Player Hideouts/Houses

sin · April 2021

My group of friends and I come from Runescape and were thinking that some kind of housing system we can customize like the guild stronghold hall would be an amazing addition. Hope this could get looked into and added.

greywynd · April 2021

It's been asked for before.

armadeonx · April 2021

If you look on the page your thread is listed - look up - there's a housing discussion thread dating from 2015 and it was an old request when that was started...

callumf · April 2021

I love the hideout idea - a cave when you entered it took you to your secret batcave - or a sewer entrance to a hideout under PE.

It could bring in some serious money to the game...

But yes, its an old topic and sadly I cant see it ever happening tbh.

Great idea though about the hideouts

armadeonx · April 2021

Yeah I'd love to see it, who knows...

Unknown · April 2021

This content has been removed.

Unknown · April 2021

This content has been removed.

rockster · May 2021

I suggested aeons ago to the devs that we have somewhere private to sit around (you couldn't sit at the time either other than on the ground) and socialize and decorate and we ended-up with Strongholds. It would work better if it didn't kick you out when you go to a queue from there, it would be better if you just returned there on logging back in or coming back from queued content, something about being kicked out to the last travel gate you were at when you went there makes it seem kind of unwelcoming and not as real and permanent a hangout as it could be. But I really liked the idea of using all the little houses and building doors scattered throughout the game, PE, Ebon Downs etc, it would be nice if they could have worked out some way to rent you your own door which led to your own house map and that door was yours and only yours as long as you paid rent on it. Nice realism. We can dream anyway.

greywynd · May 2021

Strongholds are not persistent and they shouldn't be. The sheer number of guilds that the system would have to maintain if they were is enormous.

blargskull · May 2021

Some of us had housing here, it was removed. I still have my lairs I purchased over on Champions. I seriously doubt any player will spend cash money in Neverwinter for a hideout/lair here after knowing the next Neverwinter Team has the option to delete it without thought or recourse.

Many of the role-players (who left the game) had built personal housing using the Foundry. The editor with its contents were deleted in April 2019. We use to party up and hang in anyone's house or we could visit the house individually. Many of my friends are gone now. I don't think there are many here who recall doing it?

If you want housing, Champions Online still has affordable lairs for less than $10. The very best housing in any MMO is Black Desert. They give you the houses for free and the furniture will cost you about 20 dollars, I always wait for the sales. Of course, you can buy the vendor furniture, then you look like you don't have money. "Oh, I see you have the stuffed weasel from hunting weasels."

rockster · May 2021

greywynd said:
Strongholds are not persistent and they shouldn't be. The sheer number of guilds that the system would have to maintain if they were is enormous.

Doesn't change the sentiment in my post.

greywynd · May 2021

Unrealistic sentiment.

armadeonx · May 2021

They don't need to maintain the instance imo, just a recorded 'flag' when you log out that says something to the effect of 'location: playername@playerhouse' so when you log back in it knows to load the instance.

hotfrostworm · May 2021

They seem to be pointed in the direct opposite direction. Removal of clique content, in order to make space for other content they hope will be more populated. The player housing thread has been pinned for years, so I really cannot see this as a high priority to the production team. Forum moderator @zebular started that thread in September of 2015 while the game was fairly new and the Foundry editor was still available.

It is now going to be 6 years later this fall, nothing has changed. This is a small group of people who desire to play with a virtual doll house. Player housing will not pay the cost to create another elaborate version of something they removed already. If the subsystem was in existence today, I would expect its remaining days to be numbered.

Finally looking at the past record of new subsystems. they don't update and maintenance those systems to any degree beyond the release. Strongholds and workshops haven't been updated beyond their release. Major bugs and glitches have been attended and minor bugs and glitches remain within those systems.

rockster · May 2021

I'm still waiting for them to put-in an inventory slot for the statue of Hallaster. I'm not holding my breath.

mithrosnomore · May 2021

hotfrostworm said:
They seem to be pointed in the direct opposite direction. Removal of clique content, in order to make space for other content they hope will be more populated. The player housing thread has been pinned for years, so I really cannot see this as a high priority to the production team. Forum moderator @zebular started that thread in September of 2015 while the game was fairly new and the Foundry editor was still available.

It is now going to be 6 years later this fall, nothing has changed. This is a small group of people who desire to play with a virtual doll house. Player housing will not pay the cost to create another elaborate version of something they removed already. If the subsystem was in existence today, I would expect its remaining days to be numbered.

Finally looking at the past record of new subsystems. they don't update and maintenance those systems to any degree beyond the release. Strongholds and workshops haven't been updated beyond their release. Major bugs and glitches have been attended and minor bugs and glitches remain within those systems.

Player housing is not an "elaborate" version of the foundry. They are totally different things, even though both would involve some level of customization.

The foundry was a player creating an adventure. Some were good. Others? Not so much. But it took dev time to maintain and that is what killed it.

Player housing would require some amount of development and upkeep, of course, but it could also serve as a source of income with the goal being for those that want such things to pay back the development cost (and then some).

Is the money there? Maybe, maybe not, so they could start with the basics.

No free housing for anyone. You want a house? You buy it from the Zen store. Go with three types to start; A small cabin (4 rooms?), a medium-sized house (6/8 rooms?), and a large manor (12/16 rooms?).

They could have some basic decor drop in the game and/or add some recipes to crafting, but there would also be decor in the Zen market. A number of specific items available for direct purchase and some decor packs that offered a variety of items,

Then they wait and see.
Does the stuff sell? Great, they can now offer some add-ons that players can buy, like a stable or barn. Maybe add a "basement" option to the existing houses.

If it doesn't sell well enough? Then it's over. What's out there stays out there so they could continue to make a little money as time goes by, but they sink no further time or money into development.

Now I won't pretend to know how much time/money it would cost them start, though, but I imagine that there would be a fair bit of interest, especially if they:

1) Added some drops in the game. Some people may not have been aware of housing being added and finding a "rickety chair" as a drop might get them asking questions that lead to them buying a house.

2) Were able to set the base housing costs at a reasonable level. Higher price tags might help them get their money back faster, but people have to buy the product. A lower price tag may be more profitable from volume sales.

3) Offered players credit for expanding. I think more people would be willing to at least try the small cabin if they could get full credit if they later wanted to expand. Let's say the small cabin costs 1000 (just an example. Not suggesting an actual price), but then if someone later wanted to move up to a medium house or a large manor they would get 1000 Zen credit from trading in the small cabin, then it makes that initial investment in the cabin easier.

rockster · May 2021

When this thread popped back up it reminded me of the comment above "This is a small group of people who desire to play with a virtual doll house." and I wonder how this is any different to everyone playing dress-ups with their toons like dolls, which is basically everyone. IMO the more immersive the world the better, no need to disparage people because they like the idea of having even greater immersion than there is currently.

rockster · May 2021

mithrosnomore said:

hotfrostworm said:
They seem to be pointed in the direct opposite direction. Removal of clique content, in order to make space for other content they hope will be more populated. The player housing thread has been pinned for years, so I really cannot see this as a high priority to the production team. Forum moderator @zebular started that thread in September of 2015 while the game was fairly new and the Foundry editor was still available.

It is now going to be 6 years later this fall, nothing has changed. This is a small group of people who desire to play with a virtual doll house. Player housing will not pay the cost to create another elaborate version of something they removed already. If the subsystem was in existence today, I would expect its remaining days to be numbered.

Finally looking at the past record of new subsystems. they don't update and maintenance those systems to any degree beyond the release. Strongholds and workshops haven't been updated beyond their release. Major bugs and glitches have been attended and minor bugs and glitches remain within those systems.
Player housing is not an "elaborate" version of the foundry. They are totally different things, even though both would involve some level of customization.

The foundry was a player creating an adventure. Some were good. Others? Not so much. But it took dev time to maintain and that is what killed it.

Player housing would require some amount of development and upkeep, of course, but it could also serve as a source of income with the goal being for those that want such things to pay back the development cost (and then some).

Is the money there? Maybe, maybe not, so they could start with the basics.

No free housing for anyone. You want a house? You buy it from the Zen store. Go with three types to start; A small cabin (4 rooms?), a medium-sized house (6/8 rooms?), and a large manor (12/16 rooms?).

They could have some basic decor drop in the game and/or add some recipes to crafting, but there would also be decor in the Zen market. A number of specific items available for direct purchase and some decor packs that offered a variety of items,

Then they wait and see.
Does the stuff sell? Great, they can now offer some add-ons that players can buy, like a stable or barn. Maybe add a "basement" option to the existing houses.

If it doesn't sell well enough? Then it's over. What's out there stays out there so they could continue to make a little money as time goes by, but they sink no further time or money into development.

Now I won't pretend to know how much time/money it would cost them start, though, but I imagine that there would be a fair bit of interest, especially if they:

1) Added some drops in the game. Some people may not have been aware of housing being added and finding a "rickety chair" as a drop might get them asking questions that lead to them buying a house.

2) Were able to set the base housing costs at a reasonable level. Higher price tags might help them get their money back faster, but people have to buy the product. A lower price tag may be more profitable from volume sales.

3) Offered players credit for expanding. I think more people would be willing to at least try the small cabin if they could get full credit if they later wanted to expand. Let's say the small cabin costs 1000 (just an example. Not suggesting an actual price), but then if someone later wanted to move up to a medium house or a large manor they would get 1000 Zen credit from trading in the small cabin, then it makes that initial investment in the cabin easier.

Just had a thought that people could rent houses to other players (becoming landlords) and derive ingame AD or gold income from it. I'm sure another source of currency income would be welcome to people. So the houses might be expensive to purchase initially, but players could rent them out to other players and derive an extra revenue stream making it more an investment than a purchase, upgrade them internally to get better more lucrative rental contracts and maybe even sell them to other players and transfer ownership and rental rights.

armadeonx · May 2021

rockster#6227 said:

mithrosnomore said:

hotfrostworm said:
They seem to be pointed in the direct opposite direction. Removal of clique content, in order to make space for other content they hope will be more populated. The player housing thread has been pinned for years, so I really cannot see this as a high priority to the production team. Forum moderator @zebular started that thread in September of 2015 while the game was fairly new and the Foundry editor was still available.

It is now going to be 6 years later this fall, nothing has changed. This is a small group of people who desire to play with a virtual doll house. Player housing will not pay the cost to create another elaborate version of something they removed already. If the subsystem was in existence today, I would expect its remaining days to be numbered.

Finally looking at the past record of new subsystems. they don't update and maintenance those systems to any degree beyond the release. Strongholds and workshops haven't been updated beyond their release. Major bugs and glitches have been attended and minor bugs and glitches remain within those systems.
Player housing is not an "elaborate" version of the foundry. They are totally different things, even though both would involve some level of customization.

The foundry was a player creating an adventure. Some were good. Others? Not so much. But it took dev time to maintain and that is what killed it.

Player housing would require some amount of development and upkeep, of course, but it could also serve as a source of income with the goal being for those that want such things to pay back the development cost (and then some).

Is the money there? Maybe, maybe not, so they could start with the basics.

No free housing for anyone. You want a house? You buy it from the Zen store. Go with three types to start; A small cabin (4 rooms?), a medium-sized house (6/8 rooms?), and a large manor (12/16 rooms?).

They could have some basic decor drop in the game and/or add some recipes to crafting, but there would also be decor in the Zen market. A number of specific items available for direct purchase and some decor packs that offered a variety of items,

Then they wait and see.
Does the stuff sell? Great, they can now offer some add-ons that players can buy, like a stable or barn. Maybe add a "basement" option to the existing houses.

If it doesn't sell well enough? Then it's over. What's out there stays out there so they could continue to make a little money as time goes by, but they sink no further time or money into development.

Now I won't pretend to know how much time/money it would cost them start, though, but I imagine that there would be a fair bit of interest, especially if they:

1) Added some drops in the game. Some people may not have been aware of housing being added and finding a "rickety chair" as a drop might get them asking questions that lead to them buying a house.

2) Were able to set the base housing costs at a reasonable level. Higher price tags might help them get their money back faster, but people have to buy the product. A lower price tag may be more profitable from volume sales.

3) Offered players credit for expanding. I think more people would be willing to at least try the small cabin if they could get full credit if they later wanted to expand. Let's say the small cabin costs 1000 (just an example. Not suggesting an actual price), but then if someone later wanted to move up to a medium house or a large manor they would get 1000 Zen credit from trading in the small cabin, then it makes that initial investment in the cabin easier.
Just had a thought that people could rent houses to other players (becoming landlords) and derive ingame AD or gold income from it. I'm sure another source of currency income would be welcome to people. So the houses might be expensive to purchase initially, but players could rent them out to other players and derive an extra revenue stream making it more an investment than a purchase, upgrade them internally to get better more lucrative rental contracts and maybe even sell them to other players and transfer ownership and rental rights.

I would hate that

rockster · May 2021

why? Just curious.

mithrosnomore · May 2021

rockster#6227 said:

Just had a thought that people could rent houses to other players (becoming landlords) and derive ingame AD or gold income from it. I'm sure another source of currency income would be welcome to people. So the houses might be expensive to purchase initially, but players could rent them out to other players and derive an extra revenue stream making it more an investment than a purchase, upgrade them internally to get better more lucrative rental contracts and maybe even sell them to other players and transfer ownership and rental rights.

Why would anyone want to rent a house?
Certainly not on any sort of long-term basis, and short-term rentals aren't likely to bring in much gold/AD.
Can I take someone else into my workshop?
If I was in a guild then that stronghold works with other guildies, at least. Can you invite non-guildies to join you? Never been in a guild.
At absolute worst I find some place out of the way where few people go, or even take some time to clear an instance and then start RPing in private in the now-empty location.

And then, further, why would someone be willing to pay more in rent because someone stuffed "better" decorations inside?

I could *maybe* see someone wanting to have a short-term location for a thing if it was done up right... This was something that people would do in the foundry* as I understand it, where someone might make a "dungeon" that was not a dungeon, but was instead just a church where players might go for a wedding between characters or something, but now someone decorates a manor room as a chapel and another one as a "reception hall" and then asking for money to allow access?

The foundry was free. People would go to a "wedding chapel dungeon" to have a character marriage, but it didn't cost them money to do that.
You start charging money for it?

The cathedral at Helm's Hold might start looking really good, or maybe a waterfall in Sharandar.

Never mind that now Cryptic also has to develop a "leasing system" for the housing.

Simple housing should only require an invite system. The owner can put people on their access list and those players can enter the house. Simple. Maybe also have a "allow party members" box so they could just team with people to let them in temporarily without having to grant and then revoke regular access.

But to rent it out?
Not that I would, mind you, but if I was thinking about renting a place for a giant party and wanted to have it for 24 hours, I think it only reasonable that I be guaranteed two things if I am going to give someone some AD/gold.

The first being that I and whoever I invite have the place for the full 24 hours. I am not trusting someone to hold up their end of the deal, and without a system in place I could give them the AD and never even be able to set foot in the place afterwards.

The second is that no one else be allowed to lease the place at the same time. No party crashers. I paid for the place, it has to be set up that, in effect, I own the place other than being able to redecorate, but the actual owner has to be locked out of access and redecoration for the duration of the lease.

Seems like a lot of work for very little payoff.

I think that expensive housing is a sure loser.

Now, maybe the dev time required can not justify a "reasonable" price. I do not know. And, of course, "reasonable" can be debated on it's own.
But if you want to sell housing, make money on housing, then you want more people buying, not fewer.
I think that means setting the base housing cost at an attractive price point, and setting the decoration costs at an acceptable level.

Maybe they can jack up the prices on the larger houses, but that basic house, that smallest house, I think needs to be available to the maximum number of people as is feasible.

* That still doesn't make the foundry the same thing as player housing.

armadeonx · May 2021

Cos the houses would be owned by the whales and we'd all be paying them...

Player Hideouts/Houses

Comments