This is what i call BULLCRAP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultihouseHoarder

Have you read my name? Guilt? FFS, no, but nice try.

---

What does your name have to do with it? ( >o>) ~?

Well done OF

This thread is becoming more unhinged than the one about male only FCs.

Regardless of whether it is possible, or whether it is against the ToS or not, the fact ultimately does remain that it fundamentally abuses a system that is intended to prevent people from purchasing multiple FC plots. There is a reason the restrictions are put in place on member count to purchase, and on a number of FCs an individual can purchase a house by default.

Now, as far as I am concerned whether intentional or not the developers in large enable this behaviour due to their reluctance to step on toes, so this issue will just continue to happen regardless of what 'restrictions' they try to apply.

I would think that it should be pretty simple to understand that these restrictions were put in place to prevent the very behaviour being exhibited in the screenshot, regardless of whether it is done via a workaround or not.

they said that player housing was limited because player housing is instanced and if lets say there are 20 houses up and one person is in that area the server cost would be loads to stop this issue they could of just made this private island player housing and stop the entire issue of player housing honestly kind of silly they opted into giving us something that we never asked for but then the one thing we have been screaming for years was not even considered it honeslty reminds me of wow when they gave them the Garrison Barracks www

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaurhz

intended to prevent people from purchasing multiple FC plots.

---

While I understand the point you're trying to make, the current system put into place simply does NOT mean to prevent said action. This could have been prevented properly but to say the current system is intended to prevent this, that's simply false. Make 8 fc's, all bid, claim plot, leave fc, claim plot, leave fc, repeat. Nothing prevents this with the system you refer to. This method shouldn't even be a loophole available to players but it is because SE simply doesn't care. And that's the truth of the matter at the end of the day. Until they do care, people will keep using the system as intended because that's just how it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jalei

While I understand the point you're trying to make, the current system put into place simply does NOT mean to prevent said action. This could have been prevented properly but to say the current system is intended to prevent this, that's simply false. Make 8 fc's, all bid, claim plot, leave fc, claim plot, leave fc, repeat. Nothing prevents this with the system you refer to. This method shouldn't even be a loophole available to players but it is because SE simply doesn't care. And that's the truth of the matter at the end of the day. Until they do care, people will keep using the system as intended because that's just how it works.

---

Quote:

---

people will keep using the system as intended because that's just how it works.

---

This.
/10char

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormpeaks

This is the biggest issue, remove submarines or nerf them to oblivion, and multiowners will go poof, at least those who's only intent is to make gil out of houses. There is an extremely tiny minority of people like me who just enjoy housing as their main activity but the numbers are so small it wouldnt matter, 99% of multiowners have multiple houses for submarines.

---

Please provide stats to back this claim.

Multi house owners with submarine shacks are a minority among multi house owners:
https://xivhousing.com/

The website scraped data directly from the Lodestone up to July 2022

For the sake of this discussion, going to go with the erroneous assumption that every solo FC house is a submarine shack. Using my server, Coeurl as an example, there are 91 solo FC houses.

Even if we bump up the assumption to every FC house with 1 to 3 members is a submarine shack - that's only 215 FC houses.

There are plenty of FC houses across regions which don't even have a workshop built.

Go check out the housing discords as well and observe how many of the multi house owners are popular house designers across the different regions.

I feel its time for the Devs to do the one thing I have never felt good about. Put in a restriction for FC leadership, so you can only be the leader of 1 FC per world and restrict housing privilages to the FC leader only. This would force anyone wanting to gobble up a ward to buy one account from every house in the ward. If this idea sounds like a nightmare well it is a nightmare, giving out housing privilages to FC members who have earned it is a nice display of trust. Knowing you can shift leadership to someone of your choice is nice. Restricting FC leadership and FC house privilages spits on all of that. But I like everyone else am at a loss and wish the devs would give the housing system a true fix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jalei

While I understand the point you're trying to make, the current system put into place simply does NOT mean to prevent said action. This could have been prevented properly but to say the current system is intended to prevent this, that's simply false. Make 8 fc's, all bid, claim plot, leave fc, claim plot, leave fc, repeat. Nothing prevents this with the system you refer to. This method shouldn't even be a loophole available to players but it is because SE simply doesn't care. And that's the truth of the matter at the end of the day. Until they do care, people will keep using the system as intended because that's just how it works.

---

Then I would be delighted for you to share the very intention of this system. If the limitation imposed on housing is that you must not already own an FC plot on the same server on a given service account. Housing is one of the few avenues in this game where SE has seemingly elected for half-baked measures, taking the randomized timer, for example, and the insistence on continuing with a system that inarguably will always fall drastically short of the demand.

Yeah, I'm sorry but their own sloppiness doesn't really negate intent. I just simply don't see any other purpose of a system that has the imposed limitation that you cannot have more than 1 FC plot per server, is there any other purpose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaurhz

Then I would be delighted for you to share the very intention of this system. If the limitation imposed on housing is that you must not already own an FC plot on the same server on a given service account. Housing is one of the few avenues in this game where SE has seemingly elected for half-baked measures, taking the randomized timer, for example, and the insistence on continuing with a system that inarguably will always fall drastically short of the demand.

Yeah, I'm sorry but their own sloppiness doesn't really negate intent. I just simply don't see any other purpose of a system that has the imposed limitation that you cannot have more than 1 FC plot per server, is there any other purpose?

---

I had actually typed up a lengthy response but in the end, what I say doesn't mean anything to you and I can safely make that assumption based on the fact you clearly just don't get it and never will. So I'm not going to try forcing the understanding on you. It would only annoy me when you aren't going to budge from your view you claim exists. However, I will say again that nothing done by Yoshi P and the dev team points to any intent to prevent multi house ownership. If it did, two things wouldn't exist. I'll list them and I'm done with this topic because quite frankly I really don't care.
1) Nothing prevents you from buying 100 fc's from other players(multi house ownership that isn't against ToS)
2) Nothing prevents you from making 8 fc's and buying 8 plots on the same world(multi house ownership that isn't against ToS)
If the actual intent was to prevent this, these wouldn't exist currently. They'd have been fixed long ago. So in the end, just accept that nobody at SE actually cares whether you own 1 house or 30 houses. There's no intent, no sloppiness, just lack of care. If you want only 1 house, cool. If you want 100 houses, cool. Doesn't bother me nor my gameplay experience. Its just a game and not one that I ever intend on letting upset me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jalei

I had actually typed up a lengthy response but in the end, what I say doesn't mean anything to you and I can safely make that assumption based on the fact you clearly just don't get it and never will. So I'm not going to try forcing the understanding on you. It would only annoy me when you aren't going to budge from your view you claim exists. However, I will say again that nothing done by Yoshi P and the dev team points to any intent to prevent multi house ownership. If it did, two things wouldn't exist. I'll list them and I'm done with this topic because quite frankly I really don't care.
1) Nothing prevents you from buying 100 fc's from other players(multi house ownership that isn't against ToS)
2) Nothing prevents you from making 8 fc's and buying 8 plots on the same world(multi house ownership that isn't against ToS)
If the actual intent was to prevent this, these wouldn't exist currently. They'd have been fixed long ago. So in the end, just accept that nobody at SE actually cares whether you own 1 house or 30 houses. There's no intent, no sloppiness, just lack of care. If you want only 1 house, cool. If you want 100 houses, cool. Doesn't bother me nor my gameplay experience. Its just a game and not one that I ever intend on letting upset me.

---

So you meant to insist that the land ownership restriction as per:

Quote:

---

You do not have a character on the same World on the same service account that purchased and maintains a free company plot
* If the character in question purchased the plot, they may still submit a lottery entry for the purposes of relocation.

---

Does not show any apparent intent to prevent people from having multi-plot ownership? K then. You do you, I guess. I simply asked you a question whilst restating my interpretation of the aforementioned limitation, something to which you elected not to answer whilst subsequently going on some pointless tirade with your introduction. But hey, well done. Transferring ownership of an FC plot to a friend whilst you purchase another plot, and then subsequently have it transferred back circumvents that restriction. Hence sloppy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaurhz

So you meant to insist that the land ownership restriction as per:



Does not show any apparent intent to prevent people from having multi-plot ownership? K then. You do you, I guess.

---

Yawn...you just don't get it. What you quoted is just words, there's no actual intent to prevent anything. At this point I can't help but wonder if you even understand the word intent and what it actually means. I'll assume you don't. Like I said, your view will never see more than one angle so good talk bud lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NanaWiloh

I feel its time for the Devs to do the one thing I have never felt good about. Put in a restriction for FC leadership, so you can only be the leader of 1 FC per world and restrict housing privilages to the FC leader only....

---

There's no bus factor in that.

This is really inconveniencing 100% of the genuine real FCs, to target what is in all truth, a tiny number of people. It does nothing to address the underlying cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jalei

Yawn...you just don't get it. What you quoted is just words, there's no actual intent to prevent anything. At this point I can't help but wonder if you even understand the word intent and what it actually means. I'll assume you don't. Like I said, your view will never see more than one angle so good talk bud lol.

---

Considering it is an enforceable restriction I would beg to differ, and no I think you're the one that fundamentally misunderstands what is meant by the word intent. The intent is what you aim to achieve through a given action. Not the result itself, as sloppy as it might be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaurhz

Considering it is an enforceable restriction I would beg to differ, and no I think you're the one that fundamentally misunderstands what is meant by the word intent. The intent is what you aim to achieve through a given action. Not the result itself, as sloppy as it might be.

---

Please enlighten me by their actual aim with this current system? If you're about to tell me its to prevent multi house ownership, please don't bother. I don't enjoy jokes this early in the morning. They don't aim to achieve anything but encourage players to own multiple houses but sure Jan. This system is literally designed to encourage people to do it. Words mean literally nothing if there's nothing in place to show they mean it or punishments to enforce what they mean. Are people being punished? Nah, why? Because the system allows it.
Also, you asked what the actual intent was. That's simple and I covered it. You just didn't understand it. This current system doesn't promote single house ownership. It promotes the opposite. The way the current system is designed, its more intended to allow buying them all vs not doing it. Does that make it right? Nope. But that's the game you play and until it changes, that's the way it will remain. The current design does nothing to prevent buying them, it makes it easier to buy them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaurhz

So you meant to insist that the land ownership restriction as per:

---

the magic word is "and" so try to read it as it is and you will feel magically enlightend

(just in case: it doesnt say, purchase, give fc lead away, rinse and repeat)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaurhz

stubborn

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jalei

stubborn

---

You two need to unlock your horns. You're Au Ri, not Aldgoats.

Clearly neither of you will give a mm, so just accept you've both made your points and are just circling each other now as the music plays

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UkcsAlias

Ill intent is not a requirement. Its just using something in a way it is not intended. And even without ill intent, abuse can still be a problem. Just because its possible and from your perspective doesnt harm anyone does not mean you should do it (in traffic we see this too often).

A lot of exploits in single player games are still 'abusing a system'. Even if that can just improve the quality of a game and you arent hurting anyone with it.

But the issue is not about 'now', its about the future. Those wards can slowly fill up, but once that happens. Your FC house in which you are the only owner is now a problem because you abused the system.

Hence you are part of the problem.

---

Late to this but ill intent from one person is absolutely required for something to be abusive. I could go into a deep discussion on abusive relationships and how one partner actively tries to take a dominant/controlling role to have power over their victims but that's not the point of the thread. You can't just call someone or something abusive if the intent of the person behind it is not evil or manipulative...because then literally everyone has been an abuser at one point in their life if we remove that defining line. As an abuse victim, I don't just throw out that word to anyone who does something wrong towards me because that's not abuse. They aren't actively trying to hurt me or manipulate me.

If people go into housing with the mindset of: I'm going to take all of these houses from others because I want them and no one else deserves one." - that I would call abusive.

Someone just trying to get a house and using a loophole that the devs put in the game is not. Is it a bit cheaty? Sure. But they're not going into it with the intention of just stealing from other people. To them, they're just getting a house the same way anyone else could if they took the time to do it.

There are literally hundreds of FC plots available across multiple servers, if they don't shift them to personal plots (which I doubt they will since that would require redesigning wards and moving houses around) I don't blame people at all for wanting to take another path to get one instead of fighting over a 300+ person placard. If they're just doing it to end their own suffering, I see nothing wrong or abusive with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibi

There's no bus factor in that.

This is really inconveniencing 100% of the genuine real FCs, to target what is in all truth, a tiny number of people. It does nothing to address the underlying cause.

---

Exactly, not enough houses and the devs not willing to change the system. My throat sank into my stomach while just suggesting they go such a route. :(

Yeah, dev "intent" doesn't matter much when the system doesn't and quite possibly can't actually do what the devs supposedly "intend" for it to do. Sure they'll slap shoddy bandaids on to make it harder for somebody to snatch up 50 houses, and more fair for people to at least have a snowball's chance in a furnace at getting an open plot, but they clearly have no intention of doing anything to actually address the root of the problems with this game's housing system. It was never gonna be perfect, obviously, and it is side content, but it had a wonky design from the outset and that hasn't changed. The system would need to be fundamentally reworked to actually prevent people from owning a bunch of houses OR to give everyone access to the content and not just access to the door it's locked behind.