Open Discussion: Player Housing

[Maiyannah]

Yeah Given that this would require Dev overview I think we can be pretty relaxed on the specifics and just have a general "If you have an idea for your player house bring it up in your application and we can chat about it." mentality

Moreover this isn't an automated system, so we don't really have to consider exploits. It's as simple as "if we know they are buying stuff up, we just say no." We don't have to systematically account for bad actors. We're vetting them as is since its an application.

[Ouroboros]

If the limit is going to be per-character and not per-player, at some point down the line there is the potential for the module to become bloated with unused residences if there's not some sort of counterbalance in place to winnow away the unused stuff, which in turn opens up more issues of X character being shelves for a long time, followed by them returning and having the complaint that their house is gone. But these are probably issues of putting the cart before the horse.

[Maiyannah]

If the limit is going to be per-character and not per-player, at some point down the line there is the potential for the module to become bloated with unused residences if there's not some sort of counterbalance in place to winnow away the unused stuff, which in turn opens up more issues of X character being shelves for a long time, followed by them returning and having the complaint that their house is gone. But these are probably issues of putting the cart before the horse.

Correct, but this is something we can monitor - we can tag the entry transistion to drop a log line in the server log or even a seperate file, something like "House XYZ was used on this date" and then just watch for ones which aren't being actively used and have them removed.

Diagetically, this is handled other places by having them taxed on a regular interval. Don't pay your taxes? Dont get to keep your property. OOCly, this can explain them being removed when they fail activity checks.

I might consider permanent houses that don't have this for the real fussy players, at some considerable multiplier in terms of cost.

[wilkins1952]

It would be easy enough as well to say "Hey if you don't plan on playing this PC for a while, Let the Devs know and they can unlink the house from the transition." the ERF will still exist then if the player comes back to that PC easy enough to just reconnect the transitions it's just editing two variables.

[Maiyannah]

The problem becomes supply in that case: what if someone else takes that house? What happens if that occurs, and no "free" buildings are available?

I don't think this is going to be a concern for a considerable time, and this is hardly an unsolvable problem, but it is nonetheless something best considered at the outset, so we can design the system around it, rather than having to shoehorn it in later when we have the "oh shit!" moment.

[wilkins1952]

If that ever becomes an issue they just get a new door in the place where they have a home and hand wave, The interior in that situation would remain the same anyway.

[Maiyannah]

One way to get around that the rented properties to at least some degree is if there's apartments/tenament housing. You can connect it there pretty much indefinitely, we can just lengthen the hallways if need be. That might work as a semi diagetic explanation for it. "Well your property deed lapsed so you ended up in the apartments"

[Maiyannah]

As this has been sitting a bit now, I think we can wrap this up.

Would I be correct to view the consensus as:

1. Any player can rent a house or shop.
2. Native players can buy a house or shop.
3. Price of properties will be dependant on their size
4. Factions can purchase larger properties
5. Players buying the property can submit the interior to be linked to the module
6. Inactive players will have their properties unlinked after a set time

If I have this consensus correct than two questions arise:

What's the limitation on size we want to place for player housing, and factions?

and:

How long do we want to leave houses prior to unlinking?

[Ouroboros]

I'd say that we might consider a rule against sitting on houses to resell them to players at a mark up. Also I'm uncertain if factions need a larger property unless they intend for it to act as a barracks for every member also; most of the time I see such places as gathering locales and social hubs rather than being used as actual homes for members.

Size limitations are entirely what's reasonable relative to the price and locale, I think. I'm not overly familiar with the dimensions that NWN toolset uses but if it's anything like NWN 2 I expect it works in square 'cells' that are something like 2x2 meters, in which case I'd expect a common single person home to be a single floor that's maybe 8x8 in size, at least in Barovia? For multiple story houses I'd also bulge out that size by an extra 2x2 to account for the stairs between floors, rather than have them eat up area costs.

Abandoned homes, I'd say normally we'd have to look at player activity and demand. Do we want every single player to be able to obtain a house, or do we want artificial scarcity ala FFXIV? I lean towards abundance personally, but not to the point a single player has like seven homes for each of their characters. Without knowing activity and demand I feel comfortable ballparking a 3 month timer from last activity. Not sure how that would be tracked, other than an area script that starts counting days since the area was last loaded by a player or something.

[Maiyannah]

I'd say that we might consider a rule against sitting on houses to resell them to players at a mark up.

In Barovia only the Burgomaster, a Boyar, or the Count can sell land, and even then it's still technically a lease (all land belongs to the Count). I don't think it's worth chasing after players whom do this, as its a time sink, however, I would say the reasonable diagetic compromise is it is going to be the leaseholder whom is responsible for the property.

Also I'm uncertain if factions need a larger property unless they intend for it to act as a barracks for every member also; most of the time I see such places as gathering locales and social hubs rather than being used as actual homes for members.

It's often, frankly, a flex, but it's a very appropriate diagetic thing to let factions whom want to flex, do so, so I'm not worried about it. We'll make it cost considerably more in the purchase or lease, and that can be that, I think. When we develop the module, we can control the sizing and availability when we place buildings after all.

Size limitations are entirely what's reasonable relative to the price and locale, I think. I'm not overly familiar with the dimensions that NWN toolset uses but if it's anything like NWN 2 I expect it works in square 'cells' that are something like 2x2 meters, in which case I'd expect a common single person home to be a single floor that's maybe 8x8 in size, at least in Barovia? For multiple story houses I'd also bulge out that size by an extra 2x2 to account for the stairs between floors, rather than have them eat up area costs.

Average small house in the toolset is 2x2, average medium one 3x3 or 4x4, large ones usually 6x6. I think those seem like good size.

Abandoned homes, I'd say normally we'd have to look at player activity and demand. Do we want every single player to be able to obtain a house, or do we want artificial scarcity ala FFXIV? I lean towards abundance personally, but not to the point a single player has like seven homes for each of their characters. Without knowing activity and demand I feel comfortable ballparking a 3 month timer from last activity. Not sure how that would be tracked, other than an area script that starts counting days since the area was last loaded by a player or something.

We can track this by having a script on the transition to the house that updates a seperate log file for the house. Then every so often (probably like daily?) we run a script that creates an DM ticket or similar saying "yo, someone hasn't been in the house for X long".

A consideration is if we want it to be "anyone going in the house" or just the owner. The latter is more complex to figure out, but hardly impossible. There's costs and benefits to both approaches, so I'd welcome thoughts.

Personally, I am of the mind to make it be just the owner, to stymie the resale concern voiced. This would however cut out the possibility of the leaseholder renting the property unless they occasionally visit it, which might be a pain.