Re-enable Housing Demolition!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luna-M

It's a game not real life....

---

Right? It's not as if the people waiting on the new wards for housing are sleeping on the streets. It's a vanity item, not something at all neccessary to the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luna-M

It's hilarious how people defend having demo disabled. It's a game not real life....

---

Ok, Karen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KayRadley

Ok, Karen.

---

Very constructive, Kay. Can you please elaborate instead of doing a shitty attempt to insult me with meme/SJW names?

Or do you think a virtual house in a video game is more important than real life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luna-M

Very constructive, Kay. Can you please elaborate instead of doing a shitty attempt to insult me with meme/SJW names?

Or do you think a virtual house in a video game is more important than real life?

---

The fact that you say "SJW" unironically means you aren't even worth debating with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KayRadley

The fact that you say "SJW" unironically means you aren't even worth debating with.

---

Since you brought up "ok, karen" you of all people know what that means. But sure run away if you like. Wasn't much of a discussion to begin with. Clearly it triggered you in some way given your reaction to it.

I'm really surprised at the amount of people virtue signaling by being for the Auto-Demolish system remaining turned off. Honestly, the people who are getting kicked while they are down, are the CURRENT PLAYERS of the game who are unable to purchase a house. There is never a reason to turn it off. People come and go from online games. If at this point the Devs have left a systemic housing problem continue with Auto-Demolish off, without implementing a solution now (not promises to fix in the future), then the Auto-Demolish needs to come back on to at least let current players get a crack at owning a home in game. Never ending asset locking for people not currently playing/paying for the game is terrible for current players.

+1 signed, I would like to see some healthy stuff going on again in the FFXIV market.

and the 2nd thing, remove grandfathering and restrict it to 1 house and 1 FC house per account.

Would be great... my 5th character still needs a house. And i made a 6th... oh and if dear SE would allow us to share house with our alts i could stop stealing houses from others.

in events past, pandemics last for years even decades. If they intent to keep demolish disabled until its eventual eradication that's incredibly stupid as it will be a thing the world will deal with for many decades. News of Vaccines and when that gets release where it be the end of 2020 or the first few months of 2021 will most likely cause another outbreak due to the bum-rush nature of people desperate for defense and even that is the best case scenario, worst case is it'll be endemic, so what never enabling auto demolish ever again? Rip the band aid off and let the housing economy breathe.

say yes to Prop XIV

Demo works when it is left on. Its how I got my plots on different servers.

Definitely turn Demolition back on.

If housing would have been implemented correctly in the first place, this wouldn't even need to be a thing. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyhawk

If housing would have been implemented correctly in the first place, this wouldn't even need to be a thing. :P

---

I can't blame SE for taking a risk and trying something different. The neighborhood idea is a good concept that would have worked if the demand for housing was primarily from FCs instead of individual players.

The increasing popularity of the game at this late stage in the game's life cycle only made the problem worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Holy_Shenanigans

COVID-19 is going to continue affecting everyone for many months, if not years to come. Does this mean that housing demolition is going to be disabled until the Coronavirus crisis has officially ended?

This isn't a viable solution to the housing problem. Adding new wards is only a temporary solution. And it will only benefit current players.

The best solution would be to re-enable housing demolition, and never disable it again. It's an essential part of keeping housing available as an option for new and existing players.

Who supports re-enabling housing demolition?

---

No thank you.

Or they can keep it disabled forever and fix how they handle housing and instancing from the ground-up. If they would just spend time on it, they have amazing developers (world class) who could rectify the system so that everyone can get a house if they desire without any overhead and perhaps require less server resources than there is right now.

The problem is we are not only dealing with Covid. Specifically speaking for the United States, you have had massive wildfires on the West coast from the southern most parts of California all the way into British Columbia in Canada that have displaced a large number of residents. You've had some pretty nasty hurricanes and tropical storms that have hit the South East US, specially parts of Louisiana were hit very hard by hurricane Laura where some cities still do not have power because their electrical grid got effectively destroyed.



While I agree demolition should be turned on again eventually, now is not the time to turn it on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avyiur

The problem is we are not only dealing with Covid. Specifically speaking for the United States, you have had massive wildfires on the West coast from the southern most parts of California all the way into British Columbia in Canada that have displaced a large number of residents. You've had some pretty nasty hurricanes and tropical storms that have hit the South East US, specially parts of Louisiana were hit very hard by hurricane Laura where some cities still do not have power because their electrical grid got effectively destroyed.



While I agree demolition should be turned on again eventually, now is not the time to turn it on.

---

I think Japan and the Philippines was hit by a few typhoons as well and the year isn't over. Later this year we'll be entering typhoon season for those living in SE-Asia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avyiur

The problem is we are not only dealing with Covid. Specifically speaking for the United States, you have had massive wildfires on the West coast from the southern most parts of California all the way into British Columbia in Canada that have displaced a large number of residents. You've had some pretty nasty hurricanes and tropical storms that have hit the South East US, specially parts of Louisiana were hit very hard by hurricane Laura where some cities still do not have power because their electrical grid got effectively destroyed.



While I agree demolition should be turned on again eventually, now is not the time to turn it on.

---

There's usually some situation going on in some part of the world that's affecting people in a manner that obstructs them from playing the game for an extended period of time.

Where does the line get drawn for when it's okay for demolition to be active and when it's not?

For how long should someone be allowed to retain their house without an active subscription before SE has to acknowledge "this player likely won't be returning and another player should have use of the plot"?

How many players are taking advantage of the blanket suspension to avoid paying a sub to keep their house even though there is nothing preventing them from playing, which in turn is locking out players who are active and paying their sub from having access to a house?

How do the 2 numbers compare - those genuinely impacted and unable to play versus those who could be playing but choose not to and have no risk to worry about?

Back to "this discussion wouldn't be necessary if SE had implemented a proper instanced housing system similar to one in other MMOs".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

There's usually some situation going on in some part of the world that's affecting people in a manner that obstructs them from playing the game for an extended period of time.

Where does the line get drawn for when it's okay for demolition to be active and when it's not? .

---

Indeed, in this case they might as well turn it off permanently

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

I can't blame SE for taking a risk and trying something different.

---

It's not really that different. Archeage, released in 2013, with contestable open world housing, and a demolition timer. Landmark (voxel building game) did it, with payment in Tin (from memory). Secondlife has open world housing, but that's paid for with real dollars (up to hundreds a month). There are more with open world, non-instanced housing, all predating FFXIV's housing.

The issues are clear in all these games, from fighting over plots, to the equivalent of Piassa houses topped with brightly glowing carbunkle ears littering the landscape.

https://i.redd.it/9di2mig70ct21.png

I would say change the to current pricing if your buying it as an FC and Orginal pricing for private housing.

Might I suggest a third option between 'enable demolition to bring out a tiny trickle of houses opening' and 'add in a static number of houses to a rapidly increasing playerbase that is far outstripping any single increase in supply?

Give Ishgard an instanced plot, and you can have that house OR a ward house, but not both at the same time. Bam, want a house get a house, plots in wards will free up as many want Ishgard housing, there will always be at least one plot to anyone who wants a house, gets the furniture market moving, gives people a reason to make use of the insanely easy crafter leveling, nobody loses out on anything. A single plot to the WoL could even make sense 'Thank you for your help with everything' sort of thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kewitt

I would say change the to current pricing if your buying it as an FC and Orginal pricing for private housing.

---

Except the original pricing (40m smalls, 500m larges) was when housing was FC only. Current pricing (90%) off was brought about specifically because when they opened housing to personals, people said "but I cant afford 500m, now that they're personal, cheaper, please!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catstab

Except the original pricing (40m smalls, 500m larges) was when housing was FC only. Current pricing (90%) off was brought about specifically because when they opened housing to personals, people said "but I cant afford 500m, now that they're personal, cheaper, please!"

---

So? 4M is way to low for a small nowadays. I would much rather see a proper gilsink and make people farm 40m+ (which dont't take long)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catstab

Except the original pricing (40m smalls, 500m larges) was when housing was FC only. Current pricing (90%) off was brought about specifically because when they opened housing to personals, people said "but I cant afford 500m, now that they're personal, cheaper, please!"

---

To be fair, that pricing (most expensive was actually 625m for 1st class large) was because it was based on the high amount of gil around on specific legacy servers afaik and not because it was for FCs? For added context, the smaller servers at the same time had a range from 4m for 5th class small to 62.5m for 1st class large. Also, poking around there's comments linked to the PLL shortly after the FC launch and forum stuff that says people were complaining about the prices well before personals were a thing.

Either way, differentiating pricing would be... pretty negative, you'd expect everyone to get grandfathered in (particularly given people kept their extra homes after the purchase limitations) so it only hits people buying personals moving forward and if you were going to raise the pricing it seems like it makes more sense to hit both because FCs can just crowd fund from their members so they're still like to have an easier time and you don't encourage people to create single person FCs just for the discount.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sairys

Either way, differentiating pricing would be... pretty negative, you'd expect everyone to get grandfathered in (particularly given people kept their extra homes after the purchase limitations) so it only hits people buying personals moving forward and if you were going to raise the pricing it seems like it makes more sense to hit both because FCs can just crowd fund from their members so they're still like to have an easier time and you don't encourage people to create single person FCs just for the discount.

---

Yeah, if you're going to make the houses more expensive, do it for FC houses in order to avoid people making solo-FCs+having their own plot.
And 40m is far from easy to farm for most of the playerbase imo, specially the casual playerbase that is what this game consists of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luna-M

So? 4M is way to low for a small nowadays. I would much rather see a proper gilsink and make people farm 40m+ (which dont't take long)

---

I agree with this; this would also make you feel a bit more accomplished with the purchase (personal opinion) and there'd be less competition (I think?) for obtaining housing since they wouldn't be so easily affordable as well. This game tosses gil at you it's almost hard to not get that much if you're smart with your gil.
Houses should be an investment. But of course there will probably be folks that disagree with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melorie

Yeah, if you're going to make the houses more expensive, do it for FC houses in order to avoid people making solo-FCs+having their own plot.
And 40m is far from easy to farm for most of the playerbase imo, specially the casual playerbase that is what this game consists of.

---

Should raise the placard prices for both FC housing and personals. Housing started off as FC only and SE had said they would separate personal housing from FC housing but didn't deliver.

The most expensive large is Mist 5/35 is 50m. An absolute joke as a gil sink.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coletergeist

I agree with this; this would also make you feel a bit more accomplished with the purchase (personal opinion) and there'd be less competition (I think?) for obtaining housing since they wouldn't be so easily affordable as well. This game tosses gil at you it's almost hard to not get that much if you're smart with your gil.
Houses should be an investment. But of course there will probably be folks that disagree with this.

---

Yeah, disagree because just with the last few comments you can see three different views on how difficult it would be to acquire that gil.
Also, if the goal is to basically price people out then you're still going to get all the complaints about people not being able to get a house. Just instead of it only being that there aren't enough available, you'll also have people here complaining that it's too expensive in the first place, it wouldn't make people want housing less it'll just give them another reason to be angry about the inaccessibility of an advertised feature of the game.

If you wanted a mechanism that increased gil price it seems like it'd make more sense to implement auctions so people could put in the maximum amount of gil they're willing to pay and then the game sells to the highest bidder at the end of a certain time frame. This way where there's a plot available and low competition the price is low, where the competition is higher you need more gil.


I also don't really see personal housing as an investment in general. Gardening is sure but otherwise purchasing personal housing is unlocking the ability to utilise the housing decoration systems in the game to a greater degree than available in FC rooms/apartments with stepped upgrades in plot sizes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sairys

it'd make more sense to implement auctions so people could put in the maximum amount of gil they're willing to pay and then the game sells to the highest bidder at the end of a certain time frame.

---

I don't think you see a flaw in your own response here; this wouldn't fix a thing - the auction idea that is. If folks could bid whatever price they wanted for a house, folks would be bidding at exceedingly high prices. Auction idea = no bueno.
Wouldn't fix a thing for the situation at all, and folks would constantly be in the dark over what the price of that house would potentially be, then. Could be as low as 500k to something as high as 500+ mil, because people do be swimming in gil I assure you.
Poor players would never really stand a chance, particularly on high populated worlds.

Yea...raising the prices isn't going to fix the problem.

Players are unhappy with the housing system. How is making housing even more out of reach going to make them happier?

Yea sure less demand blah blah blah, but less demand does not equate to less unhappy players.

If SE want an even bigger disaster than the Shirogane launch to get the playerbase incredibly angry with them, significantly raising house prices would be a fantastic way to do it. It would be such a slap in the face to fix the difficulty in accessing content by making it even more difficult to access. That would essentially be SE saying "well if you can't afford it then you can't be unhappy about not having it".

And no I am not disagreeing because I have no house. I have had my house for years. I am disagreeing because it's a terrible idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coletergeist

I agree with this; this would also make you feel a bit more accomplished with the purchase

---

If I want to feel a sense of "pride and accomplishment" from my grind I'll play EA games thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItMe

If I want to feel a sense of "pride and accomplishment" from my grind I'll play EA games thank you.

---

Tis the reason I said "personal opinion" :3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coletergeist

I don't think you see a flaw in your own response here; this wouldn't fix a thing - the auction idea that is. If folks could bid whatever price they wanted for a house, folks would be bidding at exceedingly high prices. Auction idea = no bueno.
Wouldn't fix a thing for the situation at all, and folks would constantly be in the dark over what the price of that house would potentially be, then. Could be as low as 500k to something as high as 500+ mil, because people do be swimming in gil I assure you.
Poor players would never really stand a chance, particularly on high populated worlds.

---

I would point out that you've supported an idea on pricing people out so poor players would never really stand a chance on any world heh, also the og pricing idea would see even higher prices on large plots.

With auctions at least, people swimming in gil participating in the auctions would, in theory, taper off over time because they'd get houses using that gil, they might pop in again to upgrade to better plots but that just means that bunch of gil sunk out of the economy. Auctions typically also have a reserve price which could be set at the current value of the plot so they couldn't go below that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coletergeist

Tis the reason I said "personal opinion" :3

---

Hahaha fair point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luna-M

So? 4M is way to low for a small nowadays. I would much rather see a proper gilsink and make people farm 40m+ (which dont't take long)

---

They can't do it now. They would just make the situation worse.

Having said that. It was a huge mistake to lower prices in the first place. You can't make something accessible to everyone without having enough supply for everyone. If something is in limited supply is should be priced accordingly.

I think it's about time to turn it on too. There's a balance to be struck between accommodating players so impacted by current events that they are unable to access their games and making features of the game itself accessible and practical. If the demolition timer is to be disabled for the length of the pandemic, it might not be turned back on for years for years to come.

After reading all of the countless reasons why it is so humane to keep the demo timer off, I have some simple questions:
Does SE allow you to log in to your account if you allow your sub to lapse?
Can you access your additional retainers if you do not pay the additional retainer fee?
If you allow your sub to the Companion App to lapse can you access any of the items that are in your spare chocobo bag?

The answer to all of these questions is a resounding NO.
Why is it then that these houses are considered sacrosanct to people who for whatever reason cannot fulfil their commitment that they made when they made the in-game purchase?
I understand showing some empathy but attempting to assign some grand altruism to SE is disingenuous at best and hypocritical on it's face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PennyStormfire

After reading all of the countless reasons why it is so humane to keep the demo timer off, I have some simple questions:
Does SE allow you to log in to your account if you allow your sub to lapse?
Can you access your additional retainers if you do not pay the additional retainer fee?
If you allow your sub to the Companion App to lapse can you access any of the items that are in your spare chocobo bag?

The answer to all of these questions is a resounding NO.

---

This is a false equivalence. As soon as you pay your fees again you get all of those things back exactly how they were when you left them. This is not the case with housing at all, and if you're logged out for long enough you can also permanently lose all furniture used or stored in the house that got demolished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

This is a false equivalence. As soon as you pay your fees again you get all of those things back exactly how they were when you left them. This is not the case with housing at all, and if you're logged out for long enough you can also permanently lose all furniture used or stored in the house that got demolished.

---

Nothing that you get back is a severely limited resource. All of that is clearly stated at time of purchase, just as the timer is clearly stated. My point is that pausing the timer is not an act of altruism. It is a calculated way to motivate subscription payment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PennyStormfire

Nothing that you get back is a severely limited resource.

---

Which is precisely why losing a house can be a huge hit. Not only does it mean it could be close to impossible to get one again, you also lose at least several million gil's worth of assets. You can even lose assets that cost real money depending on what furniture you had.

The fact that we even need demolition just shows how flawed the housing system is. Literally nothing else in the game works like this because it doesn't need to.

The problem is the lack of houses, not demolition or a lack of it. Demolition wouldn't even be a discussed subject if the game had enough or unlimited houses.

But too many players focus on being angry about a symptom instead of directing their attention to the actual cause, which is why we still have this horrendous system. The last time we got anything resembling positive change was when the community was unified in demanding real change from SE (Shirogane launch). As long as most players are complacent and/or only ask for minor band-aid fixes, that is all we will ever get.

Demolition will be turned on again one day but in the grand scheme of things this will change very little. Why? Because we don't have enough houses. There will always be players unfairly shafted by the system as long as it stays the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PennyStormfire

All of that is clearly stated at time of purchase, just as the timer is clearly stated. My point is that pausing the timer is not an act of altruism. It is a calculated way to motivate subscription payment.

---

Why can't it be both?