I have proposed a solution as well, which would be to deal with it on a case-by case basis, and keep the rent at 5k a week. Again, why force the active shop owners like @quefueve and @usernameofdeath take the blame for 3-4 users?
People haven't been selling them, doesn't mean people would love to get their hands on one. @MCHelix3000 was looking for weeks until he finally found a seller selling a prime location spawnshop.
I can name three more people who want to sell out of the current 24 owners. People want to buy, but it costs immense amounts upfront to buy them, and most shop owners at these high levels want every penny. Right now, front rows run between 6-8 mill (sinder just bought one for 8.1 mill), seconds around 2-3 million (from who I have talked to) , and third rows around 750k million or so (from experience) . Heck, I'm even interested in one particular 2nd row, but I have to save for it and will have to buy near the end of the summer to have any chance of having enough. Still, supporting this suggestion without a hard numerical value of what shops are worth and what they make makes me skeptical as to if this is worth it. It needs more supplement than the objective trade sign rule to be honest.
That's what I'm trying to get at, I don't think having an objective trade sign rule is the best way to tackling the problem which is the reason why I came up with the idea of increasing the rent, Looking back, I understand that this may be harsh towards users who own one of these 24 market shops(I own one and can understand the points you're bringing up) but I felt like that was a sacrifice which would further the market as a whole. I understand that increasing the trade sign rule would hopefully fix the problem but like I said earlier, couldn't people just create a lot of "crazy" tradesigns as in selling dirt for $100 a block?
But in reality, if we (the server) up the rent, we're upping it for the wrong reason. If we up the rent, it should be a way to counter inflation, as @Nicit6 referenced. Ultimately, We should fix the true underlying objective: faulty/unstocked signs. Changing the rent won't fix the problem. Changing the rule will. Make the rule from 8-10 trade signs to 8-10 active and stocked signs. Users who don't do that run the risk of eviction. Then, deal with conflicts on a case-by-case basis with the GAs+. That's just a thought. But, when it all boils down, trade signs are the bigger problem than the actual rent.
I'm sorry, but your suggestions will be "bashed" if they don't seem like appropriate measures to solve the problems you're presenting. I'm all for trying to find ways to improve the server experience, but sadly in this case, from my limited "merchant" standpoint it is not something that I perceived (before this suggestion was made) as a problem for the server community, and as such, I had not had the opportunity to find a better potential solution. My only option left, as a member that wants to contribute, is to simply disagree with a suggestion that in my opinion would cause more harm than good if implemented, because I'd rather wait to see if someone can eventually come up with a good idea, than rush and suggest something faulty. As we wait, I guess the way to go is to file complaints on shops who are not following the "# of Signs" rule, and considering that the shop plots are quite large compared to the old ones, I'd say it probably would be better to increase that minimum, but I'd like to see some more opinions on that matter. Perhaps also reminding owners of the Common Sense and maybe even Scamming Attempts sections in the rule clauses regarding shops could make a difference to avoid the "ridiculous signs" some people have mentioned. Nonetheless, I'd like people to drop the "stereotype" of what a Spawn Shop is supposed to be (in case they see it this way). Although there are many "Walmart-esque/1-Stop-Shop Locations" nowadays, to build a shop like that is by no means a requirement on the server, as everyone has the right to manage a shop according to their needs, their wishes and their capabilities. Of course, the rules can be modified to create some new "standards" if that's the way Administration wants the marketplace and Spawn Shops to be (seeing the reasons for regulars users to support this suggestion seem to be related to the hope to establish this "ideal shop" standard). However, running a shop that permanently sells "high demand" items like EXP, NetherStars, etc. is definitely something that takes more time and dedication to do properly. I'd say a big amount of lower ranked users that might want to own a shop themselves wouldn't be able to follow this standards, especially if a new standard is to have the shops stocked with 'nice prices 24/7' like people seem to think every shop should be (exaggerating a bit here, but just so you can see my point). As someone with experience in this field, I don't think it would be fair to subject everyone to this kind of standards, considering they may want to focus on some specific "unusual" items, or simply don't have the time to fully dedicate to running a shop of this nature, but want the opportunity to make some extra money too. After all, they are the ones losing money if they are not committed enough, and you can always go to the shop next door to find what you're looking for. I apologize if this isn't the exact point of most people's arguments, this is simply the overall impression I have gotten when reading the previous posts.
Very good points here. One thing I would like to point out is that instead of filing a complaint, attempt to contact the owner and possibly suggest ideas on how they can get more value from their shop. I did this and the player did make an effort to improve his shop and there were no hard feelings. I absolutely agree with Q about being careful of the "standards" as he states not every player has the same access to every item. In addition, there are some players that have their shops that are very specialized with certain items and seem to do quite well for themselves and have a great customer base. It would be unfair to have them conform to standards that would negatively affect their business. That said, I would like to see more signs required and at least a minimal shop - not just signs stuck on some dirt.
Bumping this for relevance You obviously have no idea what "capitalism" is. Do stores just sit there, having nothing available just to sit there? No. Why? Because capitalism is about making a profit and competition. And you won't make any money having a store that's just sitting there selling nothing. Capitalism is about competition and profit, not being able to keep your little "status symbol" there for no reason at all else than to show wealth.
You know, you're right. Capitalism is about competition for profit. However, you're forgetting one thing here. Capitalism becomes a have and have not society. If people can afford to pay for bigger shops, and not stock them just to be able to say they have a front row shop, they will, and that's the way it will be.
Have you ever heard of a company that has a store just to have it? No, I certainly have not. Capitalism is about motivation to make a profit, and there's no motivation in this.
Well, clearly they do because this suggestion is about market shops not being active. Also, for reference, capitalism isn't about making a profit, it's about being able to privately hold property and do as you wish with it. While operating for a profit is generally the goal, it's very easy to argue that the ability not to work for a profit with what you have is also capitalistic. Anyway arguing about capitalism isn't directly relevant to the suggestion so I'll tie it up with something that is; solution presented does not actually solve the problem, people will not give up multimillion dollar assets because they're being charged 5k more per week. They'll simply take the hit.
Also, why are you so adamant about stripping them of their property? It's ridiculous how you are so poised in ridding these people from their spawn shops just because it sits there. And as Nicit said, they all have millions of dollars, so they will just take the hit.
Yes, however they specifically state that spawn shops aren't your home. They're meant to operate to make a profit. If you want a multimillion dollar status symbol, buy a well-known town. Now I do understand that most players won't really take a hit, but it doesn't really hurt to take more money out of the economy.
Yes, they do state that - I'm just saying your argument of capitalism is flawed. And so is adding an ineffective suggestion just to take more money out of the economy. This doesn't solve the problem, and changing the rent would be an inconvenience to a good deal of people. If you want to make a suggestion to take more money out of the economy by all means do so, but don't put it under the guise of what it won't do.
Yes, however why do stores sell goods? To make a profit of course. I could argue that capitalism is all about the incentive to make profit; Why do factories produce goods? To sell and make a profit. Why do farms produce food? To sell it and make a profit. I could go on all day. One could easily argue this way also. However, I do see your point, as the most widely accepted definition of "Capitalism" is privately controlled means of production, which more or less fits your definition of being able to privately own property. However, there are many other elements of capitalism also, such as the incentive to make a profit, which I've stated above.
