Sign In

### Topic

#### Rooks Destroying Inactive Houses

If Rooks come in and destroy streets that are underused / underloved, I think they should do the same to houses. If you don't play enough (up to TS to decide this) you come in and everything has died, and maybe half of your stuff is missing.
Yeah, yeah, I like this idea!

Posted 13 months ago by ✦ SHI∇IΔΠ ✦ | Permalink

### Replies

Previous 1 2 Next

- okay
  Posted 13 months ago by zyx | Permalink
- *shrugs*
  Posted 13 months ago by Kirnan | Permalink
- No. I'm still against having any situation where crops wilt, or stuff is destroyed, or any other form of entropy happens just because I haven't done something with it in game lately. I like my house, but I don't go there every time I'm in the game. I like the game, but I don't play every day. Other games use these ideas, and they make me feel like I'm being punished for having a life. If my stuff goes away if I'm gone too long, I probably just won't come back, and that's a bad situation for TS.
  Posted 13 months ago by KhaKhonsu | Permalink
- Whoa, you do have something against people having lives...
  Posted 13 months ago by Macadamia Ellicott | Permalink
- I never suggested every day. Why does everyone always see a post about inactivity and think it means "every day"? Go put words in someone's mouth elsewhere please.
  If you read the forum post I explicitly said "up to TS to decide this" - intentionally leaving it open so that the discussion WASN'T centered around the length of time, but rather, what happens after that time.
  Anyone else totally love the idea of the Rook effecting EVERY "street" (including houses?) as much as I do?! I think it's fantastic!
  Posted 13 months ago by ✦ SHI∇IΔΠ ✦ | Permalink
- I'm in favor of leaving other people's stuff alone and not worrying about their level of (in)activity. But that's just me.
  Posted 13 months ago by ✰ Lorelei ✰ | Permalink
- Why would you want to see people's houses destroyed?
  Posted 13 months ago by Demyx | Permalink
- O Giants, not this, again.
  Posted 13 months ago by CrashTestPilot | Permalink
- Just becasue you have no life doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
  Posted 13 months ago by Lucille Ball | Permalink
- Whats the big deal? You still get to keep your house...
  Posted 13 months ago by ✦ SHI∇IΔΠ ✦ | Permalink
- I dislike this idea.
  People shouldn't feel forced to play all the time. They should want to play all the time.
  Anything that would negatively impact on someone who doesn't play all the time is, in my opinion, unnecessary.
  Posted 13 months ago by Ebiler | Permalink
- And what is the big deal with other people not playing as much as you do? You still get to keep your house and your stuff even if your neighbours don't play...
  Posted 13 months ago by Macadamia Ellicott | Permalink
- Whats the big deal losing half the stuff in your house, and it getting trashed, if you haven't played in 5 years? :-)
  Posted 13 months ago by ✦ SHI∇IΔΠ ✦ | Permalink
- Why are you concerned about that?
  Posted 13 months ago by Macadamia Ellicott | Permalink
- I'm in agreement that "all the time" =/= "occasionally". I think it's silly for the servers and streets to be burdened with housing for players who've been gone for a year. Maybe even reset the clock simply by logging into the website? That, in my book, makes you a (semi-)active player. If you don't log into the game or the website for a year, I don't think you can claim "I have a life and juts can't play ALL the time"...
  I have a life - I work a salaried job, go to school full time, have two sons and a girlfriend, and have friends and family to spend time with. I think I can still manage to log in 4 times a year...
  I don't understand, like the OP, why people immediately assume this means in-game months rather than RL months.
  Posted 13 months ago by Xepherys | Permalink
- Xepherys: "I'm in agreement that "all the time" =/= "occasionally". I think it's silly for the servers and streets to be burdened with housing for players who've been gone for a year. Maybe even reset the clock simply by logging into the website? That, in my book, makes you a (semi-)active player. If you don't log into the game or the website for a year, I don't think you can claim "I have a life and juts can't play ALL the time"...
  I have a life - I work a salaried job, go to school full time, have two sons and a girlfriend, and have friends and family to spend time with. I think I can still manage to log in 4 times a year..."
  I couldn't agree more.
  Posted 13 months ago by ✦ SHI∇IΔΠ ✦ | Permalink
- Agreed on this I think that houses should be destroyed if you can't log in for a long period of time. Maybe not the stuff but you find Animals and trees dead, all your tools broken your screen with loads of holes in it where rooks have attacked
  Posted 13 months ago by Santa Clause | Permalink
- -1. Just, no.
  Posted 13 months ago by CrashTestPilot | Permalink
- Crashtestpilot, can you at least offer a valid counterargument? Can any of you naysayers? Why should houses full of stuff live perpetually on the servers, ad infinitum, while players abandon the game?
  Posted 13 months ago by Xepherys | Permalink
- I'd love to hear a valid counter-argument against this too. Clearly the nature of Glitch is "if a street is inactive / unloved, it gets attacked by the Rook" - why should houses else be any different?
  Posted 13 months ago by ✦ SHI∇IΔΠ ✦ | Permalink
- I'm for this idea provided that the system also sends these players a warning e-mail. "Unattended houses make great practice targets for young rooks. Why not turn on the lights to keep it safe?"
  If two or three of those e-mails go by and still no log-in, then a random rook attack could certainly be warranted. A fair and in-game way to handle the extra drag on the servers. This game gets laggy enough without needing to shelter unnecessary data.
  Posted 13 months ago by WereBear | Permalink
- I'm sorry, but I don't have internet at home. As in, dial-up only. Yes, seriously, these places exist. I don't even have TV there, it's too far from the antennas.
  I play constantly while I'm at university, but when I'm home, it is impossible.
  In addition, holding the data is not the throttle, LOADING it is. For example, I have stuff in Dropbox. It consumes almost nothing for most of the time it is there, until I login or open up their software. LOADING it effects your game play, not maintaining it. Holding it is honestly miniscule compared to loading it every time you log in.
  Obviously, I disagree wholeheartedly.
  Posted 13 months ago by Lady Cailia | Permalink
- @Xephyrys : Because that's what has been suggested many times. Six weeks, a month, six months... Basically, it concerns me and even hurts my feelings that people are so offended by this possibility that they need to rally for it constantly. Don't you think that'll be part of the new housing market they are creating? I dunno, just trust the devs a TINY bit, is all I'm saying.
  ps And even loading the website would be nigh-impossible at home. I turn images off and go HTML only and still my gmail will take a minute or so to load.
  Posted 13 months ago by Lady Cailia | Permalink
- @Miss Cailia - was there an official dev response that said they were never going to do this? I wasn't aware. If not, it's not a matter of trusting the devs. That's why they have a whole section for ideas - because they want feedback, they want to trust us as well.
  And I'm not sure what you feel people are offended by. Are you only at school two days a year? What happens when you're done with school? You just expect TS to leave all your data in tact until you move somewhere and have stable internet? I certainly understand the woes of dial-up, but still.
  Maybe if you're a paid subscriber, and you are still paying even though you aren't playing, then maybe keeping your data live forever is justified. If you're a free member, and you're absent for a year, why should it stick around?
  Posted 13 months ago by Xepherys | Permalink
- Yes, I do expect them to keep my data intact until I get internet. Because it's not really costing them nearly as much to keep my data for a year as the bandwidth for those of you who play an hour a day costs each year. Not that I have those exact number, but my estimation is set at such extremes that I think it would stand. Monetarily: They're only losing me as a customer if they delete my information.
  However, I agree there should be a level cut-off for this sort of thing. That's something I can get behind, if you are <= level 8 and you don't log in for quite a while, sure. It would not surprise me if it was possible to be a level 55 Guide who takes sabbatical from her professorial job for a year (just as an example) and loses her data because they didn't pay while they were on sabbatical. Or they never paid. Why should they need to worry about this at all? WoW holds my data, STILL, and I haven't played in years (probably 3-5). Is TS that cash-strapped, or what?
  PS Users are so offended by empty houses that they must constantly clamor for them to be released, that's why I react so strongly. I don't understand why the OP feels this is necessary whatsoever. He needs to provide the argument proving necessity before you state we have no counter-arguments.
  Posted 13 months ago by Lady Cailia | Permalink
- Honestly, I would not play a game which penalizes me for not playing.
  There are so many other things to do than play Glitch. I'm behind on my reading list, have many games which require 40+ hours each. I'm not up-to-date on tv shows and movies as well.
  Tempt me to play = Yes. Penalize me for not playing = Are you bleep-ing kidding me?
  Posted 13 months ago by Pming | Permalink
- It's not really up to the naysayers to say why an idea is bad, it's up to the people proposing the idea to sell it.
  What problem does this solve? I don't see inactive houses as a problem. They aren't bothering me at all. I really don't understand why people are upset about inactive houses.
  Why should people be punished for being inactive? It's just a game. If something happens and you can't log on for months, so what? Why is that anyone else's business?
  Why would you want to see a players' stuff get destroyed or their house taken away?
  Posted 13 months ago by Demyx | Permalink
- SHI∇IΔΠ, this topic has come up before and all that happens is supporters get flamed. I fully support ideas like this (knowing full well my propensity for dropping things like Glitch randomly for long periods of time. I'm so sorry FoFiX), but I think it's just too early for this discussion. Maybe in a year or so.
  Posted 13 months ago by Xain | Permalink
- As I have said before, the OP is advocating that things that I have spent effort on be taken away from me, because they think that inactivity in the game is a bad thing ("don't play enough" being the key phrase there). They are Oh So Kindly going to let TS decide exactly when I should be punished, rather than trying to determine that themselves. gee, thanks. Being punished for how I play or organize my leisure time is not a way to keep me coming back to a game. The game JUST WENT BACK TO BETA. Why are we having this discussion about INACTIVITY AGAIN, when the game was only officially open for about two months!? This degree of impatience is very telling to me about what they believe the "correct" amount of game activity is. How about we have the Rook attack houses of people who play "too much", because they are "obviously" greedy, and going to be using more than their fair share of both server and game resources? Seriously, can we stop trying to find a new way to sell this concept every other week?
  Posted 13 months ago by KhaKhonsu | Permalink
- I don't understand what the purpose for having Rooks attack ones house is
  ~How would that affect/benefit the community(it definitely wouldn't benefit the player)?
  How would the community even know the house has been rooked,unless the entire house has
  turned to rubble? Would looking at a pile of rubble be better than looking at the houses the way
  they are now?
  Posted 13 months ago by ~Scilly~ | Permalink
- I hope that the new houses they launch allow this feature of destroying houses for people inactive for extreme amounts of time, it'll be great :-)
  Posted 13 months ago by ✦ SHI∇IΔΠ ✦ | Permalink
- "I hope that the new houses they launch allow this feature of destroying houses for people inactive for extreme amounts of time, it'll be great :-)"
  Why??? Really, what is wrong with you? How do other people´s inactivity affect you? Why not make it so that they can destroy your house instead?
  Posted 13 months ago by Macadamia Ellicott | Permalink
- Macadamia: I'd be cool with a Rook destroying my house if I didn't play for a whole year, why aren't you? It'll be so awesome! It'd keep us all on our toes!
  Posted 13 months ago by ✦ SHI∇IΔΠ ✦ | Permalink
- What would be awesome about it? How would that benefit you or anyone in any way?
  Posted 13 months ago by Macadamia Ellicott | Permalink
- It really seems to be against the spirit of what a game is, if players have to be threatened with destruction or some kind of punishment for not playing "enough". It's a game. It should be played for fun and by free will, not coercion.
  "I'd be cool with a Rook destroying my house if I didn't play for a whole year, why aren't you?"
  Because an idea is fine with one person doesn't automatically make it fine for everyone.
  Posted 13 months ago by Flowerry Pott | Permalink
- I've played MMOs where items decay over time so that your character basically loses power. I always end up quitting them. I play games in cycles, and when I'm bored with an MMO I set it aside for a bit and come back later. If I log in after a time and my character has lost items I worked for, or there is some penalty for being away, I tend to be disinclined to redo my work and I usually log back out and leave the game for good.
  I generally pay for even "free" MMOs because developers have to eat, so I'm the kind of player whose business you want to keep. I have bought credits in Glitch. If TS wants revenue from customers like me, who will spend money on an MMO but tend to come and go, they will not do anything as stupid as making our stuff disappear while we're away.
  Posted 13 months ago by Lucille Ball | Permalink
- I think it's silly for the servers and streets to be burdened with housing for players who've been gone for a year.
  And I think it's silly to claim that your argument is valid because you're helping TS manage its servers and resources.
  This is a game with many different playing styles. As long as other players are not breaking the Community Guidelines, it's really not up to you to decide that other people's frequency of play needs to have negative consequences, and to base your claim on anything other than your own desires. You certainly don't represent TS and certainly don't have any information about how burdensome it is for them to support many styles of play.
  Perhaps we should ban players who are on too frequently or play for too long of a time. THAT would help server load a lot.
  Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn | Permalink
- This reminds me a bit of what happens in Animal Crossing. Over time, weeds accumulate in your town. If you weed over the course of play, your town is weed-free. If you're gone for a week, there are more weeds for you waiting when you come back. If you're gone for a year, boy howdy, the entire town is overrun with weeds! You can always weed and get your town back to top form, but you also get a sense of the passage of time.
  Posted 13 months ago by Knitomaton | Permalink
- Knitomaton: You put your finger on the one thing that IMO is terrible about Animal Crossing. If weeds accumulate, then your neighbors start moving away and the town becomes deserted and horrible. It gives a player (me, in this case) a feeling of pressure to be playing constantly to keep bad things from happening. I'd much rather play a game because I want to, not because I have to. Much more fun.
  Posted 13 months ago by Flowerry Pott | Permalink
- I like that idea. Already we know that players who are woefully negligent will see their plants die, their animals die, and their trees die.
  All I'm suggesting is slightly more to woefully negligent players, such as moving stuff around (like a tornado tore up your house) or even destroying stuff (but likely only low-value stuff so people don't have too big a hemorrhage... like rocks, cherries, beans, grains, etc).
  And remember, I'm talking woefully negligent, not "oops, I forgot to play this month"
  Posted 13 months ago by ✦ SHI∇IΔΠ ✦ | Permalink
- Maybe if someone doesn't play for an amount of time, their house and everything in it is put into "storage", and a new, empty house, identical to the one that stood there, is re-released onto the street. Into the player's inventory or mail goes a voucher which can be taken to a bureaucratic hall to reclaim their stuff and a house just like the one they'd previously bought, but they'll just have to change addresses. On the one hand, stagnant houses and neighborhoods are a problem, but on the other hand, I know I wouldn't want to return eagerly after an extended break from Glitch to find that all of my homely things were destroyed.
  Posted 13 months ago by Vexia | Permalink
- Plants don't die, trees don't die. Butterflies* and chickens don't die. Pigs only die if you don't have someone feed them.
  And again, where are you going to get the mind-reading machine that tells you whether a player was "woefully negligent" as opposed to "handling RL issues that kept them away"?
  *Butterflies die after they've been milked and massaged. If you don't milk or massage them, they will still be there.
  What is it about forcing other people to play the way you want them to that gives you such a powerful urge to punish them when they don't?
  You got it right in the original post: "It's up to TS to decide this".
  Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn | Permalink
- There is no such thing as woefully negligent in a video game. Either you quit, in which case it doesn't matter what happens to your stuff, or you return expecting to play where you left off.
  Meh. I don't know why I'm continuing to argue. Stoot is far too smart to upset his customers in this sort of fashion anyway. He has a very good grasp of MMO psychology.
  Posted 13 months ago by Lucille Ball | Permalink
- Vexia: I suggested that too and people rage hated on that post as well. People apparently feel their address is so important to them that if they don't play for a year they deserve to keep that too.
  I guess I'm one of the few who thinks I shouldn't get off Scott free if I don't play for a year, and should have some sort of effect occur if I don't play for an egregious amount of time... Even if that effect is merely losing my address, getting back the full cost of my house, and putting my stuff into storage.
  Oh well, welcome to the world of MMOs, where people demand everything with for free and without any consequences if they go inactive.
  Wait, no, tons of games give you consequences if you don't play, nevermind. BWAHAHAHA!
  Posted 12 months ago by ✦ SHI∇IΔΠ ✦ | Permalink
- While I'm clearly for this idea (given my frequent various attempts to suggest it from different ways) at least (if nothing else) people will really have really, really, really voiced their opinion against anything that ever takes away housing ever.
  Posted 12 months ago by ✦ SHI∇IΔΠ ✦ | Permalink
- What you seem to be missing is any sense of why TS thought this was a good idea in the first place. What were they thinking? Why would that give them a stronger, more loyal player base?
  Your argument doesn't seem to have any basis in the reality of the commercial business world.
  Posted 12 months ago by WindBorn | Permalink
- It's the same dead horse argument about what to do with inactive players. Defining inactives this early in the game doesn't even pass the sniff test.
  Posted 12 months ago by CrashTestPilot | Permalink
- People might have valid reasons for not playing for a very long time. Maybe they're going somewhere where they won't have internet for a long time. I recall a story on another of those threads about a military veteran returning after four years of inactivity while on duty. I don't think there's any point at which you can absolutely conclusively say someone won't be returning. I'd rather people be able to return to what they left off.
  Furthermore, you haven't taken into account custom houses. Losing a house that you worked to customize is even more likely to discourage a player, no matter what measures are taken to minimize the losses (refunding the costs, putting items into storage, et cetra)..
  And I'm against penalties for the sake of penalties. Also, exactly why shouldn't you "get off scott-free" for not playing for six months? Is it really a crime that warrants penalty?
  Also for "lots of games"... Uh, a decent number of MMORPGs don't have such penalties. At the very least, I know that World of Warcraft and City of Heroes give you zero penalties for not playing. Pretty sure Dungeon Fighter Online and Dungeon and Dragons Online don't. Those're just the ones I'm aware of. They'd rather you come back and play eventually, no matter how long it takes, than lose your business. And taking a punitive stance on inactivity will lose Tiny Speck business.
  Overall, I think it's just a bad move. And I won't be replying to any more of those threads that keep popping up, again and yet again, but I decided to voice my opinion this once. I'm pretty sure opposition is too high for Tiny Speck to consider this kind of move seriously (and I suspect they share the same sentiment as those MMORPGs I mentioned, that they'd rather have you come back eventually than lose you for good).
  Posted 12 months ago by Kaja Rainbow | Permalink
- I tend to play games in cycles as well. I play for months, then sign off for months, then come back. I enjoyed Animal Crossing but while returning having my town a wasteland made me stop playing very quickly. I have a real life.
  If I came back to glitch and my house was gone, my things ruined, I would never play again.
  Posted 12 months ago by MsKelseyClaire | Permalink
- Not having this is one of the reason I love this game!
  If I get busy and can't be on for a few days in a row, ops I might have lost a few pigs.
  Other MMO's that I've given up on, a few to spend my time playing Glitch, not only
  do you have to worry about your plants being dead, animals gone but some are so PVP based that you might not even have buildings left let alone gold. If I'm shelling out RL money even if it's a one time purchase I'd expect the stuff to still be there.
  As for server space it would be little to nothing to store a glitches info :
  Street address, logoff location, level & skills, as for items there's about 510 different items in the encyclopedia each would require a count/location, and clothes/vanity. There wouldn't be any need to store any of the graphics info because that is generated on a continuous basis.
  If all of the chars take up more a than a few TB of space I'd be surprised!
  As far as increasing speed there is a very minor positive idea there. Once every 3 or 6 months close the servers for a full backup. During this time any inactive accounts could be moved to a different storage array. Taking the inactive accounts out of the active array would allow the active ones to load faster because there would be less searching for the main game engine to do. If a person does come back after 6 months they'd have to request their account be reactivated ie pulled out of storage.
  Posted 12 months ago by BlackWolf | Permalink

Previous 1 2 Next