The freeholds are not for casuals. They are for guilds. Should they be for megaguilds or not?

Enough with the casual farmiville QQ.
Freeholds are an important achievement.

Feeeholds should be family locked. Period. This will prevent 1000 member guilds from giving permission to 1000 people to work on the freehold.
Even the battalion permission idea will cause people to stop and think:

"Do I wanna be a nobody with nothing, amongst 1000 people? Or should I join a guild with 50-80 members and rotate batalion/family membership so that I am permitted to gain access to the 'guilds freeholds' ?" Fvck waiting for 1000 other members.

I think such restrictions will further empower meaningful, smaller communities and weaken the strong advantage that big guilds have, the sheer numbers power.

I think freeholds should allow permission to family members only to help small, strong guilds compete for them, whilst the big guilds enjoy the castles.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dygz

Abarat wrote: »

didnt steven imply that crafting will yield adventure xp.
Is that a thing?

Yes. Some.
Exploration will also yield some Adventurer xp.

Abarat

Dygz wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

didnt steven imply that crafting will yield adventure xp.
Is that a thing?

Yes. Some.
Exploration will also yield some Adventurer xp.

how was dance?

Boneshatter

George_Black wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

If FH access is capped at family members only, this wont affect so much guilds of 80-100 members. Real guilds with real friendships.

If FHs are capped at family members only, it will be a direct nerf to zergguilds and an indirect buff to 80-100 member guilds.

The side effect of freeholds being family only in relation to very large guilds is that said guilds would then want more freeholds.

Guilds of 80-100 would probably still be able to get freeholds, but guilds around the 70-80 range would then be mostly locked out, and any smaller would be completely locked out.

Obviously this depends on how many very large guilds you have on your server.

You dont get it.
People wouldnt join zerg guilds because they would get locked out of FH access. Without people zerg guilds weaken. They dont have the same potential of wealthy to big for multiply FHs.

The problem you're having is that you seem to be under the impression that for someone to understand you they must agree with you and that just isn't the case. Everyone here understands what you are saying. Not everyone agrees with what you're saying.

Here is the bottom line: If GiantMegaGuild only needs 5 freeholds to run their machine then 5 freeholds are all they're going to put any effort into getting. If MegaGiantGuild needs 20 freeholds to run their machine they will get 20 freeholds.

By allowing GiantMegaGuild to do more with less they will leave more for everyone else.

Your point is that limiting freehold access to "not the whole guild" will severely limit GiantMegaGuild's ability to recruit, but I disagree with that. They will just get more freeholds if it reaches that point.

George_Black

How will they get more freeholds with less people working towards that goal?

Meztopheles

This conversation is kinda moot since it doesn't seem like IS sees any issue with guild permissions for freeholds in the first place and is unlikely to change that idea without solid evidence that something else would be necessary/better.

That said, whether or not family permissions only is a good idea in the context of limiting mega-guilds comes down to how it affects players' decisions. Will it make players less likely to join a mega guild because they may not have full/any access to freeholds? Or will they join anyway for the other benefits a mega-guild provides and the hope that they'll get access or permissions to a freehold eventually?

I personally lean towards the latter. Not everyone even cares to have a freehold in the first place and will be content if the mega guild just equips them with end products and makes them feel like a part of something big. People love being told what to do and winning, so a mega guild with the potential to rule sections of or entire servers with an iron fist will still appeal to the masses who are typically inclined to join them in the first place. I don't think limited access to freeholds will stop it, maybe just reduce their numbers slightly. Predicting behavior is difficult though so who knows?

Scarrings

drclawx wrote: »

If you own a freehold you should be allowed have access to whoever you want to access it. Family, guild, public, individuals, and or guilds. You should be able to black list too.

If some mega guild hoards all the land and denies processing and crafting to the larger community, people can just move to a different node that doesn't. Every crafter/processor/gatherer your node looses will be a net negative.

I think there should be some openings for others outside of guilds/family, but not unconditional(doubt the freehold owners would ever let strangers use their facilities for free anyway). Opening it up unrestrictive would lead to alot more processing materials from master and grandmaster in the market and i'm not sure if that is even in the interest of the owner/guild in the first place.

But if i were a freehold owner and i know none in my guild are to use it that day and i open it up to the public for that day(if i were to open it for the public i would probably only open it those that are citizen in the node) i definitely ain't doing that for free.

Let's say that someone want to use the hideworks and he crafts 100 leather and i receive 3g in exchange of him using that hideworks. if 99 other people do the same that day i would receive 300g that day doing nothing(they would have to use their own fuel for the record). Would i do it? It would be alot of money. But what i'm certain of is everything has a price, including granting access to freehold processing

But regardless what i would do, i too don't like the idea that there isn't a pathway for people outside of the social structures(family or guild) to have access to freeholds for any reason unless they own a freehold themselves, even if it costs them more then it's worth.

Anyway that's my take on this issue.

Sathrago

How about freehold owners can give out vouchers that let a person preform a craft, process, or other single action on the freehold determined by the owner. They have a select amount that refresh weekly per station on their freehold that can be given to non-family members for free or a price.

This keeps freeholds reigned into a family orientation but allows for some engagement with others that come by, most likely others that live in the node. With a limited amount of vouchers per week, it cant be widely used by guild members, but is still there as a limited option.

It could also open up interesting social options like creating tournaments and such where the reward are vouchers to use the freehold.

Dygz

Ashes of Creation is not for Casuals.

Aszkalon

George_Black wrote: »

The freeholds are not for casuals. They are for guilds.

I bet we will see quite some Cases, where completely normal, casual People own a Freehold. At least for a short while or so.

Simply because of the fact that i don't think everywhere will be huge Hardcore Guilds.

Lodrig

It's better to speak in terms of what Percentage of the players will own/use such a thing then to throw around terms like hardcore and casual.

We know that their are 85 Nodes, each node then has Barony, looks like 6 which would make 510, each Barony can then support multiple Freeholds if its 6 each then that makes 3060 which is consistent with the statement of "low thousands" made by IS. Divided by the expected 50k registered players per Realm and you get a ratio of just 16.33:1. So if 16 players share each Freehold everyone can have some, but I doubt that level of density would be common.

But this ignores the in Node player housing, at 100 instanced apartments per node average (50 minimum but higher on big nodes so average) this is 8,500 so Apartments are 1 per 5.88 players. The Static Houses start at 8 for village but increese in count with node level, lets estimate 16 average which yields 1360 which is 1 per 36.76 players.

Assume 2 occupants per Apartment and 4 per Static House and we have 22,440 players living in Node Housing of some kind, which leaves 27, 560. If each Freehold has 5 residents then 15,300 are living on Freehold and the remaing 12,260 are Homeless. Convert everything to percentages and we have from most elite to lowest

10.8% Static Housing Residents (2.7% Owners, 8.1% Roommates)
30% FreeHold Homesteaders (6% Owners, 24% Roommates)
34% Instance Apartment Dwellers (17% Owners, 17% Roommates)
24.5% Homeless Hoboes

This seems very reasonable to me as a design goal and both Instance Apartments and FreeHold residency would be common. Most organized groups of friends could could secure a Freehold by simply being in the more active third of players, hardly elite. Only actually owning a Freehold might be considered elite as would being a resident or even Owner of static Housing (particularly the top tier static housing).

Lets also look at what type of player wants each type of Housing, Gatherers will want Freehold for proximity too and productio of natural resources and to utilize their Freeholds strong resource processing potential, with trips to Nodes for bulk sale of refined materials and purchases from markets. Crafters of finished goods will likely prefer to utilize the Node houseing options to be closer to the markets they are selling to and might occasionaly visit Freehold to try to directly buy the most desirable materials 'direct from the farm'. Guild leaders and members are likely to gravitate to the Static housing as it is most elite and it puts them in the ideal position to rally themselves for defense of the node in a war. PvE players are most likely to go homeless as they wander broadly in search of new Dungeons, worldbosses, raids and monsters content which is poping up. Some kind of 'Inn' or Tavern is likely to be where they end up as they don't spend more then a week in one location.

rollox

@Lodrig Last I read in wiki was Freehold Housing is only one house for the owner. Which can be shared through marriage.

I didn't read that freehold family shares the house. Freehold family only have access to the freehold and it's facilities and harvests.

One other part of those calculations should take into consideration are those who are family of a freehold, but may hold citizenship and housing in another node far away. Maybe they are in the family use the freehold for processing and harvest. But their citizenship and house is in an economic metropolis many zones away

Lodrig

rollox wrote: »

@Lodrig Last I read in wiki was Freehold Housing is only one house for the owner. Which can be shared through marriage.

I didn't read that freehold family shares the house. Freehold family only have access to the freehold and it's facilities and harvests.

One other part of those calculations should take into consideration are those who are family or a freehold, but may hold citizenship and housing in another node far away. Maybe th y are in the family use the freehold for processing and harvest. But their citizenship and house is in an economic metropolis many zones away

Were explicitly told the family system can relate up to 9 characters, and that they can have access to the housing in a Freehold based on permission granting by the family head. Thus everything I described is conservative, 5 per Freehold would simply be the average.

You are correct thought that this dose not look to preclude a character also owning some Node housing. But I think such overlapping will be very minimal as people will want to avoid superflous travel like that and concentrate their wealth/items/economic activity in one area, this is what we see in nearly every game which lacks fast travel for characters or goods.

Caeryl

Personally I just can’t see any world in which ‘guildmasters control nearly everything including freestanding housing’ is going to turn out well for overall enjoyment of the game

It’s just kind of disappointing that after the hype about them and many building cosmetics put on offer, freeholds aren’t actually a realistic goal to strive for unless you plan on running a full fledged guild.

10% really is absurdly low if that’s a hard cap on availability

Lodrig

Is anyone considering the existence of GuildHalls?

These are guild owned structures which look to be able to be placed in the Node or out in the Baronies, I would assume that Guilds would focus on having these properties rather then gobbling up large numbers of Freeholds which would be a pain to travel between. The whole discussion so far looks to have just ignored this possibility.

Azherae

Lodrig wrote: »

I anyone considering the existence of GuildHalls?

These are guild owned structures which look to be able to be placed in the Node or out in the Baronies, I would assume that Guilds would focus on having these properties rather then gobbling up large numbers of Freeholds which would be a pain to travel between. The whole discussion so far looks to have just ignored this possibility.

I'll check on it, but I feel like last we heard, it was that GuildHalls are actually a subfunction of Freeholds.

Like, you have to have a Freehold 'plot' or spot to put it on. It might not be 'this is a regular Freehold and then you put a Guild hall on it too', it might be specifically 'this is a Freehold spot and you can take up the entire thing with a Guild Hall'.

Guess I'll edit ifwhen I find it.

EDIT: Nah I give up, it's no clearer than any other time, but we're due to ask a bunch of Freehold questions for next livestream I guess. So I guess 'no I haven't considered the existence of GuildHalls, because I didn't think they work how you seem to think they work'.

Ludullu

Lodrig wrote: »

I anyone considering the existence of GuildHalls?

These are guild owned structures which look to be able to be placed in the Node or out in the Baronies, I would assume that Guilds would focus on having these properties rather then gobbling up large numbers of Freeholds which would be a pain to travel between. The whole discussion so far looks to have just ignored this possibility.

Having one thing doesn't stop people from wanting to have another thing.

Guilds will have enough money to get both. And iirc halls are also limited, so it'd be a thing for the super guilds, while big-mid guilds will try taking whatever freeholds are leftover once the super guilds are done buying them up.

Azherae

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Lodrig wrote: »

I anyone considering the existence of GuildHalls?

These are guild owned structures which look to be able to be placed in the Node or out in the Baronies, I would assume that Guilds would focus on having these properties rather then gobbling up large numbers of Freeholds which would be a pain to travel between. The whole discussion so far looks to have just ignored this possibility.

Having one thing doesn't stop people from wanting to have another thing.

Guilds will have enough money to get both. And iirc halls are also limited, so it'd be a thing for the super guilds, while big-mid guilds will try taking whatever freeholds are leftover once the super guilds are done buying them up.

Remember that GuildHalls definitely DO one thing relative to Freeholds/Estates in their Barony: BONUSES.

Whatever those are.

I def wouldn't be thinking about 'letting randos get the bonuses from my Guild Hall' if I was one of those unscrupulous Baronesses that only cares about crushing competition.

rollox

Azherae wrote: »

Like, you have to have a Freehold 'plot' or spot to put it on. It might not be 'this is a regular Freehold and then you put a Guild hall on it too', it might be specifically 'this is a Freehold spot and you can take up the entire thing with a Guild Hall

I bet your right. The Alpha Phase 3 roadmap lists "Guild Freeholds" as a system. So already a number of the Freeholds will be taken out of the housing calculation because they are in service for the guild halls.

Lodrig

The number of Guild halls is said to be limited to 1 per Barony, as well the total number of Halls within the Baronies of a Node being capped by Node level, looks like it may be Node level minus 2. If nodes average level 4 then thats just 170 Guildhalls sitting on Freehold plots, which is a trivial 5.5% of them, not even enough to meaningfully alter my calculations on the last page.

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Having one thing doesn't stop people from wanting to have another thing.

Guilds will have enough money to get both. And iirc halls are also limited, so it'd be a thing for the super guilds, while big-mid guilds will try taking whatever freeholds are leftover once the super guilds are done buying them up.

If the one thing satisfies your needs then aquiring more is wastefull. In a lot of games people might hoard things they don't need just for the thrill of power. But Freeholds are TAXED, while it looks like GuildHalls are not and are the more prestigious and high cost option.

Also look back at the math I did. How much of a servers population do you think is going to be in 'Mega guilds', cause I see Freeholds as having the capacity to comfortably hold 30% of Server population, aka 15k. A zerg group of a thousand players in it if evenly spread across the map would be expected to be EVERY SINGLE PLAYER in an area of 1.7 Nodes which by my estimate would contain 61 FreeHolds on top of the node housing they would control. They only start to deprive others of housing if they are taking MORE then that and I find that very unlikely.

Ludullu

Lodrig wrote: »

If the one thing satisfies your needs then aquiring more is wastefull. In a lot of games people might hoard things they don't need just for the thrill of power. But Freeholds are TAXED, while it looks like GuildHalls are not and are the more prestigious and high cost option.

It's about control. If your guild can get a shitton of freeholds - you're preventing your potential enemies from having them and progressing thx to that.

Or at the very least you push them out of your near vicinity to the other side of the world, which makes it way harder for them to fight you as well as they could otherwise.

If I was a megaguld GL - I'd aim at buying up as many FHs around the nodes I want to control as possible. Because control of these things is what leads you to winning more.

FHs will be in the low thousands, theoretically serving x8 of that number (cause famillies and shit). But that is only theoretical, because it's not necessary to stop buying FHs if you've filled out your family relations with FHs.

Child Item