Problem is this isnt the real world, one major difference being that this world is much smaller, not nearly enough space for everyone to build and the end result is a landscape that is cluttered with houses and towns not to mention eyesores that pop up in places that they have no reason to belong. Instancing really is the best solution here, plenty of space to build in suitable areas and the larger gameworld outside the instance is not cluttered by player housing and towns.

Only for those who got in early, I think you will find that Darkfall is only really popular with those who were there day 1 and managed to level up while there were no overly powerful players to rob them of their lunch money and hard earned goods, there is no real reason for a new player to start up in Darkfall unless they fall under the protection of an already well established and powerful guild and even then I doubt that new players have many options when it comes to housing locations or even creating new cities.

Can't see the screenshot, but I think I can guess what it looks like However, all the issues you point out can be sorted out. Of course certain zones can be off-limits for player buildings. Any number of "immersive" reasons can be thought up to explain this. Having to travel for a long time to find some landscape... well, if the world is large enough there will be a good ratio of built-up and uninhabited area... For me one of the biggest immersion-killers in MMO's is the scale. It's just to small... A big, thriving city should not be ran through in minutes. If travelling from A to B is only an annoyance because it's not part of the game experience, than yes, it should be as easy and quick as possible. I'm hoping for a game where travelling is part of the experience. Where 10 minutes of riding a horse through a town is actually a good experience. But I digress... I have no idea what can and cannot be done with the Hero engine, but instancing completely kills MMO's for me.


In a "virtual world", the starting point is determined. And then the players change the world. So if players are able to form a settlement somewhere, it is by definition not inappropriate. Restrictions on where to build can be put in place, preferably in an immersive way... for instance, if a player tries to build something to close to a Daedric ruin, the Daedric prince, or his followers, warn him/her not to do so. Game mechanic wise this could then mean that you simply can't, or, even better, you can, but your house will be raided and burned to the ground (hey, we warned you!).

If a part of the wilderness remains remote and untouched, there's a reason for it. Either it is too inhospitable. Or too remote. Or it's haunted. Or inhabitited by dangerous creatures. If there's no reason, it's rather unimmersive to have it remain untouched, I think. It is just a constant reminder that you're in a pre-fab game world.

Making the world bigger might be a challenge, but it's one worth taking on I believe. Eyesores are relative, I think it's very possible to create logical "rules" that will prevent this. I also believe that player cities and such should be "dynamic", as in, if they aren't used for too long they become "abandoned" and can be taken over (and subsequently used or destroyed).

I realise this would be a monumental task to do right, but I do think it's possible. Whereas any form of instanced housing might be easier, but to me, a complete waste of time.

You make a valid point and definitely one of the major faults of Darkfall was that it was not accommodating towards a new player base. That being said, this issue could really be solved by the addition of the 3-faction conflict. Unlike Darkfall, where factions were irrelevant (was just based on who had the largest player alliance to zerg), this game has legitimate purpose for player cities to be actively contested for the benefits of that faction and guild. This is essentially how the entire province of Cyrodiil will work already anyways.

We also wouldn't have to worry about the skill progression issue like Darkfall as it has already been confirmed the game will use a leveling system that will have a level cap, resolving the issue of newcomers never being able to catch up to the veterans. I still think Darkfall's approach to player cities was a great idea, but definitely needed some tweaking for the game. MMOs are a social/team-based game, so any city that were to be settled and needed to be conquered would require a lot of friends and allies, further building the player-driven politics that will add endless hours of enjoyment.

You are not wrong in saying that the player base should have a bigger effect in shaping the world however I feel that allowing players to place houses and cities where they like in the actual game world is a little too intrusive, and while some of you say that it can be balanced by making player houses or cities open to capture or destruction by other players (for example if someone builds in your spot burn his house down and build your own out of its ashes) I am not sure that I am all that comfortable with things such as player housing or cites that would require a large investment of both time and resources being so easily lost. In order to keep your house or city from being burned down you would almost need to keep watch of it 24/7 and I am not sure that even a guild could get enough players to keep watch and protect their assets from large scale attacks 24/7.

I like the idea of capturable outposts that can be captured and controlled not by one guild alone but the entire faction as a whole so long as it doesnt require a large player or guild investment, after all you dont really want to be spending much on something that is so easily lost and if the outpost is owned by the entire faction then odds are that there will be a large enough player base to actively contest and protect the outpost at any given time. Player built cities on the other hand require a large investment and if they are lost so easily there really isnt much incentive for a guild to even bother with one, if you want player cities and housing I still say instancing is the best way to go.

You are right. It should not be easy to conquer such a thing. In Neocron we had defence towers and "city"wall and such things. In eve there are turrets and similar defence mechanisms at the gates and at the stations. And the defending players respawn close to the thing they want to defend. So its always easier to defend a position then to conquer it.

And it shouldn't be too expensive to rebuild it, too. It's all a matter of balancing. For example a nice feature - for the carebears - would be that its only possible to CHANGE a fortress but not to destroy it. So if you loose your fortress, you can come back a week later, take your fortress back and rebuild a few defense mechanisms. Even the guild or personal lockbox in the fortress is not lost since this is just a shortcut to the guild bank. So nothing is really lost. Only some coin(for destroyed defense towers and such things) and the ability to use the special buildings in your fortress.

It's of course down to personal preference, but I don't see it as intrusive. I see not being able to do so as restrictive.

The system should allow for people to safely use houses, but, there are many ways to implement this. You could, for instance, allow people to build houses in existing (NPC) city-zones, where they are protected by that city (and it's guards, etc). You could introduce penalties for attacking other players' structures unprovoked. You could add defense which are active while the player is offline. Etc, etc.

Your opinion is noted. Thank you.

I'd totally vouch for that kind of system given that the problems could be averted and the system could be implemented well.

That's the Vanguard way as well plus they are in the open world.

They can go this way http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5lXH4PIxww where everything you see in this vid is player made,wallpaper,bricks,paint,mortar every single thing is player made.

Or they can go this way http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiBUbMIk5uM if they do have housing this is the way they will go IMO.

can someone explain what instancing is?

Basically, it's when you go into a location (a dungeon, for example), and each person/group gets a separate "copy" (or "instance") of it from everyone else where other people don't show up or affect what happens in your version of it.

Yeah Mortal's houses are in the open world too. They also have cities too with walls and major buildings.

Here is my ideal system (based on SWG and Mortal Online):

- "Settlements" can be created in most flat, open areas in the world that aren't in proximity to major landmarks. There will be protected areas of course where settlements cannot be built. This will require a MASSIVE world with a lot of open area.

- Hostile mobs will still spawn inside settlement areas (not houses) unless the settlement's leader employs NPC guards, which will attack and kill hostile mobs when spotted on their patrols.

- In order to create a "settlement" you must be a guild-leader. This will be your guild's settlement. Depending on the size and influence of the guild limits the size of the settlement.

- If a non-guilded group or individual want a house they will buy a land deed from their nation's magistrate for a LARGE amount of money which will allow them a very small area for a single building as long as it is not in proximity to other guild settlements. Guild settlements however WILL be able to encroach on individual homesteads.

- In turn, guilds are not easy to create, they require a minimum player count and a large amount of gold to be paid to your nation's magistrate.

- Guilds can allow non-guild members to settle in their territory, and can impose taxes.

- Houses/buildings take a LOT of resources to create and a LONG time to build.

- There are different types, styles and sizes of houses that anyone can build if they have the blueprints for them.

- Houses each have an owner, co-owners, tenants and guests lists (with limits on number of each depending on size)

- In order to level up your settlement you need to build certain buildings (as well as meet guild population and influence requirements) like Tavern/Inn, Blacksmith, Lumber Mill, Town Hall, Walls, Keep, Castle, Farm, Windmill, etc.

- Settlement levels are (from lowest to highest): Homestead, Hamlet, Village, Town, City, Capitol (special circumstances must be met).

- Settlements can be populated with NPCs that do certain things (town crier, barmen/maids, bards, vendors, miners, workers, guards, etc.) all costing money over time and limited by the level of the settlement.

- Houses require a lot of upkeep and if they are not met they will fall into ruin. Any member of the town can build on top of a ruined house, using it to mitigate the resource requirements for the new house (using the older lumber and nails etc) and claiming it as their own. House owners can repair ruined houses for the same amount of mitigated resources. it all depends on who gets to it first. A ruined house will stay on the server for 7 real-life days before disappearing completely.

I really really hope they change their minds and put player housing in TESO, if ANY game should do it then it would be this game, some rules I think could help in managing it would be:

- Instancing, yes I know some hate that word but face it we need to limit the SWG problem, messes up the landscape. There could be some spots on the map reserved for player settlements, perhaps even streets in the city which then gets instanced to accomodate more players. The amount of slots can provide a basis for faction warefare. Another way is to set apart slabs of land for the players to mold non instanced, but a little out of the way and mostly just copy-paste forest to keep it cheap.

- Player run shops, we need this to get a real economy going, an auction house just can't beat the feeling of browsing shops, EQ2 did it a nice way of adding tax to auction house purchases instead of going to the vendor. The shops can serve as a basis for homes and furnituring, those things practically was all SWG ran on. They can be in setlements or instanced in the city. Cost in terms of gold and status can be a major limiting factor.

- Crafters could make better gear when using special smiths and such found in settlements

- Settlements can give income in the form of farm land, livestock, minerals and such which obviously other will try and take from you. I say "PvP settlements" for high gain income and "PvE settlements" for the casuals, where instead of players attacking you can have the friendly ogres or undead comming in on raids.


This whole thing really servers as excellent sandbox content which I'm sure TESO will need to keep players occupied.

If they did it, I'd want there to be no instancing. The whole point of having housing, is to connect the player to the world. If you make me go through a loading screen, to get to a single room that no one else will EVER see, then what's the point?

Set up certain areas as designated spots for settlements to be built. If there's no space for you to build a house, then wait till they add more land with an expansion. Have houses degrade, and need attention in order to keep from falling into disrepair. That way, if somebody leaves the game, their house isn't forever taking up a spot. If, after all this, there's still no room for you to build a house -- that svcks. Let people "rent" a room in the tavern, and instance that.