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

Previous 1 2 3 4
  • Where is Friedrich Engels when you need him?
    Posted 13 months ago by dr_loplop Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I raised this question some time ago.  IMO, what TS needs to do is to make it clear how long you can occupy a home without being active on the site before you'll be evicted.  6 months or a year isn't unreasonable.  Then they need to make that clear _up front_, so they don't find themselves in a situation where they have to make an announcement to that effect and then start evicting people with effectively no warning.  
    Posted 13 months ago by WalruZ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Nice find orengea, I think deleted ones should be freed up as well 

    As for offline people the only "solution" would be if you had to pay a small amount of rental or upkeep for houses. Maybe if you could pay this upfront it would be okay even if one plans to leave the lands for a long time, but people who have just moved on to different pastures would not occupy the houses... or dunno :)
    Posted 13 months ago by Geopal Subscriber! | Permalink
  • why is this "unsustainable", other than the fact you've asserted it is?
    Posted 13 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • New housing is offered on a highly regular basis, and that's been the intent of TS from the very beginning. In fact, the structure of the world is such that almost infinite housing can be added as demand for it increases.

    Let's be clear - the issue isn't that there isn't housing, the issue is that the objectively "best" housing has been taken. Do you really want to spearhead a plan that will evict players just so you can get the house you want? The house you want is one of a set number of models, and will appear in game again (as will all the other houses), as new quarters are added to the game.

    What happens six months down the line when you post a threat talking about the injustice of being evicted from "your" house because of the storm that knocked out your internet?

    However, I 100% agree that housing should be reset for those players that have been deleted. There is no reason for a deleted account to keep any assets in game. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It's unsustainable if a large number of the houses in certain areas, particularly popular highly-desired areas, become filled up with non-used and abandoned houses.  That doesn't lend itself to neighborhood development.  When you're the last active player on your street a year from now, do you stay or do you move to another area?
    Posted 13 months ago by Parrow Gnolle Subscriber! | Permalink
  • that's entirely up to you
    Posted 13 months ago by shhexy corin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • When you're the last active player on your street a year from now, do you stay or do you move to another area?

    I bought my current house just a few days after reset.  I've seen one other player in my housing block, and that's a friend that I frequently play with.  So far, exactly zero other players have been seen in the neighborhood. 

    I've watched the houses go from 2/12 to 12/12 inhabitants, and still have not met anyone else.  So, if I'm the last active player on my street a year from now, how will I know?  Why would I move?
    Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • the staff have done a great job keeping the supply of housing up.  I disagree with you booting people from homes just because they've been absent for a few weeks.

    A couple months ago I was absent for three weeks for a work trip in Europe, I didnt have time to play any sort of game.  I imagine some people on vacation might also feel the same way.

    I agree that perhaps 6-12 months of inactivity could be deleted.  But a few weeks?  If I choose to play once every few weeks, then I should have that right.  Just because someone has real world commitments that might keep them from playing glitch everyday doesnt mean they are just taking up space.
    Posted 13 months ago by Boe Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I am thinking about buying a larger house, and sell my first one, the 1.2k home, but I love my neighbors, so it would be better to have more than one house, like in real life, and the option, to lend it, or rent it.

    They will give more living places, when the map will rise, and grow, but I don't think, kicking out someone, because he wasn't online for a month, or so would be good, there should be a fee yes, like in irl, paying for the gas, or for the electricity, 100 c or so, the higher the properties price, the higher the monthly fee, but I don't agree with dropping people out of their homes.
    Posted 13 months ago by Ssennor Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I do wish there was some way to bump inactive players out of their homes but I can't think of a fair way to do it.  We should be able to step away from a game for a while without worrying about losing our things.

    But at the same time, this kind of thing happens:

    I'm in Salatu.  I made presents of a Happy Zilloween note, some Pumpkin Beer and some Birch Candy and left little packages outside each person's door on my street, thinking maybe I could start a tradition of fun notes and presents and the other awesome things that go on in other people's streets.  Some people just picked their stuff up without comment (whatever, I expect some people not to want to engage in that kind of thing and it doesn't bother me) but last I was on my street there were at least 2 care packages still sitting there.  Kind of depressing when you're trying to foster a fun block party atmosphere.  And I can't move to an equivalent house (I'm in a 50k) anywhere else so what to do?
    Posted 13 months ago by Space Core Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Boe, Maybe they can set up a sort of "vacation mode" thing for users, for times when you know you're going to be away for a long period of time. This could also keep piggies/animals from dying in your absence, etc etc
    Posted 13 months ago by MiTYH Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I propose a propert tax. Make it due annually (game time).
    If you don't pay for one cycle your home goes into "foreclosure" and maybe gets locked. If you don't pay for two cycles your home is "reposessed" and goes back up for sale.
    Posted 13 months ago by Syruss Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I've heard that the forthcoming housing customizations will include the option to board up your frontage and a comprehensive range of foreclosure signage.
    Posted 13 months ago by dr_loplop Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Be my neighbor :P Did the same thing, but I send them trough mail, and wrote some silly but nice messages too, and received some presents and nice comments, well most of it replies but it felt good too, so maybe it depends on the street. Christmas in on the block, maybe there will be heart melting s that time:P
    Posted 13 months ago by Ssennor Subscriber! | Permalink
  • MiTYH:  Brilliant idea!  That would be good for everyone.  Your house could have a "on vacation" sign on it lol.

    But how to prevent it being abused?  Perhaps in vacation mode you wont be able to enter the world again until the date you specified.  And maybe a one-week minimum for vacation status.
    Posted 13 months ago by Boe Subscriber! | Permalink
  • And you get back to find all your pipes have burst.
    Posted 13 months ago by dr_loplop Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Syruss: The problem with a recurring tax is that you will inevitably have players plead a shortage or absence of funds, so then you end up with a set of tax collection rules ....
    Posted 13 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I believe this problem as well the the problem players have when moving from house to house could be solved with the same solution.

    Have the capability to store the contents of a home and then have those contents transfer seamlessly to the next home the player buys.  That way, delinquent accounts after a certain number of days can find that their house will be auto-sold but their contents saved.  Then, if they ever decide to come back, they can just buy a new house and have the previous contents restored.
    Posted 13 months ago by Warrender Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Every resource in the game is renewable, INCLUDING housing. There is no shortage of land, there is no shortage of homes. Every perceived shortage is temporary.

    I reiterate again - the real issue here is deleted characters still owning homes. That is and should be considered a bug, and it should be reported in the bugs forums. 

    The idea of implementing some sort of tax on housing is ridiculous, for a number of reasons listed above, but also because after a certain level in game, it's much easier to accumulate wealth. In fact, if wealth accumulation is your primary goal in glitch, it doesn't matter what level you are - you can accumulate wealth readily. Because this is a game. Which means...

    If a tax is imposed to keep housing, a player could theoretically log out of the game for over a year and NEVER be evicted from their home, provided they have sufficient funds. Yes, when they get back, their funds might be depleted, but that will NOT solve the issue at hand.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • not a single other person lives on my street. it makes me sad, so i'm thinking about moving. :(
    Posted 13 months ago by mileena Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I hate the idea of a housing tax, as I've said before.
    And while I do think deleted players should be evicted from their houses, I don't believe that housing being added indefinitely is unsustainable, nor do I think that offline players should be evicted as well.  :: shrugs ::

    Edit- Also I don't think items left in the houses should be transferred automatically.  I LIKE leaving stuff behind for the new owners.  Think of it as housewarming gifts.  ^_^
    Posted 13 months ago by ♪♥~ Auren ~♥♪ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I have to say that taxes sounds like a bad idea - but I totally agree that houses belonging to deleted accounts should go up for sale again as the owner no longer exists in Glitch.
    Posted 13 months ago by Tsuki Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'd suggest submitting housing belonging to deleted players as a bug.

    Some games delete inactive, non-paid accounts after a time.  Perhaps housing for non-paid players could eventually be freed up, while if you buy credits or a subscription you keep housing indefinitely.
    Posted 13 months ago by Lucille Ball Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I bought my current house just a few days after reset.  I've seen one other player in my housing block, and that's a friend that I frequently play with.  So far, exactly zero other players have been seen in the neighborhood. 

    I've watched the houses go from 2/12 to 12/12 inhabitants, and still have not met anyone else.  So, if I'm the last active player on my street a year from now, how will I know?  Why would I move?

    If you still haven't met any of the neighbors on your street a year from now, yes, it probably doesn't matter to you.
    Posted 13 months ago by Parrow Gnolle Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Perhaps houses should have a mortgage. A short sum of 100 currants a month. It has to be paid to an NPC that shows up to your house everyday during the last week of a month. If you miss one payment, your house gets taken back from you at 80% of the value (like selling it).
    Posted 13 months ago by Maestro Mateo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I can't imagine that opening new housing (which happens *all the time*) is an emergency band-aid to deal with a surprise situation.   The devs obviously planned to roll out new housing projects as new players entered the game, and that seems perfectly sustainable for some considerable time to come.  

    This game has only been live for about six weeks, which seems pretty fast to be demanding that players be evicted from their homes as derelicts.  Not everyone can play every week nor wants to;  a lot of people are waiting for the new skill rollouts, group building projects, and customizable housing to see if they want to continue.  If abandoned housing is a problem after more like six months or a year, that seems like the time to address it.    
    Posted 13 months ago by oscarette Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I also fall into the group that has 12 neighbors that I pretty much never see.  I have no idea if they are playing now or not.  Since housing preferences and friend preferences seem to have nothing to do with each other for me in this game, inactivity on my block will not be a criteria for choosing where to live.  I'd be happy with more ways to cooperate with my neighbors to improve our area, but I expect that some of this will be done when we are not face-to-face, since we could be in completely different time zones.

    I agree that if a player's account has been deleted, then their house should go back on the market.  I don't really care if the Dev's choose to leave or delete all of the crops, trees, animals and items that were left behind.  Deleting the account says they are gone and not expecting to return, so the resource should be freed up.

    However, I tend to play a game for a while, get interested in a different one, get busy with classes or work, have a life....

    Therefore, I think the minimum inactivity time that might cause you to lose your house would be a year or two.  This will do nothing to alleviate the prime location and housing issues, so the Devs will need to find a different way to make it scale better.
    Posted 13 months ago by KhaKhonsu Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Re. Property tax,
    I was not suggesting an auto deduction for the tax. Rather it should require a player interaction (tax bill deliverd by mail maybe). The point of the tax would not be to consume player money, but to ensure player activity. Deleted or long term inqactive players would default and those homes would go back onto the market.
    Posted 13 months ago by Syruss Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I feel like I need to go on record as not at all advocating that some Landlord function be implemented to evict players who haven't logged into the game for a week or two from their houses.  I doubt if that is what any of the people in this discussion are advocating.

    But there does need to be a long-term solution to the issue of houses that are 'owned' by abandoned accounts.  Residential streets in the long term can't be pockmarked full of vacant abandoned properties.  That just won't work.  I suspect it has all been worked out by the game designers, so this tempest in a teapot is really just that.....
    Posted 13 months ago by Parrow Gnolle Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ Parrow Gnolle

    "Residential streets in the long term can't be pockmarked full of vacant abandoned properties."

    Sure they can. It would look just like the real world after the housing market collapsed :)
    Posted 13 months ago by Syruss Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Deleting accounts should definitely free up the houses that were attached to them; that makes perfect sense. But a lot of the argument about players who are inactive for a period of time losing their houses strikes me as sour grapes at not getting to live in Marypole Mount or one of the other vastly overcrowded Groddle quarters. Get out into the world! Don't worry about Groddle Meadow housing, for the love of juniper crepes. Seems like kvetching over Groddle housing shortages comes up every week or so, and what it seems to boil down to an awful lot is people wanting to live in the "cool" neighborhoods rather than being required to explore a little, seek out new areas, etc. Getting peeved because somebody lives where you want to strikes me as a little bit silly, and targeting people with RL commitments who can't be in-game all the time seems a little underhanded. I get it- it sucks; you didn't get the house you wanted. But that's not a good enough reason to boot people after a few weeks. Six months or a year? Sure. I can see that; but give it some time- most people have stuff to do for real.
    Posted 13 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Eh. I don't know that showing up to pay a tax bill is something that will keep players interested/engaged.

    "Pay your tax bill or lose your house." Nope, not feeling the love there.

    Maybe the giants could imagine rent-a-storage ...
    Posted 13 months ago by TK-855 Subscriber! | Permalink
  • In the last 10 years I've signed up to countless sites. Quite a lot of sites I've signed up to, had a look around and never revisited, some I've visited obsessively on a daily basis for months, then went off on to something else and forgot about them, others I have visited obsessively, gone off for months and then come back and carried on with the obsession. The point is if I had a house on each of those sites I would be taking up hundreds of houses.

    I do think it's unsustainable to have a house for every user who looks into glitch for a while then goes off, and it's unrealistic to expect everyone who loses interest to give up their house first. I am surprised Tiny Speck haven't got a clause in their T&Cs that allows them to free up accounts after a period of inactivity. I wouldn't set the period at less than a year, maybe 18 months. Any site I go back to after more than a year is usually either defunct or I have forgotten my password and need to set up a new account anyway. 

    The idea of buying back houses and "storing" possessions is a good one. Allow returnees to come back and pick up the game again without too much hassle, but free up houses for others. 

    I'm amazed at how large the housing quarters have become since open. Even in a virtual world, after a couple of years the housing streets will be enormous (in size and quantity)

    As for wealthy glitches owning second homes and renting houses to other glitches? NOOO!!
    Posted 13 months ago by Momo McGlitch Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I hate property taxes but watching a Bureau-croc deputy sheriff staple an eviction notice to a door would be priceless.
    Posted 13 months ago by Meezley Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 for freeing up homes that belong to deleted accounts.

    +1 to confiscating houses from players who having logged on in over 6 months.
    Posted 13 months ago by Jewel Stoned Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm reading this during lunch so I don't have time to read all of the comments, but I FULLY AGREE with the last line of Xev's first comment 

    In reply to what WindBorn said-
    I haven't seen anyone aside from my bf who plays the game with me, and myself on our street since we both bought houses there. I would really love it if my sister (who is another active player) could move to out street with us, but of course, all of the houses are "sold".

    As far as a time frame of eviction for inactive players, why not make it 31 days like they do in some places in RL? (It's not like we have to have a paid subscription or anything to own a house in Glitch anyway.)

    Just my 2c's
    Posted 13 months ago by Carnivale Justice Subscriber! | Permalink
  • In a game my husband plays, UO Online, if they haven't been online for 3 months their house falls and everything in it is up for grabs by other players. Something like this could work. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Eye Wonder Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I agree 100% with Djabrill. I definitely think this is more of a "I'm jealous that someone else owns the house I want and it's not faaaaiiirrrr" type situation. I used to live in Groddle Meadows... loved my super adorable retro style cottage. I ended up moving to a 50k in Kajuu (with an awesome view of the Ancestral Lands :P ). I moved mainly for the extra space. I wanted the much larger storage cabinet, animal pen and extra garden plots. If they had a larger version of my retro cottage I would have snagged that one in a heartbeat! Anyway, my point is, I always thought Groddle was where I was always going to live, but things change. My needs in a house changed, and I moved on. The tiny little island of Groddle isnt the only place to live, and surely Alakol is not the only place to get a 50k house.

    One other thing, am I the only one who finds it weird that people actually click in to owned properties to see if the owner is active, inactive or deleted?
    Posted 13 months ago by Jabs Girl Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Guys, we have to stick to the initial issue which was freeing up houses from owners with deleted accounts.

    Which I totally agree.

    For inactive players (especially non-suscribers) after 6 months, delete the account, and as a consequence their house will be freed up also.

    Good job for finding this bug, Orangea!
    Posted 13 months ago by Tamarnouche Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Popping back in to agree that deleted accounts should lose their homes and I hope OP has reported that as a bug.

    But I like Tamarnouche's plan with a caveat.  I think they should be evicted but keep their username and whatever was in their inventory.  People are protective of usernames and even if something happens and you go away from the game for a while, it's nice to be able to come back to your own name.

    I think evicting people after 6 months of not logging in sounds reasonable.  Surely logging in twice a year is not asking too much.  Of course, if you're a subscriber then you wouldn't be evicted.  But I also doubt a subscriber would pay to not play a game. :D
    Posted 13 months ago by Space Core Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Points I have taken from reading through this thread:

    1. Housing should be freed from deleted accounts.

    2. There should not be fees/mortgages/rent required for being a homeowner in this game. It is a game.. and not RL.

    3. I love the idea of a vacation mode, though I don't think animals should be immune during such a time. If you know you are going to be gone to set the mode, you can set up your piggies to survive.

    4. If people are kicked out of their houses for inactivity (not my preference): A) it should be after 6 months to 1 year, with sufficient warning via email and B) their stuff should go into an escrow/storage where they can get it back.

    5. And certainly do not delete inactive accounts, especially not after such a tiny timeframe as 6 months!
    Posted 13 months ago by Little Miss Giggles Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think Little Miss Giggles has it exactly right.
    Posted 13 months ago by Flowerry Pott Subscriber! | Permalink
  • 1. Deleted accounts should certainly lose any houses.

    2. Maybe, after 6 months of inactivity they get automatically packed up. Their info is stored along with the size of house they were in. When they return (if they do) they are offered a new home (same price) of any that are currently available. That way, they have no losses and it free's up houses. 

    This issue has been in quite a few games. This is a free game, and removing players from homes is not the best choice unless there is a way for them to regain it when they return. Property means alot to players, so there needs to be a truly fair way to manage this.
    Posted 13 months ago by Trivia Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If you want a cottage in Groddle Meadow, instead of whining, do what I did: obsessively refresh the real estate page until a house becomes available and then buy it.
    Posted 13 months ago by Billy McBinky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Why are people assuming that I wanted people to be kicked from their homes after a certain amount of time? I thought I had made it clear that this was not my intention.

    I say that continuing to add houses to glitch is unsustainable, because this can be done by either: adding more quarters to streets, adding more blocks in quarters, or adding more houses in blocks. The first option fills up streets with ugly signposts, the second fills up the "choose a block" screen so that eventually no more buttons can be added without having to scroll and scroll, and the third makes people have to walk for a long time to get to their home.
    Posted 13 months ago by orangea Subscriber! | Permalink
  • When i find a game i like, i often play it very intensively for a few weeks or months, and then take breaks sometimes spanning a few years until i again play the game intensively. There are some online games, where i have done this over a period of 10 years now.
    If i were to take a break and then come back to find out that my house and all the belongings in it (my street trophies, swfs, maybe some items, that can't be replaced anymore) were gone, i wouldn't bother coming back at all.
    Posted 13 months ago by No Such Character Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I agree with Little Miss Giggles that deleted accounts don't need houses but "inactive" glitches should not be evicted except after a long time and substantial notification. 

    There are a lot of areas with no housing at all yet. I would love to see some Groddle cottages in Pollokoo and Callopee -- they are very "Alps" in feeling, and how convenient for our many miners.

    Groddle Meadow is especially attractive because of the central location, bright colors, and very active street life, in addition to having the prettiest cottage styles. You can get the same styles in Bortola, but why is Bortola so drab and drained of color? There is so little to enjoy there compared to Groddle Meadow.
    Posted 13 months ago by Vocable Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @orangea - you're aware that new regions / street projects will be continually added to the game, yes? Each street has a large number of houses available within it - multiply that by all the streets in all the regions plus all the soon-to-be-added regions and all of THOSE streets, and we're talking about a very renewable resource. 

    So your assertion that this is not a sustainable method of housing is patently false. It's a deliberate method of creating housing with the express purpose of ensuring it IS sustainable.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • So
    You don't want more housing added on streets that don't already have quarters, because it makes the streets ugly.
    You don't want more housing added on quarters that already exist, because you don't want to scroll.
    You don't want more housing added in blocks that already exist, because it makes the walk too long.
    You don't want people kicked out of the houses they currently own, although your headline suggests that they are a problem if they haven't played for "weeks". 

    You don't want to make a suggestion because your "rules" leave you with no options.

    But somehow, TS is supposed to find a solution that lets you get the house you want?
    Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
Previous 1 2 3 4