1 House 1 FC per DC Only

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eraden

Speaking from the point of view of a Canadian, it's a bit more nuanced than what you are suggesting, Jojoya. From my point of view, Capitalism itself is not completely a bad thing. The problem is that American health care is heavily burdened by insurance companies and a culture of massive litigation. Here in my Province of Saskatchewan, we do have the involvement of insurance companies but litigation is highly restricted. In most cases, successful litigation against malpractice returns a payout that more or less just covers damages and cost of rehabilitation. There are no multi-gazillion dollar payouts. That helps keep costs down. We have state-sponsored healthcare (and contrary to popular belief, it's actually really good) that is designed to keep costs down but we also allow fee for services in some areas of medicine. A bit of Capitalism is not a bad thing. Unrestricted Ferengi-style Capitalism on the other hand, well, that hurts everyone in the end.

---

From the PoV of an American, who experiences this medical system - it's exactly as Jojoya states.

For-profit Insurance companies lobby politicians to maintain the current status quo, which means high costs for medications, hospital bills, etc
Ferengi-style capitalism is *still capitalism*.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

And those problems ended up fixed.

Servers wouldn't need to handle unlimited instances. If a player is in one instance, they can't be in another. That means at most servers only need to be able to handle the number of instances equal to the number of players online at a given time.

If servers were incapable of handling that many instances, then Trust would not exist. Squadrons would not exist. Solo duties would not exist. All SE has needed to do is make sure content flow is designed so that every player isn't trying to get into an instance at the same time (what happened with Raubahn Ex).


Most of us understand the ongoing hardware problem.

Here's a better question: why choose a system that makes inefficient use of that hardware when it comes to player usage capacity (wards) when you could choose a system that utilizes it much more efficiently (instanced housing). That ward is always sitting there on the server whether players are present or not. Instanced housing only gets loaded when a player wants to enter and the instance is removed when players are no longer present.

---

Solved my hardware problem a week back. :D So nice to have my pc back.

I disagree - he is actually totally right....making a bigger boat is actually wasteful because your just kicking the can down the road.

The reality is those databases can be pretty choked already without unlimited housing; and there is a large amount of empty houses or people who frankly have no idea what to do with a home if they ever get one - they will pay decorators millions of gil because they just want to have a nice house to rp in.

Houses need to have a upkeep cost so that people do not just neglect it.
Houses DO need to have rooms like FC houses; if your not a FC then each room has a exponential cost increase to add but you can keep adding - making it a massive gil sink.
All your alts need to have full rights to your house.
1 House per DC; if you choose to make your home a FC house then your private quarters is larger to compensate.
Reality is housing will essentially be a endless problem because there is infinite gil to buy it. The issue we are seeing is because players are not taking gil "out" of the system - this results in multi-billionaires who can easily buy out a ward if they have enough alts.
FC houses need to serve a real purpose - stuff like world transfer from FC houses and glamour dressers would be a good start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibi

I don't buy the community-invented excuse that this task is impossible because an endless number of servers are needed.

A player should use a fairly steady amount of server resources in terms of CPU cycles and RAM, instanced housing requires disk space. SANs and NASs can be obtained. The shortage isn't as bad there for top name enterprise grade storage solutions.

If I am inside a house, or inside a dungeon - it's still me using my cycles and memory bytes. Instanced housing, needs diskspace.

---

This is close to the mark - it actually touches close to the reason we cannot have glamour dressers; database issues and you cannot just tear that down as I suspect that houses/glamour dressers are entities unto themselves as are retainers.

This is why you can select recovery of items for only select things - I suspect your house actually owns you; that's why the permissions are the way they are (this is theory). Instanced housing is likely no so much about diskspace but rather database communication - and becomes even more tricky once you start giving OTHER players access.

Kind of why you cannot make people tenants of your apartment.

And I suspect it would be a inch to a mile - instanced housing becomes a issue once you start the conversation "now where is my yard"; why do I have such a low item limit? I want a bigger home then what I got.

It will just keep escalating.

I mean not sure how big a deal housing "actually" is; I played games since UO (the OG game with housing scarcity). I remember with DAOC got housing which just turned into npc parking spots...AC had catered only to the elite. Wildstar crashed and burned, LOTRO was a nice idea but generally unneeded, Horizion was a gold rush, ArchAge was probably the closest to FF 14 imo.

The thing all those games have in common...
None managed to stay "sub to play" for a decade - though i *think* two might have a premium player option now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MilkieTea

From the PoV of an American, who experiences this medical system - it's exactly as Jojoya states.

For-profit Insurance companies lobby politicians to maintain the current status quo, which means high costs for medications, hospital bills, etc
Ferengi-style capitalism is *still capitalism*.

---

This is not a black or white situation. The real world is made up of shades of grey. A bit of Capitalism is needed to provide incentive for R&D. Regulation is needed to make sure that costs do not spiral out of control. Capitalism is not bad. Unrestricted Capitalism is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eraden

Speaking from the point of view of a Canadian, it's a bit more nuanced than what you are suggesting, Jojoya. From my point of view, Capitalism itself is not completely a bad thing. The problem is that American health care is heavily burdened by insurance companies and a culture of massive litigation. Here in my Province of Saskatchewan, we do have the involvement of insurance companies but litigation is highly restricted. In most cases, successful litigation against malpractice returns a payout that more or less just covers damages and cost of rehabilitation. There are no multi-gazillion dollar payouts. That helps keep costs down. We have state-sponsored healthcare (and contrary to popular belief, it's actually really good) that is designed to keep costs down but we also allow fee for services in some areas of medicine. A bit of Capitalism is not a bad thing. Unrestricted Ferengi-style Capitalism on the other hand, well, that hurts everyone in the end.

---

Not trying to say that capitalism is bad. Just saying that corporations tend to have too much influence over our national policies that end working against not only the public benefit but the corporations themselves in some cases.

Happy, healthy workers are far more productive. They're also in a better position to be active consumers spending what they make to support more business. If people aren't healthy enough to work, they can't make money. If they can't make money, they're not going to spending. People not buying products/services means less profit for corporations.

How do corporations respond? By cutting costs frequently to the detriment of their employees but sometimes also to the detriment of those buying their products. Unhappy workers are less productive. Poor product quality leads to less consumer interest. It starts a downward spiral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neoyoshi

Are folks asking for a completely new and separate housing system that doesn't interfere with the current one?

---

We're not asking for a completely new system to replace all the housing that currently exists.

We're asking SE to improve the existing one (apartments) so that it will provide the features and options we see in the other games that are missing here. A good instanced system (especially since there's no need for demolition in such a system) will lower demand for the ward houses. That frees up more of those for the players that truly enjoy the ward experience and/or would be active gardeners.

We know these things are possible since we see them in other games. We know SE isn't worried about instance server capacity when they're adding in so many ways for players to experience instanced content solo. A player in one instance can't be in another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayan_Calvesse

The issue we are seeing is because players are not taking gil "out" of the system - this results in multi-billionaires who can easily buy out a ward if they have enough alts.

---

We can't take gil out of the system when SE isn't giving us interesting and effective ways to spend it. What we're generally left with is buying items from other players and so the currency remains in circulation but in a different player's hands.

Plus of an instanced housing system that we've seen in other games: players are able to buy multiple housing locations without impacting the ability of any other players to also buy. That takes a lot of currency out of the game.

I've noticed that SE has started adding a lot more housing items to the NPC vendors lately instead of adding them all as crafting recipes. There's another good gil sink - if players could buy a house so they had a need to purchase many of those items. An apartment has such a low item limit they don't encourage buying multiples of most of the vendor items unless someone is intent on hiding the default walls. That's still only 14-20 items (depending on whether they're also buying the imitation windows that are added to vendors). Compare that to my medium where sometimes I'll blow 60-100 of my item budget on Stage Panels, Marble Partitions, Fool's Thresholds, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

We're not asking for a completely new system to replace all the housing that currently exists.

We're asking SE to improve the existing one (apartments) so that it will provide the features and options we see in the other games that are missing here. A good instanced system (especially since there's no need for demolition in such a system) will lower demand for the ward houses. That frees up more of those for the players that truly enjoy the ward experience and/or would be active gardeners.

---

Agreed. There is no need to blow up the old just to bring in the new. A more robust housing system might be one in which wards are retained while additional housing is introduced in some other fashion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eraden

Agreed. There is no need to blow up the old just to bring in the new. A more robust housing system might be one in which wards are retained while additional housing is introduced in some other fashion.

---

As long as it is with max 1 house and 1 FC per DC per account, then it is all fine..

And that by lifting the current grandfathering as well, making it even and fair for all in the competetion to get a house or FC house, as it is a huge problem, people think it is ok to exploit current systems and to be protected by previous systems as well, and if these people end quitting over a decission like this that will be enforced by ToS, then just don't sign the additional ToS addition given and don't play the game.

Of course will be given a choice of which, one want to keep, also this would even the ground out quite a bit, it is a trend that people make alts on other servers with the purpose of buying up houses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Themarvin

And that by lifting the current grandfathering as well.

---

Still pushing this line aren't you. It's not going to happen and you need to get over it. Your continued push to retroactively enforce new rules won't happen and if they took your suggestion and limited it to one house and FC per DC they'd be grandfathering in those who have houses on multiple servers in the same DC.

If someone has a house on Chaos and one on Light they will not remove one of those houses from the person who owns them given at the time they purchased them they were allowed to. They would enforce the new rules on new purchases only which is a reasonable thing to expect. Interestingly enough with the new rules for 6.1 they are still allowing the purchasing of one FC and one private per server so you have an uphill battle to get them to listen to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaylaTsarra

Still pushing this line aren't you. It's not going to happen and you need to get over it. Your continued push to retroactively enforce new rules won't happen and if they took your suggestion and limited it to one house and FC per DC they'd be grandfathering in those who have houses on multiple servers in the same DC.

If someone has a house on Chaos and one on Light they will not remove one of those houses from the person who owns them given at the time they purchased them they were allowed to. They would enforce the new rules on new purchases only which is a reasonable thing to expect. Interestingly enough with the new rules for 6.1 they are still allowing the purchasing of one FC and one private per server so you have an uphill battle to get them to listen to you.

---

In short any other MMO would enforce things, that plugs a problem like this, popular one or not... what I suggest would not reflect if you got one on chaos and light, as 2 DC's, it wont be an unpopular thing to remove grandfathering of the past and coming to be, but the right thing, of course compensation of the value of the plots that you dont want to keep would be in place.

Fairplay and equal ground to all is something that 99,99% of the active playerbase would agree to.