Real Estate Business in Project Eternity

[Jorian Drake]

Jojo: I agree that not everything should be on sale, it is rather silly that in Fable 2-3 you can basically buy the whole city and rent it out, it is however more plausible and easy to just conquer the city, set up a loyal city guard, then grab some taxes. If you are not an evil type character, you can also make it sure you are better than the previous rulers, and set taxes to low to make them like you better. (and if you are in the "gray area" you also probably make some deals with the Thief and/or Assassin's Guild)

 

Owning gold mines and mint your own gold coins could be fun too, especially if it matters whom face or symbol is on them (and of course you choose how much it is mixed with other metals)

Edited November 13, 2012 by Jorian Drake

[Jojobobo]

Yeah becoming a ruler and taxing might be fun, I guess it depends how preeminent the devs want the PC to be - but really owning big swaths of a city would make them pretty important anyway.

[Atreides]

EDIT: If you really wanted to get technical, owning shops could be used for greater roleplaying - you could get burglarised, then have to track down the culprits. Or maybe a serial killer takes an interest in the residents of a neighborhood you mostly own - even an evil character would feel obligated to put him down if they wanted to bring in more cash. Touches like this would really enhance the feeling that you were part of the world. You could also own other more dubious businesses - brothels, crack (or some P:E drug equivalent) dens, etc.

Could definitely see a potential story where you have to deal with gangsters wanting protection money.

[Ninjamestari]

Why can't we have both a stronghold that acts as our base of operations, and the ability to invest in the businesses of the world? Why shouldn't we be able to own inns, taverns, brothels, shipping companies and the like? All that money you get from those investments could go a long way in upgrading your stronghold with summoning chambers, divination equipment, portal rooms for quick travel, libraries for arcane knowledge, forges and smiths for special equipment etc. etc.

[Osvir]

We could have a Zepipad (Helipad) on the roof of our Stronghold for our own constructed Zeppelin <3

[mcmanusaur]

Why can't we have both a stronghold that acts as our base of operations, and the ability to invest in the businesses of the world? Why shouldn't we be able to own inns, taverns, brothels, shipping companies and the like? All that money you get from those investments could go a long way in upgrading your stronghold with summoning chambers, divination equipment, portal rooms for quick travel, libraries for arcane knowledge, forges and smiths for special equipment etc. etc.

 

While I'm the OP and would love to see stuff like this in a game, we probably can't have such things because games like this tend to be very focused on a story-driven narrative, and by that I mean there's a defined "ending" and thus there will be very limited focus on the endgame. While features such as this could be worked into the resolution of the main conflict (ex. instead of doing quests to gain favor with an important NPC, you can wield your accumulated social clout within the world to sway him/her, and not just faking that through charisma-based persuasion), they're typically viewed by developers as "things we let players do for when they run out of other things to do" and thus are typically confined to the endgame. Hopefully at some point non-combat activities will be recognized as distinct playstyles in and of themselves and not just ways to avoid combat, as if the latter is the default, and perhaps then developers will take a more holistic view of how a goal can be achieved within a game world/society.

 

On an unrelated note in response to the poll results, I get the impression people here don't place too much value on uniqueness of experience, if they don't mind choosing the same stronghold (or one of a handful of alternatives similar to Morrowind) on every playthrough. Personally I've never found this (nor the way player homes were handled in Oblivion or Skyrim where there's just a few predetermined buildings you can own) to be very fulfilling, but I suppose this is just another way that my sensibilities differ from others. For me easily becoming lord of a giant stronghold just leans too much toward ego-stroking and removes the challenge of having to gradually build your way up from a shack to a hovel to a cottage to a manor, etc.

Edited May 30, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Sacred_Path]

For me easily becoming lord of a giant stronghold just leans too much toward ego-stroking and removes the challenge of having to gradually build your way up from a shack to a hovel to a cottage to a manor, etc.

A stronghold has the potential to be just that - a fortified place of retreat. Of course, this potential is hardly ever used; at best, strongholds tend to create more busywork by having you defend them occasionally. OTOH, you can often outfit them with craftsmen. A stronghold can really contribute to gameplay. A shack or manor are just places for you to play dress up/ larp.

[mcmanusaur]

 

For me easily becoming lord of a giant stronghold just leans too much toward ego-stroking and removes the challenge of having to gradually build your way up from a shack to a hovel to a cottage to a manor, etc.

A stronghold has the potential to be just that - a fortified place of retreat. Of course, this potential is hardly ever used; at best, strongholds tend to create more busywork by having you defend them occasionally. OTOH, you can often outfit them with craftsmen. A stronghold can really contribute to gameplay. A shack or manor are just places for you to play dress up/ larp.

 

 

Oh yes, please make a tower defense mini-game in Project Eternity, how fun and challenging from a gameplay perspective that would be! Property such as shacks or manors are just another way to gauge your character's progression in a real (as opposed to the numbers on the screen) and free (as opposed to a stronghold that is presumably largely the same regardless of your character's identity) way. But apparently not because anything not relevant to combat-based gameplay just serves playing dress-up/LARPing...

[Sacred_Path]

Oh yes, please make a tower defense mini-game in Project Eternity, how fun and challenging from a gameplay perspective that would be!

Like I said, defending the stronghold is usually just busywork (although a lot of people seemed to have fun with it in NWN2).

 

What I meant is that a stronghold serves the obvious purpose of keeping harm away from you. This just about never really happens in RPGs; the stronghold is on a map/ perimeter of its own, away from hostiles. There's a lot of untapped potential there.

 

such as shacks or manors are just another way to gauge your character's progression in a real (as opposed to the numbers on the screen) and free (as opposed to a stronghold that is presumably largely the same regardless of your character's identity) way. But apparently not because anything not relevant to combat-based gameplay just serves playing dress-up/LARPing...

welp, if there's no gameplay in it related to combat, it should enhance gameplay in some other way. If it just sits there or serves as a gold sink with nothing in return, then yes, it's a LARPing element. Of course it can be a measure of the player's success, but then, it's the same as having rats for the player to stomp on at lvl 40 - no real relevance to the game but fun to watch for some.

[mcmanusaur]

 

Oh yes, please make a tower defense mini-game in Project Eternity, how fun and challenging from a gameplay perspective that would be!

Like I said, defending the stronghold is usually just busywork (although a lot of people seemed to have fun with it in NWN2).

 

What I meant is that a stronghold serves the obvious purpose of keeping harm away from you. This just about never really happens in RPGs; the stronghold is on a map/ perimeter of its own, away from hostiles. There's a lot of untapped potential there.

 

such as shacks or manors are just another way to gauge your character's progression in a real (as opposed to the numbers on the screen) and free (as opposed to a stronghold that is presumably largely the same regardless of your character's identity) way. But apparently not because anything not relevant to combat-based gameplay just serves playing dress-up/LARPing...

welp, if there's no gameplay in it related to combat, it should enhance gameplay in some other way. If it just sits there or serves as a gold sink with nothing in return, then yes, it's a LARPing element. Of course it can be a measure of the player's success, but then, it's the same as having rats for the player to stomp on at lvl 40 - no real relevance to the game but fun to watch for some.

 

Can you clarify what potential you see in this? I'm curious. Also, "enhance gameplay" is a terribly vague phrase... owning property isn't an enhancement to gameplay, it is part of the gameplay because it constitutes a big part of the role people have in society. I think you confound narrative with gameplay, perhaps? Many people here seem to forget it, but the two are different, and narrative isn't the only basis for gameplay.

[Sacred_Path]

Can you clarify what potential you see in this? I'm curious.

What's missing in most RPGs that have strongholds is ways in which it ties into the adventure. They're supposed to be bases of operations, but in most cases, they aren't. They are isolated places you return to in between quests to order an item or empty the party's coffers. If hostiles show up at the gates at all, these tend to be encounters you only have for the very reason that you own a stronghold - not those foes you were crusading against before your trip to the stronghold.

 

"enhance gameplay" is a terribly vague phrase... owning property isn't an enhancement to gameplay, it is part of the gameplay because it constitutes a big part of the role people have in society. I think you confound narrative with gameplay, perhaps? Many people here seem to forget it, but the two are different, and narrative isn't the only basis for gameplay.

Yes it's vague, or rather all-encompassing, and not falling within that means strongholds often are about as necessary as appendices. What's the point in owning a location that doesn't supply you with quests, items, or exclusive advantages (such as resting when it's not possible in the wilderness)? Exactly. That's why I don't see the need for shacks or manors in this game.

[mcmanusaur]

 

Can you clarify what potential you see in this? I'm curious.

What's missing in most RPGs that have strongholds is ways in which it ties into the adventure. They're supposed to be bases of operations, but in most cases, they aren't. They are isolated places you return to in between quests to order an item or empty the party's coffers. If hostiles show up at the gates at all, these tend to be encounters you only have for the very reason that you own a stronghold - not those foes you were crusading against before your trip to the stronghold.

 

"enhance gameplay" is a terribly vague phrase... owning property isn't an enhancement to gameplay, it is part of the gameplay because it constitutes a big part of the role people have in society. I think you confound narrative with gameplay, perhaps? Many people here seem to forget it, but the two are different, and narrative isn't the only basis for gameplay.

Yes it's vague, or rather all-encompassing, and not falling within that means strongholds often are about as necessary as appendices. What's the point in owning a location that doesn't supply you with quests, items, or exclusive advantages (such as resting when it's not possible in the wilderness)? Exactly. That's why I don't see the need for shacks or manors in this game.

 

 

Ah, so making the PC take the defensive sometimes rather than always the offensive? It would be interesting for antagonists to take more initiative outside of obviously scripted plot twists.

 

I really try to avoid asserting what constitutes a "true RPG" playstyle, but personally I don't feel your answer to the second part is really in the spirit of role-playing games. Rather the mentality seems to be "anything that doesn't empower my character is pointless" which in turn sort of communicates "winning is all that matters".

 

And once again we have the anti-sandbox brigade characterizing sandbox elements as pointless and irrelevant...

1. Why would anyone want something that has no purpose in a game? This isn't a balanced representation of the issue at hand.

2. Such "sandbox elements" exist in real life and certainly aren't pointless, so why should they be pointless in a role-playing game?

3. The purpose- which should be obvious- is that they should have an effect on the gameplay. NPCs should react differently to PCs who live in a shack and PCs who live in a manor, and different still to PCs who have no known residence. It might even be that certain communities refuse to interact with or trust a character who is known to move from place to place in the manner of a vagrant. Perhaps NPCs request that you invite them into your home for meetings, and your apparent social status thus affects dialogue. There is endless potential for RPGs with such elements if people can get out of the single-minded "must kill baddie" mentality.

 

Now it might just be that this doesn't fall under "acceptable forms of gameplay" for some people who have trite old ideas of what an RPG should be (such as sequential dungeon crawls), but that's another matter.

The roleplay mentality I'm acquainted with would say that a character's desire to own a modest home would be reason enough for doing so in a game.

 

Perhaps it's time to let go of the naive vision of a fantasy setting as a place where there are always plenty of baddies lying in wait in conveniently scattered dungeons for traveling adventurers (who have little concern over normal considerations of livelihood) to stumble upon, and more of a place where characters live out their lives in most of the same ways that we do. Does no one else realize how ridiculous the former situation is when you think about it? Now, I'm not saying there shouldn't be any combat or dungeons or traveling adventurers, but why should a roleplaying game confine you to the most unlikely of roles? Because the setting isn't deep enough for any other role to be interesting? /rant

Edited May 30, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[JFSOCC]

So a spambot necro'ed this thread, and now discussion starts again?

[Ulquiorra]

I like the idea of investments but not only from buying buildings or upgradeing them, but also them economical point of view. For example one week passes and you need in you inventory 10 pecies of some food or your companions whoud die, the same for water, bot also if you are find a "garbage items" from exploration or other metarials you coud make something that costs more and sell it ...

[Diagoras]

For those concerned about realism: as the setting seems to be early 16th/late 15th century in nature, the existence of investments and banks is perfectly historically acceptable. And that's assuming a slavish devotion to European social structures of the time.

[Lephys]

I've always wanted to see a system revolving around faux estate. o_o

Edited May 30, 2013 by Lephys

[mcmanusaur]

For those concerned about realism: as the setting seems to be early 16th/late 15th century in nature, the existence of investments and banks is perfectly historically acceptable. And that's assuming a slavish devotion to European social structures of the time.

 

Indeed. I honestly can't see how something can pose as a roleplaying game if the operative conception of "property" never extends beyond what one can carry in one's backpack...

[Lephys]

Indeed. I honestly can't see how something can pose as a roleplaying game if the operative conception of "property" never extends beyond what one can carry in one's backpack...

Don't forget companions.

 

Oh sure, we're just "hiring" those fellows from the Hall of Adventurers.

 

"Wait, you want me to accompany you on a lifelong, against-all-odds adventure, in which we're all likely to die, or worse? Well, as long as the money's good. u_u"

 

I have a feeling contracts aren't outside all of this soul-themed stuff. 8P

 

"You there, companion! Run down that hallway and make sure there aren't traps! GO!"

 

"But I don't wa-"

 

"GOOOO!!!!!"

Edited May 31, 2013 by Lephys

[mcmanusaur]

 

Indeed. I honestly can't see how something can pose as a roleplaying game if the operative conception of "property" never extends beyond what one can carry in one's backpack...

Don't forget companions.

 

Oh sure, we're just "hiring" those fellows from the Hall of Adventurers.

 

"Wait, you want me to accompany you on a lifelong, against-all-odds adventure, in which we're all likely to die, or worse? Well, as long as the money's good. u_u"

 

I have a feeling contracts aren't outside all of this soul-themed stuff. 8P

 

"You there, companion! Run down that hallway and make sure there aren't traps! GO!"

 

"But I don't wa-"

 

"GOOOO!!!!!"

 

 

Lol, how could I forget that the only thing capable of matching the number of baddies waiting to be punished is the pool of adventuring mercenaries willing to do anything if the pay is good enough...

[Sacred_Path]

 

-snip-

I second the sentiment that a party's residence could have an effect on how NPCs perceive you. I think I even suggested that in one thread. But, going from shack to mansion to castle is just another linear power progression of which there are so many in any CRPG... IMO it would suffice to go from "homeless" to nobles with a stronghold.

 

Perhaps it's time to let go of the naive vision of a fantasy setting as a place where there are always plenty of baddies lying in wait in conveniently scattered dungeons for traveling adventurers (who have little concern over normal considerations of livelihood) to stumble upon, and more of a place where characters live out their lives in most of the same ways that we do. Does no one else realize how ridiculous the former situation is when you think about it? Now, I'm not saying there shouldn't be any combat or dungeons or traveling adventurers, but why should a roleplaying game confine you to the most unlikely of roles? Because the setting isn't deep enough for any other role to be interesting? /rant

exactly. If you are to have a residence in the world, make it the center of the player's world, not the periphery.

[mcmanusaur]

 

-snip-

I second the sentiment that a party's residence could have an effect on how NPCs perceive you. I think I even suggested that in one thread. But, going from shack to mansion to castle is just another linear power progression of which there are so many in any CRPG... IMO it would suffice to go from "homeless" to nobles with a stronghold.

 

Isn't that rather unrealistic though? How many people go straight from rags to riches in either a historical or contemporary context? Nobility and status isn't something you should suddenly gain from completing one quest; you should have to work at gradually establishing yourself within society.

[cleric Nemir]

Stronghold was always "meh" to me. The keep with no real use other than preparing for war? Bleh. What I want is to invest in something that has a logical place in my character's "life". I can be a respective member of society (even among the highest of them) with a good organised church. That would definitely make sense. Maybe I grow to like the smalltrade business,so I expand and open up a religious souvenir shop in front of my church? Or I aim for a place in the royal council as a high priest? Something like this,plus a house that reflects my trade,all I need. But make it an option for all to choose their own trade,logically connected to their character's class,no less.

[Lephys]

Maybe there's an economic aspect to the stronghold, and you can invite/allow people to move into sections of it who are merchants and suppliers, etc. With something like merchants, you could obviously purchase directly for them, but maybe they produce variance in the development and capabilities of your stronghold? Also, some of them could be shady and skim off the profits, so that, even though they're pretty awesome, YOU'RE not actually seeing a big boost from their being there. Maybe that's the type of thing temporarily-not-in-the-party characters could be set to investigate/deal with while you're out adventuring. *Shrug*.

 

Set George to keep an eye on them, and you know exactly who's doing what. Set Steve, and maybe you get half the results. Set Marvin, and it gets even WORSE! (Marvin has no economic know-how, whatsoever, and is non-confrontational... haha).

[TrashMan]

Sure, as long as I can liquidize my assets and reinvest it in local government bonds.

 

And while we are at it, I also want an option to subcontract my quests, so that that other unnamed adventurers risk their lives for a meagre cut of the reward. I will call it DTHA: Double Time Hero Agency incorporated.

 

P.S. Did I mention that I want to be able to issue loans and play on futures market as well?

 

Here, a game for you:

http://i.stack.imgur.com/ksPxG.jpg

http://thereticule.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/The-Hero.jpg

[Homer Morisson]

I'd just like a somewhat similar stronghold system as in NWN2... I want to upgrade it myself by finding/buying/organizing the necessary materials,

I want to assign patrols and receive their reports, I want to outfit my personal honor guard, and I want it all to have a major visual influence on said guards and stronghold.

 

The rest, i.e. becoming a landlord and so forth, would be just the icing on the cake.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Homer Morisson