[Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

TyrannosaurusHax · 2014-02-04 21:06:58

I don't have a problem with having to worry about my house being robbed while I sleep,
but what I do find obnoxious is the way the value of a starter house can explode and attract thieves with far more tools than your house can possibly deal with, sometimes literally before you can get back into your house if you're actively playing the game at the time.

My suggestion is simply to refresh the listed value of a house only when it is robbed or when the owner returns to their house.
If the second case is unapproved then at least delay refreshing the listed value until the owner is logged into the game.

This would resolve the legit reasons (in my opinion) players desire a 'vacation button' without making the house invulnerable to attack.

It should go without saying that one should not have to play from fresh house to fortress in one sitting just to reduce the chance of a robber with quadruple the house's value (at the time of logging out) in tools attacking, sometimes minutes after one leaves the game.

codelockfaggot · 2014-02-05 00:57:12

i think youre supposed to become a nail biting wreck in this game, no vacation mode for you

TyrannosaurusHax · 2014-02-05 01:17:14

I am not suggesting a vacation mode, I am suggesting the listed house value should be whatever it was when the state of the house last changed. The house would still be able to be robbed, and a successful robber would still steal the same amount based on the actual value of the house. The only difference would be that if you log off with $500 in money and tools, that's what robbers will see. A cheap house left afk that snags a $7200 bounty would appear to have $500 value while actually having $7700 value, until the owner logs in or the house is successfully robbed. This would mean the house is vulnerable, not forfeit.

Addendum: Worrying about your house being robbed is rather pointless when you KNOW that it will fall to a robber with tools that dominate your house after a few bounties. In my opinion the almost total certainty that this will happen cheapens the 'thrill' of your house being vulnerable.

Last edited by TyrannosaurusHax (2014-02-05 01:23:43)

DaVinci · 2014-02-05 01:30:45

No.

largestherb · 2014-02-05 01:42:23

so the key to victory would be spend to $2000 and never log in again. sounds like a plan

jw2pfd · 2014-02-05 02:58:25

TyrannosaurusHax wrote:

Worrying about your house being robbed is rather pointless when you KNOW that it will fall to a robber with tools that dominate your house after a few bounties. In my opinion the almost total certainty that this will happen cheapens the 'thrill' of your house being vulnerable.

I have a question, who is the delayed list for? I already have houses last through the night and I am sure there are plenty of other players that do too. I don't see the benefit of lowering the bar for everyone. I am completely against adding systems and features that are for the sole purpose of making it easier for a house to survive while the owner is away. I am not saying that the game is perfect, but my opinion is that it's definitely not broken either.

largestherb wrote:

so the key to victory would be spend to $2000 and never log in again. sounds like a plan

This would also be one potential issue with this suggestion.

TyrannosaurusHax · 2014-02-05 09:18:51

largestherb wrote:

so the key to victory would be spend to $2000 and never log in again. sounds like a plan

People can do this sort of thing already. A house can be full to the point where the owner has nothing left to buy except paintings and tools and still have the house appear as $1000 / 0 / 0.
That is a separate issue. In fact it's the exact inverse of this problem. An very rich house can look like a scrub house and kill tool-less or nearly tool-less robbers all day just by keeping it's listed value low and having a couple of screens of wooden walls.
Conversely, I'm talking about relatively defenseless houses having a much higher listed value than they 'deserve' - before the owner can do anything with the money.

What's your definition of victory anyway? As far as I'm concerned money in this game is a means to an end. 'Victory' is killing robbers in whatever hilarious and novel ways I've thought of recently, or throwing tools at unlikely heists, or reaching (non-fresh) vaults with no tools hopefully without making any mistakes that should have killed me.
In any case there could easily be a limit to how long the public listing would wait to update.

jw2pfd wrote:

who is the delayed list for?

People who sleep. People who have lives. This is normally a juvenile, ignorant point but in this case it is actually 100% accurate. What's the key to 'victory'? Refresh your security tapes 86400 times per day so that bounties you collect are an advantage rather than simply making your house more vulnerable. Such strategy.

What I'm talking about is unfinished houses inevitably being ganked - and I do mean "well that certainly took absolutely no care or intelligence" - by robbers with tools that vastly outweigh the value of the house the last time they were updated - because they are successful.
If I had any fucks left to give I'd be afraid of BOUNTIES rather than robbers.
I once felt like a restart and bought all the tools I could with what money I had and dropped something like 100 kills worth of bounty on a random ~$200 house. I imagine it lasted several seconds.

I've had less egregious versions of this happen literally faster than I could get back into my house at a time when all I was doing was watching security tapes.
I can scarcely give a shit because my house WILL get ganked unless I spend literally everything and then go robbing without tools the next time I log in (and even that is not enough because for some reason I've had people come and die in my house when it's value was at zero (no I didn't have tools)) or play from fresh house to full house in one sitting.

Dantheman · 2014-02-05 09:39:52

Yes. I like this.

jw2pfd · 2014-02-05 11:45:56

TyrannosaurusHax wrote:

People who sleep. People who have lives. This is normally a juvenile, ignorant point but in this case it is actually 100% accurate. What's the key to 'victory'? Refresh your security tapes 86400 times per day so that bounties you collect are an advantage rather than simply making your house more vulnerable. Such strategy.
What I'm talking about is unfinished houses inevitably being ganked

I agree that your comment is ignorant and disagree that it's "100% accurate". Time played is NOT the only factor for house survivability. Factors also include: money put in, the value you leave your house, house design. House design is a huge factor. I know you say that "unfinished houses" inevitably get ganked. When exactly is a house finished though? How much time/money does that take or should take? This has a lot to do with player expectation and it will vary from player to player.

There are other suggestions on the forums and they also lean towards manufactured house security by either making it either less efficient to rob or more difficult overall to rob. There should be some balance and hopefully that's what some of these discussions work towards. People want their house to be harder to rob once they have a house that starts building value. There are ways to achieve this already. Part of it does involve you being at your computer which is one of the core design of the game. You are the most vulnerable when you are away from your computer.

Anyone that is able to and chooses to spend a ton of time at their computer building up security will be away from it for awhile at some point. Is their time worth the idea of extra security? There has to some sort of cost when it comes to security and time is very common cost in a lot of games. Things usually take time to achieve in games and this idea is nothing new. There have been many games with many voiced opinions that state that they too should have the exact same experience in a game even if they choose or are unable to play for less time. There are definitely games out there that cater to this idea, but this game is not designed to be that game.

This doesn't mean that there aren't changes that could be made that end up being positive overall, but I think it's dangerous to go down the path of making houses more secure in an automated way, which lowers incentive to rob, which mostly renders the game experience mostly pointless in my opinion.

Last edited by jw2pfd (2014-02-05 11:48:27)

TyrannosaurusHax · 2014-02-05 18:21:24

jw2pfd wrote:

Time played is NOT the only factor for house survivability..

No, it isn't. However, it's a CRITICAL factor for house survival, which is why the game is stacked so heavily in the favor of someone willing to glue their eyes to it for as long as it takes to make a house that will probably survive for 8 hours against attacks that are far, far stronger than it's listed value in tools.

The only reasons to favor this situation are that you are one of those people and you enjoy the unfair advantage, and/or you suffer from Stockholm syndrome with this game, and/or you'd much rather continue to have houses out there that are massive free money dispensers for whoever (who can afford tools) finds them first rather than have the challenge of robbing a house be proportional to the (minimum) possible reward. Even if my suggestion were implemented, attackers could make guesses at an inflated hidden value of a house by looking at it's visits and kills. So no, you wouldn't be able to log off to achieve victory. This would merely buy some time for the house owner and stop giving moderately rich robbers free lunches. Attackers just wouldn't be able to throw a huge amount of tools at a poorly defended house with as much confidence that it would pay off.

The way things stand now: scrub friendly.

Conversely the situation required to survive the first night is rather unfair to robbers who are willing to take risks. The calculation involved in their calculated risk by crossing the first commitment trap that they don't have the tools to get out of is no calculation at all because a house with almost no money in it (and no other indication of threat) could require a minimum of four ladders to brute force.

Risk:Reward. They should be reasonably close and vary depending on the skill of the design of the house, not depending on when the owner last logged in or at what house value they reset their kill counter.
The premise that my suggestion only makes the game easier only looks at the experience of people trying to start a new house. It ignores the effect on the difficulty of continued existence and money generation for houses that have survived at least a day - which in my opinion is currently far too easy once you get that snowball rolling if you're willing to keep the listed value at only a few thousand and be patient while your house grows to take up the entire map.

Cheap houses being executed by copious tools is just one side of it. I think the house listings should include a separate figure - the value of the house defenses themselves - unless there's a better way. Some indication of the threat of a house in any case.
Robbers should have SOME idea of what they're getting themselves into and meat grinder houses with low value listings should not be able to chew on (COMPLETELY uninformed) tool-less robbers all day and gradually grow fat.

jw2pfd · 2014-02-06 00:56:23

TyrannosaurusHax wrote:

The way things stand now: scrub friendly.

I can't help but feel that your strongest opinions stem from the idea that you don't want people who play more than others to achieve things simply because they are playing the game more. Your usage of the word scrub would seem to indicate that you don't want the current people who are having success to have success because you don't think it's achieved in a way that you agree with. You also call for certain players being given some safeguards while away. The goal seems to be to increase a house's potential survivability mostly for new and infrequent players. You also seem to want to decrease the success of some robbers because they are sometimes making money off of new or infrequent players.

There is a good example of a change that was very necessary and threatened to undermine how the game was played. Around launch day, the amount of defenseless $2000 0-0 and $1000 1-0 houses grew large enough that you could spend your time farming these to make a ridiculous amount of money. It was changed so that there is now a five minute delay before a fresh start is listed. This is a change that fits how the game should be played. I agree that the game isn't about farming defenseless houses. These houses will still be immediately targeted of course when on the list.

When I say defenseless, I am only referring to empty houses with only a vault and family. You use the term "poorly defended" and I am trying to fully understand your definition of this. A house could be poorly defended for many reasons. I have robbed houses because people should have used sticking pressure switches instead of toggle switches. I assume they are a new user and maybe they are still learning. You seem to define poorly defended houses as ones that have enough value for robbers to bring tools and the owner hasn't had a chance to put the money back into that house. I like the idea of using the phrase "adequately defended" instead.

Adequate defense could be looked as the balance between your house's security and design in relation to how much value your house has. Robbers will tend to rob your house with tools only if there is enough efficiency to do so. Of course, no house is ever truly safe and can be robbed by anyone at any time. It is more likely they will be successful if they bring tools. They are more likely to bring tools if there is more incentive to do so. This all leads back to the idea that you can't control your house value while you are away from your computer. This is essential to the game experience though. You need to be increasingly vulnerable when you are away from your computer. In my opinion, it's the only way this game makes sense.

Any safeguards given to new or infrequent players will be detrimental to what I perceive as important to the core game experience.

largestherb · 2014-02-06 01:39:28

maybe i am still half asleep but this just sounds like:

it is an unfair advantage that people who have played a game longer might be better at it* than some people who have not played as much

*whatever it might be in each specific case.

super_maçon · 2014-02-06 02:14:40

largestherb wrote:

maybe i am still half asleep but this just sounds like:
it is an unfair advantage that people who have played a game longer might be better at it* than some people who have not played as much
*whatever it might be in each specific case.

No it's not about how experienced you are, it's about allowing you to survive if you can babysit your house avoiding a big bump your house couldn't resist ( without any regard to your knowledge of the game, just sell/ safe scout with tones of tool/change some walls into expensive ones etc... No one need skills for that ).

I completely agree that you're house should become more and more in danger while you're away.
But on the other side, not allowing the player to put a limit to this "bump" is actually as silly as if you couldn't make any change to your house for 48 hours forcing you to watch the value get crazy high, you just become an observer of the house failure, you're not playing anymore.

Edit for mistakes, sorry for my English

Edit again : Also i realize that the house bump will happen eventually whatever you're doing, when the map will be full, the money will accumulate you'll have to rob ( and taking some risk ) etc... And it's a good thing really. It's just kind of a shame that people without such available time will never be able to enjoy making big houses/robbery.

Last edited by super_maçon (2014-02-06 04:13:57)

Hippasus · 2014-02-06 02:15:14

If you want less people dying in your house overnight then do precisely that, make less people die in it overnight. Make your traps less deadly. If you don't want people to die, don't kill them. Pad the walls, muzzle the dogs, reduce the depth of your pits, do whatever is necessary to stop all these fools dying. Think turtle, think bitlock, think boring!

GoogleFrog · 2014-02-06 09:00:02

This suggestion would go against my playstyle. Currently I rob a few houses for some starting cash and build a house with enough money left over to be a nice target. I then upgrade it over a few days as more money comes in and when I am 'done' with the design I leave it to see how high the value can float. So I am using house value to attract robbers and slower updating would get in the way of this.

TyrannosaurusHax · 2014-02-07 03:11:10

jw2pfd wrote:

...you don't want people who play more than others to achieve things simply because they are playing the game more.

Correct. The key word there is 'simply' - as in 'only'. If one assumes 'achieve things' implies surviving the all important first night if they don't fuck up, because that's about where the snowball is well and truly rolling and the challenge for a defensive player vanishes as long as they can avoid killing themselves or letting the value of the house go beyond..or equal to, the prepared defenses. After that a defensive player can pick his own difficulty by allowing or not allowing the value of the house to increase (more or less).
Again that's the other side of the issue and not what I'm addressing with my suggestion.

Given two otherwise identical players with different frequency of checking the game the only advantage the more frequent player has should be intrinsic - learning faster, having more earning power because they're robbing more often or updating their house more frequently and killing richer robbers (again - obviously there'd have to be some minimum frequency that one needs to check in before the listed value explodes, but it should not be five minutes or whatever it is currently).
Any competitive game where the more skillful player will not necessarily win on average is broken.
I value high skill ceilings and fair competition - always. I find tactics which generate considerably more success than they take skill to implement offensive.
So yes, you are absolutely correct in assuming I don't want anyone to have an unfair advantage.

largestherb wrote:

maybe i am still half asleep but this just sounds like:
it is an unfair advantage that people who have played a game longer might be better at it

Fallacious to the point of being unworthy of proper discussion. Reeks of the all too common desire for one to believe they are better than others in some way without actually being able to back up the idea and anyone with a working brain knows it.

TyrannosaurusHax · 2014-02-07 03:23:04

Hippasus wrote:

If you want less people dying in your house overnight then do precisely that, make less people die in it overnight. Make your traps less deadly. If you don't want people to die, don't kill them. Pad the walls, muzzle the dogs, reduce the depth of your pits, do whatever is necessary to stop all these fools dying. Think turtle, think bitlock, think boring!

Still leaves a house vulnerable to a value explosion caused by suicide griefers and/or disconnects.

super_maçon · 2014-02-07 05:39:49

Well for me that's it. I did have a almost free week, so i could play a lot and did babysit my home, checking every 4/5 hours and spending money to upgrade it.
Enough to pass the first night, once you do that it's ok for the other night ( a 1000 to 5000/6000 $ bump is ok with enough money invested into defenses )

I reached a point where i did consider my design complete and wanted to see how much this house could take, of course i killed my self in a test !
It was very frustrating and hilarious at the same time. A great moment i can't see myself have again soon unfortunately.

The thing is, i don't have that much free time now ( i'm late in my work ) so i may try a little but i can't see any 2000$ design survive 24h00. Maybe i'll try more 2000$ backpack run, hope for a 8000 $ / 10 000 $ budget and build a house, maybe we're supposed to play that way, but it's making new be houses bumping and unplayable. So i don't know if i want to do that.

Last edited by super_maçon (2014-02-07 05:42:24)

TyrannosaurusHax · 2014-02-07 11:32:52

Story time.

I started a fresh house several hours ago, had a very lucky over-sized early bounty, made it into a very good unfinished house, finally succumbed to the need to sleep and...got robbed by someone with tools and lost almost all my money. Oh well.
To my delight the first person to come in with tools vastly overpowering my house's value at the time of going AFK died stupidly, and the next robber to come in managed to rob me with a starter kit. Well done him.

Damn! If only I'd played until I finished extending that pit, or decided to extend that electric floor one more tile in each direction after all, or used a sticky button there instead of a regular one (how that detail of all things escaped me in such an over-engineered monstrosity of a last line of defense is beyond me...

If only I'd played slightly better . . .

then my house would have been utterly destroyed while I was away instead of being left in a position to make a few cheap repairs and wait for the next wave of poor robbers . . .

. . . because the updated value is posted to the world while I sleep.

Now, who can say that this is either untrue, or true and not utterly absurd?

TyrannosaurusHax · 2014-02-07 11:37:39

Update: while I was writing that last post my house's value shot up from ~$400 to over $4000. . .

gyuri · 2014-02-07 17:45:28

super_maçon wrote:

i can't see any 2000$ design survive 24h00

My $2k house had six visitors in the last 24 hours and went up from $78 to $278.

RevealingGekco · 2014-02-08 12:48:41

Hey OP - I also deal with long in-active periods (sleep, work, dinner, game-time, repeat) and I'd agree it presents challenges in the early game.

It helps to start getting ready for your offline period before you actually log off. Do you final defense update (maybe make a scary looking commit gate right at the start) and let it sit for a bit. Don't spend any of the cash, just go scout your neighbors houses. Right before you log off dump any cash you've accumulated. The accumulated kill count will help discourage some of suiciders and the lowered value should give you a barrier to when the serious robbers start hitting you.

You can also go passive, I know this board hates combo locks, but they're pretty cheap to build and if you put one of these up front with nice thick walls, and no nearby hazards then only the most determined suicider is going to leave any bounties. If your value is low enough it's not likely anyone is going to saw through the walls of a sub 2k house to peek your combination. You can tear down the combo lock later, and let people into your real death-trap of a house when you're ready to play.

... all that said, I wouldn't mind seeing some tweaks to income growth spikes, but I think the delayed value updates takes it a bit too far... it incentivizes people to stay offline, instead of just softening income spike/growth.

Last edited by RevealingGekco (2014-02-08 12:53:17)

Amatiel · 2014-02-09 00:29:17

I have no problems leaving my houses, even early game, overnight. U do need to put the time in before this into making it strong enough ofc but it isnt that difficult.

For longer periods like now, i just reduce my house value to make it un viable to rob me

The Castle Doctrine Forums

#1 2014-02-04 21:06:58

[Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#2 2014-02-05 00:57:12

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#3 2014-02-05 01:17:14

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#4 2014-02-05 01:30:45

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#5 2014-02-05 01:42:23

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#6 2014-02-05 02:58:25

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#7 2014-02-05 09:18:51

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#8 2014-02-05 09:39:52

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#9 2014-02-05 11:45:56

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#10 2014-02-05 18:21:24

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#11 2014-02-06 00:56:23

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#12 2014-02-06 01:39:28

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#13 2014-02-06 02:14:40

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#14 2014-02-06 02:15:14

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#15 2014-02-06 09:00:02

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#16 2014-02-07 03:11:10

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#17 2014-02-07 03:23:04

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#18 2014-02-07 05:39:49

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#19 2014-02-07 11:32:52

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#20 2014-02-07 11:37:39

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#21 2014-02-07 17:45:28

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#22 2014-02-08 12:48:41

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

#23 2014-02-09 00:29:17

Re: [Suggestion] delay updating listed house value

Board footer