[Housing] 1 House Per Service Account. 1 FC Per Service Account.

If this shitty system is the one we're forced to be stuck with, then yeah, OP, I agree. And I'd even go a step further.

Hot take maybe, but relocation should be turned off when a new set of wards are introduced. If you already own a home, you shouldn't be able to jack a spot from someone who doesn't have anything yet. Relocating in general, when there's already a scarce number of homes, is just the biggest slap in the face to people trying to get their first house and losing it to some guy who just wants to move his current house somewhere else. Even though relocating does technically not result in a loss of plots, think about how many bidders are going to be gunning for those relocation plots this week, compared to the amount of bidders on each plot last week. The competition is gonna be fierce now; it's basically back to "why bother" levels of competition in the lottery again. So yeah, maybe for the first wave of a new ward, turn off relocation in private wards at least so people who don't have anything can have a better chance of getting something. And stop making these FC-only wards that just sit empty. And maybe, if 2 people bid on a plot and bidder #2 wins but never shows up, maybe just give it to bidder #1 instead of putting the house back into the lottery, what a stupid shit system. And yeah, maybe require a player to at least finish the whole MSQ before they can buy a house, just to prevent alts from gumming up the works. Shout out to the sprouts who scrape together the cash for a small, never decorate it because the furniture is too expensive, and then quit mid-stormblood msq during a paused demolition timer btw. Great housing design.

Better yet, instead of slapping each other around, just implement instanced housing. We already have apartments. Just expand that. There you go. Instanced housing would be my ideal solution. Just let everyone who wants a house, have a house that way. But again. If we're stuck with this shit system, there are ways to implement it so that people who don't have one can be prioritized, and those who could stand to wait or are obviously just using it for sub farming are put on the backburner a bit.

Removing that ability is one thing - I would actually argue they have made great strides towards this relative to how the system was historically, but I do think they need to commit to this, and this includes removing people that were grandfathered in.

I would similarly also say that potential raw Gil reward (e.g., Extravagant accessories) for submarines should be nerfed into the utter ground. This shouldn't even exist, if I am to be quite frank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

If this shitty system is the one we're forced to be stuck with, then yeah, OP, I agree. And I'd even go a step further.

Hot take maybe, but relocation should be turned off when a new set of wards are introduced. If you already own a home, you shouldn't be able to jack a spot from someone who doesn't have anything yet. Relocating in general, when there's already a scarce number of homes, is just the biggest slap in the face to people trying to get their first house and losing it to some guy who just wants to move his current house somewhere else. Even though relocating does technically not result in a loss of plots, think about how many bidders are going to be gunning for those relocation plots this week, compared to the amount of bidders on each plot last week. The competition is gonna be fierce now; it's basically back to "why bother" levels of competition in the lottery again. So yeah, maybe for the first wave of a new ward, turn off relocation in private wards at least so people who don't have anything can have a better chance of getting something. And stop making these FC-only wards that just sit empty. And maybe, if 2 people bid on a plot and bidder #2 wins but never shows up, maybe just give it to bidder #1 instead of putting the house back into the lottery, what a stupid shit system. And yeah, maybe require a player to at least finish the whole MSQ before they can buy a house, just to prevent alts from gumming up the works. Shout out to the sprouts who scrape together the cash for a small, never decorate it because the furniture is too expensive, and then quit mid-stormblood msq during a paused demolition timer btw. Great housing design.

Better yet, instead of slapping each other around, just implement instanced housing. We already have apartments. Just expand that. There you go. Instanced housing would be my ideal solution. Just let everyone who wants a house, have a house that way. But again. If we're stuck with this shit system, there are ways to implement it so that people who don't have one can be prioritized, and those who could stand to wait or are obviously just using it for sub farming are put on the backburner a bit.

---

As far as I'm aware, relocation doesn't supersede the lottery system, like it used to with the first-come system. Anyone relocating has to enter the lottery like everyone else.
At least, I had to when I moved from Goblet to Ishgard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphor

Instanced housing wouldn't have customisable exteriors.
So then... what is the point of an instanced house?

Just expand the apartments system to include larger interior options, and an additional instanced external 'balcony/terrace' option. This would give the player exactly the same resources, without having to dance around the magical house that has 10,000 different interiors and a crowd of people always outside it queuing up to get into their version of it's insides.

---

Instanced housing can be so much more than just the inside of a house (like our apartments). You can have a large property all to yourself, including an outdoor area as well as the house itself. Wildstar (RIP) even had the option to have an island instance with several of your friends. Everyone still got their own personal section of land to design, but your friend's plots were just a short distance away for visiting. I would absolutely take that in a heartbeat over our ward system.

To be blunt, every single person should have its own housing without all this.... chaos.

You can even put this rule OP but in the end people are still going to be upset (and fairly so) on losing bids and such.

Imagine if we just asked for a permanent solution like some sort of sanctuary on an island where you could just build whatever you want instead of slapping the 50th bandaid on a system currently dying from organ failiure

If you make it one per account, they should at least allow you to make your other characters tenants to the house for convenience.

I agree with this, I was lucky enough to get my dream house after five years but still believe the system sucks big time. You could let our alts use the house we got on our main and a lot of problems would be solved, theres no reason to have to get a different house on new characters we create. Implement this or for goodness’ sake, bring out instanced housing like every other game.

When your community advertises your game, they don’t lead with “the housing system is so great because I have to struggle to win the lottery against hundreds of others to get a house in a paid mmo with neighbours that are rarely ever even there to begin with”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphor

As far as I'm aware, relocation doesn't supersede the lottery system, like it used to with the first-come system. Anyone relocating has to enter the lottery like everyone else.
At least, I had to when I moved from Goblet to Ishgard.

---

You're right. My issue with relocation is what I wrote about in my first post, not about it superceding the lottery system. If I enter for a house and I don't have anything, I shouldn't be able to lose it to someone who already has a home but just wants to move to a different plot. If the intent behind lotteries is to create a fairer system, then people who have nothing should be prioritized over people who already have something but don't like the view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

You're right. My issue with relocation is what I wrote about in my first post, not about it superceding the lottery system. If I enter for a house and I don't have anything, I shouldn't be able to lose it to someone who already has a home but just wants to move to a different plot. If the intent behind lotteries is to create a fairer system, then people who have nothing should be prioritized over people who already have something but don't like the view.

---

But this wouldn't be fair to those who already have a house.
What if you had a plot in the Gobletn and they release I don't know... Sharlayan housing district.
You're not allowed to bid for them because you already have a house in the Goblet. By the time you are allowedn they're all taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

You're right. My issue with relocation is what I wrote about in my first post, not about it superceding the lottery system. If I enter for a house and I don't have anything, I shouldn't be able to lose it to someone who already has a home but just wants to move to a different plot. If the intent behind lotteries is to create a fairer system, then people who have nothing should be prioritized over people who already have something but don't like the view.

---

"I deserve a house because I've been subbed for years."

"I deserve it more because I'm homeless."

"I deserve better odds because I'm unlucky."

None of that is fair. Fair is when the game doesn't favor someone at the expense of another. You're not special or more deserving of a desirable plot just because you don't have one yet. Goblet has bad plots with zero bids and if your server is an exception, move. It's free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skivvy

Instanced housing can be so much more than just the inside of a house (like our apartments). You can have a large property all to yourself, including an outdoor area as well as the house itself. Wildstar (RIP) even had the option to have an island instance with several of your friends. Everyone still got their own personal section of land to design, but your friend's plots were just a short distance away for visiting. I would absolutely take that in a heartbeat over our ward system.

---

With the way the game servers are essentially structured. The instanced housing you mention would be more like private wards which would cause and exponential increase in load on the servers before increasing the number of homes. Basically it would amount to a whole lot more of those messages of zone transfer or entry failed due to congestion try again later until a mountain of new hardware was added to the data center. Additionally they'd have to rework the programming on furnishings as I don't recall wildstar housing having a transition between indoor and outdoor. You just walked in and out similar to NPC buildings in the city/states and outpost like areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonsprite

Remind me again why people don’t want instanced housing, but come up with ideas like OP? I wish people would stop trying to punish players because of the housing systems poor design. The absolute only thing that is going to solve the FFXIV housing crisis is instanced housing. No matter how many ways people try to limit, demolish, punish people who already own a home, there will never be enough plots for everyone. The answer is simple, allow people who want instanced housing to have it and the people who refuse can live in the neighborhoods that already exist.

---

We have come to the conclusion that they will never do instanced housing. Yoshi-p had said multiple times it directly conflicts with his and the developers' vision of housing for it to be instanced. They want it to be a perpetual public space for wards, and for housing to be both rare and a status symbol. With both of those, we can pretty readily conclude that they will not put instance housing in the game other than in a heavily stripped down fashion like apartments. The only thing left to do is to accept this ward system and to try to find ways to limit or reduce greedy players' ability to hoard what is a limited supply status symbol.

There also is the dilemma about having ward housing alongside instanced housing. If both are allowed to exist together, one would be superior (most likely ward housing) so people would still just fight over that one if it was in limited supply. Why have an instanced house if you can try to go for a ward house that has more features?
And on the other hand, if instanced housing was limited to people who didn't have ward housing and had better features, there would be plenty of angry people. It's quite a lot of issues stacked up that would have to be navigated, and based on how apartments are recieved by the community, it probably wouldn't be worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnnRam

-Clear 1 savage fight of current patch (so you can't unsync Shb for example)

---

No.

I don't savage raid because I have no interest in it, and I have a FC house and a personal house from my own hard work for the personal, and luck with the FC one. So by that logic, I shouldn't have the houses that I've spent time decorating and making into what they are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skivvy

Instanced housing can be so much more than just the inside of a house (like our apartments). You can have a large property all to yourself, including an outdoor area as well as the house itself. Wildstar (RIP) even had the option to have an island instance with several of your friends. Everyone still got their own personal section of land to design, but your friend's plots were just a short distance away for visiting. I would absolutely take that in a heartbeat over our ward system.

---

You've literally just described the ward system. Only with a way to curate your neighbours, and then what if your "friends" want different "friends" as their neighbours?

What I was getting at is, if instanced housing is isolated zones anyway, with an 'external/garden' zone that is also isolated. How is that not just apartments?
Wherever you enter this instance, is going to be crowded, just like Island Sanctuary's NPC in Moraby Drydocks. Would it make sense for this to happen outside the entrance to the apartment block? Or Do you really want it to be this kind of generic house that supposedly represents "your" house, with a crowd of random and mostly AFK players stood on "your" doorstep?

We have the infrastructure for this form of instanced housing. It is apartments. They need expanding. Options to increase interior size, and options for an additional external zone for garden furniture.

Now from a technical standpoint, they still take up the same server space as ward housing currently does, they would still be finite. But, without needing to keep an external constantly loaded, they will be more economical on that server space, allowing for more apartments to be implemented than houses in the same 'space'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnnRam

Snip.

---

Quote:

---

-To own a house your FC should be 3 months old with x amount of active players in your FC (new players/members doesn't count so we can avoid having mass recruiters)

---

This is a good idea and reasonable for any FC that should realistically own a house.

Quote:

---

-Be level 90 and finish current expansion.

---

This locks housing to those that exclusively finish the game. I don’t think this should be the case. Granted, it would help filter players that buy en-masse, but beyond that, it’s just an unnecessary requirement.

Quote:

---

-Have x number of commendations (bots don't queue so it could be a nice filter)

---

This is housing, not a goal for mentorship. There is no reason why commendations should be tied to a system where it has no influence, even on a surface level. If anything, I would just have it, so FC-related matters directly cost company credits to even send them out, rather than using company credits to obtain a tradeable item to then send them out. If you have an active FC you’ll never need to be concerned about this. If you run a farm of accounts, then you’ll have greater concerns since you then cannot send subs en-masse.

Quote:

---

-Have the money required.

---

Of course, I think they should one up this and have it so players are then required to pay taxation on this. 500K – 1M per month.

Quote:

---

-Clear 1 savage fight of current patch (so you can't unsync Shb for example)

---

Of all suggestions, this is absolutely the worst as it filters out a significant number of players already, and for a very unnecessary reason. People will view this as: can’t raid? You don’t deserve a house – I get the objective is filtering, but this will have far more backlash than is worth. Housing should be tied to currency, not content, really. At the very worst I would say housing should be unlocked behind a higher Grand Company rank, and even then I don’t see it as reasonable.

I do not know why you spend energy with this. It isn't going to happen. They can't limit 1 FC per service account because it would cause issues with FC sucession rules, unless you want them to disable that - and even if they do, there would still be ways to own multiple homes. Waste your time demanding something that is both realistic and more beneficial, because the amount of people with multiple houses is so small comparatively that it would barely make a difference in the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reinha

"I deserve a house because I've been subbed for years."

"I deserve it more because I'm homeless."

"I deserve better odds because I'm unlucky."

None of that is fair. Fair is when the game doesn't favor someone at the expense of another. You're not special or more deserving of a desirable plot just because you don't have one yet. Goblet has bad plots with zero bids and if your server is an exception, move. It's free.

---

2 of those things weren't even in my original post, so we're already strawmanning and off to a great start.
But yes, absolutely, if you already own a home it's fair to ask you to sit out on relocation for a single round so people who don't own anything yet can have a better shot at getting something. You're free to think that a basic priority system that ensures maximum happiness in a shortage isn't fair, but you're wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphor

But this wouldn't be fair to those who already have a house.
What if you had a plot in the Gobletn and they release I don't know... Sharlayan housing district.
You're not allowed to bid for them because you already have a house in the Goblet. By the time you are allowedn they're all taken.

---

My initial post asked that relocators wait a single (1) bidding cycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

2 of those things weren't even in my original post, so we're already strawmanning and off to a great start.
But yes, absolutely, if you already own a home it's fair to ask you to sit out on relocation for a single round so people who don't own anything yet can have a better shot at getting something. You're welcome to not think that a basic priority system that ensures maximum happiness isn't fair, but you're wrong.



My initial post asked that relocators wait a single (1) bidding cycle.

---

Don't 99% of plots get claimed in the first bidding cycle? Isn't this the whole complaint?

So why should those who already own a house on Goblet, have to miss out on the first round of bids in Sharlayan?
You're forcing players to relinquish their house in order to get a shot at the new ones, even though it's not guaranteed they'll get a new house, despite the fact that this would happen anyway IF they did win a plot in the new district.

If you think it's unfair that "too many people are bidding in the first cycle making it harder for me to get a house", if you're not content with "waiting for the second round of bidding", then why should relocators be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnnRam

What about;
-To own a house your FC should be 3 months old with x amount of active players in your FC (new players/members doesn't count so we can avoid having mass recruiters)
-Be level 90 and finish current expansion.
-Have x number of commendations (bots don't queue so it could be a nice filter)
-Have the money required.
-Clear 1 savage fight of current patch (so you can't unsync Shb for example)

---

Honestly, I find this actually a well intentioned suggestion, although there's a few issues with that.

* #1 seems actually very reasonable. To encourage FCs to have to actually be active to earn a house is a pretty nice idea.

Again, if there's one thing that FFXIV has consistently suffered with, it's that groups of otherwise happy people have a tendency to split up, resulting in a buncha disjointed foursomes because of how easy FC property is to get. I've had it suggested that this is a social issue, but it doesn't happen with nearly such frequency in games that either do not have guild property (eg., WoW) or ones where personal property can be taken for granted (eg., SWTOR).

* #2 is probably something that should be looked into - it was clear from the original requirements that houses were meant to be something you had to be at endgame to own, yet the requirement has not been updated in several expansions (save the need to reach Kugane in MSQ to own Shirogane land).

* #3 might work as a bot filter if the requirement is low. Problem here if anything is the poor granularity due to having to filter through Achievements (as was also noted with the increase of requirement for the Mentor system).

* #4 is obvious.

* #5 seems reasonable at the outset, I've sometimes mulled over the same suggestion (largely because of the thought that unless you are a Savage raider there is not a lot to keep you otherwise occupied with the game after the first few days of a patch, and thus, having a house means having to keep active with little to actually do, which can lead easily to negativity).

I found the thought flawed though, because there's other things you could be doing (Hunts, trying to get Orchestrion rolls from Normal/Alliance raids, EX farms for obstinate mounts, Deep/Variant Dungeons, Eureka etc.) to occupy your time.

Worse: it was considered toxic enough to have to rush to be online for the first day of patches just to get a house (which is a big reason why we have the lottery now: I have a feeling the real tipping point was the server dogpiling FCFS housing rollouts entailed). Imagine having to do it every even patch (since unless you have a static, our dysfunctional PUG player culture means that for things like EX and 1st savage turns, you more or less need to be there or be square) ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphor

Don't 99% of plots get claimed in the first bidding cycle?

So why should those who already own a house on Goblet, have to miss out on the first round of bids in Sharlayan?

---

Because you already own a home, while thousands of other players don't. Top priority in a fair system should go to people with the greatest need.
I already knew this would be a heavily contested take going in, so if you just disagree on this point it's totally fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

Because you already own a home, while thousands of other players don't. Top priority in a fair system should go to people with the greatest need.
I already knew this would be a heavily contested take going in, so if you just disagree on this point it's totally fine.

---

But relocating doesn't consume any more housing plots. In order to relocate, you have to relinquish your old plot, and the number of free plots stays the same.

Why should a current house owner, not have the same opportunities as a non-house owner, to bid for a house in a NEW DISTRICT. This is new content, likely more desirable than older districts. How is it fair to be excluded because you happened to be an early adopter?

This would be like, "only accounts created after 2020 are allowed to play Savage in week one, to give newer players a chance at being world first."

All this would do, is lock players into the houses they first obtained. Very few players would realistically be able to relocate to a plot they wanted more, unless they got very lucky in a later cycle. And so if you happened to win a small in Goblet, well you're stuck there, because only newer players get access to premium Sharlayan and Thavnair housing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

Because you already own a home, while thousands of other players don't. Top priority in a fair system should go to people with the greatest need.
I already knew this would be a heavily contested take going in, so if you just disagree on this point it's totally fine.

---

This is why I'm glad the devs ignore the forums.

I genuinely don't understand why some people think they deserve anything more than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

Because you already own a home, while thousands of other players don't. Top priority in a fair system should go to people with the greatest need.
I already knew this would be a heavily contested take going in, so if you just disagree on this point it's totally fine.

---

Not that I disagree with your point on the surface level. E.g., "I need it more, therefore, I should have a priority" - It's not a bad principle to follow - But it really doesn't apply here. To put the point to you, let me posit a question:

How do you determine who needs something more? Beyond FC, that is (as they have already addressed this point with their drastic split)

Edit: In ref to housing relocation I don't really see the logic. The plot they relocated from becomes available on the next cycle, regardless. Of which nothing stops those would-be winners from going to said plot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphor

But relocating doesn't consume any more housing plots. In order to relocate, you have to relinquish your old plot, and the number of free plots stays the same.

---

I already addressed this point in my first post. I'll just requote myself now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

Even though relocating does technically not result in a loss of plots, think about how many bidders are going to be gunning for those relocation plots this week, compared to the amount of bidders on each plot last week. The competition is gonna be fierce now; it's basically back to "why bother" levels of competition in the lottery again. So yeah, maybe for the first wave of a new ward, turn off relocation in private wards at least so people who don't have anything can have a better chance of getting something.

---

You keep asking the same question again and again and I keep giving you my same answer; it's really hard to take this conversation seriously, so I'll just say one final time. In an actual fair system that needs to address a shortage of a resource (housing), people who already own that resource (a house) should be placed on the backburner while people who don't have any of that resource (a house) can get theirs. This is how a fair system would actually operate. There is literally no way I can say it plainer than this. "How is it fair that I have to wait until round 2 to relocate?" It's fair because you literally already have a house. You just want to move your house to a place with a different view and a slightly different lawn, at the expense of someone else who literally has nothing. I've now said the same thing, 4 different times in 3 different ways. If you just disagree, that's fine! Lots of people do. Frankly, I think it's moot anyway since we're stuck with this blind system that gives zero shits about addressing demand. But I'm tired of repeating myself, man. I've given you my take on it, agree or don't, I don't really care. But if I were in charge of things, I would absolutely prioritize people who had nothing over people who already had something and wanted a little more something at the expense of people who have nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaurhz

Not that I disagree with your point on the surface level. E.g., "I need it more, therefore, I should have a priority" - It's not a bad principle to follow - But it really doesn't apply here. To put the point to you, let me posit a question:

How do you determine who needs something more? Beyond FC, that is (as they have already addressed this point with their drastic split)

---

That's really easy to do in this situation.
Two people exist. Person A, and Person B. They're both bidding on the same plot. Person A does not have a house at all. Person B does have a house, but they wish to move it into this location, at Person A's expense. Person A, having nothing, clearly has the greater need, because they don't have anything. If Person B loses, he still has his old house; it's just in a location he's grown a little tired of. He can still decorate it as much as he wants, blablabla. If person A loses, he gets nothing. Nothing to decorate. Nothing to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LianaThorne

This is why I'm glad the devs ignore the forums.

I genuinely don't understand why some people think they deserve anything more than others.

---

Try actually reading sometime, and maybe you'll understand my argument better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

But yes, absolutely, if you already own a home it's fair to ask you to sit out on relocation for a single round so people who don't own anything yet can have a better shot at getting something. You're free to think that a basic priority system that ensures maximum happiness in a shortage isn't fair, but you're wrong.

---

Maximum happiness lmao. The world doesn't revolve around players who don't have a house.

A lot of people have learning difficulties and limitations so I have to ask. You do realise the same number of homeless people get plots regardless, right? If X houses are put in the game, after relocations there are still X houses to be claimed by new house owners. Their chances are the same even if they have to wait a few cycles. You're telling me I'm wrong but you can't even do basic maths lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

I already addressed this point in my first post. I'll just requote myself now.



You keep asking the same question again and again and I keep giving you my same answer; it's really hard to take this conversation seriously, so I'll just say one final time. In an actual fair system that needs to address a shortage of a resource (housing), people who already own that resource (a house) should be placed on the backburner while people who don't have any of that resource (a house) can get theirs. This is how a fair system would actually operate. There is literally no way I can say it plainer than this. "How is it fair that I have to wait until round 2 to relocate?" It's fair because you literally already have a house. You just want to move your house to a place with a different view and a slightly different lawn, at the expense of someone else who literally has nothing. I've now said the same thing, 4 different times in 3 different ways. If you just disagree, that's fine! Lots of people do. Frankly, I think it's moot anyway since we're stuck with this blind system that gives zero shits about addressing demand. But I'm tired of repeating myself, man. I've given you my take on it, agree or don't, I don't really care. But if I were in charge of things, I would absolutely prioritize people who had nothing over people who already had something and wanted a little more something at the expense of people who have nothing.



That's really easy to do in this situation.
Two people exist. Person A, and Person B. They're both bidding on the same plot. Person A does not have a house at all. Person B does have a house, but they wish to move it into this location, at Person A's expense. Person A, having nothing, clearly has the greater need, because they don't have anything. If Person B loses, he still has his old house; it's just in a location he's grown a little tired of. He can still decorate it as much as he wants, blablabla. If person A loses, he gets nothing. Nothing to decorate. Nothing to do.

---

If Person A loses they can still bid on the previous house from Person B. Non-issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

I already addressed this point in my first post. I'll just requote myself now.



You keep asking the same question again and again and I keep giving you my same answer; it's really hard to take this conversation seriously, so I'll just say one final time. In an actual fair system that needs to address a shortage of a resource (housing), people who already own that resource (a house) should be placed on the backburner while people who don't have any of that resource (a house) can get theirs. This is how a fair system would actually operate. There is literally no way I can say it plainer than this. "How is it fair that I have to wait until round 2 to relocate?" It's fair because you literally already have a house. You just want to move your house to a place with a different view and a slightly different lawn, at the expense of someone else who literally has nothing. I've now said the same thing, 4 different times in 3 different ways. If you just disagree, that's fine! Lots of people do. Frankly, I think it's moot anyway since we're stuck with this blind system that gives zero shits about addressing demand. But I'm tired of repeating myself, man. I've given you my take on it, agree or don't, I don't really care. But if I were in charge of things, I would absolutely prioritize people who had nothing over people who already had something and wanted a little more something at the expense of people who have nothing.



That's really easy to do in this situation.
Two people exist. Person A, and Person B. They're both bidding on the same plot. Person A does not have a house at all. Person B does have a house, but they wish to move it into this location, at Person A's expense. Person A, having nothing, clearly has the greater need, because they don't have anything. If Person B loses, he still has his old house; it's just in a location he's grown a little tired of. He can still decorate it as much as he wants, blablabla. If person A loses, he gets nothing. Nothing to decorate. Nothing to do.

---

Cbf to clip but real question:

How is it fair to even call something fair if everyone can't have the same chance to participate?

Also, how is it at the expense of someone else if you don't even know who else is bidding with you? For all you know the other bid on your plot could be another relo.

This also really only applies to packed servers as others that are newer have no issue distributing housing to those who want it. Which, as other people have said, if you want a house that bad then move to a less populated server and get one. The supply is there, people just don't want to go get it (or rather they don't want to just have a house, they want a specific size at a specific location).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaurhz

If Person A loses they can still bid on the previous house from Person B. Non-issue.

---

I will, once again, quote myself on why this doesn't hold up. This quote was in the post you literally replied to btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

Even though relocating does technically not result in a loss of plots, think about how many bidders are going to be gunning for those relocation plots this week, compared to the amount of bidders on each plot last week. The competition is gonna be fierce now; it's basically back to "why bother" levels of competition in the lottery again. So yeah, maybe for the first wave of a new ward, turn off relocation in private wards at least so people who don't have anything can have a better chance of getting something.

---

"But why should someone who already owns a home be subjected to that instead??"
Because they have a home already, so at the end of the day they still have something in this arrangement.

Does this kind of suck for people who already own a home? Yes. But it's a fair way of tackling a shortage in a way that ensures that people who don't have anything can get something. Meanwhile, those who already have something still have something; they just don't have that "something" in a zone they might want it to be.

I'm done now! I simply disagree with you on this. I've stated my case. You guys aren't even willing to read, so I'm out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

I will, once again, quote myself on why this doesn't hold up. This quote was in the post you literally replied to btw.



"But why should someone who already owns a home be subjected to that instead??"
Because they have a home already, so at the end of the day they still have something in this arrangement.

Does this kind of suck for people who already own a home? Yes. But it's a fair way of tackling a shortage in a way that ensures that people who don't have anything can get something. Meanwhile, those who already have something still have something; they just don't have that "something" in a zone they might want it to be.

I'm done now! I simply disagree with you on this. I've stated my case. You guys aren't even willing to read, so I'm out.

---

My point still stands - If person A loses the lottery, they can still renter the cycle. It is an objective fact that the same number of plots will be available, albeit with differing probabilities. If you feel it is hopeless then the onus is on the willpower of the individual.

That being said, the logic of:

Quote:

---

in a way that ensures that people who don't have anything can get something.

---

If the same number of plots are available then someone will always get something, again, albeit with differing probabilities. This logic would only stand if the person relocating were able to take both plot A, and plot B, which they cannot.

You can cry about reading all you like, but don't throw stones in glass houses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaurhz

My point still stands - If person A loses the lottery, they can still renter the cycle. It is an objective fact that the same number of plots will be available, albeit with differing probabilities. If you feel it is hopeless then the onus is on the willpower of the individual.

---

Avoidy's point still stands as well: if you want to join the landed, by far the most reasonable opportunity to do so is when there's a new housing rollout, during which there's usually a large enough amount of plots available that most people that want one actually do manage to get one (unless they're on a top population server or are intentionally gunning for a popular Medium or Large plot like LB 11/41; Smalls tend to be plentiful enough that even prime spots like Mist 19-21/49-51 are not so tough to get).

Once the initial rollout of homes is sold out (which takes differing periods of time depending on the datacenter: although I'll admit Materia is probably too underpopulated a DC for most people to want to move to even for a house, due to the additional handicap of having no higher-pop DC to visit for duties, Dynamis still has a fair amount of unsold land. Last I looked, no one has thus far bid on most of the eastern hill smalls in my Maduin main's Mist ward, for instance), even the few scattered Small plots tend to be piled on by at least tens of players each, making getting land virtually as unfavorable as the old click-spam era (though at least we don't have that abomination anymore).

And being without a house for an extended period is a bad thing for player retention here given how much the casual endgame ultimately depends on having one.

Honestly, it's too bad that SE does not seem to be able to control housing availability at any finer granularity than the Ward level, or I'd actually suggest that probably the happiest medium would be to forbid relocation to Smalls during the first lottery of new housing rollouts, but allow it to Mediums and Larges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amarande

Avoidy's point still stands as well: if you want to join the landed, by far the most reasonable opportunity to do so is when there's a new housing rollout, during which there's usually a large enough amount of plots available that most people that want one actually do manage to get one (unless they're on a top population server or are intentionally gunning for a popular Medium or Large plot like LB 11/41; Smalls tend to be plentiful enough that even prime spots like Mist 19-21/49-51 are not so tough to get).

Once the initial rollout of homes is sold out (which takes differing periods of time depending on the datacenter: although I'll admit Materia is probably too underpopulated a DC for most people to want to move to even for a house, due to the additional handicap of having no higher-pop DC to visit for duties, Dynamis still has a fair amount of unsold land. Last I looked, no one has thus far bid on most of the eastern hill smalls in my Maduin main's Mist ward, for instance), even the few scattered Small plots tend to be piled on by at least tens of players each, making getting land virtually as unfavorable as the old click-spam era (though at least we don't have that abomination anymore).

And being without a house for an extended period is a bad thing for player retention here given how much the casual endgame ultimately depends on having one.

Honestly, it's too bad that SE does not seem to be able to control housing availability at any finer granularity than the Ward level, or I'd actually suggest that probably the happiest medium would be to forbid relocation to Smalls during the first lottery of new housing rollouts, but allow it to Mediums and Larges.

---

Don't think I ever really stated otherwise. However, ultimately a fair system is one that gives equal weighted opportunity amongst all individuals regardless of circumstance, e.g., regardless of whether they own a house or not. Or similarly regardless of when they entered the lottery, and to a certain degree the FC size itself. What the posters advocates for is something that may otherwise be seen as a morally and socially acceptable, not necessarily a fair system. Housing, for better or worse is a game where someone always loses. That is really the point, a fair system weighs everyone equally and if someone relocates, their original plot becomes available, nothing takes away from that point, really.

Sure, I will cede to the point that players without a house can certainly make player retention more of a complicated matter, and certainly more fragile at that - But this is not due to an 'unfair' lottery system - Once again the same number of plots are available regardless of whether someone else relocates - 'One mans trash is another mans treasure' so to speak - The truth is, this fact is related to housing in general being limited, and well any sense of relocating actually impeding on this matter is purely illusory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaurhz

This is a good idea and reasonable for any FC that should realistically own a house.

This locks housing to those that exclusively finish the game. I don’t think this should be the case. Granted, it would help filter players that buy en-masse, but beyond that, it’s just an unnecessary requirement.

This is housing, not a goal for mentorship. There is no reason why commendations should be tied to a system where it has no influence, even on a surface level. If anything, I would just have it, so FC-related matters directly cost company credits to even send them out, rather than using company credits to obtain a tradeable item to then send them out. If you have an active FC you’ll never need to be concerned about this. If you run a farm of accounts, then you’ll have greater concerns since you then cannot send subs en-masse.

Of course, I think they should one up this and have it so players are then required to pay taxation on this. 500K – 1M per month.

Of all suggestions, this is absolutely the worst as it filters out a significant number of players already, and for a very unnecessary reason. People will view this as: can’t raid? You don’t deserve a house – I get the objective is filtering, but this will have far more backlash than is worth. Housing should be tied to currency, not content, really. At the very worst I would say housing should be unlocked behind a higher Grand Company rank, and even then I don’t see it as reasonable.

---

FFXIV It's a multiplayer online video game, isn't instagram or some kind of second life facebook game, if you want good things then play the game

Why do you need a house? why you deserve a house? do you help people? do you clear content? do you actually play the game? isn't housing one of the "end game" of FFXIV? then why someone who ;

-Don't do content
-Don't help others or encourage the game to be played as a group.
-Don't engage in the REAL social aspect of FFXIV (Raiding,pvp,pve etc)

Housing should be like relic, work hard, play together, clear content and then be rewarded otherwise bots/rmt will fight as equal as someone who wants to own a house after a week of playing the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnnRam

FFXIV It's a multiplayer online video game, isn't instagram or some kind of second life facebook game, if you want good things then play the game

Why do you need a house? why you deserve a house? do you help people? do you clear content? do you actually play the game? isn't housing one of the "end game" of FFXIV? then why someone who ;

-Don't do content
-Don't help others or encourage the game to be played as a group.
-Don't engage in the REAL social aspect of FFXIV (Raiding,pvp,pve etc)

Housing should be like relic, work hard, play together, clear content and then be rewarded otherwise bots/rmt will fight as equal as someone who wants to own a house after a week of playing the game.

---

Not that I disagree with this premise, because I don't. If you need a house and if you want a house you should be willing to interact with the game in a relevant manner, sure. The issue arises when you make this premise on the basis of a subset, or small facet of the game e.g., raiding or commendation farming.

The point of my response is that there is a degree where such measures infringe on your standard player, and more so to the degree where it doesn't necessarily justify the gains of such a measure.

As far as I am concerned, taxation and curbing the submersible system behind a non-tradeable variant. e.g., instead of having ceruleum tanks (tradeable), just make it so that sending them on a cruise consumes directly from company credits as opposed current system. Something along this encourages that you play the game substantive enough as to warrant being able to keep a house, and puts a curb on the number of people that see getting FCs en-masse for submersibles as a pragmatic endeavour. All of this without necessarily relegating housing behind a singular facet of the game, or without it infringing too drastically on player experience. - For example, I could easily propose that I don't think people who have less than 12,000 achievement points should own a personal, but I understand that this infringes far too much on player experience, and similarly that there is more to the game than farming achievements.

That being said, housing itself when used properly already can be a significant enabler for the social aspect of the community e.g., roleplay.

I agree with op title

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RitsukoSonoda

Additionally they'd have to rework the programming on furnishings as I don't recall wildstar housing having a transition between indoor and outdoor. You just walked in and out similar to NPC buildings in the city/states and outpost like areas.

---

Correct. I mean, also, WildStar's housing system was designed from step one with the neighborhoods in mind, even if the neighborhoods weren't ready right away at launch. WildStar's development also took place over literal years, and every stage of architecting the servers took things like the housing plans into account.

In contrast, FFXIV's reboot into A Realm Reborn was legendarily rushed; if anyone was like "you know, we should spend literal months planning out a way to future-proof server instancing to allow for a really huge housing scene" I would honestly be shocked. (And if anyone approved doing that during the timeline they were working on, I'd be more shocked.)

And trying to retrofit that sort of stuff into an existing server architecture after the fact is bad enough, even moreso when said servers are live and in active, constant use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnnRam

FFXIV It's a multiplayer online video game, isn't instagram or some kind of second life facebook game, if you want good things then play the game

Why do you need a house? why you deserve a house? do you help people? do you clear content? do you actually play the game? isn't housing one of the "end game" of FFXIV? then why someone who ;

-Don't do content
-Don't help others or encourage the game to be played as a group.
-Don't engage in the REAL social aspect of FFXIV (Raiding,pvp,pve etc)

Housing should be like relic, work hard, play together, clear content and then be rewarded otherwise bots/rmt will fight as equal as someone who wants to own a house after a week of playing the game.

---

Are you confusing the game with a job? None of us are under any onus to play the game in a particular way or do specific things.

In the end, your $15 a month is as good as Kaurhz's $15 a month and is as good as my $15 a month. SE sets the rules for how to acquire rewards within the game, not you.

If someone wants to spend all of their time on housing related content, that's their choice. That doesn't make them any less deserving than you. It just means they want something different from their $15 a month and SE is fine with that.

Should SE take a second look at how ownership rules are working out? Absolutely. Obviously there are problems present. But those problems are not what you are pointing at as indicators of someone's worthiness. What you list has nothing to do with housing, so should have no impact on who gets to own.'

I would hardly call someone who does nothing but chain queue all day long for PvP without saying a word to others as someone who's engaging in the "real" social aspect of anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

Are you confusing the game with a job? None of us are under any onus to play the game in a particular way or do specific things.

In the end, your $15 a month is as good as Kaurhz's $15 a month and is as good as my $15 a month. SE sets the rules for how to acquire rewards within the game, not you.

If someone wants to spend all of their time on housing related content, that's their choice. That doesn't make them any less deserving than you. It just means they want something different from their $15 a month and SE is fine with that.

Should SE take a second look at how ownership rules are working out? Absolutely. Obviously there are problems present. But those problems are not what you are pointing at as indicators of someone's worthiness. What you list has nothing to do with housing, so should have no impact on who gets to own.'

I would hardly call someone who does nothing but chain queue all day long for PvP without saying a word to others as someone who's engaging in the "real" social aspect of anything.

---

Imagine calling a "real life job" leveling your character or finishing the MSQ, run some dungeons that the game endorses you to do in order to unlock content etc. Housing its supposed to be one of the end game stuff that you can do in FFXIV because involves crafting/grinding concurrency (mats,gils etc), maybe you picked the wrong game because Square Enix main focus has been since ARR to release new dungeons,trials, "improve" the combat, new jobs, new stories, new side quests etc. that's explains why isn't called Final Fantasy Housing XIV

If someone wants to spend 24/7 doing housing that's completely fine but then earn it so RMTS/Bots can't get it easily, housing its never going to be for everyone.

I don't see the problem with queing for PVP all day and make the queue time less for others rather than standing idle 24/7 doing nothing but wasting resources from the server.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnnRam

What about;
-To own a house your FC should be 3 months old with x amount of active players in your FC (new players/members doesn't count so we can avoid having mass recruiters)
-Be level 90 and finish current expansion.
-Have x number of commendations (bots don't queue so it could be a nice filter)
-Have the money required.
-Clear 1 savage fight of current patch (so you can't unsync Shb for example)


We need more filters, stop giving houses almost for free or to any new player(bot). Then SE should implement a system to maintain those houses (FC's) monthly or each 2-3 months (ask x amount of money/content/progress w.e)

---

Excuse me? I don't do savages so your suggestion would not be a good idea. Please don't give square any new ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormpeaks

Here we go with this again, it's not happening, move on already.

On top of that, you're on Materia, the most dead datacenter, of course people will do that, there's no one else to buy them. I remember visiting one of the materia worlds for the fun of it, that poor guy had been alone in his mist ward for about 6 months, he was the only one in mist 35.

Also multiowning is not agaisnt TOS.

Another thing, mulitowning does not mean RMT, stop trolling.

---

Actually not on Materia, i left around 6 months ago after wasting 9 months of my life in that dead datacenter.

Currently playing on NA servers and it is a major issue when somebody can just buy up 300 houses and use them for the sole purpose of making 999m/month.

The server i currently play on is having multiple people buy out wards to themselves using the 16 service account trick. (Allowing them to purchase 60 houses per server with 16 accounts, there was a long post about how to do it a while back).