Limit house ownership to only 1 per character, exception for real estate companies.

[PunishedCosby]

No support for this. I get where it's coming from, but for all the reasons stated in this thread, and then some, reducing the housing limit to one would be terrible for rp. I haven't seen many of these real estate companies active anyway, and the majority of properties exchanging hands comes from private bidders. There's an issue with a lack of housing though. I still see lots of houses and apartment buildings with no available property to own there.

[Sixty]

Not many are being realistic here in terms of the scope of the map design. The fact of the matter is that we have 1000+ players and we’re still growing. Allowing multiple properties on a character is all good and fine if the map can support such a feature. The problem is that this map can not sustain allowing people to have multiple properties to an extent. Is it reasonable to have two properties? Sure. It would be nice. However the map simply can not sustain it. Real estate companies are cool and all, but when you are on a map that eventually runs out of properties, they become more of a burden. Housing should be limited per PLAYER (not UCP) account and used for their own RP purposes, not to hoard or flip.
 

A compromise would be to at least limit people to owning only one single/multiple family standalone house or trailer. Apartments can be made in abundance with our systems, but there are only so many actual houses on the map. Inactivity rules should be tightened and houses yanked earlier if they aren’t using them regularly without good reason. 
 

Yeah it’s the unpopular opinion but you have to look at this logically. The map only has so many properties. Even if you open up requests completely and permanently, you are eventually going to run into the same problem. The only way to manage is to limit properties to a point and be more strict about their usage and activity. Sorry. 
 

To Property Management, we can’t report property hoarders because we don’t always know they are being hoarded. So these properties end up sitting for weeks to months on end. This is something that has to be done on your end with more strict activity requirements or amendments to property ownership in general. 
 

TL;DR version:

 

1) Limit players to one standalone property per character. This meaning a single or multi-family

house or trailer. Multi-floor apartments are less of an issue, but this should be a max of 2. 

2) Create more apartments. If the server can handle it, this is a must. 

3) Property rules need to be tightened up and clarified to ensure properties are being actively used on a daily/weekly basis. Hoarding and flipping should be highly scrutinized with harsher punishments to get the point across. 

Edited May 7, 2021 by Sixty

[MadSpecter]

Don't know if its needed to be limited on 1 property, but for sure we need more housing with so fast growing population. As before, you could get a trailer for 150g - 200g in county, now it's going for 300g's if its even on sale. As for houses, house in Sandy, where should be really cheap, going for same price as Pent house. Around 400 - 700g. 

[Stanty]

Please don't lower the limit. Two properties are fine.

[Jennie]

5 hours ago, BigSmileLing said:

If you limit 1 house per player, the only thing you'll see is players not selling, because if I have to sell my house in order to buy a house, that means I have to be homeless until I find a new house.

 

[DasFroggy]

3 minutes ago, Jennie said:

 

Easily fixed by making the limit apply to houses only. If they are concerned about being homeless, the limit would not apply to an apartment/condominium.

 

[Rhelli]

Might be a bit outlandish idea, but what if the houses in Vinewood, Richman, Rockford and such areas worked on the same basis as lease-only vehicles? Gotta pay a monthly fee + tax for it, and if you're leasing a house like that, you'd practically be prohibited from owning a standalone house in Paleto/MP/Canals/wherever during the lease. That way, there'd be more high-end houses available for the rich masses, and it could free up houses that cost like 300k on the market. You could still own a standalone apartment, or a complex apartment.

[Rhelli]

Alternatively, when a house is removed on inactivity and the potential buyer has an 'owns a house' tag set to TRUE, they should only be able to purchase it for 3x the MP. That way they wouldn't be able to buy it for the sake of selling it later for triple the price and it'd force the buyer to think if they really need a second house.

[Darcin]

50 minutes ago, Rhelli said:

Alternatively, when a house is removed on inactivity and the potential buyer has an 'owns a house' tag set to TRUE, they should only be able to purchase it for 3x the MP. That way they wouldn't be able to buy it for the sake of selling it later for triple the price and it'd force the buyer to think if they really need a second house.

This one's kinda terrible.

 

Example: I own a house. I find a bigger, better house for sale in a better neighborhood. I decide to buy new house to move there. I now have to pay X3 MP for new house despite the fact I intend to move there and sell old house.

 

It just isn't practical.

[.Pluto.]

Hell no, people in real life own multiple properties/apartments/houses, limit on two is already more than enough.