Stealing an idea from Neverwinter Nights

[Thylbanus09]

I can't stress more that this would be self contained. This is not meant to be a personal guild ship. The guild ship needs to have it's place. It's not an imbalance in the game, just that we don't want to remove the appeal of being in a guild. I never joined a guild before as there was no point, no payoff in the end. Now with the buffs, discount purchasing, and transport to different locations, it makes being in a guild worth it. You could still have buffs of a sort, but only those that work within your own realm. By having the castle/keep/stronghold only on each player's computer rather than the servers, you don't have to worry about over population or clutter that is abandoned by players. If you never go back to it, it would be just taking up space on your computer not their servers.

Wherever it originated from, it's concept is not without promise. The whole idea that you had something that is yours to do with as you want is appealing to many. If you don't want it, you don't have to invest the time. Those who do can spend time/platinum/money to their heart's content.

As for access to account rather than each character, I might agree if this was something that later could be made per character. I want my orc fighter to have his orcish stronghold full of barbaric orkyness, while my elven mage would have a nice crystal palace full of plants, trees, and meadows. It could almost work how the bind points on the guild ships work. You have limited amount of space that you could build and you have to decide weather you want a workshop here to create goods to sell for trade bars, or an armory that would improve the offensive/defensive capabilities of your troops. Have the amount of bind points available dependent upon your leadership and you could buy more bind point types with trade bars. And much like with guild ships you could buy more than would normally be available to you with TPs.

And many of the other posters have stated it would also balance out the OUTRAGEOUS prices that people think that they can charge on the auction house. Seriously, +6 items are not worth a million platinum people! I made a hat with +6 during the anniversary festival and it seriously didn't take that much time. I was able to do it for 6 toons and 2 of those have 2 +6 stat hats. Come on. A million platinum? It would have a nice economical effect for the wild pricing that happens. At best I'm willing to pay twice to three times the cost of an item, IF it is a perfect fit or perfect item mix, like a +5 Ghost Touch Metalline Heavy Mace of Disruption. I may pay three times the base for that if I had planned to do the Necropolis series. In any event I would pay twice that for it at least.

The more we talk about it the more potential I think it has.

Sorry about the non-topic rant, but I had to get it off my chest.

[arjiwan]

full of barbaric orkyness

TL/DR. But I approve the word orkyness. +1 if I could

(At first I read, oinkiness, oink oink)

[Alabore]

Yah, like zawabi's refuge - what's up with all the unused space? I know it's a desert and all, but wow what a waste.

To be fair, I was thinking of the jungle surrounding Stormreach.
The desert is actually much further south and west, and I wasn't really considering it.

-> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ex...g_0703full.jpg

...

Insta-travel in DDO is very convenient, compared to most other MMOs, but you are never quite aware of actual distances between points of interest.

[Alavatar]

By having the castle/keep/stronghold only on each player's computer rather than the servers, you don't have to worry about over population or clutter that is abandoned by players. If you never go back to it, it would be just taking up space on your computer not their servers.

Two problems:

A) This makes it open for hacking. By making the castle data reside on the player's computer you are opening it up for manipulation as the server would not act as the authority.

B) Players with multiple computers. Or, multiple accounts on one computer. If the former, a player would lose his castle by logging on with a different computer. If the latter, due to hacking, one castle could be accessed by multiple accounts at the same time.

Any data that corresponds to a character should remain on the Turbine servers.

[Thylbanus09]

Two problems:

A) This makes it open for hacking. By making the castle data reside on the player's computer you are opening it up for manipulation as the server would not act as the authority.

B) Players with multiple computers. Or, multiple accounts on one computer. If the former, a player would lose his castle by logging on with a different computer. If the latter, due to hacking, one castle could be accessed by multiple accounts at the same time.

Any data that corresponds to a character should remain on the Turbine servers.

Like I said I don't really know how this functions, but much like how a character is just a string of code, so too could the personal realm, so Turbine can weigh the cost of such an undertaking. I feel that the expenditure in TPs would be more than compensation enough to save such to a server. In this way they could also make an application for say an i-phone or i-pad that players could play on the go. The question of using established land vs. a "pocket realm" would be the situation. I feel that it should function as a "pocket realm" rather than using "public" land. Much like a guild ship has it's own instance, so too could the realm. This would alleviate the need to rework the LFG/IM system, and still not have the clutter and overpopulation of keeps/castles/strongholds.

[Thylbanus09]

I just read the Fernian Festival. I like many of the suggestions. The events that have been running have really kept me interested when I've become bored with waiting for groups to form. Hopefully the Devs still read these and take an idea or two.

[Alabore]

A) This makes it open for hacking. By making the castle data reside on the player's computer you are opening it up for manipulation as the server would not act as the authority.

I was wondering the same.
Apparently, Guildwars ran some instances client-side - which could mean they had managed to find a workaround for potential hacking issues.

[fco-karatekid]

I was wondering the same.
Apparently, Guildwars ran some instances client-side - which could mean they had managed to find a workaround for potential hacking issues.

It's a bit complicated, but not at all impossible to hack-proof client-side content using hashes that are validated by the server side. I dunno, it seems to me there are more advantages than disadvantages to just leaving it server-side. Already have the infrastructure for it.

[pie2655]

As cool as the idea sounds,it sounds like a whole game by itself. Also DDO is supposed to not be all "medieval, and dark ages etc..".