One House Per Account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Themarvin

It say in the ToS that gameplay experience and requirements may change over time, so that one is covered with nine inch nails for good, please no more excuses.

---

Gameplay may change, but that doesn't mean it will change the way you want it to. So please, no more excuses. You're not the one calling the shots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibi

I think it's more side slappingly hilarious that you are arguing for 2 houses (one personal, one FC) per server per account in a thread saying "one only, full stop".

Quoting the OP:



You are killing me with laughter here, hun.

---

If you had focused on the conversation from the beginning, it involved multiple homes per server (particularly more than 1 personal house). Instead you, who are playing within the rules barge in screaming "WHAT ABOUT MEEE" and it's either for attention or you're trolling... One in the same I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frizze

Snip

---

You're not wrong, it's a wider issue than this. However if they don't enforce the rules they have in place then even with more wards, the same thing will continue to happen. Can we expect SE to enforce their current honor system rules if they released new wards? I doubt it but I'm sure it would get a blip in a 14hr live letter with Yoshi P telling players to do the right thing.

Also your pvp example is outright disingenuous since previous pvp rewards were not exploited. The game is a business, this isn't about "honor" or "trust", it's about what keeps the game the healthiest for the playerbase and protecting house hoarders is unhealthy for the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibi

Now I'm confused.

On Tonberry or in Materia? Dixie Bell had one on Materia before you took her back didn't she? She would have given that up for the move, but did you on your Visperia alt buy one in Materia, or did you have it before she moved back? Or does Dixie Bell have one on Tonberry now and you don't have one on Materia?

---

I have one on tonberry, was lucky enough to pick one up due to people moving to the new DC.
never bought another on Materia, didnt see any point as i wont be playing there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

Unfortunately, not true. You're already contradicting your first statement in your second statement (which is still not true).

One house per account should mean exactly that - one house per service account.

With your second statement, that increases from one house per account to 80 houses per account. Players can have up to 40 characters, each on a different world if they want, and each of those characters could have both personal and FC houses.

But the reality of the rules is that it is one personal house and one FC house where the character that purchased the FC house remains in that FC. Easy enough to get around that - remove the character that purchased the house from the FC. That frees up the account to purchase another FC house on that world. Rinse and repeat. With multiple service accounts involved (whether all owned by the same player or different players) you can get up to 8 FC houses on the same world with characters on the same service account.

SE has opted to go the route of automated enforcements in so far as they can program the game to prevent additional purchases without disrupting the ability of players to get a first personal or FC house. They seem to have no desire to use human oversight to make certain players are abiding by a more strict rule set such as one personal and one FC house.

This will always be a problem as long as wards are always the only source of houses. There will always be ways to get around the system for players to own multiple houses per world, shutting out other players from the ability to get a house due to lack of supply. It's why many of us would like to see SE stop spending resources on expanding the ward system and implement an instanced system for houses. With an instanced system, it wouldn't matter how many characters a player has or how many houses each character has. No one gets locked out.

---

Somewhat untrue.

You are limited to 1 personal home per world per account.

Each character for some ungodly reason however CAN own a FC...so thats 9 homes per world -72 per DC approx (36 on Dynamis)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troxbark

I could buy any house I want if it interested me (or multiple, lol), it doesn't change the fact enforcing the rules would be better for the game as a whole. The negative impact (and I don't consider a reimbursement a negative) on you and the handful of others is insignificant.

---

See this is the problem your only picking part of the rule that was put into effect..also part of that rule was anyone who did not break the TOS gets to keep there houses as we dont punish those who dont break the rules.

You honestly have no idea what the game was like back then.. I owned 7 houses and a large fc (which i gave away when i quit for awile) The nigh the rule went into effect 1 house per person per server.. Coeurl had 100+ empty houses on every server.. I counted 5 mins before maintance..

The problem is basic you cant grow by millions of people and add 1,440 houses (ew houseing)...

Bascily till housing > players theres always gonan bea problem

Se also should make ex large mansions for FC only serprate from player housing.. Make it Grand Company based since your Fc is linked to them have a door with every fc name to port to if they allow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nepentha

Gameplay may change, but that doesn't mean it will change the way you want it to. So please, no more excuses. You're not the one calling the shots.

---

My comment is still 100% valid, no other player should have an advantage over the others with a limited ressource, yours is distant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DixieBellOCE

You heard it here folks.

Remove the ability to buy houses on alternate characters, and refund the base cost of all houses people are holding onto with alts and free them up for the general public.

You don't need 10 houses.

You don't need 2 houses.

Eliminate the small percentage of players that refuse to relinquish their 'stockpile' of houses and force them to choose a single plot.


I own a house, i'm just putting this here for the people that cant get one.

---

here's a wild idea... Enable auto demolition, so there is actually a turn-over of houses that people don't use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DixieBellOCE

You heard it here folks.

Remove the ability to buy houses on alternate characters, and refund the base cost of all houses people are holding onto with alts and free them up for the general public.

You don't need 10 houses.

You don't need 2 houses.

Eliminate the small percentage of players that refuse to relinquish their 'stockpile' of houses and force them to choose a single plot.


I own a house, i'm just putting this here for the people that cant get one.

---

I do too, and I feel strongly a house should be account bound not character bound. It would allow you to enjoy it on all of your alts still and would free up the houses people have stockpiled across alts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICountFrom0

You do NOT enforce a rule retroactively. Period.

---

And yet, IRL this gets done in plenty of cases.

A simple example was the speedrun category of pokemon with savegame corruption. Previously if you could perform such run live, it would be counted valid. However, a lot of those runs would rely on several runs before that to set up the data to make the corruption happen more likely. This was retroactively applied as a restriction to that category because it had severe flaws originaly. Old runs on that even were made completely invalid unless those setup runs were also tracked (and therefor included in the time).
The new rule stated that the run is only valid if you ensured that the relevant data for the exploit was written into the memory during the run.

So your "period" statement is simply not a valid argument on this. As sometimes it MUST be done.

However, in ffxiv im not sure if it is truly needed. Taking away stuff from players is generaly not a nice thing, but in the end, if this is the only solution to balance things, it might be needed (it most likely isnt). But this can go into several nuances even. As a house can have several aspects to it: is it on a normal ward address (like: w10p10), or an appartment address (w10a10). Moving such player would take away their public address and showoff region within the ward, while still keeping the house otherwise exactly the same. And this is something that i still think would be a fair thing to do as those ward addresses are generaly far more limited as they take up an actual area in a map. Appartments can in theory have infinite instances as they do not rely on a ward. Taking away such part is absolutely fine and to me can be retroactively applied. It doesnt take away the house, but does take away the public area of attention.
(and yes, this would need appartments with capabilities of full houses, which we dont have atm)