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

1 2 3 Next
  • Right, but it doesn't need further explanation or defense. All I'm saying is relax - you've carried a lot of that argument (and passionately so). Everything you've wanted to say has been said, by you and others, several times over.

    There will be another thread like this in another day or week from now. Don't worry, you'll have a chance to craft your debate skills and come up with some really awesome bullet points. My advice to you is to work on that and work on being succinct. People turn off when faced with walls of text that are very passionate. It has nothing to do with whether or not you're right. It has everything to do with how you come across.

    I happen to agree with you and like your style. I'm simply trying to help you become more effective in your debating style. I also agree that attacking people's posts because of tone, rather than actual arguments, muddys the water. But the fact is that people will always call that out, so it makes sense to polish up our posts in order to be heard better.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Valid. Staying on the main point (Hey! Hands off my house!) is better. But since Crashtest was looking to take it off topic...

    I also nominate Vancouver Island as a great island getaway, though not tropical.
    Posted 13 months ago by Billy McBinky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Valid statements guys! However try coming to New Zealand for a great island getaway! Yes we are an island.. wait 2 islands but a great place to do stuff! Not only that we are the destination of the Hobbits! (Keep your hands off my house!) They are now filming The Hobbit as we speak down in Wellington. So get your plane tickets and come see The Hobbit being filmed! And again keep your hands off my house!
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Oh man... New Zealand. Count me in! I promise, I won't take to your house.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think you would love it Xev! We are now going into summer here, the beaches are lovely and if you like to surf or snorkel even better! (don't even think about taking my house) We have places you can even get into a Hungi (native cookout done underground) and some great shows and you can even see the Haka (you can see some on youtube) We have living villages of the Maori (native people of New Zealand) and some are with hot pools they cook a ear of corn in seconds! (my Glitches house is her castle.. keep your paws off it!) We even have waterparks and if you like to gamble we have some great casinos too! And oh, by the way, did I say.... leave my glitchy house alone?
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • So it's ok for me to stand at the Tool Vendor in Cebarkul, and buy and sell on auctions as long as I occasionally donate to the Pot shrine next door, because that will keep me moving ahead in XP and levels, and thus make me an acceptable neighbor? 

    If I never, ever visit my house or respond to emails from your HOA, I'm still a person who deserves to keep their house even though I have exactly the same interaction pattern with the group and my house as someone who hasn't signed on?  Or should TS give you tools so you can tell the last time I entered my house, which is a much better measure of whether or not I'm an asset for the neighborhood instead of a liability.

    Clearly, your desire to take over high-demand housing has clouded your ability to think clearly about what you are suggesting.
    Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ WindBorn Great point!
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Bottom line is that the houses in question are the most popular models in some of the most popular areas. Regardless of where they exist, there will always be thinly veiled plans to take them over, and it isn't going to stop here.

    When/if housing expansion comes around, that adds an additional layer of a) effort b) expense and c) personal creativity to each and every home. 

    It changes this conversation completely, and I don't like for a second the next argument that will arise: "People who have bought houses but haven't upgraded them should have their houses taken from them if they aren't active players."

    There is no acceptable argument to support taking homes from players. Any way you slice it, it comes down to greed and the prestige that comes with owning a certain model of home in a certain area. 

    All seriousness, I am disgusted by this. I believe that the people who initially suggest these things may well do so with decent enough intentions, but you peel back a layer of that onion, and the underlying motivations are pretty darn selfish.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Hmmmm never thought about those points either Xev that adds to even more to the element here huh? Makes me want to shiver at the thought of what will be coming down the pike for forum posts when house expansions come out. I can just see it now... "So and so has not done any improvement on their house, they MUST be inactive! I vote for their house to be taken and put back on the real estate market for someone that will do something with it!"

    When/if housing expansion comes around, that adds an additional layer of a) effort b) expense and c) personal creativity to each and every home. 

    It changes this conversation completely, and I don't like for a second the next argument that will arise: "People who have bought houses but haven't upgraded them should have their houses taken from them if they aren't active players."
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 to Xev & Windborn & Casombra.
    Posted 13 months ago by CrashTestPilot Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thanks. 

    It should matter to everyone that these threads keep cropping up. It doesn't matter if you have a tree house, a 30k/50k house, or one of the much sought after cottages (in question now). 

    Public opinion changes, and what's popular one day won't necessarily be popular the next. For that reason, the need for eviction is pretty moot - when the grass becomes greener, people move. They always have, and they always will. Hell, people move out of the groddle houses right now. 

    Just because the groddle cottages are popular now doesn't mean the 30k/50k houses won't be popular tomorrow. Or that the tree houses won't be the next big thing (again, housing expansion adds a whole new layer to all of this). It changes the game, and it changes the motivations for why people buy the types of houses they do. 

    I'm appealing to the players of this game to be patient. To the folks in HOAs, focus on the community, not the house. Build your community where you are, if you can, and if you can't, move to a place where the community works for you - regardless of the type of house prevalent in that area. 

    Set your priorities and pick the home that meets most of them. You probably won't find a neighborhood that meets all your priorities for any lengthy period of time. But arguing in favor of something as extreme as taking people's houses is a lot harder to undo should it ever be taken into serious consideration by TS.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 Xev. The other thought I have here too is. What happens when/if house expansions get put in. What about Glitches that perhaps put money, effort, time, and creativity into making their home an absolute showcase, then for some unforeseen reason end up going inactive for a long while.. anything from military deployment, health concerns, PC meltdown, and so on. Do you think it would be fair for that person to come back and find they lost all they put into that house and now some other glitch owns it? That would break me and make me a very very VERY sad Glitch!

    None of us players are exempt from RL creeping in and peeing on our party! So those that are out there saying "take homes from "inactive" players... you should stop and think. If Tiny Speck starting doing what you are suggesting... or better yet... pushing to happen.... it can well happen to you as well.. you will not be anymore exempt than the people you pointed your finger at.
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • wait a min.. Wow... 90-day vacation.. i need a job like yours.. 
    unless...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik
    Posted 13 months ago by Aero Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Nah, I'm with Billy. If you want inactive players' houses to go back up on the market, you're probably a bad person. I mean that -- you are likely to be morally and ethically suspect, disappointing and even a little pathetic.

    And there aren't any inactive players right now anyway.

    As for what constitutes inactivity...I haven't played Lord of the Rings online for a couple of years, but I log in every few months to pay the upkeep on my house. Haven't done a quest, haven't killed an orc, haven't hit the new level cap, haven't interacted with the community even a little bit, and my house in the Shire is locked up and unavailable for anyone else to buy. I'm sure that someone somewhere is infuriated by this.

    I'm tempted to create an army of characters, send them a pile of currants, buy up the rest of the HOA and never log those toons in again.

    I figure that I will play the game until I've learned all the skills, done all the quests and done most of the achievements. Then I probably won't log in except when new content appears. During those times of hiatus, I would expect my housing to stick around, and for that gameplay choice to remain stable, with no upkeep fees or housing decay introduced to the game.
    Posted 13 months ago by Kjel Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The other factor is that housing absolutely is a renewable resource. I'm not saying that it should be abused, and in fact, TS has demonstrated a reasonable and tolerant approach to enforcing rules and guidelines within this community.

    I wholly expect that same tolerance and reason to apply to ANY new initiative that comes into place down the road. I know the TS team has resisted the requests for an ignore feature until very recently and for admirable reason. They are fantastic at listening to the desires of this community. For that reason, they implemented an ignore feature despite their misgivings.

    Because of that, the people who are passionately voicing their opinions on this issue (regardless of which side they take) have very, very good reason to do so. While I agree that those of us in opposition of any take-homes initiative should refrain from ad hominem attacks, let's try to be very clear in differentiating between those ad hominem attacks and the passionate arguments against this idea.

    There are always exceptions to a rule. There are instances, (deleted users, for example), where houses should be taken from a player. This is something that is actively being addressed by TS. There will probably be other, unforeseeable situations where it makes sense to evict players.

    But "inactivity" isn't one of those situations. If it is, we should be talking some fairly extreme timelines and situations, and the criteria should be rigid and clearly defined by TS. Given how young this game is and how much it will change in the next few months, it's absurd to realistically try and predict what those situations would be and an appropriate response to them.

    I don't think we should stop talking about it, but I do think that people identifying the motivations behind threads like this have a right to do so, and a clear and explicit reason to do so. TS listens. That's why I love this game and its community. 

    Divisive issues like this can cause in-game conflict. I like to think that everyone in this thread is above that and will refrain from doing anything rash in the game. Voicing an opinion here is great, and I think it's encouraged. But to behave aggressively in the game towards people who have taken the time to make themselves heard here is doing everyone a disservice. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "I don't think we should stop talking about it, but I do think that people identifying the motivations behind threads like this have a right to do so, and a clear and explicit reason to do so. TS listens. That's why I love this game and its community"

    You got your wish. There is already another house-stealing thread up in the Ideas forum.

    www.glitch.com/forum/ideas/...
    Posted 13 months ago by Billy McBinky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Wow, Kjel.  Just... wow.  You might want to reread the Community Guidelines. Especially the part about acting with respect toward others and not engaging in personal attacks. And the one that starts with "Avoid assuming bad intentions in other players..." would be a good one too.
    Posted 13 months ago by Magic Monkey Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'd say explicitly saying you want to take away the houses of other players because they do not play the way you think they should is clear evidence of bad intentions.
    Posted 13 months ago by Billy McBinky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • All true, but Kjel's post was - however tongue and cheek - a threat of exactly the same type of behavior in-game. While I understand the passion behind it, it just serves to undermine the argument of the people who oppose this.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ Billy McBlinky yeah I see that forum and and it I just answered it. And yes I agree with what you are saying here Billy

    I'd say explicitly saying you want to take away the houses of other players because they do not play the way you think they should is clear evidence of bad intentions.
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Monkey, that wasn't a personal attack, and the bad intentions aren't assumed -- they're tacit. Drag the mote out of thine own eye first.
    Posted 13 months ago by Kjel Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Billy, I respectfully and strongly disagree.  I actually favor the idea I put forth earlier about temporarily moving someone's house and contents into the ether after 12 months of inactivity.  I don't care how they play, but I do care that the world doesn't look deserted.  I can't tell you how many games I've walked away from because I couldn't find other players, just unoccupied houses everywhere (or a similar equivalent).  Activity matters to me, and I don't see being moved to a different block in the same zone when you return to be a terrible burden to have to bear.  There's no malice in any of it, but according to you this belief, by definition, is full of ill intentions.  Not only is attacking my character abhorrent, it's also at best in poor taste. If you want to present reasons why you believe that players should never have houses moved, by all means, do that.  What you are NOT welcome to do is attack the people who have different opinions.
    Posted 13 months ago by Magic Monkey Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I question how you feel the world looks deserted Magic Monkey? My housing block may "seem" deserted but when I step out into UR from my housing block it is teaming with Glitchen doing this and that! My street where my housing is and the surrounding areas are busy busy busy with happy Glitchen milking, petting, nibbling, harvesting and chatting along with other Glitcheny activities! I totally disagree with your perceptions here! Why do you feel that a quiet street in a housing district.. that possibly many of the Glitchen neighbors are doing things in or outside their homes and not hanging outside their door to wave at you and chitty chat and offer you to come in for coffee.. concidered deserted?
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Magic Monkey, please take your passive-aggressive BS someplace else. I am not attacking anybody's character, I am attacking a stupid and malicious idea and the action of advocating that idea. And while I have repeatedly stated the main reason that this is a stupid idea--that in a game this new, NOBODY can be considered inactive--there is no reason I need to justify my demand that you keep your filthy goddamned paws off my fucking house.
    Posted 13 months ago by Billy McBinky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • A deserted street does not mean deserted homes.

    Taking away people's houses if they don't play doesn't populate the world. It sure as heck doesn't populate your street, either.

    The "active" player buying the house the "inactive" player was evicted from may never see you, speak to you, or otherwise interact with you.

    I'm ... Baffled by this. All I can conclude is that this is phase one of a larger plan. The only way this makes long-term sense for you is if your second step is actual HOA power over neighborhoods - power to approve or deny residents.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Casombra, I don't think it looks deserted now!  My street is very active -- we've had block parties (street parties, technically), I've chatted with a lot of neighbors, we've spent time helping each other, and I've made some great friends with nothing more to talk about initially beyond, "Oh, you live on my street!"    I'm simply brainstorming ideas for the future based on problems I've seen happen repeatedly elsewhere.

    Xev, I do agree with what you've said, and if I had a better idea I would happily put it forth!  Fortunately, there's lots of time between now and when this could be an actual problem.  (As for me, I can't imagine caring less about organized groups for neighborhoods.  So my motivations, at least, lie nowhere near that.)
    Posted 13 months ago by Magic Monkey Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Omg.. that would be very very bad to be honest Xev! Now your scaring me! I can see the title of the Thread in the forums now:

    HOAs should be able to vote if we want someone to come to our neighborhoods!
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thanks, MM. That was a general you, not targeting you specifically. I should have been clearer. 

    I agree with you 100%: It's really, really early days. The problem being presented can't even be considered a problem yet by any yardstick. No sufficient solution can be presented, because the problem at hand is still hypothetical.

    Should this ever become a real and prevalent issue, which it certainly could, I think we should reevaluate it. Likewise, because of the new housing expansions the devs keep hinting at, I think that would seriously change this conversation and make the stakes much, much higher. 

    @Casombra Amberrose 
    My goal is not to put words in anyone's mouth. Any sort of eviction policy based around game participation / activity opens a door to some strange possibilities, and I think we should consider those. There would be pretty heavy consequences to making something like this happen. I don't see the self-elected HOA folks finding a lot of fault with that.

    I also don't see TS fighting very hard if a bunch of people get together and express an interest in a real HOA system. I do foresee a lot of this being alleviated with community spaces. An invitation only group and a "town hall" could and should take some of the pressure off of this issue. I sincerely hope that's the case, anyway.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • One of the main stumbling blocks in this discussion, is that the OP has used "active players" and "active neighbors" as if they are interchangeable.

    The problem seems to be (as stated in the OP):   we have approx 50 (cuz I lost count) of our 301 homes owned by inactive players. ....We need active neighbors to be a community.

    And yet the solutions proposed to solving the "active neighbors" problem all rely on definitions of "active players".  Active players may (or may not) be active neighbors, and that seems to be the hot button here.  One could be an active player by any of the proposed definitions and still not be someone who would be an active neighbor.  

    The solutions proposed for dealing with "inactive neighbors" have nothing to do with the problem of inactive neighbors.  As I pointed out, it is quite easy to be an active player without ever stepping foot in your house.  So, if the supporters of any of these proposals really want active neighbors, they need to come up with a totally different approach.  It is this hidden agenda (force people to be active neighbors by removing their housing if they aren't) that seems to be the biggest sore spot. 
    Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I could not agree more, WindBorn. This is the heart of the issue. 

    What is an active neighbor, and how do you find an active neighborhood? 

    Getting rid of "inactive" players won't solve that problem, and it's not fair to kick the inactive (by any definition) people off your street to make room for friends you think will create the community you want.
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @WindBorn: You hit the nail right on it's little glitchy head! (Especially that last sentence.)
    Posted 13 months ago by Flowerry Pott Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Guys, guys!! This is an important issue, and one that we will think about at length, and eventually people who have not played in a very long time and who have no intention of returning to the game will not continue to tie up real estate. But, I don't think we're *quite* at the point where this is an issue yet, as today all players have only owned their homes for a month and a half, at the most. A lot of things can happen in a month: family illness, traumatic injuries, mid terms, cross-country moves, volunteer trips, the list goes on. If a common place where you can expect a bit more consistent involvement from the people you most enjoy playing the game with is what many of you are concerned about, I'd suggest you re-read the teaser for Group Halls in stoot's anniversary blog post. They are not here yet, and may not be the silver bullet to all of the issues, but it's certainly something to look forward to before getting too discouraged by neighborhoods that can seem on the empty side. 

    But almost as importantly, please remember to respect not only the other players who post in these forums, but also the opinions that they've expressed as well. You don't have to agree, but recognize that what they're saying is often as deeply felt and sincere as your own point of view. Everyone loves a good impassioned debate, but the best ones are those that can still end with a shared round of beers (or, I guess root beers) instead of bitterness and grudges. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Blanky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I can see this convo happening in the future in some HoA meeting:

    Hey guys! That Casombra that lives over there at 2128 Vragan Boost Quarter never chats, or throws a party or attends a party.. heck we never even see her leave her place or come back to it! She MUST be an inactive player! Hmmm oh  wait!  According to her profile she has gained some levels and even got some achievements! Ok so she isn't inactive but she is an inactive neighbor! Wow she is not very good for the HoA is she? I vote to have her banned and kicked from the neighborhood! How dare she keep to herself! We want active neighbors in our neighborhood only! I know someone that would love to have her place and that person will fit right in but let's give her a chance... I vote we first send her a letter telling her to step up being a more active neighbor.. we will give her until our next meeting to sort herself out.. if she doesn't we will have her removed and replace her with someone that would appreciate all that we do here in the HoA!
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Oops sorry Blanky I must have been typing my last post when you put down your post! I read it though!
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thanks for the confirmation that our houses will not be confiscated any time soon, despite a few agitators, Blanky. As a casual and free MMO, Glitch is probably going to have more players who play sporadically than paid MMOs. I'm sure that's been taken into account and, given that disk space is cheap, keeping such players on the roll for a very long time shouldn't be a problem. If there ever is a problem that negatively affects the game, I'm sure those of us who love the game will be as interested in a solution as TS is.
    Posted 13 months ago by Billy McBinky Subscriber! | Permalink
1 2 3 Next