[Suggestion] Co-Ownership for Large Homes: Enhancing Community & Social Retention

Faxx · April 30

[Suggestion] Co-Ownership for Large Homes: Enhancing Community & Social Retention
The Suggestion:

I am proposing a "Co-Owner" permission level for player housing. With the release of massive properties like Buccaneer’s Bay, these spaces are perfect for multi-ownership and becoming too large for a single player to realistically "fill" and inhabit alone. Providing a way for two or more players (why not up to 24?) to truly share a home would create a massive boost in social connection and long-term player retention.

The Inspiration:
Those who played Star Wars Galaxies (SWG) remember that the housing system knew no equal because it allowed players to build lives together. In ESO, we have "Decorator" permissions, but it’s not the same as sharing a home base with a partner, groups of friends, or a Guild mates.

Solving the objection of "Theft" Problem (The Rule):
The biggest concern with shared ownership is always what happens if players have a "falling out." I propose one simple, hard rule to prevent "item ganking":

* Permissions: A Co-Owner has full decorator rights to move and place items.
* Ownership Lock: A player cannot withdraw an item into their inventory unless they are the original owner of that specific item.
* Result: You can move your friend's furniture (or hide it for a prank!), but you can never steal it.

Why this helps ESO:

1. Notable Homes: Players are more likely to invest in large, premium Crown Store houses if they know they can build a shared "headquarters" with someone else.
2. Social Bonds: Sharing a home is one of the strongest "social glues" in an MMO. It keeps people logging in to work on their shared projects. (ESO needs more social glue)
3. Creative Pranking: As long as items can't be stolen, the ability for a co-owner to move things around allows for fun, harmless interactions between friends.

Summary:
Let’s move beyond "Visiting" and "Decorating" and allow for true "Inhabiting." Let us share our homes without the fear of losing our items.

I bought the bucaneer bay to share with other, but nobody can share anything if they have a bound item that only I can place for them...let's fix this.

Thank you for your consideration

Faxxamous, Templar

Lavia_Frons · April 30

Yes, please! My partner and I have been dreaming of something like this ever since we started getting into housing.
We're able to get married we want to share a house!

Faxx · May 3

I'm a bit surprised not more people show interest in this.

It's a huge deal towards making the mMo part grow.

I've been in quite a lot of mmo's since 2002, and having a game that has something to do all the time but no place to be with others socially ....personal...that's where magic happens. where loyalty and retention happen. It will get people wanting to stay closer, hang out more, do more things as a group...there really is nothing but win in this situation....i've seen it with my own eyes....and left mmo's for lack of connection to other players. It's not just about the loot and monster helm...it's about a shared experience with friends.

WolfStar07 · May 6

How are the homes purchased in those other games? At this point, I think most of the homes in game can be and are purchased with real money, and thus needs to have a legal owner. And honestly, it's up to the players to facilitate engagement with homes and people.

Usureki · May 11

Totally agree!

Moreover, I think there should be passive income possibilities in Housings, like farming - nothing game breaking but could make the housing feel more integrated to the game, because as of know, it really exists for just itself.

Faxx · May 11

WolfStar07 wrote: »

How are the homes purchased in those other games? At this point, I think most of the homes in game can be and are purchased with real money, and thus needs to have a legal owner. And honestly, it's up to the players to facilitate engagement with homes and people.

Hi WolfStar,
They are puchased just like in ESO, but in , for example, SWG...i can set another player to have full admin rights so they can interact with inventory in any way the regular owner can. now in SWG, ppl would steal other players' stuff but a simple rule that says if someone placed it, you can not take it into your own inventory solves that issue 100% and gives players the chance to co-own a place. the level of creativity and 'magic' is not able to be put into words with this level of freedom in a house. I'm bummed you have not gotten to experience that yet.

hopefully it can become a reality...just wait! it's a whole new dynamic to an MMO that hasn't had this before

WolfStar07 · May 11

What you're describing sounds like decorator permissions. The only difference being that someone else (presumably) can place furnishings (not just interact with what's there).

Alp · May 13

WolfStar07 wrote: »

What you're describing sounds like decorator permissions. The only difference being that someone else (presumably) can place furnishings (not just interact with what's there).

Yeah, I think that only difference is the most important part, though.
Also can't place bound furniture in other people's houses because it can't be traded, so even with permissions, that wouldn't work.

Sharing houses would be cool, though. Guild housing, pooling together your mundus stones, crafting stations, etc., instead of one player having to buy it all. Roleplay etc. Being able to place down this thing you found in a shared space and remove it again would be pretty immersive.

WolfStar07 · May 13

Alp wrote: »

Sharing houses would be cool, though. Guild housing, pooling together your mundus stones, crafting stations, etc., instead of one player having to buy it all. Roleplay etc. Being able to place down this thing you found in a shared space and remove it again would be pretty immersive.

With crown gifting, that cost doesn't have to fall on one person. And most guild halls are formed as a collective effort anyway, so that argument doesn't really work either.

I think the only way any sort of collective "ownership" would work (especially if it's a guild hall) is if it were a perk to be unlocked like the trader, bank, and tabard are. Then it would be tied to the guild. And then perhaps from there the GM could assign permissions for who can do what in the house. Downside would be 1. If it's like the guild bank, then there's the potential for people to rob the place, 2. ZOS would likely just give everyone the same cookie cutter guild hall, and then we'd lose a lot of creativity and guild pride.

Alp wrote: »

Yeah, I think that only difference is the most important part, though.

ZOS have said there needs to be a single legal owner for homes. That distinction and the current decorator permissions is what prevents homes from being robbed like guild banks often are without direct access to the owner's account. Since they can't prevent people from removing more from the guild bank than they put in (unless they just need to create more granular permissions like we've been asking), I'm not sure they'd be able to set up homes for collective ownership as is being advocated.

Alp · May 13

WolfStar07 wrote: »

Alp wrote: »

Sharing houses would be cool, though. Guild housing, pooling together your mundus stones, crafting stations, etc., instead of one player having to buy it all. Roleplay etc. Being able to place down this thing you found in a shared space and remove it again would be pretty immersive.

With crown gifting, that cost doesn't have to fall on one person. And most guild halls are formed as a collective effort anyway, so that argument doesn't really work either.

I think the only way any sort of collective "ownership" would work (especially if it's a guild hall) is if it were a perk to be unlocked like the trader, bank, and tabard are. Then it would be tied to the guild. And then perhaps from there the GM could assign permissions for who can do what in the house. Downside would be 1. If it's like the guild bank, then there's the potential for people to rob the place, 2. ZOS would likely just give everyone the same cookie cutter guild hall, and then we'd lose a lot of creativity and guild pride.

Alp wrote: »

Yeah, I think that only difference is the most important part, though.

ZOS have said there needs to be a single legal owner for homes. That distinction and the current decorator permissions is what prevents homes from being robbed like guild banks often are without direct access to the owner's account. Since they can't prevent people from removing more from the guild bank than they put in (unless they just need to create more granular permissions like we've been asking), I'm not sure they'd be able to set up homes for collective ownership as is being advocated.

It becomes an issue when a single person can also just leave the guild and take everything everyone bought with them.

I assume if a feature like this was added you would only be able to remove stuff from the house if you were the person to place it; like it's still technically bound to you. And if you lost access you should get everything you placed returned to you.

Faxx · May 18

Alp wrote: »

WolfStar07 wrote: »

Alp wrote: »

Sharing houses would be cool, though. Guild housing, pooling together your mundus stones, crafting stations, etc., instead of one player having to buy it all. Roleplay etc. Being able to place down this thing you found in a shared space and remove it again would be pretty immersive.

With crown gifting, that cost doesn't have to fall on one person. And most guild halls are formed as a collective effort anyway, so that argument doesn't really work either.

I think the only way any sort of collective "ownership" would work (especially if it's a guild hall) is if it were a perk to be unlocked like the trader, bank, and tabard are. Then it would be tied to the guild. And then perhaps from there the GM could assign permissions for who can do what in the house. Downside would be 1. If it's like the guild bank, then there's the potential for people to rob the place, 2. ZOS would likely just give everyone the same cookie cutter guild hall, and then we'd lose a lot of creativity and guild pride.

Alp wrote: »

Yeah, I think that only difference is the most important part, though.

ZOS have said there needs to be a single legal owner for homes. That distinction and the current decorator permissions is what prevents homes from being robbed like guild banks often are without direct access to the owner's account. Since they can't prevent people from removing more from the guild bank than they put in (unless they just need to create more granular permissions like we've been asking), I'm not sure they'd be able to set up homes for collective ownership as is being advocated.

It becomes an issue when a single person can also just leave the guild and take everything everyone bought with them.

I assume if a feature like this was added you would only be able to remove stuff from the house if you were the person to place it; like it's still technically bound to you. And if you lost access you should get everything you placed returned to you.

you didn't read my entire post.
I addressed theft very simply and easily. read up.

regarding guild / guild halls... My suggestion is not for guilds or guild halls, i don't see a need to change any of that.

MidnightDuel · May 21

Adding a permission that allows other players to place/retrieve furnishings would be welcome, but co-ownership creates its own set of problems and much more headache for the developers and customer service. Nothing worse than a messy divorce.

I'm also not supportive of creating houses that are specifically tied to a guild or guild ownership.

Faxx · May 22

MidnightDuel wrote: »

Adding a permission that allows other players to place/retrieve furnishings would be welcome, but co-ownership creates its own set of problems and much more headache for the developers and customer service. Nothing worse than a messy divorce.

I'm also not supportive of creating houses that are specifically tied to a guild or guild ownership.

i maybe should have specified that...the person who purchases the home is still the primary owner, but as you say...having the ability to give someone permissions to drop and place items of their own...would really improve house activity and value.

faxx

SilverBride · May 22

I've kept all my permissions set to restricted visitors after someone once went around and turned all the lights off in 34 of my houses. There is no way I'd give anyone permission to move my furnishings, especially if they like to do "pranks" and destroy what I worked hard to create.

I can see this causing a lot of problems.

Alp · May 22

Faxx wrote: »

Alp wrote: »

WolfStar07 wrote: »

Alp wrote: »

Sharing houses would be cool, though. Guild housing, pooling together your mundus stones, crafting stations, etc., instead of one player having to buy it all. Roleplay etc. Being able to place down this thing you found in a shared space and remove it again would be pretty immersive.

With crown gifting, that cost doesn't have to fall on one person. And most guild halls are formed as a collective effort anyway, so that argument doesn't really work either.

I think the only way any sort of collective "ownership" would work (especially if it's a guild hall) is if it were a perk to be unlocked like the trader, bank, and tabard are. Then it would be tied to the guild. And then perhaps from there the GM could assign permissions for who can do what in the house. Downside would be 1. If it's like the guild bank, then there's the potential for people to rob the place, 2. ZOS would likely just give everyone the same cookie cutter guild hall, and then we'd lose a lot of creativity and guild pride.

Alp wrote: »

Yeah, I think that only difference is the most important part, though.

ZOS have said there needs to be a single legal owner for homes. That distinction and the current decorator permissions is what prevents homes from being robbed like guild banks often are without direct access to the owner's account. Since they can't prevent people from removing more from the guild bank than they put in (unless they just need to create more granular permissions like we've been asking), I'm not sure they'd be able to set up homes for collective ownership as is being advocated.

It becomes an issue when a single person can also just leave the guild and take everything everyone bought with them.

I assume if a feature like this was added you would only be able to remove stuff from the house if you were the person to place it; like it's still technically bound to you. And if you lost access you should get everything you placed returned to you.

you didn't read my entire post.
I addressed theft very simply and easily. read up.

regarding guild / guild halls... My suggestion is not for guilds or guild halls, i don't see a need to change any of that.

It was a response to the other guy who didn't read it.

Alp · May 22

SilverBride wrote: »

I've kept all my permissions set to restricted visitors after someone once went around and turned all the lights off in 34 of my houses. There is no way I'd give anyone permission to move my furnishings, especially if they like to do "pranks" and destroy what I worked hard to create.

I can see this causing a lot of problems.

The trick here is to not let people that you don't trust have those permissions.

SilverBride · May 22

Alp wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I've kept all my permissions set to restricted visitors after someone once went around and turned all the lights off in 34 of my houses. There is no way I'd give anyone permission to move my furnishings, especially if they like to do "pranks" and destroy what I worked hard to create.

I can see this causing a lot of problems.

The trick here is to not let people that you don't trust have those permissions.

I decorate by my own vision and do not want anyone to alter even the slightest detail. So I would never use this.

But all that aside, what if a friend gets mad at the other and comes in and just piles all the furniture together in a big heap just to be mean? Things like that could and would happen and I don't think ZOS would intervene because they were given permission.

WolfStar07 · May 25

Alp wrote: »

Faxx wrote: »

Alp wrote: »

WolfStar07 wrote: »

Alp wrote: »

Sharing houses would be cool, though. Guild housing, pooling together your mundus stones, crafting stations, etc., instead of one player having to buy it all. Roleplay etc. Being able to place down this thing you found in a shared space and remove it again would be pretty immersive.

With crown gifting, that cost doesn't have to fall on one person. And most guild halls are formed as a collective effort anyway, so that argument doesn't really work either.

I think the only way any sort of collective "ownership" would work (especially if it's a guild hall) is if it were a perk to be unlocked like the trader, bank, and tabard are. Then it would be tied to the guild. And then perhaps from there the GM could assign permissions for who can do what in the house. Downside would be 1. If it's like the guild bank, then there's the potential for people to rob the place, 2. ZOS would likely just give everyone the same cookie cutter guild hall, and then we'd lose a lot of creativity and guild pride.

Alp wrote: »

Yeah, I think that only difference is the most important part, though.

ZOS have said there needs to be a single legal owner for homes. That distinction and the current decorator permissions is what prevents homes from being robbed like guild banks often are without direct access to the owner's account. Since they can't prevent people from removing more from the guild bank than they put in (unless they just need to create more granular permissions like we've been asking), I'm not sure they'd be able to set up homes for collective ownership as is being advocated.

It becomes an issue when a single person can also just leave the guild and take everything everyone bought with them.

I assume if a feature like this was added you would only be able to remove stuff from the house if you were the person to place it; like it's still technically bound to you. And if you lost access you should get everything you placed returned to you.

you didn't read my entire post.
I addressed theft very simply and easily. read up.

regarding guild / guild halls... My suggestion is not for guilds or guild halls, i don't see a need to change any of that.

It was a response to the other guy who didn't read it.

I was addressing guild halls because they're related- requiring a legal owner. The topic of this thread is splitting ownership, which runs into the legal concerns ZOS have mentioned. And the fact ZOS haven't managed to give us granular permissions for guild banks really doesn't make it likely they'd manage this split home ownership.

Faxx · May 30

Banks, Guild halls...i don't see any reason to change those. Guild leaders control the halls

But large homes with others sharing in the placement only. The "falling out" argument is just not a reason to not consider this... if you have a friend to share in things in the game with you don't worry about them crashing your furniture. and if they did do it, well... i bet its a moot point 99.99% of the time.

"What if they found an exploit" -- Julio Torres (IYKYN)

MidnightDuel · May 31

Faxx wrote: »

Banks, Guild halls...i don't see any reason to change those. Guild leaders control the halls

Not all "Guild Halls" are owned by the guild's General Manager. Where they are not, a guild can find itself without access to a guild hall if the player who offers up their home as a guild hall suddenly has a falling-out with the guild and changes the house permissions.

Likewise, where the Guild Master's home is used as the guild hall, there are challenges with keeping crafting stations updated and applying permissions if the Guild Master steps down or suddenly stops playing the game. I offered up my house to one guild when our GM was permanently banned from the game. In another guild, our GM stopped playing suddenly when his job required more business travel; that guild hall hasn't had any of the new sets added to Grand Master Crafting stations in almost two years.

Joint owership is messy, especially when parties have disgreements or a falling-out. ZOS customer support should not be placed in the position of playing divorce-court judge and jury.

anadandy · June 4

Lavia_Frons wrote: »

Yes, please! My partner and I have been dreaming of something like this ever since we started getting into housing.
We're able to get married we want to share a house!

Same. This was the biggest letdown for me when Homestead dropped. Having to have my gaming partner mail me furnishings so I could decorate "our" houses. We eventually just gave up. I would love another level of permissions that allowed placing furniture from my inventory (even if they limited it to crafted only)

I've said this before when the topic comes up, but at some point people need to be responsible for who they give permissions to. Put a big honking warning box you need to click through before it's done.

Faxx · July 17

Banks, Guild halls...i don't see any reas

anadandy wrote: »

Lavia_Frons wrote: »

Yes, please! My partner and I have been dreaming of something like this ever since we started getting into housing.
We're able to get married we want to share a house!

Same. This was the biggest letdown for me when Homestead dropped. Having to have my gaming partner mail me furnishings so I could decorate "our" houses. We eventually just gave up. I would love another level of permissions that allowed placing furniture from my inventory (even if they limited it to crafted only)

I've said this before when the topic comes up, but at some point people need to be responsible for who they give permissions to. Put a big honking warning box you need to click through before it's done.

Agreed,
It should not be on game devs to police who you give permissions to. that keeps it simple too.