Jump to content

Flexible rules against poor portrayal of house market


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Dreams & Nightmares said:

Allow people to sell houses for 1x MP + furniture price, max. This’ll stop people from flipping property and you won’t see any crazy unrealistic prices anymore. 
 

 

This was tried, sort of, with the result that certain exclusive houses were never traded publicly.

Link to comment

The issue you pointed out exists because there's absolutely no incentive to sell properties to players who roleplay in the neighborhood they're being sold is located at. They get absolutely nothing out of it. Therefore, if they can rack up more money for themselves, why shouldn't they? 

 

The real issue lies within the existing rules that gives players the ability to sell properties for any price they want as long as they have owned it for the last six months. This is what causes what you called the battles of whoever has more money, and definitely should not be a thing. Houses in Mirror Park and Paleto Bay shouldn't be going for $4m.

 

A good way to counter this is by introducing price caps on how much properties can be sold for based on districts. These would be dynamic, and changed by PM every now and then based on in-game events. For example:

  • Let's say a certain district has a price cap of $2,000,000 for houses, but crime ramps up significantly in it. The cap is then reduced to $1,500,000.
  • Contrastingly, if said district experiences economic growth (i.e. more businesses open in the area), the cap is increased to $2,500,000.

Obviously, it's important to take into account more factors than the ones I mentioned above, but you get the idea. It's no secret districts realistically affect the real estate market, but they are barely weighed in here. I strongly believe a system of this nature would help tackling a lot of the issues flagged up in this thread.

 

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Dreams & Nightmares said:

How selling house on grove for 1m+ is perfect? Same w houses in Sandy, etc. It makes absolutely no sense from IC point of view. 

It’s a game, houses in sandy are locked behind PM rn too 

 

idk maybe I just dint mind that much 

Link to comment

I still believe housing in areas for specific roleplay, should only be allowed for people participating in that particular roleplay. Like why should people own a trailer in Sandy Shores, when they don't rp there? Same goes for south Central or parts of Vespucci. Also just because you can create a luxurious interior inside a trailer, doesn't mean you should right?

Link to comment

  

8 hours ago, knppel said:

Keep in mind that examples might not only serve to shame people (Pointing fingers), they could serve as valuable precendence cases to define to us players what's wanted and what not.

Can't do that. I make examples people will start quoting them and using them against each other essentially, without pointing fingers some players are already realizing some houses are not worth what they are posted for and I can just appreciate the players that realize that and back out. Selling houses for an insane amount gains zero profit for other people, you throw money at inflation and profit that you end up losing in the end.

 

1 hour ago, Shaderz said:

The issue you pointed out exists because there's absolutely no incentive to sell properties to players who roleplay in the neighborhood they're being sold is located at. They get absolutely nothing out of it. Therefore, if they can rack up more money for themselves, why shouldn't they? 

 

The real issue lies within the existing rules that gives players the ability to sell properties for any price they want as long as they have owned it for the last six months. This is what causes what you called the battles of whoever has more money, and definitely should not be a thing. Houses in Mirror Park and Paleto Bay shouldn't be going for $4m.

 

A good way to counter this is by introducing price caps on how much properties can be sold for based on districts. These would be dynamic, and changed by PM every now and then based on in-game events. For example:

  • Let's say a certain district has a price cap of $2,000,000 for houses, but crime ramps up significantly in it. The cap is then reduced to $1,500,000.
  • Contrastingly, if said district experiences economic growth (i.e. more businesses open in the area), the cap is increased to $2,500,000.

Obviously, it's important to take into account more factors than the ones I mentioned above, but you get the idea. It's no secret districts realistically affect the real estate market, but they are barely weighed in here. I strongly believe a system of this nature would help tackling a lot of the issues flagged up in this thread.

 

 

 

Could consider discussing this but not sure how it would work without an admin always being present or having to always pay attention to the IC events going on. Davis houses would be absolutely dirt cheap at this point >.>.

 

Restrictions were x1 mp, 2x mp then 3x mp. None of them freed up the housing market because players were content and happy with what they purchased knowing they paid the maximum and could get their investment back. Now, if you pay for something you don't know whether you're going to lose or gain in the end after six months because the market is ran by players essentially and if they aren't happy with the pricing then no one's going to buy obviously.

 

We are trying to combat this in other ways to make this a fair and even playing ground but there's so many factors to consider and alot of prediction that has to come into play whether or not this would kill the housing market. We want houses available for everyone which is why certain areas like Charleston, Mirror Park's new development and the upcoming Sandy Shores trailers are being held behind a request. Same goes for Vespucci Canals and the houses up in the hills, if we don't deem your character within proper portrayal then you obviously can't get those houses and in the long run those houses will always be worth far more than any Paleto, Vespucci or even Mirror Park house.

 

I'm open for ideas and to discuss but there's really not much that I can think of at the current moment.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Dreams & Nightmares said:

Just remove these:

 

 

  • 0 days to 2 weeks : You cannot sell the house.
  • 2 weeks to 1 month : You may sell the house up to 1x MP + furniture price.
  • 1 month to 3 months : You may sell the house up to 3x MP + furniture price. (Ex. MP = 150,000 FP = 55,633, SP = 50,000 - Highest buyout = $555,633)
  • 3 months to 6 months : You may sell the house up to 5x MP + furniture price.
  • 6 months + : You can sell the house at any price you want.


 

Allow people to sell houses for 1x MP + furniture price, max. This’ll stop people from flipping property and you won’t see any crazy unrealistic prices anymore. 
 

 

 

Yeah like it was before? No one wanted to sell their house. It was only trading.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Frezemis said:

Restrictions were x1 mp, 2x mp then 3x mp. None of them freed up the housing market because players were content and happy with what they purchased knowing they paid the maximum and could get their investment back.

 

I have to disagree with this, respectfully. No houses were freed up almost solely because players were allowed to trade houses amongst one another rather than selling them back to the open market via forums or in-game. Even if they paid the maximum, without trading they still would have had to sell it back to the open market via IC methods if they wanted to move or if they were moving on from their characters. What trading did was turn the entire market into a commodity market between current property owners (usually houses, not apartments). This narrowed the market significantly to those who already owned a house. People conveniently held onto their houses until they got a guaranteed trade in a desirable area. I'm not sure why trading was ever allowed in the first place. These trades were not prevented for a long time during the 3x market cap era. Why would people sell to the open market when they can simply use their house as a commodity and trade it for another guaranteed house? That was the big issue back then. The issue now is that housing caps have basically been taken off after 6 months. While good on paper, this results in people just holding out until the 6 month cap and then selling it for top dollar. This does not encourage property movement, it encourages even more hoarding.

 

The end goal should be to encourage players to sell their properties back to the main market rather than hoard them for a cash cow. The main goal for properties, in my opinion, should not be to sell for profit but rather used as a tool for their character's RP. Introducing a way for people to patiently wait on a house for 6 months and then sell it for whatever they want? That's encouraging the latter, a cash cow. The new market caps are not much different from the old 3x caps. They just increased to 5x and unlimited after more time hoarding the house. The only reason more houses are being moved is because of the increased caps which enticed script money hunters to be able to sell for whatever they want. Of course they couldn't resist. Second, if I'm not wrong, I don't think trading is allowed anymore. Once trading was disallowed, people had no choice but to sell it back to the open market with other players rather than trade them amongst current property owners.

 

tl;dr version - I personally and respectfully believe the changes to allow people to sell for whatever they want was the wrong move. The old 3x market cap + furniture, in time, would have worked without increasing the sale price caps (5x and unlimited after 6 months) by cutting out the trading issue and thus forcing players to sell houses on the market rather than transferring houses amongst existing house owners. By adding in a more strict oversight of property inactivity to discourage people from logging in just to keep their properties combined with a ban on property trading? You'd have a more fluid market at this point in time, even with the old market caps.

Edited by Brofessor
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Shaderz said:

The real issue lies within the existing rules that gives players the ability to sell properties for any price they want as long as they have owned it for the last six months. This is what causes what you called the battles of whoever has more money, and definitely should not be a thing. Houses in Mirror Park and Paleto Bay shouldn't be going for $4m.

 

8 hours ago, Frezemis said:

 I make examples people will start quoting them and using them against each other essentially, without pointing fingers some players are already realizing some houses are not worth what they are posted for and I can just appreciate the players that realize that and back out. Selling houses for an insane amount gains zero profit for other people, you throw money at inflation and profit that you end up losing in the end.

 

7 hours ago, Brofessor said:

The issue now is that housing caps have basically been taken off after 6 months. While good on paper, this results in people just holding out until the 6 month cap and then selling it for top dollar. This does not encourage property movement, it encourages even more hoarding.

 

The end goal should be to encourage players to sell their properties back to the main market rather than hoard them for a cash cow. The main goal for properties, in my opinion, should not be to sell for profit but rather used as a tool for their character's RP. Introducing a way for people to patiently wait on a house for 6 months and then sell it for whatever they want? That's encouraging the latter, a cash cow.


Basically, all of this above. Being able to sell your house for profit should be allowed of course as it's not like it's something that doesn't happen IRL. But there definitely needs to be some moderation on this, especially removing the sell at any price after 6+ months thing. Having a hard OOC cap on the multiplier you can sell your house at would benefit everyone I think, as much as the server strives to provide realism we have to deal with the fact that we're limited in spacing and available housing on the map here. As others have said, the fact that you can sell at any price after 6 months really just encourages people to hold on to the property until that point so they can sell at the highest profit possible, because why would you not? This is why we're ending up with million dollar homes in places like Davis where homes would be realistically going for.. not even close to that. 6 months is a long time for someone to be holding on to a property that they only intend on flipping and let's be honest, it's not uncommon.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
  • Create New...