantly, houses and Freeholds can be lost. As a core design philosophy, there is nothing wrong with that.
But reading both a significant portion of these threads , and trying to read between the lines, it seems the large pushback comes not from the design itself - but the gap between expectations and reality. The expectations that all players could partake in, and even master, Farming or Animal Husbandry, is in large part based on information coming from Intrepid Studios.
Sales of cosmetics for Freeholds solidifies the expectation that all players can choose to own a Freehold.
I believe Intrepid Studios underestimated the number of players that got invested in this project, largely due to the dreams and hopes tied to certain gameplay activites that now seem gated behind unachievable gameplay elements.
It is safe to assume Steven and his employees are more than capable of analyzing their design scope, and identify potential consequences.
Is Ashes of Creation a game mainly for the successful large guilds? If it is - should it be? If it should be - how will that impact recruiting of new players? How will such a design cater to personal goals?
I am all for restricted and exclusive content. I support the notion that leveling to max level should be a daunting task that takes a long time, that achieving household ownership should require a large investment on the players part, and that risk of loosing equipment, progression and rescources add to the experience in form of risk versus reward.
But selling a dream (in the form of cosmetics for premiums) only to change the communication (if not the design or intent) regarding Freeholds is unfortunate.
I agree that selling Freeholds solely for gold without an investment in the node will lead to hoarding of landclaims seems like a horrible idea, and that enforcing a significant level of node investment to unlock land aquisition is a far better solution.
Edited.
4
Comments
Freeholds also have the greatest risk/investment involved out of the 3 housing types aswell but there more reward too which fits the devs goal with risk vs rewards. Since they basicly go poof if u loose the node associated with it
Up to 5 metro nodes, who cover an area close to 20% of all land each, minus the areas for castles and the 4 starting areas. With 5 metros, all available freehold land falls under a metropolis. But you can also purchase the license more locally at one of the vassal nodes, if you want to be a citizen there.
As for the 75% number, I hope not. I would want Intrepid to make incentives good enough that many players will want to live in vassal nodes.
No. This is not possible. To be a citizen you need to hold property. Via freeholds, static housing or apparments.
You need a house to claim citizenship. We know housing prices will go up the more citizens are in a node.
That means that only people belonging to guilds will be in "affluent" nodes. If you're poor, solo player or don't belong to large guild you might not have the funds necessary to afford citizenship.
In the area around the metro not all in on metro node, so metro will fill up then the next closest node will and so on.
Its like cities in realy life you have a city then when population denisity will slowly spread out from there as space/money permits
So, what you are saying is not taht you think 75% of players will become citizens of a metropolis in the game, but rather that you think 75% of players will become citizens of a metropolis or it's vassal nodes.
While this may end up being true, it won't without giving players a reason to become citizens - because again right now there isn't a compelling reason to be one.
I am confused.
Here I thought the fair amount of pushback from the latest livestream came from the fact that people really want to own a Freehold. What am I misunderstanding?
Regardless, this really is in the eyes of the beholder.
I am unsure what it is you are missing.
The pushback is largely due to most players not being able to get a freehold.
Without a freehold there is no compelling reason (currently) to be a node citizen.
appart from being locked out of most content to due with nodes if your not a citizen
You aren't locked out of much.
Bounty hunter, religion and social organization are the only thing I have come up with so far.
"You want to live in a city, but you can't, so you won't?"
That isn't much of an argument.
While Freeholds contain alot of content, regular player housing in cities also grant citizenship, and I am sure plenty will find this compelling.
Again, it is in the eyes of the beholder.
So, we have gone over all of this in a number of threads.
If I do not have a freehold and what I want is a freehold, then I am not going to become a citizen of a node because that may prevent me from getting a freehold.
This isn't as much in the eye of the beholder as it is just basic logic.
If becoming a citizen of a node restricts you more than not being a citizen does and I do not have a reason for becoming a citizen of a node, why would I become a citizen of a node?
What being a citizen gives me though? Are there really reasons for a casual not super hardcore player to be a citizen?
If you're a non freehold owner, you should find the farthest vassal node possible because that means lower citizenship price, and you get access to all of the metro nodes perks.
Now, if the node is attacked, why care lol? You own no property. You can barely call "instanced housing" property.
So, again, nodes are just a thing that's sitting there, not for the casual players, just for the elites.
And if that's what they want, I'm all good for it, but I keep asking myself, what do you do when there's no compelling reason to actually defend a node?
The list of things you can do keep going down.
Citizenship benefits
Citizenship grants a number of benefits.[3]
Access to limited functions and service buildings within the node.[12]
Access to merchants that offer specific types of enhancement stones or stat migrations.[12]
Access to upper-tier crafting benches.[12]
Access to a weekly allotment of core material that can only be accessed from the node's reliquary.[12]
Access to buffs from certain events.[12]
Access to titles.[12][3]
Access to organizations and religions.[12]
Participation in the node’s government (voting or running for office).[3]
Other stated benefits include: Reputation, Honor, Loyalty, Meri
if you just wanna harvest and kill mobs or players you might be right i guess, however something we dont know much about a bunch of these atm
no market either you might have AH access but i reckon to list thing on the economic node AH ull prob need to be a citizen buying might be a diffeent story though.
Also if u so desperaty want a freehold u can always play on low pop servers as an option aaswell
Holy hosanna; we'll all be depressed without citizenship
Cool. Lets go through this list.
Access to limited functions and service buildings within the node. - meaningless.
Access to merchants that offer specific types of enhancement stones or stat migrations. - Can become a citizen for a day to get these.
Access to upper-tier crafting benches. - need a freehold here.
Access to a weekly allotment of core material that can only be accessed from the node's reliquary. - probably meaningless.
Access to buffs from certain events. - meaningless.
Access to titles. - meaningless.
Access to organizations and religions. - this was included in my list of things you miss out on.
Participation in the node’s government (voting or running for office). - meaningless.
Other stated benefits include: Reputation, Honor, Loyalty, Meri - most players are better off if they can avoid interacting with these systems.
Honestly, what did you think that list contained? Did you think I didn't look over it before saying there is no reason to become a citizen?
Yeah, those are awesome perks. I can also get all those perks by being citizen of a vassal node (which most casual players will be due to citizen price).
So, I get all the benefits. Why should I jump to defend the node if I own no real property?
I fail to see the gameplay layer there, specially in nodes when you take out Freeholds are out of the question
Dont need a freehold here buy the shit from people whoi can process them to craft the mats thats how the game is suppose to play out since u cant do all the gather/craftoing/processing by urself and ur not meant to
1 - Service building are alot of thing markets are one example here
2 - enchantment stone are tempory bonuses so buying them once will only last so long before u need a new one
3 - Only need these if you level the crafting artisan skills instead of refineing or gathering
4- bunch of buffs and things to fight over not to importent if u dnt care for pvp it seems but they buffs do help with pve i guess too
5 - meh
6- titles provide buffs/skills so might be useful
7. proviudes access to augments for 2ndary class salong with items needed for professions like fishing lures
We know nothing about the augments. If there is a must have augment from an organisation then that means the classes are broken because not everyone will have access to these augments. It depends on growth, node tier, player interaction and also citizenship. So, there would be a larger disparity between players and more gate keeping i suspect.
All this means is that I treat it the same as access to enhancement stones and stat migrations. I become a citizen in what ever node happens to have the thing I want for what ever the minimum period is - just to get the thing I want, then I move on.
A small number of augments are exclusive to social organizations and religions - this is true.
However, unless Intrepid alter the game by allowing these augments to be added to abilities in the game as second augments on abilities, that isn't really a reason.
i think they have said they can be added as second augments, but i dont remember well...also why do you say its not a reason? what if these augments are more powerful than your regular class augments...isnt that enough reason?
However, they have also said they are a give and take kind of thing.
So again, not really necessary. Missing out on them for the cost of avoiding all the issues that citizenship bring is still significantly worth it.
You cannot make certain augments mandatory because there wouldn't be no choice. Imagine a feature that you must have in order to be the top and you cannot not have it, that wouldn't be good design
no, its called balance and a way to balance things its by trade off. if you join a religious node, you are missing out on the perks of a military, scientific and commercial node. also not eerybody is interested in that.
its like the guild skills. you either have lo number of people with guild skills, or you have a large number with no guild skills.
Strange, that doesn't happen for freeholds.
fh dont directly give u power...and fy since they are the best type of housing, they are limited, thats where the balance is, in the limitation of people who can have them. remember the fh will impact the items that will be put in the world.
That's why I think large guilds will dominate. No guild will give access to their Freehold to allow other enemies to use it. So it will be a really closed loop where only the more important members of guilds have freeholds