Status
Not open for further replies.

Zyaedra

Proposal
  • All homes would cost 1 lot when placed and allow 100 items for their base storage.
  • Players would be able to use their available lots to increase the item space in their home by 100 per lot used (via the Structure Management Terminal).
  • For reward/special homes that currently allow more than 100 items per lot, players could convert the structure into a storage box (the size of the *extra storage) that could be used in another structure. I am not sure how this would work, maybe the player radials the deed and chooses to convert the deed into extra storage... but hopefully the process would be reversable if the player later decides to use that structure.
    Edit for clarity: reward/special homes would also require 1-lot to be placed but would retain their extra storage.
*extra storage is anything greater than (number of lots) x (100). Example: the Hangar requires 2 lots and allows 500 item storage, so it has 300 extra storage.
Justification
Encourages players to choose/use the houses they like and add to them, rather than weighing/choosing what's most efficient. If players are using additional homes just for storage, this would allow them to consolidate everything into one house if they wanted. I don't know if this can be done lol... I imagine it would probably be a huge headache to implement.
Motivation
Along with adding flexibility, this would give players a reason to participate in content to earn those special reward structures even if they don't want to use the actual structures.
Imagine not having a reason to prioritize item space or lot size over aesthetic....
 
Upvote -2 Downvote
Voting on this suggestion has been paused.
Tyr said:
I am no one. Just the ability to have and place 40 large houses is an issue in itself. Can you even begin to think about what could come from that alone even without the other problems. Feedback that disagrees with someone or that points out a possible flaw is not negative. I think the idea is creative and good if it can be reworded and reworked to avoid the common sense issues that people have brought up already not to mention the ones not thought of.

This is why it can sometimes be good to hash it out before it is a PV if a person is sensitive to feedback. You can hear people point out stuff and refine your idea to address the issues when you can all the time knowing there is always going to be someone who may just dislike it just because. So yeah go ahead and jump off Aurahna because feedback is being given that you don't care for.

And FYI from the community standards piece -
  • Intended to break, implies the breaking of, or discusses the anonymity of a Staff Account;
Click to expand...

I take feedback all the time, and I am not the original PV. In my experience professional and personal the "It has to be done this way, or it will cause issues" or "It cannot be done" is something I thrive to find a better solution for. However, you hijacked the PV's post and policed it by responded to other peoples questions or concerns with misinformation, and are not really in the position to give a definitive answer on developer responsibilities. My 1st post was primarily about people like you in a community that tend to be outspoken above others. Your final post confirms it with just about everything you said and the "Jump off" comment, which was not needed.. Not many people want to deal with someone like that in a "Player Voice" forum. It is a turn off, and less and less people will post their ideas because of it.

40 large houses... come on. That is not the intent or what was being brought up. But you brought it up so let's play this through. You would have 40 large houses with 100 storage... that is a deterrent already. I did not even do that with lot trades and you could trade with like 8 other servers.

The idea is what is important here, the how is not something you or anyone here has to figure out. That is up the the development team to see if lines up with their roadmap and if they can do it with little to no impact to the user.
 
While I understand the desire for more lot flexibility, this would break a part of what keeps player housing in check.
Just with the example Tyr mentioned is enough to downvote.
 
Aurahna said:
40 large houses... come on. That is not the intent or what was being brought up.

The idea is what is important here, the how is not something you or anyone here has to figure out. That is up the the development team to see if lines up with their roadmap and if they can do it with little to no impact to the user.
Click to expand...
So no one should respond really because it is just the idea that counts? If that is the case why even have a reply button. And yes 40 large houses because you just know someone would go down that road. But carry on. I have said my piece and am done here.
 
Aurahna said:
I take feedback all the time, and I am not the original PV. In my experience professional and personal the "It has to be done this way, or it will cause issues" or "It cannot be done" is something I thrive to find a better solution for. However, you hijacked the PV's post and policed it by responded to other peoples questions or concerns with misinformation, and are not really in the position to give a definitive answer on developer responsibilities. My 1st post was primarily about people like you in a community that tend to be outspoken above others. Your final post confirms it with just about everything you said and the "Jump off" comment, which was not needed.. Not many people want to deal with someone like that in a "Player Voice" forum. It is a turn off, and less and less people will post their ideas because of it.

40 large houses... come on. That is not the intent or what was being brought up. But you brought it up so let's play this through. You would have 40 large houses with 100 storage... that is a deterrent already. I did not even do that with lot trades and you could trade with like 8 other servers.

The idea is what is important here, the how is not something you or anyone here has to figure out. That is up the the development team to see if lines up with their roadmap and if they can do it with little to no impact to the user.
Click to expand...

the whole point of the player voice system is to gather feedback from the community.

not all feedback is going to be glowing and in agreement, you need to come to terms with this.

supporting your friend is admirable but obstinately defending them in the face of valid criticism of the idea is just silly and makes you both come across worse.
 
Shewp said:
the whole point of the player voice system is to gather feedback from the community.

not all feedback is going to be glowing and in agreement, you need to come to terms with this.

supporting your friend is admirable but obstinately defending them in the face of valid criticism of the idea is just silly and makes you both come across worse.
Click to expand...
I expected that there would be some negative feedback for posting my idea. I just didn't expect someone to police it. They have a history of this and I just wasn't aware that this was something to contend with. I wasn't ready for that--I hadn't seen it in the other posts I've read. That's my bad, I take full responsibility, and I am done with it. Thank you kindly for your time.
 
We appreciate all the impassioned feedback, but we encourage you all to keep it constructive. We will be closing this thread because many changes to structures are already planned as part of the City Update patch. A dev diary will be posted in the next few weeks with all the details, both on changes to structures and cities, and we look forward to your feedback there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.