Lose all properties on name change

[mj2002]

I realize that this isn't going to sit well with a lot of people, but I believe this is one way to address a set of growing problems that GTAW has experienced over the past few years. It is by no means a perfect solution to all problems, I am well aware of this. We should at least consider it either way.

 

To summarize

Name change? All owned properties are returned to property management.

 

Some background

Each time a character changes their name by themselves, the character is considered to be a completely 'new life'. This is established by character rules, since the new character is not allowed to use information from the previous character's life; Should a character be CKed or name changed, the character that comes after should have no connection to the previous character. At present, this rule is firm when it comes to metagaming, but there is a grey area when it comes to character's assets. Nearly always, players keep money from the old character and use it for the new character. Regularly, players keep using their old character's phone and phone number, something which I believe should be restricted, but that's another story. Some players decide to keep the weapons and/or drugs belonging to their old character. You'll find evidence of this in the report sections sometimes, when there is an OOC conflict over who owns what. Often, players decide to keep their character's vehicles. Some players sell off their vehicles if they are not suitable for the new character. But often, they just switch ownership to the new character. This is more frequent still when it comes to properties, since these are, unlike cars and phones, a scarce asset. 

 

Precisely for this reason, I believe the script should be changed in such a way that each time a player changes their character name by themselves, or is character killed and thus forced to change the character's name, all the properties owned by this character should have their ownership reverted to Property Management.

 

This has the following advantages;

• More property turnover
• Demand for property is more fitting to character's backgrounds
• More value attached to a character's life
• Less likely to have characters that are copies of the previous character

 

This also has some disadvantages

• Increased demand for properties traded publicly
• Increased demand for property requests
• Increased losses upon forced CK
• Challenges for continuity in group projects, requires administrator intervention

 

Forcing properties to be removed from characters when they change names means more become available to all eligible characters in house/property requests. This is the primary goal of this change. This also means fewer characters will end up being in the possession of a property that doesn't suit their character's background due to having a "random" property falling out of the sky into their possession when the character starts to exist. This solution is disadvantageous for property hoarders, and likewise advantageous to all others. This proposal increases both supply and demand, and thus creates a better functioning property marketplace. It is up to the Property Management team to ensure that this does not result in more unused residential and business properties.

 

Forcing property removal also introduces more impact when it comes to forced CKs, undoubtedly. The player has more to lose, since fancy properties their characters might have are not safely transferred to the next character in case of a CK. This means characters in possession of properties will likely be more careful going forward, since the player stands to lose more. I consider this an advantage, but I recognize that those holding fancy properties right now may see this as a reason not to agree with this suggestion. It may make these characters targets for other players who wish to damage or hurt players currently in possession of these fancy properties. We should recognize that this change in attitude by definition involves rulebreaking. That doesn't make it any less of a concern though. You may see this come up in player reports or CK appeals.

 

One more issue to consider is refunds. Should a character be refunded for their lost properties? In my view, either refund 1x market price, 50-75% of market price, or no refunds at all. The moment you make a refund higher than market price, you invite players to exploit this system in order to make money, so this is out of the question. Offering less than 100% market price encourages players to sell their properties before name changing (when there is no force CK) which relieves Property Management from more house requests, etc. Offering no refund is similar but harsher. My preferences goes to offering 50-75% of market price, plus mapping value.

 

There might be other considerations, but I believe the above make up the most important impacts of this change. I believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in this regard, and some of the disadvantages can be mitigated.

 

Exceptions and notes

• As far as I am aware, this suggestion is in line with systems already in place for leased properties and leased vehicles. So this proposal shouldn't have impact on those cases.
• Factionalized properties are a problem, and likely require administrator intervention in specific cases if this creates a problem with continuity for other characters.
• Business properties (and scripts?) could be a problem, and likely require administrator intervention in specific cases if this creates a problem with continuity for other characters.
• Basically any situation where this system would cause a problem for roleplay continuity for involved groups or factions can be considered an exception.
• IC name changes for characters that continue to play out their own life, such as a name change upon marriage, or something like this is obviously an exception. A solution would be to not apply the loss of properties when an administrator changes the name of a character.

 

Beyond this suggestion

One of the problems with dealing with these issues is that OOC systems and scripts are implemented to deal with events that happen IC. A character dying or "disappearing" is an IC issue, but the transfer (or lack thereof) of property, money, cars, phones, weapons, drugs, etc to the newly named character is an OOC move. This is inevitable in order to keep things simple and manageable. One 'solution' could be to introduce more IC infrastructure to handle what happens when a character dies. This isn't sexy or flashy or anything, but for factions and businesses, it offers a way to continue when a character suddenly disappears. Formalization of these processes ICly also introduces more roleplay for detectives, organized crime, etc. Perhaps only in the case of business or factionalized properties? Happy to hear feedback on this issue.

 

I am realistic in my approach and I don't expect this change to be implemented overnight. However, I think this is a discussion that should not be avoided, since the property market still deals with a lot of problems. This can be a solution. Lets hear the feedback!

Edited June 9, 2022 by mj2002

[Junx]

This should only apply for houses and not apartments

[mj2002]

9 minutes ago, Junx said:

This should only apply for houses and not apartments

 

Can you elaborate on why this distinction should be made?

[.George]

Why should I be forced to give up unique interior I've mapped for myself, by my requirements and wishes, just because I've changed character name?

[mj2002]

Just now, .George said:

Why should I be forced to give up unique interior I've mapped for myself, by my requirements and wishes, just because I've changed character name?

 

See the first post for a variety of reasons.

[Junx]

6 minutes ago, mj2002 said:

 

Can you elaborate on why this distinction should be made?

 

Because apartments are easy to get and we should not punish people by revoking their custom mapped apartment that they could have spent hours on.

[mj2002]

Just now, Junx said:

 

Because apartments are easy to get and we should not punish people by revoking their custom mapped apartment that they could have spent hours on.

 

That only goes for certain apartments. The ones you can buy outright if you look at the property map. Some/many are not easy to get at all, and therefor the entire category should not be excluded.

[Valkyria]

This is an excellent idea if you're looking to lose players in the long run. This aims to be a "solution" to the property market, but it'll really just have players holding onto things via alternative methods (people aren't stupid, believe it or not) and it won't exactly fix anything. I, much like many others, spend a good amount of time mapping interiors that fit my character(s) and it's an OOC time investment for very little (if any) benefit whatsoever.

 

 

But all the same, nobody's forcing you to keep your properties if you namechange, feel free to sell them.

[Wuhtah]

Hmm. 

 

Houses requests are like this, so are leases and vehicles as you mention.

 

People have the opportunity to come to me and express why it makes sense to continue that business on their new character. Sometimes I accept, sometimes I don't. It depends on a variety of reasons and I don't like that some people continue the same exact thing per character. 

 

If it's the same business concept, but tweaked slightly to the new character, I will probably give them a shot. The example that I can think right now is a restaurant. An Italian ran a restaurant with Italian food, he got CK'd, and asked if he could keep the lease but run it as a Korean food place as his new character was Korean. I see no issue with this. If he likes this sort of RP, and it's unique, I'm not going to hinder it. 

 

Apartments, I don't see an issue with people keeping these. These are hugely available and to be fair, we don't really have an issue with the same character keeping it unless they are passing down their guns from one to another.

 

Houses, agreed they should be given up unless they can somehow tie it and make it make sense.

 

Vehicles... Unless it's a poor character going rich or a rich character going poor, or a special vehicle lease (which will be terminated anyways), I don't see the need for vehicles either to be wiped. Usually, people are very good about selling off the vehicles of their old characters.

 

I completely understand people wanting to keep their custom mapped places. This DOES take a lot of time out of their day and that's prideful work. However, it should make it so you take your character's life more seriously then. It's not just a throwaway anymore, it's a risk.

 

So from an administrators perspective, I see and agree with wiping, but I also disagree as well. I think the option of letting them keep it should be there, but I don't want to further "gatekeep" people as the PM team is trying different things to make it so people do not feel that way.

 

 

 

[St3fan[NL]]

The concept is nice but I think in practice it needs to be controllable much more than just letting the script wipe the properties from someone.

Like @Wuhtah said, if you RP a similar character just a different name it makes no sense for you to loose a property or vehicles.

E.g. You RP a police officer, you are already forced by leadership to RP realistic assets. So in theory you cannot own anything your character cannot afford ICly. If you get CK'd on the job and/or you NC your character, you're still a police officer with the same salary so if it makes sense for your new character to keep the property and vehicle(s), then it should not get wiped.

 

People will sell their properties before NC'ing if this becomes a thing because you also lose alot of cash when you just get your property wiped.

 

This is not something a script can decide or not. If anything an option would be that you'd need to file a namechange request within the UCP when you own a property  you wanna keep so PM can decide if you can keep it or not and process the NC (and take the NC token from your UCP). This way people who do not wanna keep a property can either sell it first or choose get it wiped, if they do not want to wait on PM to judge their case.