Topic

Housing Block Issue

I know this isnt a new topic, but any input is appreciated.

I run an HOA. We have 301 mid range houses (5000-15000 currants). I have a team of 6 players who are the Welcome Committee so to speak. They make sure new players to our Quarter are recognized, invited to the Group, and host community events. One of their responsibilities is to keep the community resident list current.

After a quick update last night, we have approx 50 (cuz I lost count) of our 301 homes owned by inactive players. Mostly level 14 and under players who played awhile, set the skill querer and havent been back. We need active neighbors to be a community. While this isnt an issue for the 50000 currant Quarters who have long term players in them, I imagine it must be similar for the 1000 currant apartments and treehouse communities if we took a closer look. This is surprising and concerning considering we are only 2 months into Launch.

I propose to the devs a system where players have to reach level 20 and remain active within 3 months or their account goes inactive, the house is released and the cost of the house and its contents is returned to the player should they return to activate their account.
Or something similar.

My concern with just building new houses continually is that I previously played a game where inactive castles could never be bought and the game company just kept adding new "blocks" (servers). This eventually eroded the great community spirit that we all had with our neighbors as everyone continued to just keep moving away from dead blocks and eventually left the game. As we gain ability to add onto our homes in Glitch, we wont want to keep moving around and having streets with other active players will become increasingly important.

ETA Thoughtful responses from the community appreciated.

Posted 13 months ago by Dagnabbit Rabbit Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • OMG, have never ever seen such hateful behavior in Glitch!

    Good lord you people.  Why is everyone being so vicious towards Dagnabbit Rabbit?  Calling her a stalker and creepy and controlling and other things.  It's ridiculous, and needs to stop.  If you want to talk about the HOA or housing then you can do it with out personal attacks.  

    I don't live on her block, don't care one way or another about HOAs, but even if I hated the block and the HOA I would never get so nasty as this thread has been.  

    Cut it out. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Feylin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 Feylin
    While I don't agree with inactive players losing their houses this early in Glitch, I have been part of many online games that have a 6month to 1year inactivity policy where there are some type of consequences set in place and I'm fine with that should the devs ever choose to go that route.

    As far as calling someone nosy/stalker/creepy etc. how silly. She runs a group whose sole purpose is to keep track of who lives in the area, welcome them, invite them to join (she already stated more than once that it's fine if they don't join)  and have some community events from time to time.

    Even if you don't agree with her inactive player idea that's fine, she invited discussion on the matter, but she's being ridiculed for trying to maintain her group and keep it current. 

    I enjoy living in  the same community as DagnabbitRabbit, have never felt stalked, and have never felt pressured to participate in anything I didn't want to.
    Posted 13 months ago by PANsy Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think that a community should be build around a common interest, no based on the location of the house. 

    I don't like at all the idea of kicking people out because they don't play enough, I play several games and of course I have other things to do in RL, sometimes I stop playing a game for weeks or months, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to come back and carry on where I left. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Natalia Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 Feylin
    Wow, this entire thread is the perfect example of derailment. Also, way to go with the personal attacks and rudeness. Nice. Today I learned that looking at people's profile pages for achievements is "creepy" (why? everyone else can look at profiles too...), and a housing group can "steal" housing. (How would that even work? All the realty listings and housing transactions are handled by the game. You can't buy a house if you already own one, so...) If people hate HOAs in real life, that's fine - but this is Glitch. I don't see anything here but a group leader trying to keep things current and concerned about how all this is going to work in the long run.

    I don't think there should be a time limit on housing and logins. I understand what the OP here wants to do (simply get more active people in the neighborhood - participation not required, etc), but it wouldn't be fair to say, "You will forfeit your house if you don't login in X number of days." Some people have lives, some people fall ill, go traveling, change living situations... none of these should affect someone's gameplay. Yes, even if they go away for a year or more. It's nice to be able to come back to something like Glitch and have it pretty much as you found it. This place isn't Farmville, where you're pressured all the time to do things on a schedule and there's limited time events for every little thing. Glitch is the anti-Farmville, in my opinion.

    So, OP, I understand what you're saying, but I don't think people losing their houses for not being around in the last few weeks is going to work. I think you ought to just make the best of what active people you do have and make it as fun a group as you can. I run my own housing group, and I am very laissez-faire about it. People want to have parties? Great. Start a goods co-op? Wonderful. Will I spearhead all of these activities? Not necessarily. It's all just a friendly, easy-going thing. I understand what you mean about this model not being "sustainable", but even so - cultivate relationships with the people who ARE active. You can't do anything about the people who aren't except wish them well and hope they return sometime. The way I see it, the housing is fun, but it's the friends you make that are your real community.

    TS may add features and change things a lot in the next six months for all we know. I say, take it day to day and week to week and don't worry so much about if it's going to work in a year. A year IRL is a long, long time In Glitch!
    Posted 13 months ago by Laerwen Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thank you Feylin! 

    I understand feelings are strong on this subject. Heck, I'm very much opposed to the idea of players losing houses/addresses and know others (who I think are quite smart and reasonable) who see absolutely nothing wrong with it. We can have our differences of opinions but it doesn't need to get nasty. And, here, it's compounded further by everyone's distaste & distrust of relife HOAs. 

    I "know" Dagnabbit Rabbit and understand where she is coming from. She's a great and friendly person. She wants to welcome folks and allow for a neighborhood feel - where folks can get to know one another *if they want to*. There is absolutely no way that she (or any Glitch HOA) could enforce anything. There are no bylaws. There is no way to force someone to join a group. The reaction here is, I think, way over the top. 

    They are not stalking *people* - they are checking to make sure nobody new has come into the neighborhood that needs a welcome. It just so happens that when clicking through the realty pages that it's easy to see that someone might not have logged in and done anything for a month. I know from when I was planning a big block party for all of Ounaas Means. It wasn't like I cared when they had last logged in or that they had gone for mining instead of gardening (omg! not miners next door! gasp!), I just wanted to be able to let them know we were having a party, but I couldn't help but find out the other stuff as well.

    This makes the issue of inactive housing more apparent to her. And, sure, DR's stance is that housing should be freed up, but not everyone involved in the HOA agrees (as Little Miss Giggles points out). 

    So stop with the vilification. It's (somewhat) understandable considering the heated nature of this debate, but it is still undeserved and uncalled for.
    Posted 13 months ago by Vera Strange Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yay for intelligent, eloquent people putting into words why Garney was sad. Garney is part of Dagnabbit's HOA and it has seriously been the best thing for me. I'm slightly shy, but this group is fun and not at all pressuring. Most of my friends on Glitch I met through this HOA. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Garney Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Feylin gets it!

    Peeps need to chill out and keep in mind that each member's opion is as valid as your is.

    We're a community, eh? 
    Posted 13 months ago by MeherMan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Billy: You say I am lying. I am not. I tried to explain how things actually work, but you are not listening objectively. I'm done trying to explain how 219 people are not one or even six.

    Homework for today: Ask all 219 people in the HoA if they were harangued and badgered to either join the HoA or leave the neighborhood. Then ask the others that are not in the group if they have been asked to leave the neighborhood. Then report back.

    And I will reiterate for the millionth time on this subject: I do not want inactives kicked from their houses. I have said it in many threads on the issue along with the stipulation that if the Devs choose to do such a thing, I want it to be a very long time (pointed out as too long by someone) with lots of notification.

    If you don't believe that has always been my stance on the matter of inactive housing, then look up every single post I've made on the issue.

    Just because I understand someone's point of view or concerns doesn't mean I agree with it.

    Thank you Feylin, Laerwen PANsy and Vera for saying things far better than I have. <3 to Garney. It makes me sad too.
    Posted 13 months ago by Little Miss Giggles Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Dude. Looking at people's profile is not creepy and stalkerish. Looking at people's profiles and then judging them for their perceived lack of activity is creepy and stalkerish.

    HOAs are not inherently evil. Wanting to somehow "protect" your neighborhood by booting "undesirables" such as inactive players... is getting there. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Nixified Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If Glitch brings in a HOA system, there goes my walking around naked in the mornin'.
    Posted 13 months ago by Volkov Subscriber! | Permalink
  • That made me smile, Volkov. :)
    Posted 13 months ago by Little Miss Giggles Subscriber! | Permalink
  • This game is too young to be thinking about inactive player accounts being deleted. Why don't you guys table this discussion for a year and then re-visit the topic.
    Posted 13 months ago by Rio Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I've posted my idea / solution / middle ground for how to solve the "inactive home owners" problem, via creating a new Glitch feature of Storage Units, here:

    www.glitch.com/forum/ideas/...

    My apologies if someone's already thought of this before, I haven't had the time to read everyone's thoughts on this.
    Posted 13 months ago by ✦ SHI∇IΔΠ ✦ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • While the heated feelings made me sad too, I think Nixified got it exactly right, especially about judging players based on their "activity" (whose definition of activity, I wonder?). While I understand that the OP didn't actually mean it, what she said has an element of her (or more accurately her group) becoming the arbiter of who is - or is not - worthy of being in the game. That's probably what people were reacting to so heatedly.

    None of us get to be the arbiters of other's worthiness. Even Tiny Speck seems to be pretty wary of doing that.
    Posted 13 months ago by Flowerry Pott Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Over the years I've played dozens of MMO's and 3 of them hold a place in my heart but I can't afford to play more than one at a time. I've invested a lot of time and money in them and even if I don't play one for a year or more, I follow forums, update the games regularly and expect to find all my stuff waiting for me when I go back. 
    People can have a million reasons for not playing for long periods of time, and as long as neighborhoods are instanced, there will always be room to make more so availability should never be a problem. 
    ps: I didn't even know what a HOA was until I read some replies and personally I find the idea creepy. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Zira Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Wow, I'm astonished that so many people find the idea of an HOA "creepy". I'm one of the welcome wagon-ers for Dagnabbit's HOA, and all I do is see who our new neighbors are every week or two, invite them to the group, and that's it. If they don't join, I don't care. If they move out the very next day, I don't care. If they never participate on the forums, I don't care. If they never attend an event, help out a neighbor, say hi when we pass on the street, or if they disappear forever, I DON'T CARE. I don't belong to the HOA and send out invites so I can feel like some sort of Nosey Nancy that's keeping tabs and peering through my curtains to spy on people. Me sending an invite is the equivalent of leaving a goodie bag on the doorstep to say welcome to the neighborhood, and if the invited person wants to be uninvolved, so be it. No skin off my nose.

    I have a hard time believing that inviting people to be part of a group that might be able to help them out is somehow creepy or off-putting. If they don't want to be social, they don't join. If they want to claim a house and never log in again, I don't care. But if they WANT to be a part of a group that does fun things and helps on quests and whatnot, the HOA is just an easy way to meet other folks, and they may not otherwise know about it unless someone brings it to their attention. That's it and that's all.

    As for inactives losing housing, until it's egregious (like as in TS is running out of server space for housing blocks and there are people who have deleted accounts or haven't logged in in years+, which I imagine is WAY in the future, if not never), I don't care. It doesn't affect me.

    Dag, I'm sorry the thread turned this direction. I know it wasn't your intent.
    Posted 13 months ago by Delyth Subscriber! | Permalink
  • So far, the thread has established this: people are offended by how a group of people in this HOA play, because the HOA leader is suggesting an idea that would somehow pass a judgment about how other people play. As stated in the Community Guidelines, there is no right way to play. Everyone here has their lane. Anything that interferes with that concept isn't something I can envision being implemented, at least not without a seriously good reason. (And with that, I hope everyone can un-bunch their underpants now...)

    Perhaps Dagnabbit Rabbit's HOA is what would be considered hardcore compared to other groups. Which is fine. I don't see it as determining who is "worthy" to play Glitch; it's solely to do with the housing. I agree though that you can't somehow separate people who are more casual Glitch players, players who have lost interest or players who can't be around as often as they'd like from those who are more dedicated and/or available. I think Dagnabbit Rabbit is envisioning scores of empty housing blocks in the future. Maybe it could happen, but then what? As I said in my post above - it's not so much the location that is that important. It's the people you befriend, no matter where you end up, that make the community. The people who are dedicated will be there no matter where you live.

    I like your idea about storage units, Shivian. I think those would be useful to everyone! And, you're welcome, Little Miss Giggles. I can't stand watching a discussion get out of hand the way this thread had.
    Posted 13 months ago by Laerwen Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't get any creepiness factor in HOAs either. I know I reacted strongly to things like this (what Dagnabbit Rabbit said above):

    The point was inactive player homeownership.  . . . By inactive players, we are referring to someone who joined Oct 3, hugged a pig at level 7, bought a house, and hasnt earned an achievement since.

    1) In a game that is less than 2 months old, there can be no such thing as inactive players. It's pretty audacious to proclaim such.

    2) That second sentence is absolutely a judgement on other players' play style. So what if they haven't "earned an achievement"? Or if all they've done is "hugged a pig"? That's their right. Proclaiming that these are "inactive players" who should have their homes taken away is definitely overstepping bounds and THAT is what is objectionable, at least to me.

    (edited to change some wording)
    Posted 13 months ago by Flowerry Pott Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I reacted the same way as well Flowerry Pott. I know I don't log INTO the game for days on end but I do come and check on my learning and check the forums. You won't see me hugging many pigs or watering many trees for weeks or logging into the game to chitty chat.. heck even when I do log into the game I am not a Chatty Cathy! I love how I can come on and do my thing and nobody bothers me unless I want to be bothered.. other than the random garlic kiss.. YUK!

    I still stand by my statement that I feel nobody should lose their houses if they appear inactive and truly it is not anybody's business to decided if I am inactive or not and defiantly not some group such as an HoA to be looking up my profile and determining if anyone is inactive, that should be between that account holder and Tiny Speck only. That is why I fully support this idea www.glitch.com/forum/ideas/...

    I love that this game and the company Tiny Speck has offered us such lovely game called Glitch. A game we can play the way we want to play it, when we can play it and lets us set our pace with no time pressures, to me that make this one of the best games out there!
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • My only ingame comments were about housing. 
    The comment about HOAs was referred to real ones. After the comments I read here, I googled the term. Terrifying. This alone is enough to keep away from them for life :)   http://www.examiner.com/hoa-in-west-palm-beach/hoa-syndrome-and-how-it-affects-your-life
    Posted 13 months ago by Zira Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ Zira. Wow scary stuff! To think how these HOA's work make me shiver! Nobody should ever feel this way living in their own home EVER! Hence why I reacted to this thread the way I have. It is enough my real life neighbors are so nosy but living in an HOA would be a nightmare then to feel that way in a GAME due to a group made me just plain upset. I come to a game to have fun and escape real life a bit, not have real life shoved into my face by a group in a game. Made me very very upset. The OP may not have intended to upset me or anyone else but it did, I do apologize that I took your intent wrong OP but it was what you stated in your original post that got my hackles up.
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I agree that HOAs in IRL are freaky, but the OP never said anything about forcing people to join and in fact said they were sent an invitation - that, by definition, means you can say no. They never said anything about any regulations and frankly, there was a good chance from just looking at the original post that they used the term wrong. A lot of you need to relax and stay on topic and not jump down the op's throat at the first chance you get.

    As to the topic, I agree that the way it works now is fine. But I can see the benefits to adding a system where if you're inactive for over a year, your property value and items in said property are returned to you. That is only if they've been completely inactive for over a year. I think the benefits to the community outweigh the detriments to people who will not participate in that community for over a year. That being said, I'd like to point out that I am often inactive for long periods of time in the games I play and I'm also fine if the system doesn't change.

    Any community is going to have to deal with "inactives" as it's unfair to take people's hard earned/to obtain properties for just being gone for a few months.
    Posted 13 months ago by Janaelle Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Uh.  Real life HOA =/= as Glitch HOA.  Not even close to the same thing.  The leap you all made and the giant assumptions that were made about the OP and her intentions is just staggering.

    I was going to repeat all the obvious things (you can't be forced to join, they can't force you to play a certain way) but it's pretty clear people aren't listening.
    Posted 13 months ago by Feylin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • What the OP repeatedly fails to address is that the main point of contention is not the existence of in-game HOAs, it is they are advocating for the removal of homes from inactive players.

    Have an HOA, fine. (I belong to the one for my neighborhood, though we're really new.) Have a Welcome Wagon committee. Have parties. Knock yourselves out. Do not judge other Glitchen for not playing the game to your satisfaction, and agitate for kicking them out of their houses.
    Posted 13 months ago by Nixified Subscriber! | Permalink
  • i reacted most strongly to the assertion in the OP that our awesome community is being undermined by inactive players.

    (excerpted): As we gain ability to add onto our homes in Glitch, we wont want to keep moving around and having streets with other active players will become increasingly important.

    well, i don't agree.i feel it's very important for MY enjoyment of the game that i be able to be left alone and the thought that anyone considers it their "responsibility" to "keep the community resident list current" is positively creepy. it isn't about the original poster, whom i do not know and do not give two hoots about. it is about an invasive behavior that i find uncomforatble at best.

    if some group of people have a little neighborhood club that makes them happy, fine. when i wander a residential neighborhood and see evidence of an active HOA, i think "wow. i'm glad i don't live on this street", and i move on.

    it goes too far though, when someone comes on the forums and insists that their way of having a neighborhood is the proper way, completely failing to consider or even notice that many of us do not think this original thing the post was about is even a problem.

    if you think it's a problem, fine. you have a right to say so. that's why we're having a conversation. those of us who do not like your viewpoint have a right to say so, too, and once you open a public discussion about a thing, you have no reasonable right to expect that everyone will agree that there's even a problem, let alone your solution.

    it is quite possible that people previously unaware of the "problem"  are now alerted to it, only they're fundamentally opposed to your view, which is what has happened here.

    not being in agreement is not hateful. it is simply not being in agreement.

    i happen to think that inactive players are less of a danger to my sense of community than invasive ones. this is a viewpoint i think the OP had not considered at the time of the original posting.

    well, now we all know there's different ways of looking at it.

    and that awareness is why i bothered to get into the discussion; i wish for it to be known that there IS an opposing view.
    Posted 13 months ago by flask Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Hmm.  Couple of things, I suppose.  I live in an HOA community irl.  First one I have lived in, and I didn't want it, but I did want to be in the area.  I am the guy who might leave his basketball hoop out for a few days at a time.  Or go a couple weeks without mowing the lawn.  And Giants forbid, I am not into landscaping.  So I did the only reasonable thing.  I got onto the board.  If you can't beat them, then join them and make the rules, I say ;)

    Zira, that article is totally understandable.  We have (and forgive the term) a couple of Nazis on the board who want to cite people for the stupidest things.  One lady is mad that her neighbor has the wrong trees in her yard.  Want to know why she's mad?  Because the neighbor's trees are prettier than hers, even though they are not on the 'plan'.  Some of it is sickening.  And people tend to forget that these are their -neighbors-.  I hate the HOA and the abuse that can come with it, so I joined to curb it.

    As to a Glitch HOA...maybe you should not call it an HOA, since that comes with a very serious IRL negative connotation.  Maybe call it the GWC (glitch welcoming committee) or HWC (home wc) or GFA (glitch friends association) or GWA (glitch welcoming association) or whatever.  This is the Land of Imagination.  Use yours, and be original.  Don't try to copy Real Life and duplicate it here.  We all come here to get -away- from RL, right? :)
    Posted 13 months ago by Malc Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Here's a thought: Before worrying about OTHER PLAYERS, why not wait for a new housing block to open up, and take all your active HOA members and move there, and invite all your friends to move there, until you've sewn up the housing block exclusively with your active friends?
    It'll take some work, some organization, but you run the HOA; the should be totally in your wheelhouse.
    Making other people's business YOUR business is what I think people are reacting to in this thread with some distaste.
    Posted 13 months ago by CrashTestPilot Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thank you for beating me to the point, Nixified. This thread has been sidetracked by people talking about HOAs. That is not the objectionable point. Wanting to steal the houses of other players is the problem

    Let's be clear: I don't give a damn about your HOA. I enjoy socializing with others in game, I have no objection to people socializing. What I object to is making lists of players you don't consider worthy of having a house because they don't play the way you think they should and advocating that those houses be stolen from them although they have not violated the ToS in any way.

    And at the risk of more passive-aggressive opprobrium from those who object to calling a stupid, malicious idea a stupid, malicious idea, allow me to reiterate my main point:

    KEEP YOUR FILTHY GODDAMNED PAWS OFF MY F***ING HOUSE
    Posted 13 months ago by Billy McBinky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Dagnabbit Rabbit

    Hm.. I feel the strong urge to move into your neighborhood, and walk around completely naked.
    Why?
    I feel you need some serious medicine, i.e laughter.

    My opinion, if you don't like it, q.q.
    Posted 13 months ago by Volkov Subscriber! | Permalink
  • ... nevermind
    Posted 13 months ago by Garney Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Come on everyone! Challenge your enemies to a duel in the underground splank club! Fight them, and splank them straight to hell! 
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • i thought the happy sharing glitch community was one in which we allow our neighbors live the way they want without trying to take their houses from them.

    and the OP said that any input is appreciated.

    did i get that wrong, too?
    Posted 13 months ago by flask Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I was referring to the nasty personal attacks in this thread. Input, fine, but why not look at logically instead of all this hate?
    Posted 13 months ago by Garney Subscriber! | Permalink
  • i can't speak for everyone else, but there i didn't make any personal attacks unless  you count being creeped out by a set of behaviors an attack on a person with those behaviors. the behavior and the person are not the same, are they? or are we not looking at this logically?

    i believe that people have good reason to be irritated that anyone wants to take houses or anything else from players who are not as active as their neighborhood party planner wants them to be.

    in a game that's only two months old? inactive players? people are supposed to let that go by without comment?

    what happened to happy sharing?
    Posted 13 months ago by flask Subscriber! | Permalink
  • And there's the passive-aggressive behaviour. "Oh, why are you so rude as to disagree with a stupid, malicious idea that will take away houses from players? That is so rude!"
    Posted 13 months ago by Billy McBinky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't think anyone is protesting the disagreement (I personally would not want houses or accounts taken away as I log into everything infrequently) but the aneurysm you appear to be having over it doesn't seem healthy.
    Posted 13 months ago by Kaynne Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Look, I think it's clear that there are some well intentioned people in this game. All well and good. But when people start bitching about a lack of houses (housing as a resource) and kicking "inactive" players out of homes, it seems fairly transparent. 

    Like it or not, certain houses have a status attached to them and will ALWAYS be in high demand. There will also be people who think this is highly unfair, and will try to right this perceived wrong by coming up with ideas like this.

    As discussed to death in other threads, this is a pretty crap idea for two reasons: 

    1. There are no inactive players in this game, by any rational measurement. The game is less than two months old. Any reasonable measure of time that would designate a player as "inactive" has yet to pass. Yeah, planning for the future is all well and fine, except it's an even more unlikely excuse on top of an already unlikely premise.

    2. Greed will always make this idea seem appealing to a good number of people. Sorry, folks, but that's what it is. It isn't unfair that you don't get the house you want in the game. The model of house you want will always be available in another quarter. The groddle houses may never be available, though, because they are in a high demand area (at least for right now - as the game expands, other areas - especially other starting points - will become more popular).

    It doesn't matter if you want the house for yourself, your friends, or "more active" players to make your neighborhood more fun. It's still greed.

    But what happens if this idea goes through? Who will be yelling the loudest when their house gets taken away? Who will be shouting about injustice and how unfair it is when they lose their house because they didn't log in regularly enough, or pay some arbitrary tax, or whatever else you guys are suggesting?

    You want houses to be available now, and you will balk at the idea of them being taken away once you get them. Cause and effect, people. Do not let temporary greed blind you to the ultimate consequence of this idea. Don't think for a second that it wouldn't effect you, either. Life happens, and sometimes we can't get online to do the stuff we think we'll always be able to do. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yeah, that's it. I'm the problem, not those that want to steal houses.
    Posted 13 months ago by Billy McBinky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I can understand the desire to have a lively neighbourhood.

    A lot of fun about this game, after all, comes from the community, and playing it together with other people. I might be in the fortunate position to have a bunch of friends playing Glitch together with me.

    Alas, I don't think that desire is something that can be in any way put into reality. Some people just buy a house to have a place. Some don't want interaction. Some, as has been said, might only log on once a week or once every two weeks.

    I think we all should accept this. If neighbourhood is really important to some, then I agree with the proposal of "moving somewhere together". A bunch of friends of mine have done this. They own a whole street of 50k houses together somewhere in... Aranna? Kajuu? Somewhere far off, where most people don't want to go and houses were easily available for a whole group of people.

    I guess that is the price you will have to pay. Or the choice you have to make. Just as in real life, most of the things come with choices. There is no cheap notebook with fast speed, big screen, that weighs under 1 kg and has batteries for 12 hours.

    You gonna have to decide what is more imporant for you.
    Posted 13 months ago by Louis Louisson Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I am continuing to be amazed at the number of people assuming bad intentions. "Malicious"? LOL, hardly. It's just a game. The houses aren't real. No one is telling people to move out or else.

    Forget passive-aggression; I find saying "take your filthy paws off my goddamn house" to be full-on *aggression*. Might want to dial that back a bit.

    And with that said - I'm not sure what good is going to come out of this thread any further. People can assume ill intentions all they want and no one can stop them, so. Perhaps calling your group an HOA was a mistake, OP, since a lot of people can't seem to determine there's a difference between a resident's group in a game on the internet and real life. 

    I rest my case, and good luck.
    Posted 13 months ago by Laerwen Subscriber! | Permalink
  • O.O

    Well...that was unpleasant, and disappointing.  I'm very surprised the thread isn't locked or deleted considering the name calling and mud slinging.

    My .02c:
    -The game is waaay too young for people to be on about this yet
    - A game shouldn't punish people for RL getting in the way of the game, ever, and taking someone's playerhousing does just that.
    - This isn't the real world, where I'm sure there are data-storage concerns there isn't any reason why there can't be A LOT more housing built into the game as needed. (which has already been done once in my month here)
    - This thread is a horrible introduction to Glitch and is in the top threads right now
    - True story: I was part of another game's team and we were trying to sort out this exact problem, but for players who had been gone for 3+ years.  Part of the issue was that our lay out was much more like RL and housing took up "physical space" in the world.  About the time we'd decided to go ahead and remove those houses and keep them in a backup folder in case the players ever came back one did...turned out he'd been in Iraq for 3 tours then in a series of hospitals and one of the things he looked forward to was his silly simply little pretend in-game house to return to.  We decided not to remove any houses.

    So, ask yourself, how'd you like to be the person who got to tell that guy, "Well, you were gone too long so we gave your place away, sorry, bub."?

    Like the Iraqi vet I mentioned, I use online games as an escape from the real world.  In my real world I, too, have a chronic health issue that gets in the way of everything from time to time.

    How and when I play is my business so long as I'm within the community guidelines set out by the team here.  It's been my experience that that's true of most people who play here, they love the casually social atmosphere...the ability to opt in and out of interacting with people as fits them at the minute.  I sincerely hope Glitch stays that way.

    As for the HOA thing, I took the OP as an attempt to foster a friendly community, nothing more.  The looking at people's profiles thing seems to have been done with the best intentions, and, really, I don't know the OP to judge them one way or another *shrug*  In RL we bought our house in a lovely neighborhood without a HOA on purpose.  I've had nothing but wretched experiences with them in the past, and continue to watch as friends who have to live under one complain and bristle.  However, I can't see that sort of thing EVER happening here...it simply wouldn't work....it's too Antiglitchy, ya know?  A warm greeting comity who choose to do that and are organized by someone to do it is groovy, and not at all the same thing as the lady who shows up in your front garden with a ruler to measure your lawn. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Belasco Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Heh, Belasco, that reminds me...on an old MUD, our biggest thing was in determining when to purge a player's data (name, bank account, mail, etc) so someone else could use the same name.  We eventually went with 1 month idle time for every level the player had, and if they were a wizard, they had like 3 years or something.  Yay Perl!  good times :)

    Data Storage for any given player, their house, and whatever their house contains is so small, I doubt it'd have any factor in the Devs' decision on when/if to remove any.  Any given home would have some memory overhead if the house were to be looked at (say, via Realty) because it needs to query the contents of the home.  But that can be unloaded quickly as well, so again, not a real concern.

    I agree with Belasco, this thread should be locked or deleted, and everyone needs to have a purple flower.  really.
    Posted 13 months ago by Malc Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "I propose to the devs a system where players have to reach level 20 and remain active within 3 months or their account goes inactive, the house is released and the cost of the house and its contents is returned to the player should they return to activate their account. "

    I can't see how anyone with basic reading comprehension can say the OP had not ill intentions. It is explicitly stated in the post that they wish to take away the houses of players who do not meet their standard of activeness.
    Posted 13 months ago by Billy McBinky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Then there's this:
    I bought a year subscription.
    What I do with that subscription is, yes, my own business.
    I would be very disappointed if, say, I went on vacation for 90 days to a tropical island,then logged back in to find I had been evicted.

    At the end of the day, the way YOU play is not a measuring stick for the way I play.
    We keep getting wrapped around this axle, wherein the way ANOTHER plays is NOT acceptable when judged from the perspective of the way YOU play.

    Why can't you play the game your way without being troubled by the way ANOTHER plays?

    Have some fun out there!
    Posted 13 months ago by CrashTestPilot Subscriber! | Permalink
  • 90 day vacation? I want to go to there.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Come along! What island should we visit? (This thread needs to go radically off-topic. Let's go to there!)
    Posted 13 months ago by CrashTestPilot Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Crashtestpilot, I think there is a valid point in discussing the way that others play If, and only if, that significantly harms the game for others. For example, I have high animal skills. I get a pile of meat every day. I could auction a large quantity at a fairly low price and think nothing of it. I already have a large amount of currants and it took little effort to get that meat. However, doing so would drive down the price of meat, negatively affecting those who have to put more effort into getting meat. For this reason, I choose not to auction my meat at cheap prices. I have Mining IV and can finish a rock pretty quickly. I try not to mine rocks with those who have lower mining skills because they would get very little rock from the effort.

    Being an "inactive player", is not ruining anybody's game. There are houses to be had and there will be more. It is simply that some feel entitled to having exactly what they want immediately.

    As for islands, I suggest Bali. It's beautiful. While not an island, I'd also suggest Kuantan in Malaysia as an excellent location for a tropical getaway. Just remember to keep the balcony doors closed, lest you come back to monkeys in your room.
    Posted 13 months ago by Billy McBinky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I want to visit the island where my house won't get taken away from me because I didn't or couldn't log in to the game for 30 days.

    Sorry. Brought it right back.

    P.S., Billy, I think crashtest was agreeing with you. But in his or her own writing style. Which doesn't involve a machine gun.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Methinks this thread actually needs a good trombone parade.
    Posted 13 months ago by Jennyanydots Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yes, Xev, Crashtest and I are in agreement. I was just trying to show that there are valid reasons why the way another person chooses to play the game may be legitimately criticized. That's when it makes it very difficult or impossible for another player to play in their style. In my example, I lose very little by not dumping my meat at auction at firesale prices, but the little level 10 glitch trying to make a living farming gains a lot if I don't, so that's the way I play.
    Posted 13 months ago by Billy McBinky Subscriber! | Permalink