Arelith

This would have been a kudos thread, however I noticed a potential flaw based on the wording of the update.

Specifically: "When releasing or selling a property via the quarter/shop sign"

In the instance that players deliberately avoid logging in to their quarter-owning character and refreshing their quarter for the 7 RL days, will the property follow the same trend as "it will not go up for sale immediately, but rather become available for purchase at a random time over the next few RL days"? Or will it go up for sale immediately after the 7 RL day inactivity period is reached?

That is a good question, above.

I am not sure if it is this way, but I would like to see when a property is released the sign changes automatically to 'FOR SALE' to alert passers by that it is for sale. Some way to avoid quietly releasing a quarter and telling your friends to camp it.

I think we should really brainstorm ways this system can be gamed so that it keeps it's intended effect. That and keep this thread alive to report ways we see it being gamed.

I'm happy to see this issue being tackled and hope that players fall in line with the spirit of the change.

I believe it also applies to properties who's lease lapses too. I'm getting confirmation on that though - so if I'm wrong I'll update.

Edit - Confirmed.

Can you set a sale price?

I ask because these properties do have a value beyond their mechanically assigned one. In the past you actually a real estate market. Prime shop locations, big homes etc.

By setting a property for sale, we should be able to set the price based on market value not a default one.

The idea to have the sign name change to "FOR SALE" is a nice one, it'd also remove the need to go touching every sign when you're house hunting.

I am personally curious as to whether there are a defined set of rules tied to people requesting a transfer due to "holidays, deployment, etc."

Without something openly established, I would worry about people thinking other players got preferential treatment (this may well happen anyways) in certain cases. I ASSUME the intent is to make sure factions don't dissolve because a player has to step back for slightly longer than a week, but then I would wonder how long is too long?

Just little questions like that which have popped up for me! I do think the change is a step in the right direction personally.

Jordenk wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 3:04 pm

Can you set a sale price?

I ask because these properties do have a value beyond their mechanically assigned one. In the past you actually a real estate market. Prime shop locations, big homes etc.

By setting a property for sale, we should be able to set the price based on market value not a default one.

Since real estate vulturing was made forbidden by the rules by IG himself I doubt he is going to re-enable it mechanically.

Jordenk wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 3:04 pm

Can you set a sale price?

You cannot.

Curve wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 3:00 pm

I am not sure if it is this way, but I would like to see when a property is released the sign changes automatically to 'FOR SALE' to alert passers by that it is for sale. Some way to avoid quietly releasing a quarter and telling your friends to camp it.

Nitro wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 3:09 pm

The idea to have the sign name change to "FOR SALE" is a nice one, it'd also remove the need to go touching every sign when you're house hunting.

Definitely second these.

Jordenk wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 3:04 pm

Can you set a sale price?

I ask because these properties do have a value beyond their mechanically assigned one. In the past you actually a real estate market. Prime shop locations, big homes etc.

By setting a property for sale, we should be able to set the price based on market value not a default one.

This was always against the rules unless it was a limited period auction/sale. Personally I feel that by permitting a price to be listed mechanically it will only allow owners to set it and forget it unlike an auction where they actively have to log in to check bids.

The issue with the 'For Sale' sign is that it has never been thing. YOu've always had to check the quarters manually - and I personally don't see the issue in it.
Players can always write the "For sale" on the quarter name as they leave it vacant.

DM Snowcat wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 3:38 pm

The issue with the 'For Sale' sign is that it has never been thing. YOu've always had to check the quarters manually - and I personally don't see the issue in it.
Players can always write the "For sale" on the quarter name as they leave it vacant.

I mean, "It's always been that way" is kind of a strange reason to turn down an improvement. If there isn't any negatives with it, and plenty of positives, then why not?

I think the main purpose being that it disallows people to exploit this new system by doing what Curve mentioned. A byproduct is that is just helps players notice quarters that are for sale without the administration having to constantly add in a property manager to each settlement akin to the one in Cordor.

The rentable ships in Sencliff are not excluded from this new update, and I fear the same for other rentable ships. To me it doesn't look intended, it's hardly ideal to put a cooldown of real life days on a property someone uses one or two hours at a time before releasing it.

Popkhorne wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 3:47 pm

The rentable ships in Sencliff are not excluded from this new update, and I fear the same for other rentable ships. To me it doesn't look intended, it's hardly ideal to put a cooldown of real life days on a property someone uses one or two hours at a time before releasing it.

You're right this isn't intended. I think it'll be worked on so there isn't a timer on this.

Nitro wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 3:33 pm

Jordenk wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 3:04 pm

Can you set a sale price?

I ask because these properties do have a value beyond their mechanically assigned one. In the past you actually a real estate market. Prime shop locations, big homes etc.

By setting a property for sale, we should be able to set the price based on market value not a default one.

Since real estate vulturing was made forbidden by the rules by IG himself I doubt he is going to re-enable it mechanically.

What’s vulturing? Seems like we’re maybe talking about something else? I’m talking about selling a property you own and have been occupying. I wasn’t aware that was against a rule? I’ve never owned property til this PC but it’s a very common practice from what I see.

Everything else has a free market value why not property? Set an auction timer and a buy now price set by owner.... eBay is a great model. If the set price is too high the auction process will ensure property sale to highest bidder. Seems fun and a means to get a little more value out of selling a property. Take a tax on it and you’ve got another potential gold sink.

Jordenk wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 3:55 pm

Nitro wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 3:33 pm

Jordenk wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 3:04 pm

Can you set a sale price?

I ask because these properties do have a value beyond their mechanically assigned one. In the past you actually a real estate market. Prime shop locations, big homes etc.

By setting a property for sale, we should be able to set the price based on market value not a default one.

Since real estate vulturing was made forbidden by the rules by IG himself I doubt he is going to re-enable it mechanically.

What’s vulturing? Seems like we’re maybe talking about something else? I’m talking about selling a property you own and have been occupying. I wasn’t aware that was against a rule? I’ve never owned property til this PC but it’s a very common practice from what I see.

Everything else has a free market value why not property? Set an auction timer and a buy now price set by owner.... eBay is a great model. If the set price is too high the auction process will ensure property sale to highest bidder. Seems fun and a means to get a little more value out of selling a property. Take a tax on it and you’ve got another potential gold sink.

I think vulturing is buying a property just to sell it on for above the base price.

The reason why it's a concern is that it really cuts new pcs out of the game.

Jordenk wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 3:55 pm

What’s vulturing? Seems like we’re maybe talking about something else? I’m talking about selling a property you own and have been occupying. I wasn’t aware that was against a rule? I’ve never owned property til this PC but it’s a very common practice from what I see.

Everything else has a free market value why not property? Set an auction timer and a buy now price set by owner.... eBay is a great model. If the set price is too high the auction process will ensure property sale to highest bidder. Seems fun and a means to get a little more value out of selling a property. Take a tax on it and you’ve got another potential gold sink.

Pretty much another word for 'price gouging'.

Property does not because unlike other commodities it is extremely limited and cannot be created freely by other players.

The below link explains what is against the rule.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=21795&start=25#p254760

It also locks new people out of acquiring quarters, since only those well established characters with very deep pockets ever have a chance of winning those auctions.

That all makes sense thanks for the replies. I guess with citizen storage and banks I can’t see the lesser properties going for much. Especially if it’s an auction with a low starting bid. I feel like the market will balance it out pretty easily. I find it hard to believe seedy tavern rooms are gonna go for millions as an example, it’s just not worth it, but maybe...

Higher end properties would be very inaccesible without good wealth, that’s true.... but that kind of makes sense ic no? I guess if the idea is to kinda randomize and democratize all the luxury awesome properties that’s one thing, but that doesn’t seem to fit any ic narrative or sense besides it’s nice to do oocly.

I’ve never gotten a cool property til this char after years on the server. I am stoked to have it but it never defined my experience. I feel like a luxury “mansion” is and should be a product of wealth and achievement not good timing... that’s just me.

I wonder if this could be solved with a price ceiling. Or perhaps tiering properties. Or maybe just drastically increasing the mechanics’ auto list price for really nice properties to represent their actual increased value. A few hundred thousand for a literal mansion that makes your average PC rp shock and awe upon entering is pretty reasonable.

Jordenk wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 4:16 pm

but that doesn’t seem to fit any ic narrative or sense besides it’s nice to do oocly.

Don't take this as a flippant response, but imagine applying this logic to something like, 'why don't I wait until my enemy is sleeping and cut their throat.' or 'why don't I run up invisible and gank my enemy without a warning'. Rather than 'it's nice to do oocly' try 'it's the best way we have to prevent abuse'

Jordenk wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 4:16 pm

I feel like a luxury “mansion” is and should be a product of wealth and achievement not good timing... that’s just me.

The problem is that the same thirty people seem to end up with the fancy quarters. This is, again, an ooc rule to prevent people from going too far.

While I definitely understand why this update might be divisive, and why some players are rightly asking about whether ownership should be based on roleplay rather then timing, I can only add that I believe it is critical we operate an egalitarian approach wherever possible. OoC cliques and Discord groups shouldn't decide who gets what, and DMs definitely shouldn't.

This update was brought about by it becoming ever more visible that many properties were staying among the same OOC groups for years on end, dictated by entrenched factions, or sold for vast sums, all of which were hurting the opportunities afforded to new players.

While I'm never one to see yet more player agency removed by administrative or mechanical means, I can see the reason for this. Guldorand has been taking IC action against the very thing this is meant to prevent, but that requires effort on the part of players to follow through, and thus it's fallible. Favoring friends, laziness, so on.

A clarification: If the player checks on a property in the time span between the release date, and the mechanical sale toggle, will it refresh their timer, effectively giving them bonus time to renew their hold on it?

I'm pleased with the updates. It gives newer characters more potential options to start their own homes/factions/hideouts. It was very plain how some quarters were being handed around to the point people almost seemed entitled to have them automatically.

Good change.

Curve's already mentioned that yeah, this isn't the most realistic thing but it's a matter of 'realism' being swapped out for 'more fun' for the larger amount of players.

I wonder if this could be solved with a price ceiling. Or perhaps tiering properties. Or maybe just drastically increasing the mechanics’ auto list price for really nice properties to represent their actual increased value. A few hundred thousand for a literal mansion that makes your average PC rp shock and awe upon entering is pretty reasonable.

This idea is nice in theory but difficult to enforce. We've already rules against auctioning properties- but we can't stop general one-on-one sales. It'd be very difficult to police- especialy if people took it to ooc discords and such.

triaddraykin wrote: ↑

Sat May 08, 2021 5:02 pm

A clarification: If the player checks on a property in the time span between the release date, and the mechanical sale toggle, will it refresh their timer, effectively giving them bonus time to renew their hold on it?

Nope. You need to click on it before it goes up for sale.