Homesteading - Renting, Buying, Living on Grace, and More!

I would NEVER live in a POT. If the POT owner was going to pay me rent to live in there POT I would still refuse because I have not owning rights, because they have the right to Ban me from the scene, or evict me from the Plot if they wanted to.
In an NPC Town I can only lose my plot placement if I do not pay the in-game automatic rent.

 

I don't understand the distinction between options 4 and 5.

 

Although I own a POT, I'll not be charging anyone rent. Having got that out of the way, I have a few observations:
1. Governors are in a position to extort virtue points from inhabitants, so the voting would have to be secret. (Also, what is a virtue point? Why should I care?)
2. Why would a governor opt to follow a constitution that could cause them to suffer penalties while providing them no tangible benefit?
3. The final point encourages tenants to behave as badly as possible after a long period of rent to force their eviction, thus avoiding payment of rent.

 

I apologize. I made a mistake when trying to accommodate someone, haha. I can't delete an option; however the correct option is number 6 (newly added): "I will not be living in a Player Owned Town under any circumstances."

 

None of my ideas were fool-proof. I'm actually hoping that other people either take them and run with them to make them better, or that they suggest their own.

Since you were happy to critique my ideas, I think you should suggest some fixes or better ideas!

 

Well, to be honest, I see nothing wrong with the present system. I believe that any problems that arise will be self correcting, as anyone who abuses his or her power will find themselves isolated. Perhaps we should wait and see if any problems arise that are not self correcting, before we propose solutions that may have unintended consequences or divert developer attention away from their current focus.

 

This.

Until there is an in game mechanic that facilitates a lease contract POTs are renter beware.

 

I posted a question, regarding House Access, for the next Hangout.

And in Dev+ we discussed House Access since 28.04.15, but no Dev response so far.

 

I am in favor of keeping the status quo.

My opinion is: Players who feel they need such a system of protection from a POT owner would be happier choosing an NPC town or PRT for their home. We already have towns in the game like Holtrot, Aldwater, etc., which Portalarium calls "Player-Run-Towns" (PRTs). There, residents can band together and consensually run their town with elected officials who have no "real" power. Before POTs were introduced, several guilds successfully did this very thing.

I believe that players will always have a choice. Portalarium will be continuously updating the game and adding features post release and they will create new PRT villages if non-POT housing becomes scarce.

Most of the most vocal posts I have seen about the dangers of living in POTs are from players who don't like POTs, don't want them in the game, say they would never live in one and who don't even want to see them on the overland map. I am a POT resident, and I would not vote for these folks to represent my interests.

 

Yeah well I guess nobody saw that coming ....
Nobody forces you.

 

A lease contract would be nice.
All for it.
But the devs already said that it's unlikely we see it in ep1 :-/

 

There is nothing to discuss. There will be people against POT and people for them. My POT will only be for guild members so I won't have these problems.

 

I would love to see decent mechanics for renting as it protects everyone.

It could start simply with just adding a "tenant" to house access lists......whilst a player is a tenant the owner forgoes all access rights to the house and thus creates protection for the player........if tenant access is revoked then all items are sent to the tenants bank.

This kind of mechanism could then be expanded over time to include contracts that can auto renew, auto collection of rent, including items that could be on loan etc etc.

Despite the lack of mechanics I still intend to provide land/house access over 5 PoTs (PvP and Non PvP) for a small affordable subscription service whether that is $ with auto-renew until cancelled or by the player manually giving me gold each month.

 

Thank you for the draft. I edited it, so it fits for me and my PoTs.

 

Interesting survey. So far with 46 votes cast, of those who haven't ruled out living in a POT (93%), slightly more than half would also be prepared to pay to rent land from the POT. Those are excellent numbers for anyone considering deriving an income from renting out POT lots.

(I don't plan to be one of them, but I have no objection to people choosing that option. I expect there will be plenty of free alternatives, and people are quite capable of making their own decisions.)

 

Why not POT owners paying those without POT's a rent for letting them have the power to Ban or evict them, every POT (230+ scenes and rising) can become a closed off part of the game to other players.
Once someone gets banned or evicted I'm sure the Land Baron's will pass the Players DATA amongst themselves and they will Blacklist the Player from using their POT's also.

 

I was also in favour of keeping the Status Quo but we still got POT's.

 

One question I have is: will players have a choice? Will there be enough NPC Towns/PRTs that no player *has* to choose from a player owned town?

 

That doesn't seem like a very fair statement....people who disagree how the rules work don't necessarily hate PoT's, just the implementation.

We aren't exactly supposed to talk about them, but I disagree that there is nothing to discuss.

I have stated before that there is no protection for the renter and unlimited powers for the landlord. This reason alone has living in a PoT a risky move. You could spend hours setting up your house and someone can just decide they want a buddy to have your spot or whatnot and boom all that work is gone.

This is a major reason I think they are flawed and won't rent from them with my lot.

(This is my opinion.)

 

There are over 200+ PoTs in game. With 200+ individuals, I'd like to think you're bound to have the oddball or two that will go against a game-wide ban on someone if only to spite the other PoTs.

Or if you look at it from a nice angle, there is bound to be a kind soul that will not ban anyone from his PoT - as long as you're into PVP.