Feedback - Abandoned Property Excessive Theft

[MissEvelyn]

It would be so amazing if we had a way to include one other person on the 'lease', so to speak, so that up to two different players would have the ability to refresh quarters.

Perhaps this is something the dev team could discuss and consider?

[Griefmaker]

It would be so amazing if we had a way to include one other person on the 'lease', so to speak, so that up to two different players would have the ability to refresh quarters.

Perhaps this is something the dev team could discuss and consider?

The only problem with that is then places will never go up for sale since it is easy to always have one person there to keep it refreshed and then get another once one of the pair decides to move on.

I do not even know that I would suggest this for guild houses, though I could see it having more useful application there, since vacations and real life are a thing and it sucks when something is lost due to being away from the game more than 7 days.

[Sincra]

Ontop of this I have to point out this seems to be a presumptuous goal, it is making the following assumptions:

• That you know the circumstances by which the player lost it, ie, timed out, accident, not playing.
• That you know the player is still active despite no name on the door.
• That you know the property was even actively being used before hand.

I'd just like to reply to this part real quick, you are assuming here that it be a single person using a quarter and it is actually abandoned. There are many reasons that make players share quarters. They could be a faction with a guild house, they could be a family who share the same quarters, they could be friends, who bunk together because of low availability of quarters, and probably many more reasons not coming to mind at the top of my mind.

Additionally, there are many reasons why the quarter, while still being in active use by one or more player, may laps and go to bidding. The player who actually owns the property could roll due to surprise RP, the player could have RL circumstances pop up where they are completely unavailable for a time, or permanently. This does not mean that the property is unoccupied. The permissions on the doors are retained until the new bidding is finalized, so anyone who had access prior to the owners absence can still be using the property as usual.

It actually does mean exactly what I said, your example and scenario do not change my points.
Shared spaces as have been pointed out above should have you think twice about how others may be using it, such as guildhall shared areas, but that is not stopping you taking something.

Specifically:
Guildhouses that lapse instantly check all quarters inside, if it lands on an empty one or an individual does not qualify then it goes to bidding and is unoccupied as a shared space.
If a Guildhouse wants to be retained it should keep as many rooms active and full as possible.
If a single ownership quarter lapses to bidding it does not matter how many people used that space.

It would be so amazing if we had a way to include one other person on the 'lease', so to speak, so that up to two different players would have the ability to refresh quarters.

Perhaps this is something the dev team could discuss and consider?

Denied, this just creates eternity quarters and brings back the ability to hand them off, something bidding was meant to fix and already Guildhouses undermine as listed above.

[MissEvelyn]

It would be so amazing if we had a way to include one other person on the 'lease', so to speak, so that up to two different players would have the ability to refresh quarters.

Perhaps this is something the dev team could discuss and consider?

Denied, this just creates eternity quarters and brings back the ability to hand them off, something bidding was meant to fix and already Guildhouses undermine as listed above.

Fair enough. I suppose in an ideal Arelith there would be even more quarters scattered across both settlements and wilderness.

[Biolab00]

It would be so amazing if we had a way to include one other person on the 'lease', so to speak, so that up to two different players would have the ability to refresh quarters.

Perhaps this is something the dev team could discuss and consider?

Denied, this just creates eternity quarters and brings back the ability to hand them off, something bidding was meant to fix and already Guildhouses undermine as listed above.

Fair enough. I suppose in an ideal Arelith there would be even more quarters scattered across both settlements and wilderness.

I think that the quarter system are in a reasonable spot. At least, i've never found myself, unable to find a quarter within a period of a month and, it's good that quarter keep changing hands. I've observed that there are at least some houses in Guldorand and Cordor changes hand each IRL month and it's pretty consistent. The same goes with shops.

I'm never a fan of wilderness quarters because there're wilderness quarters that remain free for rent because of it's position. It is rather the few popular wilderness quarter spots that are causing some grief since they seldom changes hand which, having more houses built over those area, would already make it look more like a City than not and defeats it's purpose of being in a wilderness. And i wrote above, seldom, because it does change hands.

[MissEvelyn]

Denied, this just creates eternity quarters and brings back the ability to hand them off, something bidding was meant to fix and already Guildhouses undermine as listed above.

Fair enough. I suppose in an ideal Arelith there would be even more quarters scattered across both settlements and wilderness.

I think that the quarter system are in a reasonable spot. At least, i've never found myself, unable to find a quarter within a period of a month and, it's good that quarter keep changing hands. I've observed that there are at least some houses in Guldorand and Cordor changes hand each IRL month and it's pretty consistent. The same goes with shops.

I'm never a fan of wilderness quarters because there're wilderness quarters that remain free for rent because of it's position. It is rather the few popular wilderness quarter spots that are causing some grief since they seldom changes hand which, having more houses built over those area, would already make it look more like a City than not and defeats it's purpose of being in a wilderness. And i wrote above, seldom, because it does change hands.

Oh I certainly don't think wilderness quarters should be free. Whether you're paying a fee to the druids who protect the woods in which your treehouse resides, or you're paying a homage to the regional devil ruler in one of the nine layers of the Hells who lets you live in your evil spot, quarters should require some upkeep.

I'm actually surprised to learn that quarters which are entirely free of rent exist.

[LivelyParticle]

I'm actually surprised to learn that quarters which are entirely free of rent exist.

They don't. I assume BioLab means they remain vacant / out of demand in the wilderness areas.