[Housing] 1 House Per Service Account. 1 FC Per Service Account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphor

Don't 99% of plots get claimed in the first bidding cycle?

So why should those who already own a house on Goblet, have to miss out on the first round of bids in Sharlayan?

---

Because you already own a home, while thousands of other players don't. Top priority in a fair system should go to people with the greatest need.
I already knew this would be a heavily contested take going in, so if you just disagree on this point it's totally fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

Because you already own a home, while thousands of other players don't. Top priority in a fair system should go to people with the greatest need.
I already knew this would be a heavily contested take going in, so if you just disagree on this point it's totally fine.

---

But relocating doesn't consume any more housing plots. In order to relocate, you have to relinquish your old plot, and the number of free plots stays the same.

Why should a current house owner, not have the same opportunities as a non-house owner, to bid for a house in a NEW DISTRICT. This is new content, likely more desirable than older districts. How is it fair to be excluded because you happened to be an early adopter?

This would be like, "only accounts created after 2020 are allowed to play Savage in week one, to give newer players a chance at being world first."

All this would do, is lock players into the houses they first obtained. Very few players would realistically be able to relocate to a plot they wanted more, unless they got very lucky in a later cycle. And so if you happened to win a small in Goblet, well you're stuck there, because only newer players get access to premium Sharlayan and Thavnair housing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

Because you already own a home, while thousands of other players don't. Top priority in a fair system should go to people with the greatest need.
I already knew this would be a heavily contested take going in, so if you just disagree on this point it's totally fine.

---

This is why I'm glad the devs ignore the forums.

I genuinely don't understand why some people think they deserve anything more than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

Because you already own a home, while thousands of other players don't. Top priority in a fair system should go to people with the greatest need.
I already knew this would be a heavily contested take going in, so if you just disagree on this point it's totally fine.

---

Not that I disagree with your point on the surface level. E.g., "I need it more, therefore, I should have a priority" - It's not a bad principle to follow - But it really doesn't apply here. To put the point to you, let me posit a question:

How do you determine who needs something more? Beyond FC, that is (as they have already addressed this point with their drastic split)

Edit: In ref to housing relocation I don't really see the logic. The plot they relocated from becomes available on the next cycle, regardless. Of which nothing stops those would-be winners from going to said plot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphor

But relocating doesn't consume any more housing plots. In order to relocate, you have to relinquish your old plot, and the number of free plots stays the same.

---

I already addressed this point in my first post. I'll just requote myself now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

Even though relocating does technically not result in a loss of plots, think about how many bidders are going to be gunning for those relocation plots this week, compared to the amount of bidders on each plot last week. The competition is gonna be fierce now; it's basically back to "why bother" levels of competition in the lottery again. So yeah, maybe for the first wave of a new ward, turn off relocation in private wards at least so people who don't have anything can have a better chance of getting something.

---

You keep asking the same question again and again and I keep giving you my same answer; it's really hard to take this conversation seriously, so I'll just say one final time. In an actual fair system that needs to address a shortage of a resource (housing), people who already own that resource (a house) should be placed on the backburner while people who don't have any of that resource (a house) can get theirs. This is how a fair system would actually operate. There is literally no way I can say it plainer than this. "How is it fair that I have to wait until round 2 to relocate?" It's fair because you literally already have a house. You just want to move your house to a place with a different view and a slightly different lawn, at the expense of someone else who literally has nothing. I've now said the same thing, 4 different times in 3 different ways. If you just disagree, that's fine! Lots of people do. Frankly, I think it's moot anyway since we're stuck with this blind system that gives zero shits about addressing demand. But I'm tired of repeating myself, man. I've given you my take on it, agree or don't, I don't really care. But if I were in charge of things, I would absolutely prioritize people who had nothing over people who already had something and wanted a little more something at the expense of people who have nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaurhz

Not that I disagree with your point on the surface level. E.g., "I need it more, therefore, I should have a priority" - It's not a bad principle to follow - But it really doesn't apply here. To put the point to you, let me posit a question:

How do you determine who needs something more? Beyond FC, that is (as they have already addressed this point with their drastic split)

---

That's really easy to do in this situation.
Two people exist. Person A, and Person B. They're both bidding on the same plot. Person A does not have a house at all. Person B does have a house, but they wish to move it into this location, at Person A's expense. Person A, having nothing, clearly has the greater need, because they don't have anything. If Person B loses, he still has his old house; it's just in a location he's grown a little tired of. He can still decorate it as much as he wants, blablabla. If person A loses, he gets nothing. Nothing to decorate. Nothing to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LianaThorne

This is why I'm glad the devs ignore the forums.

I genuinely don't understand why some people think they deserve anything more than others.

---

Try actually reading sometime, and maybe you'll understand my argument better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

But yes, absolutely, if you already own a home it's fair to ask you to sit out on relocation for a single round so people who don't own anything yet can have a better shot at getting something. You're free to think that a basic priority system that ensures maximum happiness in a shortage isn't fair, but you're wrong.

---

Maximum happiness lmao. The world doesn't revolve around players who don't have a house.

A lot of people have learning difficulties and limitations so I have to ask. You do realise the same number of homeless people get plots regardless, right? If X houses are put in the game, after relocations there are still X houses to be claimed by new house owners. Their chances are the same even if they have to wait a few cycles. You're telling me I'm wrong but you can't even do basic maths lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

I already addressed this point in my first post. I'll just requote myself now.



You keep asking the same question again and again and I keep giving you my same answer; it's really hard to take this conversation seriously, so I'll just say one final time. In an actual fair system that needs to address a shortage of a resource (housing), people who already own that resource (a house) should be placed on the backburner while people who don't have any of that resource (a house) can get theirs. This is how a fair system would actually operate. There is literally no way I can say it plainer than this. "How is it fair that I have to wait until round 2 to relocate?" It's fair because you literally already have a house. You just want to move your house to a place with a different view and a slightly different lawn, at the expense of someone else who literally has nothing. I've now said the same thing, 4 different times in 3 different ways. If you just disagree, that's fine! Lots of people do. Frankly, I think it's moot anyway since we're stuck with this blind system that gives zero shits about addressing demand. But I'm tired of repeating myself, man. I've given you my take on it, agree or don't, I don't really care. But if I were in charge of things, I would absolutely prioritize people who had nothing over people who already had something and wanted a little more something at the expense of people who have nothing.



That's really easy to do in this situation.
Two people exist. Person A, and Person B. They're both bidding on the same plot. Person A does not have a house at all. Person B does have a house, but they wish to move it into this location, at Person A's expense. Person A, having nothing, clearly has the greater need, because they don't have anything. If Person B loses, he still has his old house; it's just in a location he's grown a little tired of. He can still decorate it as much as he wants, blablabla. If person A loses, he gets nothing. Nothing to decorate. Nothing to do.

---

If Person A loses they can still bid on the previous house from Person B. Non-issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

I already addressed this point in my first post. I'll just requote myself now.



You keep asking the same question again and again and I keep giving you my same answer; it's really hard to take this conversation seriously, so I'll just say one final time. In an actual fair system that needs to address a shortage of a resource (housing), people who already own that resource (a house) should be placed on the backburner while people who don't have any of that resource (a house) can get theirs. This is how a fair system would actually operate. There is literally no way I can say it plainer than this. "How is it fair that I have to wait until round 2 to relocate?" It's fair because you literally already have a house. You just want to move your house to a place with a different view and a slightly different lawn, at the expense of someone else who literally has nothing. I've now said the same thing, 4 different times in 3 different ways. If you just disagree, that's fine! Lots of people do. Frankly, I think it's moot anyway since we're stuck with this blind system that gives zero shits about addressing demand. But I'm tired of repeating myself, man. I've given you my take on it, agree or don't, I don't really care. But if I were in charge of things, I would absolutely prioritize people who had nothing over people who already had something and wanted a little more something at the expense of people who have nothing.



That's really easy to do in this situation.
Two people exist. Person A, and Person B. They're both bidding on the same plot. Person A does not have a house at all. Person B does have a house, but they wish to move it into this location, at Person A's expense. Person A, having nothing, clearly has the greater need, because they don't have anything. If Person B loses, he still has his old house; it's just in a location he's grown a little tired of. He can still decorate it as much as he wants, blablabla. If person A loses, he gets nothing. Nothing to decorate. Nothing to do.

---

Cbf to clip but real question:

How is it fair to even call something fair if everyone can't have the same chance to participate?

Also, how is it at the expense of someone else if you don't even know who else is bidding with you? For all you know the other bid on your plot could be another relo.

This also really only applies to packed servers as others that are newer have no issue distributing housing to those who want it. Which, as other people have said, if you want a house that bad then move to a less populated server and get one. The supply is there, people just don't want to go get it (or rather they don't want to just have a house, they want a specific size at a specific location).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaurhz

If Person A loses they can still bid on the previous house from Person B. Non-issue.

---

I will, once again, quote myself on why this doesn't hold up. This quote was in the post you literally replied to btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

Even though relocating does technically not result in a loss of plots, think about how many bidders are going to be gunning for those relocation plots this week, compared to the amount of bidders on each plot last week. The competition is gonna be fierce now; it's basically back to "why bother" levels of competition in the lottery again. So yeah, maybe for the first wave of a new ward, turn off relocation in private wards at least so people who don't have anything can have a better chance of getting something.

---

"But why should someone who already owns a home be subjected to that instead??"
Because they have a home already, so at the end of the day they still have something in this arrangement.

Does this kind of suck for people who already own a home? Yes. But it's a fair way of tackling a shortage in a way that ensures that people who don't have anything can get something. Meanwhile, those who already have something still have something; they just don't have that "something" in a zone they might want it to be.

I'm done now! I simply disagree with you on this. I've stated my case. You guys aren't even willing to read, so I'm out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avoidy

I will, once again, quote myself on why this doesn't hold up. This quote was in the post you literally replied to btw.



"But why should someone who already owns a home be subjected to that instead??"
Because they have a home already, so at the end of the day they still have something in this arrangement.

Does this kind of suck for people who already own a home? Yes. But it's a fair way of tackling a shortage in a way that ensures that people who don't have anything can get something. Meanwhile, those who already have something still have something; they just don't have that "something" in a zone they might want it to be.

I'm done now! I simply disagree with you on this. I've stated my case. You guys aren't even willing to read, so I'm out.

---

My point still stands - If person A loses the lottery, they can still renter the cycle. It is an objective fact that the same number of plots will be available, albeit with differing probabilities. If you feel it is hopeless then the onus is on the willpower of the individual.

That being said, the logic of:

Quote:

---

in a way that ensures that people who don't have anything can get something.

---

If the same number of plots are available then someone will always get something, again, albeit with differing probabilities. This logic would only stand if the person relocating were able to take both plot A, and plot B, which they cannot.

You can cry about reading all you like, but don't throw stones in glass houses.