Alternate feedback: Property Auctioning rule

[LIAR LIAR]

Okay, so let's quote this being it's one of the main reasons for the recent change I would rather see removed than adjusted:

Property Auctioning
"This isn't something I generally approve of, if players wish to sell property then there is a tool to do so. Limited periods of auction are likely fine until there is a ruling otherwise, but I will be advising DMs to release these should they feel the auction is lasting too long.

One thing I am forbidding now is purchasing shops/quarter with the sole purpose of auctioning them off. I've started adding a lot more shops, and dropping the price so as to facilitate entry into the economy by new players.

If a shop is bought, left empty, and offered via the shop sign for auction it will be immediately released by one of the team."

Irongron
In other words, please do not play Real Estate Agent, or you will see your property you are "Real Estating" released. Thank you!




So. I'm genuinely very confused why we're...banning roleplay. I first heard about this rule because of a fantastic roleplay I had after many a week house hunting. I told someone how much I enjoyed haggling for a quarter. I even was interested in further encounters with the pc because I enjoyed this mercantile based roleplay so much.

So, why is this against the rules? Presumably, because quarters are a touchy subject. However, subscribing to and abiding to people's reactions over something that in-fact may be a non-issue reinforces a specific kind of behavior. It reinforces the idea their reaction is valid. This reinforces the idea we need to be touchy, tense, and over complicated on the subject of quarters. It's making the decision a morally neutral act is inherently bad and establishing it within our server's culture.

Is it not nice? If you top a 125k house off with 100k, you're not nice, no. But when I haggled someone's finder fee on a 100k house down to 20k just having fun roleplay, I felt good, and they felt good. It was also so AWESOME to not have to patrol half the server's quarter for a half hour every day desperately hoping my Massive Multi-player Online Role-playing Game (MMORPG) luck was feeling strong finally. I know a lot of players might make a big deal out if that much money, but I'm sorry, they're wrong and need to ask community members for help learning how to make a ton of gold on Arelith easily with our crafting system. Additionally, that player went out of their way to seek and create roleplay for the server while making very limited profit because rent exists. I would have recommended that player for 30 rpr if I could.

In essence, thanks to quarter auctioning, I got to use roleplay on a roleplay server to get to have a cool quarter in an awesome location! How the heck is this bad? It might be capable of being an issue that needs policing. But, we have massive pvp problems that are barely capable of even being policed. I think it would be really easy to attend problematic situations with selling quarters to other players, entirely unlike pvp which we allow.

I think the overall perspective on quarters needs shifting. And for far, far more entirely inactive quarters and shops being released, I'm kind of sick of seeing nonexistant characters shops and houses in Cordor who are literally electing not to be contributing members of our community and meanwhile we're restructuring the whole entire system instead. I believe all of these are worth a DM conversation, but I'll bet money more than half of these inactive quarter owners won't even respond to a forum PM nor could they explain a good reason to keep their quarter after DM talk #2.

[Skarain]

The rule was put in place because:

▪When new property is added to the server, shops or quarters, a number of players rush to the scene with the sole purpose of claiming the shop/quarter to sell it forward for +100k, rather than using it themselves. This is not nice.
▪Certain hard-to-get properties are traded within small OOC groups of friends, sometimes with no RP involved, so certain property never gets to the open market.

This is my understanding. Now, even with the change, nothing prevents you from approaching quarter/shop owners and expressing interest to buy the property. DM can aid with such deals, as well as any other legimate RP trades.

Does it make trading property more inconvenient? Yes. However, it should make the playing ground more even for more players.

[Morgy]

Because it comes at the cost of limiting other people’s roleplay opportunities, who would never afford to access certain types of quarters to build factions/nice homes if they had to pay millions.

[In Sorrow We Trust]

It was implemented to prevent gatekeeping. It's been a big problem for many years. I might have my own opinions about the change but I certainly think it has alleviated some of these problems.

[Wings of Peace]

I can't say I understand the positive attitude towards maintaining the auction ban. The new lease system means that the best move for any player is to squat on whatever property they can grab until a property resembling the one they want comes up. At least an auction system would give players interested in a specific property something more useful to do than paying the owner for a /chance/ to catch the quarter when it becomes available. There's less incentive than before to let go of remotely desirable properties so we should be exploring new ways of incentivizing sales.

[Tyrantos]

Personally, I for one is a big fan of the new system. This is the first time I have ever been able to grab a shop.

[Wings of Peace]

Personally, I for one is a big fan of the new system. This is the first time I have ever been able to grab a shop.

That doesn't really tie in with the topic at all though

[AstralUniverse]

Personally, I for one is a big fan of the new system. This is the first time I have ever been able to grab a shop.

That doesn't really tie in with the topic at all though

I thought the topic is about allowing selling quarters between PCs interactively under some conditions, is it not? The entire system was placed to prevent passing quarters between PCs because it became an ooc issue in the Discord era that really hurt the new players or simply those without social ooc network. Quarters are for everyone. So if a players pops up to say "love the new system and I finally have a shop" it really couldnt be any more on topic.

[Duchess Says]

Interesting if this is to stop Discord arrangements because from what I have seen the guildhouse change has increased Discord pre-arranged RP. If you want to buy a guildhouse now it seems mandatory that you have players lined up to immediately fill the rooms, release their other properties and so on. Maybe that's fine and an approved use of Discord, I don't know, and it is a different situation than personal quarters which I acknowledge.

[Good Character]

Interesting if this is to stop Discord arrangements because from what I have seen the guildhouse change has increased Discord pre-arranged RP. If you want to buy a guildhouse now it seems mandatory that you have players lined up to immediately fill the rooms, release their other properties and so on. Maybe that's fine and an approved use of Discord, I don't know, and it is a different situation than personal quarters which I acknowledge.

While Discord certainly played a part in this given that the major groups on the server all have one, it's more so to prevent players from taking advantage of that old system where properties could be easily passed between OOC companions; Discord was the medium, but hardly the root of the problem. The root being that people couldn't respect metagaming rules.

Same idea for the guildhouses. Don't need Discord, but certainly helps. It's just ironic as now Discord is being used in that manner to help facilitate what the purpose of the secondary update was.

[Hazard]

People are more and more comfortable with metagaming (a form of cheating) as the years go on.
It's gotten to the point where I'm the one weirdo in every faction I join that doesn't have OOC coms, and refuses to metagame little things like .. "we're having a meeting right now, here, everyone show up."

Like. What if someone wanted to spy on that meeting, now it's been planned out of game without anyone having a chance to over hear it and telepathically all the members just know?

I'm not okay with metagaming. This change, while mechanically I don't agree with it, I love the fact the server is TRYING to combat metagaming.

Metagaming is cheating and should be reported.

[Duchess Says]

I’m not against Discord and not against the rule changes but it does seem like faction maintenance will require more OOC communication than before. The leader in the faction I am currently in seems already seems pretty stressed to keep the quarters full and I am taking a quarter I really didn’t want to help out. I also got a DM from a player in a faction I used to be in asking me to make a new character and come back so +they+ can fill a house (which I am not doing). Seems like this will be the norm and how can you blame anyone? You could call it metagaming but it may also just be what you need to do to facilitate in-game RP now. With different timezones etc it’s not very possible to handle this stuff entirely IG.

[Hazard]

If something didn't happen in game, as on .. via characters, online, on the server.. then it didn't happen, period.
You cannot RP knowing things via letters/psychic powers/whatever.

If it's not in game, it doesn't exist, and reacting to something that happened out of game is cheating.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

I can't say I understand the positive attitude towards maintaining the auction ban. The new lease system means that the best move for any player is to squat on whatever property they can grab until a property resembling the one they want comes up. At least an auction system would give players interested in a specific property something more useful to do than paying the owner for a /chance/ to catch the quarter when it becomes available. There's less incentive than before to let go of remotely desirable properties so we should be exploring new ways of incentivizing sales.

To put it simply, this mentality is exactly the type of mentality that the quarter system is not meant to cater to, and while they've been more diplomatic about it, the team has said as much. They want people actively using the quarters to facilitate RP to get their hands on them, run a story in them, and then move on so someone else can do the same thing.

This is a bit cynical of me, but one could almost say the stress threshold increasing is a good thing- speaking from personal experience, over time, once it reaches a certain level, you just kind of... step back. Suddenly, it doesn't seem so urgent that you log in before bed. Suddenly, you find your quarter lapses. Suddenly, panic.

This hasn't changed that, at all. What this has done, is guaranteed that if whatever group isn't actively using the quarter, there's a moderate chance that it won't be scooped up by a friend as a favor and passed back to their hands when they come back. Because if that's what it takes for you to keep the quarter, then you've had your fun, and it's time to let someone else have it.

Briefly touching on the metagaming tangent- there is good metagaming, and there is bad metagaming. To liken it to a tabletop experience, you don't all just magically appear at a table ready to play- there is some ooc collusion and planning to put everyone at the same table so you can play together. This is good metagaming- it facilitates RP happening in the first place, and without facilitating, say, that meeting happening Thursday, there would be no meeting to spy on in the first place, because people have lives, and interactive stories only happen when people plan to get together and make them.

[-XXX-]

I like this change.

It supports player groups who are active IG and hampers arrangements and interactions that are made outside of the game through alternative means (chat, discord, etc.).

Furthermore, the requirement to fully occupate guildhouses is an improvement as well IMO.
ATM Arelith's player base appears to be fractured into a myriad of tiny rigidly closed factions that aren't very inclusive toward character concepts outside their thematic template. While having a tight team of 3-5 people who'll have each other's backs no matter what can be great, there's no reason why these should be allowed to occupy multiple empty guildhouses simply because they can afford it (remember, gp is EZ and shouldn't be the only factor when purchasing IG property).

The change forces these small factions to open up and loosen the relative safety of their tight-knit social circle if they wish to retain IG property.
Will this cause IC issues? Yes, a plethora of! Which is great! Why? Because it opens up avenues for storytelling other than "ur CE i'm LG, we PvP, cya tomorrow, rinse repeat".



P.S.: IMO taking over property only to sit on and auction off on Discord for a quick buck (that could otherwise be easily made by tackling PvE content for 20 min) is a pattern of behavior that's detrimental for the rest of the player base.
Just don't - IT'S OK TO SEE A PROPERTY ON SALE AND WALK AWAY.

[The GrumpyCat]

This is a change of definate pro's and cons - that go beyond the concern of people auctioning property

Pros
*Allows newer players opportunity to access good properties without paying absoritant amounts of gold and/or being definitivly tied to one faction/group
* Allows newer factions more opportunity, reduces the power of entrentched factions
* Reduces metagaming

Cons
*Reduces player empowerment and the chance of getting certain properties through roleplay
* May encourage 'quarter hogging' - folk to sit on properties for a long time and people fighting over property signs.
* May give certian factions a shorter life span.

I'm honestly not entirely sure if the the benefits outweigh the drawbacks... only time will tell there. But It may make a more dynamic server at least, and a more equitable one in some ways. So I hope it will work out well. But as said - this issue goes beyond simply people icly auctioning off properties.

[AstralUniverse]

* May encourage 'quarter hogging' - folk to sit on properties for a long time and people fighting over property signs.

I hear this concern across many threads by many people and I share this concern to a degree but I think it's not going to be a huge issue. If before people did pass quarters it would often be to someone who'd pass it back to them a year or two later. In the more positive scenario, they would pass it to someone they know who they *believe* will make good RP from that property, in good faith, at least. But in both cases the quarter remains between a group of friends, sometimes without them knowing about it.

And now, the only way someone (and their buddies) 'sit' on a quarter for as much time as before, is by not rolling the character and remaining appropriately active on it. This *hopefully* solves the problem. I dont think the problem was ever active characters who are doing stuff that are hogging quarters.

[Red_Wharf]

*Allows newer players opportunity to access good properties without paying absoritant amounts of gold and/or being definitivly tied to one faction/group

That if they do not get killed and bashed by a party or by a faction camping the lease. Time will tell, but I fear we might see that happening when guild houses or other good properties are put for sale.

[Wings of Peace]

Personally, I for one is a big fan of the new system. This is the first time I have ever been able to grab a shop.

That doesn't really tie in with the topic at all though

I thought the topic is about allowing selling quarters between PCs interactively under some conditions, is it not? The entire system was placed to prevent passing quarters between PCs because it became an ooc issue in the Discord era that really hurt the new players or simply those without social ooc network. Quarters are for everyone. So if a players pops up to say "love the new system and I finally have a shop" it really couldnt be any more on topic.

Fair, I think I just didn't read the chain enough.

[The GrumpyCat]

*Allows newer players opportunity to access good properties without paying absoritant amounts of gold and/or being definitivly tied to one faction/group

That if they do not get killed and bashed by a party or by a faction camping the lease. Time will tell, but I fear we might see that happening when guild houses or other good properties are put for sale.

A genuine concern. Please if you see or hear of this happening do report it! I like to think our players are better than that but I've been wrong before.

[Kessarin]

*Allows newer players opportunity to access good properties without paying absoritant amounts of gold and/or being definitivly tied to one faction/group

That if they do not get killed and bashed by a party or by a faction camping the lease. Time will tell, but I fear we might see that happening when guild houses or other good properties are put for sale.

A genuine concern. Please if you see or hear of this happening do report it! I like to think our players are better than that but I've been wrong before.

You've said to report it; there seems to be some conflicting information here. Which is correct? Is camping an allowed action, or is it to be reported?

[Good Character]

You've said to report it; there seems to be some conflicting information here. Which is correct? Is camping an allowed action, or is it to be reported?

For more clarity, Snowcat stated camping, as in hanging out constantly at the location, a quarter sign just to catch when it was up was permitted. Initiating PvP on an individual for looking at a quarter sign isn't.

[Curve]

I don't think that is true, Good Character, unless I am missing something from the posts mentioned,

I don't know about the PvP part, I'll let someone more knowing pick that question.

I suppose GrumpyCat is suggesting that this is a reportable action, but nobody from the team has of yet said that it is against the rules to do. I know that the rules are kept purposefully vague, so maybe that has something to do as to why nobody has said, "PvPing to prevent access to quarter signs is against the rules." Maybe they won't say until the situation starts happening, and then handle it on a case by case basis.

[The GrumpyCat]

I don't think that is true, Good Character, unless I am missing something from the posts mentioned,

I don't know about the PvP part, I'll let someone more knowing pick that question.

I suppose GrumpyCat is suggesting that this is a reportable action, but nobody from the team has of yet said that it is against the rules to do. I know that the rules are kept purposefully vague, so maybe that has something to do as to why nobody has said, "PvPing to prevent access to quarter signs is against the rules." Maybe they won't say until the situation starts happening, and then handle it on a case by case basis.

I-

*Points above* What they said.

Standing by a sign waiting for it to go up? I mean - I wish people wouldn't. I think it's a poor use of time. But you can.

PvPing over a sign? As Curve says - we'll look at it when it comes up. But my gut right now says that we don't want to see it happening. So please report it if you do encounter such.

[I_Am_King_Midas]

I don't think that is true, Good Character, unless I am missing something from the posts mentioned,

I don't know about the PvP part, I'll let someone more knowing pick that question.

I suppose GrumpyCat is suggesting that this is a reportable action, but nobody from the team has of yet said that it is against the rules to do. I know that the rules are kept purposefully vague, so maybe that has something to do as to why nobody has said, "PvPing to prevent access to quarter signs is against the rules." Maybe they won't say until the situation starts happening, and then handle it on a case by case basis.

I-

*Points above* What they said.

Standing by a sign waiting for it to go up? I mean - I wish people wouldn't. I think it's a poor use of time. But you can.

PvPing over a sign? As Curve says - we'll look at it when it comes up. But my gut right now says that we don't want to see it happening. So please report it if you do encounter such.

I would imagine this will inevitably result in PVP. Imagine you have a large faction of Banites that want a property. They are camping out beside a sign and checking at each tick to see if they are able to purchase the property. There is also one guy who is standing there and wanting the property. Who is going to get the chance to check the sign first? If the one guy keeps attempting to step in front of the larger faction leader, Id imagine this could escalate into a conflict.

The alternative would be disallowing anyone to harm someone who is waiting. Otherwise, the larger party will claim the lesser party can check the sign but, only when the larger party says they can. This would mean the smaller party would not be able to claim the property.

Sooo It seems you either have to disallow RP to escalate to conflict when waiting on a property or you have to be ok with properties being a battle ground where the largest groups can win and people end up hiring others to stand guard etc when deciding who will get to check the board first.