Recent Property Sales Update

[xanrael]

Give how much people seem worried about abuse due to the enticing mechanical value of a guildhouse, I suggest:

Remove individual storage from guildhouses but it's fine to own a bank vault or small home even if you own some portion of the guildhouse. It's a place to RP meetings and events but not a warehouse anymore. Basically there is a single communal chest in it and that's it. Even that should be more of a temporary "I left something for x member to pickup to work on" as opposed to "this will be stored here eternally until needed".

Could potentially lower the max lock/trap DCs from them as well as you no longer are as worried about quarter thieves so it doesn't have to be cut off from the server when the door closes. Or leave it the same, whichever.

Therefore the ownership of the rooms (past RP of living in a mansion etc) under the proposed systems just determines the chance a guildhouse is kept by that faction if the owner lets the lease lapse and is sort of a guild population tracker. Have 2/4 rooms rented, 50% chance to keep it etc. Heck every 6 RL months have the lease auto-lapse. If the rooms are all occupied they have 100% chance to keep it (and ideally coded to stay in the same person's name), if not then it is in the available state.

That strips the warehouse value of the place nearly completely but doesn't change the potential storage of the individual members much. It would massively negatively effect factions that intentionally kept the place unrented as a really big warehouse, but don't think that was the intention of the other rented rooms of a guildhouse design wise in the first place.

This will likely be a massively hated option, but would remove a lot of incentive for bad behavior due to mechanical greed as has been expressed in the thread.

[AstralUniverse]

I should probably add, that in the case of a property lapse, the new system gives you a greater chance of getting it back, not less of one.

To touch on that because it's interesting... if I understand this correctly..

character doesnt refresh quarter for a week and the 'lease' expires.
- before, quarter goes immediately for sale.
- now, quarter waits short random amount of time before going on for sale, making it less likely for the character to not refresh it before that. So it is just less likely to have a quarter go up for sale due to unintentional mia. instead of 1 week to refresh you now have 1 week + random short amount of time.

Is that how it works?

Actually I was saying easier because faction members could be caught unaware by property going for sale due to owner absence or lack of rent funds, and often before they even realised a third party would have bought it. Now, there is a period of notification, so they can arrange funds, watch quarter, and potentially rp with those also hoping to buy it.

Maybe I dont fully understand some stuff in here but intuitively (and I consider myself very open minded for new systems) it seems off. The faction only gets a 'notification' in the form of not being able to enter the quarter anymore. Before, they wouldnt get that notification but they could at least just pay attention to their quarter-ower's activity and/or RP with the new owner to get it back later, where as now they are limited to just camping the quarter sign where as the possibility to lose it to a third party still exist and there will be no way to RP around it and buy it back from them.

[time_limited]

It is really wierd that we won't be able to perform anymore of quarter/shop seller RP.

I really liked the fact that my character had a reason to chase down a shop owner for the purpose of buying a shop (successfully) , took me 8RL weeks of preparations inner faction discussion, cash organizing then actual meetings, offers etc. It allowed my character to get herself properly introduced to Andunor political powers.

As for quarters ownership I think the main selling point of that is their Storage and location from the nearest portal, after that is the actual "look" and adaptability to faction play.

Maybe adding storage vaults (still citizenship dependent) in close proximity of the portals + upping the quarter costs would solve the issue of everyone needing a quarter?

[time_limited]

Oh suggestion section is locked so

How about something like this maybe?

1. Bankers get new feature - citizenship box synchronization (paid)
2. Boxes beside bankers, allowed to be accessed for a small fee to the bank. District boxes still available free of charge in current locations.
3. Linked to Your character actual citizenship box
4. Citizenship boxes size increased to 20 max
5. Quarter boxes size lowered to 10 max
6. One quarter box per quarter. Guild house gets a single scaling box - 10 per each occupied quarter inside the guild house.
7. Each quarter gets also a box linked with character citizenship box
8. Vaults moved closer to portal locations
9. Costs of quarter Upkeep increased


This would lower the value of quarters as item hoggin places, increase the value and meaning of citizenship, increase the value of being in a faction with guild house active, ensure that for those that just need space to storage items the convenience of portal/bank access would outweigh the need of a quarter for just hogging things.

[Flower Power]

If the main draw of quarters is storage, I'm uncertain how reducing the total amount of storage space available to a quarter-owner by 2 slots overall would do anything to ameliorate this problem.

[Hobojoe]

Prestige has just as big a draw as storage space - I've never seen a room in any of the inns sat on for real life years, can't say the same for some of the even slightly larger properties, which is all the more painful when said properties are being completely under utilized, more personnel dollhouse than a hub of activity.

[Party in the forest at midnight]

Prestige has just as big a draw as storage space - I've never seen a room in any of the inns sat on for real life years, can't say the same for some of the even slightly larger properties, which is all the more painful when said properties are being completely under utilized, more personnel dollhouse than a hub of activity.

This. I don't think changing storage would change house hoarding. It would be NICE, I would be very happy to have more storage on a homeless character, it would take the burden off regarding crafting. But I also don't think it would change things as much as people think it would.

[Drogo Gyslain]

This. I don't think changing storage would change house hoarding. It would be NICE, I would be very happy to have more storage on a homeless character, it would take the burden off regarding crafting. But I also don't think it would change things as much as people think it would.

I agree, honestly, 20 storage slots (for single houses) is not a make or break thing. Maybe if you have a bunch of privately used Fixtures but I mean... its... not hard to just modify things. Its great for things like a smithy and such but, eh...

There are alot more issues than storage space from this.

[Hazard]

What if there was like ..

A second kind of citizenship storage. A faction registers officially with a settlement and for a paid fee (if they enabled it) they get a 60 storage vault in the bank, that anyone with permissions from said faction can access. A communal faction-wide citizen storage.

In exchange, guild houses lose storage chests entirely and are for RP/prestige purposes only.

This way there is nothing mechanically stopping you from starting/doing faction stuff, guild houses are still desirable, and .. a third thing I dunno where's my coffee?

and then we undo this recent change.

[Woper_The_Black]

I really like that idea hazzard. +1. We have a merchant guild that I'm part of and if we could access that sort of storage for the guild to use by all members (around 10 of us) 2 or 3 quarters would become available straight away....You're meaning the same setup as the settlement storage but on a faction level I presume ?

[Hazard]

I really like that idea hazzard. +1. We have a merchant guild that I'm part of and if we could access that sort of storage for the guild to use by all members (around 10 of us) 2 or 3 quarters would become available straight away....You're meaning the same setup as the settlement storage but on a faction level I presume ?

Yep, that's the idea.

[D4wN]

What if there was like ..

A second kind of citizenship storage. A faction registers officially with a settlement and for a paid fee (if they enabled it) they get a 60 storage vault in the bank, that anyone with permissions from said faction can access. A communal faction-wide citizen storage.

In exchange, guild houses lose storage chests entirely and are for RP/prestige purposes only.

This way there is nothing mechanically stopping you from starting/doing faction stuff, guild houses are still desirable, and .. a third thing I dunno where's my coffee?

and then we undo this recent change.

Oooh! A shared Vault space for a faction would be such an incredible idea. For large factions I'd argue 60 is not enough. I don't know how hard it would be to code, but maybe you can just purchase incremental additional storage space? Large factions usually have more coin to spend. Like... You start with 60 vault slots for a faction and pay XXXX gold for every 5 or 10 more storage space up to 100 maybe?

I love this idea so much.

[Aradin]

I like the idea of a faction storage, but it shouldn't be based solely on payment. Rich individuals could abuse that by making a one-person faction. Instead I'd suggest something along the lines of "Faction storage starts at 0 items (so individuals can't abuse it). When a new member joins your faction, they will discover an option in their faction menu that allows them to opt in to the faction storage limit. Opting in costs x gold and increases total faction storage by 2 items. The maximum limit of communal faction storage is 50 items." So a 6 person faction could potentially have a 10-item communal faction storage, and a 26 person faction would reach the max limit of 50 items. Past that point there's no point to opting in besides security in case one of your faction members deletes their character and your storage limit drops (potentially deleting items during a reset).

I'd also suggest a rent/upkeep for faction storage, something like 1,000/month for each person in the faction who has opted in to up the storage limit. If your faction really wants the higher limits of storage, it needs to be a costly luxury to stay in-line with the rest of how the server works. This also dissuades getting something like faction storage "just because you can". If you really want all that extra storage, you'd better be prepared to collectively pay a hefty sum to maintain it. An opt-in cost PLUS 25,000/month is expensive, but absolutely doable by large factions. I think if an idea like faction storage is being floated, it should be done in a way so that a given faction should really be forced to consider whether it's worth it to have the storage, or whether they'd prefer saving their gold. Max storage shouldn't be the best option for every faction IMO.

[Irongron]

As I said above, we have already vastly increased storage options, and while I will certainly continue to add more quarters, vaults and guildhouse storage, there are a absolutely no plans to expand storage yet further, nor would I ever consider separating quarters and storage, for reasons I have already expressed in the past.

Furthermore, an update to the faction system is not something that can happen so easily, it is complex and entrenched. There is no update currently planned for it.

I'm continuing to work in the toolset, flagging exemption quarters and fixing guildhouses, and update announcements will likely be incoming in the next week.

The actual update discussed here, will NOT be reversed. Please don't call this OOC, as all properties on Arelith have always been leased (hence the rent cost). What has changed (in what is really only a fraction of properties) is one tenant not being able to determine the next. This is no less realistic than when you vacate your apartment and the landlord doesn't put it up for rent the same day.

Please understand that things change on Arelith, and while this update is making some unhappy, as I always knew it would, others are extremely pleased. There is no right or wrong approach here, and I will always insist on a right to design the server I run and the areas I create as I wish, including how they are allotted and used. Right now, those that like this get to see how it works, after years of patronage and nepotism. Sure, it might be a train wreck, and in a year or two i may well reconsider, perhaps even entirely reverse it. In the meantime though, this change is here to stay.

I've spent the last two weeks working on C&P, with some pretty big guildhouse updates incoming, while Mord and I have finalising the final updates to the systems that govern them.

I should hopefully be finished C&P in a few days, when I will announce the list of exceptions there, before moving on to the Underdark.

[mash]

I think faction-storage decoupling, while interesting, would be a lot of work with no guarantee of success.

My proposals:

Proposal 1: Concerning guildhouses:

- Guildhouse internal quarters must be filled and refreshed within a time limit or lease is lost
- All owners of guildhouse internal quarters count as owners of the property. Should the lease on one of them lapse, it jumps to the next quarter holder (just like Irongron's adjustment posted earlier)
- Number of internal quarters in guildhouses is raised to a minimum of three to five (there are guildhouses with two internal quarters, which in my opinion that is too low in any case)

Proposal 2: Concerning property release:

- Generally, the system releasing properties with random timers remains in place.
- In settlements, the active chancellor gains the sole power to release properties without a time delay (via eviction). There will be an eviction board (similar to the exile board) which automatically record any evictions that happened (maybe only in a place visible to the government faction). There will also be a limited number of evicitions in any time frame and an income cost to the city, similar to exiles.

This approach allows again for RP exchanges, but differs from the old system by introducing not only the necessity of a third party (the chancellor), but also makes that exchange transparent to the broad community. I realize there is still limited potential for abuse, but it would be much more difficult to pull off, and it is much easier for DM's to step in if anything goes out of hand. Yes, it makes political positions more powerful (although it is the same power settlement leaders had in the old system), which has advantages and disadvantages. But maybe, just maybe, if we forced irregular property exchanges out in the open, make them visible to at least settlement government members, we could:

- Make OOC abuse difficult enough so people don't bother (making it impossible is... impossible)
- Allow justified RP exceptions to property exchange and create stories around them

Edit: I've written the text before Irongorn's previous post, so my post is not meant as a direct response to it or to add criticism. These are merely suggestions I thought of, since a lot of those were thrown around before in the thread.

[Subtext]

Mash, I see where you are coming from but I think it's really not a good idea to give the only controlled way of transferring a quarter to the settlement leader.

That would provide such a wrong incentive to get into that position...
Yeah, I know it has been possible before and didn't happen (too often) but given there have been other ways of transferring quarters, I suppose folks were balking at misusing that too much.

I just realized though...perhaps something simpler might make it better.

Could it be considered to not have the timer trigger if the quarter gets released within for example 24 hours of acquiring the lease?
That would still allow someone to grab a quarter for someone else while preventing hogging it and passing it down for irl years. It would need a safeguard to stop two people from ping pong transferring it but it would give folks with considerably less playtime and ooc investment into sniping quarters a shot at a cool place too.

[Subtext]

And...saw exactly what I've been expecting happening today.

One player with apparently a lot of free time nonstop hogging a sign to see when a certain quarter frees up for apparently six-ish hours and going (at least as they said "for two and a half days straight".

Just standing there, casting invisibility and keeping their eyes on the sign.

[Party in the forest at midnight]

And...saw exactly what I've been expecting happening today.

One player with apparently a lot of free time nonstop hogging a sign to see when a certain quarter frees up for apparently six-ish hours and going (at least as they said "for two and a half days straight".

Just standing there, casting invisibility and keeping their eyes on the sign.

Did you report them?

[Blood on my Lips]

What is truly confusing is why anyone thinks it is easier to police the players that want better quarters (many players) rather than policing the people who are displaying poor sportsmanship and selfish behavior by exchanging properties amongst friends and through OOC means, or hoarding property on inactive characters, which I sincerely hope is a much smaller number of people than those seeking quarters.

There's many drawbacks to the new system and I fear it will actually encourage more quarter-logging and property hoarding.

[Nitro]

What is truly confusing is why anyone thinks it is easier to police the players that want better quarters (many players) rather than policing the people who are displaying poor sportsmanship and selfish behavior by exchanging properties amongst friends and through OOC means, or hoarding property on inactive characters, which I sincerely hope is a much smaller number of people than those seeking quarters.

There's many drawbacks to the new system and I fear it will actually encourage more quarter-logging and property hoarding.

It's a lot easier to see, notice and report a person camping a sign than it is a discord cabal.

[Gurken]

[/quote]
It's a lot easier to see, notice and report a person camping a sign than it is a discord cabal.
[/quote]

Then should it just be entirely random chance? Why should someone who wants a property, not be allowed to try and get the property. What is wrong with this.
RNG isn't fair.
None of this supports RP, just.. Walking by and being lucky enough to buy a property. Congrats.
Punish people for wanting a house. That's all you want from this? Do you already have a home you're happy with and thus don't give a single care for people who don't?

[ReverentBlade]

Why would you design a system that seem intended to encourage camping and then punish players when they use said system? Make up your minds. You're either hands-off or you're hands-on. This weird in-between is exactly where the accusations of favortism are going to crop up.

[Ork]

Enforcement doesn't need to be exclusively hands-off or hands-on. Engage in abusive behavior, and don't be surprised when it costs you.

[Anomandaris]

Rule clarification here would be nice. Afk sign camping seems a big obvious no no, but hanging out for hours and rping with your friends while you wait for a property seems totally reasonable. Where do you draw the line? It’d be weird to enforce basically only “random” property finds. Routine checking or loitering is gonna be common with this system.

Apparently DM's are resetting CD's if people loiter near signs? This should really be addressed with a ruling.

If you don't allow people to do this using legit IC means, you're basically limiting procuring properties through completely random means. A simple hard no on being "engaged in dialogue with the sign" is obvious. But why can't I literally pitch a tent and hang out drinking with my friends in front of a sign for a few hours? With the new mechanics, that's literally the only way besides just dumb, blind luck.

Disclaimer: I own a great property now, so not advocating for self interest. Just... seems crazy to have hidden rules/no rules or to enforce a rule that would limit reasonable IC measures to secure a property.

[Subtext]

In case that got viewed that way...I didn't bring this up as a rulebreak (I don't think it is!) - I merely feel like that is exactly what shouldn't happen as it introduces another way of gatekeeping interesting quarters, namely for those that can afford to be logged in for 24 hours straight to check on a quarter *constantly*. Which is exactly what is already happening.

I do not believe that online times are any indicator for how deserving someone is of a nice place. I am not faulting those that do essentially "camp" the place on a de facto constant basis - of course you should have a chance at a place! However, unlike before it is not possible anymore to ensure that someone else that could make fantastic use of such a place also gets one...and they are in my opinion just as deserving

Essentially what matters now is either sheer dumb luck or the amount of "camping coverage" you can organize...and that is imho also something that benefits a discord cabal of active players, even if a little less so than before.

And given that eviction is a thing and the rule barriers to evict someone aren't high to begin with? It would be even more frustrating for those that did finally get lucky.