Posted by Mo on 02/19
First off, I like it lots, now i can slave my unclanneds into doing
something after i exhaust their clanned life. Initial cost, imho, is
a tad bit low, and expansion costs a tad bit high, but not by too much.
Also, think rent for rooms is fine, just that eq is rather high -- hopeful
there can be container-furniture that costs some decent amount of rent
and store items in them for 10% of their rent, or something. Esp houses
designed as shops, since i doubt anyone could seriously set up a shop at
the rate eq rents in houses atm.
A few things I would like done are partial demolition, rooms, doors, and
allowing non-owners to see what the possibility/features are when visiting
other people's houses. Or have it a toggle-able option for the owner of th
house, if it's deemed private.
Transferring of ownership should be installed asap, i think, mostly in
part because I wouldn't like any of the houses go away -- at worst, we can
have the house go into "hiding" -- that is, it will be no longer accessibl
unless somebody uses the build command, and decides to pay for it.
Why i try for this is because i think it will add more history to the mud.
Granted we have HoL, but HoL is slow to expand and doesn't reflect too muc
of the players that play here everyday. By maintaining some record of hous
ing, i think the mud will be able to retain much more history, and
be more interesting. If we run out of space, then the cost of
buying off existing lots would go lower so ppl can afford them -- and
more housing areas could probably be added while adding more areas.
(I doubt we would run into any spot problems soon... and I don't
see too much trouble of making a suburban district in london or other
little towns where it can be expanded almost infinitely :p)
Thursday, February 18, 09:52AM
I too would like to see the rent on EQ left in hall dropped by at least 80
percent. And, I would like to see the rent on 2ndary rooms halved. I
like the new locks feature, too. Can I put doors and extra locks inbetwee
soem of the rooms of my house?
Thursday, February 18, 04:09PM
I like the housing system as it is. I think it is more difficult for
active Pkers to make that kind of money, so I would be happy if the
initial cost was lower. That is really the only thing I would like
to see changed, though. (gives a big thumbs up)
Thursday, February 18, 05:49PM
Partial demolishing: This is gonna be tricky, if possible at all.
Because of the way housing is set up, demolishing a single room
isn't really feasible at this point. It may be in the future, but
there are a few concerns which I need to address before adding it
Doors shouldn't be a problem, other than the cost of a door is
tracked on the room itself rather than on the door, so modifying
the cost would be a pain
On initial/secondary costs: The room prices are based on 3 things:
Expandability, features and functionality (it's slightly modified
by location as well). The functionality, game-wise, of a secondary
room is not so far off from a primary room (a room that connects
to the main mud) to justify a radical difference in price (as it
is base cost before features for a secondary room are around 57%
of the initial rooms)
On item cost: Shops will be handled radically differently if/when
we have player automated shops. For both memory and logical reasons,
we didn't want houses to become 'storage lockers' therefore the
seemingly steep rate of charging for objects. I have and am
considering a change in this number, however, I think the fartherst
I would ever consider modifying the cost would be to around 50%
of its current value.
On prices vs pkill: Houses are not supposed to be easy to get. if
getting money is that much harder for pkill enabled people, then
that is a penalty they will have to suffer for having access to
the pkill feature itself. If base our costs on the pkill community
alone, housing will be that much easier for non-pk people to
purchase. We want housing to be available but not something
everyone has. There are memory concerns, speed concerns and
space concerns. One of the main balancing positions to these
is the cost offset.
On buying/selling pre-existing houses: this will be in soon, I don't
think the functionality is needed immediately. As far as repo'd
houses maintaining their location until someone rebuilds there...
that's literally not possible under the current code because
necessary for such to exist are not tracked and it would be almost
frivolous to track them. Maybe in the future, but that's a root-level
design concern for the housing system, one that I considered and
decided to discard for elegance of the system. A choice that is
ingrained in the basic system design of housing that would be hard
if not nearly impossible to back out and change.
Friday, February 19, 12:31AM
Mmm. i didnt think it was any harder for pkers to maintain housing,
just that in my case that it's fairly pointless (having a rich clan)
and redundant (i'd have too many chars owning houses. -frown-).
Actually i think it's easier for pkers to get housing simply because
it is more of a necessity than it is for non-pkers, especially if you
plan to stay rogue or something. Matter of incentive, just like xp,
not a matter of difficulty. Matter of repetition and boredom too, tho :p
As far as trading ownership and such goes, i feel that it should be
possible to give houses away, and done so quite easily -- but maybe at
a great cost. I doubt there is a point of making the procedure really
hard -- just the cost. We could set it such that the player 'gives up'
his house to the mud, at which point the house will remain (closed) until
a buyer shows up and buys it from the mud (double-whammy in terms of
mud economics, sort of) at a price set by the mud -- hopefully lower
than the cost put in it to build it, but who knows.
Personally think having a house should give you 100 prestige at all
times just because, but that's just me getting annoyed at losing prestige
and it taking gazillion of mobkills to earn it back (yeah, asking for
praise is a foreign concept to me :p).