Renting!

Well that was basically my point. The term 'slum lord' is pejorative and puts an emphasis on describing landlords as people who behave badly. That doesn't mean it is actually possible for landlords to do that, but the word does not have good connotations. Therefore it heavily suggests that misbehaving is (1) possible, (2) a likely intention.

I can't call someone, or a group of people, scumbag(s) and pretend it isn't even mildly offensive. "Oh forgot someone people take the internet seriously and don't like being called scumbags despite doing nothing wrong, but I'm going to assume it anyway".

Without reading the other replies you had. I can think of some very limited cases where a landlord could defraud, or try to defraud a renter. We don't know what the possibilities are, but like any system there are always vulnerabilities. There will likely be cases of fraud but I don't expect that to be the norm. Again, I point everyone back to my suggestion of a rating system (with the understanding that it is impossible to build a perfectly safe system).

 

Access to a strategic location.

 

Ok, but what if there are no other rentals to be found?

 

That's kind of self explanatory... but...

But this would encourage unscrupulous behavior of landlords who possess strategic locations.

It's not that difficult to say, "You're right, they should think this through and ensure both sides are happy, and not stacked solely in the landlord's favor."

 

I do not think that will happen based on a tread I saw that stated they would expand as needed.

 

It wasn't entirely obvious you believed that to be a reason, given that you stated there was no need to rent beyond getting more space. Here's a quotation of your words which look absolute to me:

Back to the first quotation:

You are immediately assuming that there will be unscrupulous behaviour. Just as some immediately assume that their fellow players will be slumlords. Admittedly, both are a value judgement and so one person's entrepreneur is another person's dirty thieving scumbag (who may have also invested thousands of dollars into the game). Likewise, what one person thinks is a fair rent another person may not. This works for both landlords and tenants. One tenant may be happy to pay 10 gold per day, while another may think that is extortionate. Value judgements can never be absolute.

If there is an over-supply of landlords then the value of rent will drop. At the moment we have a greater supply of landlords than tenants. So it isn't necessarily the case that the odds are always stacked in the landlord's favour. Naturally, there are likely to be some locations where this is not the case. It is fortunate that renting is entirely voluntary, so there is no compulsion for anyone to rent at all (especially not from someone you don't like). Add to this that many players who are landlords may also be tenants. While the market will naturally increase rent for certain areas it makes no sense for a landlord to have bad relations with their tenant.

If you are completely against this system, that's cool. If you are looking for a 100% guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen, then you are looking for something impossible.

 

I'm not against "this system." I'm sharing a perspective that should be considered. If they've already made this a goal, it would be pointless for me to have them change it, as I've found in the past - they consider it fruitless to dwell on what will never be.

I'm assuming there will be unscrupulous behavior because it's a fact this happens in every game. It's not an incorrect assumption. People who play SotA are not "above" other players in other games.

To think about problems down the road, before they happen, is a wise move. I simply don't see why you would object to my points. There is no reason for it, other than to disagree simply because you don't care for me.

I would think anyone would want consider what incentives there are to renting - especially landlords. And if there are no real incentives, they should design incentives into the game. If there are more drawbacks than incentives, they need to examine how to eliminate drawbacks. Otherwise, all you who own houses won't have tenants. Or did you not care if you get tenants?

 

Not quite sure where this thread is really leading....however in terms of incentives...here are just a few.

Landlord - To make gold, to assist in populating a scene in particular player towns, meet new people.
Tenant - To have cheap housing in different locations, meet new people, spreading possible vendors.

There is in fact no real down side at all. People talk about slumlords etc...well this will never happen because people don't actually need housing in the first place ... In addition to that, there will be lots of competition which means renting will end up very cheap (especially at the start).

Renting was always going to take place, the addition of mechanics just makes it safe for a tenant.

 

What is the dev's position on real life money being paid for rent?

 

I don't think the Devs would go one way it another over people renting for $, in the same way I don't expect that would be overly interested in people selling items for $. I just don't think they would support it in game......Caveat emptor.

The main thing for the devs is to ensure that items can't be duped or farmed via exploits.

 

"People don't need housing"

So what's the incentive to rent? Renting certainly doesn't add to status. Never has.

"People will want to place vendors at advantageous places"

People will be able to do that in the middle of every city. That's advantageous. Why a house, that may be off the beaten path?

"People will need to make sure they have extra bank space in case they get kicked out of their rental contract"

What's the point in renting if not for storage? Location is not a draw. The map is easy to navigate. Maybe a good vendor spot. In which case, the rents will be steep in those areas.

"People will be able to find a new rental if they get kicked, because they will add more housing as needed"

They can't add housing overnight. With housing "rare and limited" and a small fraction of players owning it, there will be a rental shortage. Unless they plan to allow a really large population inhabit one house, meaning virtually endless storage. I don't think that's going to happen. But I could be wrong.

Here are some possible advantages:

Storage next to a crafting station would be the only real advantage I can conceive.
Maybe hanging with friends in the same house would be another advantage.
You could decorate your own space in a house, otherwise those items are useless sitting in a bank.

Here are possible disadvantages:

Landlord raises the rent too much
Landlord kicks you if they don't like you, and you may not be able to store your things
The location may not be all that great for vendors, if in town is more advantageous
Landlord collects your money, or real cash, PKs you, then kicks you and has no penalties
If they have a separate "box" of some type, to store things in case a person gets kicked out of their rental, that could be an exploit to store extra stuff
Would a renter be able to have their own small space outside the house to decorate? It doesn't appear to be allowed.

Right now, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. I see no real reason someone would want to rent, to be honest. If I were a landlord, I'd want to be able to lure renters. If landlords don't think this will be an issue, and no problem, then let it stay just the way it is. But I do think there should be renter protection of some kind.

 

Perhaps we have some broad agreeance. It is always worth bringing criticism. Naturally,

I'm sure there will be some, but I don't think (and hope) it won't be the rule. I'm keen to put systems / processes in place to mitigate these risks. It isn't good for the market as a whole if it isn't fun. Although I do expect differences of opinion.

Disagreement is fine, and yes I do care but not so keen on some of the suggestions of mass "slums".

There will be incentives as Invidia pointed out. I've stated before that I intend to rent too, so it isn't in my interest for a non-working system. Obviously, not getting any tenants is a problem, I've stated that before.

 

Caliya, I agree. I would have hoped the devs would have went with NPC rental housing if there is to be renting. They could possibly sell monthly/quarterly/annually contracts in the add on store and avoid all the potential problems. Honestly if a person was wise he would just save up for a lot deed and pay the lot tax. I know I will help new players to purchase deeds in game and advise them to do this.

 

Yes, well see. That's another potential can of worms. Many people have bought extra properties because they plan to rent. If they now change it, it's going to upset a lot of players who spent a lot of money on this idea.

In addition, there are some home owners who really don't want any sort of public housing and feel it will devalue their houses.

All of the ramifications of decisions need to be considered far down the road, not on the fly. In this case, it appears many on the fly decisions were made, in order to make loyal fans happy. But not so much about others who haven't invested heavily.

=/

 

So just to go through the suggested disadvantages:

"Landlord raises the rent too much"

If the landlord raises the rent too much then he will lose the tenant. This is an actual market you are dealing with.... There will be plenty of other Landlords, the market will find its own price.

"Landlord kicks you if they don't like you, and you may not be able to store your things"

The idea is that there will be some form of contract. If a landlord decides to kick you out by not renewing a contract then it is up to the Landlord. There will still be plenty of other places to rent anyway. It works both ways, the tenant might decide just to leave.

"The location may not be all that great for vendors, if in town is more advantageous"

This would be reflected in the price of the rent. More sort after locations will always have higher demand and thus a higher price. I don't really see this as a disadvantage to renting because it is the same if you actually own a house..... Renting actually makes it better because it gives more people an opportunity to have vendors and 'space' in better locations.

"Landlord collects your money, or real cash, PKs you, then kicks you and has no penalties"

Ignoring real cash because that is always high risk and will not be supported by game mechanics. Firstly the rent would be attached to a contract so you will have the room/house. PvP is consensual so in order for that to happen you would have to be renting in a PvP zone. If you choose to rent in a PvP zone then you have to expect PvP....however I would be surprised if the landlord would do so something that has absolutely no gain and would tarnish his reputation for future tenants.


"If they have a separate "box" of some type, to store things in case a person gets kicked out of their rental, that could be an exploit to store extra stuff"

There could be an exploit to do almost anything in a game (doesn't just apply to one action such as renting)...it's the devs job to ensure that exploits don't exist and if one is found then they are fixed.

"Would a renter be able to have their own small space outside the house to decorate? It doesn't appear to be allowed."

I would imagine if they wanted to do that they would have to rent the entire house. The game mechanics behind renting haven't been created yet do everything is a suggestion at the moment.



EDIT:
Just to say again, people with ALWAYS potentially rent their properties whether the game has the mechanics or not. If the mechanics are in place then it creates a safe system for a tenant.

 

I do not see that as a problem (people that bought extra properties) from my perspective. People that used there money to purchase the tier and all the rewards that go with it should know that is what you get for your money. If some one bought 100 lot deeds from the add on store should know that its for advancement of the game. If they had monetary interests or "investments" is not my concern. I payed for what I get, I am not trying to game the system. These people are not interested in playing the game, they are interested in there investment....$$$.

 

If someone rents your house (or a room), will that count toward the property being "active" and hence won't "fall" (ie the lot becomes empty and the landlord's lot deed, house and contents are returned to their bank)?

In other words, will the landlord have to visit the property (or even just log in to the game) periodically to "refresh" the lot?

 

Again, who's the enforcement authority?

 

Word of mouth. It's a reputation system controlled by the players. For example, if someone came to me with a contract they had fulfilled between themselves and Rufus D' Asperdi, I could go to you and ask if that contract was fulfilled to your satisfaction. If you said yes, it might make me think that it was a good idea to do business with this person. If you said no, I might think twice.

 

He said, she said. Without an enforcement authority, it's not worth the media it's recorded on and a waste of developer time.