Topic

The Storage Unit (for Removing Inactive Home Owners)

Allow me to start out with a little preamble before getting into my idea. Also, my apologies if someone's already thought of this before, I haven't had the time to read everyone's thoughts on this.

THE PREAMBLE:

Clearly community and benevolence are big things for Glitchen. Streets (for houses) were created in such a way that having neighbors matters, but if we keep along our current trend that means that soon there might be only a single active player per street. This isn't the game's fault, or our fault, it's just how people work.

I'd personally be okay to 'boot' someone from a house that hasn't played in a set period of time (a month? three months?). They don't have to play for long, just log into the game for 1 second and 'poof' the 'counter' resets. I am wholly against anything that punishes how a person is required to play (eg: if you don't pet this many piggies, or donate this much stuff, you aren't playing 'enough' to own a house).

THE BIG IDEA:

When someone is forced out of their house due to lack of playing, I don't think people should lose stuff (minus, perhaps, animals and trees, because they'd likely be dead at that point anyways - but even this is debatable). Anything in the house / storage cabinate should be transfered to a [new to Glitch] Storage Unit.

A Storage Unit would be a place that is only accessible by you, would have a full size storage cabinate, and the ability to store items on the ground. It'd be very small, have no trees, no crop plots, and no animals allowed (they'd instantly get 'sad').

When you get pulled from your house (with appropriate warnings ahead of time via email and in-game, etc) everything you owned would go to your Storage Unit. If you already owned one, the sale value of your house (80%) would transfer back to you. If you didn't already own a unit, one would be purchased in your name (using funds out of your house's sale). I'm presuming since it's such a restricted space / single player only it'd cost no more than 500 currants (but would require papers, just like owning a house).

This solves the freak-out people might have with 'losing everything' if their house was taken away, and creates a nice middle-ground for finding more Glitchen ways to deal with the problem of wanting to have active neighbors yet not wanting to 'harm' others by forcing them to forclose and lose their fortunes (without implementing things like rent).

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

Replies

1 2 Next
  • What baffles me is that there is no complaining about the unavailability of modestly-priced apartment lodgings. Seems like the cheapest housing would be the housing that would be hardest to acquire, but it is the luxury homes and centrally-located mid-priced housing that folks complain about more.
    Posted 13 months ago by ✰ Lorelei ✰ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Lorelei- It's also pretty telling that you rarely hear any of this from bog-dwellers- the main bone of contention seems to be Groddle, and like you said, the McMansion areas. I don't think there's a single 7.5 available in the bogs right now and yet nobody's wringing their hands over it, but bring up GM and the tune changes dramatically. Strange, that.
    Posted 13 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Djabrill:

    You appear to have made numerous incorrect assumptions about what my posts say:

    How is it insufficient? Seems pretty straightforward and common-sense to me.

    If I move elsewhere, the same problem can happen all over again.

    Besides, why do you get to legislate how people play- is it simply because they're not playing your way? Because that's what it sounds like.

    Does it? Please quote where I say that I want to legislate how people play.

    Unless you're looking at every player's profile to determine when they've last logged in (which is a bit stalkerish, let's be honest), how would you know?

    I did not say that I and not TS should determine when a player is inactive. Please do not insinuate that I am somehow a stalker or that I think that I should be the person calling the shots.

    And how is a person, say, letting their skills accumulate before playing, or playing in fits and starts (whether to avoid getting burnt-out or in anticipation of something like group-halls and customizations) not playing their own way? That seems like the very definition of playing their own way to me. And unless you know exactly what people's intentions are, you have no way of knowing. 

    Where did I say that someone who is logging in enough to modify their skills or "play in fits and starts" is inactive to the point where their house should be removed?

    I don't have issue with people who haven't played in a year and half being considered "inactive", but, as others have noted, the game's not even been open two months, so determining who's gone for good and who's not is a crapshoot at the moment. 

    Where did I say that I think we should take any houses from any players today? My point is that there is a design flaw, and TS needs to establish a policy and communicate it to players now so that everyone gets fair warning if part of that solution involves reclaiming unused property.

    In my opinion, no player should be considered "inactive" for the purposes of freeing up a house until they have not logged in to Glitch (the website or the actual game) for at least six months. The right answer might also consider subscription status and player level. If someone only made level 7 and hasn't been on in 6 months, it's highly unlikely that they'll be back. If someone made 35 and hasn't been back in 6 months, they may very well be coming back at some point. If someone paid money to subscribe, it's far more likely that they'll be back.

    Ultimately, your argument seems to boil down to "I don't see my neighbors enough for my liking and hijinx aren't ensuing in my street; therefore, the people not doing what I want them to should get the boot". Which is the weaker and more self-serving argument?

    Your summary of my argument is laughable if for no other reason than this: I don't HAVE neighbors. I have never owned a house in Glitch since Beta, and I have no current plan to buy a house. I rather enjoy the vagabond lifestyle. My only motive for entering this discussion is because I do think there is a legitimate issue that should be addressed sooner rather than later. I find your calling me "self-serving" to be insulting.
    Posted 13 months ago by mirth Subscriber! | Permalink
  • HA! It was a trick all along! Mirth is a witch! Get them!
    Posted 13 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Lorelei: Glitch homes are extremely cheap in terms of how many hours of effort it takes to get the currants to afford them once you're above level 20 or so with decent skills. Real estate on Glitch is location, location, location. People either want to be right in the middle of things (Groddle), or to be in the most prestigious location that is also fairly centrally located (Alakol).
    Posted 13 months ago by mirth Subscriber! | Permalink
  • So, you believe that there is a fundamental flaw in the design of Glitch.  

    You believe that the staff statement I don't think we're *quite* at the point where this is an issue yet,  (made 2 days ago)  is not a sufficient response to the issue, so you have to keep adding comments and arguments to highlight its importance.

    You believe "TS needs to establish a policy and communicate it to players now"  instead of in the future when they feel the problem will need to be addressed.

    I guess I don't understand why you believe that TS staff are incapable of setting their own game-design and work priorities, and why your experience in game development makes your statements so much more believable than theirs.  
    Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • No one is saying TS is incapable of doing their jobs. Just the opposite -- TS set up an ideas forum where they invited the people who play their game to talk about ideas and ways to make a good game better.

    I post to the forums because I love this game and think brainstorming about current and future-state problems and possible solutions is a way to show TS respect.
    Posted 13 months ago by Knitomaton Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @WindBorn: I made a longer response to your post in the other thread you cross-posted it in.

    +1 Knitomaton. Exactly.
    Posted 13 months ago by mirth Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm wondering if the whole inactive homeowners discussion can be allowed to die down a bit. Blanky expressed TS's view - that they are thinking about it but won't be making any moves for some time yet - and I'm going to trust that they will come up with a workable solution.

    In the meantime, the storage unit is definitely an interesting idea. Would it be worthwhile discussing that some more and if so, should we discuss it in a new topic in order to "divorce" it (so to speak) from the "inactive homeowner" aspect of the question?
    Posted 13 months ago by Flowerry Pott Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Flowerry Pott: How about instead of storage units we put lockers in the subway stations? That might fit in nicely with the current environment.
    Posted 13 months ago by mirth Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It's interesting that the arguments the house-stealers make all depend on assertions which are demonstrably false:

    Myth: There is a problem with inactive players taking up houses and keeping other glitches homeless.

    Fact: As has been repeatedly stated (but ignored by the house-stealers) is that this game, at less than two months old and has NO inactive players by any reasonable definition. The OP, on the other hand, with the suggestion of taking houses after a month of not playing, would have TS preparing the second round of eviction notices. Furthermore, a quick look at the real estate pages shows there are many houses available. Not the ones the house-stealers want and not in the areas they want, but anyone who wants a place to hang his/her hat, can have one.

    Myth: Inactive players ruin the community by making streets deserted and uninteresting.

    Fact: Ignoring the obvious fallacy of there being any inactive players, you just are not likely to see someone in a given block in a housing quarter. I have had my house for probably five weeks. In that time, I have played rather obsessively (four hours per day on work days, often double that or more on days off). In all that time, I've encountered only two neighbours '[edit: turns out I've met three, but forgot one, who I just ran into again]. My nine [edit: eight, actually] other neighbours have not seen me, yet I'm often on my street. I've met a handful of residents in the other blocks in my quarter and I've been to all the blocks. People are going about playing their games in different areas, at different times and not all hanging around on a given block. The real streetlife happens out in the streets, not in the quarters. Yet my "community" interaction is just fine. I have a good number of friends who live elsewhere, I see them in game and chat frequently. You do not need to be in the same place to talk to someone, so there is no problem socializing if that's what you want.

    MYTH: Inactive house owners are consuming a valuable and finite resource.

    FACT: I agree that housing is valuable. I love my Groddle Meadow cottage and am happy my obsessive realty page refreshing allowed me to buy it. It is not a finite resource, however. It is infinite. A while ago some blocks were added to my quarter and other blocks have been added all over Ur from time to time and this can continue, as well as whole new regions and quarters being added.

    MYTH: The house-stealers just want to plan for the future because they love Glitch so much.

    FACT: They are advocating booting people from their houses NOW. The OP here suggests as little as a month of not logging in is reason to take a house. The thread over in the General forum discusses how the OP has found 50 or more "inactive" players stinking up his/her quarter. TS knows what it is doing. I'm sure it is monitoring and planning. It is also probably working on getting housing customization done sooner rather than later, which will encourage many to move and free up existing houses. They've got it covered.

    MYTH: These suggestions to boot people from their houses are not malicious.

    FACT:
    Malicious: having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone : given to, marked by, or arising from malice www.merriam-webster.com/dic...

    They wish to deprive players of an item for which they have worked, which certainly fits the definition.

    Look, I get that you've got a bunch of pals that all play at the same time and you'd love to have your houses on the very same housing block. Then go find a block with available houses. No, it probably won't be in Groddle Meadow or Alakol (until they release more). Too bad. TS has already announced group places on the agenda, so you can wait for those. It's rather transparent, and rather ugly what is being attempted.

    TL;DR: Keep your filthy paws off my house.
    Posted 13 months ago by Billy McBinky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1  for Billy; And well laid out.
    Posted 13 months ago by CrashTestPilot Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +2 for Billy!
    Posted 13 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +3 For Billy!
    Posted 12 months ago by Cryztal Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Terrible idea, I just came back from a month's break and would be quite miffed if I had been booted from the house that I saved up currants to buy (especially since its my favorite style of house). Giants forbid anyone take a break. :P 
    Posted 12 months ago by Tanit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • This thread is still alive?
    Okay: +5 more for Billy.
    Posted 12 months ago by CrashTestPilot Subscriber! | Permalink
1 2 Next