Enquirer Home Page | Twitter | Back to Improbable Island

 Forum Index > Season Two > Development New Topic Post Reply
 Abandoned Dwellings (again)
 |  Printable Version
Count Sessine
 Monday, December 13 2010 @ 09:13 PM UTC  
Forum Moderator
Moderator

Status: offline

Registered: 08/16/08
Posts: 1402

I have, believe it or not, spent quite a while thinking about this. On balance, I am convinced a one-size-fits-all solution is going to be a bad idea. I'm against even a minimal tax.

The reason we have so many abandoned dwellings right now is that there has not been any tool to remove them. Of course they have accumulated! But code is a blunt instrument. The only dwellings I'd be comfortable seeing deleted by an automated routine are those where:

1. The owner account no longer exists, AND
2. The dwelling is nothing but a stake in the ground, or an undecorated one-room dwelling.

In CTP's categories of a, b, and c, there are plenty of others that should go, but only after someone, a human being, has thought about it, asked the right questions, and considered the options. The proposed tax makes it a matter of "voting with reqs." It assumes that players will have to keep on remembering to do something -- regularly -- and if everyone happens to forget, hey, it's okay to make bad things happen.

This is a game. Death, sure, we knew there'd be death when we signed up. But do we have to let bloody Taxes in the door?


 
Profile Email
Quote
Anonymous: Someone Purple
 Monday, December 13 2010 @ 09:30 PM UTC  


Quote by: Count+Sessine



This is a game. Death, sure, we knew there'd be death when we signed up. But do we have to let bloody Taxes in the door?



For some reason I read that as "Texas." Do we have to let bloody Texas in the door?


 
Quote
LadyRavenSkye
 Monday, December 13 2010 @ 09:57 PM UTC  
Forum Contender
Contender

Status: offline

Registered: 04/29/10
Posts: 59

I had been waiting to add in my opinion on this topic until I had enough time to think about it.

If you don't feel like reading everything, to sum it up: I disagree with the tax idea.

I play this game mostly for two things right now, building and RP. I do not care for DK ranks after the 12 DK. I like to sit, at level 1-5 with 100,000 req in the bank, and use impy bombs for cigs, then use them to cut down trees, and mine stone... then type up 500 character descriptions for really amazing places for people to send their characters too, while I add these stones and logs to a dwelling. I like to make sleeping spaces for squatters, and rooms for people.

I have three land stakes. The Tent By the Shore, South Shore, and a undecorated single room dwelling that I am still mapping out to be South Shore's Improbable Country Club & Golf Course. That will, be 20*3 = 60req each game day.... and if there is a five day limit on how much I can put into my dwellings, that is... 300? It does not seem a lot to 100,000, but, if I spend 3000 on food ever four game days, plus the 20K+ on oneshots... eventually the 300 will build up and eventually run out (when I do DK... it takes me a long time, and lots of crates to build up to 100,000.) This situation seems like it will be easy as pie... but from someone who will have to pay taxes, it seems to add on an unneeded annoyance to my favorite aspect of the game.

What really needs to be looked at, is first--the plots that belong to people who do not play anymore. The unbuilt plots are the real sticks in the mud here, and this reminds me of high school... so-so much. If someone bought a land stake, placed it, but never built on it, then, stopped playing; why should us, who play, and take of our dwellings be the ones who are punished?


 
Profile Email
Quote
Akogi
 Monday, December 13 2010 @ 11:04 PM UTC  
Forum Badass
Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/07/09
Posts: 76

Quote by: Count+Sessine

The only dwellings I'd be comfortable seeing deleted by an automated routine are those where:

1. The owner account no longer exists, AND
2. The dwelling is nothing but a stake in the ground, or an undecorated one-room dwelling.

In CTP's categories of a, b, and c, there are plenty of others that should go, but only after someone, a human being, has thought about it, asked the right questions, and considered the options.



I agree that dwellings like that should be deleted. I also think that any dwellings that are still broken since the dwelling cataclysm should also be deleted by now even if the owner is still around - though they should be reminded that they have a broken dwelling that would be deleted.

One way that could help reduce the amount of dwellings on a, b or c on CTP's list could be to have a market where you could put your dwelling on it if you felt that you didn't want it anymore or if your account got deleted and there was no one who had a master key for it. Any dwelling that goes on this market and stays on there for than a month or so should be deleted. If you've put a dwelling onto the market, you should be able to change your mind and take the dwelling back so it doesn't get deleted. Instead of having an auction over the dwelling like mentioned in a previous thread, how about a set price of roughly 80 cigs or so for a stake in the ground and then go up 3 or 4 cigs for each completed room (including the first room) and 2 cigs for each non-default decorated room plus any furniture that is in the dwelling.

If the system could append on the dwelling descriptions on the world map that there's a for sale sign for every dwelling on this market that would be a good way for people to know which ones are for sale.

But this doesn't help the problem about some people who have created dwellings and then left the game but their account wouldn't die since they have a permanent account. I wouldn't feel bad if someone who hasn't logged in for more than 150 days had their stakes or undecorated one room dwellings deleted as long as they were compensated with the market value of their dwelling and note in their inventory to say what happened to their dwelling(s) so when they do come back they are not left with wondering where their dwelling went and then feel as if they got nothing.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Awesome Fred
 Monday, December 13 2010 @ 11:25 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 03/01/10
Posts: 586

Quote by: Count+Sessine

I have, believe it or not, spent quite a while thinking about this. On balance, I am convinced a one-size-fits-all solution is going to be a bad idea. I'm against even a minimal tax.

The reason we have so many abandoned dwellings right now is that there has not been any tool to remove them. Of course they have accumulated! But code is a blunt instrument. The only dwellings I'd be comfortable seeing deleted by an automated routine are those where:

1. The owner account no longer exists, AND
2. The dwelling is nothing but a stake in the ground, or an undecorated one-room dwelling.

In CTP's categories of a, b, and c, there are plenty of others that should go, but only after someone, a human being, has thought about it, asked the right questions, and considered the options. The proposed tax makes it a matter of "voting with reqs." It assumes that players will have to keep on remembering to do something -- regularly -- and if everyone happens to forget, hey, it's okay to make bad things happen.

This is a game. Death, sure, we knew there'd be death when we signed up. But do we have to let bloody Taxes in the door?



I fully agree with you, Sessine. I've been silent not out of any deliberate mulling over the topic, but plain ol' not having time to write a solid response. But now I don't gotta.

The blight on the landscape are the plots and undecorated one-room dwellings that have no potential of development. CTP is right in saying it should be a solution targetted to these problems. Property taxes will probably be an annoying game mechanic that you don't wanna put up with--it's not an interesting dynamic, at the least.

After removing the dwellings that have no potential of development, the ones that are placed down by a player who has no intention of developing should be able to be removed by the player him or herself, possibly for a full or partial refund, or maybe not.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Paul Lo
 Tuesday, December 14 2010 @ 12:27 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/25/09
Posts: 163

Quote by: Awesome+Fred



After removing the dwellings that have no potential of development, the ones that are placed down by a player who has no intention of developing should be able to be removed by the player him or herself, possibly for a full or partial refund, or maybe not.



I don't think a tax should be applied, but the possibility of moving one's house seems neat.

I'd go with that one who derives from Sessine's idea. I had many projects for my 4-building estate, but Lo and I are fickle creatures and taking care of those dwellings is not pleasant anymore.

To add to Fred's roading, I think a deconstructing time of one real-time week should be in the deal; if you really think the place should be kept after all, you could cross a little mark and tear of the dwelling-erasing contract in little bits, and it'd keep on place the indecisives/ nomad snails (read moving the house), for some time.


Yes, I have a dream, of electronic sheeps and linen bedsheets. But that's not the point. Or isn't it?
 
Profile Email
Quote
Mr Geppetto
 Tuesday, December 14 2010 @ 12:37 AM UTC  
Forum Badass
Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 02/26/10
Posts: 79

Quote by: Akogi

........ I also think that any dwellings that are still broken since the dwelling cataclysm should also be deleted by now even if the owner is still around - though they should be reminded that they have a broken dwelling that would be deleted. ..........



Uhm. Actually, right now those can't be redone as they are not actual empty plots. Something happened to them, I have no idea what (true, not right after the cataclysm, but eh, didn't have the time, at the time). I can assure you there's a least one waiting for the clear to go back up (improved).

Also, yes. Death. Failboat, but still. But no tax. Please? At least... can we call it something else? I'd rather not have it at all, I'm really bad at remembering when I need to pay my RL bills and stuff. I really don't need another one of those things, in this game.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Maniak
 Tuesday, December 14 2010 @ 12:58 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 10/11/10
Posts: 298

I've been mulling over this tax idea, and the more I think about it the more I realize we are moving in the wrong direction.

With the current proposition of taxes, we're heading to boringness and destruction. We should be heading for fun and creation instead. Give people proper incentive to build up their dwelling.

I suggest a Dwelling Hall of Fame.

We, the contestants, can vote on dwellings that are particularly awesome/creative/otherwise add to the game. The owner/owners get recognition for their hard work, and more visitors. Every Day/Week/Month a dwelling will be picked from the Hall of Fame and the Dwelling-owner of the Day/Week/Month gets a benefit in the form of a 30% new day stamina boost, 100 free decorating turns, (custom) furniture, a (temporary) Teleporter Beacon, a Builders Brew, or something along those lines.

We all benefit from this. More awesome content, a bed to sleep, fewer abandoned plots, a return on those 100 cigs.


http://maniak.cu.cc/
 
Profile Email Website
Quote
Hairy Mary
 Tuesday, December 14 2010 @ 01:18 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/17/08
Posts: 1083

So we need a mechanic for flagging dwellings which might be suitable for removal. That was the original point of the tax. If nobody's paying even that small amount, then there can't be much interest.

Several people don't like that idea for various, fairly reasonable, reasons. What should provide the initial flag then?

Bear in mind: this only flags a plot up, it doesn't mean automatic removal by a long way, as Sessine pointed out. It won't be a case of "You're a day late with the tax (haven't been there for a while/whatever it is) and look! Here we have the heavies at the door with big sticks and bulldozers." It will be a case of "At some point in the future when a mod has a bit of time, they'll take a look. If they like it themselves, then the dwelling gets marked as permanent. If they're not so keen, not much works been done say, then they can try and contact owners etc." Only if they, a human being, and a pretty decent one at that, decide to delete it will it be deleted.

Put that together, and err for generosity, if a few dwellings are included that we'd rather keep, like Merville Manor as a possible example given above, then Sessine will just chuckle, quickly mark it as 'permanent, don't bother me with this one again.' and move on.

So what makes for a good measure of disinterest? Ideas?



Someone mentioned dwellings that hadn't been repaired since the cataclysm. This does not mean that these dwellings are uncared for. I know of at least one where, not only would the owner very much like to rebuild it, but they've even written more rooms since then. They're patiently waiting because its broken at the moment for some reason. Don't penalise them.

May I suggest also, that when plots are taken off people that still have accounts, that a full cig refund is given? Apart from stopping any possible bad feeling, it means that people who haven't looked at their plot for ages, but might get round to it one day can turn the plot in at no loss. They can go and buy another stake if that's what they want to do, but hey, wait until you're ready to build this time yes? Instead of, "hmm, well that's 20 cigs I'd lose if I changed my mind."

Make it easy for someone to give back a plot if they're half hearted about it. Don't make loss of cigs an obstacle to that.

EDIT: Hah, four people have also replied since I started writing this. Yes, I like the HoF idea. I'm starting to sway more and more against taxes.


 
Profile Email
Quote
wvf
 Tuesday, December 14 2010 @ 01:41 AM UTC  
Forum Badass
Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/30/08
Posts: 70

I'd be interested in seeing a dwelling, when no one has visited it for a week or so, get infested by MONSTERS! Surprised! Nothing like a outpost breach, though, just a random chance of encounter like in the jungle. If people come back, then the monsters are driven away.
It's like coming back to the Little Cabin By The Lake (tm) and finding a badger in the pit toilet.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Swede
 Tuesday, December 14 2010 @ 07:24 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 05/27/10
Posts: 127

I still don't see the problem with a tax (for lack of a better word) to use as a flag of disinterest.
The cost is minimum, everybody can pay and when the funds run out you (and hopefully other masterkey holders) get a reminder.
Nothing is deleted without owner notification and from how I understand mod/cmj intervention.

Seeing people disagree strongly, it seems we need an alternative to mark disinterest. Perhaps a seperate forum for players to make delete suggestions? I like the HOF idea, but that only marks interest, and I do think we all agree some sort of cleanup is wanted.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Count Sessine
 Tuesday, December 14 2010 @ 04:16 PM UTC  
Forum Moderator
Moderator

Status: offline

Registered: 08/16/08
Posts: 1402

Quote by: Swede

I still don't see the problem with a tax (for lack of a better word) to use as a flag of disinterest.
The cost is minimum, everybody can pay and when the funds run out you (and hopefully other masterkey holders) get a reminder.
Nothing is deleted without owner notification and from how I understand mod/cmj intervention.

Seeing people disagree strongly, it seems we need an alternative to mark disinterest. Perhaps a seperate forum for players to make delete suggestions? I like the HOF idea, but that only marks interest, and I do think we all agree some sort of cleanup is wanted.

If mods get a tool to handle this, I will definitely open a thread where we can all talk about places that need looking at.

Feedback section of the Forum, I think. After the initial cleanup I don't expect there'll be a lot of traffic, but if it turns out there is I can set up a Google Docs spreadsheet with a form.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Ada
 Thursday, December 16 2010 @ 12:54 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 12/07/09
Posts: 428

Quote by: Mr+Geppetto

Quote by: Akogi

........ I also think that any dwellings that are still broken since the dwelling cataclysm should also be deleted by now even if the owner is still around - though they should be reminded that they have a broken dwelling that would be deleted. ..........



Uhm. Actually, right now those can't be redone as they are not actual empty plots. Something happened to them, I have no idea what (true, not right after the cataclysm, but eh, didn't have the time, at the time). I can assure you there's a least one waiting for the clear to go back up (improved).

Also, yes. Death. Failboat, but still. But no tax. Please? At least... can we call it something else? I'd rather not have it at all, I'm really bad at remembering when I need to pay my RL bills and stuff. I really don't need another one of those things, in this game.




Yeah, I am very, very strongly against deleting the broken dwellings, unless there is also going to be a set of cig refunds and that dwelling-fixer item most people got. My dwelling is one of the broken ones, and I sent three or four petitions about it before realizing that I was essentially dumping them down a well; I never got a response, and my dwelling is still unfixable.
I am also against the tax idea, because I don't like the idea of an automated script being in charge of this; it's too easy for something to mess up. I think it would be much better if there was some case-by-case way to decide whether to delete dwellings. Even dwellings that no longer have an owner can be interesting parts of the game landscape, and we don't have so many unowned dwellings around that it's a huge problem. The land claims, yes, I do think those should expire, but not without warnings all over the place and a partial refund of cigs.
I have to say, though, it's pretty frustrating to see new things being created for dwellings when there are still dwellings out there that have been broken since the cataclysm.


 
Profile Email
Quote
CavemanJoe
 Thursday, December 16 2010 @ 05:59 AM UTC  
Forum Admin
Admin

Status: offline

Registered: 02/24/08
Posts: 2281

Quote by: Ada

Quote by: Mr+Geppetto

Quote by: Akogi

........ I also think that any dwellings that are still broken since the dwelling cataclysm should also be deleted by now even if the owner is still around - though they should be reminded that they have a broken dwelling that would be deleted. ..........



Uhm. Actually, right now those can't be redone as they are not actual empty plots. Something happened to them, I have no idea what (true, not right after the cataclysm, but eh, didn't have the time, at the time). I can assure you there's a least one waiting for the clear to go back up (improved).

Also, yes. Death. Failboat, but still. But no tax. Please? At least... can we call it something else? I'd rather not have it at all, I'm really bad at remembering when I need to pay my RL bills and stuff. I really don't need another one of those things, in this game.




Yeah, I am very, very strongly against deleting the broken dwellings, unless there is also going to be a set of cig refunds and that dwelling-fixer item most people got. My dwelling is one of the broken ones, and I sent three or four petitions about it before realizing that I was essentially dumping them down a well; I never got a response, and my dwelling is still unfixable.
I am also against the tax idea, because I don't like the idea of an automated script being in charge of this; it's too easy for something to mess up. I think it would be much better if there was some case-by-case way to decide whether to delete dwellings. Even dwellings that no longer have an owner can be interesting parts of the game landscape, and we don't have so many unowned dwellings around that it's a huge problem. The land claims, yes, I do think those should expire, but not without warnings all over the place and a partial refund of cigs.
I have to say, though, it's pretty frustrating to see new things being created for dwellings when there are still dwellings out there that have been broken since the cataclysm.



What's your Dwelling ID, and what do you want to happen? Petition it again, I went through a little while ago and closed all the petitions that had anything to do with Dwellings since they've been sorted out for a while now.

(or, apparently, most of them have been sorted out now)


 
Profile Email Website
Quote
Content generated in: 1.07 seconds
New Topic Post Reply



 All times are UTC. The time is now 07:29 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