Permanent Ownership of Quarters/Shops/Ships

[AstralUniverse]

My issue with reporting players who hold quarters hostage of inactivity, is that I just dont KNOW and sending a report "just in case my feelings are correct" seems wrong. I normally report players when I have evidence for a rule break, not when I just suspect a rule break, and from my perspective as a player, it's really hard to tell when someone is inactive as opposed to simply my playing times not overlapping with theirs.

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here because I dont really care about these guilds and large quarters. I never felt like they are required to run a faction successfully. But if the ultimate answer to this thread is "just report it" then how do I address this issue I have? Just reporting anyway in this situation would increase the DMs workload with, sometimes/often, false alarms. I would like to avoid that, so DMs have more time to interact with players IC and do fun things.

[Darkstorn42]

My issue with reporting players who hold quarters hostage of inactivity, is that I just dont KNOW and sending a report "just in case my feelings are correct" seems wrong. I normally report players when I have evidence for a rule break, not when I just suspect a rule break, and from my perspective as a player, it's really hard to tell when someone is inactive as opposed to simply my playing times not overlapping with theirs.

There are plenty of rules that are easy to not break but look like they are being broken, say for example stealth transitioning. That is, evidence for players just didn't exist. If it's not being broken, the investigating would be relatively quick, I'd imagine. Don't let your 'well I just don't know' stop you from reporting.

It is always better to report and be wrong then to not report at all.

[AstralUniverse]

always better to report and be wrong then to not report at all.

I'm not so sure about that. It really depends on the scenario and the rule in question. Quarters are something that, left alone, is often dealt with ICly, unlike... say.. pvp rule breaks. I understand that reporting is the 'better safe than sorry' angle even if I'm not sure a rule was broken, but I still stand by my statement that 'just report it anyway' is problematic, and might as well still be the lesser evil but I dont like it. I wish there was something more automated that checks quarters activity.

[The GrumpyCat]

My thoughts, on this PARTICULAR situation this is honestly it depends how much you care?

If you're wandering around, gnashing your teeth, because you're percieving quarter hogging left right and centre, and you're furious that it happens so much and wondering why NOTHING IS DONE! about it!

Then report it. Tell us. Let us look into it. You may not get the outcome you want, but you have our words we will follow it up and see if someone really is hogging that quarter and we'll take action, though in my experience the action is more likely going to result in that person playing more, than the quarter going up for sale.

If you're wandering around and ging 'huh. Such-and-Such owns that quarter still? Funny I never see them around. Oh well.' - then get on with your day, with the matter scarce bothering you? Don't feel like you have to report it. That's fine too. In this case it is also on us to check these things periodically, and there's others who'll care more. And frankly (warning, this is going to be controvertial) if someone is owning a small vault in the Grove, with less than the maximum rp and -no one cares- is that really the end of the world?

Some rulebreaks really should be reported any time they happen. But quarter hogging issues are harder to track because often there IS NO rulebreak happening, it's just someone logging in at odd times. So I don't feel like DEMANDING people report EVERY TIME they think there's ANY form of hogging going on is that condusive to anyone.

That said, I feel that (and this is true of many rule breaks, not just quarter hogging) if something IS bothering you, then just complaining on dischord/forums isn't going to get you anywhere. Report it. You'd be suprised how often I see complains here of 'such and such and such and such is happening ALL THE TIME! And the DMS do NOTHING!' Then I look at our reports and we've heard literally nothing (or very little) about such complaints. If it's a big enough deal to complain about it on the forums, it should be a big enough deal that we've gotten reports about it.

[Marsi]

Saying you can't hold any quarter for more than a year seems more than reasonable to me. That's plenty of time to do something with it even if you're not the most active player or have some down times.

I think there are some characters who still hang around long past their due date solely because they have some property that's too good to give up and maybe a time limit that ends their property ownership will also nudge them to retire that character.

I agree. Now that we have the bidding system and citizen storage, we should have maximum term leases relative to the nature of the property.

[DM Wake]

Grumpycat has said a lot of what I'd say already.

I'm not in favor of hard time limits set on properties, as it removes player agency and makes little sense if it is being actively used. If an active faction has a guildhouse, it would be really disruptive for them to suddenly have to pack up and simply find another guildhouse to occupy for another year. It makes more sense just to leave them where they are until the RP fizzles out.

95% of the quarter hogging reports I've looked into have checked out as perfectly reasonable levels of use and character activity. And the more special a piece of property, the more likely it is to be reported. I do routine checks of guildhouse/tavern/ship occupancy and owner activity, report received or not. In my few years of consistent monitoring, there have only been two of these special properties that I haven't seen change hands.

If someone's activity level does fall below what is adequate, they are coached and given a chance to improve. If you've reported someone for quarter hogging and are wondering why they still own a quarter months later, chances are it was fine to begin with.

[Ruzuke]

I have seen a place that is public which I have not seen activity in for months. I reported it I was told the player is active. It may be true the player is active in other locations, doing other things. I know the location however it is not active because it Is public and it can be seen there is not any activity.

Why would I take my time out to report in the future? I assumed when making the report nothing would be done. Nothing was done. I could move to the area and create RP there for the person who owns it get interested and make rules (as has been done in the past). I do not feel up to using my time and energy to do so. My goal these days is log on if the RP I want is there I stay logged on. If it is not, I log off.

I personally am tired of being an extra and not being able to create the RP I want. I tell other stories and have had fun. 10+ years of Arelith I think is enough waiting for quarters I want. It is long enough to stop waiting for the stories I want to tell (which requires more than a small location). If the system is built around certain factions holding ships, estates, or other toys for years on end. Great they can foster and build a wonderful RP environment and if it is my cup of tea I can do my +1 invite.

[The GrumpyCat]

If you're right, and the owner isn't roleplaying in that space at all, and isn't invested in it, then I'm sure you can do most of what you want without actually owning the establishment.
If you're wrong and they are invested in it, and are active enough to notice your own activity, then maybe you could reach out and try and work with them? Sometimes a rout to these places, especially guildhouses, is through getting in with the crowd first, and working your way up.

(Note, I'd presume the latter, then move to the former if you get no response)

I'll admit there is that awful sour spot of someone being both not around much BUT very precious about what their space is used for, but that happens quite rarely, especially as long as you're willing to make some compromises along the way.

And honestly, if you've got a concept that's entirely based around OWNING a specific property, then, I think you're probably making a mistake?

Don't get me wrong, I think there's a benefit to having a quarter with a certain amount of space available sure. But I truly don't think that most concepts need much beyond that, and again - if you are basing your entire game plan around owning a certain ship, or guildhouse, or mansion - then frankly you're setting yourself up for failure reguardless of who owns it, or how active they are.

[Ruzuke]

Not my game, not my choice, and not my issue…

…however I do not believe that is a good ideal to strive for. The person is not around to notice so make it alive. If they do end up noticing that you bring their spot alive make a deal with them of brining to life their spot. If they don’t like it then it just dies.

I agree a concept should not be built around owning anything in the game. I would say those who do own an area should have an obligation to use it. Own one of the bars in the game, provide RP in the bar on a consistent basis. Own a Castle create RP in the castle, own a fort, create RP in the fort, and if you own a ship sail the ship.

The burden isn’t on the support one of the few lucky people who have any of these things, but for them to create that presence and RP. That drives healthy RP and game storylines. If a presence cannot be felt for someone owning something in game should they really be in possession of it? Or is it just a trophy to say I own X?

[Rei_Jin]

Something I think could add some real "spice" to the server, is a change to the rules around outcomes for assassinations.

If you are successfully assassinated? You get one week's RL notice that you will be evicted from your quarter and/or store leases, as a consequence of your death invalidating the contracts. You then have a RL week to get your affairs in order before the quarter and/or store goes up for bidding.

Now, you can bid on it if you wish, but it has to go up for bidding and others have to have a genuine chance at securing it.

Sure, it'll cause chaos and upset people, but being assassinated should be a serious business, and come with consequences.

And it gives folks who want a specific store or quarter a mechanic to use to try to bring about a bidding cycle for it.

This means that ships would be forced to go to bidding, and guildhouses would potentially roll to someone else within the faction, but if one assassinated all those with an internal quarter in the guildhouse, it would be forced to go to open bidding.

[PowerWord Rage]

Something I think could add some real "spice" to the server, is a change to the rules around outcomes for assassinations.

If you are successfully assassinated? You get one week's RL notice that you will be evicted from your quarter and/or store leases, as a consequence of your death invalidating the contracts. You then have a RL week to get your affairs in order before the quarter and/or store goes up for bidding.

Now, you can bid on it if you wish, but it has to go up for bidding and others have to have a genuine chance at securing it.

Sure, it'll cause chaos and upset people, but being assassinated should be a serious business, and come with consequences.

And it gives folks who want a specific store or quarter a mechanic to use to try to bring about a bidding cycle for it.

This means that ships would be forced to go to bidding, and guildhouses would potentially roll to someone else within the faction, but if one assassinated all those with an internal quarter in the guildhouse, it would be forced to go to open bidding.

A neat idea.
But i'm just afraid that it will over-emphasis PVP and power build.
Maybe even into OOC collaboration for those who are adamant until they get their hands on it.
Personally, i feel that the Cons outweigh the Pros of this suggestion if it is going to be raised.

[Darkstorn42]

Something I think could add some real "spice" to the server, is a change to the rules around outcomes for assassinations.

If you are successfully assassinated? You get one week's RL notice that you will be evicted from your quarter and/or store leases, as a consequence of your death invalidating the contracts. You then have a RL week to get your affairs in order before the quarter and/or store goes up for bidding.

Now, you can bid on it if you wish, but it has to go up for bidding and others have to have a genuine chance at securing it.

Sure, it'll cause chaos and upset people, but being assassinated should be a serious business, and come with consequences.

And it gives folks who want a specific store or quarter a mechanic to use to try to bring about a bidding cycle for it.

This means that ships would be forced to go to bidding, and guildhouses would potentially roll to someone else within the faction, but if one assassinated all those with an internal quarter in the guildhouse, it would be forced to go to open bidding.

A neat idea.
But i'm just afraid that it will over-emphasis PVP and power build.
Maybe even into OOC collaboration for those who are adamant until they get their hands on it.
Personally, i feel that the Cons outweigh the Pros of this suggestion if it is going to be raised.

I am a big proponent of assassinations having lasting mechanical implications outside of elections and PvP, but I agree this might be a bit too far?

[LivelyParticle]

Something I think could add some real "spice" to the server, is a change to the rules around outcomes for assassinations.

If you are successfully assassinated? You get one week's RL notice that you will be evicted from your quarter and/or store leases, as a consequence of your death invalidating the contracts. You then have a RL week to get your affairs in order before the quarter and/or store goes up for bidding.

Now, you can bid on it if you wish, but it has to go up for bidding and others have to have a genuine chance at securing it.

Sure, it'll cause chaos and upset people, but being assassinated should be a serious business, and come with consequences.

And it gives folks who want a specific store or quarter a mechanic to use to try to bring about a bidding cycle for it.

This means that ships would be forced to go to bidding, and guildhouses would potentially roll to someone else within the faction, but if one assassinated all those with an internal quarter in the guildhouse, it would be forced to go to open bidding.

A neat idea.
But i'm just afraid that it will over-emphasis PVP and power build.
Maybe even into OOC collaboration for those who are adamant until they get their hands on it.
Personally, i feel that the Cons outweigh the Pros of this suggestion if it is going to be raised.

I am a big proponent of assassinations having lasting mechanical implications outside of elections and PvP, but I agree this might be a bit too far?

I can provide a real example of something that happened during an 'assassination', essentially, several folks were in a party with me, we're getting on well, head aboard the ship, not a single indicator of any hostile intent, no threat, no blackmail attempts, nothing.

It went from talking about something on the ship to them immediately kicking my character from party with no hostility, and insta-gank. I should add this was also in front of NPC crew, who were completely ignored (eyeroll) - it happened so fast, even the 'assassin' forgot to hostile in time, not that it would have made any difference - it was a huge shock OOCly and of course I didn't stand a chance. Absolutely not fun or really engaging.

So, if this was a case where the rules state I'd have lost the property I've worked on for countless hours and put a lot of time and effort in with other people over a real life year, simply because of an hour's worth of RP with a couple people I never saw again - I'd have been really, really disappointed.

[Marsi]

I think there is a disconnect here between level of activity the DMs are claiming to see and what the players expect of those who manage to hold on to significant IG properties.

On paper the owners might not be doing anything wrong, but in spirit they are falling short of how we expect the property to be utilised. Something isn't working.

[Floral Shoppe]

I don't think it's clear what "proper utilization" is. I've never found it easy to draw others to a quarter I had... Maybe I'd have one small meeting or chat a week with other PCs, maybe I could pull off a very occasional event or social function every two months (if that). That's seems like it's being used to me, but I'm sure other people would say it's underutilized and I should give it up-- though I'd wonder if they could really do better unless they're a settlement leader or something. The thing is, there are a lot of quarters in the game and everybody wants theirs to be a major hub of activity but it usually doesn't work out that way no matter how hard you try. Or at least it rarely does for me.

[AstralUniverse]

On paper the owners might not be doing anything wrong, but in spirit they are falling short of how we expect the property to be utilised. Something isn't working.

Maybe people should manage expectations. I believe you said something similar (which I agreed with a lot) about player-activity when it comes to leadership roles.

I can say as someone who plays in weird time zone that thinking someone is inactive is pretty normal for me, but most of the time they are active and do things, and perhaps I dont see those things but that's not their problem.

[Peacewhisper]

I think whether they are active or not does not matter as much as the fact they've held these properties for as long as 5 real life years or more. Even if they wish to continue playing the same character forever, the property should change hands more often so that other players have opportunities to use it to tell their stories. I hate moving just as much most people do but after 1 real life year I think it's time to move on and give other people a shot at using it.

[Dreams]

I think there is a disconnect here between level of activity the DMs are claiming to see and what the players expect of those who manage to hold on to significant IG properties.

On paper the owners might not be doing anything wrong, but in spirit they are falling short of how we expect the property to be utilised. Something isn't working.

This is basically why I brought up the issue in the first place. I'm not going to name names here obviously, but I feel like players are powerless to do anything about this issue. Being told to 'report' and trust the DMs to check on activity kind of falls short just because there's no clear idea of what's an appropriate level of roleplay. Even when players have said to their private discords "I'm away for the next few months but I'll log in to touch the quarter", somehow that isn't getting noticed during these consistent checks.

[Marsi]

I think whether they are active or not does not matter as much as the fact they've held these properties for as long as 5 real life years or more. Even if they wish to continue playing the same character forever, the property should change hands more often so that other players have opportunities to use it to tell their stories. I hate moving just as much most people do but after 1 real life year I think it's time to move on and give other people a shot at using it.

Yeah, I completely agree.

It would be hard for anyone including myself to define "properly utilised", as Flower Power and AstralUniverse point out, and goes against the same arguments I've made toward settlement leader activity entitlement.

With a max term lease, we don't have to form an argument of "proper utilisation" -- either the owner uses it, or they don't. But they don't get to treat it like their (the player's) private property for literal years and refuse to roll for fear of losing it. No-one needs to worry about what their neighbour is doing, they'll be gone eventually, and perhaps the very knowledge that it's not for them to permanently own will weed out would-be hoggers from the start and select for action-biased players.

A year is a really long time and I struggle to think of many characters or factions who have truly needed more time than that to tell a story. I have been in the position of owning a desirable wilderness quarter/guildhouse and when I recognised my faction was no longer in its prime and was not making good use of it anymore, I released it (in this case it was pre-bidding, so I interviewed a bunch of applicants and found a promising successor faction).

[Kushion]

we should be looking for ways to reduce the amount of reports coming in, not increase them. besides, i can only assume the reason this thread was made is because the reports/specific rules arent giving ppl the desired outcomes.

i guess this is a separate thing, but it feels like the sense of time when discussing arelith can get really warped. i dont know if this is because of the very long-term play that comes out of an rp medium/server lasting this long, but months and years aren't given the sheer weight that they should be.

as said above, it's a really long time, though i can admit to bias as i dont tend to play character spanning multiple years, if even half of one, and i hold the opinion of the sweetest stories being those with reasonably timed endings.

[AstralUniverse]

Something I think could add some real "spice" to the server, is a change to the rules around outcomes for assassinations.

If you are successfully assassinated? You get one week's RL notice that you will be evicted from your quarter and/or store leases, as a consequence of your death invalidating the contracts. You then have a RL week to get your affairs in order before the quarter and/or store goes up for bidding.

Now, you can bid on it if you wish, but it has to go up for bidding and others have to have a genuine chance at securing it.

Sure, it'll cause chaos and upset people, but being assassinated should be a serious business, and come with consequences.

And it gives folks who want a specific store or quarter a mechanic to use to try to bring about a bidding cycle for it.

This means that ships would be forced to go to bidding, and guildhouses would potentially roll to someone else within the faction, but if one assassinated all those with an internal quarter in the guildhouse, it would be forced to go to open bidding.

Now here's a way to turn arelith into a pvp server full of assassins lmao i'm down.

[chocolatelover]

I hesitated to chime in on this but...

1. DMs DO take action when reports are turned in. I know of a guildhouse owner who recently had a conversation with a DM over lack of use and is vacating. If you report a guildhouse not being used/exchanging hands and nothing happens, it may be because YOU cannot see what is done there, but we have to trust the DM team to have checked it out.

2. I am in favor of reporting to DMs as they will have a better picture of what is going on with usage and can have a direct conversation with the owner. Yes, it can be awkward turning in a report, but that is what the report system is for. Yes, in the back of my mind I wonder if a DM might not roll their eyes at my player name when they see another "Unused quarter/guildhouse report", but Grumpy Cat said up above to report it. Just don't expect to get an answer. The situation is now between the player and DMs.

3. I am not so much in favor of automatic lease timers. What if the faction is in the middle of a story when something happens? That lease going away may actually HURT the story mid-plot. And some factions HAVE held on to guildhouses for years and USE THEM WELL. Some players may still be in there for a long time, but they provide a much needed group for others to join. Not everyone is able/wants to RUN a faction, but they want to JOIN a faction.

=======================

Could posters clarify if this is mostly about guildhouse use? Regular biddable quarters? Probably not those little buy-automatically quarters as those do tend to cycle often.

Ships? I thought the maintenance on the ships takes care of itself. But as I know nothing about owning ships, I 'll let someone else comment on those.

Is it shops? Shops tend to take care of themselves. Settlement leaders can kick out someone not using their shop appropriately .. So.. if it's a non settlement shop and you think someone is just holding it.... REPORT IT.

[Floral Shoppe]

Can't speak for others of course but I'm talking about desirable single-owner quarters. Not cheap rooms but nice houses.

I don't think relying on settlement leaders to oust people who hold on to properties for years is doable because leaders might not want to mess with long-term characters who may or may not still be around. I mean, if they want to take on that responsibility, great, but it seems like it's also a headache, especially since you don't have a way to know when they log in if they're different hours than you... I wouldn't want to have to do it. Plus these characters might be popular and connected both IC and OOC and it could lead to drama. Tldr- if they want to, great, but that's a band-aid not the answer.

And there are many desirable properties that aren't in a settlement too, of course.

Guildhouses are different, I think... The current rules are probably sufficient to keep those active and there's always going to be turnover.

[Peacewhisper]

From what I can tell its mostly wilderness quarters and a couple of landed noble houses. I only play on a limited area of the surface though so there might be a few I'm missing. I won't mention names or specific locations but if you know you know.

[Ouranochoros]

There is a very noticeable phenomenon of characters owning choice estates in one city (sometimes multiple with their retainers/family members), but spending all of their time (or even holding government positions) in other settlements.

Please tie ownership of "noble" estates to citizenship.