Depraved wrote: » he wont. thats what he does. then never replies. just a way to stop people from disagreeing with him
Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Noaani wrote: » it is an incontestable truth that such people would be playing a lesser game than if the suggested changes did go ahead.
Liniker wrote: » Ashes was always a "lesser game" for the pvp and risk vs reward design, some people are just finding that out
Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Dolyem wrote: » All I see from this is giving bigger guilds even more power honestly. But you're also providing instanced freeholds for the ones leasing, which itself is a problem for how freeholds are designed to be part of the open world.
The only way I can think of to make your idea more feasible is just to allow players the option to allow other players to purchase services to use their freehold buildings.
Dygz wrote: » Liniker wrote: » Ashes was always a "lesser game" for the pvp and risk vs reward design, some people are just finding that out And then there was the bait and switch from Meaningful Conflict (and Corruption active everywhere) to an obsession with Risk v Reward - where the rewards are basically just more loot (which is not any more meaningful than any other PvP/PvX MMORPG.)
Noaani wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » All I see from this is giving bigger guilds even more power honestly. But you're also providing instanced freeholds for the ones leasing, which itself is a problem for how freeholds are designed to be part of the open world. They aren't instanced. When you get a deed to a freehold, you have a whole estate that you can then pick a location within where you place your freehold. The estate is fairly large, the freehold is fairly small in comparison to the whole estate. The leasehold is even smaller than the freehold. The idea of the leasehold is that it can be also placed on that same estate, but somewhere other than where the freehold is. Thus, both exist in the world at the same time, in different locations, but within the same estate. They may, for example, be right next to each other. Or, one may be at one end of the estate, while the other is at the other end. Or it may be something in between. Essentially, think of it more like houses on a street. Just because the houses (freeholds and leaseholds) are on the same street (estate), that doesn't mean they are all in the same location. As for how the taxes would be determined, without more information on taxes it is impossible to give specifics. All that needs to be said is that the tax increase should be enough to make sure that if you have added leasehold plots to your estate, you will want to make sure they are always full. This is because the additional tax exists in part as an incentive to keep these freeholds full. As to whether leaseholds can hire guards - that is so besides the point that I personally don't actually care. I may care about things like that when (when, not if) a system like this is in the game, but right now it really is immaterial to the discussion. The only way I can think of to make your idea more feasible is just to allow players the option to allow other players to purchase services to use their freehold buildings. This only addresses a part of the issue. It is a major part, to be fair, but only a part. As to your comments about preventing freehold owners getting too waelthy - if a server has 1000 freeholds, the top 1000 people will own them. This is almost a guarantee, as they will generate wealth for their owner in addition to what ever other means other players have for generating wealth.
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.
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'?
Noaani wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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. If a freehold has space for 6 buildings (I think that is correct), a leasehold that is a third the size has space for 2. If we assume that a homestead is required before placing down any profession buildings, that means a freehold can contain 5 profession buildings while a leasehold can only have one. This is a key aspect of maintaining balance, and keeping actual value in a freehold. The person that owns the leasehold has to pay their lease to the freehold owner, and since it is a fairly high amount based on how much land they have, that player really needs to maximize the use of their land in order to make a profit back from the leasehold.
Azherae wrote: » 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. No, you know that I disagree for logistics/Econ reasons, and that I want to know if you care about that. You could make up almost any 'solution' to the 'problem' with the information we have. And if I disagree with it, I have to deal with the half dozen 'But Intrepid would just design it without that flaw you pointed out'. You could make up pretty much anything, there's always someone who will go 'yeah that will probably work' if their priors or preferences line up. And then get into a circular argument with people whose priors don't line up and refuse to adapt them. I don't know that you even care about the Economy aspect of this, some people are rating 'less visual clutter' higher than 'better economic state of the server' in their priorities. I believe that you're empathetic enough to see why I wouldn't want to write 9000 words to explain 'why this fucks up the Economy' to then get the 10 word answer: "They can make it work, besides, it's less visual clutter." If not, so it is.
Dolyem wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 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. No, you know that I disagree for logistics/Econ reasons, and that I want to know if you care about that. You could make up almost any 'solution' to the 'problem' with the information we have. And if I disagree with it, I have to deal with the half dozen 'But Intrepid would just design it without that flaw you pointed out'. You could make up pretty much anything, there's always someone who will go 'yeah that will probably work' if their priors or preferences line up. And then get into a circular argument with people whose priors don't line up and refuse to adapt them. I don't know that you even care about the Economy aspect of this, some people are rating 'less visual clutter' higher than 'better economic state of the server' in their priorities. I believe that you're empathetic enough to see why I wouldn't want to write 9000 words to explain 'why this fucks up the Economy' to then get the 10 word answer: "They can make it work, besides, it's less visual clutter." If not, so it is. I honestly mostly only remember peoples stances of PvP. All that being said, while debate, discussions, and arguments are what forums are made of, you shouldn't dishesrten yourself purely because someone else lacks the empathy or similar effort into the discussion. Everything I say is less for whoever I am debating, and more for the developers to take feedback from. Unless it's means of course. And that all being said, I think the main solution to the economic problem is just making another path for master processing somewhere else. But this is assuming it actually becomes a problem. It obviously needs to be tested still.
Dolyem wrote: » I still don't think having freeholds being exclusive is a problem, as long as static node housing and apartments manages to satisfy the housing itch. And as long as master processing isn't too bottlenecked.
This is basically saying 'I don't think exclusivity of Freeholds is a problem except for the two largest problems', is that right? "As long as Master Processing isn't too bottlenecked it's fine."
HumblePuffin wrote: » This is basically saying 'I don't think exclusivity of Freeholds is a problem except for the two largest problems', is that right? "As long as Master Processing isn't too bottlenecked it's fine." I think it’s saying that we don’t know those problems are problems yet. They could be potential problems that need adjusting. I feel like most people lean towards the 2000 number of freeholds, but that number could be 3000-4000 and still technically be considered “low thousands”. Upping freeholds by 1-2 thousand would cause a huge change in the math. Even at 2000 a 20k registered account server has the potential to have 80% player access to max level processing through family.
Ravicus wrote: » Limiting is the core design of the game. It creates supply in demand. It creates the need for armies to rise and overthrow other armies that possibly are hording. This game is designed for conflict and scarcity creates conflict. Co operative game play is by design and it will help people to join a guild, or citizen of a node. Solo players are going to have a hard time. Solo does not equal casual. Casual can still join a guild/family/citizen to be able to use the recources a freehold can offer. So the economy will be a vaccume, not a bloatation.
