Subject: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 23 2010 @ 07:02 PM
By: Count+Sessine

Content:

What should happen to a dwelling if the account that owns it is, for whatever reason, deleted?

If it's only a stake in the ground, hey, that's easy: go ahead and delete the thing. Undeveloped land claims can expire with the claimant.

But, what if it's a beautifully developed site that's an asset to the game? What if two players have put equal effort into making a home and then one of them, the one who put the stake in the ground, quits playing the game? What if it's a joint clan project? What if, later on, it's got an Improbable Labs function hooked into it that is so good it's become an integral part of the game? (Um, okay... admittedly that last one is unlikely; anyone who has ever had the level of commitment to the game needed to do that has probably acquired a permanent character somehow, but still.)

So if we're talking about rules: a developed site should not be automatically deleted.

And because the game can't distinguish between Dunbernarding (or Nepeta Halt!) and a junk hut created by someone who was just fiddling around and then lost interest... over time, we are going to accumulate un-owned buildings: some that may be very valuable, and others that would need, er, extensive remodeling.

Just leaving such a dwelling in place as an un-owned orphan isn't ideal. Sure... it's still there to visit, but it's going to fill up with ghosts (see bug thread), and it can never be expanded or changed in any way. That's very sad for other players who may still want to think of that place as their home or their clan hall.

An ability to voluntarily transfer ownership to someone else would solve some of this. (Allowing joint ownership, instead or as well, would be even better, but might be technically difficult.) All the same, many who leave the game are not going to bother to dispose of their properties.

The old Season One dwellings had a feature where orphaned dwellings could be bought by other characters. (And, let me tell you, some of them were great bargains!) That's one option.

Or, more interestingly... maybe after a grace period they could be sold at public auction?



Replies:

Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 23 2010 @ 07:28 PM
By: Xith

Content:

[quoteThe old Season One dwellings had a feature where orphaned dwellings could be bought by other characters. (And, let me tell you, some of them were great bargains!) That's one option.

Or, more interestingly... maybe after a grace period they could be sold at public auction?[/quote]

Useful idea. Maybe add a Real Estate office or something to one of the outposts? Rather than everything being done at Suzie's hardware store. Being able to purchase or receive another contestants dwelling would be quite useful, especially on some of those prime plots of land that already have all four spaces taken, but by people who may no longer play. The auction Idea would be pretty awesome.

In a few months, I'll be leaving on a mission for my church and I'll have limited amount of time to play the game, so it'd be awesome to be able to transfer a dwelling to someone else who will be able to look after it better, so that the weather station I wanna build won't go unmanaged.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 23 2010 @ 08:36 PM
By: Cousjava

Content:

Perhaps you could leave a 'will', which means that if you leave the game your dwelling goes to someone else that you specify. If no-one is specified, then after, say, 7 real days, with somewhere in the outposts to tell you what is avalible. Then during the auction, everybody who wants it goes in and puts in a bid (in cigs, presumably) perhaps starting at 50. Each person who wants it puts in a bid, and they can put in another bid when the current highest bid (which would be displayed). If there are no bids in a certain period, perhaps an hour real time, then it goes to the highest bidder.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 23 2010 @ 09:08 PM
By: Chimental

Content:

I have an idea that's more of a combination between 'finders keepers' and 'flip this house'.

When a player is deleted, their home's name instantly becomes 'future land plot' or something like that, and is open to all. When you enter the area, you'll see some of the Island's staff with Bulldozers and other construction equipment ready to tear down the large mansion and flatten the land for other contestants.

I'd say 150 cigs and maybe 25K req would cause them to 'overlook' this house.

When you own your new home, you would get the main room with all it's space upgrades, but the other rooms are basically Squat Hole in comparison, and none of the descriptions. (Too wrecked to tell what was what) There would be rats and peeling paint and mold (and that tire fire that just won't go out) and all that lovely stuff.

To actually be able to use these rooms, it would require a lot of stamina used in decorating. Maybe 75 actions for a two space room.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 23 2010 @ 09:50 PM
By: Count+Sessine

Content:

You'd have to allow for an asynchronous bidding process, because, you know... time zones. And a longer time frame than just hours.

A silent auction, I think. You'd want the properties up for sale to be listed for a while before the start of the auction, to give people time to go look them over. Then the auction would start, and people could enter their bids. (They would have to have the cigs before the bid would be accepted, and that number of cigs would go into escrow? Details need to be worked out there!) Bids already entered would be listed next to the property. At the end of the bid period, maybe two or three calendar days? properties that had been bid on would go to the highest bidder. Properties with no bids would go back on the list in the next auction.

We might say that if a property remains unsold in... what, three successive auctions? then it would be system-deleted. That gives ample time for anyone who wants a given property to become aware that it's on the block, even if they aren't able to log in very often.

Could also have a "FOR SALE" sign added to the exterior description.

Edit: Oy there, Chimental! You got a Vogon somewhere under that cloak? ...Or did you maybe not read the reasons it would not be fair to delete (or wreck) a dwelling just because the player who initially hammered in the stake happened to lose interest in the game?


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 23 2010 @ 11:23 PM
By: Chimental

Content:

Quote by: Count+Sessine


Oy there, Chimental! You got a Vogon somewhere under that cloak? ...Or did you maybe not read the reasons it would not be fair to delete (or wreck) a dwelling just because the player who initially hammered in the stake happened to lose interest in the game?



I'm not saying an abandoned house would be destroyed, I'm saying it looks like it's about to be. If you decline the guy's offer and leave, someone else can take the offer two days, two weeks, two minutes after you head out. Sure, someone could swipe it from you, but with such a high price to claim it, you know it's not going to be some Newblood with a spork who decides to play on the beach and finds an abandoned 20 room bungalow.

But yes, I think someone should be able to give ownership of a plot to someone else if they decide to quit or even if it's a gift. If they don't, well, the above happens.

And furthermore, with the amount of parodies I've written about the island, I'd like to think I am the writer of the fourth worst poetry in the universe. And I have more sex appeal too...not by much, but it's more!


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 24 2010 @ 12:33 AM
By: Count+Sessine

Content:

Quote by: Chimental

Quote by: Count+Sessine


Oy there, Chimental! You got a Vogon somewhere under that cloak? ...Or did you maybe not read the reasons it would not be fair to delete (or wreck) a dwelling just because the player who initially hammered in the stake happened to lose interest in the game?

I'm not saying an abandoned house would be destroyed, I'm saying it looks like it's about to be. If you decline the guy's offer and leave, someone else can take the offer two days, two weeks, two minutes after you head out. Sure, someone could swipe it from you, but with such a high price to claim it, you know it's not going to be some Newblood with a spork who decides to play on the beach and finds an abandoned 20 room bungalow.

But yes, I think someone should be able to give ownership of a plot to someone else if they decide to quit or even if it's a gift. If they don't, well, the above happens.

And furthermore, with the amount of parodies I've written about the island, I'd like to think I am the writer of the fourth worst poetry in the universe. And I have more sex appeal too...not by much, but it's more!

Mn, well. The real reason someone would want to take over a particular dwelling, what makes it unique and valuable, isn't the number of rooms, for all that initial part takes so much work. Nor even the location, really, though that's closer. It's the creative conception -- the text -- that makes one place into a haunted mansion, another a living tree house, and a third, a well-defended fortress.

If the creator of the Abandoned Waystation ever decides to quit the Island, I, first of all, don't want it to disappear, or be trashed. I would guess there's a whole long queue of people who would love to take it over to keep it safe. Not because they'd want to own it, so much, but because if it wasn't there, we'd all be the losers. There are many gems like that, not all of them written by people with permanent accounts.

Another thing is, quite a few of these creations are group efforts, treated as home by more than one person. Yes, the nominal owner really ought to turn the place over to someone else before leaving (and ought to be able to do so), but it doesn't seem right to penalize others in the group for a departing player's carelessness.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 24 2010 @ 03:09 AM
By: Hairy+Mary

Content:

Entirely agree with everything that Sessine (and others) are saying.

Case in point. Daedalus has recently left leaving behind him a building which was explicitly a clan project. This wasn't very far advanced, it's got two rooms, one of which has a couple of extra sleeping spaces, the other of which is undecorated. I'd like to take this over and keep on going with it. I was thinking of starting again on the same space and building a copy, but this still leaves the problem of the original which is then just goping to stand there neglected. I'd far prefer to take over the original, even if I ended up paying the same price in cigs and req for it. It's just the feel of the thing.

I think the idea of an auction is best, with a minimum price for it, although I think that the minimum price should depend on how many rooms/sleeping spaces it has, and how much decorating. I agree with Sessein, keeping the decoration is essential, that's what really gives most places their character, and we wouldn't want to lose that.

Don't have much more to add than that, just thought that I'd voice my agreement.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 24 2010 @ 07:29 PM
By: Kash

Content:

I think that implementing a Statutory Will system (where the owner designates a beneficiary in case of deletion) should be prioritized before the Auction system for a couple of reasons:

1) It allows the player more choice in what to do with their property. Especially with the larger or more famous properties, this could be an issue if we went with an auction-only system. I imagine that places like Soup and Pants would be hotly contested in an auction... shoot, I'd bid in for it if I got the chance, and I'm rarely even in IC. But what if the owner wants to pass it on to a poor, underprivileged rookie as a grand display of the property's purpose, specifically despite the huge value of the place? Or another example, the clan project officially owned by Daedalus: under an auction system, there is no way to guarantee that the property will stay within the clan (other than ensuring that a clan member has enough cigarettes to outbid everyone else on the island, of course).

2) It allows a check against monopoly. Some people have the real-life time and cash to accumulate more cigs than others in-game. Let's say that Kash steals the Ferry and poles his way back to Texas, giving the Watcher the finger on his way out: He'll most likely want to leave his dugout in the care of BuckNasty just so Buck has to deal with being mildly cursed because he owns property on an ancient Chimental burial ground. But what if some other poor chap with enough cigs to buy a plot on every outpost square as soon as Dwellings are implemented (*cough cough*) decides he wants to snatch up the property when he sees it in Auction (because that is the only system that is implemented for transferring property)? Then that guy is cursed instead of Buck, and nobody wants that.

The auction system should be a back-up to catch all the properties that haven't been specifically left to someone else. A system implementing both methods of transferral would keep everyone as happy as everyone can be, I think.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 24 2010 @ 10:05 PM
By: Hairy+Mary

Content:

Quote by: Kash

...Let's say that Kash steals the Ferry and poles his way back to Texas, giving the Watcher the finger on his way out...



Personally I'd pay good cigarettes just to see that.

On a more serious note, yes, I agree with Kash on this one. If someone wants to pick who they want to pass a property on to, then they should have that choice. Perhaps the recipient has to pay some sort of admin costs for it as well. Of course properties can only be transfered when the owners character is actually deleted, otherwise someone somewhere will find a way of using it in some sort of wealth transfer or other rule dodging way.

Also Sessine, you seemed to imply that if someone had a permanent account then it wouldn't be a problem. That's not strictly true. If someone has to leave the Island for RL reasons, then there's still no one looking after the dwelling. Just because it still belongs to an account doesn't make much difference, there's still no one looking after the dwelling.

At the moment, if someone leaves, then the dwelling stays behind as is. It just means that no one can start new build or decorate jobs, and no one can lock and unlock the doors.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 24 2010 @ 10:48 PM
By: Ashtu

Content:

hehehehe. Anybody here own a piece of land in Second Life? That's what this is starting to sound like.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 25 2010 @ 01:30 AM
By: Count+Sessine

Content:

Possibly I'm not thinking deviously enough, but I don't see any reason players shouldn't be allowed to give a dwelling they put hard work and cigs into building, to anyone they please, any time they please.

See, the thing is, owning a dwelling isn't really that big a game advantage. You don't have to own a building to get the stamina boost -- there's no shortage of open rooms with vacant floor spots. You can only use one bed at a time. By now, with all the building that's gone on, you can duck under a roof to trigger a chronosphere almost anywhere on the Island.

If owners could choose to transfer their dwellings any time they liked, why, why... Help me out here, I'm having trouble coming up with any bad consequence.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 25 2010 @ 12:18 PM
By: Reverb

Content:

Well for starters; the Skronky's are going to have a field day trying to bribe, bully, and extort as many buildings into their possession as they can get their grubby little hands on. There goes the neighborhood.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 25 2010 @ 12:26 PM
By: Hairy+Mary

Content:

Well I can't think of any bad consequences, but I'm really not a game player, and tend to play within what I consider to be the spirit of the game. A lot of people though seem to come up with all sorts of devious ideas, so I tend to assume that there will probably be one, just that I haven't seen it. Especially when it's something that involves the transfer of something between players.

But you're probably right, I can't even imagine any reason why a 100% game player would want a dwelling. As you say, the one game advantage it confers, the stamina boost for sleeping there, is open to anyone, and there's enough sleeping spaces around that you can always find one. It's not always just long enough to crack a chronosphere, some of us occasionally take time off the Island to sleep, or indulge in other such frivolities, but that doesn't really change matters. You can usually find somewhere to crash for the night, and know that you'll wake up there the next morning.

There has been some talk of extra features which might change things a little. But from the ones that I can recall having been mentioned, the only ones that give any game advantage sound like they'd be the same as the stamina advantage in that it would be easy enough to use someone elses dwelling for the purpose.

Having said that, they were made expensive to build for a reason. It would be circumventing that a bit if some big cig rich rank 7 player could build the first room and then give it over to someone else.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 25 2010 @ 04:33 PM
By: Kash

Content:

[quote="Hairy Mary"]It would be circumventing that a bit if some big cig rich rank 7 player could build the first room and then give it over to someone else.[/quote]

No more "circumventing" than the whole concept of Location Four, in my opinion. Sure, you might end up with a rookie owning a seventeen room clan hall for a clan they have never heard of (in a worst-case scenario, of course) but at the same time we're already telling rookies who Horatio is and how to find him for tea and how many DKs are needed for which races and where to find mounts and and and... you get the picture. That is more against the spirit of the game, I believe, than passing on late-game knowledge; because the whole idea of the game is that you're dropped on the Island pantsless and witless and have to figure out how to survive after being a sales rep or waiter or nuclear weapons tester or whatever. Once you know how to build a dwelling, (the discovery aspect that is so key in the first few DKs,) it's just a matter of collecting inane numbers of cigs and spending untold caches of req on one-shots to get those kits and supplies from place to place.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 25 2010 @ 05:55 PM
By: Count+Sessine

Content:

Quote by: Kash

No more "circumventing" than the whole concept of Location Four, in my opinion. Sure, you might end up with a rookie owning a seventeen room clan hall for a clan they have never heard of (in a worst-case scenario, of course) but at the same time we're already telling rookies who Horatio is and how to find him for tea and how many DKs are needed for which races and where to find mounts and and and... you get the picture. That is more against the spirit of the game, I believe, than passing on late-game knowledge; because the whole idea of the game is that you're dropped on the Island pantsless and witless and have to figure out how to survive after being a sales rep or waiter or nuclear weapons tester or whatever. Once you know how to build a dwelling, (the discovery aspect that is so key in the first few DKs,) it's just a matter of collecting inane numbers of cigs and spending untold caches of req on one-shots to get those kits and supplies from place to place.

Location Four exists because you can't stop players from asking questions about game mechanics.

Before it was created, the same questions were being asked over and over again in NewHome, Kittania, the Common Ground, Improbable Central, clan halls... not even CC404 was immune to the plague. Now, questioners can be directed to L4, people who want the discovery experience are not subjected to spoilers, and veterans who happen to be in a patient, question-answering mood drop in there often enough that no question goes unanswered for long.
Quote by: Hairy Mary

...they were made expensive to build for a reason. It would be circumventing that a bit if some big cig rich rank 7 player could build the first room and then give it over to someone else.

I hear you. Altruism is fun for the giver, but it can get out of hand. We don't want to go back to casual Season One style giveaways. On the other hand, a dwelling that has been lovingly crafted and detailed is not going to be given away lightly. It would always be a meaningful gift -- which is not a bad thing.

Perhaps there could be a minimum number of decorated rooms required before the owner could give it away? Not a lot -- two, perhaps. Maybe even only one. Just something that would require the giver to invest some personality as well as cigs and stamina.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 26 2010 @ 03:40 AM
By: Jon+Bishop

Content:

Agree It would be great to give a house over to someone else. Or perhaps even have multiple owners, so if one player leaves for good, there is no problem.

Regarding auctions....maybe. It's great that a dwelling would survive after someone leaves and doesn't have a will, but it would be strange, to me, if just anyone claimed ownership of a very special plot of land. Still preferable to losing the dwelling altogether, I suppose.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 26 2010 @ 04:55 AM
By: Akogi

Content:

Quote by: Hairy+Mary

It would be circumventing that a bit if some big cig rich rank 7 player could build the first room and then give it over to someone else.



Here's an idea. What about if the person who is receiving a gifted dwelling would have to either already own a dwelling OR have so many DKs, something like 2 or 3 DKs OR pay so many cigs, maybe half the cost before the actual transfer of ownership could occur.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 26 2010 @ 05:02 AM
By: Dulcibella

Content:

Silent auctions are definitely the way to make it work.

Until wills and such would be implemented, I wish there was a way to demonstrate merit for claiming a property... but of course that would require adjudication of some sort, which could potentially mean a crapload of frivolous work for our dear mods. (Hmm... unless we'd want to set up an in-game legal system... contestants running for judgeships... smear campaigns and stump speeches... Nah, things would spiral out of control pretty quickly. Let's stick with enlightened despotism, it's working pretty well so far.)

Of course, all this wishful thinking is merely due to the fact that I have a particular plot in mind. Extra-prime real-estate, currently filling up with ghosts, started up by an ex-clannie who has since fallen off the face of the Island... and I did contribute a modicum of sweat equity. Unless I have a way to make my case as a prime ownership candidate, I guess I'll be saving cigs in the hope that I'll stand a chance if and when auctions get rolling!


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 26 2010 @ 08:34 PM
By: Hairy+Mary

Content:

I think the recipient of a dwelling should have to pay something in the way of cigs/req. Possibly dependent on how big the place was, how much decoration it had.

Extra merit for claims? Yes Dulcibella's right. That would be quite good, but it's hard to imagine some way of doing that automatically. I'll try anyway. This is a rather tentative idea here.

Three reasons for extra merit in a claim, are
I) That you helped to build the place.
II) You belong to the same clan as the owner did.
III) You were married to the owner.

Is it possible to know how much any one person contributed in terms of decorating or building? If so, then for each bidder, compute a number.

Count 1 for each piece of decorating they did. Count 2 for each piece of wood they added. Count 3 for each piece of stone added. Now you have a number. Multiply this by 1.5 if they're in the same clan, and then by 2 if they were married.

Now treat this number as a percentage, and give this as a bonus in auctions.

Example. Dwelling goes on the market. Person A bids 180 cigs. Person B bids 150 cigs. Person A was in the same clan as the original owner, and contributed 20 stone 60 wood and did 100 decorating turns. Person B was in the same clan and married to the owner and contributed 10 stone, 30 wood and 100 decorating turns.

So A's multiplier is (100 + 60x2 + 20x3)x1.5 = 420. Their bid counts as 180 + 180x(420/100) = 936
B's multiplier is (100 + 30x2 + 10x3)x1.5x2 = 570. Their bid counts as 150 + 150x(570/100) = 1005

Person B wins the auction and pays 150 cigs for their new dwelling.

I picked those numbers more or less off the top of my head, they can of course be fiddled with. They seem a bit high in this example to be honest. I've no idea how possible this is but maybe something of the sort is possible. There should definitely be a minimum payment of 100 cigs.

Does this make any sort of sense to people?


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 26 2010 @ 11:12 PM
By: Reverb

Content:

Yes, but it did not take into account the providing of meterials. often, in joined projects, one person spends a sphere, a ciggie, and some one-shots on lumbering/stone-cutting their stamina into the neither regions, and deliver their cargo to a fresh mason/carpenter whom does the actual construction.

Not that i'd demand that factored; but it might be simpeler to just transfer this via the Improbable Board of Surveillance and Real Estate Management.

Or petitions for a transfer. It's not like we'll develop a booming market in land ownership, so it wouldn't realy be much added workload for CMJ.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 26 2010 @ 11:49 PM
By: Count+Sessine

Content:

Quote by: Hairy+Mary

Is it possible to know how much any one person contributed in terms of decorating or building?

Before people get carried away trying to optimize the algorithm, here... I'm afraid the answer to this question is, "No, we don't have that level of detail."

It is in the interests of the game as a whole, it seems to me, to prevent the accumulation of un-owned dwellings, and to encourage active ownership. The more elaborate the dwelling, the more owning it becomes a responsibility rather than a privilege. If we make recipients pay in proportion to the size, the best places would be in the most danger of being lost because those who ought to be taking them over could not afford them.

1. In most cases, the current owner of a dwelling is the best one to decide who should take it over.

- If we allow voluntary transfers at any time without cost to the recipient (provided the building meets the minimum size standard), then that hands over most of the problem to human judgement, which is much more flexible and better able to handle special cases than any php algorithm could be. Clan halls could be transferred to a new clan leader as a matter of course; spouses could transfer their homes back and forth depending on who has the time to work on the new wing this week and who has exams or an insane deadline at work...

2. In the nature of things, though, there is always going to be turnover. If the owner does not transfer a building before the account disappears, that's when you need rules.

- If it is just a stake in the ground, delete it. Someone else can claim the land.

- If it has been built on... Yes, a spouse probably should inherit an orphaned dwelling automatically. If that player doesn't want it, well, they're the owner now. As long as it meets the minimum size, they can give it away same as the original owner could -- if they can find a taker, that is.

- The silent auction would be for properties that fall through all of these filters.

- And a property that's been up for sale and hasn't sold in three different auctions would be going, going... gone. Deleted because nobody wanted it. "Sniffle... nobody loves me..."

- Though, that brings up another point -- perhaps owners should be able to dump properties they no longer want into the auction system. No, they shouldn't get paid anything for it, because it wouldn't be possible to determine how much of the work that went into it was theirs, and besides, that would open up loopholes for exploitation. (So assume the town councils suddenly discover that the back taxes exactly equal -- what a curious coincidence! whatever the property brings at auction.)


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 27 2010 @ 12:16 AM
By: g_rock

Content:

Perhaps the ones that go unclaimed and are, for lack of a better word, demolished, the building materials, or a portion thereof, would remain on the site for filthy scavengers [read:GERM] to use? Maybe 50% of the logs and stone that went into the building would be left behind?


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 27 2010 @ 08:53 AM
By: Hairy+Mary

Content:

One issue here is that buildings are only counted as orphaned when the owning account disappears. People with permanent accounts may still suddenly be faced with RL issues forcing them to leave the Island, even people who have put in a huge amount of time and effort, creating things in Improbable labs say. Life happens.

Being owned by a moribund account is effectively the same as not being owned at all, no one's looking after the building. Perhaps if an owner doesn't visit a dwelling in a month, or doesn't log on in a month then they get sent an email warning them of impending repossesion? Then they get a fortnight to do something?

In fact, if buildings are complete, then it doesn't really matter if anyone owns them or not. If the owner of Soup and Pants had to leave, then Soup and Pants would still be there exactly as it is now, and still fulfilling it's valuable role in the game. It's the half built and unused dwellings which are the potential problem.

Actually, this isn't true. Thinking again (I did that once in 2003), I suppose that ghosts would go unkicked out, and these would accumulate over time. Also in a property shared by a couple, the spouse might eventually get over their grief, remarry, and want to use the property, locking and unlocking rooms and so forth. Also, if someone left when a room was locked, then that room would stay locked for evermore.

Point: If a dwelling goes on the market, then automatically unlocking all areas would probably make sense. Afterall, you'd want to go and have a good look round a property if you were thinking of buying it.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 27 2010 @ 09:26 AM
By: Genevieve

Content:

I wholeheartedly agree that we should freely be able to transfer dwellings from person to person at any time. I know Jacques would be thrilled by this idea, since he's never around Port Foley and cant work on his own house, and I'd willingly start construction jobs for him and such, then give it back when he's got the time. I think that spouses should be able to do that without any sort of limiting factor. And Clan members, really.

The Will idea is also something I agree with completely. Human Judgement is definitely more effective than any algorithm.

Actually.. now that I think about it... I agree completely with Sessines little list of instances. Yep. If the building isn't inherited or given out it should be auctioned.


I also agree with Hairy Mary, if someone has a permanent account and just doesnt get on for ages (a month is how long a non-permanent account has to be gone to be deleted, right? how about that long?) then they get an email reminding them that they have a house. Or something like that.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 28 2010 @ 10:07 PM
By: tehdave

Content:

I think a lot of these issues would be easily resolved given one addition to dwellings:

KEYS

Let the dwelling owner assign permissions to different key levels, including a{ny number of} secondary master-keys, for, say clan officers. That way, anyone with a Locking Key can lock or unlock rooms, anyone with a Decoration Key can set up decorations, anyone with a Build Key can set up new build jobs, and anyone with a Master Key can do all these things... Also, if the dwelling-owning account gets deleted, whoever has a Master Key for the dwelling is the default to "inherit" the dwelling.

Hell, that might be the simplest way to do it, rather than give every individual individual rights, just assign them a number of keys, and set a flag for certain rooms to be "owner only" or "Master Key only" for locking/unlocking/decoration/building.

And move the locking/decorations/build jobs/key management/etc. to its own submenu in the dwelling, rather than having the dwelling owner see a completely different interface for their own dwelling(s) as they see for others...

Sorry, a bit off topic there, but yeah...for orphaned dwellings, maybe if you go by number of rooms, or decoration actions required for the flavor text, (or a mixture of both) to determine the "Value" of the house if it goes to auction? Seems fair to me...and if the dwelling surpasses a certain "value" it can't get automatically demolished (So Dunbernarding will stand forever)


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 28 2010 @ 10:21 PM
By: Hairy+Mary

Content:

Teh Dave's right. The key's idea even takes care of 'what happens if someone has to leave the Island but the account's not deleted' question. Although I suppose that in this case could someone else start cutting and handing out keys? Change the locks and withdraw keys?


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 29 2010 @ 12:15 AM
By: Cake+Ninja

Content:

Forgive me if this point has been brought up before, I have an awful memory for such things, but I would like to submit a point:

I have a dwelling that, like soup and pants, is there so people can have a nice warm... floor space to sleep on. Personally, if I disappear off the face of the island, I would like it to remain there as a monument to the kindness of the people on the island, as well as remaining to give everyone a place to sleep until newday. To me, it just doesn't seem right to simply destroy a dwelling like that just because nobody wants to buy it at auction because it doesn't have much decoration, so I think that there should be some sort of way to keep such dwellings around, perhaps if you go to the site of the dwelling you could do something that adds one to a counter and if that counter reaches a certain number that dwelling won't be destroyed?


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 29 2010 @ 03:43 AM
By: Count+Sessine

Content:

Quote by: Cake+Ninja

Forgive me if this point has been brought up before, I have an awful memory for such things, but I would like to submit a point:

I have a dwelling that, like soup and pants, is there so people can have a nice warm... floor space to sleep on. Personally, if I disappear off the face of the island, I would like it to remain there as a monument to the kindness of the people on the island, as well as remaining to give everyone a place to sleep until newday. To me, it just doesn't seem right to simply destroy a dwelling like that just because nobody wants to buy it at auction because it doesn't have much decoration, so I think that there should be some sort of way to keep such dwellings around, perhaps if you go to the site of the dwelling you could do something that adds one to a counter and if that counter reaches a certain number that dwelling won't be destroyed?

Somebody needs to be in charge of a dwelling, otherwise who'll cut the grass and kick the ghosts out?

If you should ever (heaven forbid) disappear off the Island, you'd most likely have some warning; you'd be able to scout around and find someone else to hand your dwelling over to, and there'd be no problem.

But hey, bad stuff does happen to good people. If it'll relieve your mind... I don't think I'm alone in valuing the soup and pants model of dwelling very highly. Tell me where your dwelling is, and I promise that if it ever does go to auction and nobody's buying it, I will.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 29 2010 @ 11:46 AM
By: Cake+Ninja

Content:

Quote by: Count+Sessine

Quote by: Cake+Ninja

Forgive me if this point has been brought up before, I have an awful memory for such things, but I would like to submit a point:

I have a dwelling that, like soup and pants, is there so people can have a nice warm... floor space to sleep on. Personally, if I disappear off the face of the island, I would like it to remain there as a monument to the kindness of the people on the island, as well as remaining to give everyone a place to sleep until newday. To me, it just doesn't seem right to simply destroy a dwelling like that just because nobody wants to buy it at auction because it doesn't have much decoration, so I think that there should be some sort of way to keep such dwellings around, perhaps if you go to the site of the dwelling you could do something that adds one to a counter and if that counter reaches a certain number that dwelling won't be destroyed?

Somebody needs to be in charge of a dwelling, otherwise who'll cut the grass and kick the ghosts out?

If you should ever (heaven forbid) disappear off the Island, you'd most likely have some warning; you'd be able to scout around and find someone else to hand your dwelling over to, and there'd be no problem.

But hey, bad stuff does happen to good people. If it'll relieve your mind... I don't think I'm alone in valuing the soup and pants model of dwelling very highly. Tell me where your dwelling is, and I promise that if it ever does go to auction and nobody's buying it, I will.

Thank you Sessine, It really does put my mind at ease. It's in PV, simply because it seemed like the best available spot to put such a building.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 29 2010 @ 03:05 PM
By: Hairy+Mary

Content:

Have to say Cake Ninja, as somebody who's used your place for the intended purpose, I'd put in a minimum bid for it, not because I particularly want to own it myself, but just to make sure that it didn't disappear.

By the way, how will we know when a place is up for auction? A message on the new day screen or something? It would have to be something active. If it was just a notice in council offices then no one would ever see it.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 29 2010 @ 05:57 PM
By: Count+Sessine

Content:

Er. I'd better say: None of this is official! It's only me, as player, going into hypothetical design mode. For fun. Big Grin It may never happen, or may happen quite differently -- Dan's the real designer and coder around here, and what he comes up with is generally way cooler than anything we players think up.

But the way I imagine it is, the external description would have FOR SALE appended to the description, so anyone passing by would know.

The auctions would happen on a regular schedule, maybe weekly, maybe only once a month. There might, yes, be a New Day notification of how many properties are currently slated to be sold in the next auction (quite often this would be zero).

Either in Suzie's Hardware, or in a separate real estate office next door, there'd be a list of properties up for sale, so prospective buyers could go and inspect them. That's also where bids would be entered once the auction started.

And yes, your earlier suggestion is a good one: all doors in these properties should be unlocked when they are placed on the list.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 29 2010 @ 07:48 PM
By: Cousjava

Content:

I just wish to say:

Thank you, Cake Ninja! Your dwelling may not be decorated, but I sleep there every night. I think its at least as important as Soup & Plants. I woul be will wiling to pay a vast amount of cigs for it, if it ever cam up at aution. (There is one problem though. I don't have vast amounts of cigs.)


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: April 29 2010 @ 07:48 PM
By: Reverb

Content:

The IBSREM office! It lives!


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 04 2010 @ 10:47 PM
By: blob

Content:

How about this: A housing tax and ability to sell house.
To be able to transfer ownership through a lawyer or a bank, which is the closest to something lawyer-like, would be great. Would boost the economy as well probably. I would say the house price could be fixed, determined by:

  1. ) Distance from the nearest outpost (getting this number would be a bit hard if terrain is considered, but once you have it, it's just a number stored for each square).
  2. ) Number of floor spaces and rooms
  3. ) Amount of decoration already in place

Alternatively, you have the option to put your house up for sale, and either give it to the first person offering a specified amount, or give a certain amount of time and have an auction.

Now, here's the problem with selling a house. Should the price only be requisition? In which case, selling a house would be either a very stupid idea or the price would be so high, only very few of the richest people could afford them.
On the other hand, allowing cigarettes in the price enables players to transfer cigarettes between each other.
Having a lawyer tax would fix the imbalance though, in my opinion. A lawyer tax would be twofold. First is a fixed tax, perhaps based on the previously stated criteria, and second is a percentage of the price. let's say 10%. This would prevent house thading to transfer cigarettes. Hopefully.

The other idea, the housing tax, would basically put houses of inactive players back on the market and give them to good hands. Basically, every so often (maybe once in every few real-time weeks) you would have to pay a certain amount of cigarettes in a given time period (10 cigarettes to be payed in one week). If you fail to pay your tax, your house gets posessed by the "authorities", and you perhaps have another week or so to buy it back for the price of tax plus penalties (100 cigarettes perhaps). If still nothing, house gets put to an auction at the bank. Or where you rent tools.
For the house-re-buying mechanism you guys actually had some pretty good ideas and some I would say are better than mine, so perhaps, people, who dropped logs and did some work at the house get to have the first pick at the auction.

But I think the system I describe here is a bit harsh for a game environment, this is why I am a bit skeptical of it. I would still like to hear your ideas of it though. Perhaps it even gets implemented.


p.s
The distance algorithm would require a bit of knowledge of graph theory. Each square is represented with a node, where the weight of the node is equal to action for that particular terrain type at level 100 (or 0, ratios should stay the same if I understand correctly) and is connected to it's neighbours with edges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijkstra's_algorithm
Using dijkstra's algorithm, you can get the shortest distances for each square, let that run for a while and you get the distances for each square. After that, the numbers are all you need, as the map is a static object. Sorted. Can I get my PhD now, please? Cool


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 05 2010 @ 02:11 AM
By: Syd+Lexic

Content:

Quote by: Reverb

The IBSREM office! It lives!



Erm... you mean that made up bureau with me appointed as the Orwellian-Big-Brother Surveillant-General? You didn't actually open an office, did you?

That means I have to show up somewhere occasionally!

This is going to really cut into my laziness.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 05 2010 @ 09:27 AM
By: Mr+Geppetto

Content:

Oh, no! I hear TAX! I hear OFFICE! Oh my, oh, my, oh my, please tell me guys you're just kidding! Please save this wonderful island of insanity of things like that, that plague this other insanity continent we call RL. If anyone starts thinking about revenue tax and VAT and healthcare issues I'm outta here. Please.

On the other hand, maybe on II one could have a huge bonus of something (I'm thinking hats or shoes) for actually killing (or at least severely maiming) the taxman? Bhahaha!

Yep, probably need therapy.*slinks off to buy yet another pair of shoes*

Seriously now, back to the matter at hand, I think auctioning them is a marvelous idea, I like what Sessine proposed as a system.

And, Cake Ninja, I'd also bid in for a place like yours, 'Shelter from the outdoors', isn't it?


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 05 2010 @ 05:52 PM
By: Count+Sessine

Content:

Quote by: Mr+Geppetto

Seriously now, back to the matter at hand, I think auctioning them is a marvelous idea, I like what Sessine proposed as a system.

And, Cake Ninja, I'd also bid in for a place like yours, 'Shelter from the outdoors', isn't it?

Lovely scheme, innit? With the clever adjustments that people have contributed here, it would address everything! Everything, I tell you! *pauses to admire...*

It has one little flaw, alas... one fatal flaw: it's a complicated bit of code that wouldn't get much use. It will never be written -- and shouldn't be.

*waves farewell to the pretty Auction Cloudcastle*

So what do you guys think of the new plan -- leaving it up to the admin, and us mods? Master keys should handle those cases where two or more active players want to share ongoing responsibility for a property; we'll look at those first if the initial stakeholder should leave the game.

For orphan dwellings with no master keys (it'll happen), we will listen, and use common sense.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 05 2010 @ 06:01 PM
By: Cake+Ninja

Content:

Indeed, that's the one. And I'm shocked by how many people have offered to buy the dwelling if I disappear. I'm also very happy due to the fact that so many people appreciate the place.

I would fight against* a cig tax on dwellings. Between helping SOUR max their buffs and building the shelter, I'd have no cigs to pay it with! And I enjoy having ownership of it, for comfort reasons.

*No, not like in the jungle.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 05 2010 @ 07:24 PM
By: Kash

Content:

I agree, a tax would be far too... heavy. Especially for people who occassionally have real lives and may not always have hours a day to cig-hunt (or the RL cash to buy them with DPs). It would penalize people simply for not playing enough, rather than just for not playing at all by which I mean deleting their account and/or dying IRL. I wouldn't want to lose Kash's dugout simply because the tax date fell in the middle of finals and I was busy at work and didn't have time to grind for the 100 cig penalties. Especially since only two people even know where the dugout is and that other person maybe would care enough to notice that the dugout is in danger of being lost.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 05 2010 @ 07:48 PM
By: Reverb

Content:

Quote by: Kash

I agree, a tax would be far too... heavy.



The word you're looking for would be 'taxing'.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 05 2010 @ 08:53 PM
By: Kash

Content:

That's actually the very word I was avoiding. But thanks for trying to help.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 06 2010 @ 07:39 PM
By: Cousjava

Content:

A taxman? Kill it? *Runs off to the moster submission tent. *


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 06 2010 @ 09:56 PM
By: blob

Content:

Quote by: Cousjava

A taxman? Kill it? *Runs off to the moster submission tent. *



AAAAARGH! Beat me to it! Just came back to check replies and thought "Hmm, might work as a monster. Maybe if...". Then saw your comemnt. Haha. Brilliant.

Ok, looks like people aren't keen on taxman idea. And I did think it would just be a punishment for some people, instead of opening up the house for others.

How about this. An orphaned house becomes open to public. From what I understand, you can not destroy houses, so the worst thing a person would see after coming back after a long time would be a bigger house, with some rooms occupied, which s/he can still lock again after coming back. The only question is description, or "decorating", for which I don't really have a solution.

So, I would say, unless you have given out master keys to people and have been away for a long time, your house becomes open to public, from which you will not really be pained, because once you come back, you can still kick the squatters out (or at least lock the house again).

And perhaps open up a real-estate market so people could trade houses and perhaps even start up some RP construction companies. But have a transaction tax imposed, so it still makes it hard for people to transfer cigarettes to others. And then, some time down the line, watch the real-estate bubble collapse Twisted Evil

This any better?


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 07 2010 @ 02:58 AM
By: Kash

Content:

How about this. An orphaned house becomes open to public. From what I understand, you can not destroy houses, so the worst thing a person would see after coming back after a long time...


The continuing issue here is that if the owner can at some point come back to their account (i.e. they are alive and their account still exists) then the dwelling is not orphaned. Why would you implement a system like this, where houses are being taken from their owners or being controlled by non-owners when the owner is still around? You'd never consider it in real life, like if someone owned property in one place but lived somewhere else... just because they're not often on site at the property doesn't mean that it has been orphaned, and thus can't be given to someone else (or otherwise transferred without the owner's permission). So why consider it here? Especially since many people have paid real cash (i.e. legal tender) to produce and own these things (that is, legally own, enforceable by law).

In other words, the same considerations should be made for properties on Improbable Island as would be made in real life... which for now mostly means not yanking them away from living, if absent, owners.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 07 2010 @ 05:21 AM
By: Ochris

Content:

Quote by: Kash


In other words, the same considerations should be made for properties on Improbable Island as would be made in real life... which for now mostly means not yanking them away from living, if absent, owners.



I believe we're talking about the dwellings linked to non-permanent accounts. Absent players relinquish their claim to their characters as well as their virtual realty.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 07 2010 @ 02:10 PM
By: Reverb

Content:

Quote by: Kash

That's actually the very word I was avoiding. But thanks for trying to help.



It's always a pleasure to point out the obvious Big Grin


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 07 2010 @ 02:15 PM
By: Kash

Content:

Quote by: Ochris

Absent players relinquish their claim to their characters as well as their virtual realty.



Then they can't come back, can they? And that's the main deciding factor for whether or not to "repossess" a dwelling in the first place. The proposed tax systems all affect players that are still playing. In fact, blob's post specifically mentioned, twice, players coming back... which means that either their account is permanent or they are at least around enough to keep it from being deleted. In either case it would be poor government (and I do mean on CMJ's part, since the Island has no government) to start giving away dwellings, or even selling them, from nominally active players.

Speaking of government... if the Island has no government, who would implement taxes in the first place? And... why?


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 07 2010 @ 07:35 PM
By: Cousjava

Content:

Quote by: blob

Quote by: Cousjava

A taxman? Kill it? *Runs off to the moster submission tent. *



AAAAARGH! Beat me to it! Just came back to check replies and thought "Hmm, might work as a monster. Maybe if...". Then saw your comemnt. Haha. Brilliant.

Ok, looks like people aren't keen on taxman idea. And I did think it would just be a punishment for some people, instead of opening up the house for others.

How about this. An orphaned house becomes open to public. From what I understand, you can not destroy houses, so the worst thing a person would see after coming back after a long time would be a bigger house, with some rooms occupied, which s/he can still lock again after coming back. The only question is description, or "decorating", for which I don't really have a solution.

So, I would say, unless you have given out master keys to people and have been away for a long time, your house becomes open to public, from which you will not really be pained, because once you come back, you can still kick the squatters out (or at least lock the house again).

And perhaps open up a real-estate market so people could trade houses and perhaps even start up some RP construction companies. But have a transaction tax imposed, so it still makes it hard for people to transfer cigarettes to others. And then, some time down the line, watch the real-estate bubble collapse Twisted Evil

This any better?



You can try as well. But surely bubbles never burst on Improbable Island.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 07 2010 @ 10:09 PM
By: Amerithe

Content:

At the moment, I can't afford a master key to give to Alternatecash, but I did buy a front door key for Nessa. If my account expired(it won't now, I bought the permanent thing unless it failed to acknowledge me), I'd want the house to go to Alt. If there are no Master keys assigned, would lower level keys be considered for possible inheritance, would keyholders outrank spouse for inheritance, and would it be hard to put an input box somewhere in the house where an owner could specify who the house should go to, in order, and be easily updateable?

I suppose I was thinking something like in the preferences menu, but then you'd need one for each house, so maybe one in each building, only accessable to the owner and visible to mods? You'd probably get some people putting in nonsense, but I think most would use it. You probably wouldn't need to set it up to be functional, just somewhere to put down an owners request for who'd inherit, to be viewed if necessary by someone with the power to transfer possession of a dwelling. You could put in like five spots, in case the next account(or three) was expired by the time the document became needed. Also, if the next inheritor expires before they change the Will, it'd go to the next person originally written down. Of course, each owner would have a chance to write in a new list, but they wouldn't need to. You could even write in a description about accessing a safe somewhere in the dwelling, with secret codes, and all sorts of sneakiness. Just an idea.

Also, in the case of permanent accounts, perhaps there'd be a spot to indicate after how long one would want care transferred over. I'd be horribly depressed to get a permanent account and have my house taken away from me after a month. Honestly, anything less than five months would probably make me sad. I'm very possessive of my lovely house, that I've sunk so much effort into. By the way, you should all stop by. First square Northwest of Kit.

Edit: Because he's too lazy to get his own forum account, Alt would like to suggest a bit about how if one inherited a dwelling, they'd get served papers about it next time they enter an outpost, with a header about "You got served!". He's ridiculous, but I heart him anyways. And mentioning that will annoy him. >^.^<


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 07 2010 @ 10:57 PM
By: Kash

Content:

I still don't see what everyone's fascination with giving away still-owned dwellings is...


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 08 2010 @ 12:51 AM
By: Count+Sessine

Content:

Quote by: Kash

I still don't see what everyone's fascination with giving away still-owned dwellings is...

Nor do I.

And what's all this talk about taxes? This is a game. Games are supposed to be fun. Taxes are not fun. Why would anybody want there to be taxes?


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 15 2010 @ 11:14 AM
By: Wongo+the+Sane

Content:

Ok, I only read through the first page-and-a-half, so apologies if someone has suggested this before...

The possibility of leaving a dwelling (such as the Dumbernarding) to a clan?
'Ownership' would default to all officers and/or founders (so they could cut keys, pick the next development job, etc - don't have a house so I don't know the technicalities), and the property would only count as 'Abandoned' if there were no officers/founders left in the clan.


Re: Dwelling orphans

Posted on: May 31 2010 @ 08:17 AM
By: Amerithe

Content:

Any reaction to my suggestion about leaving a will, or a better method to formally suggest it? I'm really taken with the idea..


The Improbable Island Enquirer - Forum
http://enquirer.improbableisland.com/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=13578