We need another Housing purge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QueenSophie

This is a game, Oliver is playing it, just like you and I...He's not " denying " anybody anything.

---

The difference being I can't think of anything else in this game that's zero-sum. Everything except housing is theoretically unlimited, so yes Oliver is denying other players housing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QueenSophie

Look into the mirror before ridiculing Oliver.

---

I haven't seen anyone ridicule Oliver. Certainly a lot of rightfully deserved castigation though. Regardless of whether or not rules were actually broken, Oliver's actions are a tragedy of the commons. Perhaps it's my upbringing, but I've never been encouraged to take more than I need to the detriment of others, even if it was "allowed."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigma-Astra

I'll take the constructive criticism when it doesn't come with childish taunts, kthxbye Felicia. ;P

I probably did way, WAY over estimate the time, yes. My mistake, however, everyone could say that without trying to insult my intelligence, mind you. Maybe, it would take 18 hours, if you have over 50+. I still, however, don't agree with you owning like 22 properties, and that'll never change. Sorry, fam.

---

That's fine, I didn't come here to make new friends, I came to answer questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamada

That is your fault for taking it literally, you just want to strawman and red haring away from the fundamental issue.

---

Who are you again? Oh you're the person who believes I actually bought an FC for 100m. The irony ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chalbee

The difference being I can't think of anything else in this game that's zero-sum. Everything except housing is theoretically unlimited, so yes Oliver is denying other players housing.

I haven't seen anyone ridicule Oliver. Certainly a lot of rightfully deserved castigation though. Regardless of whether or not rules were actually broken, Oliver's actions are a tragedy of the commons. Perhaps it's my upbringing, but I've never been encouraged to take more than I need to the detriment of others, even if it was "allowed."

---

Housing isn't limited by any means and I think I'm doing alright at demonstrating that. There's always someone looking to get rid of their house for a certain price or people who don't even care and let their house be demolished. Laziness is the elephant in the room.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamada

You heard it here first, when SE tells you not to sell houses to players, especially when on a high mark up, it is "cleaver use of game mechanics" to sell the house by selling it by selling the FC

---

To be fair the aspect of selling houses using the FC was something the entire community pointed out the moment they mentioned the changes. Yet SE did not listen, so what are you trying to get at?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hestzhyen

He doesn't need your help to defend himself, clearly.

What he's doing is exploiting a loop hole and being a troll on the forums when people call him out on it. Even if it's not technically breaking the rules it's definitely against the spirit of them, and he's basically waiving it in people's faces because it gets him a lot of angry replies. Are you really going to say he's innocent and doesn't deserve to be called the pathetic and selfish person he is? He's playing how he wants to at the detriment of other people and he's probably tickled pink that there are people like you who say it's not breaking a rule outright so people aren't allowed to be mad or upset. I don't know what it's like on Sargatanas but there is still a housing shortage on Gilgamesh. He's actually denying people the functionality and perks of owning a house just because he likes to play landlord.

Yes, the ideal solution would be for SE to provide everyone with a house. That would be great. But until that day comes it's not unreasonable to ask people to restrain themselves to one FC and one personal house.

---

yes it is unreasonable. Mainly because OliverB is playing with in the rules of the game. What would not be unreasonable is to start up a conversation on how to fix the housing system so people no longer want multiple FCs.

Narcissist Y'shtola and additional accounts needs to go waller' in its Mist ward mudhole quagmires with its pig suits on. It delights in its own greedy behavior at the detriment of others and the FFXIV community. You're nothing special in this video game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

To be fair the aspect of selling houses using the FC was something the entire community pointed out the moment they mentioned the changes. Yet SE did not listen, so what are you trying to get at?

---

What are you trying to get at? SE only reads the Japanese forums, people say a lot, maybe they did not think people would go this far? I got no idea, but there was a fitting post earlier that addressed this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chalbee

You'd think this person has never heard of "just because you can doesn't mean you should." I find it absolutely amazing how shamelessly some people wear their greed like a badge of honor, and seem to expect praise for being the most clever little child in the sandbox.

---

When SE makes a rule, like stating do not buy houses for a large amount of money, if you see this happening let us know, then expect people to do that? I mean don't expect people to be happy when you have a person sitting here stating they had a 3rd account giving FCs to a second account to get around a limitation. speaking of:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illgot

yes it is unreasonable. Mainly because OliverB is playing with in the rules of the game. What would not be unreasonable is to start up a conversation on how to fix the housing system so people no longer want multiple FCs.

---

So you think it is unreasonable to say to someone it is not a good idea to explain game exploits on an official forum that has a ToS that states taking advantage of exploits in the game we own is prohibited?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamada

What are you trying to get at? SE only reads the Japanese forums, people say a lot, maybe they did not think people would go this far?

---

What I am getting at is SE had a chance to do something about this they refused to listen and choose to ignore the player feedback regarding the changes. Look back most people said the changes would not stop selling of houses since all people would have to do is sell the FC, instead of the plot. People warned SE, they ignored it. Even if they did change the system SE already has set the precedent that they will grandfather people into the new set of rules. So once again, what are you trying to get at? Do you want a system change? Fair enough, but personally it seems like you are attacking players that found a cleaver loophole to rules SE put in place, a loophole SE was informed about by the community the moment the changes were announced.

In the end SE was warned this would happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OliverB

Housing isn't limited by any means and I think I'm doing alright at demonstrating that. There's always someone looking to get rid of their house for a certain price or people who don't even care and let their house be demolished. Laziness is the elephant in the room.

---

It is objectively incorrect to say that "housing isn't limited by any means." The ability to shuffle housing around for the right price does not change the fact that the number of plots are finite or that their number falls well short of some theoretical upper end that might make them infinite for all intents and purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

What I am getting at is SE had a chance to do something about this they refused to listen and choose to ignore the player feedback regarding the changes. Look back most people said the changes would not stop selling of houses since all people would have to do is sell the FC, instead of the plot. People warned SE, they ignored it. Even if they did change the system SE already has set the precedent that they will grandfather people into the new set of rules. So once again, what are you trying to get at? Do you want a system change? Fair enough, but personally it seems like you are attacking players that found a cleaver loophole to rules SE put in place, a loophole SE was informed about by the community the moment the changes were announced.

---

Once again what are you trying to get it because I responded to this idea time and time again:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chalbee

You'd think this person has never heard of "just because you can doesn't mean you should." I find it absolutely amazing how shamelessly some people wear their greed like a badge of honor, and seem to expect praise for being the most clever little child in the sandbox.

---

It shocks me to no end you are basically saying "SE did not baby us so we can break the rules and not think for ourselves"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamada

Once again what are you trying to get it because I responded to this idea time and time again:

It shocks me to no end you are basically saying "SE did not baby us so we can break the rules and not think for ourselves"

---

I am saying SE was warned about this loophole they did not act on it, so at that point it is safe the assume that they have no issue with it. As I said it is different if you are trying to change the policy to cover the loophole in question, but it personally seems like you are trying to also get SE to punish those that used the loophole that SE was informed about from the start. It is up the company to enforce their rules not the user base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

I am saying SE was warned about this loophole they did not act on it, so at that point it is safe the assume that they have no issue with it. As I said it is different if you are trying to change the policy to cover the loophole in question, but it personally seems like you are trying to also get SE to punish those that used the loophole and SE was informed about from the start. It is up the company to enforce their rules not the user base.

---

I addressed you several times already. Why are you repeating yourself to make me repeat myself? If SE wanted people to do this, they would not make the limitation in the first place, ONE FC HOUSE PER ACCOUNT! Just because they did not baby you, does not mean " so at that point it is safe the assume that they have no issue with it" You are just trying to find excuses for people breaking the rules and yes people need to be punished for breaking the rules. You are right, the company should enforce the rules, that is what I am asking for in this thread, seeing someone openly admitted to breaking them.

Also sweeping purges after an exploit is abused for a while is not new to SE, are you aware what happened when people exploited Salvage bans of ffxi? I am not implying SE should repeat such action, in this case they can take back all the houses bought illegally and put them back up on the market. Also there is a basic moral issue here, you are not free to take 10 of something for one, when 9 have none. SE says do not exploit the game, you can't defend "not doing anything wrong" with that rule, this rule was broke by some, and SE should uphold their ToS.

But you can have as many FC houses as you desire right now? There's no restriction :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamada

snip

---

The housing and market systems in FFXIV work on a capitalist structure. If x-player has the means to legally gain property or funds, they are not punished or restricted for exercising their purchasing power. Yeah, it might be shitty and might just be viewed as an excessive expression of greed, but the GM team and moderation is there to enact the ToS as it stands; not take away someone's house or ban them because they acquired property within the ToS wasn't to your liking. Much to your chagrin, they were obtained through legal means.

It's very sad that a thread that had the intention to seek out housing solutions is now a witch hunt.

Also you seem extremely pressed over attacking someone who came to post in their defense. I hope whatever is going on in your life that caused you to fixate on this gets better. <3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RezPls

The housing and market systems in FFXIV work on a capitalist structure. If x-player has the means to legally gain property or funds, they are not punished or restricted for exercising their purchasing power. Yeah, it might be shitty and might just be viewed as an excessive expression of greed, but the GM team and moderation is there to enact the ToS as it stands; not take away someone's house or ban them because they acquired property within the ToS wasn't to your liking. Much to your chagrin, they were obtained through legal means.

It's very sad that a thread that had the intention to seek out housing solutions is now a witch hunt.

Also you seem extremely pressed over attacking someone who came to post in their defense. I hope whatever is going on in your life that caused you to fixate on this gets better. <3

---

I am displeased people are defending rule breaking and explaining how to exploit this game. Furthermore have you been keeping up with the thread at all?:
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...to-this-thread
Yoshi-p SAID HIMSELF you can't do:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OliverB

You get 100m, I get your house.

---

Why are you attacking me for asking the rules to be upheld? They where not gained by legal means, how can you claim that? Also I am not on a "witch hunt." OliverB put that on themselves when they explained like in 5 different posts, on how they are proud to violate the ToS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OliverB

But you can have as many FC houses as you desire right now? There's no restriction :)

---

But you did it with the limitation in place, as you explained yourself it was the reason you had to buy a fc house on account 3, and transfer it on account 2, furthermore you use that 2 week period to safely convert your personals to FC houses, this has all been said by you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamada

I am displeased people are defending rule breaking and explaining how to exploit this game. Furthermore have you been keeping up with the thread at all?

Why are you attacking me for asking the rules to be upheld? They where not gained by legal means, how can you claim that? Also I am not on a "witch hunt."

But you did it with the limitation in place, as you explained yourself it was the reason you had to buy a fc house on account 3, and transfer it on account 2, furthermore you use that 2 week period to safely convert your personals to FC houses, this has all been said by you.

---

Look who's talking. You can't even keep up with replies directed to you. I asked you countless times to explain why converting a personal plot into an FC plot during those two weeks would make any sense, because it doesn't. You're not asking the rules to be upheld, you're asking your rules to be upheld. Sadly for you, your opinion means nothing.


https://i.imgur.com/6Etx761.png

Keep on believing I would spend 100m on a house :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamada

I addressed you several times already. Why are you repeating yourself to make me repeat myself? If SE wanted people to do this, they would not make the limitation in the first place, ONE FC HOUSE PER ACCOUNT! Just because they did not baby you, does not mean " so at that point it is safe the assume that they have no issue with it" You are just trying to find excuses for people breaking the rules and yes people need to be punished for breaking the rules. You are right, the company should enforce the rules, that is what I am asking for in this thread, seeing someone openly admitted to breaking them.

Also sweeping purges after an exploit is abused for a while is not new to SE, are you aware what happened when people exploited Salvage bans of ffxi? I am not implying SE should repeat such action, in this case they can take back all the houses bought illegally and put them back up on the market. Also there is a basic moral issue here, you are not free to take 10 of something for one, when 9 have none. SE says do not exploit the game, you can't defend "not doing anything wrong" with that rule, this rule was broke by some, and SE should uphold their ToS.

---

I am repeating myself since you do not seem to understand how retro actively punishing the playerbase for something said playerbase made SE aware of before the system went into place is unfair. You call it babying I call it SE not acting on feedback from the players. I do not believe in retroactively players. If SE wants to start enforcing their rules awesome, but players should not lose their plots because SE has decided that now they wish to enforce the rules. SE does say a lot of thing, that is why I worry a tad when people ask for SE to enforce the rules with retroactive punishment. Think of those that use ACT, have names based off copyrighted priorities, perform users, visual modders, all of them are breaking rules should they be punished? Also I did not play XI, but did the community make SE aware of the issue prior to the release of the content and did SE never make a statement acknowledging the issue and their stance on it?

Also what would you do with players that have inherited FC houses on alt characters due to inactivity within that FC? Should they be punished because they happened to be in a FC on an alt that died? How do you punish cases like that that whole enforcing the one FC per account rule for the "rule breakers" I am all for a revision of the policy and rules regarding housing, but as a community we should not advocate for retroactive punishment. If any changes to the policy are made people should be grandfathered in the system, and not have their plots taken away from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

I am repeating myself since you do not seem to understand how retro actively punishing the playerbase for something said playerbase made SE aware of before the system went into place is unfair. You call it babying I call it SE not acting on feedback from the players. I do not believe in retroactively players. If SE wants to start enforcing their rules awesome, but players should not lose their plots because SE has decided that now they wish to enforce the rules. That is akin to asking SE to retroactively punish everyone that has used ACT due to a sudden change of heart on the part of SE. I did not play XI, but did the community make SE aware of the issue prior to the release of the content and did SE never make a statement acknowledging the issue and their stance on it?

Also what would you do with players that have inherited FC houses on slt accounts due to inactivity within that FC? Should they be punished because they happened to be in a FC on an alt that died? How do you punish cases like that that whole enforcing the one FC per account rule for the "rule breakers"

---

This is the FFXIV user agreement, the thing you check the box off when you hit next when you are making your account:
http://support.na.square-enix.com/ru...2&tag=users_en
Just because the player base sees a loophole is not an excuse to take advantage of it, right at 2.1 it states:

Quote:

---

2.1 Cheating and Botting. You may not create or use any unauthorized cheats, bots, automation software, hacks, mods or any other unauthorized software or hardware designed to modify the Game and gameplay. In addition, you may not take advantage of game system bugs and exploits during gameplay.

---

Then note this:
https://youtu.be/BJwPCxau7CA?t=336
Then there is this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi_Bushido

A house opened up next door to my FC on my server and I tried to give an FC member gil to purchase it but they were unable to because of the timer. While we were standing all over the placecard trying to plan our next move, some undressed miqo'te who was level 50 max, comes literally sprinting down the street, relocates instantly, and names their new house "My Ward, not yours". Not entirely certain what the message behind the name of the plot meant; but it was pretty obviously an alt with the intention to flip. That was two weeks ago and to this very day, the house has not been decorated. The same plot was later spotted on reddit for sale apart of an outrageous bundle deal requesting for 10 times the amount it was by default price just for relocation value. Yeah, it was a bit upsetting to see.

---

Now of course we have to toss out the references of reddit and heresay. However, when you name the plots "my ward not yours" that alone fits 3.2, disruption. Naming the houses in that manner is basically admitting you are doing so to grief others. It is showing they want to own a ward for the sake of doing so, so others can't have a house knowing it is limited. Outside the ToS this also crosses a moral ground as well.

Now the breaking 2.1 comes in play when a person flats out state they moved FC house from account 3 to account 2, this fills the requirement of 2.1, a loophole is another way of saying exploit. Also they stated they held housing as personal till they leveled FC to rank 6, they converted them because of:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OliverB

That's always been the case though. Any smart person would get an FC house over a personal house. Having access to the workshop/airships/subs/wheel stand to prime FC buffs is a major capital gain on top of being able to retrieve the original cost of the plot since the next owner doesn't have to purchase the plot again.

---

They flat out admitted the conversion was pure for reselling, since SE stated about the RNG timer on relinquish, they went out to convert their personals to FC. You are going to tell me this situation is perfectly legal with all the statements they stated, along with what is stated in the ToS, on top of what Yoshi-P said on reselling housing? Inheriting a FC from inactivity is a lot different then rapidly transferring FC house ownership to bypass a restriction and frankly converting personals to FCs that mysteriously happened after SE announced the RNG timer thing. I am sure they have logs of gil movement and other things to prove one thing or another. You very well know that last line of yours is an attempt to get off the subject to defeat a weaker argument. I want to post and explain why people should be doing the right thing, not finding loopholes to get away with something, when again there is 2.1 saying that is against the rules, so there is no defense in acting in this manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamada

This is the FFXIV user agreement, the thing you check the box off when you hit next when you are making your account:
http://support.na.square-enix.com/ru...2&tag=users_en
Just because the player base sees a loophole is not an excuse to take advantage of it, right at 2.1 it states:

---

So you would also be okay with players being retroactively punished for other ToS violations? Say if SE went back and checked the chat logs for and punished every player that used profanity since SE has made the decision to enforce that rule in game. Have you never used profanity or any language that a reasonable person would find offensive. T Should players that have been using ACT all this time be retroactively punished if made the choice to enforce that rule?These are also in the ToS, as I said SE does say a lot of things, but actions speak louder then ToS text.

Also does not answer why should a player that has inherited an FC plot on a alt be punished.

I have no issue with them changing the rules, but to retroactively punish players for rules they have not enforced for the longest time is extremely unfair.

After reading 30 pages wow lots there lol. I know the OP and Oliver sorry to say thread wasn't about you (never heard of you or your FC till this point). :D The original point of the post was yes its upsetting seeing FC's owning tons of housing, someone mentioned Excalibur and those here know who is being talked about. The thing is is not just one server this is happening on many others as well, SE can take this almost any direction instanced housing, more wards or the other someone mentioned more instanced wards up till housing is no longer an issue. SE says something can't be done all they want but we all know they could find a way IF they really wanted to.

P.S. just my two cents but owning half a ward or the whole thing is that REALLY needed?? I could do something like Oliver, I choose not to, even been looking for a personal house and always see people standing near the open ones waiting for that timer. Usually I'll start a convo with them and if they really need it for thier FC I pass on it because I know its needed.

Holy Shit I started a Soap Opera Drama. I'm loving all the salt going on in this thread. Still have yet to land a personal. Gonna keep trying when I can.

Hey Oliver. Have no idea who you are but you may want to re-read that ToS buddy. :P

Whelp, time to let this thread develop for 30 more pages.

It's surprising how that Oliver person has the exact same attitude, and responses when called out, as your typical money-grubbing politician/corporation. Watching real-world human behavioral patterns unfold in the MMO space never gets old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sexythaumaturge

It's surprising how that Oliver person has the exact same attitude, and responses when called out, as your typical money-grubbing politician/corporation. Watching real-world human behavioral patterns unfold in the MMO space never gets old.

---

What's funny is one player is blaming another player for staying with in the rules of the game instead of trying to discuss how to make owning multiple FCs obsolete... almost as if they don't understand the actual issue with the housing and FC system.

SE messed up by first making houses a non instanced feature. Then they doubled down on that first mistake by making houses a requirement for accessing features in the game. Then they kept adding to the problems by creating bandaid changes that didn't fix the core issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

What I am getting at is SE had a chance to do something about this they refused to listen and choose to ignore the player feedback regarding the changes. Look back most people said the changes would not stop selling of houses since all people would have to do is sell the FC, instead of the plot.

---

So if people find "clever" ways to exploid a system they should be praised? I mean if that is the case, why are people that are finding bugs/exploids like Ungarmax then punished? Its not the players fault that there was no restriction to the LB of the squadron outside of their missions, so the players were totally awesome to find and use that exploid, right?

An exploid is a exploid. (And lets not forget that the person in question, also wants to buy houses and if that one reddit thread is true, also tries to sell houses for over the top prices. That is 100% not a loop hole, but something that goes against Yoshidas wishes himself and the only reason they could still even sell the house right now, is with FC transfer, thus again, they use an exploid to the system to do something that is against the ToS. )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

So if people find "clever" ways to exploid a system they should be praised? I mean if that is the case, why are people that are finding bugs/exploids like Ungarmax then punished? Its not the players fault that there was no restriction to the LB of the squadron outside of their missions, so the players were totally awesome to find and use that exploid, right?

An exploid is a exploid. (And lets not forget that the person in question, also wants to buy houses and if that one reddit thread is true, also tries to sell houses for over the top prices. That is 100% not a loop hole, but something that goes against Yoshidas wishes himself and the only reason they could still even sell the house right now, is with FC transfer, thus again, they use an exploid to the system to do something that is against the ToS. )

---

Probably because SE came out and told players not to exploit the LB and there was a fix coming soon.

While on the subject of housing they have proven numerous times they grandfather people of multiple houses into the new system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illgot

Probably because SE came out and told players not to exploit the LB and there was a fix coming soon.

While on the subject of housing they have proven numerous times they grandfather people of multiple houses into the new system.

---

Thank you.

@Alleo that is the difference, SE came out and made a statement regarding it. The housing aspect is 100% a loophole in their rules, one that was pointed out by the community and was ignored by SE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

So if people find "clever" ways to exploid a system they should be praised? I mean if that is the case, why are people that are finding bugs/exploids like Ungarmax then punished? Its not the players fault that there was no restriction to the LB of the squadron outside of their missions, so the players were totally awesome to find and use that exploid, right?

An exploid is a exploid. (And lets not forget that the person in question, also wants to buy houses and if that one reddit thread is true, also tries to sell houses for over the top prices. That is 100% not a loop hole, but something that goes against Yoshidas wishes himself and the only reason they could still even sell the house right now, is with FC transfer, thus again, they use an exploid to the system to do something that is against the ToS. )

---

The person you are talking to is only saying what they are saying because they likely exploited housing themselves and are here to defend
people exploiting the rules because it is likely they did as well to get their 5 houses. I really do not know though, they might not done nothing wrong and just confused what is being talked about. All they stated was having 5 houses, that is not enough to say anything, but just questionable now when they are scrambling to defend people exploiting the rules. It is either that or they are greatly misunderstanding what is going on, and I got no idea how that is after repeating myself 5 times or more. I mean I addressed that very line when I said "If SE wanted people to do this, they would not make the limitation in the first place, ONE FC HOUSE PER ACCOUNT! Just because they did not baby you, does not mean " so at that point it is safe the assume that they have no issue with it" You are just trying to find excuses for people breaking the rules and yes people need to be punished for breaking the rules. You are right, the company should enforce the rules, that is what I am asking for in this thread, seeing someone openly admitted to breaking them."

So SE makes a rule, people tell SE about the exploit, so SE does nothing to close the exploit (maybe they can't or did not expect people go as far as they did?) So that makes it magically ok to break the rules?

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...13#post4611113
I mean how long will it take now for SE say something on people exploiting housing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamada

The person you are talking to is only saying what they are saying because they likely exploited housing themselves and are here to defend
people exploiting the rules because it is likely they did as well to get their 5 houses. I really do not know though, they might not done nothing wrong and just confused what is being talked about. All they stated was having 5 houses, that is not enough to say anything, but just questionable now when they are scrambling to defend people exploiting the rules. It is either that or they are greatly misunderstanding what is going on, and I got no idea how that is after repeating myself 5 times or more. I mean I addressed that very line when I said "If SE wanted people to do this, they would not make the limitation in the first place, ONE FC HOUSE PER ACCOUNT! Just because they did not baby you, does not mean " so at that point it is safe the assume that they have no issue with it" You are just trying to find excuses for people breaking the rules and yes people need to be punished for breaking the rules. You are right, the company should enforce the rules, that is what I am asking for in this thread, seeing someone openly admitted to breaking them."

So SE makes a rule, people tell SE about the exploit, so SE does nothing to close the exploit (maybe they can't or did not expect people go as far as they did?) So that makes it magically ok to break the rules?

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...13#post4611113
I mean how long will it take now for SE say something on people exploiting housing?

---

I was grandfathered into the new system since I carried over my plots from the old rule set. Though I was one of the many people that told SE that their new rule set does very little to curb flipping market since they would simply sell the whole FC instead of the plot. Overall yes SE needs to baby the us, if they do not want something done they should act on it swiftly and make a clear statement on their stance on the matter. If not they leave things open to interpretation. One would think with the previous issue with plots SE would learn that they have to be crystal clear with their rules. Before we had two people owning an entire ward, or an entire sub reddit meant to buy and sell houses. Are you really going to tell me SE did not know players would go that far to extra plots?

Also if we are going solely based off rule breaks, well GG no RE for those that use abusive language and profanity is against the ToS you are so fond of right. So action should retroactively be taken towards every player that has ever used abusive language or profanity. At the core you are asking players to police themselves in a video game, you certainly have more faith in gamers than I do.

Overall I hope SE does not put much man power into this issue since any fix would simply be a band-aid, I would much rather they focus on offering a more permanent solution like expandable apartments with access to proper gardening plots and use of workshops.

My god. How can people be so obtused?
There is clearly a problem if a person or a group have like 8 houses while some people cant buy cause there arent available plots.
And no, the semantics of the rules doesnt matter, they find always a way to circumvet them.
Thats only selfishness. If you have more than one house you are being selfish, doesnt matter how much effort you need to maintain it.
The people who so vehemently defend the current situation probably have more than one house. Cause this is ridiculous and has no justification whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamada

The person you are talking to is only saying what they are saying because they likely exploited housing themselves and are here to defend
people exploiting the rules because it is likely they did as well to get their 5 houses. I really do not know though, they might not done nothing wrong and just confused what is being talked about. All they stated was having 5 houses, that is not enough to say anything, but just questionable now when they are scrambling to defend people exploiting the rules. It is either that or they are greatly misunderstanding what is going on, and I got no idea how that is after repeating myself 5 times or more. I mean I addressed that very line when I said "If SE wanted people to do this, they would not make the limitation in the first place, ONE FC HOUSE PER ACCOUNT! Just because they did not baby you, does not mean " so at that point it is safe the assume that they have no issue with it" You are just trying to find excuses for people breaking the rules and yes people need to be punished for breaking the rules. You are right, the company should enforce the rules, that is what I am asking for in this thread, seeing someone openly admitted to breaking them."

So SE makes a rule, people tell SE about the exploit, so SE does nothing to close the exploit (maybe they can't or did not expect people go as far as they did?) So that makes it magically ok to break the rules?

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...13#post4611113
I mean how long will it take now for SE say something on people exploiting housing?

---

If I understand what you're talking about, it's not an exploit. In the context of a video game, an exploit is something that is not functioning properly due to a problem with the code causing performance that deviates from the developer's expectations and which allows players to take advantage of it for their own personal gain. In contrast, a "creative use of game mechanics" refers to when players find a use that is outside the scope of the developer's intentions for a correctly functioning game element that allows them to take advantage of it. SE deliberately implemented the timer and also deliberately didn't apply it to FCs. Likewise, they did not make any attempt to actually prevent players from having multiple FCs on a single realm, other than likely assuming it'd be too prohibitively laborious to be a real problem. SE can decide the action is unacceptable in any case, but let's try to avoid carelessly applying inaccurate labels just because they sound nastier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redname

My god. How can people be so obtused?
There is clearly a problem if a person or a group have like 8 houses while some people cant buy cause there arent available plots.
And no, the semantics of the rules doesnt matter, they find always a way to circumvet them.
Thats only selfishness. If you have more than one house you are being selfish, doesnt matter how much effort you need to maintain it.
The people who so vehemently defend the current situation probably have more than one house. Cause this is ridiculous and has no justification whatsoever.

---

What can they do though regarding all the players that have multiple plots, they already grandfathered players from one system so it stands to reason they will do so again. It is a noble fight, but I do think players effort would be best spent getting SE to change the entire system behind asking them to keep doing band-aid fixes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

If I understand what you're talking about, it's not an exploit. In the context of a video game, an exploit is something that is not functioning properly due to a problem with the code causing performance that deviates from the developer's expectations and which allows players to take advantage of it for their own personal gain. In contrast, a "creative use of game mechanics" refers to when players find a use that is outside the scope of the developer's intentions for a correctly functioning game element that allows them to take advantage of it. SE deliberately implemented the timer and also deliberately didn't apply it to FCs. Likewise, they did not make any attempt to actually prevent players from having multiple FCs on a single realm, other than likely assuming it'd be too prohibitively laborious to be a real problem. SE can decide the action is unacceptable in any case, but let's try to avoid carelessly applying inaccurate labels just because they sound nastier.

---

I am all for them changing the policy to deal with the loophole, but yeah it is a stretch to call it an exploit, but I do think the main reason people lump them together is based around the "advantage" it carries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

I am all for them changing the policy to deal with the loophole, but yeah it is a stretch to call it an exploit, but I do think the main reason people lump them together is based around the "advantage" it carries.

---

Giving FCs any sort of advantage was just a generally bad decision to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

Giving FCs any sort of advantage was just a generally bad decision to begin with.

---

I do like the idea of giving FC's convenience advantage, but the game should still have other means for all players to take part in features like gardening plots, workshops, airship / submarines etc . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

If I understand what you're talking about, it's not an exploit. In the context of a video game, an exploit is something that is not functioning properly due to a problem with the code causing performance that deviates from the developer's expectations and which allows players to take advantage of it for their own personal gain.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJwP...youtu.be&t=334
https://gyazo.com/a10349884445b9da734f4e4eb2c1bea6
So how can you sit there explain how it fits how you define an exploit then say it is not an exploit????????????
Cat here posted said they had to transfer from account 3 to account 2 to bypass that rule, that is breaking 2.1, they explained here how they broke 2.1 of the ToS and made other posts about breaking what I linked in the video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamada

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJwP...youtu.be&t=334
https://gyazo.com/a10349884445b9da734f4e4eb2c1bea6
So how can you sit there explain how it fits how you define an exploit then say it is not an exploit????????????
Cat here posted said they had to transfer from account 3 to account 2 to bypass that rule, that is breaking 2.1, they explained here how they broke 2.1 of the ToS and made other posts about breaking what I linked in the video.

---

Because none of it is the result of improperly functioning game code, it is therefore not an exploit. I do not think this concept is the least bit difficult to grasp. I am well aware that SE considers the aftermarket sale of houses to be against the rules, but being against the rules does not make something an exploit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nixxe

Because none of it is the result of improperly functioning game code, it is therefore not an exploit. I do not think this concept is the least bit difficult to grasp. I am well aware that SE considers the aftermarket sale of houses to be against the rules, but being against the rules does not make something an exploit.

---

https://www.truthaboutdeception.com/...the-rules.html
The exploit being referred to is having 3 accounts, 1 account filled with fc houses, while the second can't do this because it was during those 4.2 rules. To find a loophole around this, exploit the rules, so on, account 3 buys fc house, transfers it to account 2, and repeats that process. Exploiting the game is not limited to "result of improperly functioning game code"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamada

https://www.truthaboutdeception.com/...the-rules.html
The exploit being referred to is having 3 accounts, 1 account filled with fc houses, while the second can't do this because it was during those 4.2 rules. To find a loophole around this, exploit the rules, so on, account 3 buys fc house, transfers it to account 2, and repeats that process. Exploiting the game is not limited to "result of improperly functioning game code"

---

Just wondering, how do you feel about the players that were grandfathered in with multiple plots? Going to take a shot in the dark but I am willing to bet most players that currently own multiple plots were carry overs from the old system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

Just wondering, how do you feel about the players that were grandfathered in with multiple plots? Going to take a shot in the dark but I am willing to bet most players that currently own multiple plots were carry overs from the old system.

---

Like the Mateus couple? I could care less, nothing we can do about that because that was before rules came out. However I would argue they could tenant people with no access now to at least give people to use a house and npcs but there is no moral or rules to stand on to say they must. Especially when it comes to that couple, they bought houses before there existed a shortage. Why are they obligated to lift their house with poor server population balance due to shortsightedness? Another problem with this comes from denoting officially RP servers and such, when you are appealing to a global audience, you can't just expect everyone to act like your home town. I really think there is some truth to japeanse player base catering, especially when you see all the lack of communication, something you even pointed out. I still think it is wrong to excuse rule breaking because of that, however.
What I find offensive here is someone barging in this thread showing off how they exploited the current system, telling others to buy FC houses not personals so they can break another rule. It is also quite clear with this cat person it is done to once again violate this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJwP...youtu.be&t=334


With older owners like that its more or less showing SE why the system is bad and too limited. When you compare the Mateus couple, who actually furnish all their homes and use them, compare that to a barren ward with a person saying "This is the only house I use, sort of" with that house even going unfurnished for the most part, you have to consider what is being done here. You are correct, most are likely to have houses before 4.2, but a poster here clearly showed by their own postings and words, gained many houses after 4.2 and given this was done on a high population server, the fact they said they needed account transfer homes, the fact they said buy FC house not personal so you can resell it, it should show you why I am sitting here stating this is wrong having a poster show off how they are breaking the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamada

Like the Mateus couple? I could care less, nothing we can do about that because that was before rules came out. However I would argue they could tenant people with no access now to at least give people to use a house and npcs but there is no moral or rules to stand on to say they must. Especially when it comes to that couple, they bought houses before there existed a shortage. Why are they obligated to lift their house with poor server population balance due to shortsightedness? Another problem with this comes from denoting officially RP servers and such, when you are appealing to a global audience, you can't just expect everyone to act like your home town. I really think there is some truth to japeanse player base catering, especially when you see all the lack of communication, something you even pointed out. I still think it is wrong to excuse rule breaking because of that, however.
What I find offensive here is someone barging in this thread showing off how they exploited the current system, telling others to buy FC houses not personals so they can break another rule. It is also quite clear with this cat person it is done to once again violate this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJwP...youtu.be&t=334


With older owners like that its more or less showing SE why the system is bad and too limited. When you compare the Mateus couple, who actually furnish all their homes and use them, compare that to a barren ward with a person saying "This is the only house I use, sort of" with that house even going unfurnished for the most part, you have to consider what is being done here. You are correct, most are likely to have houses before 4.2, but a poster here clearly showed by their own postings and words, gained many houses after 4.2 and given this was done on a high population server, the fact they said they needed account transfer homes, the fact they said buy FC house not personal so you can resell it, it should show you why I am sitting here stating this is wrong having a poster show off how they are breaking the rules.

---

OliverB broke no rules and continues to break no rules, because the rules are in totality what they are. There are flaws in the housing system but those flaws are intentional as a back up so that FCs do not lose their workshops and FC houses if the leader stops playing (which happens). SE is not going to nit pick through who and why every time an FC changes hands. They do not care because they created the system and have refused to change it since its inception.

Yes, OliverB is exploiting the existing system, but it is a system that was intentionally developed.

Comparing that to the Adventure Squad Limit Break exploit in which players took advantage of a system they were not suppose to have access too outside of the adventure squad is ludicrous.

No matter how selfish OliverB is being, they have not broken any rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamada

Like the Mateus couple? I could care less, nothing we can do about that because that was before rules came out. However I would argue they could tenant people with no access now to at least give people to use a house and npcs but there is no moral or rules to stand on to say they must. Especially when it comes to that couple, they bought houses before there existed a shortage. Why are they obligated to lift their house with poor server population balance due to shortsightedness? Another problem with this comes from denoting officially RP servers and such, when you are appealing to a global audience, you can't just expect everyone to act like your home town. I really think there is some truth to japeanse player base catering, especially when you see all the lack of communication, something you even pointed out. I still think it is wrong to excuse rule breaking because of that, however.
What I find offensive here is someone barging in this thread showing off how they exploited the current system, telling others to buy FC houses not personals so they can break another rule. It is also quite clear with this cat person it is done to once again violate this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJwP...youtu.be&t=334


With older owners like that its more or less showing SE why the system is bad and too limited. When you compare the Mateus couple, who actually furnish all their homes and use them, compare that to a barren ward with a person saying "This is the only house I use, sort of" with that house even going unfurnished for the most part, you have to consider what is being done here. You are correct, most are likely to have houses before 4.2, but a poster here clearly showed by their own postings and words, gained many houses after 4.2 and given this was done on a high population server, the fact they said they needed account transfer homes, the fact they said buy FC house not personal so you can resell it, it should show you why I am sitting here stating this is wrong having a poster show off how they are breaking the rules.

---

I understand where you are coming from, but try to look at it from another point of view. Sure you can chastise the player for their actions, but the real entity that should get your ire is SE. SE already knows the lengths many players will go through to obtain an advantage in-game the community warned them how the new rules do very little to curb the buying and reselling of plots. This is a game were their ignore clear rule breaks so the burden is on SE to be clear with what is not allowed and what is considered a grey area. SE had all the information to act on this possibility but they made the choice to ignore it. I get you consider that hand holding, but given SE stance on certain rule breaks I do not think it is fair to punish players for actions SE was made aware could and will be used to bypass their rules.

Also you have to take into account what can SE really do. The current system is in place to protect FC's from inactive ownership should ownership never transfer over? If that rule set remains transferring of FC's will always be a thing, thus will always be a means to bypass the limit. How should SE handle those cases were an alt gets an FC plot due to inactively in a FC, yet already has a plot and FC plot on another character. I happened to gain access to another plot this way. Was not my intent, but I was next in line for ownership and my alt gained ownership. Should I be punished for something that I did not intentionaly do?

On a different note, you mentioned something about house being unfurnished . All of mine are unfurnished (outside the FC house I got through ownership being inactive), yet I have no intent to sell it is just one of those cases were I found the extra amenities worth the investment. Granted, I did not do this on a high population server, but does lack of furnishing show intent to sell or something?

Damn, he still doesn't get it.