Topic

Players that no longer exist or haven't played for weeks are taking up homes.

At this point in Glitch, housing is scarce in Alakol and Groddle Meadow. The developers of this game seem to be fighting this problem by adding more and more houses, however, I don't think that this is a sustainable method.

One thing that I think could even be considered a "bug" is the fact that deleted players can still occupy homes. Example: http://www.glitch.com/realty/LA9N79FMVLE2HQC/

Another issue is that players that haven't been online for weeks are still using homes. Obviously, it wouldn't be a good idea to simply kick these people out of their homes if they have been offline. I propose no solution to this problem, however I think it is prominent nonetheless.

Posted 13 months ago by orangea Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • I don't think people are assuming that you want people kicked out of their homes, orangea. It's just a subject that is related to this and people are voicing their opinions on that matter.

    I don't think cottages would fit in Callopee or Pollokoo (except maybe at the very outskirts?). I think that'd be related to some kind of house we haven't yet seen. But I could see them in Aranna.
    Posted 13 months ago by Little Miss Giggles Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It's not the way I play, but I think if people want to they should be able to start the game, rush to get enough currants to buy a house plus emblems to unlock skills, then not log again in until they have all the skills. If you're going to kick people for inactivity, learning skills (even without logging into the game) should count as activity.
    Posted 13 months ago by juv3nal Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Xev,

    Ok. In the context of an online game, whether or not "renewable" means "infinite" (which housing is not, nor ever will be, only so many regions can be added to the game) is a subjective matter. Therefore, I have edited my original post to acknowledge this.

    WindBorn,

    I'm not making any demands here. Not saying that anything is a problem that needs to be fixed. Not making any "rules". Not saying that Tiny Speck is "supposed" to do anything. I am stating my opinion.

    Not even trying to get a certain house. I am content with the house I already have, and probably will be for (real life) months.

    I thought that this would be clear when I wrote my post: One of my "rules", as you put it, needs to be broken to fix this problem. And I am not opposed to this.
    Posted 13 months ago by orangea Subscriber! | Permalink
  • 1. Deleted accounts = freed houses.
    2. No fees. Thank you.
    3. I like my 5k house more than some people like their 50ks. Not for the monetary value, because I'm seriously poor, but because of my neighbors, who are also my [close] friends. 
    4. I live in Toma Traverse.
    5. :)
    Posted 13 months ago by Sororia Rose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @orangea: Not sure if you edited or not, but in response to: "The developers of this game seem to be fighting this problem by adding more and more houses, however, I don't think that this is a sustainable method."

    The developers aren't fighting anything. The intent early on with this game was that everyone who wanted a house could get one. There would effectively never be a housing shortage. 

    This isn't some short-term solution that is going to quickly spiral out of control. The TS team has spent years thinking up the best way to create an interactive world with almost infinite expansion potential. This is so that when the demand arose (and it did and will continue to do so), there would never be a problem with meeting that demand. 

    Yes, the developers are staggering housing releases. Yes, the house you want in the place you want may never, every be available. But if there's a specific model of house you want, sooner or later, you'll be able to get it.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't agree with taking player's houses from them. Case in point, I continue to pay a subscription to the game and I am going to have surgery. I may not be logging on for a couple months yet I continue to pay for a subscription... you feel I should lose my house? No I don't think so especially if I am paying for a subscription.

    Now deleted characters? Sure I would say that those homes need to be released.
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Deleted / banned accounts lose their houses. Fair.

    Inactive accounts do not, unless inactivity last for over a year real time, and notices have been sent to the player that losing their stuff is going to happen on such and such a date unless action is taken.

    Groddle homes do become available fairly regularly if you check the real estate pages. When I had a little apartment and was deciding what I wanted to upgrade into, Groddle bungalows were listed many times. There were only two styles I really liked, and one apparently had a smaller cabinet than similarly sized and priced properties (which seems odd, and which has been mentioned in the Ideas forum as undesirable and weird).

    I don't see why scrolling down a real estate signboard would be a huge deal. Sure, it looks nicer to have it readable on one screen without scrolling, but if it became necessary--and this is unlikely, given the expandability of the game / real estate areas--it certainly could be done.
    Posted 13 months ago by ✰ Lorelei ✰ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "I don't see why scrolling down a real estate signboard would be a huge deal."

    it wouldn't be, and instead of the current button grid it could be a directory list tree or even just smaller buttons.

    i mean come on, if the issue is *scrolling* there are simple UI based solutions for the "sustainability" issue.

    it doesn't matter though. a ton of housing will free up once the game world expands even a little bit. that and group halls.
    Posted 13 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'd like to point out that the OP specifically stated that he is not proposing any solutions, which means he does not necessarily think people should be booted after two weeks inactivity.  

    carry on.  
    Posted 13 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The OP should have put this in bugs. Seems like a bug more than anything else.

    As for booting peeps out their homes, c'mon now. That's dumb. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • the problem with having inactive players owning property indefinitely is the bloat of non-utilized houses that would accumulate. assuming glitch goes on for years, prime location would pretty much exclusively belong to oldbies and people who don't even play anymore. yeah there's always going to be new streets and regions for houses but not every location is going to have the convenience of groddle meadows. unless the street numbers keep expanding to ridiculous heights, newbies will practically never have the chance to own homes in anything but the new areas and that seems unfair.

    i suggested a solution here involving house elves that could actually be fun and game enhancing, with a subscription guaranteeing ownership of a house until it expires. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Fur Subscriber! | Permalink
  • it's not a problem.

    if that player comes back to the game, he should have his house.
    Posted 13 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think the worst thing is having everyone on your street be completely inactive.
    Here's a solution: If someone is gone for a certain amount of time, have the other members of the street vote on if they want them to stay. If ANYONE votes against them being removed from the street, they should be able to stay. If they unanimously vote for them to be removed, than they could have their house moved into a "house limbo" where nobody can see their house and the slot is freed up. If they return, their house will be moved back into a real street (and if necessary, a few streets will be added to accommodate people who return).
    This would save people from having to live in otherwise unoccupied streets, but would allow people to stay on the same street as a friend if that's why they picked a particular house. Plus they wouldn't lose all their stuff that they had in their house just from going away for awhile.
    Posted 13 months ago by ☆ Magic ☆ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • My 2 currants on the matter.

    Houses of deleted accounts should be freed up. Houses of inactive accounts should be left alone.

    — Mal'akhPrimate of LemPrimus Inter Pares of the Orthodox Church of the Giants of UrHubby of ArannaShriner of Mullangi Meda
    Posted 13 months ago by Mal'akh Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Mr. Dawgg  awesome rebuttal. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Fur Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Ledog  What you have suggested is a method of having users police other users.  This is always a **BAD** idea.  No one should be policing me in any game except the staff of the company that runs it. 

    I don't actually know anyone on my street, so what basis do I have for voting about them staying or leaving?  What do they know about me to decide to vote me off the island?  I bought my house 1st or 2nd on the block, based on the features I wanted in a house, and then other random people moved in.  And NO, I don't want to be forced into spending my gaming time sucking up to my neighbors just in case I have something come up in RL that keeps me from gaming for a while.
    Posted 13 months ago by KhaKhonsu Subscriber! | Permalink
  • A modest annual property tax seems to me to be the best option for handling the OP's problem; with the option to add funds to the property lien in advance. Such a system is being used successfully by several other MMOG's in existence which include player housing systems. It might even be better if the the taxes were bi-annual as the number of calendar days in a game-year is fairly long in terms of real-time.

    If you are occupying a 30-50k house, then you can't really beg a lack of fundage. For more senior players who have trained over 40 skills, income shouldn't be a very big problem. It's remarkably easy to make money in this game if you choose to focus on that.
    Posted 13 months ago by Token☆ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Oh! We should find a street where there all but one of the properties are abandoned, have ten or so people all move in to the remaining house and have a Glitch version of Arrested Development.
    Posted 13 months ago by Anaglyph Subscriber! | Permalink
  • a) There is no housing shortage. Housing in a near-infinite resource.
    b) Creating any sort of check and balance for keeping your house after a set period of time will cause vastly more problems than it will solve. Housing has been treated from the very beginning by TS as a basic right for all players, not a rare commodity to be fought over or disputed.
    c) The game is little over a month old. THERE ARE NO INACTIVE PLAYERS YET. By any reasonable measurement (and definitely any measurement suggested in this thread), every account should be considered active, even if the account holder has never logged in since the game opened.

    Should this become a serious problem down the road, it might be worth thinking about, but seriously? Houses are the only physical assets in the game, and they are a nearly infinite resource, and you guys are seriously talking about creating some sort of tax or arbitrary measurement to ensure people who have houses are active? 

    It's like you all have guns and instead of pointing them at the zombies (no offense, my undead love), invading your ramshackle cabin, you keep aiming at your own feet. STOP IT.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Ledog--How do you know those players are inactive? I often go days at a time without stepping foot onto my housing block because I teleport in and out of my house. There's actually only one of my neighbors that I see on any sort of regular basis, and that's usually in the streets surrounding ours, not the housing block itself. They could be in a different time zone, they could be on active military duty, they could have very limited play time due to RL circumstances or poor internet access/reliability, they could have a totally different play style, they could just NOT LIKE YOU, ad infinitum. If you want to live in an active neighborhood, move to an active neighborhood, or get a bunch of friends to move with you and make your own active neighborhood.

    But just because people don't play the way you want them to doesn't mean they should have their toys taken away.
    Posted 13 months ago by karibean Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I agree that when accounts are deleted, their homes should go up for sale.  (If this is indeed a bug, maybe someone should submit a bug report, or add it to the ideas forum, instead of here in general, no?)

    As far as inactive... I think you had better think a lot harder about what that means and how you know people aren't active.  I'm pretty sure you don't know, and that's the problem with your argument.  

    Perhaps instead, you should be submitting a request on the ideas forum for more housing to open up elsewhere.  It's not a finite resource.
    Posted 13 months ago by Wintera Woodswitch Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I would like to say I support some sort of upkeep price on housing.  Probably an hourly currency charge you have to keep up.  If you cant keep your house up you get the boot.  This will also prevent people from owning more then one home who can't afford the upkeep.  This will move those people to sell their homes that they don't use, and put them back on the market. 

    This would hopefully move they game into creating a player run housing market. 

    Also, I hope, the devs have plans to host player created housing which would add yet another level creativity.

    Glitch with the fun of paying your bills.
    Posted 13 months ago by Gliffard Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Gliffard ... I assume your post is tongue in cheek, but in the event that it isn't, or in the scarier event that people agree with you:

    1. You can't own more than one home.
    2. There is no upkeep - these are pretend houses in a pretend world.
    3. You can't own more than one house - therefore there are no "unused" homes.
    4. A player-run housing market would make the housing market demand-based. Consequently, all of those homes in Groddle would be 500k overnight, rather thank 5k. This would in no way make more housing available to more players, but would encourage house flipping and slum lords. It would also create a hugely unfair advantage for those players with the capital and the cunning. I'm not opposed to this - I have a lot of money, and I'm cunning - but doing this causes a lot of problems and flies in the face of the intent of the creators of the game (houses for everyone who wants them).
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • pink taco, you're assuming it's a problem. there is no problem. it would be More of a problem for someone to come back to the game after a hiatus and have lost his house. it may be a deal breaker for some. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I agree that houses "owned" by deleted accounts should be freed up.

    Outside of that, I don't see any problems.  Housing is a near infinite resource, and inactive players could be afk for any number of reasons.  I don't see a need for property taxes or evictions or anything like that.

    I like that people can only own one property.  What I would like to see is perhaps an easier mechanism for relocating when players "trade up" so to speak, and sell their original starter home to move into something larger.  It's very easy to accumulate more stuff than one person can carry, and it would be nice if there was an in-game mechanism to support moves.
    Posted 13 months ago by Reika Subscriber! | Permalink
  • A property tax is so lame.  If I am a subscriber then don't touch my stuff until I cancel my subscription.  If you do give me my real world money back.

    Deleted accounts shouldn't own anything since they don't exist.  This is a bug not an issue.  I am sure it will get worked out.

    It is hard to know what best thing to do with nonactive, non subscribers since the game hasn't been running very long.  I would wait 6 months, look at the data and then decide what to do.  Try to figure it out now with 1 month of data is a waste of time.  
    Posted 13 months ago by Knewnan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It would be nice to keep neighborhoods alive and vibrant, rather than cluttered with houses that are not occupied by active players.   If someone doesn't log into the site for an entire year, it's not unreasonable to take them and their bags and stick them in a secret hall of cryogenics somewhere beneath Groddle Heights, and free that house up for current players.  
    Posted 13 months ago by WalruZ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @WalruZ - per the posts above, how would you know if someone in a house is not an active player? I've seen one of my neighbors once, in the entire time I have lived in my house. I attribute this largely to the fact that most of us teleport in and out, rarely walking on our actual street. Many, many players do this.

    A gripe about having a quiet neighborhood should never enter into a conversation about taking away people's houses in-game. It should also never be used as a benchmark for defining what an active player is. 

    As previously mentioned, houses are a nearly infinite resource in this game. Why on earth does anything need to be "freed" up for active players? There will always be new housing added to the game to accomodate players.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I did not know you cant own more then one home now.

    But if the free market wont work then neither the the auction system would work. But it does and so would a housing market if it were implemented right.

    You should be able to build a house yourself. And that would fix the problem of house prices skyrocketing. Because once the house cost more then it would cost to build you would just build it.

    Its the same with the auction system if it cost to much just go get it yourself.
    Posted 13 months ago by Gliffard Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Hello all! We get how annoying this could be for those hard pressed to catch a break in the real estate market, so here's what we're planning on doing for now: the homes of deleted players will no longer be indefinitely tied up, and will be released for sale after a period of time (for just-in-case situations). Can't give you an exact time frame, because there aren't so many deleted players that this is a "drop all the cool and awesome stuff you're working on to get this done" kind of situation. But, we've heard you, and it's in the works.  

    As for inactive players, that's another and trickier problem to solve. It would be pretty lousy if life caught up with you for a while and when you finally had time to turn back to your ever-faithful Glitch, the house you lovingly bought and populated had vanished into thin air. In any case, it's another thing we will continue to think about. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Blanky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Gliffard - I believe house customizations are also in the works, which likely should and would affect resale value. 

    @Blanky - Fantastic! What a delightful resolution to this thread! I'm ready for a drink. Adios, friends!
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thanks this game is really turning out.
    Posted 13 months ago by Gliffard Subscriber! | Permalink
  • there's nothing wrong with being forward thinking. while houses themselves may be infinite, houses in certain streets and regions are finite unless TS chooses to constantly expand the number of houses per street. a couple months from now, an available house in groddle meadows for example could be a near mythical, once-in-a-blue-moon thing, especially when houses upgrades and customization comes out. if glitch's population rises, newbies could possibly never ever have the chance to own a house in a good or older location. that's not fair, they're playing, they're contributing, while inactive non-subscribers are not.

    you guys are reacting like this is just a sneaky way to steal your house. just because measures could be put in to weed out houses owned by inactive players doesn't mean there can't be easy ways to secure your ownership like a subscription or a big ass red button on the site that would keep your house for a month and emails telling you when it's close to expiring. items left in the houses could be mailed back to their owners.
    Posted 13 months ago by Fur Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yes, it may be difficult to buy houses on certain streets or in certain areas, however there is no telling what the "good" locations are going to be a year from now. Heck, it's even debatable today. I like to joke and say things like Phool Phorever or Swamp Rat for Life, but I could be lured away by an as yet unimagined place or, even, the right neighbors. 

    But I gotta say, as someone who tends to play a game obsessively and then disappear for a couple months (or even a year), if I came back and lost my house (even if all my belongings were boxed up), I'd be a bit annoyed. How big a "bit" is hard to say... I'd like to say I wouldn't throw a fit, but I dunno. I put a lot of time, effort & love into my place (which will likely rise exponentially with the house customizations). If it was all boxed up or moved or something, I might be crushed. At the least, it would be nice to be able to bribe a bureau-croc into looking the other way. Say, for a certain amount each month for an indefinite period. I'd very much rather come back to no currants than to a moved or, even, disappeared home. (though I can't say I'd really like the no currants bit either).
    Posted 13 months ago by Vera Strange Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I have the feeling that deleting an account is not a permanent action every time for glitch. 

    My account was deleted for some reason for a few hours... Should I have lost my house then? 

    PS: I'm glad I didn't.
    Posted 13 months ago by Tundra Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Blanky's post sums up all of these issues. If you missed it, or didn't fully grok it the first go round, please give it a read or a re-read.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm sorry...but "non-active" players should never be punished - deleted accounts I have no opinion on because that depends on the reasoning for them being deleted.

    But to punish people for not being able to play as much as someone else thinks they should be would be a travesty, imho.

    For instance - my son is unable to play very often, not because he doesn't want to, but because he has a lot going on irl but when he gets a min to play, we have a blast together!
    He doesn't own a house, yet, because he's not been able to play long enough at a time to worry about needing one.
    He's also a free player due to finances being tight as well as not having as much time to play to make being a subscriber worth it to him, as of yet.

    You also must take in to consideration that people also may have illnesses that keep them from playing very often but who use games to take their minds off of their illnesses when they are able to be well enough to play.

    Then there are those who may not be able to play for long stretches due to unforeseeable  circumstances that life tends to throw at ya.

    I'm not even sure a button to say that I'll be awol would help...I, personally, have had my internet go out for weeks at a time without any notice what-so-ever (caused by weather) so having a button saying "please don't touch my stuff" is of no use in those types of circumstances.

    And why do people think it's ok to punish a free player vs a paid player even if they go awol for the same length of time?!
    If I were a free player and were to be singled out and lost my home/things just because I was a free player, do you think I would then turn around and become a subscriber? Hell no! The last thing I would do would be giving money to a game that would do that...especially when the game is touted to be free to play - not everyone has the funds at their fingertips to be able to be a paid subscriber...even $5.00 a month can be hard to come by.

    And as far as not seeing players for x-amount of time...I like to stay and play in the house that I worked hard to buy - I'm sometimes active in the group chat that I'm in and sometimes I'm not...just depends on whether I'm feeling well enough or not. So not seeing someone doesn't mean they aren't playing. 
    After all...you are suppose to be able to play this game the way you want to, not the way others think you should play.
    Posted 13 months ago by sgjo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ sgjo I think the ones complaining and want stuff their way are the ones that feel everyone should play THEIR way and only in their way. Some are also butthurt they cannot have the house THEY want now and they don't care who they step on to get them. I am sick and tired of hearing those that want everything their way to cry about it all the time. So you can't have the house YOU want then get another one! It may not be the one that you truly dream of but get what you can for the time and keep an eye out for one that would be more to your liking later. I did that... I got a tree house because there were not any 50k houses out there for a short while. So I waited and finally was able to trade up.
    Now because I am having some health issues and cannot log in every day or even weeks or months at a time? I don't feel that is fair. I do pay a subscription even though that should not matter, I did work hard and save for my 50k house. Why should any of us that did all that have to forfeit our house because for some reason due to RL or a situation we should lose it because we cannot log on?
    Yes deleted accounts are a different matter but non-deleted accounts should be left alone and I disagree with taxes and or penalties. There are many good reasons why someone cannot play for an extended time.
    Thanks Blanky for sticking up for those us that are having RL things going on! That is why I love this game and why I love what Tiny Speck has done! <sends a hug and a kiss!>
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @WalruZ- As far as the empty streets go, that used to bother me, till I realized that it makes very little difference to me; my house is basically a retreat where I can go and do my own thing without having a bunch of people in my grill, and living on an empty street- whether that's because I live in an "uncool" neighborhood or because my neighbors are inactive- is almost a perk to me in some ways. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate people, and I love living near people I'm friends with, but I'm not always in a sociable mood. I can see how you might want people on your street- living in a lively neighborhood, hanging out with your neighbors and all- but it's not for everyone, or it's at least not a massive deal for everyone, and certainly not one requiring punitive measures. If your neighborhood's too quiet for your liking, move (there are still housing quarters open, after all), the same as I do whenever I feel like my street might be a little bit crowded for my liking. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Wintera,

    Who do you mean by 'you'? If you are talking about me, what you are accusing me of saying is the opposite of what I actually am.
    Posted 13 months ago by orangea Subscriber! | Permalink
  • pink taco, while i agree that planning ahead is good, i don't think it matters in the case of eviction. it currently is not a problem. there isn't widespread inactive accounts. even if there are, there are still many homes available. what do we gain by implementing eviction measures now?

    nothing because it will take 6 months or so, as you guys agree, to evict an inactive player. so half a year is needed to even evict anyone. so why implement anything now? why not look at this problem again 6 months from now? that just makes good sense.
    Posted 13 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @mereret I'm not saying they should be policing each other. The voting thing is just so you don't get booted off a street that you picked because you have a friend there. I didn't know there were any pros or cons to the street you choose besides the people there with you. If, as you say, people's house numbers really matter to them, then I guess it was a bad idea.

    @karibean- the players would be labeled inactive by the servers if they haven't logged on for a certain amount of time, not because players choose to say they're inactive.

    I wasn't suggesting that anyone LOSE anything. Just that they get moved temporarily. I really didn't realize that I was going to offend anyone so much, I was just trying to offer a suggestion that would keep people from losing things just because they go inactive, while still keeping a sense of community for those who don't. I just didn't realize that people's house number mattered so much, I didn't even consider that having your house number changed was such a big deal unless you got moved away from your friends.
    Posted 13 months ago by ☆ Magic ☆ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Vera Strange yeah i get where you're coming from. i'm also someone who is very hot and cold about things too but if i didn't play the game for 6 months and during that time didnt take any actions to secure ownership of my house then id feel thats just. i wouldnt be jumping for joy or anything, probably will be like aww shit but if im not someone contributing to either the game or TS why should i occupy a house when some newbie could be happily making use of it. i do think if they implement this that there should be many easy, painless ways to extend ownership. 

    @Casombra Amberrose if thats in anyway directed at me i take offense to that. im very happy where my house is, my friend lives on the same street and ive even started up a homeowners group because the previous one was invite only. im making suggestions that i think would benefit the game, not me personally. i could just as easily say everyone against some sort of property tax only cares about themselves and not how the realty market will be in a couple of months.

    @Mr. Dawgg i dont think its good practice to ignore issues when you can see them coming down the line and only deal with them as they occur. imagine if TS  finally did something about this with a population 3 times the current size.... i mean any change at all is always going to be met with opposition especially if it effects things retroactively but if they do something now then itll be accepted as how things are, by new players at least.
    Posted 13 months ago by Fur Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ Pink Taco. No it was not directed specifically toward you at all.
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Casombra oh okay then my bads.
    Posted 13 months ago by Fur Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Why not just email players that have not logged in for a month with a simple "Are you still interested in playing?" email? All they would have to do is say click a link in the email within a week or so of receiving it and their account would remain "active" for another month, after which if they haven't logged in at all during they would receive another email. If at any time they fail to click the email link within the alloted time frame they would receive a final URGENT email letting them know that their account will become listed as inactive and their house will be put back on the market if they do not click the email link immediately.

    Does that sound like a good system?

    Also, if they can email every player after every skill that they learn, I think their email system could handle this.
    Posted 13 months ago by TRB4 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @TRB4 No, it really doesn't. Requiring people to log in/respond within any kind of timeframe punishes those who have unexpected life events.

    I can support releasing houses from deleted accounts, but this perception that "inactive" users owning homes somehow harms the game is just that: a perception, not reality.
    Posted 13 months ago by Wrenlet Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I would like to add.. how do you even know if they are active or not? Just because you don't see them leaving their home? Many teleport straight to their homes and never see their neighbors and not everyone is actively chatting away in a chat room either. There are times due to my health lately that I don't log into the game at all.. but I do continue to take a few to check the forums and set my Glitch to learning. So tell me what is a line that would be crossed and one that would not be crossed? Other than deleted accounts, I think things should be left alone. The game has not been live for very long.
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Chiming in to add that charging a lien or tax for home ownership is a really really bad idea in my opinion. One of the best and nicest things about this game (repeat: game) is its difference from real-life responsibilities. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Flowerry Pott Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think OP meant "not scalable," not "unsustainable."

    It's definitely not "unsustainable" - in that the devs certainly have the ability to put as much time into building new sections as they want.  Pretty much everything in Glitch is by definition sustainable.

    The issue is scalability. It appears there's a fair amount of manual work that goes into designing each housing block, so adding 1 block isn't as simple as just creating a new one when 10 players have bought the others, as we might hope if the devs intended people to be able to live wherever they want.  As it currently is implemented there's some scarcity built into the system because the design system doesn't provide a scalable solution which allows buildings to continue upwards indefinitely.  It seems like that's an intentional design, possibly so that certain areas could be worth more than others, or at least harder to actually purchase.  I kinda like that idea - even if it makes finding housing more challenging.

    But the issue of deleted toons not being evicted IS a big problem if 
    1) the devs want to maintain some scarcity on real estate and 
    2) don't actively ensure that the homes are being used by people who actually use them.

    What about a simple email? 

     "Hey we've noticed you haven't been home in four weeks - your house misses you!  Would you like to: keep the property, sell the property, vacate it, transfer ownership [etc]?  If not, the managers would like to inform you that new owners will be able to purchase it starting on [a date maybe amonth away]!  Hope to see you soon!"

    Then I think a lot of people who had simply forgotten would be reminded, and if they choose to 'keep the property' then they're probably coming back to the game.  It would be an odd troll who got such an email and continued to squat in a pad in a virtual game he had no intention of returning to.  

    What do you think Glitchmmunity?
    Posted 13 months ago by Sprockett Subscriber! | Permalink