Freeholds should be instanced

I think freeholds should be instanced because the way they talk about it makes it seem like it is very limited and ultimately game breaking.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

Veeshan wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Veeshan wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

As potentially the most argumentative person on these forums in regards to how the current freehold system doesn't really work, I am equally as opposed to this suggestion.

Freeholds should be limited, but attainable.

The current system isn't attainable enough for enough of the potential population, but making them instanced removes the limited aspect.

I mean, they could obviously just limit the number of instances available, but then why instance them at all at that point?

i disagree with you with the attainability i think there attainable for majority of player who would want and use them properly

Name one limited thing in any competitive MMO where solo players were able to get a thing that guilds wanted - before guilds got as many as they wanted.

As far as I can see, the answer to that is a simple "that has never happened".

If guilds want a thing, they will get the thing before solo players. With how limited freeholds now are, guilds will want more than is available on any given server.

if 20 killing mobs to get something compared 1 person killing thing to get thing generaly 20 people will get 20 times the item than the 1 person i feel common maths here?

but thats unrelated to my statment because there are levels of desirability these major guild if they want to be relevant in the big scheme of things there desired location for freeholds will be the T6 and T5 nodes this is where the majority of competition will be on freehold and due to the nature of the game of no fast travel they want to have there freehold around where the guild want to call home base so any of the node far away from these T5/T6 node are less likely to have guilds going after them, so these less desirable location will geneneraly be for the taking for the solo players (Despite the solo player never gonna get it high enough relevance due to being designed for 8 people) but still i digress. Your assumption is that the population gonna spread out equally across the map and everything be snapped up by major guild however generaly a server will get a handful of major guilds and they generaly settle around high rank nodes leaving much of the out of the way places unmolested by there pressence. Thats how it goes in almost all territory MMO's ive played like darkfall for example which is very akin to AoC but was very crude implementation compared to AoC (Darkfall even had open world housing called villages) and major guilds didnt snap them all up quite a few were no named players/guilds who owned them when they were not located in key spots for a guild

Sure, guilds will want more desirable locations.

However, the way you get freeholds in tier 5 and 6 nodes is that you buy them while the nodes are tier three.

Even if guilds are going to be that picky about what freeholds they want, it is only the top end guilds that will get it. Second, third and fourth tier guilds absolutely will take what they can get, and any one of these guilds still has enough of an advantage over a solo player that there is no chance at all for the solo player to compete.

Again, a solo player will only be able to get a freehold in Ashes as it stands today if no guild wants that freehold.

Abarat

if freeholds were available to everyone, dont you think that would remove a significant amount of interest in destroying other nodes (and therefore their freeholds)?

Noaani

Abarat wrote: »

if freeholds were available to everyone, dont you think that would remove a significant amount of interest in destroying other nodes (and therefore their freeholds)?

This is an odd thought to have.

The kinds of people that will be organizing sieges will be fairly well connected, and have significant organization behind them.

Essentially, they and their guild will have freeholds. They wont need to conduct a siege in order to get access to freeholds.

If you dont have access to multiple freeholds, you likely dont have the resources to initiate a successful siege.

It is possible that a siege may be initiated to damage a rival guilds freeholds in a given node, but increased access to freeholds wouldnt stop that.

Ratzu

Bad take.

TheHiddenDaggerInn

No, instanced housing is not fun.

daveywavey

Santanico wrote: »

No, instanced housing is not fun.

I had a lot of fun with my instanced house in ESO.

Not saying this as part of the main discussion, but just replying to your point.

Diamaht

Liniker wrote: »

I disagree they should be limited, I don't currently see any issues with what intrepid presented but again, no one here has tested the system so its all baseless speculation

Edit: I didn't do a good job reading what point you were making. My fault.

Instancing is not an answer though. What people are arguing for is a visible place in the game world, instancing defeats that.

No one is arguing for 100 percent access, but 5 percent fundamentally changes the game.

Mag7spy

Diamaht wrote: »

Liniker wrote: »

I disagree they should be limited, I don't currently see any issues with what intrepid presented but again, no one here has tested the system so its all baseless speculation

Its not baseless. The points made have been perfectly clear and other games have been referenced.

You like the system and you want the arguements against it to go away.

Instancing is not an answer though. What people are arguing for is a visible place in the game world, instancing defeats that.

And those that work for it will be able to achieve having a place in the world. We don't need gimmicky towns and little houses everywhere for the sake they want to put a random building in the world. Their goal is to have freeholds be meaningful in how it feels to acquire one. To be honest if they did have 2k freeholds i feel that would be more than they should have and id say less. Though if they are designing it around like that do to the processing I can understand that.

Diamaht

Mag7spy wrote: »

Diamaht wrote: »

Liniker wrote: »

I disagree they should be limited, I don't currently see any issues with what intrepid presented but again, no one here has tested the system so its all baseless speculation

Its not baseless. The points made have been perfectly clear and other games have been referenced.

You like the system and you want the arguements against it to go away.

Instancing is not an answer though. What people are arguing for is a visible place in the game world, instancing defeats that.

And those that work for it will be able to achieve having a place in the world. We don't need gimmicky towns and little houses everywhere for the sake they want to put a random building in the world. Their goal is to have freeholds be meaningful in how it feels to acquire one. To be honest if they did have 2k freeholds i feel that would be more than they should have and id say less. Though if they are designing it around like that do to the processing I can understand that.

Too reductive. That sounds more like you are trying to make some sort of social statement.

Mag7spy

Diamaht wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Diamaht wrote: »

Liniker wrote: »

I disagree they should be limited, I don't currently see any issues with what intrepid presented but again, no one here has tested the system so its all baseless speculation

Its not baseless. The points made have been perfectly clear and other games have been referenced.

You like the system and you want the arguements against it to go away.

Instancing is not an answer though. What people are arguing for is a visible place in the game world, instancing defeats that.

And those that work for it will be able to achieve having a place in the world. We don't need gimmicky towns and little houses everywhere for the sake they want to put a random building in the world. Their goal is to have freeholds be meaningful in how it feels to acquire one. To be honest if they did have 2k freeholds i feel that would be more than they should have and id say less. Though if they are designing it around like that do to the processing I can understand that.

Too reductive. That sounds more like you are trying to make some sort of social statement.

Its the same way not as many people have flying mounts, or will have legendary gear.. Though freeholds being in much larger abundance. The idea of seeing player housing everywhere (only in open world) it is tacky and doesn't make it as special.

They have housing in game instanced and non instanced housing. People will have housing and the features that come with it.

Having freehold would be a social statement which gives them more meaning. I don't see this as a survival mmorpg where everyone is building bases. There is more of a reason to every element that they are trying to do.

Though it will be up to the balancing so it makes sense, if there is a element where it is too one sided than things would need to be adjusted.

Fiddlez

Kravell wrote: »

I think freeholds should be instanced because the way they talk about it makes it seem like it is very limited and ultimately game breaking.

Limited is good. The philosophy is there is no participation trophy. If you have ever played MMOs pre WoW the idea of Limited is very very good. Infact it's probably one of the main things that have destroyed modern MMORPGs. It's the difference in actually winning a hockey game as opposed to not keeping score. Sure losing can suck but it also creates a drive to win and the reward matters.

The MAIN reason I am excited for this game is this entire philosophy. I don't want to play Hockey anymore if I can't actually win.

Fantmx

I'm having a hard time equating freeholds to mythical items or flying mounts.

Mag7spy

Fantmx wrote: »

I'm having a hard time equating freeholds to mythical items or flying mounts.

Its the concept of it. You can say flying mounts would be a 10 on the scale in terms of rarity. Where freeholds being the highest level of housing in terms of special use with its rarity being on a 7. Housing in node could be a 6 or maybe a 8 (depending on the node).

RocketFarmer

Think whenever using the terms instanced and freeholds together, there seems to be a failure in the concept and value of freeholds.

I view freeholds as the smaller, family settlements in a node that supports the town, city or capital in that node. I would expect a lot of player interaction in freeholds with the opportunity to provide services for coin or resources, whatever is desired by the owner. And those goods and services could go both ways, making it a convenient economic outpost closer to the action, danger, resources, etc.

I would rather have well managed freeholds with people who will use the time and resources to make them good versus some meaningless status symbol. If you manage your freehold well, then you can pay the taxes and thrive. If you suck, then your freehold would be best put back on the auction block so that the node can recoup the losses (more like opportunity costs for a poorly managed freehold).

This is why I don’t think everyone deserves a freehold and the game needs some tangible methods to prove you deserve it and that it’s not just some check-the-box achievement. It is nice to see they’ve put some thought into this.

Abarat

Noaani wrote: »

This is an odd thought to have.

The kinds of people that will be organizing sieges will be fairly well connected, and have significant organization behind them.

Essentially, they and their guild will have freeholds. They wont need to conduct a siege in order to get access to freeholds.

If you dont have access to multiple freeholds, you likely dont have the resources to initiate a successful siege.

Interesting. @Noaani

What specifically are the requirements/cost of a freehold?

and, similarly,

What is the cost and requirements of starting a seige?

Destroying a node enables the possibility of destroying freeholds, which would make them available for 'bidding' again. If a node and its guild(s) wants to damage a competitive guild/node, might they not recruit a bunch of hungry "casual" (with their strong network and resources) players and form an alliance with the carrot being the possibility to bid on freeholds in the newly built up node when it reaches state 3.

CROW3

Fantmx wrote: »

I'm having a hard time equating freeholds to mythical items or flying mounts.

Just imagine a unicorn that eats ore and poops ingots. Done.

Noaani

Abarat wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

This is an odd thought to have.

The kinds of people that will be organizing sieges will be fairly well connected, and have significant organization behind them.

Essentially, they and their guild will have freeholds. They wont need to conduct a siege in order to get access to freeholds.

If you dont have access to multiple freeholds, you likely dont have the resources to initiate a successful siege.

Interesting. Noaani

What specifically are the requirements/cost of a freehold?

and, similarly,

What is the cost and requirements of starting a seige?

An answer to both is simple.

Organization is the requirement, time is the cost.

If we assume that freeholds are essentially an economic engine (the only assumption I have made in relation to freeholds, based on logical conclusions), then it stands to reason that guilds will want as many as they can get.

Ayeveegaming1

we wont know for sure about any of this for a long time. from what I read on wiki nodes wont even come in until beta. i am not gonna clutch my pearls and get worry lines over something that could be a year or more away.

Abarat

Noaani wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

This is an odd thought to have.

The kinds of people that will be organizing sieges will be fairly well connected, and have significant organization behind them.

Essentially, they and their guild will have freeholds. They wont need to conduct a siege in order to get access to freeholds.

If you dont have access to multiple freeholds, you likely dont have the resources to initiate a successful siege.

Interesting. Noaani

What specifically are the requirements/cost of a freehold?

and, similarly,

What is the cost and requirements of starting a seige?

An answer to both is simple.

Organization is the requirement, time is the cost.

If we assume that freeholds are essentially an economic engine (the only assumption I have made in relation to freeholds, based on logical conclusions), then it stands to reason that guilds will want as many as they can get.

double talk and nonsense.

Electronn

Kravell wrote: »

I think freeholds should be instanced

Child Item