Ban Service Accounts with more than 1 FC house

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neia

Also realistically no ones calling for players to get banned

---

It reads "Ban Service Accounts with more than 1 FC house" there in the title, of this thread of you yourself kinda stsrted...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burmecia

It reads "Ban Service Accounts with more than 1 FC house" there in the title, of this thread of you yourself kinda stsrted...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

---

Honestly you're right. My mistake in assuming housing mains could read into something beyond the title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s32ialx

Listen you can claim all you want that players were not abusing it the rules are CLEARLY WRITTEN. you can CLAIM all you want they were not abusing it, but they were the RULES ARE CLEAR.
It is very clearly stated in the rules "You many only purchase and MAINTAIN ONE Free Company Plot PER World PER Service ACCOUNT"

---

Right, and plenty people do have 1 of each per world but people still take issue with that and demand the houses are taken from players like myself. And for those with multiple fc's on one server it's due to inheritance and that is also working as intended as not to punish fc's for the master leaving the game.

So yeah. Nothing bugged, no abuse. K ty.

If you want that to stop remove the motivation behind it, the sub farm. Not that difficult.

Square Enix shot themselves in the foot by adding NPC-able (selling item to NPC shop for instantly generated Gil) items to Voyages.

Here is how you fix the problem, and why they won't do it:

Remove all of the *Salvage junk that is only there for the purpose of selling to NPC for Gil.
This will result in many accounts un-subscribing, in turn, many Plots becoming vacant.

Subscription count dwindles.

They added those items on purpose, fully knowing what would happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kitty_Cat

This will result in many accounts un-subscribing, in turn, many Plots becoming vacant.
Subscription count dwindles.

---

Sub counts would be like barely even touched by this happening, other than gold farmers unsubscribing. FC plot hoarders, I assume engage with other systems in the game also. If they don't, well, the game would simply be better off with those service accounts being unsubscribed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aelin_Ashryver

So yeah. Nothing bugged, no abuse. K ty.

---

Your takes here very clearly rejected by the majority of players who recognize what you're espousing is just factually incorrect, your position inherently greedy & leaves the majority of players worse off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neia

Honestly you're right. My mistake in assuming housing mains could read into something beyond the title.

---

To be fair, you DID use the word "ban" in your title, and even your first post mentions "terminating accounts" so its understandable if some people assumed you were asking for full scorched-earth instead of other, lesser punishments for house hoarding. I think you only clarified later that bans would go out to actual botters since they're definitely breaking the ToS.

Admittedly, its easy to believe that all hoarders are botters by default (or they're involved in RMT in general because where else is all that gil going), but there ARE ways to grab up houses without resorting to third-party tools to buy them up and keep them all running, and for all I know these house collectors are blowing the money on golden mounts or something, or how a lot of venues are always doing "raffles" and "gamba" with huge prize pools so that MIGHT be where they funnel all that gil they made.

Though even with bringing it up myself, I have my doubts, and still find any and all house hoarders (including the ones posting here) to be very sketchy and untrustworthy because by their very nature, they act dishonest and underhanded.

The salami lid, aint gonna fit

You can't fix this system if you grandfather in people who already got theirs. That creates a conflict of the haves vs have-nots, while leaving many house plots forever in the hands of digital landlords. Give them a patch or two of warning time to surrender all but one house, compensate them with the gil value of the plots, whatever. But if this still exists after a "fix":

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neia

https://i.imgur.com/74AZvW6.png

Here's 2nd Ward, The Goblet on Sophia, Materia. Can clearly see this has 21 wards owned by the same person, probably a gold farmer.

---

Then it hasn't fixed anything.

I'm not sure how people can keep defending the stance that the current state of Free Company housing and house hoarding is fair because it is wItHiN tHe RuLeS.

I think the point of the topic is that houses are being hoarded, by the same players, on different characters for nefarious reasons which is a clear issue for us normal players who expect the game to be played fairly.

On my home world Sophia, there was recently a housing lottery for a large house with 61 entries. Given that Sophia is a preffered world with mostly already established legitimate FC's - where are these players coming from?

Since the Materia datacenter was opened to voyagers, this also opened the door zero cost asset transferring between the regions. Once the floodgates were opened, "smarter" players bought up FC plot housing supply in order to supply gil to their mains in other regions, now that they no longer have to pay for a character home world transfer to move the assets back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aelin_Ashryver

Right, and plenty people do have 1 of each per world but people still take issue with that and demand the houses are taken from players like myself. And for those with multiple fc's on one server it's due to inheritance and that is also working as intended as not to punish fc's for the master leaving the game.

So yeah. Nothing bugged, no abuse. K ty.

If you want that to stop remove the motivation behind it, the sub farm. Not that difficult.

---

Actually it's not working as intended.

https://i.imgur.com/Uv0VBlW.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s32ialx

Actually it's not working as intended.
https://i.imgur.com/Uv0VBlW.png

---

It would be pretty amusing if the only reason house hoaders haven't gotten punished already is because people just haven't filled out enough report tickets while pointing out the part of the policies they may be violating.

But then, writing out tickets is such a slog, and for many people they probably don't know which rules are being stretched, they only SUSPECT something is amiss, or they don't care enough to report at all.

That entire conversation is a waste. This topic has been talked about multiple times over the years. SE has not tried too investigate the issue at all. If it was and exploit they would have looked into long ago. Also take what GMs say with a grain of salt, the level of uniformed or lack of guidelines they seem to suffer from is problem in itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s32ialx

Actually it's not working as intended.

---

Technically it still does working as intended.

There is a small fine print you are seem to eager to overlook.

Purchase and maintain.

So technically transferred and maintain is not bypassing the first (which is actually already technically limited in game with the house account flag) of purchase and maintain.

But that are probably just semantics at this point, shruge :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yodada

Technically it still does working as intended.

There is a small fine print you are seem to eager to overlook.

Purchase and maintain.

So technically transferred and maintain is not bypassing the first (which is actually already technically limited in game with the house account flag) of purchase and maintain.

But that are probably just semantics at this point, shruge :)

---

Don't think so, since that character's account is flagged as being the FC house haver which held the winning ticket.
Example. Players A, B, C and D may have FC with A as their leader; they bid for house and D wins. Eventually D leaves the FC and the rest decide to sell the FC to Player Z.
But who maintains the house now? Original FC lead A, original lottery winner D or new FC lead Z?
Obviously in practice it would be Z, I suppose, but D's account remains flagged for having FC house for as long as the house stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burmecia

Don't think so, since that character's account is flagged as being the FC house haver which held the winning ticket.
Example. Players A, B, C and D may have FC with A as their leader; they bid for house and D wins. Eventually D leaves the FC and the rest decide to sell the FC to Player Z.
But who maintains the house now? Original FC lead A, original lottery winner D or new FC lead Z?
Obviously in practice it would be Z, I suppose, but D's account remains flagged for having FC house for as long as the house stands.

---

Free Company homes belong to the Free Company not a singular player. So you are wrong does not matter who holds the winning ticket they are not the owner of the home.

Wanted to add some thoughts to this:

When it comes to the ToS, I'm inclined to agree with the person who pointed out that "purchase and maintain" is the actual written guideline for house ownership. Therefore, it would not include those who inherited a house as they did not purchase it themselves. As far as the system is concerned, once the lead is transferred that person is now the new owner. The original owner's character would not show a flag unless they rejoined that FC, meaning they could now go and purchase a new house with a new FC.

When you look at it from a technical standpoint (and the standpoint SE most likely is as well), the system is working as they intended it to as it does prevent one person from purchasing and maintaining more than one FC or private on one character (it will physically prevent you from being allowed to bid). Inheritance/lead transfer is a whole other thing that I believe isn't actually a part of the established ToS, at least from my look through of it. I'm also inclined to believe that they were specific on their word choice here to include "and" instead of just simply "or" but that's my own tin foil hat theory.

I also would like to ask what people suggest to do about inheritance then since that is ultimately what the issue is at hand if we take a step back from people just being angry about multi-owners. Ultimately the loophole exists because of the ability to give another player leadership in your FC and I'm assuming here that they aren't going to suddenly do away with being able to give people leadership transfer abilities. So, outside of getting instanced housing together, what does everyone here suggest as a solution?

Final thought, even if multi-owners are forced to give up all of their houses I'm sure there's an awareness that there still won't be enough houses for everyone because of wanting a specific plot or a specific size on a X or Y server. So, personally I think this will just be a bandaid solution and we'll have another discussion coming up about how housing is still unfair because some still won't be able to get the plot they actually want. So, will getting rid of multi-owners actually fix the issue at hand for all of you?

In the FC lottery when a FC wins any member of the FC can complete the purchase, they do not need to hold the winning bid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yodada

Technically it still does working as intended.

There is a small fine print you are seem to eager to overlook.

Purchase and maintain.

So technically transferred and maintain is not bypassing the first (which is actually already technically limited in game with the house account flag) of purchase and maintain.

But that are probably just semantics at this point, shruge :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NanaWiloh

Free Company homes belong to the Free Company not a singular player. So you are wrong does not matter who holds the winning ticket they are not the owner of the home.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Naphtalia

Wanted to add some thoughts to this: I'm also inclined to believe that they were specific on their word choice here to include "and" instead of just simply "or" but that's my own tin foil hat theory.

---

The word “and” in “purchase and maintain” is not a loophole. It’s a statement of total ownership scope, not a list of separate permissions. You are allowed to purchase one plot and maintain one plot, but they must be the same plot. You are not allowed to maintain multiple plots by acquiring them through other means. If you end up maintaining more than one FC plot on the same world, regardless of how you got them, you are in violation.

The phrase "purchase and maintain" in the Lodestone rules is not a loophole, and it's not giving players multiple acquisition pathways. It's a combined ownership limit, not a list of permissions.

It does not mean:

• "You can purchase one house and also maintain another through inheritance or FC transfer."

It does mean:

• "You may have at most one plot that you either purchased or now maintain, regardless of how you got it."

The rule is written this way because Square Enix is limiting total plot control per service account per world, not just limiting the act of clicking the ‘Purchase' button.

This is exactly why the GM clarified that:

• Maintaining multiple FC plots via transfer is against policy, even if the system doesn't auto-block it.
• Inheritance does not exempt you from the ownership limit.
• The limit applies to the plot you control, not the method you used to obtain it.

And this is where the real abuse happens:
Players are exploiting FC mechanics, specifically leadership transfer and FC inheritance, to bypass the ownership limit. If an FC leader quits, or if someone pays for ownership of an FC, the new leader instantly gains control of that plot. If they already own another FC plot on that world, they are now maintaining multiple FC plots, which violates the rule.

This is how some individuals end up controlling:

• Entire wards
• Multiple FC houses
• FC shell networks
• RMT‑linked FC transfers

None of this is "working as intended."

It's working as exploitable, and that's why GM enforcement exists.
The "and" in "purchase and maintain" is not permission to obtain housing through other means.
It's a restriction stating you may purchase one AND maintain that same one, not multiple.
If you maintain more than one FC plot on the same world, regardless of how you acquired them, you are in violation of the housing policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s32ialx

The word “and” in “purchase and maintain” is not a loophole. It’s a statement of total ownership scope, not a list of separate permissions. You are allowed to purchase one plot and maintain one plot, but they must be the same plot. You are not allowed to maintain multiple plots by acquiring them through other means. If you end up maintaining more than one FC plot on the same world, regardless of how you got them, you are in violation.

The phrase "purchase and maintain" in the Lodestone rules is not a loophole, and it's not giving players multiple acquisition pathways. It's a combined ownership limit, not a list of permissions.

It does not mean:

• "You can purchase one house and also maintain another through inheritance or FC transfer."

It does mean:

• "You may have at most one plot that you either purchased or now maintain, regardless of how you got it."

The rule is written this way because Square Enix is limiting total plot control per service account per world, not just limiting the act of clicking the ‘Purchase' button.

This is exactly why the GM clarified that:

• Maintaining multiple FC plots via transfer is against policy, even if the system doesn't auto-block it.
• Inheritance does not exempt you from the ownership limit.
• The limit applies to the plot you control, not the method you used to obtain it.

And this is where the real abuse happens:
Players are exploiting FC mechanics, specifically leadership transfer and FC inheritance, to bypass the ownership limit. If an FC leader quits, or if someone pays for ownership of an FC, the new leader instantly gains control of that plot. If they already own another FC plot on that world, they are now maintaining multiple FC plots, which violates the rule.

This is how some individuals end up controlling:

• Entire wards
• Multiple FC houses
• FC shell networks
• RMT‑linked FC transfers

None of this is "working as intended."

It's working as exploitable, and that's why GM enforcement exists.
The "and" in "purchase and maintain" is not permission to obtain housing through other means.
It's a restriction stating you may purchase one AND maintain that same one, not multiple.
If you maintain more than one FC plot on the same world, regardless of how you acquired them, you are in violation of the housing policy.

---

Then Yoshi p and the Devs are guilty of one Hell of blunder. As I said previously this is not the first time multi house ownership has been discussed. No appology will be acceptable and should not be accepted. Only a total and complete scraping of the current system should be accepted. We are going on 6 yrs of this now, no excuse for not correcting if it was not intended. But we know the devs will do absolutely nothing to correct this issue if ever. If Yoshi and devs comes out and says they were unaware, I will post a thread ripping them a new one even if it costs me a forum ban. I personally believe they know what's going on and do not act out of wanting to keep the ward system. They also want players to have the freedom of having multiple free companies even if does have a negative effect on housing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Naphtalia

Final thought, even if multi-owners are forced to give up all of their houses I'm sure there's an awareness that there still won't be enough houses for everyone because of wanting a specific plot or a specific size on a X or Y server. So, personally I think this will just be a bandaid solution and we'll have another discussion coming up about how housing is still unfair because some still won't be able to get the plot they actually want. So, will getting rid of multi-owners actually fix the issue at hand for all of you?

---

Wanting a specific plot is not a luxury anyone has when it comes to FC housing.

Currently, the majority of FC houses on Materia are hoarded by Gil farmers. Take these away and for Materia, this will probably guarantee adequate supply for the forseeable future. I understand this solution isn't scalable to the more populous data centers, as those worlds will likely have more legitimate FC's than the maximum amount of plots.

But I think removing the ability for multiple FC plots on a single service account will go a long way to make the system more fair for everyone.

My final words on this are as follows. Neither the housing community or Free companies should have too pay the price for the devs refusal to solve this issue properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neia

Wanting a specific plot is not a luxury anyone has when it comes to FC housing.

Currently, the majority of FC houses on Materia are hoarded by Gil farmers. Take these away and for Materia, this will probably guarantee adequate supply for the forseeable future. I understand this solution isn't scalable to the more populous data centers, as those worlds will likely have more legitimate FC's than the maximum amount of plots.

But I think removing the ability for multiple FC plots on a single service account will go a long way to make the system more fair for everyone.

---

I don't often post on here, as is obvious, but I do read threads that catch my eye over the year or so I've been here. I agree with you that it's not a luxury but the vast responses I've seen to people having our viewpoint is that they shouldn't *have* to settle. For example, I remember a response essentially saying: "Why should I have to have a small when I don't want a small?"

So I do think in an ideal world people shouldn't be picky but....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s32ialx

The word “and” in “purchase and maintain” is not a loophole. It’s a statement of total ownership scope, not a list of separate permissions. You are allowed to purchase one plot and maintain one plot, but they must be the same plot. You are not allowed to maintain multiple plots by acquiring them through other means. If you end up maintaining more than one FC plot on the same world, regardless of how you got them, you are in violation.

The phrase "purchase and maintain" in the Lodestone rules is not a loophole, and it's not giving players multiple acquisition pathways. It's a combined ownership limit, not a list of permissions.

It does not mean:

• "You can purchase one house and also maintain another through inheritance or FC transfer."

It does mean:

• "You may have at most one plot that you either purchased or now maintain, regardless of how you got it."

The rule is written this way because Square Enix is limiting total plot control per service account per world, not just limiting the act of clicking the ‘Purchase' button.

This is exactly why the GM clarified that:

• Maintaining multiple FC plots via transfer is against policy, even if the system doesn't auto-block it.
• Inheritance does not exempt you from the ownership limit.
• The limit applies to the plot you control, not the method you used to obtain it.

And this is where the real abuse happens:
Players are exploiting FC mechanics, specifically leadership transfer and FC inheritance, to bypass the ownership limit. If an FC leader quits, or if someone pays for ownership of an FC, the new leader instantly gains control of that plot. If they already own another FC plot on that world, they are now maintaining multiple FC plots, which violates the rule.

This is how some individuals end up controlling:

• Entire wards
• Multiple FC houses
• FC shell networks
• RMT‑linked FC transfers

None of this is "working as intended."

It's working as exploitable, and that's why GM enforcement exists.
The "and" in "purchase and maintain" is not permission to obtain housing through other means.
It's a restriction stating you may purchase one AND maintain that same one, not multiple.
If you maintain more than one FC plot on the same world, regardless of how you acquired them, you are in violation of the housing policy.

---

So, ultimately, you'd need someone to admit in game that they're trading houses for the GMs to do anything. As far as I'm aware, they don't take outside screenshots into consideration. I'm also guessing the duplicate named FCs don't flag them either because they ultimately don't have written proof that they're owned by the same person. Anyone know if they investigate IPs (I'm guessing not because that would probably have squashed those issues a while ago)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neia

Wanting a specific plot is not a luxury anyone has when it comes to FC housing.

Currently, the majority of FC houses on Materia are hoarded by Gil farmers. Take these away and for Materia, this will probably guarantee adequate supply for the forseeable future. I understand this solution isn't scalable to the more populous data centers, as those worlds will likely have more legitimate FC's than the maximum amount of plots.

But I think removing the ability for multiple FC plots on a single service account will go a long way to make the system more fair for everyone.

---

Only way this idea would work is if you are restricted to 1 free company per world. So no alts in free companies of friends, family, etc. Be you the FC lead or just a member. Cost your punishing more players then those that own multiple FC homes. It's choosing the greater of two evils to solve a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NanaWiloh

Only way this idea would work is if you are restricted to 1 free company per world. So no alts in free companies of friends, family, etc. Be you the FC lead or just a member. Cost your punishing more players then those that own multiple FC homes. It's choosing the greater of two evils to solve a problem.

---

I don't think that's the be all and end all. For example, they could design the automatic FC transfer system in a way to where it will only transfer to characters whos service accounts do not currently own an FC with an FC house. Keep going down the list until it finds a suitable character, if not, the land is relinquished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neia

I don't think that's the be all and end all. For example, they could design the automatic FC transfer system in a way to where it will only transfer to characters whos service accounts do not currently own an FC with an FC house. Keep going down the list until it finds a suitable character, if not, the land is relinquished.

---

There is a way around that but I wont say what it is, do not wish too add to the problem. I can be confident I am not the only one would realize or as realized how to get around this idea.

It is kind of annoying how my alt can't have a home (nor share in my main's home) due to being on the same world but hey, if I made a shell FC I could do that only I don't *want* to do that. So alas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Naphtalia

So, ultimately, you'd need someone to admit in game that they're trading houses for the GMs to do anything. As far as I'm aware, they don't take outside screenshots into consideration. I'm also guessing the duplicate named FCs don't flag them either because they ultimately don't have written proof that they're owned by the same person. Anyone know if they investigate IPs (I'm guessing not because that would probably have squashed those issues a while ago)?

---

Basically yes, Square Enix can collect and use IP addresses internally. Japanese privacy law (APPI) allows companies to process IPs for legitimate business purposes, and ToS enforcement falls under that. But IPs can't be used as standalone proof of multi‑ownership, so they aren't the primary tool for housing enforcement. GMs rely on in‑game behaviour, account activity, FC control patterns, and plot maintenance history, not IP matching alone.

That said, you don't need someone to openly admit "I'm trading houses" for an investigation to happen. If an entire ward is filled with FCs like BluesFC1, BluesFC2, BluesFC3, all clearly controlled by the same person, that's already enough behavioural evidence for a GM to look deeper into account ownership and activity. We also can't say for certain whether people do or don't report these cases, that part is unknown. What we can say is that the system doesn't automatically flag FC plot stacking. Without a report, there's no trigger for a GM to review anything.

So while Square Enix can use IP data internally, it's only ever supporting evidence. Housing enforcement ultimately depends on reports and in‑game behavioural patterns, not IP tracing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s32ialx

Basically yes, Square Enix can collect and use IP addresses internally. Japanese privacy law (APPI) allows companies to process IPs for legitimate business purposes, and ToS enforcement falls under that. But IPs can't be used as standalone proof of multi‑ownership, so they aren't the primary tool for housing enforcement. GMs rely on in‑game behaviour, account activity, FC control patterns, and plot maintenance history, not IP matching alone.

That said, you don't need someone to openly admit "I'm trading houses" for an investigation to happen. If an entire ward is filled with FCs like BluesFC1, BluesFC2, BluesFC3, all clearly controlled by the same person, that's already enough behavioural evidence for a GM to look deeper into account ownership and activity. We also can't say for certain whether people do or don't report these cases, that part is unknown. What we can say is that the system doesn't automatically flag FC plot stacking. Without a report, there's no trigger for a GM to review anything.

So while Square Enix can use IP data internally, it's only ever supporting evidence. Housing enforcement ultimately depends on reports and in‑game behavioural patterns, not IP tracing.

---

I see. I just assume that it's not enough since those multi-owned wards have existed for years now from what I've been told. I'm unsure what behavior would be necessary for them to actually act on it if those wards haven't done anything enough to warrant removal yet.

Here is a solution and its a hands off one for SE. Ill explain best I can how it will work as it may be a little confusing!!

Solution is restrict housing permissions: Example of how it would work

-Player A joins a FC with a house only FC they are apart of on said world. So the restrictions will not apply and they can have or be granted full access to housing permissions.

-Player A creates a new character same world joins another FC with a house. But be they a member or FC lead they have access only too these housing permissions in said FC:

Access too:
1. estate access
2. Orchestra
3. Garden
4. chocobo stable
5. FC chest
6. Greeting book
7. House reliq.

No access too:
-Furnishings and storage
-remodel
-No airship or sub access (can donate materials only)
-company credits
-company actions



Only the character in the first FC you join on a world can have full housing permissions. Every character on that world that comes after and joins a different FC with a house will have their permissions restricted as listed above. This idea cant be bypassed by using multiple accounts, has bringing a character in from a different account will trigger the restriction for all other characters on the account that exist on the same world. Think of this like and infectious disease its spreads with every FC with house you join. :D Under this idea if you want to control 8 FC houses all on the same world you will need 8 accounts 1 account for each house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NanaWiloh

Free Company homes belong to the Free Company not a singular player. So you are wrong does not matter who holds the winning ticket they are not the owner of the home.

---

Aye, I was the one who won an FC plot back in the day, but when I handed leadership over before moving, the game didn't stop me at the door because I "owned" the house, it only stopped me because the new player "hadn't been a member long enough".

Unless there's some spaghetti code that literally takes 30 days for the game to acknowledge other FC members as "potential" owners? Because it wouldn't surprise me given how wack everything else is around housing and FCs, including the part that lets people cheat the system to inherit multiple houses to begin with.
+++

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Naphtalia

Final thought, even if multi-owners are forced to give up all of their houses I'm sure there's an awareness that there still won't be enough houses for everyone because of wanting a specific plot or a specific size on a X or Y server. So, personally I think this will just be a bandaid solution and we'll have another discussion coming up about how housing is still unfair because some still won't be able to get the plot they actually want. So, will getting rid of multi-owners actually fix the issue at hand for all of you?

---

Yes, it would fix it actually, because I'm less concerned with everyone being able to get a house (which is already known to be impossible due to scarcity, and I don't care to ever own another house myself), but rather I would see an end to gil farming, which can 100% be destroyed overnight if Square-Enix simply patched out the items worth tons of gil.

At which point the house hoarding problem would "fix its self" because the grand majority of those exploiting the current system are doing it solely to print gil and with the incentive gone, many of those shell FCs would evaporate within hours. That's hardly a "bandaid" solution, that's life-changing surgery and it would only take one little hotfix... provided we ever got Square-Enix to realize there's even a problem.

Which makes me wonder if this is even something that happens on JP data centers or if its exclusively an NA and OCE thing (I'm not sure about EU), and much like how Yoshi-P didn't believe RMT was even a thing until he saw it first-hand when he visited NA, or how he might be completely oblivious to all of the DDoS going on right now on NA...

It's entirely possible we're mistaking ignorance for malice, but that also leaves the GMs powerless to do anything because its not like they have Yoshi-P on speed dial, and with them having recently gutted their NA division (which likely includes GMs as they're among the lowest ones on the totem pole), there's little chance of Square-Enix ever realizing there's an issue with house hoarding to begin with because they don't experience it on their side of the ocean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aidorouge

Aye, I was the one who won an FC plot back in the day, but when I handed leadership over before moving, the game didn't stop me at the door because I "owned" the house, it only stopped me because the new player "hadn't been a member long enough".

Unless there's some spaghetti code that literally takes 30 days for the game to acknowledge other FC members as "potential" owners? Because it wouldn't surprise me given how wack everything else is around housing and FCs, including the part that lets people cheat the system to inherit multiple houses to begin with.
+++



Yes, it would fix it actually, because I'm less concerned with everyone being able to get a house (which is already known to be impossible due to scarcity, and I don't care to ever own another house myself), but rather I would see an end to gil farming, which can 100% be destroyed overnight if Square-Enix simply patched out the items worth tons of gil.

At which point the house hoarding problem would "fix its self" because the grand majority of those exploiting the current system are doing it solely to print gil and with the incentive gone, many of those shell FCs would evaporate within hours. That's hardly a "bandaid" solution, that's life-changing surgery and it would only take one little hotfix... provided we ever got Square-Enix to realize there's even a problem.

Which makes me wonder if this is even something that happens on JP data centers or if its exclusively an NA and OCE thing (I'm not sure about EU), and much like how Yoshi-P didn't believe RMT was even a thing until he saw it first-hand when he visited NA, or how he might be completely oblivious to all of the DDoS going on right now on NA...

It's entirely possible we're mistaking ignorance for malice, but that also leaves the GMs powerless to do anything because its not like they have Yoshi-P on speed dial, and with them having recently gutted their NA division (which likely includes GMs as they're among the lowest ones on the totem pole), there's little chance of Square-Enix ever realizing there's an issue with house hoarding to begin with because they don't experience it on their side of the ocean.

---

GM's in this game are borderline useless cause of how tight of a leash they are on and what ever god awful guidelines they have to follow. I don't blame them for the position their stuck in, Bet more then few would like to help more then they are allowed too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aidorouge

Unless there's some spaghetti code that literally takes 30 days for the game to acknowledge other FC members as "potential" owners?
---
Yes, it would fix it actually, because I'm less concerned with everyone being able to get a house (which is already known to be impossible due to scarcity, and I don't care to ever own another house myself), but rather I would see an end to gil farming, which can 100% be destroyed overnight if Square-Enix simply patched out the items worth tons of gil.

At which point the house hoarding problem would "fix its self" because the grand majority of those exploiting the current system are doing it solely to print gil and with the incentive gone, many of those shell FCs would evaporate within hours. That's hardly a "bandaid" solution, that's life-changing surgery and it would only take one little hotfix... provided we ever got Square-Enix to realize there's even a problem.

Which makes me wonder if this is even something that happens on JP data centers or if its exclusively an NA and OCE thing (I'm not sure about EU), and much like how Yoshi-P didn't believe RMT was even a thing until he saw it first-hand when he visited NA, or how he might be completely oblivious to all of the DDoS going on right now on NA...

It's entirely possible we're mistaking ignorance for malice, but that also leaves the GMs powerless to do anything because its not like they have Yoshi-P on speed dial, and with them having recently gutted their NA division (which likely includes GMs as they're among the lowest ones on the totem pole), there's little chance of Square-Enix ever realizing there's an issue with house hoarding to begin with because they don't experience it on their side of the ocean.

---

To answer as much of this as I can:

- The 30 day restriction was implemented to try to curb how quickly people could make FCs in an attempt to slow down multi-owning/house trading. So ultimately the game doesn't view new members as eligible for leadership until they've been there for 30 days.

- As far as RMT, it would make a dent sure but it wouldn't 100% remove it because a large chunk of RMT also comes from botting. The million lalafell alts you see running around all the time are leveling for the purpose of farming gil, for example through Eureka bunny fates. There's probably newer ways that they farm it now but I just remember that being one of the main ways of funneling RMT when I first started playing.

- As far as it happening on JP, it does. There's a rather well known person on Tonberry (I think?) who owns an entire ward and has since housing was first implemented however many years ago now. She might actually be the first ever ward owner but unsure. My old FC leader told me she slowly bought up all of the plots because they were just sitting for months on end or something like that when the game had a much lower population. EU also has their share of multi-owners as well. It's definitely not an isolated OCE/NA thing.

i say we just need a complete overhaul of this housing system its long overdue and had been a complete after thought in the developers minds since they added the lottery thing an they've pushed back the update that was supposed to happen because its likely they realized their system can't really handle it an don't won't take make any false promises to get yelled at by the fans and housing enthusiasts etc.
and what i would i like to see is for them to either de-couple wards from private owners an give private owners their own instance with which they can design their own homestead with any house size they want it to be an let the free companies run and preserve the ward style housing. that or just completely add a secluded housing separately so people can leave the ward if they want too to put less stress on the ward servers i think that may have been something they were trying to experiment with using the island sanctuary but backed off cause it was effecting the housing servers still an making them crash.
but yea i think a making a separate housing option would have a pretty decent impact an make the wards balance out better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Naphtalia

- As far as RMT, it would make a dent sure but it wouldn't 100% remove it because a large chunk of RMT also comes from botting. The million lalafell alts you see running around all the time are leveling for the purpose of farming gil, for example through Eureka bunny fates. There's probably newer ways that they farm it now but I just remember that being one of the main ways of funneling RMT when I first started playing.

- As far as it happening on JP, it does. There's a rather well known person on Tonberry (I think?) who owns an entire ward and has since housing was first implemented however many years ago now. She might actually be the first ever ward owner but unsure. My old FC leader told me she slowly bought up all of the plots because they were just sitting for months on end or something like that when the game had a much lower population. EU also has their share of multi-owners as well. It's definitely not an isolated OCE/NA thing.

---

Making a dent is better than just doing nothing at all and letting the problem get worse (though the possibility that's there's more bots than actual players anymore is already dire), otherwise what's the point of complaining about anything at all if the answer is always going to be "can't be helped, get used to it".

Though if this is indeed happening on JP data centers too, than Square-Enix likely does not in fact care about house hoarding (or frankly, the game in general) and we're all stuck with a game that barely functions while it coasts through maintenance mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aidorouge

Making a dent is better than just doing nothing at all and letting the problem get worse (though the possibility that's there's more bots than actual players anymore is already dire), otherwise what's the point of complaining about anything at all if the answer is always going to be "can't be helped, get used to it".

Though if this is indeed happening on JP data centers too, than Square-Enix likely does not in fact care about house hoarding (or frankly, the game in general) and we're all stuck with a game that barely functions while it coasts through maintenance mode.

---

Never said "can't be helped, get used to it". Just was saying that it wouldn't 100% destroy RMT, we'd ultimately need more drastic measures for that to happen. Complaints should be given about it, of course.

I think they're stuck in a problem of their own making with how they handle leadership transferring because it is something that is needed in the event FC leads need to step down but don't want to have the FC disbanded as a result. I think having that as a function is fair and should exist for the community. It would just need to somehow be corrected or adjusted to check for other characters a person has on the same server before passing lead over and I'm not sure how technically difficult/time consuming that would be with how they've built the game already.

+1

I too think something should be done about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Naphtalia

Never said "can't be helped, get used to it". Just was saying that it wouldn't 100% destroy RMT, we'd ultimately need more drastic measures for that to happen. Complaints should be given about it, of course.

I think they're stuck in a problem of their own making with how they handle leadership transferring because it is something that is needed in the event FC leads need to step down but don't want to have the FC disbanded as a result. I think having that as a function is fair and should exist for the community. It would just need to somehow be corrected or adjusted to check for other characters a person has on the same server before passing lead over and I'm not sure how technically difficult/time consuming that would be with how they've built the game already.

---

exactly it should check are there more than 1 active players with more than 30 days and what are their ranks, does the highest most active player rank already have an alt that already owns and FC with a house (if yes do not pass lead / if no pass lead). But no instead how it ACTUALLY works is whose the first person to login after the FC leader quits, pass lead.

Before reading this thread I was like "is it really a big deal?".

Then after reading the evidences of hoarders arrogance, like owning a whole ward and naming all houses the same, their unapologetic replies, I changed my mind.

I'd onboard on mass ban. Like, banning 10 hoarders would free half of all houses of a world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s32ialx

exactly it should check are there more than 1 active players with more than 30 days and what are their ranks, does the highest most active player rank already have an alt that already owns and FC with a house (if yes do not pass lead / if no pass lead). But no instead how it ACTUALLY works is whose the first person to login after the FC leader quits, pass lead.

---

That's pretty "normal" I think in the MMO/online sphere for it to work that way, at the very least I know SWTOR's guild system auto applies the leader role to whoever logs in first after the lead goes inactive. I know quite a few gachas and mobile games that do the same thing as well when it comes to their guild system (though they have ways to vote people out of leadership). The only difference is that housing is tied to FCs so that turns a relatively normal function in a game into a problem.

Again, I don't know how complicated it would be for the system to do that but the issue very clearly lies in the inheritance system, even moreso than the bidding system because houses are still just sitting abandoned on Dynamis lol. A friend of mine had a mansion sitting in his ward for about a month before he finally just bid and relocated since no one else was. XD