What exactly is the purpose and principle of cities and personal lands?
-
On the previous tests, I had mentioned that there was pretty much no point in having your own plot of land as every amenities needed were city-locked and this became quite concerning as the cities were structured in an extremely guild or city membership exclusive manner, while the developer themselves have admitted that the game is generally geared towards larger group plays, they still want to accommodate for small group gameplays, hence the creation of Arboreous continent.
With the recent change however where everyone has access to city-based services & amenities, some people are complaining that they lack control over who gets to access their city, i.e; my enemies get to use it, or 'my guildmates and I worked so hard on this city now people get to leech off of it.
Which is an understandable complaint from people, but to scratch a little bit deeper on the surface level, I'm assuming that cities would be able to tax users, or even have a 'contribution ranking' for players who served the city the most, so I guess that should hopefully solve some of the ego-centric biases.
I personally think that having your city services accessible to everyone is a great move, as the way it was done before meant that any newcomers will be barred at the gates to progress from the game. Listening to the Q&A however, it just seems like there really is a lot of things that are just utterly 'forced to be complicated' with the way things are done in terms of housing and city-rights.
From my perspective there's just no clearly defined goal, or principle of what a city should be or what a personal plot should be, and the ideas behind it seem to constantly change. (inb4 'it's alpha everything changes' -- Yes, everything changes but if you have no clearly defined goal or principle of what you're trying to achieve then there is no sense of direction at all)
Initially it was 'everything that you need is in the city, and you have to be a member of it. Your personal plot of land is just a really inconvenient storage area'. Now it's 'oh, everyone can use your city but you can still have your own plot of land' -- for what purpose exactly? cosmetics? personal storage? personal service usage?
I'm just so confused with what exactly it is that the devs is wanting to achieve with cities and city-land vs out of city plots. I mean there was a segment in the video where he said...
"3 advantages of having a house in a city is...- Proximity to shops
- It's a safe zone (even though your own plot of land is a safe zone too)
- Potentially free plot of land from governor."
Honestly, with the way things are progressing with the game and the overly forced and convoluted way of managing real-estate in the game, i'm starting to lose faith with the future of the game.
Listening to the last Q&A essentially means that there would be heavy politics with the way cities are going to be structured, and sadly that would detract people from enjoying the game.
If every amenities and services are going to be reliant on the progression of a city, where players who aren't even an 'official' member of that city/guild has to rely on them for necessary services, where these cities/guilds are most likely going to collapse due to the heavy politics involved, i just don't see any cities being stable at all.
Just take a look at other games with the same genre as this as an example where guilds are constantly being re-structured, and new alliances are forged, new progression or directions are made etc. etc, I personally don't see cities being stable at all.
Final thought for this, while it is great to see game developers experimenting with player based/governed cities, this game forgets to neglect the fact that over-complicated structures makes the most fragile system.
I personally feel like the devs need to go back to the drawing board with the principle of cities and re-structure it from there. It seems as if they have an idea of what they want to achieve, or how they want the players to 'play the politics of governing cities', but they're forgetting that the end-users have a very different idea of how they will run the game.
Keep it simple, build the basic foundations of what a city/real-estate should be and then add on to things once these 'basic foundations' are stable.
Ask the players about how are they going to use the city and strip it to the bare essentials, and then add on to things from there.
-
@Zori said in What exactly is the purpose and principle of cities and personal lands?:
It's a safe zone (even though your own plot of land is a safe zone too)
This is a major misconception people keep missing. Cities are a City-wide safe zone for everyone. No PvP or Monsters in cities, except during a Siege. While your personal plot is safe to YOU only, and the personal plots around you are not safe zones for you, but rather for their owners...so getting from your personal plot to and from the city or the wilderness can be a dangerous area to traverse. Your plot is an island of safety within an area fraught with danger.
Cities and City ownership allows a Governing group, say a guild, to grow and advance an area of the game, larger than a personal plot. Cities can hold multiple processing type services, are the only areas that can have farms, can be seiged and taken over, and should also be a source of both income, and advancing the Tech tree of an area. Only cities can level up in order to unlock higher level services that aren't available in the start of the game.
Personal plots allow an individual or small group to own a much smaller area of control within the game. Some services can be built within that plot, however, space is limited so not all services can be included. A personal plot is an island further out from the city that is safe for the owners, where they can rest up, re-equip, and re-spec before going out to attack the wilderness, or conversely, come back into town to avail themselves of additional services. Personal plots within a city's area of influence can also benefit from the tech tree of that city, but they do nothing in order to advance that tech tree on their own.
I personall maintain my previous statement that a Tax/Tithe should be applie to cities that the city governors collect from non-citizens in order to enter the city or utilize their services, with a cap to how high this charge can be so it doesn't become prohibitive. I also think that a small portion of the sell price of the personal plots within their territory shoud filter back to the city owners. These funds can help the city advance, and also prevent leeches from abusing a city, especially those of a group's enemies. Finally, my additional idea that puts a 'Flag' on a character for attacking/killing a member of the city's group marking them as PvP'able within the town, or arrestable by the NPC guards that can only go away over time or with spending half that normal time in jail, same as the Bounty Hunting/Alignment rules mentioned before.
These keeps cities relevant and 'safer' from their enemies using their services, keeps personal plots relevant and dependant on the cities they are attached to...yes, the personal plots lose nothing in a seige, however, the newly conquered city can lose some of it's facilities, and lower their tech tree ranking, adversely affecting the personal plots around them.
-
Speaking from experience in UO being able to store things in your house as opposed to the city bank, or whatever this game uses, is a personal convenience. Depending upon where your house is located it can save travel time for grabbing items you may need in a hurry. I've also always just liked a private place to craft with all the stuff I need close by for easy access. I'm not sure how everything works so far but those were the reasons for me to have a place of my own in past games.
-
@Farlander said in What exactly is the purpose and principle of cities and personal lands?:
Speaking from experience in UO being able to store things in your house as opposed to the city bank, or whatever this game uses, is a personal convenience. Depending upon where your house is located it can save travel time for grabbing items you may need in a hurry. I've also always just liked a private place to craft with all the stuff I need close by for easy access. I'm not sure how everything works so far but those were the reasons for me to have a place of my own in past games.
The major difference in UO is that you could fast travel ('recall' or 'gate') to any place that you've 'marked'. Even if you couldn't mark runes, your house could be built almost anywhere on the map. In Fractured, your house will be in the immediate vicinity to your city. So travel distance between your home and your city bank will be negligible. I do wonder if they will add the occasional wilderness home. Though, it won't benefit from the tech that a city provides.
There is something to be said however, for your house being safe if there has been a successful city siege. I'm guessing that if all of your belongings are in the city bank, they either become the property of the new city owners, or they vanish. Lost forever.
-
@d3Sync said in What exactly is the purpose and principle of cities and personal lands?:
I'm guessing that if all of your belongings are in the city bank, they either become the property of the new city owners, or they vanish. Lost forever.
Ok, this is a horrible idea. Nothing should happen to private banks in case the town ownership changes... If you can't access the chest because the new governor closes the town or they kos you, then the items are stuck in that chest, but you should be able to retrieve them as soon as you have access to the chest.
-
@Razvan Why?
I'm not into the PvP angle of the game, and city sieges aren't my main focus either, however, this IS a full loot MMO, and so in the case of a city being overthrown, considering there are no 'Linked Banks' like in other games, individual banks in a city would be part of the spoils of war to the winners of a siege, just naturally.
It's nice that while a city is in its normal operation that bank chests are individual access and safe, that should be enough
-
Imo the most major advantage of the out of city plot is (should be) security of ownership.
That plot after claiming is yours as long as you want it and you cant (shouldnt be able to) loose it by someone elses desire.
Plot in city isnt safe... you can loose it after siege... you can loose it by mad governor raising tax so high that you can no longer afford it....
THAT is biggest advantage of out of city plot.
So "uncertain" city plots have to have some other advantage to make up for that uncertainty. And that is crafting advantages, proximity to shops etc...
-
@GamerSeuss
Full loot pvp means your body is lootable if you die, it has nothing to do with the possibility of losing everything you own.As to why it's a bad idea, there are multiple reasons:
- guilds who can win sieges early will snowball a lot harder than just taking the town alone
- it will force guilds to occupy the hermit plots since they'll be the only safe storages in the game
- in case you don't have a backup storage and you lose the siege, you basically have to start fresh since you just lost all your assets
-
@Razvan and again, because there is no linked banking system, and you can in fact make backup bank stashes in other cities, I think that being able to loot the banks when you take a town should be part of the spoils of war. Getting a city should net you, the victor, some tangible rewards. As much of the city structure will be damaged in a siege, one assumes (we don't know yet) resources stored in crafting stations, and in the personal banks are often the only real gains if the main goal of the besieging forces is to take the city and move on, and they don't intend to hold the city...(which will be one strategy I feel some bigger guilds will go for, instead of taking cities, and keeping them when they aren't the cities most optimally located and residentially populated for the guild's overall plans.
If it were a linked bank, then the link to that city node would just be destroyed until the bank was re-established, and gear could be accessed elsewhere, but as a non-linked bank, I see this as fine. (once again, this is coming from someone who will gain exactly 0 benefit from this mechanic, as I play very small group/solo play mostly in PvE environments myself so if I were to join a city, it would be a small guild alliance type city, generally the ones most ripe for this kind of siege by guilds of a larger, more aggressive bent.)
-
@GamerSeuss said in What exactly is the purpose and principle of cities and personal lands?:
I think that being able to loot the banks when you take a town should be part of the spoils of war.
That would work only in games where there is periodically a full reset for anybody, but if you play an MMO and after a year of loot you loose everything, the first thing you think about is to rage-quit the game...
That would mean there won't be guild competition, just a big one owning the game.Getting a city should net you, the victor, some tangible rewards.
You won the siege, the town, town resources, and you'll slow down competitors. That's ENOUGH!
At last, you probably deserve an additionally full-generated prize.Rember that MMO doesn't expect any "winner", just competition... and too much of it become toxic!
-
Doesnt "cant lose anything on a loss" loop back into "why should randoms bother helping"? Not losing anyting puts all risks and involvement into the guilds hands, while everyone else...watches (and ready to leech of the winning guild). No stakes on the non-guild inhabitants side. A compromise would be fair, like 1/4 or 1/3 of the total bank storage being safe, rest lost if you get conquered, pick the important stuff you dont want to lose. Could extend into personal storage in houses as well (but more favourable, like 1/2 safe?). Sort of a safe "hidden compartment" in the chests
Edit: Motivate into helping and being part of the city (not guilds), but not ruin and force to rage-quit.
Edit2: Certain portion of the bank and storages being lootable by the winners would also motivate people to target the bigger, established, developed richest cities, instead of the small ones. In theory could serve as a (soft/not hardcoded) counterbalance against the biggest guilds and naturally throw big guilds against big guilds.
-
You can be motivated, without having any downside... I personally don't understand this modern concept in MMOs.
The game, or the guild itself, could provide a prize to win a siege, both defending town or conquering it...
-
There has to be safe storage for things in the game. I've already seen what happens when you can lose everything in a raid. Life is Feudal: YO had that. When they implemented judgment hour whole settlements became scorched earth over night. Something that took days/weeks/months to build. Needless to say many of those players just rage quit and never came back. That game took a major nose dive with the forum activity going from too many daily posts to track to almost nothing going on. When people play a game they expect to have fun. Losing everything only to have to restart is no fun. That is why I don't alpha test any more. Having to constantly rebuild after a wipe just gets to tedious for me.
-
@dallonz88 said in What exactly is the purpose and principle of cities and personal lands?:
@GamerSeuss said in What exactly is the purpose and principle of cities and personal lands?:
I think that being able to loot the banks when you take a town should be part of the spoils of war.
That would work only in games where there is periodically a full reset for anybody, but if you play an MMO and after a year of loot you loose everything, the first thing you think about is to rage-quit the game...
That would mean there won't be guild competition, just a big one owning the game.Getting a city should net you, the victor, some tangible rewards.
You won the siege, the town, town resources, and you'll slow down competitors. That's ENOUGH!
At last, you probably deserve an additionally full-generated prize.Rember that MMO doesn't expect any "winner", just competition... and too much of it become toxic!
I think we're all just pissing in the wind here.
We don't really know much about the siege system, and I have little doubt that it will change dramatically after testing it.
I think most sieges will happen early in the games lifespan. Initially for territory. But remember that reputation is important, especially when everyone is playing on one server. So, if there is a massive guild that is continuously going to war with other cities, that will create some tension in the community. Guilds will band together. There will be an inherent balance for the most part.
I'd say, it won't matter how much is in a city bank if residents can transfer it to their house before a siege to prevent it from being lost.
I really do believe that sieges won't be that common. Outside of territory expanse, I believe they will only be done with intent on wiping a guild or city from the map in all out war.
Why not? Well, because city resource nodes are now harvestable by non-residents. PvP will be done around those nodes, and sieges won't be necessary. Unless Dynamite decides to change that back to city-only again. Things tend to change often though, so that's why I opened with my original statement.
We're all just pissing in the wind.
-
I agree - loosing everything is often the reason why people stop playing.
But banks that aren't linked could have something like a hidden cellar, safe spots outside the city to hid stuff, ...Ingame that could look like a bank system where you have a part thats "safe".
If you have to much stuff the part in the "not safe area" is lootable.
In a case like this it would be your responsibility to bring the stuff to a safe place like your own house.Maybe part of the city development could be to create "more safe space"?
When you loose a siege you could it explain as "An NPC takes the stuff thats in the safe part of the bank and brings it somewhere during the siege". The owner could get a map with information where to find the stuff.
Then you can get this stuff thats somewhere hidden outside the city.
Maybe add a timer (days / weeks) before everyone has the chance to find the hidden stuff?Because I don't think it would be possible to get a lot of stuff out of a city that an enemy controls.
And owning stuff that you can't access is the same as losing the stuff.
-
Quick question. If a seige is successful, are the buildings then destroyable/removable, because if they are, the loss of bank items compared to the loss of complete city progress is a drop in the ocean.
-
@d3Sync We may be blowing things out of proportion about something that may not happen but it is best to have the community discuss these what-ifs here and avert them before happening so the devs can so how people would respond. I'm sure there are years of mmo experience floating around the forums, What better the forums if those people share their experiences so that the game can be honed before coding is done and time wasted.
-
@dallonz88 said in What exactly is the purpose and principle of cities and personal lands?:
but if you play an MMO and after a year of loot you loose everything, the first thing you think about is to rage-quit the game...
Then you are playing the wrong game from beginning.
Alos remember, if you are that terrified of loosing your stuff, you can play on Arboreus and be "safe". Occasionally take adventures on other worlds, and even if you are killed there, you still return to Arboreus after, where your home is waiting for you, safe.
-
@Gothix said in What exactly is the purpose and principle of cities and personal lands?:
@dallonz88 said in What exactly is the purpose and principle of cities and personal lands?:
but if you play an MMO and after a year of loot you loose everything, the first thing you think about is to rage-quit the game...
Then you are playing the wrong game from beginning.
Alos remember, if you are that terrified of loosing your stuff, you can play on Arboreus and be "safe". Occasionally take adventures on other worlds, and even if you are killed there, you still return to Arboreus after, where your home is waiting for you, safe.
I'm not worried about the challenge, as punishing as it is, I just don't have the time. I won't start fresh, when I can barely play few hours a day. That's why I won't play on Thartaros for sure. I just wonder if you're not asking for Syndesia to become as mush hardcore as Thartaros would probably already be.
-
@GamerSeuss - post #9 Ok, I hope the devs have a completely different idea than you because I find no fun in moving my assets from one place to another before every siege. As I explained earlier, it's irrelevant if the banks are linked or not: if you lose access to a certain chest for whatever reason (you leave the guild, the guild that owns the town leaves the alliance, the town changes ownership etc), then the items will be locked there until you will have access to it again (you join their guild, they join your alliance, you conquer the town etc).
@d3Sync - post #15 Even if nodes are harvestable by everyone, owning an area means your alliance members will patrol around it and gank enemies, which makes gathering a lot riskier for outsiders and a lot safer for residents. I think sieges and zvz will be common because that's pretty much the endgame in pvp areas.
@Gothix - post #18 There is a huge difference between what Fractured is advertised as, full loot pvp (losing what you had on you to pvp), and what is discussed here (losing everything everyone in your guild owns to a siege).
