Lose all properties on name change

[Lomadias]

I agree ... and disagree.

 

In essence, I agree with the idea. All character's should be unique, completely different. None of my character's have anything that another character in that slot had, I wiped it all and started from scratch.

 

In practicality I don't think it would go down well, whether it tackled the issue or not. Assets and portrayal can be tackled by RPQM and PM if relating to properties.

 

Apartments:

 

Properties should be purchased on an in-character basis, for reasons specifically benefitting the character on their development.

• Location - close to work, within a reasonable range of RP.
• Size - suitable for the character/family.
• Style - suitable for the character's preferences.
• Price - within an affordable range that's suited to the character.

I've seen county character's snatch up Vespucci canal's properties because of the location is somewhere they liked OOCly, but they're never used. I've seen Mission Row character's do the same, because OOCly they want a cool house by the beach. We need to stop thinking like this, but I don't think we ever will. OOC reasoning seems to trump what's reasonable IC for many, not all, but many.

 

The issue with revoking these is largely mapping. If mapping wasn't done OOC and took as much effort and cost as it did, I'd be 100% for a new, clean character slot with nothing on it. Mapping is too unique, too much effort and too much cost to throw that away. If someone is proud or happy with the mapping in their apartment, I want them to continue to use it until they no longer want it.

 

Certain area's have a shortage of these apartments, Vespucci for example. I can understand why player Tom Thompson wants to keep that uniquely mapped beachside apartment because, good luck getting another one. This is something we as PM need to tackle where we can, I don't want to punish the players for lack of availability.

 

Vehicles:

 

Should be bought on an in-character basis for in-character reasons.

The amount of times I see someone NC, but then justify keeping 3 extra vehicles purely because "they can afford it" is mind boggling. It doesn't matter if you can scriptly afford something, if it makes no sense for the character who's a barista to have a neon, paragon and a dietyciv.

 

I do agree with wiping vehicle assets, but players can also just sell them. If they have a ridiculous amount, any administrator can approach them, or they can be RPQM'd.

 

Stand-alone houses:

 

Should be bought on an in-character basis for in-character reasons.

HOWEVER...

 

House request houses take a degree of OOC effort. If someone can create a new character based on a different concept, is ACTUALLY different but the wealth, portrayal, location and everything else makes sense, I will 100% allow them to keep the property they wrote an application for. Normally I will ask for a new character background story, and I'll look into assets and everything like a mini-request, but we do allow this to happen. However, this is only with approval. Anyone NC'ing with a stand-alone property or conditioned business and not notifying PM will at some point have them revoked.

 

Same applies for mapping here as well. Some of these houses have multiple interiors and literally a hundred hours of mapping with millions in furniture cost.

 

Businesses:

 

Exactly as Wuhtah said. If someone has requested a business, changes character but the new concept is to run a business in the same industry just with a new skin (fancy restaurant to a taco place for example) I'm gonna facilitate that if I can. Same as house requests, they take a degree of OOC effort to set up, map and run. If they enjoy it and can make two unique characters? Go for it.

 

Mapping again, comes into play.

 

So...

 

They could all be reverted to PM, for the player to then request back, but I think that's unnecessary red-tape and extra work PM do not need. It's been proven time and time again, that there's a large portion in this community that cannot be trusted to make realistic decisions and they play like it's GTA:O, however I don't think the solution to that is making it a little more difficult for players we can trust.

 

PM are here for concerns, RPQM are here for concerns. At the moment, I think it makes more sense to tackle it that way?

 

We're open to the discussion of course!

[Nervous]

Approved & implemented for next restart.

 

 

Joking

Edited June 9, 2022 by Nervous

[Paenymion]

2 minutes ago, Nervous said:

Approved & implemented for next restart.

If not joking, you probably should give people some advanced warning 😮

[Wuhtah]

3 minutes ago, Nervous said:

Approved & implemented for next restart.

 

WHAT???

[Nervous]

It was a joke of course 😄 

We don't plan on changing this.

[Valkyria]

Just now, Nervous said:

It was a joke of course 😄 

We don't plan on changing this.

you're such a troll i stg

[Lomadias]

1 minute ago, Nervous said:

It was a joke of course 😄 

We don't plan on changing this.

 

LOL

[Wuhtah]

2 minutes ago, Nervous said:

It was a joke of course 😄 

We don't plan on changing this.

 

Smh. You give PM heart attacks on the daily.

[Pwedmy]

2 minutes ago, Nervous said:

It was a joke of course 😄 

We don't plan on changing this.

Just made everyone take a massive shit, LOL

[St3fan[NL]]

🤣🤣🤣

This man.