Arelith

I've been recently made aware that noble only designated guildhouses treat non-noble tenants as ineligible in the lottery system. Therefore, anyone owning a noble only guildhouse would need to stock 4 or more noble players all owning rooms to ensure that the faction is guaranteed to continue. There are a few points I wish to raise with this:

1) Finding four or more nobles and getting them into a single faction, and also having all of them willing to own a quarter in the guildhouse is quite a tall order. For places like the Red Tower, which has 6 quarters, the requirement would be a near impossibility. There are likely only a tiny fraction of factions capable of raising so many noble characters who are also free to take quarters.

2) It puts undue pressure on the noble quarter owner to continue logging on, just so the rest of their faction can have a base of operations. This also simply discourages the quarter being passed on at all, because of the risk of an entire faction dying due to an unlucky roll.

3) It is rather unfair to the rest of the faction that any roleplay they have based on a property is suddenly torn from them, with little to no control.

I would like to know how the rest of the community feels about this topic.

I think that the way it works should remain. We should not look for more ways for folks to hang on to guild houses. Look at the two biggest guild houses in Cordor. How long have those lenses been held? A very long time.

It may sting for an individual lease holder, but it is best for the server. People are crazy and think they deserve to hold fancy places for actual years.

As long as it is made clear upon purchase that that is how the property works, I think it is fine. In fact, I'd love to see us with more guildhouses that are that specific; druid, cleric, paladin, wizard, monk and so on.


Everything has its own perks and draw backs.

-S

If I remember how it works correctly you would only need one noble?

Babylon System is the Vampire wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:11 pm If I remember how it works correctly you would only need one noble?

You need a single noble to purchase the guildhouse. However, with the new property system if the one leasing the guildhouse rolls the character, goes inactive, etc. it will deploy a lottery system and randomly select a new owner based on the tenants. So, to keep a noble guildhouse requires a tenant to have the noble award and to be selected by the random lottery.

Current system seems fine to me, otherwise the noble houses will over time be owned by non-nobles... and in that case, why is it a noble house in the first place?

Also, let's remember having a guild house is not a 'must' to operate a faction, but a luxury.

As the player of a noble character in the last few months, no one has ever approached me about guildhouses and I havent seen a single notification on any message board about recruitment of nobles to any kind of purpose so maybe those guildhouse owners should expand their recruitment radius a little bit.

Just want to point also that a Landed Noble is also eligible owner of a "Noble Guild House"

miesny_jez wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:11 pm Just want to point also that a Landed Noble is also eligible owner of a "Noble Guild House"

As stated above, there is a lottery system for guildhouses. If you have 1 noble character and 3 regular characters as tenants, it will roll for the new owner. If the roll lands on a regular character, then the guildhouse goes up for sale, because the regular character is "ineligible" to own it. When it goes on sale, anyone can bid on it over the next 72 hours. Therefore, if you don't have everyone owning a room be a noble, then there is a high chance it goes up for general public bidding.

While my knee jerk reaction is one of adversity toward anyone who wants to pass along a quarter, since the attempts to move away from this have been some of the changes on arelith during my time here in my opinion, there is a system that is supposed to allow for it under specific situations. What you are describing sounds like a kink in that system, and should likely be sorted out. That being said, if you do get a house full of nobles make sure to film it for a reality tv series. This is what happens when nobles stop being polite, and start getting real..

Babylon System is the Vampire wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:27 am While my knee jerk reaction is one of adversity toward anyone who wants to pass along a quarter, since the attempts to move away from this have been some of the changes on arelith during my time here in my opinion, there is a system that is supposed to allow for it under specific situations. What you are describing sounds like a kink in that system, and should likely be sorted out. That being said, if you do get a house full of nobles make sure to film it for a reality tv series. This is what happens when nobles stop being polite, and start getting real..

Especially with Lodestones acting as cameras all over places. Jersey Cordor Shore when?

a simple solution, but the work still has to be done, is to make such guildhouses check all qaurters for anoble owner

malcolm_mountainslayer wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:31 am a simple solution, but the work still has to be done, is to make such guildhouses check all qaurters for anoble owner

That makes tremendous sense. As long as a noble is living there shouldn't they get it next or the lottery be among those qualified to own it? Why would a random lottery boot everyone if it landed on the servants quarters?

I dont know.

I admit I havent played nobles before my current, or owned guidlhouses, so I could be missing a piece of the picture.

But from what I know and from reading this thread, I think not only we dont have a problem but we also have some kind of a 'sweet spot' found. You can no longer FOREVER hold guildhouses, but you CAN hold it for quite long still if you have enough nobles, which is I think exactly what the system intended to do...

AstralUniverse wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:10 pm I dont know.

I admit I havent played nobles before my current, or owned guidlhouses, so I could be missing a piece of the picture.

But from what I know and from reading this thread, I think not only we dont have a problem but we also have some kind of a 'sweet spot' found. You can no longer FOREVER hold guildhouses, but you CAN hold it for quite long still if you have enough nobles, which is I think exactly what the system intended to do...

What you are saying would be fine if it applied to all guild houses. A non-noble guildhouse just needs 4 or whatever bodies. One of them are going to get it. But a noble guild house without four nobles in it has a chance to loose it. It already has the extra requirement of having at least one noble to pass it on too, more then every other guild house, seems unfair to punish them further by making it even harder.

Babylon System is the Vampire wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:51 pm What you are saying would be fine if it applied to all guild houses. A non-noble guildhouse just needs 4 or whatever bodies. One of them are going to get it. But a noble guild house without four nobles in it has a chance to loose it. It already has the extra requirement of having at least one noble to pass it on too, more then every other guild house, seems unfair to punish them further by making it even harder.

Just seems like instead of a lottery it should look for a noble resident and pass it to them, or have that lottery between the nobles only and if there are none then drop it. Same with any guild house that might have a requirement, find the next who fits the bill if there are none then they lose it.

I mean are these supposed to be nobles-only fraternity or sorority houses where only nobles can be roomies or are they supposed to be like estates that might have positions some non-noble lower class members could fill? The latter seems to open up a lot more possibilities, I dunno.

If someone feels too much pressure to own a guildhall, feel free to leave it to the many people on the server that also want to own it. This really is a non-issue. People can choose to be nobles or not, and at the end of the day it’s just a game. Embrace the change and enjoy what new stories come from losing ownership sometimes.

The super easy takeaway here is ‘just touch your quarter and you’re fine’.

Babylon System is the Vampire wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:51 pm

AstralUniverse wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:10 pm I dont know.

I admit I havent played nobles before my current, or owned guidlhouses, so I could be missing a piece of the picture.

But from what I know and from reading this thread, I think not only we dont have a problem but we also have some kind of a 'sweet spot' found. You can no longer FOREVER hold guildhouses, but you CAN hold it for quite long still if you have enough nobles, which is I think exactly what the system intended to do...

What you are saying would be fine if it applied to all guild houses. A non-noble guildhouse just needs 4 or whatever bodies. One of them are going to get it. But a noble guild house without four nobles in it has a chance to loose it. It already has the extra requirement of having at least one noble to pass it on too, more then every other guild house, seems unfair to punish them further by making it even harder.

Seems fair to me.

I wouldnt look at it as punishment. Normal guildhouses are effortlessly easy to keep within your group - all you gotta do is make sure 1) your group actually exists still. 2) your group members own all the quarters in your guild. Noble guildhouses are *in fact* harder to keep, which is fine, considering they are more unique and prestige.

Noble is a minor, meaning you bump up something with the now easiest ever leveling in Arelith's time period to 16 and your next character is good to go. Takes not even a week, even if you're not trying.

I wouldn't change a thing.

It would be nice if the random lottery for people living in the expired guild house would at least prioritize choosing other nobles as inheritors.

AstralUniverse wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 4:30 am

Babylon System is the Vampire wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:51 pm

AstralUniverse wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:10 pm I dont know.

I admit I havent played nobles before my current, or owned guidlhouses, so I could be missing a piece of the picture.

But from what I know and from reading this thread, I think not only we dont have a problem but we also have some kind of a 'sweet spot' found. You can no longer FOREVER hold guildhouses, but you CAN hold it for quite long still if you have enough nobles, which is I think exactly what the system intended to do...

What you are saying would be fine if it applied to all guild houses. A non-noble guildhouse just needs 4 or whatever bodies. One of them are going to get it. But a noble guild house without four nobles in it has a chance to loose it. It already has the extra requirement of having at least one noble to pass it on too, more then every other guild house, seems unfair to punish them further by making it even harder.

Seems fair to me.

I wouldnt look at it as punishment. Normal guildhouses are effortlessly easy to keep within your group - all you gotta do is make sure 1) your group actually exists still. 2) your group members own all the quarters in your guild. Noble guildhouses are *in fact* harder to keep, which is fine, considering they are more unique and prestige.

Alright, let me try an applicable example. Two players decide they want to do a joint nobility concept. They are lucky enough to snag one of the noble guild houses during their time playing, and generate a cool story that attracts so many people to their ever growing faction that members are lining up to take up the extra rooms in the estate. Because they are generating a cool story, they attract would be adversaries and the noble who actually owns the estate gets killed. Not wanting to be the guy who comes back from a death like that (since it takes away from the characters story, and done enough times makes the character a joke) he decides to stay dead. The timer on the estate runs out, and it enters the lottery. In a normal guild house, no way this gets passed on, and the faction continues. But in a noble guild house, because there is only one other noble living there, they have a large percentage of a chance of loosing it because if the lottery goes to one of the non-nobles it will once again release because they are not eligible to own it. Now its open to everyone.

Now, its easy to say "passing properties is bad, and they -should- loose the estate", but if that's the truth we live by it should apply to all the guild houses and the lotto between occupied rooms should be removed too. You could also say "Just fill the house with nobles and the problem is solved" but is that really what we want to advocate, a nobles only social club?

You said I shouldn't look at it as a punishment for owning a noble guild house over a normal one, but given the situation I laid out is a very real and likely scenario I find it hard not to. And I absolutely hate quarter passing, and have been advocating against it for four years now. Its even on my list of things I said needed to change as a new player and came to pass over time despite the initial reaction to some nobody saying it way back when, and I am very proud of that list! But in my opinion things should be fair across the board whatever the design is.

Echohawk wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 6:36 pm Noble is a minor, meaning you bump up something with the now easiest ever leveling in Arelith's time period to 16 and your next character is good to go. Takes not even a week, even if you're not trying.

I wouldn't change a thing.

The issue with this is that awards cannot be retroactively applied to characters, which means unless you are fully able to anticipate possibly getting a noble guildhouse in your character's future at character creation, there is not always a reason to take it. So the entire argument of "just grind out a minor award" doesn't really offer a solution in this case.

Instead of fixating on old characters perhaps it's time for something new? It tends to be what most people suggest.
And as stated, there's an in game method to 'apply it' at least for the duration of bidding.
I don't know what else to say in that regard.