Enquirer Home Page | Twitter | Back to Improbable Island

 Forum Index > Season Two > Development New Topic Post Reply
 Abandoned Dwellings (again)
 |  Printable Version
Cenobite
 Friday, December 10 2010 @ 07:21 PM UTC  
Forum Newbie
Newbie

Status: offline

Registered: 12/08/10
Posts: 13

I have to agree with Dizzy on this one. I could have a Gym Membership fee and use that to keep the tax off.


Once you understand the nature of the human mind you leave nothing to chance.
 
Profile Email
Quote
Swede
 Friday, December 10 2010 @ 07:29 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 05/27/10
Posts: 127

Quote by: Hairy+Mary

Um, 25k divided by 20req/day = 1250 days, well over three years. So yes, that would be the most likely happening. As soon as someone grabs a land stake in a wild fit of enthusiasm they put a few grand in the bank, and we're in exactly the same position as before.


Sorry, for some reason a tax of 200/day was in my head when calculating this. Oops!
Anyway it only makes my point.


 
Profile Email
Quote
CavemanJoe
 Friday, December 10 2010 @ 08:13 PM UTC  
Forum Admin
Admin

Status: offline

Registered: 02/24/08
Posts: 2281

Well, if we say 20 Req per game day, and there's six game days per real day, then that's 120 req per 24 hours, or 840 req per week. 208 days for 25k Req. There's yer daily dose of gameday vs realday confusion. Smile

Yes, we probably need a cap of, say, five thou.


 
Profile Email Website
Quote
dizzyizzy
 Friday, December 10 2010 @ 08:14 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/13/10
Posts: 503

Here's an idea: It might be really, really complicated to code, but what if there was a limit to how much a dwelling owner could put in, but it could be exceeded by other accounts?


 
Profile Email
Quote
CavemanJoe
 Friday, December 10 2010 @ 08:16 PM UTC  
Forum Admin
Admin

Status: offline

Registered: 02/24/08
Posts: 2281

Quote by: dizzyizzy

Here's an idea: It might be really, really complicated to code, but what if there was a limit to how much a dwelling owner could put in, but it could be exceeded by other accounts?



Wouldn't be all that complicated to code, but I think that's a bit arbitrary. There's no good in-world reason to do that, and it reminds people that they're playing a game. I don't think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.


 
Profile Email Website
Quote
Anonymous: Matthew, too lazy to log in
 Saturday, December 11 2010 @ 12:47 AM UTC  


Quote by: Hairy+Mary

Last. There may be some people still on the Island with undeveloped plots, where they've already realised that they're never going to get round to developing them and would be quite happy to cash them back in for the eighty cigs. So perhaps put in a mechanism where any owner can trade a building in for the cigs if they so wish, they don't have to wait for the time up and then for someone else to take the plot.

That'd also be nice...but if that happens, I'd also like to see the already-discussed non-owner mode toggle included as well. Because on top of building jobs, decorating jobs, locking/unlocking, teleport bacons, kicking out sleepers, etc, that'd just be more clutter on the left side of the screen.


 
Quote
Hairy Mary
 Saturday, December 11 2010 @ 01:39 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/17/08
Posts: 1083

Whoops yes, I was counting RL days rather than game days there. Oops!
Matthew. That's a different issue, but yes. I quite agree. A non-owner view toggle would be most pleasing.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Beeps
 Saturday, December 11 2010 @ 08:01 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 10/03/10
Posts: 400

Quote by: Hairy+Mary

Quote by: Swede

25k is about 4 months.


Um, 25k divided by 20req/day = 1250 days, well over three years. So yes, that would be the most likely happening. As soon as someone grabs a land stake in a wild fit of enthusiasm they put a few grand in the bank, and we're in exactly the same position as before.


Divide by six, since you have six game days per day. Five months, but still closer to the original calculation.
Quote by: Hairy+Mary

Having a time limit of how long you can pay in advance seems like a better idea.

What about people who know that they're going to be away for some while but intend to return. Xith's weather station springs to mind. Maybe have some sort of gadget similar to the 'don't delete this account ring' for such dwellings? Maybe only usable on dwellings that have got at least the exterior and first room decorated?

Also, the 'send a distraction if the tax fund runs out' part. I've got a character, Skronky, who has a dwelling (Skronky top secret HQ). I only use her for role playing, and so I often don't log in as Skronky for some while. Also, her account doesn't have an email for it since she was the third character I created and I've only got two email addresses, and I didn't see the point of making a new email account just for her, she gets distractions very rarely, and I'd just never look at it. Would it be possible to have multiple characters with the same email? By the way, distractions don't seem to be going to emails again at the moment for some reason.

Last. There may be some people still on the Island with undeveloped plots, where they've already realised that they're never going to get round to developing them and would be quite happy to cash them back in for the eighty cigs. So perhaps put in a mechanism where any owner can trade a building in for the cigs if they so wish, they don't have to wait for the time up and then for someone else to take the plot.


What about the option to link it to your Bank account? Theoretically, even if the tax is something heavy, you could probably set up an account so that even on a 1% interest day, you make enough to pay the taxes and keep it going. This gives people who know they're leaving (Either temporarily or permanently) a way to try to ensure that their dwelling will be available after they're gone (Or when they come back). It does mean you have to plan ahead if you're going to leave, which works out well - Those who just up and take off don't set up their bank accounts, and eventually the dwelling is archived. Those who want a dwelling to be somewhat permanent and don't want to lose it could, theoretically, set up the dwelling and bank account on an alt (Doesn't work for the existing ones I know, sorry) so that they don't have to worry about not having the req for it after a DK.


Goat Collector
 
Profile Email
Quote
Hairy Mary
 Saturday, December 11 2010 @ 04:11 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/17/08
Posts: 1083

Quote by: Beeps

What about the option to link it to your Bank account? Theoretically, even if the tax is something heavy, you could probably set up an account so that even on a 1% interest day, you make enough to pay the taxes and keep it going. This gives people who know they're leaving (Either temporarily or permanently) a way to try to ensure that their dwelling will be available after they're gone (Or when they come back). It does mean you have to plan ahead if you're going to leave, which works out well - Those who just up and take off don't set up their bank accounts, and eventually the dwelling is archived. Those who want a dwelling to be somewhat permanent and don't want to lose it could, theoretically, set up the dwelling and bank account on an alt (Doesn't work for the existing ones I know, sorry) so that they don't have to worry about not having the req for it after a DK.



Well that defeats the whole point in the first place. This wasn't meant to be that you had to show ongoing interest by being prepared to pay req, rather it was meant to show ongoing interest by being prepared to go and do something about it once in a while. If you can have automatic payments from a bank account then people will set that up to start with and then forget about it.

However this 'have to do something about it once in a while' seems to be in direct opposition to 'I'm leaving the Island for a while, but would like to still have the dwelling on my return' I'm not sure how to reconcile the two.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Count Sessine
 Saturday, December 11 2010 @ 05:52 PM UTC  
Forum Moderator
Moderator

Status: offline

Registered: 08/16/08
Posts: 1402

Quote by: Hairy+Mary

...This wasn't meant to be that you had to show ongoing interest by being prepared to pay req, rather it was meant to show ongoing interest by being prepared to go and do something about it once in a while. If you can have automatic payments from a bank account then people will set that up to start with and then forget about it.

However this 'have to do something about it once in a while' seems to be in direct opposition to 'I'm leaving the Island for a while, but would like to still have the dwelling on my return' I'm not sure how to reconcile the two.

If mods get the power to set a building to "do not delete" then people can ask us. The point of the exercise isn't to scour the island clean of dwellings owned by anyone who gets a little bit careless or unlucky! It's cleanup. Garbage collection. Clearing out those dwellings that really-truly nobody cares about, that are only cluttering the landscape.

Reasonable requests like 'I'm leaving the Island for a bit because I have to, but I am coming back and, please, I'd like my dwelling to still be here?" will be listened to!


 
Profile Email
Quote
CavemanJoe
 Saturday, December 11 2010 @ 06:48 PM UTC  
Forum Admin
Admin

Status: offline

Registered: 02/24/08
Posts: 2281

See, this is why we have the option for anyone to put in their rent money - anyone who cares about the Dwelling, even in the slightest, gets the option to keep it alive. We'll have a mod-override feature, but that's more of a safety net.


 
Profile Email Website
Quote
Anonymous: blob
 Sunday, December 12 2010 @ 08:19 AM UTC  


*starts digging up some old posts*
http://enquirer.improbableisland.com/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=13578
*rushes to submit taxman monster*
I reckon we'll come back to the ownership transfer dilemma again.


 
Quote
crashtestpilot
 Sunday, December 12 2010 @ 11:34 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 10/29/08
Posts: 351

Are you trying to tell us where this is going to go, or are you putting it up for discussion?

Agreed: Abandoned Dwellings are problematic. Wasted space. I get it.
This is an artifact of the way the dwellings were introduced.
This is also an artifact of the cataclysm.
I imagine others had a hard time maintaining interest.
I know I did.
60+ days later, we recovered.
That's a long time for casual players.
It was a long time for me, and I play(ed) avidly.

I would submit that there are tiers of states of abandonment; it is not monolithic.

a) You have reserved sites that have not undergone development. I have some of these.
b) You have reserved sites that underwent some development, but have not yet recovered from the cataclysm. I have some of these, too.
c) You have previously developed sites that have not undergone redevelopment owing to player disaffection. I do not have any of these, but I know of several.
d) You have previously developed sites that are undergoing redevelopment, or have significantly redeveloped.
e) You have previously developed sites that are redeveloped, and are expanding. I have one of these.

Those in class d and e are not the problem.
Classes a through c are.

Adding to the burdens of class d and e is unlikely to have positive consequences. I get the idea that one-size fits all solutions are easier.
But really, your principal objection is to abandonware.
I think a response should be targeted accordingly.

That's my two cents.


~CTP


 
Profile Email
Quote
Buddleia
 Monday, December 13 2010 @ 12:39 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 04/23/10
Posts: 343

Another thing that could be done, to weed out the abandoned sites. Send a Distraction to the owners - and maybe keyholders, if that's not too hard to look up - saying, "these are the dwellings you are listed as owning; if you do not reply (or click a link, or whatever) with which ones you want to keep within [x time], they will be deleted."

Or: leave a message in each dwelling (all 635-ish), with the same message, but anyone who goes in and sees it would be able to send/click the Don't Kill Me thing.

That'd be a one-time thing, obviously. The tax would work as an ongoing cleanup method.


Improbable Reference Links - goo.gl/MRBnb -------------- Land Registry (map of Places) ---- goo.gl/bpkRR
 
Profile Email Website
Quote
crashtestpilot
 Monday, December 13 2010 @ 01:33 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 10/29/08
Posts: 351

To peg off of Buddleia's idea:

Perhaps it ought to work like abandonware characters:
Distract those who are Master Keyholders & Owners with a "do stuff or lose it" type letter with the usual "and tell us why!" addendum.

Perhaps, too, to deal with ownership, tag the owners with a way of ESTABLISHING ownership beyond Master Keys.

Such as: This building is willed to the clan.
Or this group of folks.

My point is, before establishing a tax, allow characters to better establish chains of ownership/responsibility & accountability.

I also forgot a second bit in my last "parsing of types of dwellings" post:

Size and/or total number of characters (ASCII) in their description.

Over at SPICE Tower, we've been resisting enqueuing descriptions because, well, we were rebuilding.
And clearly, it was the descriptions that BORKED EVERYTHING.
And we wanted to allow for LOTS OF EXTRA TIME IN CASE IT HAPPENED AGAIN.

Well, so far so good (Yay!), but now we're looking at re-encoding a SMALL BOOK worth of stuff.

In a similar (albeit infinitely greater) vein, there's Dunbernarding (which is never done...bernarding...) and a variety of other dwellings that, candidly, are quite expansive, and have had a LOT OF THOUGHT put into them.

The idea that these will be subject to some kind of building tax is tantamount to saying:

"Hey, thanks for all the great work, dedication, tonnes of cigs, and team effort (or, if not a team effort a TRULY heroic individual effort) that you've put into your building. Now, that's an awfully nice building you've got on your hands...be a shame if something happened to it. Oh, and here's a fire insurance policy."

vs. saying to the owner of a vacant lot:

"Hi. We're the planning commission. Either develop your title, or surrender it to eminent domain. We've got a city to build here."

To my mind this is a BIG difference.

Perhaps some of you may agree.

Happy holidays,

~CTP


 
Profile Email
Quote
Hairy Mary
 Monday, December 13 2010 @ 03:12 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/17/08
Posts: 1083

CTP:
I think that your analogy with Squathole Fire Insurance is a little strong. For a start the tax is deliberately a pittance. 20 req per game day you have to find. 120 req per real day. That's what? One monster killed in the jungle? Depends what level you're at maybe. OK then. One gamedays interest at the bank as long as you've got 12 000 req+ in there. To make just enough interest, you need 2000 req in the bank to be absolutely sure, and just 670 on average.

OK. You stay religiously at lvl 1 with nothing in the bank. Well in that case its something you've got to work at a little bit, but not that much. Or someone else can pay on your behalf.

Worst case. You stay religously at lvl 1 with nothing in the bank. No one else gives a rats arse about your dwelling and you don't much care either. In this case yes. The dwelling might start looking at being demolished. But only start. Next step. Human beings look at it, in the shape of mods. They can keep it anyway if they want. You can petition and ask to keep it.

So. The only time a dwelling is going to disappear from under you is if neither you nor anyone else think that its worth keeping. In which case, well, perhaps it is worth letting go.

Reserved sites that the owner fully intends to get round to, but hasn't visited recently, and has temporarily forgotten about. The owner will eventually receive a notice saying "Ahem, do you still want me?" The owner says "Whoops yes." Dwelling stays.

CMJ has quite strongly emphasised that if there's doubt, the dwelling will stay.


Having said that, if players are getting that unfortunate impression, then maybe you could have a time limit for each dwelling, which is reset every time anyone posts a comment in the building?

That said I wouldn't have thought that this would be much of a problem. If you're at the stage where you can afford the cigs to plant a plot, then you're at the stage where you can handle money well enough to know that 20 req a day is peanuts.


 
Profile Email
Quote
crashtestpilot
 Monday, December 13 2010 @ 06:01 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 10/29/08
Posts: 351

Okay -- thoughtful reply, thanks for that.

I concede that the Squat Hole fire insurance analogy may, in fact, be a bit strong.
I like analogies that paint a picture. So, glad that came across. But, yeah, not trying to burn the conversational house down with analogies that may be too vivid. Smile

I agree that the proposed tax is a pittance, easy to maintain, and generally non-bothersome. At least for me.

My point is that the approach casts too wide a net to attempt to fix a specific problem that could be addressed in a more targeted way.
And that the tax approach may be discouraging.

IE, why disincentivize the players that are ACTUALLY contributing the most user-generated content to the game (other than say, RPing)?

From a game-as-product, or game-as-social media perspective, this is a hazard that other games have fallen into. I'd prefer not to see it here, when other approaches might be more effective.

Having a time or activity meter on a property, or parsing properties by total content would, I think, be better paths.

That's my point.

All best,

~CTP


 
Profile Email
Quote
tehdave
 Monday, December 13 2010 @ 06:19 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 12/17/09
Posts: 429

Quote by: crashtestpilot

IE, why disincentivize the players that are ACTUALLY contributing the most user-generated content to the game (other than say, RPing)?

Having a time or activity meter on a property, or parsing properties by total content would, I think, be better paths.



The problem there is...some properties are loved even without getting much in the way of "activity" in them. (posting, here)
Some (like the Miereville(sp?) Mansion or Thistlewhite Manor, etc.) are very well-done and well-written settings that maybe don't see much in the way of RP in them (I remember a Murder Mystery Dinner at Thistlewhite Manor, but that was ages ago).
Others are like, say, the Blueberry Patch. Interesting little pieces of land, but not built-up at all. Still useful to keep around though.

I don't see how a pittance like 20req/day is a disincentive here...or at least, I can't see it being as big as you apparently do. If it was 1 cig/day or something, yeah, I could see that being a different story. The only thing about a 20r/day/dwelling that I could see being a disincentive, would be people with multiple dwellings. Someone with one dwelling is paying 20 req/day. Someone with 4 dwellings is paying 80 req/day. 5 dwellings would be 100 req/day. Still very reasonable if we can drop a chunk in late in a DK when we're flush.


Isn't sanity just a one-trick pony anyway? All you get is one trick: rational thinking. But when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, the sky's the limit.
 
Profile Email
Quote
Beeps
 Monday, December 13 2010 @ 07:01 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 10/03/10
Posts: 400

Quote by: tehdave

Quote by: crashtestpilot

IE, why disincentivize the players that are ACTUALLY contributing the most user-generated content to the game (other than say, RPing)?

Having a time or activity meter on a property, or parsing properties by total content would, I think, be better paths.



The problem there is...some properties are loved even without getting much in the way of "activity" in them. (posting, here)
Some (like the Miereville(sp?) Mansion or Thistlewhite Manor, etc.) are very well-done and well-written settings that maybe don't see much in the way of RP in them (I remember a Murder Mystery Dinner at Thistlewhite Manor, but that was ages ago).
Others are like, say, the Blueberry Patch. Interesting little pieces of land, but not built-up at all. Still useful to keep around though.

I don't see how a pittance like 20req/day is a disincentive here...or at least, I can't see it being as big as you apparently do. If it was 1 cig/day or something, yeah, I could see that being a different story. The only thing about a 20r/day/dwelling that I could see being a disincentive, would be people with multiple dwellings. Someone with one dwelling is paying 20 req/day. Someone with 4 dwellings is paying 80 req/day. 5 dwellings would be 100 req/day. Still very reasonable if we can drop a chunk in late in a DK when we're flush.


I do see where CTP is coming from on this, to an extent. It's a minimal cost, yes, but it's also adding onto what is currently one of the most expensive systems in the game. There are... What, four items that cost 100 cigs that must be paid for by a single person (The largest backpack, the largest bandolier, the Scrambler, and a stake)? And the stake is just the beginning of this - Depending on if you pay SP for a builder's brew, etcetera, you're looking at an investment of days and maybe a dozen more cigarettes before you get to "Single-Room dwelling belonging to _____" status. Others can donate stone and logs, but can't decorate without a key, which means you either pay the cigs for a key (Which I understand is almost as much as the stake?) or do all the decorating yourself. While a small fee per day does help deter people from racking up empty plots, it also punishes those who have spent the time and effort to build large structures, and further deters people from starting a new dwelling because it adds on to the already extreme costs. While some of the dwellings in question are established to some extent, it seems like the main focus of this is to handle people who've put out half a dozen stakes across the island (Just how many undeveloped plots does Komppa have, anyway?). Perhaps making the tax leaner on those who are actively developing their plots would help in this regard - Property value improvement deductible, or something. That way, dwellings that are being actively used (by way of donations by other players) or constructed (by way of being built on by the owner or others) aren't also getting a 120r-per-real-day fee.


Goat Collector
 
Profile Email
Quote
dizzyizzy
 Monday, December 13 2010 @ 08:20 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/13/10
Posts: 503

Quote by: Beeps

Quote by: tehdave

Quote by: crashtestpilot

IE, why disincentivize the players that are ACTUALLY contributing the most user-generated content to the game (other than say, RPing)?

Having a time or activity meter on a property, or parsing properties by total content would, I think, be better paths.



The problem there is...some properties are loved even without getting much in the way of "activity" in them. (posting, here)
Some (like the Miereville(sp?) Mansion or Thistlewhite Manor, etc.) are very well-done and well-written settings that maybe don't see much in the way of RP in them (I remember a Murder Mystery Dinner at Thistlewhite Manor, but that was ages ago).
Others are like, say, the Blueberry Patch. Interesting little pieces of land, but not built-up at all. Still useful to keep around though.

I don't see how a pittance like 20req/day is a disincentive here...or at least, I can't see it being as big as you apparently do. If it was 1 cig/day or something, yeah, I could see that being a different story. The only thing about a 20r/day/dwelling that I could see being a disincentive, would be people with multiple dwellings. Someone with one dwelling is paying 20 req/day. Someone with 4 dwellings is paying 80 req/day. 5 dwellings would be 100 req/day. Still very reasonable if we can drop a chunk in late in a DK when we're flush.


I do see where CTP is coming from on this, to an extent. It's a minimal cost, yes, but it's also adding onto what is currently one of the most expensive systems in the game. There are... What, four items that cost 100 cigs that must be paid for by a single person (The largest backpack, the largest bandolier, the Scrambler, and a stake)? And the stake is just the beginning of this - Depending on if you pay SP for a builder's brew, etcetera, you're looking at an investment of days and maybe a dozen more cigarettes before you get to "Single-Room dwelling belonging to _____" status. Others can donate stone and logs, but can't decorate without a key, which means you either pay the cigs for a key (Which I understand is almost as much as the stake?) or do all the decorating yourself. While a small fee per day does help deter people from racking up empty plots, it also punishes those who have spent the time and effort to build large structures, and further deters people from starting a new dwelling because it adds on to the already extreme costs. While some of the dwellings in question are established to some extent, it seems like the main focus of this is to handle people who've put out half a dozen stakes across the island (Just how many undeveloped plots does Komppa have, anyway?). Perhaps making the tax leaner on those who are actively developing their plots would help in this regard - Property value improvement deductible, or something. That way, dwellings that are being actively used (by way of donations by other players) or constructed (by way of being built on by the owner or others) aren't also getting a 120r-per-real-day fee.


People can decorate without a key, btw. But i think I might somewhat agree with this. I'd have to see numbers.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Content generated in: 1.48 seconds
New Topic Post Reply



 All times are UTC. The time is now 01:19 AM.

Normal Topic Normal Topic
Locked Topic Locked Topic
Sticky Topic Sticky Topic
New Post New Post
Sticky Topic W/ New Post Sticky Topic W/ New Post
Locked Topic W/ New Post Locked Topic W/ New Post
View Anonymous Posts 
Anonymous users can post 
Filtered HTML Allowed 
Censored Content