More house fixes/ideas

[DS_Billy]

I like the tax idea to make owning houses cost a bit more but i really dont think it is going to solve the issue of people house hording/buying houses just to list them for 5 million. All it takes is for them to horde the houses and sell one a year at 5 million to clear the taxes on 5 houses they're hording. 

A couple things i was brainstorming that might alleviate the problem. 

Reduce the house slots to 4 from 5. Allow houses an extra 1000 Y inventory space.

- 1c becomes 2c, 2c becomes 3c, 3c becomes 4c. 
- This change does the following when it comes to account wide Y inventory space. 
   Presuming you have all maximum space houses, Currently it is 5 houses x 3000 inv space = 15000
   Presuming you have all maximum space houses, Suggested it would be 4 houses x 4000 inv space = 16000. 
- This change would directly benefit people who own houses and actively use them and limit the people who horde houses for resale to 4 instead of 5. 

This one feel free to put your two cents on cause im sure there is a better way to do it.
Along with this change, make it so if you buy a house off the market, you cannot list it for resale to other players for 30 days. You can sell it back to the bank instantly if desired. 
This stops people from grabbing a muchly wanted house just to hold it hostage instantly for however millions tehy want for it, also stops the usual, buy random house in pyrgos for 150k, instantly put it back up for 5 million and forget about it. 



Could we get a log for gang houses of who put what in and who took it out? 
-this would also be good for people who have shared keys with people and have stuff go missing. 
 

[Patato]

Current upkeep system isn't meant to be super aggressive. Electric bills left a bad taste in everyone's mouth so i wanted to be very conservative with the numbers. Trust me when I say I'm watching closely and will adjust as needed. The goal is to minimally impact active players. 

Reducing 5 houses to 4 is something I bring up at least three times a year. It gets shot down like a Chinese spy balloon. 

Not sure what the implications are performance wise of increasing storage that much

-Personal Opinion, not a reflection of Dev's as a whole below this point-

I kind of like that players get to hunt for houses and turn a profit off it. They are risking their time in the hopes they *Might* get a valuable house to sell. With upkeep they will be motivated to sell it otherwise it's just eating into profit. Forcing them to hold it for 30 days isn't going to stop them from hunting. But it is going to force 30 days where the house isn't being used. I know i would just go "Bidding ends in 30 days" 

No comment on the logs thing

[DS_Billy]

15 minutes ago, Patato said:

Current upkeep system isn't meant to be super aggressive. Electric bills left a bad taste in everyone's mouth so i wanted to be very conservative with the numbers. Trust me when I say I'm watching closely and will adjust as needed. The goal is to minimally impact active players. 

Reducing 5 houses to 4 is something I bring up at least three times a year. It gets shot down like a Chinese spy balloon. 

Not sure what the implications are performance wise of increasing storage that much

-Personal Opinion, not a reflection of Dev's as a whole below this point-

I kind of like that players get to hunt for houses and turn a profit off it. They are risking their time in the hopes they *Might* get a valuable house to sell. With upkeep they will be motivated to sell it otherwise it's just eating into profit. Forcing them to hold it for 30 days isn't going to stop them from hunting. But it is going to force 30 days where the house isn't being used. I know i would just go "Bidding ends in 30 days" 

No comment on the logs thing

can you tell me the devs thoughts on reducing houses from 5 to 4 but increasaing house capacity by 1k?
As i say it directly benefits people who use the houses for money making and directly nerfs the lads who are house hoarding 

[ObiWoki]

Loading in houses is already at a high capacity due to the fact that there is so much storage already in existance, decreasing the houses to 4 and adding 1k extra storage to every house will only increase the load on the server, we'd have to test it to make sure its even doable. Changing from 5 to 4 is not a big issue though

[Chris Peacock]

On 5/1/2023 at 9:18 PM, DS_Billy said:

can you tell me the devs thoughts on reducing houses from 5 to 4 but increasaing house capacity by 1k?
As i say it directly benefits people who use the houses for money making and directly nerfs the lads who are house hoarding 

The issue is not everyone uses homes to make money. Me personally use homes as spawn points with kits inside more than using them for drugs. If you reduce the limit by 1 that’s one less spawn point I have that I would like to have considering how much I’ve spent on it I would be pissed. Switching the house cap to 4 would ruin a lot of players times 

Edited May 3, 2023 by Chris Peacock

[DS_Billy]

2 hours ago, Chris Peacock said:

The issue is not everyone uses homes to make money. Me personally use homes as spawn points with kits inside more than using them for drugs. If you reduce the limit by 1 that’s one less spawn point I have that I would like to have considering how much I’ve spent on it I would be pissed. Switching the house cap to 4 would ruin a lot of players times 

s the counter to this would be that the house cap switches to 4 but anyone with 5 currently keeps their houses until they sell one

[KDawg]

I believe a good change would be making players pay the taxes at their houses instead of their phones, then those who want to keep their houses but still only log on once a month atleast have to put a little effort into going house by house and paying instead of just going on their phone for a minute and logging out, and those of us who actually play wont have any issue going house to house

[Austin M]

41 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I believe a good change would be making players pay the taxes at their houses instead of their phones, then those who want to keep their houses but still only log on once a month atleast have to put a little effort into going house by house and paying instead of just going on their phone for a minute and logging out, and those of us who actually play wont have any issue going house to house

I mean it changes it from 1 minute to 5ish minutes? Just suicide and respawn.

[KDawg]

43 minutes ago, Austin M said:

I mean it changes it from 1 minute to 5ish minutes? Just suicide and respawn.

still better then nothing imo

[KDawg]

Another idea I just thought of that I'd like to add on here, I don't like the idea of lowering the house cap to 4, however maybe there could be a system in place to limit the amount of houses one can own in any given city, maybe 2 per city so someone could have a garage and house but not be able to hoard 5 properties next to something important or just in a big city like Athira. Only issue is I think this would be hard to implement due to backlash from people who already own more then 2 properties in a city so I'm not sure how it could be done but I think its a better idea then removing a 5th house from everyone. If not a limit on how many you can own in a city, maybe limiting the amount of listings a player can have at once to just one or two.

Edited May 3, 2023 by KDawg
added bit at the end

[Patato]

4 hours ago, KDawg said:

I believe a good change would be making players pay the taxes at their houses instead of their phones, then those who want to keep their houses but still only log on once a month at least have to put a little effort into going house by house and paying instead of just going on their phone for a minute and logging out, and those of us who actually play wont have any issue going house to house

We tried this one already. It doesn't make sense to inconvenience 99 players to slow down one bad actor for 5 minutes. The goal is to be as minimally intrusive on regular players as possible. (Hence why you can obtain up to a 75% discount just by playing) 

[ObiWoki]

On 5/3/2023 at 7:47 PM, DS_Billy said:

s the counter to this would be that the house cap switches to 4 but anyone with 5 currently keeps their houses until they sell one

If we go down to 4 everyone goes down to 4

[Chris Peacock]

17 minutes ago, ObiWoki said:

If we go down to 4 everyone goes down to 4

too many people already own 5.... making this change would make many many people unhappy

[Savage.]

[JotaCe]

What about lowering the month to every three or two week? I have lost all my houses twice with the actual system, three or two weeks would cause some effect too.

[Chris Peacock]

31 minutes ago, JotaCe said:

What about lowering the month to every three or two week? I have lost all my houses twice with the actual system, three or two weeks would cause some effect too.

A week or two? Nobody would want this. A simple vacation would mean you would lose your houses

[JotaCe]

2 hours ago, Chris Peacock said:

A week or two? Nobody would want this. A simple vacation would mean you would lose your houses

I believe I said three or two. 

If vacation is the problem, then give one to three months a year free of wipe.

 

Edited May 5, 2023 by JotaCe

[Chris Peacock]

1 hour ago, JotaCe said:

I believe I said three or two. 

If vacation is the problem, then give one to three months a year free of wipe.

 

Or keep it the same. Like me personally am an active member of the server but was busy with finals and such with school and missed 27 days. If we had 2 or 3 week resets I would’ve lost all my houses and everything inside. Probably would’ve quit tbh

[Patato]

7 hours ago, JotaCe said:

What about lowering the month to every three or two week? I have lost all my houses twice with the actual system, three or two weeks would cause some effect too.

This is not somthing we would do,
Many of asylums players have shift work. i myself have worked two weeks on two off before. The truth is i honestly don't want to take anyones houses. Id like everyone to play and have their houses when they come back. The issue is how long do we wait in the hopes a player comes back? imo a month is fair

[Patato]

To answer the post.
I think we are just going to hold and gather data. We won't see the effects of the current upkeep for atleast another month. We have more levers to pull depending on how accurate my modeling is.