HOUSING NEEDS TO CHANGE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solowing

"Oh I like this housing system!"

"Well I dont like it and it needs to be like RIFTS Housing system!"

"So why not play Rift for its housing system?"

"No, I want it here"

"But I like this housing system"

"IDC, bring that system here"

"Why don't you go play that?"

"Because I don't want to play that"

"But I like this housing system"

"NO, it needs to be like RIFT!"

"THEN GO PLAY RIFTS HOUSING SYSTEM!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solowing

You are expecting them to take another games housing system 1:1 idealistic especially given XIV housing system has been here for over a decade now. Not really considering those who enjoy this ward system. As well as happily making a duplicate system designed to sidestep the primary housing ruleset like that equity under unequal rulesets is fair.

---

Do you often have delusional one sided arguments with yourself? I never said nor implied any of this strawman argument you've constructed in your mind.

You claimed instanced housing was bad because of 'X' reason. I countered your statement by pointing out that in fact, no, instanced housing isn't inherently bad for 'X' reason because another game with instanced housing completely circumvents 'X'. Nowhere did I say that the housing system in said game should be copied over to FF. I only said that it does many things better with the implication that SE should look into maybe using that as reference for ways to improve FF's housing system from the mess it currently is.

I will repeat, again, for probably the sixth time, my desire is for the housing system in FFXIV to be better. That means more customizability, more decoration limit, more options, and most importantly more accessibility to the system for all players. Instanced housing is one means toward making those things possible. And sure, I fully agree that it's not necessarily the only way. If SE can do all of the aforementioned through the existing ward system, then fine. However, there are technical flaws that make the existing ward system very limiting, which is why I think considering other iterations of housing should be considered so the game isn't forever held back by technical debt caused by past design decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xylira

I will repeat, again, for probably the sixth time, my desire is for the housing system in FFXIV to be better. That means more customizability, more decoration limit, more options, and most importantly more accessibility to the system for all players. Instanced housing is one means toward making those things possible. And sure, I fully agree that it's not necessarily the only way. If SE can do all of the aforementioned through the existing ward system, then fine. However, there are technical flaws that make the existing ward system very limiting, which is why I think considering other iterations of housing should be considered so the game isn't forever held back by technical debt caused by past design decisions.

---

Top down changes, over time you'll get what you want.

Ive read through all 12 pages of this thread at this point, there were a lot of good points and a lot of bad points, but the biggest take awy I have from reading everything is that Solowing is not a nice person and argues in bad faith and tries to bring down every single person that disagrees with them. Can we please stick to the topic at hand and stop attacking people? This is supposed to be a conversation about how housing needs to change, and it does. Using the excuse that its good how it is because its exclusive and gives people a sense of FOMO is not a good argument. Housing SHOULDN'T be exclusive, is that not why the changes were made to make it a lottery system instead of the old clicking system? This is also coming from someone that preferred that system because if its meant to be exclusive well, that was the more exclusive method. Now its more "Fair" because its a lottery system, but its not because you have FC's taking up 5-10 plots in a single ward, how exactly is that supposed to be fair when the plots are so limited? I have to agree with the instanced housing solution, that is the best method to fix a lot of the problems there are with housing. They don't need to get rid of the wards with this method they can just make them two separate kinds of housing, and who actually cares if there is a different set of rules for the different kind of house you have? That argument falls a bit flat when you realize that apartments are ALREADY a different set of rules from plots when you realize apartments are not subject to demolition. I saw someone's post about using the buildings in Solution 9 as instanced condos and such and I think that's a great idea because you can have different sizes for what different people can afford, and it can all be instanced just like apartments are already, doing that, they would fall under the second set of rules that is already primarily established for apartment housing with the differences from wards and the player base would get the best of both worlds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Echohitomi

Ive read through all 12 pages of this thread at this point, there were a lot of good points and a lot of bad points, but the biggest take awy I have from reading everything is that Solowing is not a nice person and argues in bad faith and tries to bring down every single person that disagrees with them..

---

Is this is how you shape a personal attack as a point?

You guys are way too used to having an echo chamber. And swatting aside facts you don't like.

Again when they said "condo" that's another way of saying "Small Plot+ without the demo timer"

Trying to intentionally be vague about what a "condo" is. In terms of size and functionality.

Multiple posters have mentioned where the lines of fairness get drawn. And that's a topic that needs to be broached. But some of you keep running back to emotional arguments and smearing.

If you cant see that having 2 similar housing systems and hold both participants to different rules is unfair and problematic. but I think you're indifferent to that for the end-goal. I guess maybe I am mean, but at that's least honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solowing

You guys are way too used to having an echo chamber. And swatting aside facts you don't like.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solowing

Multiple posters have mentioned where the lines of fairness get drawn. And that's a topic that needs to be broached. But some of you keep running back to emotional arguments and smearing.

---

Interesting statements considering a very strong case could be made that you're behaving exactly the way you're accusing everyone else of behaving.

You've repeatedly misunderstood, ignored, misrepresented, and outright fabricated meaning and intent of what other posters, myself included, have said in regards to the conversation. You constantly fall back on appeals to emotion about how any proposed improvement that involves instanced housing would be 'unfair' to you, while ironically ignoring how unfair things currently are for everyone else. You then have the audacity of accusing other posters as being 'entitled' or 'greedy' for wanting wider access to housing being made available.

So I have to agree with Echohitomi, you haven't been engaging the conversation in good faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xylira

You then have the audacity of accusing other posters as being 'entitled' or 'greedy' for wanting wider access to housing being made available.

---

Entitlement stems from a pervasive, often learned belief that one deserves special treatment, resources, or admiration regardless of actual contribution or merit. It is driven by psychological factors like narcissism, childhood upbringing, and a defense mechanism against anxiety or perceived injustice. It is a self-centered, emotional state reinforced by cultural messages.

Yea and I stand by it. Because that's the definition that is fitting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nyastra

What I’m pushing back on is the idea that instancing automatically removes all conflict or fairness concerns. History shows it doesn’t.

Saying “this is a game, so there don’t need to be trade-offs” ignores the reality of persistent, shared online systems. Housing in FFXIV isn’t a single-player feature, it’s visible, social, finite by design, and for many players, a primary space of escape, creativity, or community. Those qualities inherently introduce constraints and responsibilities, regardless of intent.

---

We all went through the Ward system for a plot, and you have the opportunity to obtain a plot LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s32ialx

Also the whole "sidestep" the demolition timer is the whole point it's in the title. Why are you so salty about this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nyastra

even if condos are permanent, customizable, a gil sink, and optional, that doesn’t automatically guarantee fairness. It still depends on how they compare to ward housing in practice — cost, size, value, restrictions, and long-term impact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nyastra

The disconnect here is between “this sounds feasible to me as a player” and “this is fair, scalable, and sustainable for the game as a whole.” Those are not the same thing.

---

I'm not going to be tiptoeing around people sensitivity to the truth. Like Apartments are housing, and once they offered you that "housing" as a feature was fulfilled. Its the players onus to find their own plot as Apt as accessible (which is is) and easily obtainable.

"Equal outcome with unequal rules" describes an equity-focused approach that applies different standards or resources to individuals based on their circumstances, aiming to ensure everyone reaches the same result, often contrasting with "equality of opportunity," where the same rules apply to all.

Key Concepts and Perspectives

Definition of Equity: This approach, often called equity, argues that because individuals have different starting points or abilities, treating them exactly the same (equality) can reinforce disparities.

Mechanism: It involves providing more, or different, support to those with greater needs to achieve a uniform outcome, such as providing more financial aid to a lower-income person than a high-income person.

Critique: Critics argue this approach requires systemic discrimination, creates unfairness by ignoring merit, and involves coercive, top-down control to force results.

Contrast with Equality: While equal rules (equality) focus on the process being the same for everyone, equal outcomes focus solely on the final result.

People often mistake equity for equality because both concepts aim for fairness and justice, often leading them to be used interchangeably in casual conversation. While equality means providing the same resources to everyone, equity involves providing resources tailored to individual needs to ensure equal outcomes.

Shared Goal of Fairness: Both terms are used when discussing social justice and improving conditions, causing confusion between the two distinct methods.

Surface-Level Similarity: Both concepts appear to aim for a "level playing field," leading people to assume treating everyone the same (equality) is the same as giving everyone what they need to succeed (equity).

Lack of Differentiation: Many, even in professional contexts, may not understand that equality assumes everyone starts at the same level, whereas equity recognizes systemic barriers require different support levels.

Goal-Oriented Misconception: Some may view equity merely as a tool to achieve equality, merging the two concepts into one idea of "fairness".

In summary, equality ignores specific, individual needs while equity prioritizes them to achieve a fair outcome, a nuance frequently missed.

Some people think Equity = Equality and that simply not the case. (college course stuff apparently, I was told by my roommate. I think its pretty cool to have that topic come up in a forum setting for a video game.) Its just that's their no systemic barriers here. So every attempt to re-write the rules to favor those without is creating equity, not equality.

If I'm "not nice" oh well, I'm sorry that facts get in the way of your opinions but I cant help that. But I'm not going to let your emotions dictate my response. Nystra is more neutral in their words, but progress isn't going to be made until we talk about the unfairness issue. But this keeps getting dragged back to "but everyone gets it so its ok!". Which I return to "that's equal outcome, not equal opportunity" And we bounce between <everyone should have equal outcomes, and everyone already has equal opportunity>

In any financial transaction there is one question both parties have to ask themselves, what leverage do I have in this transaction? (in regards to a plot) and the answer in your case is none. "~2 and a half men"

You keep subbing until you get a plot (not housing because you already have access to it via apartments), and if you have to keep using it or you lose it, indirectly tied you to sub a few times a year. It's a game where the house always wins. And you're asking the house to give up leverage. An they arnt going to.

I keep asking for the definition of housing. Here it is


hous·ing1
/ˈhouziNG/
noun
noun: housing; plural noun: housings
1.
houses and apartments considered collectively.

I really don't understand how am i arguing in bad faith , pulling up the dictionary? How can we argue with the dictionary?

Exterior and interior housing is available without having a plot. Tell me where that statement is untrue?

Which is why i say you bit more specific , so you don't encapsulate housing overall , with the plots that you actually want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solowing

...

---

That's a lot of gish gollop to say that you don't want more people getting access to housing because it would hurt your feelings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xylira

That's a lot of gish gollop to say that you don't want more people getting access to housing because it would hurt your feelings.

---

you don't feel like apartment's a good enough.And you feel entitled to something more..

You can think mighty highly yourself if you think I care about your virtual house. I've said the rules need to be applied evenly.And you cannot create a secondary housing system to sidestep , the first one.

As even the OP said it themselves that was the intent of the condo system.

You're doing with shadow does and run to personal attacks when you run out of steam. I've been saying , is they have a counter argument for every argument that you could make , and i'm simply giving you those arguments and you guys are upset over that.

Imagine getting mad at somebody for saying everyone should be held to the same standard lol. But if this is the sentiment you share, I think we should be able to ask square, can you give us the Neck tattoo? And while we're at it , you can add my name to the credits of ARR. It's not fair that that group gets an exclusive tattoo and their names added to the credits. I think it's more fair for everyone if we all have access to it.So we should get it , and if whoever disagrees is just gatekeeping

It's pretty easy to undermine the reason why they got the neck tattoo.If I can frame it as an accessibility problem. And say who disagrees is gatekeeping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solowing

...

---

Yep, you really must not care when you can't help but complain about how it would be unfair to you when anyone asks for housing in the game to be expanded and more accessible to all players. ;)