During the claiming period allowing lateral first come first serve relocations

[caspergrey]

I guess I am confused about what you are asking for then. Are you asking for a new part of the lottery be added at the end of the claiming period that allows players to relocate without having to deal with the lottery? Are you saying the claiming period should include a first come first serve relocation so that you can snipe houses from other players by relocating to the plot? I think both would be pretty terrible and defeat the purpose of having a lottery, to make it fair for everyone.

It sounds like you just want the ability to freely relocate your house around without having to go through the lottery.

No the claiming period/shuffling period would be the same period. In the most conservative example if you limit relocations to lateral moves in the same housing area, it would look like this:

Bidding period ends and winners are announced:

As people claim their houses, any vacated houses are free for relocation as long as it's in the same housing area and is a lateral or downward move... small-> small, medium -> (medium, small). Think of it as open shuffling, where you're taking a plot, but opening up a plot to be available for bidding the next cycle... maybe you just want to be in a ward with your friend.

Once the next bidding cycle begins, everything is locked again.

But yes, it allows anyone to relocate under certain criteria before the next lottery bidding.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "fair". The bidding system severely limits lateral movement. When free shuffling is allowed, a plot is vacated for every one that is relocated into... there are many more opportunities for players to move into a new plot while giving other players the opportunity to do so with their previous plot. More houses are moved into, and more people are moving into houses that they want without affecting the number of houses/plot sizes available in the next lottery cycle.

Right now, fewer players overall are getting into houses that they want in a strict bidding system, with fewer opportunities to do so. Allowing some form of shuffling is an overall benefit to more players.

[Amenara]

No the claiming period/shuffling period would be the same period. In the most conservative example if you limit relocations to lateral moves in the same housing area, it would look like this:

Bidding period ends and winners are announced:

As people claim their houses, any vacated houses are free for relocation as long as it's in the same housing area and is a lateral or downward move... small-> small, medium -> (medium, small). Think of it as open shuffling, where you're taking a plot, but opening up a plot to be available for bidding the next cycle... maybe you just want to be in a ward with your friend.

Once the next bidding cycle begins, everything is locked again.

But yes, it allows anyone to relocate under certain criteria before the next lottery bidding.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "fair". The bidding system severely limits lateral movement. When free shuffling is allowed, a plot is vacated for every one that is relocated into... there are many more opportunities for players to move into a new plot while giving other players the opportunity to do so with their previous plot. More houses are moved into, and more people are moving into houses that they want without affecting the number of houses/plot sizes available in the next lottery cycle.

Right now, fewer players overall are getting into houses that they want in a strict bidding system, with fewer opportunities to do so. Allowing some form of shuffling is an overall benefit to more players.

I guess I just don't see the problem with bidding on the plot you want to relocate into? It reminds me of the old system of relocations where you got to completely bypass the system in place for new home buyers and relocate whenever you wanted. It gives relocators an advantage again that I disagree with.

[caspergrey]

I guess I just don't see the problem with bidding on the plot you want to relocate into? It reminds me of the old system of relocations where you got to completely bypass the system in place for new home buyers and relocate whenever you wanted. It gives relocators an advantage again that I disagree with.

The point is that overall more players get into houses they want. The problem with strict bidding is less houses open up which creates a deadlock.

It's not an advantage, if anything it actually relieves pressure for new homebuyers because existing homeowners have a separate mechanism to get into a house they want.

Consider the following scenarios:

In the current system:

The lottery ends, and "player A" who won a house decides to vacate their current home.

That leaves 1 open house for the next lottery. Come next lottery, everyone who wants that house bids, and a maybe a new homeowner wins. 2 players are happy.

under the proposed system,

After "player A" vacates, "player B" who lives next door likes that house better. So "player B" relocates during the claiming period. Then "player C" likes "player B's" old house so they relocate. And then at the start of the next cycle, "player C's" house is available for the lottery.

In the first example 2 people got into houses they wanted. Also now, the new homebuyer is having to compete with "player B" for "player A" old house lowering the chance of them getting into a new home.

In the second example 4 people got into houses they wanted, in the same period of time.

also, Llimiting relocations to same housing area/same house size or smaller helps to maintain that the same quality of houses are available for the next lottery cycle as would have been if there was no relocation.

[GarretStrongstaf]

The point is that overall more players get into houses they want. The problem with strict bidding is less houses open up which creates a deadlock.

It's not an advantage, if anything it actually relieves pressure for new homebuyers because existing homeowners have a separate mechanism to get into a house they want.

Consider the following scenarios:

In the current system:

The lottery ends, and "player A" who won a house decides to vacate their current home.

That leaves 1 open house for the next lottery. Come next lottery, everyone who wants that house bids, and a maybe a new homeowner wins. 2 players are happy.

under the proposed system

I disagree. Your proposal absolutely gives the relocator an clear advantage over another plot that was abandoned during a lottery cycle just as it did pre-lotto. What if non-home owners like the first abandoned plot better than the one the one the relocator would leave behind under your proposed system?

I've been playing the housing game for eight years and I believe this current lottery system to be the most fair system ever implemented. The lotto system makes it nearly impossible for grandfathered multi-home-owners to relocate into bigger plots and resell them for profit. It also ensures that everyone has an equal shot at a plot, provided they have the cash for it. Furthermore, it increases the value and appreciation of the plots people currently own because it is now that much harder to get a plot. The current lotto system eliminated the unhealthy placard spamming too. I think things are just fine as they are.