Griefers are going to grief. Jerks are going to be jerks.
If selling land plots for coin did become a thing, whether the coin was mechanically supported through the ownership transfer or not, it would probably give people incentives to build out an area on a world and then give an estimated value because of the blocks used. Cause I don’t really think many people would pay much for a house made out of gleam cause glowing candy houses are ugly.
On the flip side of things, shop owners who sell various building materials (rock, stone, bricks, wood, metal blocks) might find the demand of their stuff goes up and that could cause a small price jump as a result. So for the economy side of things in the game it could be a net positive.
You really nailed my footfall concerns while encouraging plot sales. Everything you fleshed out there is what I was getting on about when we had that footfall discussion.
Nothing should be able to be sold without meeting some form of prestige minimum. This could be abused by just stacking th plotnwith unsightly blocks until time of transfer however anything is going to have a potential to be tested and exploited but you can’t ruin a potentially great dynamic because of something like prestige stacking.
Also, as many have said, builders included, being able to buy a home/shop in a designated area would help people like myself who have no creative or artistic bone in their body. I have been trying to find someone for nearly a month now to design/commission a design to have built or a step-by-step for me to follow to build on my own.
Yes, that’s my comment I made regarding prestige stacking. It would force the person to do something at any rate. At the end of the day, anything can be abused and exploited. Just like the current gem market, because “free market/capitalism “
Why are you guys working on this i think the community was more interested in managing beacons
annex choice option
give rights to leader to let others have temporary work permissions
and all the other stuff everyone sugested the last year
and its alot lol
dont see the point i can just shout on forum yow selling this beacon for 4k and just plotswitch so i say yeah do it make it easyer and then work on beacon options please they no fun to work with half the people that wonna help on projects cant cuase off the beacon system etc …
From a financial point of view it would be a great idea since players will be forced to buy more cubits to reserve the plots to be able to build their desired cities.
But it’s a double edge sword since griefers will have green light to just do what they want in a legal way.
Will the playerbase tolerate such behaviour? Only time will tell.
Yes. I think this will be a great development for builders! People who are endlessly creative get to do their thing and get paid for it! Maybe the selling mechanic could also spit out blueprints (hint hint).
Didn’t like it at first…but the more I read it, the more I like it. If you are gonna build on it, build on it! I’d find it helpful so that I could concentrate on one thing at a time, and keep me from getting greedy ( but there is an endless supply of beautiful vistas, so I’ll be okay). I may be grumbly about the initial cost, but if I make something nice, it’ll be worth it (no mish-mash of random refined blocks just for prestige for me).
This is the one point I’m a bit meh on. I think anything below settlement (10k) does not receive footfall. I am by no means an expert on footfall, but doesn’t it already work on a proportion basis? And don’t people get a footfall amount based on how much prestige they contribute to the city? Please feel free to nicely correct me if I’m wrong…nicely.
How would you see this working if empty plots are actually part of a build? We currently have ~400 plots in the middle of our build which used to contain rock. I also have land next to the build which I haven’t yet had chance to build on. Having additional upkeep on them would be no thanks from me.
Honestly, I think this would be horrible and hurt as many people as it helps. There are plenty of good reasons to have empty plots that don’t deserve extra taxation.
I know a lot of groups plot more land than they specifically want to use, in order that they may keep their surroundings more pristine.
Personally, I currently have nice plant-spawning area on Besevrona plotted with ~1000 plots, all placed 2 plots high off the ground. That way, I can keep the entire area open and spawning plants for anyone to harvest. As far as I’m concerned I’m not harming anyone and am (sort of) providing a service, however self serving it might also be. The idea that I should be taxed for having a large un-developed area would be a massive turn off.
I’ve also got plots like this. I was not referring to empty plots that are a part of a build (like maybe a natural buffer zone around a large build) but plots that are actually empty. A build surrounded by a large number of empty plots would have a reduced tax rate (as low as 0), as well as be supplemented by incoming footfall.
I would disagree, because a single well placed plot could be just as valuable as several hundred plots used to save a resource dense location. And anyone can get a few well placed plots. It would be lucrative for the casual player IMO, and make room for incentivizing EXPLORING. I think it is a brilliant idea. I would be looking at the realestate market daily. I could see shops opening up just selling real estate, with pictures and forum threads dedicated to it. This could become a new amazing element of the game.
Have to agree with @Stretchious on this one. Many of my builds use the surrounding environment to complement the build, with little to no work done to them, save some landscaping and tree pruning.
I don’t think there should be a penalty for keeping a plot the way it is.
Ideally, if you’re developing adjacent plots, you would be reducing your tax rate and also gaining footfall income from the area. The proposed model is intended to discourage plot speculation on plots with zero development, not to punish people who hold space around developed territory
Offtopic but have to reply on this. I have set beacon outside of portal area just because of really limited places list (what is even more messed up when trying to find right warp point). I can’t be only one who is placing beacon just because of that.
Hopefully token has enough details location of property or only sold on area that is on sale that scamming by selling plots from different place wouldn’t be possible. Additional 3d-plot view on beacon that has been previously suggested would be great for thing like this.
I think that if you’re going to allow transferring land at all then coins should be an integrated part of the transaction. Otherwise people will get scammed and would still be manually transferring coins (and/or even rmt) for the transfers.
As others have pointed out it’s a complex issues, but ultimately I think the ability to transfer plots should be a part of the game.
But my 1000+ plotted area has no development, and no current plans to be developed. I’ve even called it ‘Nature Reserve’, because that’s the purpose it’s providing and it’s how I want to use my plots.
Your intent might be to stop speculation, but it would still harm intentionally undeveloped areas. And don’t forget, given the current prestige mechanic people deliberately split their main build and the protection plots into two beacons because of the minus prestige that having so many undeveloped plots would have on their main building.
We’ve been over this a million times. You can’t replace a passive income stream with an active one. There has to be a way of accumulating passive income without shops.
Replace it with a daily reward based on prestige and we can talk.
From what I can tell, people are already “selling” plots. At least, so I assume from looking at the capital city of the planet I started on, with plot-sized buildings with “for sale” signs on them.
Since it’s happening, I would love to see a safe system provided by the game itself similar to how trading works. As is, there is risk that the “seller” would run off with the coin, or that some third party would plop down a beacon before the “buyer” could do so.
In this case, I absolutely believe you should need to pay upkeep on that. Maybe I want to develop that space. It’s fine that you should be able to keep nature reserves, but you’re going to need a source of income or material investment to keep that space for yourself. Perhaps you host safari’s to raise funds, or perhaps you have properties elsewhere that offset the cost. But vast swaths of land that nobody is allowed to develop needs a balancing cost to maintain.
Your costs should be even higher if this reserve is near or in contact with high population cities (on account of the “value” of the land being higher) and lower or zero if it is in contact with no settlement or very small settlements. If your nature reserve is in the middle of nowhere, you would have low or no upkeep costs. If your reserve is in the middle of Aquatopia, your tax will be prohibitively high unless you develop the space with prestige.
What about if it wasn’t out-right selling and instead an auction where the starting price is a low static value (say 1000 coin) + 100 coin paid to start the auction and the highest bid is paid to the owner less 10, 15% or 20%.
Once the auction is started it cannot be undone unless the original owner bids on it and wins (in effect paying the 100 coin setup fee and the sale tax).
This way the interested players set the value based on demand for the parcel, rather than the seller. This would also introduce a coin sink with the taxes that would be healthy for the economy.
Additionally when a beacon expires or is released by it’s owner, it could by default enter this auction phase for some time in which case if people do bid on it, it’s a 100% coin sink which is even better! If no one bids on it, the deconstruction happens like it does today. This also helps combat the system of trade sales since the final plot is going to default into auction mode.
No matter what the outcome here, I’d still like the option to release ownership outright to a land owners own alts.
The problem with this is that then people that are trying to reserve land to build are being negatively affected just because they wanted to BUILD.
At this point we are continuing to make more and more things for this game that cause conflict and competition among players. I don’t understand why were are developing anything like this when we have other issues and problems we need solved. We are wasting developer time.
If this “beacon transfer” was for a Guild or community system, then ok. But it should not include private people because they already have options to do this… or focus on “contracts” which help us in a million ways.