I mentioned this briefly in my Ideal Sandbox game thread, but figured I would go into a bit more detail.

One of UO's biggest problems (and SWG as welll) was Urban Sprawl.  It is one of the biggest detractors of the concept of Build-anywhere games.   Eventually there are buildings everywhere, and the adventure areas shrink down to nothing. One of the options is to put in no-build zones, but its one I just don't like.  Instead, I'll offer up my own solution.

The solution here is simple.  Land areas are painted with a variable that limits the building density in an area.  This can be done one of two ways, both are similar, and would work pretty much the same.  The first is to limit the amount of buildings are allowed in each "Square mile" of area.  The other is to limit the amount of "Square Feet" that a buildings can occupy per "Square mile".  For areas designers want cities built in, this number could be set very high, in wilderness areas, this number could be set low. 

When a person attempts to build in a spot, the computer checks out the area around the build spot.  If the density limit for the area is not yet built, the building is built.  If it has been met already, then the player will recieve a message that he is unable to build due to density restrictions.

If you are using a SQFT model, then a low density area might be able to hold one giant Noble's Estate, or a small village.  Where as with a building limit, a hamlet and an Nobles Mansion would both count as 1.

I said earlier that this could be painted on.  Just like the landscaping tools have paintbrushes that raise/lower terrain height, they can easily have tools that paint this density number onto the terrain.

Just my thoughts,

WHat do you think?

Quite a functional system. 

Only nitpick I'd have would be that it'd probably be easier (faster mainly) for world designers if this was divided into big square chunks instead of requiring them to paint the entire world with this stuff.  The faster/easier their job is to get these settings put down on the land, the more time they'll have to make the world look awesome.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Quite a functional system. 

Only nitpick I'd have would be that it'd probably be easier (faster mainly) for world designers if this was divided into big square chunks instead of requiring them to paint the entire world with this stuff.  The faster/easier their job is to get these settings put down on the land, the more time they'll have to make the world look awesome.

If a game has freeform player-housing all the developers need to do is design a decent map, players will have the world completed.

The problem with UO (not sure about SWG - never played it) was that there were too many players in way too little places for houses.

On pretty much every shard oretty much every single spot that a medium-large sized house could fit in was taken, atleast in trammel. UO's world was generaly tiny - about 7000x4000 tiles for tram/fel and half of that was used up by dungeons, inacessible areas etc. 99% of what left was unbuildable because terrain and objects.

Developers should create enough space and the problem will solve itself, most player houses would be centered around population centers (npc towns, or just convinient areas) with the odd hermit living in the middle of nowhere with monsters.

In Star Wars Galaxies property remains active as long as the player is active. If a player is inactive for 6 months or longer the property will be re-deeded. That means that the players possessions will go to the bank and what does not fit will no longer be there. The System works well.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Quite a functional system. 

Only nitpick I'd have would be that it'd probably be easier (faster mainly) for world designers if this was divided into big square chunks instead of requiring them to paint the entire world with this stuff.  The faster/easier their job is to get these settings put down on the land, the more time they'll have to make the world look awesome.

With the developers birds-eye view, and adjustable size paint-brushes, this doesn't take nearly as much time as you might think. 

I think the heart of the problem is that player housing takes up a huge amount space relative to the size of the gameworld. Limiting housing density would solve the problem of housing dominating the gameworld but leave lots of players unable to build a house anywhere.

One solution is to limit the number of players per square foot of gameworld but, ironically, achieving a satisfying housing density this way would likely result in a player density that is too low for most tastes.

I still think that instanced areas are the only practical solution to the 'housing problem' although I can understand why many people see a 'build anywhere' type of model as far superior.

Another solution would be a more intelligent AI.  If you built your house to near an enemy settlement, they would come and attack it constantly.  In this system, building even on your own factions prime land (temple, storyline area etc) even they would attack it.  Just about the only place you can build near enemies and them not attack it is simple wildlife.

Man I should be getting paid for this =P  Hmm, how about 200K a year? yea that'd be nice =)

Is this really a problem?

I would think that first-off, we need more games with free placement of housing :P.

Otherwise, I can only speak from experience with SWG and I didn't find urban sprawl to be that bothersome. Sure, some places were crowded, but limiting factors were already built in and these were the space that a building occupies and terrain. Why would you want to limit it more if we are talking about a sandbox game? Other factors which might include paying maintenance or some form of decay could also limit the amount of "dead" structures that could litter the landscape.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking your ideas as they seem pretty well thought out. I just think that when you look to implement a system of limitation you start to drift from the concept of sandbox. Whether the trade-off works or not is likely a matter of play-testing :)

Originally posted by heremypet

Another solution would be a more intelligent AI.  If you built your house to near an enemy settlement, they would come and attack it constantly.  In this system, building even on your own factions prime land (temple, storyline area etc) even they would attack it.  Just about the only place you can build near enemies and them not attack it is simple wildlife.

Man I should be getting paid for this =P  Hmm, how about 200K a year? yea that'd be nice =)

That is one of the better idea's i've heard.

^this coupled with the OP's idea, and a large world would work I do beleive.

I mean the avarage server has what 10k people on it? I don't see why they can't make a map that could acomidate this.

(Or you could even have the map stretch to a limit. AKA if there is 5 tiles betwean the edge of the city and the mountain, if a player adds a 1 tile house instead of there only being 4 tiles from the edge of the city to the mountain there would still be 5 tiles, but 1 tile would be added to the map. And then you could have a set limit it could stretch. So "small village can only be stretched 5x5 tiles, meduim city 15x15, larg city 40x40. Or somtjhing of that effect. That way there is only as much land as you need. which would also eliminate huge empty area's)

Do you think that could be coupled with territory conquest? Like, the wilderness frontier is pushed out regularly, as new settlers well, settle, and the territory would belong to the faction with the most settlers inthat area... but it could shift after a battle.

As written this is a generic system.  similar to a lighting scheme.  It could be used with sci-fi, fantasy, steampunk, etc.

It could easily be tied into other gameplay systems.

Originally posted by robert4818

I mentioned this briefly in my Ideal Sandbox game thread, but figured I would go into a bit more detail.

One of UO's biggest problems (and SWG as welll) was Urban Sprawl.  It is one of the biggest detractors of the concept of Build-anywhere games.   Eventually there are buildings everywhere, and the adventure areas shrink down to nothing. One of the options is to put in no-build zones, but its one I just don't like.  Instead, I'll offer up my own solution.

The solution here is simple.  Land areas are painted with a variable that limits the building density in an area.  This can be done one of two ways, both are similar, and would work pretty much the same.  The first is to limit the amount of buildings are allowed in each "Square mile" of area.  The other is to limit the amount of "Square Feet" that a buildings can occupy per "Square mile".  For areas designers want cities built in, this number could be set very high, in wilderness areas, this number could be set low. 

When a person attempts to build in a spot, the computer checks out the area around the build spot.  If the density limit for the area is not yet built, the building is built.  If it has been met already, then the player will recieve a message that he is unable to build due to density restrictions.

If you are using a SQFT model, then a low density area might be able to hold one giant Noble's Estate, or a small village.  Where as with a building limit, a hamlet and an Nobles Mansion would both count as 1.

I said earlier that this could be painted on.  Just like the landscaping tools have paintbrushes that raise/lower terrain height, they can easily have tools that paint this density number onto the terrain.

 

Just my thoughts,

WHat do you think?

You idea's are good.

But speaking of SWG, I only recall Urban Sprawl, when the game started to change, actualy many towns/city's where well planned, many you just had to visit to see it, plenty of people went sight-seeing just to see how city'towns where made and some really put some effort in building a town/city (incl me/us Guild) Gamechanges started the UrbanSprawls, obvious this could be different depending on which server a player played as I knew a few high pop. servers where Urban Sprawl was indeed everywhere, also noticed a pretty big difference between a US server and a EU servers. To me the difference was the EU being more layback, where the US was more competitive....anyway drifting here......ah..yes....housing...........

Though I never made it to housing in VanguarI felt that the system could work very well, anyone with some current experiance might fill this in as I am actualy curious how it turned out. It was in the open-world, but had assigned area's where you could buy a plot to start building your house/town or city, so anyone could see your house/town/city, but like I said never made it to housing, apart from having seen a few plots where houses where being build, it was about 2/3 months after release, which also was the time I left the game as I simply had enough from a Fantasy setting and really wanted something Sci-Fi to set my gaming teeth in.

If a MMORPG adds houing to their game, atleast to me that game get's my attention, obvious depends on the rest of the game, but a MMORPG without housing doesn't feel like a MMORPG to me, which is like always a personal opinion.

Originally posted by xpowderx

In Star Wars Galaxies property remains active as long as the player is active. If a player is inactive for 6 months or longer the property will be re-deeded. That means that the players possessions will go to the bank and what does not fit will no longer be there. The System works well.

It should be less time. Half a year? So a group of players build around one area yet leave the game and players have to wait half a year to free up the space?

I say a month.

Can't say I've played either of those games but I read something once on the subject you may find interesting.

It was talking about loading zones and the strain of a new zone, apparently a trick is to place towns near the center or at least not right at the entrance of the map - this allowed those areas to be loaded later after the scenery of the area was cached in a way. This, of course was assuming that you have servers breaking up zones, be they virtual or true.

Looking at some game maps of popular games it actually seems to be utilized in them and my own opinion is that during quick travel methods there is loading going on and the time for the trip is part of this process to try to cover it up in a way. Inline with your discussion, any building would be centralized to village type settlements, small and distant from each other after the grid filled up. The OP sounds a lot like zoning rules in the states. Can only have x amount of bars here, x amount of restaurants here etc. You may be able to piece more together learning about the reasons behind zoning and its uses.

I could live with that idea.  I am not so sure less patient people would enjoy searching areas out after the system message says ' area density reached, build elsewhere ', but i would be fine with it.

Speaking only to SWG, those problems were easily fixable in easier ways I personally feel.  Most people I know had several houses for example, using some for storage, some near starparts for quick drop offs and then their trophy houses.  If the storage space in banks were increased for the junk drops, most of that type of housing would have disappeared.  The plots existed for crafters, in order to be able to drop more harvesters, but maybe they should have limited personal plots to only 1 or 2 for players, but have crafters unlock more as they advanced.

That house pack up system someone mentioned was not introduced until after i left, and I played on and off for the first 4 years.  I was using, as storage spots, houses of former guild mates who had left YEARS earlier, so I would bet that a significant portion of that sprawl were absent players.

I personally felt that the effort made into the large NPC cities was wasted, because most players only passed through the parks and suburbs on the way to other spots.  Coronet for example, was huge, but everything you needed was at the south end close to the starport.  These unused areas could have been turned into land plots like Vanguard instead of just empty building you can't enter.  The highrise structures could have stayed in the downtown areas without ruining the look of the city.  With the amount of cities in SWG, it seems to me that there would have been more than enough plots in city suburbs if you were only allowed one house.  Then real estate would possibly have become a business in that economy as well. The player elected Mayors would represent the cities, not their guilds, so it may have opened up politics as well.

I always wondered why housing has been avoided lately, it just doesn't seem hard with some rules, if all the old games had them.  And if they think its because they were not popular, then why was urban sprawl such a large problem?  Seems to me it was a well used feature.  I would love to see any form of it back, except the instanced sort.  I had one of those in Anarchy Online, and it was utterly useless where the SWG housing provided much more immersion into the world for me.