1 House 1 FC per DC Only

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Themarvin

if you came from SWG, then I do not know why you liked the SWTOR way, played the same games here, and honestly instanced... could only invite a select few people in swtor... you could not free form anything... all was locked into sockets to place an item at.

FFXIV has a LITTLE bit of SWG.... and more of SWTOR in it... SWG system was superiour.. especially if you played to the end... you also rotate paintings and anything in any angle in open 3D space, which is impossible in FFXIV and really limits the gameplay in dekadent ways.

You can still play SWG there is alot of SWGEMU's out there today and even some rather well running that does not reset everything once in a few months.

---

The reason I went to SWTOR was (1) My boyfriend wanted to play there; (2) It was Star Wars and (3) My guild from SWG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by casi2161

The reason I went to SWTOR was (1) My boyfriend wanted to play there; (2) It was Star Wars and (3) My guild from SWG.

---

It was ok to an extend but it all ended with afking at the fleet for me -_- later on came alot of weird new ways of playing the game the Electronic Arts way of doing stuff yay? NO!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

This is what they said. Not that "none of the subsections concern exploiting loopholes" or even denial that such loopholes can be considered exploits. Simply that the TOS doesn't literally include "housing".

Two threads deleted? One was certainly locked and another deleted, but what is the mystery third thread that was also deleted? And why would I rehash points that others have made more eloquently than I did? I made the thread I wished to make and it reached its intended conclusion. I was guided to other threads of relevance and found them to be fascinating enough to be worth a second look for others. Given that they received as many posts as they did previously it would seem I was correct in that assessment.

---

One question, if system default the FC ownership to me because FC leader didn't log on for 45 days, are you saying I broke the TOS too?
It that how it works for your narration?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

One question, if system default the FC ownership to me because FC leader didn't log on for 45 days, are you saying I broke the TOS too?
It that how it works for your narration?

---

I think it's 35 days. I had one transfer to me on Chocobo on Mana DC given the leader didn't really play there anymore and told me to simply keep it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

One question, if system default the FC ownership to me because FC leader didn't log on for 45 days, are you saying I broke the TOS too?
It that how it works for your narration?

---

That's exactly one of the things that broke when they hard coded the plot requirements. It's why they rolled it back.

So unless you're orchestrating that scenario 8 times in one world simply to side step plot requirements no, it would not be against TOS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

That's exactly one of the things that broke when they hard coded the plot requirements. It's why they rolled it back.

So unless you're orchestrating that scenario 8 times in one world simply to side step plot requirements no, it would not be against TOS.

---

Broke what?
The function is intended.
What are you even talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

Broke what?
The function is intended.
What are you even talking about?

---

When they hard coded in the limitation on plots it broke a lot of FC functions. Your example was one such function that broke. They rolled it back and relied on players not to abuse the now present loophole.

So what I'm talking about, consistently I might add, is taking advantage of said loophole for unintended purposes; such as using a single service account to own 8 plots on a single world simply to abuse workshops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

When they hard coded in the limitation on plots it broke a lot of FC functions. Your example was one such function that broke. They rolled it back and relied on players not to abuse the now present loophole.

So what I'm talking about, consistently I might add, is taking advantage of said loophole for unintended purposes; such as using a single service account to own 8 plots on a single world simply to abuse workshops.

---

Please provide the citation of your claim.
This is a feature installed as a fiction to protect FC from FC leader account no longer log on
WoW has this function too with guild master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

When they hard coded in the limitation on plots it broke a lot of FC functions. Your example was one such function that broke. They rolled it back and relied on players not to abuse the now present loophole.

So what I'm talking about, consistently I might add, is taking advantage of said loophole for unintended purposes; such as using a single service account to own 8 plots on a single world simply to abuse workshops.

---

When did they hard code in the limitation and what FC functions were broken? Where did you learn this from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

Please provide the citation of your claim.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinglessSeraphim

When did they hard code in the limitation and what FC functions were broken? Where did you learn this from?

---

From this post.

Again, what you are talking about is not what they are talking about, and at least one of those posts is wrong. The restriction that was rolled back was blocking direct at-placard purchases for second+ FCs, not FC transferral. Furthermore, the flag reversal was not as universal as mentioned - it seemed more like the flag was inconsistent and somehow being stripped by certain actions or on certain servers in ways that I don't know that anyone ever accurately figured out. Some people would be totally free of restrictions, some wouldn't, some of it seemed to be server-related. Transferral always worked from the first day of the restrictions being implemented, and still works today - it just wasn't as widely known at the time.

Damn this dude is still going on crying about multiowners huh, talk about an obsession

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormpeaks

Damn this dude is still going on crying about multiowners huh, talk about an obsession

---

To be fair, I stupidly asked him to explain where he got his reasoning. From my perspective, he's based his opinions on the 3 year old opinions and speculations of another poster who has no clue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sindele

Again, what you are talking about is not what they are talking about, and at least one of those posts is wrong. The restriction that was rolled back was blocking direct at-placard purchases for second+ FCs, not FC transferral.

---

Yes, that was my main point. The inconsistency is part of the fragility that I mentioned, which makes sense. The FC code base is probably the worst of it considering that the Rank permission doesn't even work right to this day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormpeaks

Damn this dude is still going on crying about multiowners huh, talk about an obsession

---

I'm just posting in a housing forum about a housing topic. It's one thing to sign up for notifications just so you can get a reply in immediately after I post but hey, at least you didn't make an alt for the sole purpose of writing out toxic diatribes to make sure no one else feels comfortable posting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinglessSeraphim

To be fair, I stupidly asked him to explain where he got his reasoning. From my perspective, he's based his opinions on the 3 year old opinions and speculations of another poster who has no clue.

---

If it's any consolation what you said just reinforced my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

If it's any consolation what you said just reinforced my opinion.

---

It's your opinion to have even though it's pretty wrong and based on outdated info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

Yes, that was my main point. The inconsistency is part of the fragility that I mentioned, which makes sense. The FC code base is probably the worst of it considering that the Rank permission doesn't even work right to this day.


I'm just posting in a housing forum about a housing topic. It's one thing to sign up for notifications just so you can get a reply in immediately after I post but hey, at least you didn't make an alt for the sole purpose of writing out toxic diatribes to make sure no one else feels comfortable posting.


If it's any consolation what you said just reinforced my opinion.

---

Who are you accusing this time ? Is it someone "stalking" you again like you accused me of ? Simply because I responded to you ?

I only have the one little sub house, but every time this guy goes off I'm tempted to make another.

Wow, you all are being pretty mean to the poor poster.

Personally, I agree with them - I think we should be able to interpret the ToS through the lens of our personal feelings. Then the actual words and content inside don't matter and it's much easier for me to understand.

Also, just because there are a lot of them, pointing out all the flaws in the argument is pretty toxic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KittySungale

Wow, you all are being pretty mean to the poor poster.

Personally, I agree with them - I think we should be able to interpret the ToS through the lens of our personal feelings. Then the actual words and content inside don't matter and it's much easier for me to understand.

Also, just because there are a lot of them, pointing out all the flaws in the argument is pretty toxic.

---

Didn't I see same type of response few pages back?
It is also a freshly made post account with no main character tied to it.
Am I having dejavu?

I am really annoyed by some guy sidetracked my post to begin with, please do not confuse me with this catstarperson or whatever.... -_-

And yes the ToS is not very difficult to understand in general that is either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinglessSeraphim

It's your opinion to have even though it's pretty wrong and based on outdated info.

---

It's more that it happened. The restriction existed and then was removed due to technical problems.

But.. it didn't. It never existed in the way you want it to exist. The restriction that existed and was rolled back, was re-implemented and exists to this day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

It's more that it happened. The restriction existed and then was removed due to technical problems.

---

Please make your own thread, I didn't ask for all this sidetracked stuff and personal vendettas or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Themarvin

Please make your own thread, I didn't ask for all this sidetracked stuff and personal vendettas or whatever.

---

He can't. They keep getting deleted or locked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sindele

But.. it didn't. It never existed in the way you want it to exist. The restriction that existed and was rolled back, was re-implemented and exists to this day.

---

For the record, the exact section in Patch 4.2:

Quote:

---

Players will be permitted to own only one private and one free company estate per World per service account.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Themarvin

Please make your own thread, I didn't ask for all this sidetracked stuff and personal vendettas or whatever.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinglessSeraphim

He can't. They keep getting deleted or locked.

---

I'm not sure why I can't? I mean, I certainly did. I really don't understand the insistence in gas lighting (keep getting deleted/locked??) from accounts who only come out of the woodwork when discussing this exploit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

For the record, the exact section in Patch 4.2:




I'm not sure why I can't? I mean, I certainly did. I really don't understand the insistence in gas lighting (keep getting deleted/locked??) from accounts who only come out of the woodwork when discussing this exploit.

---

Yes, I only come out when discussing this (not an) exploit because nothing else interests me but very rarely. It's adorable that you keep using the word 'gaslighting'. Like your views on this 'exploit', your views on what 'gaslighting' is are wrong. No one is trying to make you doubt your own sanity. I'm not even sure how anyone could do that in a gaming forum.

When you are done picking and choosing what you find in your search of my posts, maybe you can work on your posts full of misinformation.

Yes, I know what it says on the patch, the same as I know what it says on the site. But there was never a mechanical restriction on FC transfers. Any claim to the contrary is false.

It says "own" and not "build" - what do you propose as a "solution" to this "problem" ?

If you are like me, you have occupied many FCs and maybe even helped one build a house. If you are kicked from the FC or leave of your own volition due to any circumstance, do you then believe that player should never ever again be able to build a house for another FC down the line on the same World? That strikes me as unreasonable.

The reality remains that many FC wards are barren and riddled with vacancies. There is no dearth of available plots for any FC that wishes to build on one.

It's clear that there are some players who are taking clever advantage to build on multiple FC plots, but I am curious what a solution to this would be which would not end up hurting players who switch FCs.

Despite how much information you were given, you literally failed the take home test even after you had the study guide. 2+2=4 but here you are arguing with everyone that there is a situation it should equal 3 or 5 and you can't even provide a laughable reasoning as to why other than to throw out some copout response like "adorable circular logic". Pathetic.

You learned absolutely nothing. In fact you probably degraded further.

Guess we have to unpack the hooked on phonics kit all over again.

Here is what you asked last time, to set up your concave brain chess:
https://i.imgur.com/tstjWo8.png

--------
And here is the response you waited for:
https://i.imgur.com/WVRJ79t.png

--------
[B]So that you could just come back with "OH BUT YOUR CIRUCLAR LOGIC".


That was it. That was your big boy play.
Clearly you did not read or process any of what was discussed around these points.

UNNAMED_ was not enforced on rules specific to a raid. Housing has no specified rules either, but you bring up the "MALICIOUS GLITCHING" which DOES fall under rules related to harassment and player experience in section 3. But you don't like this answer because it does not drop the hammer on people purchasing multiple plots.

That's where you bring out your one garbage one trick pony response:

https://i.imgur.com/VzPp7KK.png

Again, here you are parroting your favorite lines from patch notes or a Plot and Housing Guide with the intent of misrepresenting it like an official stated rule or requirement in the Terms of Service. For weeks now you have attempted to inject this into people's discussion and thought process to build your dead argument. Sorry Pinocchio, but it's not happening.

This statement holds ZERO weight.

But before I leave you on this one post:
Let's make believe for a moment and say that owning multiple plots is now against the rules in the Terms of Service.

In order for you to report it you would need to:

1. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual in question has warranted grounds to be investigated in the first place over anything relating to plots (Because police don't just search you just because someone said so.)
2. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence the same individual in question owns those plots.
3. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt the individual in question has done something nefarious to acquire those plots or something nefarious with said plots.
4. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt the individual has actually engaged in RMT activity with proof of a transaction and it's details.

Let me just start by saying you will never be able to prove a single point in that list above. Not before, not now, not anytime ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starien

It says "own" and not "build" - what do you propose as a "solution" to this "problem" ?

If you are like me, you have occupied many FCs and maybe even helped one build a house. If you are kicked from the FC or leave of your own volition due to any circumstance, do you then believe that player should never ever again be able to build a house for another FC down the line on the same World? That strikes me as unreasonable.

The reality remains that many FC wards are barren and riddled with vacancies. There is no dearth of available plots for any FC that wishes to build on one.

It's clear that there are some players who are taking clever advantage to build on multiple FC plots, but I am curious what a solution to this would be which would not end up hurting players who switch FCs.

---

What I think would be the easiest way to accomplish it (assuming no other changes to how housing currently works) would be to consider the FC Master the house owner, and limit players to being FC Master of one FC per world per service account.

That wouldn't restrict a player from moving between FCs or having characters on the same world in different FCs. It also wouldn't prevent someone from taking an active leadership role in multiple FCs on the same world as they could still be appointed an Officer while someone else was the FC Master. It shouldn't impair FCs with multiple unique members (unless they all have their own FC outside of the shared one). It also doesn't change the power the FC Master already has over their FC and its housing since they control all rank permissions.

The only time I can think of that it might be come an issue is in a very small FC where all members other than the FC Master have other characters that are already FC Masters of other FCs on the same. It could be others could brainstorm and come up with a situation where it would create a problem that I haven't considered (other than the problem of "but this means I can't get multiple FC houses on the same world").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

What I think would be the easiest way to accomplish it (assuming no other changes to how housing currently works) would be to consider the FC Master the house owner, and limit players to being FC Master of one FC per world per service account.

That wouldn't restrict a player from moving between FCs or having characters on the same world in different FCs. It also wouldn't prevent someone from taking an active leadership role in multiple FCs on the same world as they could still be appointed an Officer while someone else was the FC Master. It shouldn't impair FCs with multiple unique members (unless they all have their own FC outside of the shared one). It also doesn't change the power the FC Master already has over their FC and its housing since they control all rank permissions.

The only time I can think of that it might be come an issue is in a very small FC where all members other than the FC Master have other characters that are already FC Masters of other FCs on the same. It could be others could brainstorm and come up with a situation where it would create a problem that I haven't considered (other than the problem of "but this means I can't get multiple FC houses on the same world").

---

What about an FC leader doesn't bother to log in anymore and Master gets transferred to the next guy who is already a FC master on another FC. Also, only Masters can change FC names and tags, but I'm sure you already know these things. We don't know the inner workings of what SE does but let's keep on speculating and telling them what to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaalHenrik

What about an FC leader doesn't bother to log in anymore and Master gets transferred to the next guy who is already a FC master on another FC. Also, only Masters can change FC names and tags, but I'm sure you already know these things. We don't know the inner workings of what SE does but let's keep on speculating and telling them what to do.

---

FC Master would switch to the next eligible member based on the auto-dethrone procedures that SE already has in place, not just next in line based on rank/length of membership. If you would read everything I posted, I did bring up the possibility of all other members in the FC already being a FC Master in a different FC but that's a very remote possibility unless the FC only has 2 or 3 unique members in the first place. It's an extremely tiny percentage of FCs that this might effect - outside of the solo FCs that exist solely for the purpose of getting more houses and which is prompting the conversation.

Not certain why you bring up FC names and tags. Nothing about what I suggest would change how that works.

We're not telling SE what to do. We're making suggestions regarding things we consider to be problems with the game. SE will listen or not as they want. They will implement or not as they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

FC Master would switch to the next eligible member based on the auto-dethrone procedures that SE already has in place, not just next in line based on rank/length of membership. If you would read everything I posted, I did bring up the possibility of all other members in the FC already being a FC Master in a different FC but that's a very remote possibility unless the FC only has 2 or 3 unique members in the first place. It's an extremely tiny percentage of FCs that this might effect - outside of the solo FCs that exist solely for the purpose of getting more houses and which is prompting the conversation.

Not certain why you bring up FC names and tags. Nothing about what I suggest would change how that works.

We're not telling SE what to do. We're making suggestions regarding things we consider to be problems with the game. SE will listen or not as they want. They will implement or not as they want.

---

Being an officer means you can't change the FC tag or name. So you don't get all the perks of calling the shots in an FC. Why would I read everything you post when what I'm only responding to one specific post that didn't take into consideration to what happens if the FC lead auto-shifts to another member who has FC lead elsewhere. The remoteness of someone already having FC lead in another FC are about as remote as the RMT sub farms that people seem to think are rampant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaalHenrik

Being an officer means you can't change the FC tag or name. So you don't get all the perks of calling the shots in an FC. Why would I read everything you post when what I'm only responding to one specific post that didn't take into consideration to what happens if the FC lead auto-shifts to another member who has FC lead elsewhere. The remoteness of someone already having FC lead in another FC are about as remote as the RMT sub farms that people seem to think are rampant.

---

You're nitpicking that you wouldn't be able to change the FC name and tag if you were only an officer and not the Master? When the situation would set that up is because you're already Master of a different FC that you did get to name?

Seriously?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

If you would read everything I posted, I did bring up the possibility of all other members in the FC already being a FC Master in a different FC but that's a very remote possibility unless the FC only has 2 or 3 unique members in the first place.

---

Doesn't matter if only a small number of people are affected. It would be unacceptable for the automatic FC leader transfer to stop functioning under certain circumstances. Any feature the fc leader has restricted from members would be permanently out of reach after the leader quits the game. Other people in the FC could have items/gil in the bank they can't access, furniture in the house, an unusable garden or a workshop they helped build and can't use. Unless it has been fixed, the leader can also revoke access to people's FC chambers and prevent them from leaving the FC and moving servers.

No reason to break game features because of NA problems, or prune fc houses when every server has fc plots available for those who want them.

Stop trying to put requirements and to implement punishments when there is enough houses for everyone.

Dynamis exists for NA, and EU has booming housing on new worlds, and even on old words there are still a lot of them.

Enough of trying to create new annoyances already, for a problem that doesn't exist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

You're nitpicking that you wouldn't be able to change the FC name and tag if you were only an officer and not the Master? When the situation would set that up is because you're already Master of a different FC that you did get to name?

Seriously?

---

You call that nitpicking? You're the one saying it's all hunky dory, because an officer can do ANYTHING an FC leader can do, but they can't. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinglessSeraphim

No one is trying to make you doubt your own sanity.

---

No, they're just trying to warp the reality of the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WinglessSeraphim

When you are done picking and choosing what you find in your search of my posts, maybe you can work on your posts full of misinformation.

---

Honestly it'd be great if you would do the same. I've not posted any kind of misinformation and constantly showed my sources. A lot of repeat conversations could be avoided if you'd just catch up on previous posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sindele

Yes, I know what it says on the patch, the same as I know what it says on the site. But there was never a mechanical restriction on FC transfers. Any claim to the contrary is false.

---

Yeah, FC plot purchases, not transfers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starien

It's clear that there are some players who are taking clever advantage to build on multiple FC plots, but I am curious what a solution to this would be which would not end up hurting players who switch FCs.

---

That is indeed the rub and most likely why little has been done since.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

No, they're just trying to warp the reality of the situation.


Honestly it'd be great if you would do the same. I've not posted any kind of misinformation and constantly showed my sources. A lot of repeat conversations could be avoided if you'd just catch up on previous posts.


Yeah, FC plot purchases, not transfers.


That is indeed the rub and most likely why little has been done since.

---

You've done nothing but post misinformation and 3 year old opinions of other people who were wrong. You've posted no evidence, just the same tired screenshots. You've so far, a couple of times, tried to compare what that raiding group did (3rd party usage) to owning more than 1 fc per world. You've had your ass handed to you by another poster, multiple times. I think people are getting a bit tired of you, I know I am.

Looks like the discussion on housing hasn't changed a lot in the 6 months I've been away.

Go on.