House Taxation Discussion (2024)

Do it!

Suggestion 1: Don't use the price of the deed, but the number of tiles that this house blocks. After all, tiles are limited, not the gold or the secures of the deed.

Suggestion 2: Staggered taxes. The first house free/cheap, the second higher, the third even higher. Sorted by large to small, not by placement timestamp.

Suggestion 3: Taxes only from 30 days (after placement), before that "free"

Owyn said:

A poll was recently created in Discord discussing a theoretical House Taxation mechanic.

Benefits of Limiting House Ownership (this doesn't limit the house ownership, it just costs, yub?)

• Reduction of Inactive and Unused Houses
  • Free Up Valuable Real Estate: Limiting the number of houses per account ensures that properties held by inactive players are released back into the game. This prevents the virtual landscape from being cluttered with empty, unused houses.
  • Improved Game Environment: An environment free from numerous inactive houses is more immersive and visually appealing, enhancing the overall experience for active players. (I assume the amount of houses will not change whatsoever due to the "1st" house being free. Visually it will not change. New Owners will take up the slack.
• Increased Availability for Active Players
  • More Opportunities for New Players: By reducing the number of houses held by inactive accounts, more land becomes available for new and active players. This makes it easier for them to secure a home, which is often a critical aspect of player satisfaction and engagement.
  • Encourages Community Growth: More active players with homes contribute to a lively and vibrant community. This can lead to more interactions, events, and an overall richer gameplay experience.( More players will own houses and enjoy ownership, which is a good thing, less "real estate market" due to owning multiple houses might not be profitable)
• Enhanced Player Retention
  • Personal Investment: Owning a home increases a player's personal investment in the game. By ensuring active players can easily acquire and maintain homes, their commitment to the game and likelihood of continued play increases.
  • Sense of Achievement: Securing a home can be a significant milestone for many players. Making this milestone achievable and meaningful encourages continued play and exploration of game content. (Sense of achievement is a big deal yub)
• Economic Impact and Fairness
  • Discourages Hoarding: Limiting the number of homes per player helps prevent a few individuals from monopolizing property. This keeps the housing market balanced and fair, benefiting the entire player base.
  • Reduces Land Speculation: By taxing secondary and tertiary residences, players are less likely to acquire multiple houses purely for profit through reselling or renting, thereby keeping prices reasonable for those genuinely interested in home ownership.
  • Mitigate Malicious House Blocking: By charging players a tax to hold a house, holding malicious blocking houses will now cost a fee. (I assume we will actually see larger houses being used for those who own multiple in one area, and other places there will be many smaller houses as more players who are less associated with each other end up with a neighborhood.

Click to expand...

Owyn said:

• Sustainable In-Game Economy
  • Sink the Gold: Taxes on multiple residences generate consistent gold that will be removed from the economy, benefiting all players.
  • Prevents Inflation: Keeping a check on the number of houses each player can own helps prevent property inflation, ensuring that housing remains affordable for new and existing players alike.
• Encouragement of Responsible Ownership
  • Focus on Quality Over Quantity: Limiting house ownership encourages players to focus on maintaining and improving their primary residence rather than spreading their resources thin across multiple properties.
  • Active Management: Players are incentivized to actively manage and utilize their homes, contributing to a more dynamic and engaging game environment.
• Prevention of Unfair Advantages
  • Equal Opportunities: Ensuring that each player can only own a limited number of houses creates a level playing field where no one can dominate the housing market.
  • Discourages Exploitation: It minimizes the potential for exploitation by players who might otherwise use multiple homes to gain unfair economic advantages over others. (it's not forced limitation if they can afford it)
• Encourages Creative Use of Space
  • Innovative Housing Solutions: With fewer properties, players are more likely to be creative and efficient in their use of space, leading to unique and interesting home designs that enhance the game's cultural landscape.
  • Community Events and Gatherings: A focused and actively managed housing sector can lead to more community-driven events and gatherings, fostering a stronger sense of camaraderie among players. (Guilds will need to form stronger bonds with their members)

Limiting house ownership in the game Outlands can provide a multitude of benefits that enhance the overall player experience, maintain a healthy in-game economy, and ensure fair and equitable opportunities for all players.

Negatives of Limiting House Ownership

• Potential for Player Dissatisfaction
  • Perceived Punishment: Players who enjoy collecting or owning multiple properties may feel unfairly penalized by the additional taxes. This could lead to dissatisfaction and resentment among a segment of the player base.
  • Negative Impact on Player Experience: The additional financial burden might detract from the overall enjoyment of the game for some players, potentially leading to a decrease in player retention. (This will be balanced out by new players with homes, and theres always disatisfied players, but more players will always be better for the shard health)
• Economic Disadvantages for Casual Players
  • Resource Allocation: Casual players who own multiple properties may struggle to keep up with the tax requirements, leading to financial strain and possibly forcing them to abandon properties they enjoy. (This will be difficult, even I have a couple locations I enjoy but the benefit of an Inn can outweigh the loss. But it is a boon to have "Trap houses" and Strategic Military encampments around the map, but again, trust your guild members)
  • Barrier to Wealth Accumulation: Taxes on additional residences could disproportionately affect players who don't have the time or resources to generate significant in-game income, making it harder for them to achieve their housing goals.
• Discourages Creative and Community Projects
  • Hinders Large-Scale Projects: Players who use multiple houses for creative or community-driven projects (such as guild halls, event spaces, or role-playing venues) may find it financially challenging to maintain these endeavors under a taxation system. (this will indeed make it difficult if you have 'hold outs' who have a spot in a place you need. biggest con i would say)
  • Reduces Incentive for Community Building: High taxes on additional residences might discourage players from investing in properties that serve the broader community, potentially leading to a decline in community engagement and activity. (i would say the community will find a way, we have tons of POI's and locations we can utilize, and the map is only expanding. Homes themselves are not often used in these manners that i can see.)
• Potential for Economic Disparity
  • Favors Wealthier Players: Wealthier players who can easily afford the taxes may accumulate more properties, while those with fewer resources are restricted. This can lead to an imbalance where affluent players dominate the housing market. (wealthy players are still limited, but they will be able to solve some of the issues and probably won't just sit on houses to lose money, they will end up being more helpful to the community. Unless it's GG.
  • Economic Divide: A taxation system might exacerbate the gap between rich and poor players, making it harder for less wealthy players to compete in the housing market.

While taxing additional residences can help manage the in-game housing market and encourage active engagement, it's important to carefully consider and address these potential negatives to ensure the system benefits the broader player community without unintended negative consequences.

Click to expand...

a Prevalian Tax Collector
a Cambrian Tax Collector
a Terran..... etc....

Whenever houses start to not pay taxes -and- up until the house drops due to IDOC can we have random spawns of the above mobs (very strong mobs with no loot) just kind of patrolling the inside of the house and the immdeiate area outside attacking everyone whether you're blue, red, or grey?

That would be badass.

I don't have the answer but it would be another consideration to look at.

When answering the question, Which players and what types of impacts could this change involve or result into:

How many players that boat or are getting into boating have two or more houses in which one has a dockmaster. Would encouraging them out of multiple houses discourage or prevent them from boating? Could this change create a bigger divide between boaters, partial boaters, and non-boaters?

Legenis said:

I like this idea. But would be cool if Guilds could hit a prestige mark a single house its guild house that is also not taxed (in addition to the guild master private home). Would like to see this at a lower level.

I also think its a good idea to limit houses from 3 to 1. But I would like to be able to place vendors in my private residence. The current 'must be public' system is unfair for vendor marketing for the home owner if they had to make their only house public to sell their goods.

This is a good idea! But guilds and vendors should be assessed in this process.

Click to expand...

Would a guild as a community of people not have easier access and ability to pay the taxed rates, especially with treasury funds?

Maybe the tax is on total secures across the three accounts - without including inn rooms. So if you own a 30x30 and decide you want more land, you pay. But if you own 3 caravamns, you dont pay much.

AreYouKidden said:

Would a guild as a community of people not have easier access and ability to pay the taxed rates, especially with treasury funds?

Click to expand...

That is a good point. But the system would need to be designed to enable auto taxing of treasury vs. personal bank. Dont need the GM running out of money on an alt account when the guild has funds. Would also argue would be nice if guild houses refreshed the 30days if a high ranked member (or well any member) opens the door and the taxes are being paid.

Actually this leads to a good point, if there is a tax system added, would the 30day system go away? Or maybe taxes increase if you go past 30days?

Legenis said:

That is a good point. But the system would need to be designed to enable auto taxing of treasury vs. personal bank. Dont need the GM running out of money on an alt account when the guild has funds. Would also argue would be nice if guild houses refreshed the 30days if a high ranked member (or well any member) opens the door and the taxes are being paid.

Click to expand...

I don't like the direction this is headed. Housing is per player... it's the players slot, it's the players upkeep and it should the be the player's tax. Just becuase we have a loosely-defined concentration of housing that happen to all belong to the same guild doesn't really change any of that.

If the guild doesn't have enough members that are willing to take on those houses and the associated taxes, maybe they have too many houses.

Legenis said:

Maybe the tax is on total secures across the three accounts

Click to expand...

I don't think taxing secures is the move: it would disincentivize people from living in small houses and upgrading the number of secures.

I'd like to see a discussion on whether taxing the area of the house / floor plan vs. price of the deed is more appropriate.

I think third houses should be taxed at a higher rate than second houses. It should be a progressive tax.

Kudos to the management for coming up with this idea and gauging / engaging the players. I think it has to be carefully designed, but taxing additional houses seems like the right thing to do

Laughing Skull said:

I don't like the direction this is headed. Housing is per player... it's the players slot, it's the players upkeep and it should the be the player's tax. Just becuase we have a loosely-defined concentration of housing that happen to all belong to the same guild doesn't really change any of that.

If the guild doesn't have enough members that are willing to take on those houses and the associated taxes, maybe they have too many houses.

Click to expand...

I personally think the other direction, I'd like to be able to tag my house as a guildhouse, and have the guild leader approve it, and then taxes are drawn from the treasury automatically - with a page for the guild leader to end it at anytime. The reason being a guildhouse often houses many people in it - could be dozens even as people come and go using guild supplies, shelves and otherwise, this is actually helpful to the issue at hand - as people won't necessarily need their own house, or at least it can hold them over for longer until they can get one.

Where the gold comes from is inconsequential to me - having to pull it from the treasury to put in my bank to make the tax bill is just a nuisance.

I think the 30-60 day owner IDOC timer absolutely has to stay, we don't want these houses being locked forever - and there's nothing wrong with that system.

I also would have 0 issues with all 3 houses being taxed - let people live within their means if they want to live in the overworld - they have the option of rental rooms if it's something they don't wish to do, or can't afford.

AreYouKidden said:

I also would have 0 issues with all 3 houses being taxed - let people live within their means if they want to live in the overworld - they have the option of rental rooms if it's something they don't wish to do, or can't afford.

Click to expand...

I approve of this. I currently live in a 30x30 and use 1/20th of the lockdowns/space it has. I would immediately move to a much smaller house if this was implemented. I'm only in my current house because of the Joneses and there is completely no reason not to, no downside, no nothing.

If that recall tile thing ever goes through I am immediately moving into the sexiest house ever.... the Andarian Villa with Tower. That or the Prevalian Manor, but tbh even the Prevalian Manor is too much house for me.

As a compromise, if the guild wants to offer to cover the upkeep expenses, I would be fine with that. I suppose it doesn't matter where the gold is coming from.... as long as someone is paying for it and it exponentially increases in price based on the size of the house.

Proteus said:

I think taxes are a punitive way to incentivize owning one house. The genie was let out of the bottle on three accounts and some of the servers oldest fans would be hit by this who grew accustomed to the way things were.

Click to expand...

You are 1,000% correct. The genie was let out of the bottle so this server shouldn't make any meaningful changes ever again. This change will piss off a bunch of people to the point you are going to only have 4,900 players instead of 5,000. It would be a very, devastating change for sure. Just truly horrific.

Elric said:

You are 1,000% correct. The genie was let out of the bottle so this server shouldn't make any meaningful changes ever again. This change will piss off a bunch of people to the point you are going to only have 4,900 players instead of 5,000. It would be a very, devastating change for sure. Just truly horrific.

Click to expand...

I suppose only Luthius, Owyn and other staff would know. What if those 100 players you mention make up 90% of the donations that pay the bills and allow the server to continue?

Elric said:

You are 1,000% correct. The genie was let out of the bottle so this server shouldn't make any meaningful changes ever again. This change will piss off a bunch of people to the point you are going to only have 4,900 players instead of 5,000. It would be a very, devastating change for sure. Just truly horrific.

Click to expand...

Yup, the evolution of the server is a big reason why Outlands is as popular as it is. It's always changing in surprising ways that keep things interesting.

This is a good change and is something I've always wondered why there aren't taxes on 2nd and 3rd houses (great gold sink too).

The thing is, most veterans will have no problem paying the tax. They farm so much gold and are so wealthy, they won't even notice it. You want players to be active, especially ones that own 3 houses.

The tax should be progressively larger on the 3rd house as well. It should be expensive to own 3 houses.

I'm not sure if this would work, but you could have a gameplay element to it with Factions having an impact on housing tax rates for various regions (the factions need gold to properly defend your region, etc).

I've played for 736 days and never owned a house, mostly because anything beyond a caravan or an 8x8 has always been so expensive that an Inn is always a better option (for real, inns are great).

It's always a little sad (for the server) running by all these empty houses that are just refreshed by vets that don't use them. Hoarding because it's easy and risk free with no cost.