Please more housing wards soon. And no more FC/Private Hybrid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sindele

Sure, lock it to one bid per FC. Then, when your active FC loses to a solo FC, you can come back here and complain about all solo FCs being sub farms and RMT and that you never see your neighbors in the wards! Infinite complaining generator!

There's no real good justification for active FCs being equally weighted. You could certainly argue that they should lose some proportion of their bid money, but ultimately it's clear that SE's goal was to maximize the amount of people who have access to A House, one way or another.

---

Active FC which loses to a solo FC is the only way to make the lottery system FAIR. You're wrong if you think it should cater to the needs of the other party simply because it's bigger. If it does, it either needs to penalize them by having an established entry fee so if 56 man FC wants to bid with all their members, they need to pay that fee which will not be refunded even if they win the plot. Or they simply shouldn't allow multiple entrants from one FC.

You can't make everyone happy anyway so AT LEAST try and make the current system fair for every and each one of the entrants by giving them equal chances of getting the house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

FAIR

---

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkAA_u6X0AEO-d9.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PredatoryCatgirl

Okay, cool. I will be. Thanks for demonstrating that you have the debate skills of a wet paper towel.

---

I mean, my inner self-preservation instinct notified me that it's unwise to waste your energy and time to explain anything to someone who thinks that bidding with 56 people and virtually reducing the chances to zero for everyone else that wants to get the house is okay.

But sure, if you're so keen on debating, let's talk about it. Why don't we make it a requirement for FCs then that they need to have at least 50 members in order to bid on a house? Hmm, how would that sound? Inherently stupid, aye? Just as stupid as what you're trying to convey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

Why don't we make it a requirement for FCs then that they need to have at least 50 members in order to bid on a house? Hmm, how would that sound? inherently stupid, aye? Just as stupid as what you're trying to convey.

---

That is not the same thing. "You have zero chance unless you have 50 members" is not the same as "you have less of a chance with one member than someone who has fifty". What you're suggesting now would completely remove any chance at all for a small or solo FC to bid, regardless of any other FC's interest in the house, rather than making their chance very small in the case of a large FC wanting the house.

Do you honestly think those are the same things, or are you deliberately making an exaggerated bad faith argument?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

Active FC which loses to a solo FC is the only way to make the lottery system FAIR. You're wrong if you think it should cater to the needs of the other party simply because it's bigger. If it does, it either needs to penalize them by having an established entry fee so if 56 man FC wants to bid with all their members, they need to pay that fee which will not be refunded even if they win the plot. Or they simply shouldn't allow multiple entrants from one FC.

You can't make everyone happy anyway so AT LEAST try and make the current system fair for every and each one of the entrants by giving them equal chances of getting the house.

---

What you are proposing is not necessarily 'fair' - it is 'equal'. But the thing about equal treatment is that its relation to fairness is highly contextual. Here, you're proposing that an FC with four people should have the same shot as one with a hundred. This is equal. 'Fair', though, asks for a slightly higher burden of proof here because we can look at the context: four people gaining access to a house versus a hundred people gaining access to a house. If you think it sounds 'fair' in that framing, I'm going to politely question if your definition of 'fair' is actually based on the concept of fairness or just the concept of whatever most benefits me at the current time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PredatoryCatgirl

That is not the same thing. "You have zero chance unless you have 50 members" is not the same as "you have less of a chance with one member than someone who has fifty". What you're suggesting now would completely remove any chance at all for a small or solo FC to bid, regardless of any other FC's interest in the house, rather than making their chance very small in the case of a large FC wanting the house.

Do you honestly think those are the same things, or are you deliberately making an exaggerated bad faith argument?

---

So, what chance would someone bidding with a 10 people FC for example, have agaisnt another bigger one with 56 bids, is that fair ? Do they not deserve to bid on the large fairly and have a decent chance to get it because they're a smaller FC ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormpeaks

So, what chance would someone bidding with a 10 people FC for example, have agaisnt another bigger one with 56 bids, is that fair ? Do they not deserve to bid on the large fairly and have a decent chance to get it because they're a smaller FC ?

---

A slightly better than 15% chance if they used all 10 bids. What about that seems unfair?

E: And we should remember the realistic context, too: we're in a world where FC smalls frequently go for single bids on all but the single most demanding server in the world (and even there sometimes). Nobody's throwing in a 56-bid saturation attack on every single small that exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormpeaks

So, what chance would someone bidding with a 10 people FC for example, have agaisnt another bigger one with 56 bids, is that fair ? Do they not deserve to bid on the large fairly and have a decent chance to get it because they're a smaller FC ?

---

They do deserve fairness. And 56 people having a larger chance than 10 people is fair, because the larger chance should go to the larger group. This ensures that the largest chance of making more people satisfied with the outcome is achieved.

Or maybe we can both admit that "fair" is a subjective term and stop using it in an attempt to guilt people into thinking that your way of thinking is the only correct one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sindele

A slightly better than 15% chance if they used all 10 bids. What about that seems unfair?

---

That they have quite literally no chance to get it because they are a smaller FC, which is why it should be 1 bid per FC, that is equal and fair. The amount of members shouldnt change anything about the bidding process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormpeaks

That they have quite literally no chance to get it because they are a smaller FC, which is why it should be 1 bid per FC, that is equal and fair. The amount of members shouldnt change anything about the bidding process.

---

If 15% meets your definition of "literally no chance", then I'd like to recommend a course to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormpeaks

That they have quite literally no chance to get it because they are a smaller FC, which is why it should be 1 bid per FC, that is equal and fair. The amount of members shouldnt change anything about the bidding process.

---

So you want sub farms to have equal chance to 56 person FCs? Is that what I'm hearing? Why do you want to support RMT?

See, I can make a baseless appeal to emotion too. Now tell me why you want the same person to be able to own the entire ward with their shell FCs. Why do you want to support that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

Active FC which loses to a solo FC is the only way to make the lottery system FAIR. You're wrong if you think it should cater to the needs of the other party simply because it's bigger. If it does, it either needs to penalize them by having an established entry fee so if 56 man FC wants to bid with all their members, they need to pay that fee which will not be refunded even if they win the plot. Or they simply shouldn't allow multiple entrants from one FC.

You can't make everyone happy anyway so AT LEAST try and make the current system fair for every and each one of the entrants by giving them equal chances of getting the house.

---

I never understood why they never did the no refund if win method for FCs, it makes perfect sense and is the most fair method.
An FC with a large amount of active members determined to get a house will easily come up with the funds to dominate the bids but it will cost them to secure it, but at the same time it also allows a committed and active small FC to get a decent chance at winning vs a mostly inactive large FC.
it also moderately keeps house flippers and sub farmers away from larger houses due to lower return of investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormpeaks

So, what chance would someone bidding with a 10 people FC for example, have agaisnt another bigger one with 56 bids, is that fair ? Do they not deserve to bid on the large fairly and have a decent chance to get it because they're a smaller FC ?

---

In my mind, it is fair that an FC may choose where to place a bid. It is also fair that the lottery may choose a winner from among anyone in the bidding pool including those of a smaller FC. The odds may be stacked but will not be impossible.

It is also fair that there is no limit to the number of cycles an FC may bid to relocate in case one attempt didn't pan out. Larges are not so incredibly rare; they are opening more frequently due to auto-demolition now as well as relocation.

It also feels fair to me that if an FC wants to zero in on a plot in a prime location, they should expect to be up against a ton of competition and they have every right to try to stack the odds in their favor the best they can. Effort produces a more favorable chance. All of this seems reasonable to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PredatoryCatgirl

So you want sub farms to have equal chance to 56 person FCs? Is that what I'm hearing? Why do you want to support RMT?

See, I can make a baseless appeal to emotion too. Now tell me why you want the same person to be able to own the entire ward with their shell FCs. Why do you want to support that?

---

The hell is that for an exageration xD we are talking about a single house and fcs have an equal 1 bid on each, apparently that somehow removes all the competition and there will only be 1 bid on all the houses from the same person and it will obviously be for RMT ?

What

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PredatoryCatgirl

That is not the same thing.

---

This is what you're saying though. In your book, a 56 man FC bidding with all their members is okay, which reduces the chances of a smaller FC to get a house to zero, unless that FC is packing four leaf clovers in all places imaginable and unimaginable. Sure, you do not meet the hoard bidders on your each bid but even 1 man biddind vs 3 men from the opposite FC, it's already reducing your chances three times lower. Which is not fair. Or equal, since some people here decided to debate on terminology and which word means what.

I'd be absolutely alright with 100, 200, 300 bids on one plot, if I knew it's actually 300 different people who have bidded on it. And I have 1 out of 300 chance, fair and square. But as it is now, out of 300 bids its one FC with 50 bids, another FC with another 50 bids, etc etc etc. I'm exagerrating, of course, but you do get the point, I hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormpeaks

The hell is that for an exageration xD we are talking about a single house and fcs have an equal 1 bid on each, apparently that somehow removes all the competition and there will only be 1 bid on all the houses from the same person and it will obviously be for RMT ?

What

---

Are your reading comprehension skills so poor that you don't realize that I was making a deliberately bad argument and comparing it to your tactic of using "fair" to push your opinion as the only possible way of thinking?

Apparently so. I'm out. Call me when you have a better grasp of things like 7th grade math, as evidenced in an earlier post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PredatoryCatgirl

Are your reading comprehension skills so poor that you don't realize that I was making a deliberately bad argument and comparing it to your tactic of using "fair" to push your opinion as the only possible way of thinking?

Apparently so. I'm out. Call me when you have a better grasp of things like 7th grade math, as evidenced in an earlier post.

---

That's exactly what I said, you exaggerated it to extremes and its absolutely ridiculous

We can put it to the other extreme then, if an FC decides to bid with 200 bids on a small, is that normal too, especially in unrestricted ward with other people bidding on it as personal ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

if I knew it's actually 300 different people who have bidded on it

---

It is. 300 *people* in one FC. That is the core of what I'm saying. An FC is not one person. And that FC with 300 people deserves a larger chance at a house than an FC with 4 people, because 300 people using the house is better than 4. At the same time, the 4 person FC doesn't deserve to be locked out of bidding completely, it just deserves a lesser chance unless it strategically goes for houses that the 300 person FC wouldn't bid on.

Uh, how do you think multi-bidding (and statistics, for that matter) works..? It is absolutely always 300 different characters bidding - just several of them may belong to the same FC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PredatoryCatgirl

It is. 300 *people* in one FC. That is the core of what I'm saying. An FC is not one person. And that FC with 300 people deserves a larger chance at a house than an FC with 4 people, because 300 people using the house is better than 4. At the same time, the 4 person FC doesn't deserve to be locked out of bidding completely, it just deserves a lesser chance unless it strategically goes for houses that the 300 person FC wouldn't bid on.

---

What you seem to forget is that on extremely populated worlds, some wards are now unrestricted, and the plots are EXTREMELY limited, so please do tell me if you think lets say 200 bids of an FC on a small that is unrestricted (also open to personal housing) is fair and equal, while people bidding on it for personal can only bid once ? Do you not deserve a chance because you bid as personal and the FC decided to bid with their entire FC ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

That's the point debaters here seemed to successfully ignore. Yeah, okay, I get it. You want bigger FCs to win so more people get access to housing, yada yada. Fine. Make them pay for it as much as they need to muster up dozens of entrants. It is loophole'ing the system, after all. Why it's not penalized in any way? I'm bringing this point up again but even in RL lotteries you do pay the symbolic price for the ticket and if you're buying ten tickets, you pay ten times the symbolic price. Why it's not present here?

---

Out of posts for the day, that seem like a solution tbh, add a stacking fee for each bid on the same house from the same FC, bidding on it as FC, that is non refundable.

You get a chance, it's just a small one. I'm very confused by this notion that a non-zero chance somehow equals zero. Rare things happen all around you every day. If you went 1v99 on smalls every single bidding period for a year, the odds of succeeding at least one of those attempts is approximately 1 in 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sindele

You get a chance, it's just a small one. I'm very confused by this notion that a non-zero chance somehow equals zero. Rare things happen all around you every day. If you went 1v99 on smalls every single bidding period for a year, the odds of succeeding at least one of those attempts is approximately 1 in 3.

---

This is why they need to teach statistics in high school. Trig can wait until college. Anything past algebra and geometry is useless unless you work in STEM or business, but stat is useful in everyday life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PredatoryCatgirl

It is. 300 *people* in one FC. That is the core of what I'm saying. An FC is not one person. And that FC with 300 people deserves a larger chance at a house than an FC with 4 people, because 300 people using the house is better than 4. At the same time, the 4 person FC doesn't deserve to be locked out of bidding completely, it just deserves a lesser chance unless it strategically goes for houses that the 300 person FC wouldn't bid on.

---

Again, if you think that 300 man FC that is using a house is somehow better than 4 man FC using the house, and that one of the parties in an objectively RANDOM LOTTERY deserves a LESSER chance, then we do need to just lock the small FCs out of the bidding completely and only allow titanic 100+ man FCs to battle themselves on who can muster up the strength and gil to outbid their opponents. Only then we will have peace, tranquility... and equality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZiraZ

I never understood why they never did the no refund if win method for FCs, it makes perfect sense and is the most fair method.
An FC with a large amount of active members determined to get a house will easily come up with the funds to dominate the bids but it will cost them to secure it, but at the same time it also allows a committed and active small FC to get a decent chance at winning vs a mostly inactive large FC.
it also moderately keeps house flippers and sub farmers away from larger houses due to lower return of investment.

---

That's the point debaters here seemed to successfully ignore. Yeah, okay, I get it. You want bigger FCs to win so more people get access to housing, yada yada. Fine. Make them pay for it as much as they need to muster up dozens of entrants. It is loophole'ing the system, after all. Why it's not penalized in any way? I'm bringing this point up again but even in RL lotteries you do pay the symbolic price for the ticket and if you're buying ten tickets, you pay ten times the symbolic price. Why it's not present here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

Again, if you think that 300 man FC that is using a house is somehow better than 4 man FC using the house, and that one of the parties in an objectively RANDOM LOTTERY deserves a LESSER chance, then we do need to just lock the small FCs out of the bidding completely and only allow titanic 100+ man FCs to battle themselves on who can muster up the strength and gil to outbid their opponents. Only then we will have peace, tranquility... and equality.

---

Okay, I'm going to explain why this is wrong.

FC1 has 4 active members and can only afford 1 bid. FC2 has 100 active members and can afford 50 bids.

Current system, both FCs bid on the house (lets say its a premium plot): FC1 has a slightly less than 2% chance of winning.

Current system, FC1 bids on the house, FC2 does not (lets say its a less desirable plot; FC2 is aiming higher because they have more resources): FC1 has a 100% chance of winning.

System you're proposing, FC2 does not bid on the house, FC1 cannot bid on the house: no one uses the house.

You are wrong. The two things are not the same. That is not an opinion, it is an objective fact that can be mathematically proven. I will no longer entertain this talking point. Call me when you have something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

You want bigger FCs to win so more people get access to housing, yada yada. Fine. Make them pay for it as much as they need to muster up dozens of entrants.

---

On this point, I actually agree with you. I'd love to see a system that takes a portion of the bid upon loss. If you can pile 20 bids on a large, you can afford to lose 5M for every bid that loses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PredatoryCatgirl

You are wrong. The two things are not the same. That is not an opinion, it is an objective fact that can be mathematically proven. I will no longer entertain this talking point. Call me when you have something else.

---

The "system" that I "proposed" was an exaggerated attempt to reflect on the apparently alright system you're agreeing with, that big FCs should have bigger chances to win. My real system and proposition was to limit amount of entrants from 1 FC to one. This way it gives everyone a fair, equal, even, square, use whatever term you'd like here, chance to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

The "system" that I "proposed" was an exaggerated attempt to reflect on the apparently alright system you're agreeing with, that big FCs should have bigger chances to win.

---

So you admit your point was a strawman argument then? Cool. Bye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sindele

You get a chance, it's just a small one. I'm very confused by this notion that a non-zero chance somehow equals zero. Rare things happen all around you every day. If you went 1v99 on smalls every single bidding period for a year, the odds of succeeding at least one of those attempts is approximately 1 in 3.

---

Seriously, it's so hilariously funny reading posts where people say 15% is no chance to win. Like, ?????????????????????????

I won my personal large when there was 632 bids on it and the last open large at the time on the server. A 0.16%~ ish chance. Compared to that, 15% is absolute godly odds.
If a bigger FC has the ability to co-ordinate that many trusted members (because lets face it, even in such massive member FCs, there'd be a very small % of people the FC could actually trust to purchase a plot entry and not just run off with the money, when most people in such massive FCs are just generic faces in the crowd and have no real ties or emotional investment in the FC itself and plenty would just run off it you handed them 50mil gil), then they 100% deserve the increased odds. It's not like the odds of any other bidder are ever 0 - any other entrant will always have the ability to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

That's the point debaters here seemed to successfully ignore. Yeah, okay, I get it. You want bigger FCs to win so more people get access to housing, yada yada. Fine. Make them pay for it as much as they need to muster up dozens of entrants. It is loophole'ing the system, after all. Why it's not penalized in any way? I'm bringing this point up again but even in RL lotteries you do pay the symbolic price for the ticket and if you're buying ten tickets, you pay ten times the symbolic price. Why it's not present here?

---

They are paying for every ticket up front. A relocating 4-man fc can make alts and bid 31 times (8+8+8+7) if they have the Gil. That's not a zero chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reinha

They are paying for every ticket up front.

---

...Which is refunded right after lottery ends, if you didn't get the plot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

...Which is refunded right after lottery ends, if you didn't get the plot.

---

Not getting a refund would make it worse for small fcs with only a few members. They'd blow up their chances for a large house in one cycle by losing all their money while the big fcs with a decade of submarine money can keep on bidding. Not to mention the rage from private bidders who not only lost the lottery but also the 50 mil they spent a year collecting. Any more dumb ideas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reinha

Not getting a refund would make it worse for small fcs with only a few members. They'd blow up their chances for a large house in one cycle by losing all their money while the big fcs with a decade of submarine money can keep on bidding. Not to mention the rage from private bidders who not only lost the lottery but also the 50 mil they spent a year collecting. Any more dumb ideas?

---

What I was actually proposing and not what you assumed I'm proposing, was for the lottery to have an established price for a ticket, say, a million, which will not be refunded even if you lose. Of course it would be nice if a placard would stop fully refunding entrants from the same FC is they are going over one entry but that would be quite an extreme measure.

So limiting the amount of entries from one FC is still the most convenient solution.

So instead of 50 fc bids on a large, those players would place 1 fc bid and 49 personal bids on it? That is not a "convenient solution". More people benefit from shared housing. Your idea wouldn't reduce the number of bids like you think it would. It just forces more people to place a personal bid instead of bidding together as a free company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reinha

So instead of 50 fc bids on a large, those players would place 1 fc bid and 49 personal bids on it? That is not a "convenient solution". More people benefit from shared housing. Your idea wouldn't reduce the number of bids like you think it would. It just forces more people to place a personal bid instead of bidding together as a free company.

---

I sincerely doubt that people would bid against their own FC at that point, if they are not total asshats that is. As has been voiced multiple times already in this thread, 1 entry per FC is the only solution that makes lottery fair and equal, without catering to the FCs who can afford multiple bids on one plot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

I sincerely doubt that people would bid against their own FC at that point, if they are not total asshats that is. As has been voiced multiple times already in this thread, 1 entry per FC is the only solution that makes lottery fair and equal, without catering to the FCs who can afford multiple bids on one plot.

---

Those 49 bids are going somewhere, and personal bids are coming from other fcs members onto the plot your small fc wants. Your whole idea is based on the fantasy that if people can't place an fc bid, they won't bid at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reinha

Those 49 bids are going somewhere, and personal bids are coming from other fcs members onto the plot your small fc wants. Your whole idea is based on the fantasy that if people can't place an fc bid, they won't bid at all.

---

I'm repeating myself at this point but I'm not asking for less bids. I'd be absolutely alright with 100, 200, 300 bids on one plot, if I knew it's actually 300 different people/FCs who have bidded on it. And that we all have 1 out of 300 chance, fair and square. But as it is now, out of 300 bids its one FC with 50 bids, another FC with another 50 bids, etc etc etc, i.e. people with more than 50% chance of winning, which was artificially increased because of the flawed system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

I'm repeating myself at this point but I'm not asking for less bids. I'd be absolutely alright with 100, 200, 300 bids on one plot, if I knew it's actually 300 different people/FCs who have bidded on it. And that we all have 1 out of 300 chance, fair and square. But as it is now, out of 300 bids its one FC with 50 bids, another FC with another 50 bids, etc etc etc, i.e. people with more than 50% chance of winning, which was artificially increased because of the flawed system.

---

So you want even more personal bids in unrestricted/personal wards, and even less bids in fc only wards, as that is what happens when people can't place fc bids. It's the last thing this lottery system needs, not to mention a colossal waste of houses that could be shared by more people instead of being left to rot by individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reinha

So you want even more personal bids in unrestricted/personal wards, and even less bids in fc only wards, as that is what happens when people can't place fc bids. It's the last thing this lottery system needs, not to mention a colossal waste of houses that could be shared by more people instead of being left to rot by individuals.

---

Stop wasting your breath. This person either cannot understand or is willfully denying that a 300 person FC isn't the same thing as one player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PredatoryCatgirl

Stop wasting your breath. This person either cannot understand or is willfully denying that a 300 person FC isn't the same thing as one player.

---

Yeah I think I will.

No refund should just be for tickets bought under the winning FC, if you lose you should get it all back.