I see a lot of "rental" suggestions/solutions mentioned. I'm not sure that's the answer. It takes 5 minutes to log in, pay rent, and log out. You may still get ghostowns.
It seems to me that what you want to encourage is activity, not money spending, though money spending could work into the formula.
How about some criteria of time actually playing a game? Maybe time spent in one's house? Meeting a quota of time playing the game each month? You could also tack on some kind of monetary involvement, too, if wanted.
Time is easy. Internet access is easily accomplished these days and even vacations will have some form of access, unless one goes to the rain forest for volunteering or recovers from some major surgery at a hospital.
As for rent, I know I'm a minority but I have never been "rich", or even well off in any MMO I've played. Making it "significant" as many have suggested, would keep me out of housing. Making it insignificant would not deter any problems. Combining it with playing time may be the best approach?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I see a lot of "rental" suggestions/solutions mentioned. I'm not sure that's the answer. It takes 5 minutes to log in, pay rent, and log out. You may still get ghostowns.
It seems to me that what you want to encourage is activity, not money spending, though money spending could work into the formula.
How about some criteria of time actually playing a game? Maybe time spent in one's house? Meeting a quota of time playing the game each month? You could also tack on some kind of monetary involvement, too, if wanted.
Time is easy. Internet access is easily accomplished these days and even vacations will have some form of access, unless one goes to the rain forest for volunteering or recovers from some major surgery at a hospital.
As for rent, I know I'm a minority but I have never been "rich", or even well off in any MMO I've played. Making it "significant" as many have suggested, would keep me out of housing. Making it insignificant would not deter any problems. Combining it with playing time may be the best approach?
That one reason why I think defense of community from at the least NPCs and needing other players or yourself to get resources to maintain property works better than super high rent.
Though you could have smaller places for rent for cheaper.
@AIBQuirky - Have you read my previous posts? They give an overview system very much like what it sounds like you want.
"A faction standing system called 'influence' that loses X% of accrued standing per Y units of time, and tasks that can't easily be multi-boxed are heavily favored in influence generation. Owning better properties requires a certain amount of influence."
I see a lot of "rental" suggestions/solutions mentioned. I'm not sure that's the answer. It takes 5 minutes to log in, pay rent, and log out. You may still get ghostowns.
It seems to me that what you want to encourage is activity, not money spending, though money spending could work into the formula.
How about some criteria of time actually playing a game? Maybe time spent in one's house? Meeting a quota of time playing the game each month? You could also tack on some kind of monetary involvement, too, if wanted.
Time is easy. Internet access is easily accomplished these days and even vacations will have some form of access, unless one goes to the rain forest for volunteering or recovers from some major surgery at a hospital.
As for rent, I know I'm a minority but I have never been "rich", or even well off in any MMO I've played. Making it "significant" as many have suggested, would keep me out of housing. Making it insignificant would not deter any problems. Combining it with playing time may be the best approach?
That one reason why I think defense of community from at the least NPCs and needing other players or yourself to get resources to maintain property works better than super high rent.
Though you could have smaller places for rent for cheaper.
"Community defense" sounds interesting, and I've read with interest your more in depth posts on it. I'm just unsure, though. I know MMOs are about "playing with others", but making it a requirement kind of sounds like "forced grouping." No housing unless you can get pageloads of friends, or a guild to help you out. It sounds good, but I wonder about the application and practicality of it.
One thing I dislike in MMOs is the feeling that if you're not logged in 24/7, shit happens to your stuff that you have no control over. Take a 2 week vacation and when you come back, who knows what may be gone? Remember, players will do what you allow them to do, and more
@AIBQuirky - Have you read my previous posts? They give an overview system very much like what it sounds like you want.
"A faction standing system called 'influence' that loses X% of accrued standing per Y units of time, and tasks that can't easily be multi-boxed are heavily favored in influence generation. Owning better properties requires a certain amount of influence."
I have read your idea on that and wonder about it. It seems to add in something that "seems" quite separate from housing. Now I need to cozy up and vote for players, politically? What has that to do with housing?
It's not a terrible idea. I think it could help build communities, but that would have to be in a specific game or games built around the idea. But in the end, it is "forced community building", which I think pales in comparison to natural community building, where players build a community because they want to, not as some game mechanic. I could be totally off-base and wrong, but that is how I see it.
Who knows? Maybe either or both of these are good answers for the problem at hand
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
<tldr>So the general idea is gaining favor with the NPC faction that controls an area in order to own housing in that area.</tldr>
In terms of the specifics of the influence system, it works like this. In the game I have in mind there are two major forces at play in every region.
A. Culture - Culture is an NPC faction that never changes or at least is very difficult to change. It is the NPC populous of an area. B. Ruling Party - The ruling party is a player owned faction that changes based on certain conditions.
The overall point of that system being making some things beyond player control while still making the entire game player controlled. For instance if you took over a starter area for newbs and attempted to legalize ganking the culture of the area would dictate you could not do so without inciting an immediate coup and thus losing control of the area.
So suppose the game is set in Asia during the reign of the Mongol Empire. "The Mongols" would be a NPC culture that holds sway over the region of Mongolia and provides NPC soldiers to the rulers of that region. One would gain influence with The Mongols by completing content in Mongolia, opening up housing options in Mongolia.
"The Mongol Empire" would be a player faction that controls many regions including Mongolia but also other cultural regions such as "The Chinese".
You do not have to support "The Mongol Empire" to gain influence with "The Mongols". You simply have to do content in their region. In-fact, you could use influence gained with The Mongols to support a rebel faction were that your desire, making it more difficult for "The Mongol Empire" to control "The Mongols".
In a more peaceful region "Americans" might be a culture with "Republicans" and "Democrats" as player factions in that region. If you gain influence with Americans by doing content in America, you could use that influence to support the political party of your choice.
So say you are maintaining about 300k influence. That would allow you 300k points of influence in swaying the outcomes of elections toward the party of your choice. It would also allow you to buy a 300k influence requirement property. Or multiple properties totaling 300k influence (Though usually ones with higher requirements are more cost efficient than multiple lower cost ones). You could also contribute 300k influence toward a property with a greater value that you own with a group. Or get yourself a 50k influence home and contribute 250k toward a group property.
So essentially you don't need to "cozy up" to anyone but an NPC culture that has sway over the region. You can just also use your influence to take part in the politics of the region if you so choose.
I feel it is just too difficult to have it real world so keep it in perhaps tiered instances,all the rich live in their tier and the poor mans home live in their district/zone.This way the zone is free from other things causing lag and needing massive PC's to run the game.
You can still have really nice homes,even EQ2's homes albeit a little on the cheap side could be dressed up to look real nice.It also opens a whole new game of furnishings and quests and other ideas like FFXI had where your furniture would give some aura effect. You can build onto your homes w/o taking up more space by going upwards so you have a longevity effect always adding to your home little by little.
You need to have a very strict and tough economy to make it all work so that players don't all have mansions/castles within a couple months.It should all look like a real world,rich/poor/rental apartments etc etc,store fronts,malls,you hire npc's at a cost to work in the stores for you etc etc.
There is soooo much more we could be doing with rpg's but all devs want to give us is a max level some quests and some bosses,so a VERY slack effort.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I feel it is just too difficult to have it real world so keep it in perhaps tiered instances,all the rich live in their tier and the poor mans home live in their district/zone.This way the zone is free from other things causing lag and needing massive PC's to run the game.
You can still have really nice homes,even EQ2's homes albeit a little on the cheap side could be dressed up to look real nice.It also opens a whole new game of furnishings and quests and other ideas like FFXI had where your furniture would give some aura effect. You can build onto your homes w/o taking up more space by going upwards so you have a longevity effect always adding to your home little by little.
You need to have a very strict and tough economy to make it all work so that players don't all have mansions/castles within a couple months.It should all look like a real world,rich/poor/rental apartments etc etc,store fronts,malls,you hire npc's at a cost to work in the stores for you etc etc.
There is soooo much more we could be doing with rpg's but all devs want to give us is a max level some quests and some bosses,so a VERY slack effort.
Actually, that's not a bad idea, @Wizardry. For each instanced neighborhood, have a 'status' ranging from slums to merchant to nobility. The price of buying a house in each district is related to the status of that instance. The rent for a small slum dwelling would be vastly different from a manor house in the mayor's district. Neighborhoods could change in status as better housing was built or houses became abandoned.
The economy definitely needs to be very strict, so I agree with that, too. But this doesn't mean just the play-to-player economy. The value of items dropped as loot would need strict adherence. A player should not be able to hunt orcs for 1 game day and be able to afford 4 game months of housing from the loot they collect.
If a game were to actually develop content around the RP aspect of an MMORPG, privileges could be attributed to the various housing districts, with things like invitations to social events (the Mayors birthday) or government functions (vote for the next Mayor). Where your character lives could determine what in-game functions they might have. Certainly, the character would need to live in the Merchant district in order to have their house serve as a merchant.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
There is hard balance between having space for everyone to build, barren landscape, ghost town and urban sprawl in open world building. You don't want world too small or land will dry up fast. If your world is too big it will be barren and sensitive to population loss. Players will leave and even return to your game so you will have to deal with abandoned houses. If you allow building to be too freelance and too numerous in one are you will have sprawling plots of houses with no organization.
So what would be your solution to those issues?
Just instanced everything. Problem solved long time ago.
Comments
It seems to me that what you want to encourage is activity, not money spending, though money spending could work into the formula.
How about some criteria of time actually playing a game? Maybe time spent in one's house? Meeting a quota of time playing the game each month? You could also tack on some kind of monetary involvement, too, if wanted.
Time is easy. Internet access is easily accomplished these days and even vacations will have some form of access, unless one goes to the rain forest for volunteering or recovers from some major surgery at a hospital.
As for rent, I know I'm a minority but I have never been "rich", or even well off in any MMO I've played. Making it "significant" as many have suggested, would keep me out of housing. Making it insignificant would not deter any problems. Combining it with playing time may be the best approach?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Though you could have smaller places for rent for cheaper.
"A faction standing system called 'influence' that loses X% of accrued standing per Y units of time, and tasks that can't easily be multi-boxed are heavily favored in influence generation. Owning better properties requires a certain amount of influence."
One thing I dislike in MMOs is the feeling that if you're not logged in 24/7, shit happens to your stuff that you have no control over. Take a 2 week vacation and when you come back, who knows what may be gone? Remember, players will do what you allow them to do, and more
I have read your idea on that and wonder about it. It seems to add in something that "seems" quite separate from housing. Now I need to cozy up and vote for players, politically? What has that to do with housing?
It's not a terrible idea. I think it could help build communities, but that would have to be in a specific game or games built around the idea. But in the end, it is "forced community building", which I think pales in comparison to natural community building, where players build a community because they want to, not as some game mechanic. I could be totally off-base and wrong, but that is how I see it.
Who knows? Maybe either or both of these are good answers for the problem at hand
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
In terms of the specifics of the influence system, it works like this. In the game I have in mind there are two major forces at play in every region.
A. Culture - Culture is an NPC faction that never changes or at least is very difficult to change. It is the NPC populous of an area.
B. Ruling Party - The ruling party is a player owned faction that changes based on certain conditions.
The overall point of that system being making some things beyond player control while still making the entire game player controlled. For instance if you took over a starter area for newbs and attempted to legalize ganking the culture of the area would dictate you could not do so without inciting an immediate coup and thus losing control of the area.
So suppose the game is set in Asia during the reign of the Mongol Empire. "The Mongols" would be a NPC culture that holds sway over the region of Mongolia and provides NPC soldiers to the rulers of that region. One would gain influence with The Mongols by completing content in Mongolia, opening up housing options in Mongolia.
"The Mongol Empire" would be a player faction that controls many regions including Mongolia but also other cultural regions such as "The Chinese".
You do not have to support "The Mongol Empire" to gain influence with "The Mongols". You simply have to do content in their region. In-fact, you could use influence gained with The Mongols to support a rebel faction were that your desire, making it more difficult for "The Mongol Empire" to control "The Mongols".
In a more peaceful region "Americans" might be a culture with "Republicans" and "Democrats" as player factions in that region. If you gain influence with Americans by doing content in America, you could use that influence to support the political party of your choice.
So say you are maintaining about 300k influence. That would allow you 300k points of influence in swaying the outcomes of elections toward the party of your choice. It would also allow you to buy a 300k influence requirement property. Or multiple properties totaling 300k influence (Though usually ones with higher requirements are more cost efficient than multiple lower cost ones). You could also contribute 300k influence toward a property with a greater value that you own with a group. Or get yourself a 50k influence home and contribute 250k toward a group property.
So essentially you don't need to "cozy up" to anyone but an NPC culture that has sway over the region. You can just also use your influence to take part in the politics of the region if you so choose.
You can still have really nice homes,even EQ2's homes albeit a little on the cheap side could be dressed up to look real nice.It also opens a whole new game of furnishings and quests and other ideas like FFXI had where your furniture would give some aura effect.
You can build onto your homes w/o taking up more space by going upwards so you have a longevity effect always adding to your home little by little.
You need to have a very strict and tough economy to make it all work so that players don't all have mansions/castles within a couple months.It should all look like a real world,rich/poor/rental apartments etc etc,store fronts,malls,you hire npc's at a cost to work in the stores for you etc etc.
There is soooo much more we could be doing with rpg's but all devs want to give us is a max level some quests and some bosses,so a VERY slack effort.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The economy definitely needs to be very strict, so I agree with that, too. But this doesn't mean just the play-to-player economy. The value of items dropped as loot would need strict adherence. A player should not be able to hunt orcs for 1 game day and be able to afford 4 game months of housing from the loot they collect.
If a game were to actually develop content around the RP aspect of an MMORPG, privileges could be attributed to the various housing districts, with things like invitations to social events (the Mayors birthday) or government functions (vote for the next Mayor). Where your character lives could determine what in-game functions they might have. Certainly, the character would need to live in the Merchant district in order to have their house serve as a merchant.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.