Please please please add housing

[Rathothis]

For the question of focus you are right. The argumention is similar and also valid. It sure is a decision funcom makes. Do they want a WoW environment at the cost of the attractive mix they have?

That is a decision FC took a long time ago, under Sil's lead. You may debate whether that decision was good for the game, or bad. I would even go as far as admitting that quite likely, it was bad. But that was long in the past, and now we are here with a game that has gone pretty far down the WoW route. I find the proposition that this choice is reversible without major investment into marketing debatable, to say the least.

But if it is reversible at least to a limited extent, this can only come from PvP. AoC once had a healthy PvP population and a few (by no means many) players may return to check out PvP updates. By contrast, AoC never was a crafting-focused game. Trying to sell an old game on something that never was among its strong points also strikes me as a dubious proposition.

Surveys are one thing. You have to be able to read them. If only 5% answer they don't do crafting, it can mean more than just one thing, depending a lot on the question asked. And i do remember the survey being not very professional leaving much ambiguity and room for interpretation.

All true, but it's the only data we ever saw. If I had the choice between low quality data and mere guessing, I generally find it hard to completely throw the data out of the window.

[Kurt2013]

Well, i am just saying that investing in some other content apart from the big line (can be done by giving the devs more room or some areas to fool around with and not force their creativity on one big project) or invest into delegating some of the gameworld expansion to the players can only be beneficial.

With creativity, you can't enforce it and expect a turnout like "more time invested, the better the idea". If the atmosphere is bad for example, a big team with high resources can often give worse results (when it comes to the design, unique ideas and the game system) than a small team with a vision (this does not mean the current team in aoc has no vision, they might be blocked for some other reason and even then not everyone has to share the vision) and freedom to execute and include things on the side.

Nothing is worse for some creative minds, than being said to: "stop doing this, we have no resources! shouldn't you be working on...". To be effective in creating things, you need diversion and not a complete focus. Once you have an idea though, that should change.
If you are interested on this topic, John Cleese "sums" it up quite nicely in a short lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU5x1Ea7NjQ

I do agree mainly about pvp, but i still think they have a lot more routes open in other areas too. That is why i was insisting on crafting to expand player customization and not dumb down the guild city mechanics even more or remove them.
The vanity tab has been bashed from the start as well...but do you think it was a failure?
And if few people use the creation system of guild cities, it does not have to mean, the idea is bad. It could lack things in the execution that can be fixed with a cheap and quick change even (like letting existing statues taken down with some mat reimburse, let existing buildings moved around or replaced with cultural customized skin, reduce the material grind for non progress related stuff etc. etc.).

[Manilavanilla]

I don´t get it, sure it would need some work, maybe even a lot of work but BOTH games (AOC+TSW) could use the same system, creating a new income possibility via the store.

All furniture assets are already in the games, just make them usable and placeable within a dedicated player instance.

Yes crafting should tie into this somehow.

I am no programmer but this does not sound impossible to me, and I think they could get the investment back over time via the store too.

Sell VIP apartments, Villas in the main cities and cool stuff for decoration, give players an even more immersive experience.

[Rathothis]

With creativity, you can't enforce it and expect a turnout like "more time invested, the better the idea".

Yes, but then you cannot blame FC for failing in the creative department. Both AoC and TSW are games with a lot of creative merit, yet Gaute described AoC as "dubious a success" in Slith's interview, and TSW was quite simply an apocalyptic failure.

What they should focus on now is stuff that is likely to provide a reasonable return on investment. Not take gambles on creative solutions which they do not have the capacity to sell. Because even the ideal player housing system doesn't sell itself, especially in a 6 year old game.

[Bibik]

I am no programmer but this does not sound impossible to me, and I think they could get the investment back over time via the store too.

They can also quickly create new sub-80 epics and sell them for more cash in the shop. It's actually what they're doing (only updates on conan shop). better return on investment : low devtime for decent gain. I even expect that gains are better than any housing items.

[Kurt2013]

That is exactly what happens if decisionmakers are too scared to try out or invest in longterm stuff. They forget to proper evaluate risk and gain and only see investment and gain and often take the wrong numbers for the time and their gain expectations. They put themselves just under unnecessary pressure this way.

Btw, the new stuff in the shop is nice, but all this development can be wasted, if they don't allow for accountwide buy option and/or lower the prices or keep discriminating the f2p crowd. I simply do not believe they have been successfull in the past with overpriced charbound power items. These items do not help with getting rid of f2p limitations and get useless soon, if you sub or are levelling..
On max lvl though, they can charge a bit more of course...especially if accountbound (just 15% as with vanity might be too low imo).

Keeping at this example, i simply don't understand why they are not minimizing the risk here and use these models and stuff for ingame additions as well. Wether ingame shops, new faction stuff, vanity quest rewards etc.. If they get the pricing wrong with shop only stuff it is risky. And don't even tell me, it is not possible because of low "resources" to add a repeatable quest, change some lootlists etc..

In their defense, they might be working on such things with the achievement system and they already mentioned some new quests as well as use the new models for crafting or keep them in some drawer for future use. But we have to judge from actions, not words.

[lmagowz]

The only way for housing to work in AOC is to have it in PVP zones so I can gank you when your trying to open the door and take your key to jack your shyt.

Otherwise it's as useless as the current empty guild cities with empty buildings where all anyone does is craft and store their junk on trader.

I heard rumors what siege wins and raid boss kills increase chance of critical craft in new crafting system.

[burmese]

In most games with some sort of housing, anyone can get living quarters, whether they belong to a guild or not. If they add housing to the guild cities after the crafting revamp, should just be available to those who are in guilds. Will work as another carrot for ppl to join guilds. Could also link a greater inventory size to that, as well, representing storage space gained by possessing some living quarters - say 30 more slots.

[Purplelotus]

No point on even discussing it. If TSW doesn't get housing, neither will we. Funcom just simply does not have the resources.

Look at the crafting revamp, it's been nearly 3 years since the announcement was made that there was going to be an overhaul. That's what happens when Funcom tries to build an entirely new system from the ground up w/ what they currently have. Housing would take much longer.

And, imo I'd rather have other important systems revamped. Sieges/Battlekeeps being a huge one. Guild cities/Renown too.