Destruction...

[Drilixer]

it would be nice if you could hire NPC armies to defend your castle  And animal trainers could bring gigantic monsters back to defend it as well

[Furay]

i think castles/other big buildings shouldnt directly earn u money just by having them, but u can let out rooms for other ppl to stay in and they have to pay, possibly u could also have workshops/forges which other ppl can use if they pay enugh

[theonlyjimbob]

Well let\'s just hope all those features will be in the final game because I\'m not the kind of guy that like sitting around especially not in a game.

     Thomas

[Drilixer]

Originally posted by Furay
i think castles/other big buildings shouldnt directly earn u money just by having them, but u can let out rooms for other ppl to stay in and they have to pay, possibly u could also have workshops/forges which other ppl can use if they pay enugh

being able to \'rent out\' forges would be an interesting idea - although no one would want to do it unless all the forges were pay... or at least all the convienent ones

Being able to set up a smithy right outside a major mine and then rent it out would be fun though...

[jsphbrg]

Taking up on what some have already said and adding a bit of ideas from my side I would say that

a)  Castles/towers or keeps (I?ll just call all of these castles) are usually built in some strategic position to either defend or may oversee comers and goers. Alternatively castles are the bases of the rich folk who collect the taxes from the immediate area.

b) Castles actually cost money to keep and maintain

c)  Castles need to be lived in ? not just by the owner but by defenders, servants and workers (NPCs?)? (These would cost more money as well)

d) If the castle underlies control of some land, it implies patrols and tax collectors and a good avenue for war against your buggering neighbor

e)    If the castle was built for strategic purposes, (say it has one of the only three lifts to the next level or the destination of a trade route) travel fees or a wage (in case of say a watch tower manned by PC/NPC mercenaries) would be the source of income to the owner

f)   If a castle is attacked and left unmanned, it would effectively be some nice stonework or feature in the game. (Like many have said a castle without an obvious purpose is just a waste of time ? better the tent)

g)    Attacking a castle implies siegecraft,  siege engines and a huge army ? (Unless I am grossly mistaken, historically to man a successful siege, you the manpower advantage of at least 10:1)  Or else a demolition person with some handy C4. In any case not an easy task indeed.

h)    Castles are useful to build an army ? it provides a good base for people to gather to and train ? marching forth when the time comes.

i) Finally apart from any implied benefits listed above (taxes and fees) castles may hold structures useful say for research (say a new spell) or manufacturing ((some super magic weapon or something) or simply holding shops taverns or inns or whatever who pay a fee to be there.  

Now I have just skimmed the surface of these points but I guess that one could realize that the idea of building manning upkeeping a castle could be thought of as interesting by many.

But it would also imply a whole new dimension in the game mechanics ? where strategy has more value than role-playing.

It would be really nice to have a game which can also cater for stuff like that but my guess is that that would mean a huge amount of work from development?s side. It would surely be worth the hassle if all could enjoy this but thing about the landscape mottled with castles outcrops infesting the place. Making it difficult to own a castle (ie very few will ever have the privilege of building or owning one) will make it not worth the while to go through all the development work.

So my final say is that shops and the like are fine but castles and other ?big? structures should be avoided and left to NPC domain (with the exception of maybe towers). Unless PCs will be allowed to possess siege engines such as catapults or gun powder, Structure demolition should also be avoided (or at least made very difficult)  

Finally this is just my opinion and i might be completely wrong about what today\'s developers may come up with and in what time.

[Wedge]

Yeah what he said... but specifically about they should be handled by NPCs.  All castles and large structures should be pre-existing, especially those ones that house the vital lifts and transportation between levels.  All the general facilities within\' them should be maintained as well.  However, it may be possible, to make it so a guild can take over an existing castle, and get an income from a tax off the services (shopping, transportation) that come from the place.  Not sure if the guild would actually be able to control that tax rate... it would be intersting for sure though if they could.  And yes you would have to pay for NPC/MOB guards to protect the place (well not have to, but it\'s a pretty good idea), although any of your guild members could also defend in the event of an attack.  A \"dungeon\" area of the castle would exist specifically for attacks designed to gain control of the place, away from the general populated area.  This way the place is designed to be in constant use by the players, so it\'s value will always be maintained (no destroying the place to capture it) and the only thing that can change is the ownership, which would be represented with just a change of flag with the guilds logo on it.  It\'s a good comprimise between realism and gameplay I think.

[Xalthar]

Originally posted by Gronomist
Okay Xalathar. Let me make an example...

20 best people in PS go together, form a guild and build a castle.

They get money every hour/day + they make money on whatever profession they are in.

They build another castle and get even more money every hour/day + they make money on whatever profession they\'re in.

And then, they build a third castle, and a fourth etc. etc. untill they have no need to work, as the castles simply just earn enough money to fill the bank account, and seriously. How fun is that?

Yes, yes, you can \"just\" put restrictions so you can only build ONE castle. Well then, what about those really wealthy guilds who wants to show off and buy a castle for each of their upper leaders? Well boohoo, that\'s just too bad for them, or what? That\'s where the question comes into place...

Should we:
a) Allow any guild to only own and operate a maximum of 1 castle/grand structure, and then allow it to make a steady income or,
b) Allow any guild to own as many castles as they have money (as long as it\'s not making a city of castles ie. 1 castle per 100 acres or so), thus removing the castle income...

Besides, I suppose it\'s up to the devs, and not us, since, after all, we don\'t have a say in anything, we can just suggest ideas.

I don\'t agree on setting a limit of one construction. As I get most of my inspirations from my experience with Anarchy, I would like to, once again, take some examples from that most brilliant game:
In Anarchy the most powerful guild is powerful for a reason.. almost every member of that guild are lvl 200, which is the max. They are perfectly able to defend their \"tower\" constructions, and get the bonuses they \"earn\" from defending them...

I would like to know if this is something that\'s supposed to be entertaining to the masses, and not an as-realistic-as-possible rpg that only hardcore fanatics would find enjoyable.. You can\'t just build these constructions everywhere, there should be special zones available for construction, and not like in UO (I am fairly certain you are able to build everywhere) and just build a lump of castle near the mob that drops the most powerful loot.

I see absolutely nothing  wrong with a steady gold income to the guild bank...

I am against purely visual constructs.. they make no sense in a mmorpg... I will not leave out that some people might think that to be a good idea, but they are just not the majority, of that I am fairly certain..

[zabeal]

I agree completely with wedge. You shouldn\'t get money just from taking over a building, it should be a tax of sorts on what npcs are doing- and if PCs can have stores,  Iguess you would get a tax on them too.

Hows about we go back to the origianal topic, destruction? Under what conditions do people think these buildings could be damage, considering that most would just have npc stores in them...

[Drilixer]

seems to me like the only thing that could destroy a castle is magic - cant do it with a sword - maybe fire magicks for wood -based structures and earth magicks for stone based structures - a combination of the two would we useful for the high end stuff - actually any elemental damage would work

[Kiva]

Or maybe burning arrows? Anywho, I like the idea of castles (or bigger buildings) start owning land areas, where you could maybe tax the npc shops buying and selling, or maybe some automated drop-taxes if the mobs are to drop gold, or even tax the roads/bridges and stuff. But, of course, it\'d be difficult to do, as the areas you control would have to be calculated and if two borderlines crash they\'d have to give some more land to the person who was there first, and stuff like that, big mess actually. Better not do it until later in development... Let\'s just get the 8+ levels added first, shall we?

[Drilixer]

hehe - most suggestions on these forums really need to wait a long time...

[theonlyjimbob]

I like the idea that a guild could have multiple castles/grand stuctures but the thing is: what will be the limit? Will the limit depend on how many big heads? Will the limit depends on the number of members? Hmmm... Big question...

[Monketh]

I\'d go for member count, but that could be faked, unfortunately.  Maybe they\'d have to get a permit?

[Evanchild]

or you get 2 that can be fairly far apart but within the first ones national border.  then each additional one should be captured. if you lose a castle then you can build another.

[Drilixer]

how about 1 \'massive\' structure - and any \'massive\' structures beyond that require dev approval.  They can get as many log cabins as they want - but the big stuff would have to be monitered.