Player housing/ Freehold proposal since people seem to be worried

Instead of looking at Freeholds as their own separate thing, people really need to look at them as player housing, and honestly I feel like it'd be a good idea for Intrepid to depict all housing in a Tier system. Such as what follows.

Tier 1: apartments
Tier 2: node level 3 static housing
Tier 3: node level 4 static housing upgrades
Tier 4: node level 5 static housing upgrades
Tier 5: node level 6 static housing upgrades
Tier 6: freeholds

Disclaimer, these are ideas and suggestion for how things can progress amongst player housing.

Tier 1: Apartments would have bare bones housing amenities. Maybe a small garden, a small animal like a chicken that can produce, some storage, and maybe some basic furniture perks and an artisan station (not master)

Tier 2: basic housing amenities with more space than an apartment. Slightly bigger gardening options, maybe a medium animal and small animal. Limited storage yet greater than apartments, limited furniture yet more options than apartments. 2 artisan stations (not master)

Tier 3: moderate housing amenities with more space than tier 2. Slightly bigger gardening options, a couple medium animals and small animals. More storage and furniture options than tier 2. 3 artisan stations (not master)

Tier 4: high housing amenities with more space than tier 3. Bigger gardening options, a large animal, a couple medium animals, and small animals. More storage and furniture options than tier 3. 3 artisan stations, 1 mastered excluding processing.

Tier 5: Royal housing amenities with more space than tier 4. Bigger gardening options, a large animal, several medium animals, and small animals. More storage and furniture options than tier 4 . 3 artisan stations, 2 mastered including processing.

Tier 5: Freehold. Substantially bigger gardening options, a stable option. Top tier storage and furniture options. Artisan stations including mastered processing. Business options. All of the freehold perks mentioned in their showcase. Etc.

Let me know what you all think of this as compared to "oh God I can't have a freehold so the game is ruined"

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Raven016

Give the ugly ones to the rich.

SirChancelot

Aren't the apartment style ones instanced? While the rest aren't as of now?

Fantmx

SirChancelot wrote: »

Aren't the apartment style ones instanced? While the rest aren't as of now?

And less in number than freeholds. They also will allow for only plants in pots. No gardens.

HumblePuffin

SirChancelot wrote: »

Aren't the apartment style ones instanced? While the rest aren't as of now?

They did speak about being able to have plots for processing in the nodes though up to tier 3. I look at it as something of a community garden.

Maybe you can’t really animal husbandry a giant flying lizard bird, but you could breed a few horses and stuff. Or farm a crop or 2.

I’ve always pictured those being in the open world but who knows what they’ll actually look like. I’m hoping we get to see a bit about them in this months showcase for sure.

*edit*
Oh well nvm I hadn’t seen that nodes was moved to next month. Oh wells. Excited to see what they’ve done with the cleric none the less.

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

Tier 1: apartments
Tier 2: node level 3 static housing
Tier 3: node level 4 static housing upgrades
Tier 4: node level 5 static housing upgrades
Tier 5: leaseholds
Tier 6: node level 6 static housing upgrades
Tier 7: freeholds

Adding one line literally fixes every single issue that players have in this regard.

That said, since freeholds have such drastically different functionality to the other housing options, it is not simply a part of that tier system.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Tier 1: apartments
Tier 2: node level 3 static housing
Tier 3: node level 4 static housing upgrades
Tier 4: node level 5 static housing upgrades
Tier 5: leaseholds
Tier 6: node level 6 static housing upgrades
Tier 7: freeholds

Adding one line literally fixes every single issue that players have in this regard.

That said, since freeholds have such drastically different functionality to the other housing options, it is not simply a part of that tier system.

What the hell is a leasehold? Hahaha

And I mean, they are housing, just uber housing, which is why I put them at the top. Call them tier 10 to emphasize difference if you want.

Azherae

I think this concept is solving the wrong problem and is therefore strictly speaking worse because it would lead to what I consider bad Economic design.

This leads me to a possibly derailing counterquestion that I hope at least a few people can take seriously since I don't want to make a thread for it. If it hijacks yours, I'll remove it, so lmk @Dolyem.

I have no idea how to interact with Ashes forums anymore. It's never been the best place for me, and my group basically noped out since the last livestream (not due to the changes nor from following the game, just from forums) and I have been 'released from duty'.

The short version as to why is that if I were to elaborate on my first line, it would become pointless. Most people currently around didn't care to hear much reasonings in the first place. Only a few people who have a response other than 'Intrepid should do their thing and then we will test it' even seem to think it matters anymore, and of course I know there are some people who would actively prefer that I left/continued to stay away, I just don't know if that's the majority of forumers now.

So I can answer your question in one line, refuse to elaborate, and leave (the thread), or I can run the gauntlet for no benefit, with no 'requirement', and with no recent sign that this matters to Intrepid at all.

This design alleviates none of my concerns, as a Logistician/Econ player/whatever you want to call it. But I have a negative response toward 'trying to have a discussion about it here', so:

1) Is this answer enough?
2) Was it worth giving at all considering that I have switched to considering discussion 'below priority'?

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Tier 1: apartments
Tier 2: node level 3 static housing
Tier 3: node level 4 static housing upgrades
Tier 4: node level 5 static housing upgrades
Tier 5: leaseholds
Tier 6: node level 6 static housing upgrades
Tier 7: freeholds

Adding one line literally fixes every single issue that players have in this regard.

That said, since freeholds have such drastically different functionality to the other housing options, it is not simply a part of that tier system.

What the hell is a leasehold? Hahaha

And I mean, they are housing, just uber housing, which is why I put them at the top. Call them tier 10 to emphasize difference if you want.

The concept I have been talking about since the day of the freehold livestream to fix the issue.

Allow people that own a freehold location to lease out portions of that larger area in which they can place their freehold to up to three (node level depending) other players. These players can then place a leasehold property the size of the original freehold in that area, and pay a lease to the freehold owner.

The amount of problems this fixes makes it a no-brainer.

Ayeveegaming1

It seems to me that I remember in another game that when housing/property was in demand and was desired, people actually had real world money websites set up for leasing programs. Leasing led to RMT. Not sure if that would be the case here but I can see it happen if freehold spaces are limited.

Dygz

Fantmx wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

Aren't the apartment style ones instanced? While the rest aren't as of now?

And less in number than freeholds. They also will allow for only plants in pots. No gardens.

I think instanced apartments are the most abundant?? No Gardens.
In-Node Housing might be fewer in number than Freeholds.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

I have no idea how to interact with Ashes forums anymore. It's never been the best place for me, and my group basically noped out since the last livestream (not due to the changes nor from following the game, just from forums) and I have been 'released from duty'.

*ack*
Hope that's not my fault.

Azherae wrote: »

So I can answer your question in one line, refuse to elaborate, and leave (the thread), or I can run the gauntlet for no benefit, with no 'requirement', and with no recent sign that this matters to Intrepid at all.

I always love to hear your perspective, so I would love for you to share some it - hopefully more than just one line, but whatever you feel comfortable with.

Liniker

Nerror

Azherae wrote: »

I think this concept is solving the wrong problem and is therefore strictly speaking worse because it would lead to what I consider bad Economic design.

This leads me to a possibly derailing counterquestion that I hope at least a few people can take seriously since I don't want to make a thread for it. If it hijacks yours, I'll remove it, so lmk @Dolyem.

I have no idea how to interact with Ashes forums anymore. It's never been the best place for me, and my group basically noped out since the last livestream (not due to the changes nor from following the game, just from forums) and I have been 'released from duty'.

The short version as to why is that if I were to elaborate on my first line, it would become pointless. Most people currently around didn't care to hear much reasonings in the first place. Only a few people who have a response other than 'Intrepid should do their thing and then we will test it' even seem to think it matters anymore, and of course I know there are some people who would actively prefer that I left/continued to stay away, I just don't know if that's the majority of forumers now.

So I can answer your question in one line, refuse to elaborate, and leave (the thread), or I can run the gauntlet for no benefit, with no 'requirement', and with no recent sign that this matters to Intrepid at all.

This design alleviates none of my concerns, as a Logistician/Econ player/whatever you want to call it. But I have a negative response toward 'trying to have a discussion about it here', so:

1) Is this answer enough?
2) Was it worth giving at all considering that I have switched to considering discussion 'below priority'?

I always really enjoy your perspectives, even (especially?) when we disagree, so sure, take a break, but I hope you come back with your usual elaborations at some point.

Depraved

Nerror wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I think this concept is solving the wrong problem and is therefore strictly speaking worse because it would lead to what I consider bad Economic design.

This leads me to a possibly derailing counterquestion that I hope at least a few people can take seriously since I don't want to make a thread for it. If it hijacks yours, I'll remove it, so lmk @Dolyem.

I have no idea how to interact with Ashes forums anymore. It's never been the best place for me, and my group basically noped out since the last livestream (not due to the changes nor from following the game, just from forums) and I have been 'released from duty'.

The short version as to why is that if I were to elaborate on my first line, it would become pointless. Most people currently around didn't care to hear much reasonings in the first place. Only a few people who have a response other than 'Intrepid should do their thing and then we will test it' even seem to think it matters anymore, and of course I know there are some people who would actively prefer that I left/continued to stay away, I just don't know if that's the majority of forumers now.

So I can answer your question in one line, refuse to elaborate, and leave (the thread), or I can run the gauntlet for no benefit, with no 'requirement', and with no recent sign that this matters to Intrepid at all.

This design alleviates none of my concerns, as a Logistician/Econ player/whatever you want to call it. But I have a negative response toward 'trying to have a discussion about it here', so:

1) Is this answer enough?
2) Was it worth giving at all considering that I have switched to considering discussion 'below priority'?

I always really enjoy your perspectives, even (especially?) when we disagree, so sure, take a break, but I hope you come back with your usual elaborations at some point.

he wont. thats what he does. then never replies. just a way to stop people from disagreeing with him

Noaani

Liniker wrote: »

While you are probably right in that some people saying they wont play due to the current state of freeholds will indeed still play, it is an incontestable truth that such people would be playing a lesser game than if the suggested changes did go ahead.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Tier 1: apartments
Tier 2: node level 3 static housing
Tier 3: node level 4 static housing upgrades
Tier 4: node level 5 static housing upgrades
Tier 5: leaseholds
Tier 6: node level 6 static housing upgrades
Tier 7: freeholds

Adding one line literally fixes every single issue that players have in this regard.

That said, since freeholds have such drastically different functionality to the other housing options, it is not simply a part of that tier system.

What the hell is a leasehold? Hahaha

And I mean, they are housing, just uber housing, which is why I put them at the top. Call them tier 10 to emphasize difference if you want.

The concept I have been talking about since the day of the freehold livestream to fix the issue.

Allow people that own a freehold location to lease out portions of that larger area in which they can place their freehold to up to three (node level depending) other players. These players can then place a leasehold property the size of the original freehold in that area, and pay a lease to the freehold owner.

The amount of problems this fixes makes it a no-brainer.

This sounds like a terrible idea honestly. You're exponentially increasing the amount a freehold owner can earn without really putting in much effort outside of what it takes to earn the freehold. Once that occurs you just sit on it and earn money from other players who rent a piece of a freehold yet they all still have a full sized freehold? Makes no sense to me as far as good design goes. On top of that, imagine running 4 accounts and basically leasing to yourself to literally have 3 freeholds plus whatever is left of the original for space.

Depraved

there is a reason far beyond what we can all comprehend for freeholds to be limited. no one heres knows all the systems and everything. people need to stop saying fh being exclusive is a problem...wait until alpha 2 at least. there is a reason why they were made that way.

Dolyem

Depraved wrote: »

there is a reason far beyond what we can all comprehend for freeholds to be limited. no one heres knows all the systems and everything. people need to stop saying fh being exclusive is a problem...wait until alpha 2 at least. there is a reason why they were made that way.

I agree, this isn't a post to say they shouldn't be exclusive, this is just a way to say there are still other forms of housing for casuals besides freeholds

Dolyem

Azherae wrote: »

I think this concept is solving the wrong problem and is therefore strictly speaking worse because it would lead to what I consider bad Economic design.

This leads me to a possibly derailing counterquestion that I hope at least a few people can take seriously since I don't want to make a thread for it. If it hijacks yours, I'll remove it, so lmk @Dolyem.

I have no idea how to interact with Ashes forums anymore. It's never been the best place for me, and my group basically noped out since the last livestream (not due to the changes nor from following the game, just from forums) and I have been 'released from duty'.

The short version as to why is that if I were to elaborate on my first line, it would become pointless. Most people currently around didn't care to hear much reasonings in the first place. Only a few people who have a response other than 'Intrepid should do their thing and then we will test it' even seem to think it matters anymore, and of course I know there are some people who would actively prefer that I left/continued to stay away, I just don't know if that's the majority of forumers now.

So I can answer your question in one line, refuse to elaborate, and leave (the thread), or I can run the gauntlet for no benefit, with no 'requirement', and with no recent sign that this matters to Intrepid at all.

This design alleviates none of my concerns, as a Logistician/Econ player/whatever you want to call it. But I have a negative response toward 'trying to have a discussion about it here', so:

1) Is this answer enough?
2) Was it worth giving at all considering that I have switched to considering discussion 'below priority'?

I'll admit I didn't see the point of explaining whether or not you should post on the forums anymore in a discussion about freeholds.
And I'm not sure what your stance is on this post other than you don't agree.

Vyril

Dolyem wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I think this concept is solving the wrong problem and is therefore strictly speaking worse because it would lead to what I consider bad Economic design.

This leads me to a possibly derailing counterquestion that I hope at least a few people can take seriously since I don't want to make a thread for it. If it hijacks yours, I'll remove it, so lmk @Dolyem.

I have no idea how to interact with Ashes forums anymore. It's never been the best place for me, and my group basically noped out since the last livestream (not due to the changes nor from following the game, just from forums) and I have been 'released from duty'.

The short version as to why is that if I were to elaborate on my first line, it would become pointless. Most people currently around didn't care to hear much reasonings in the first place. Only a few people who have a response other than 'Intrepid should do their thing and then we will test it' even seem to think it matters anymore, and of course I know there are some people who would actively prefer that I left/continued to stay away, I just don't know if that's the majority of forumers now.

So I can answer your question in one line, refuse to elaborate, and leave (the thread), or I can run the gauntlet for no benefit, with no 'requirement', and with no recent sign that this matters to Intrepid at all.

This design alleviates none of my concerns, as a Logistician/Econ player/whatever you want to call it. But I have a negative response toward 'trying to have a discussion about it here', so:

1) Is this answer enough?
2) Was it worth giving at all considering that I have switched to considering discussion 'below priority'?

I'll admit I didn't see the point of explaining whether or not you should post on the forums anymore in a discussion about freeholds.
And I'm not sure what your stance is on this post other than you don't agree.

Yeah their post blew my mind with self importance that nobody actually cares about.

Child Item