Originally Posted by
Nyastra
The disconnect here is between “this sounds feasible to me as a player” and “this is fair, scalable, and sustainable for the game as a whole.” Those are not the same thing.
Simply asserting that a proposal is feasible doesn’t make it fair or consequence-free. Players aren’t responsible for maintaining parity between millions of users, preserving years of legacy investment, or balancing technical debt with long-term support. Square Enix is. That distinction matters.
Acknowledging constraints isn’t defending stagnation. It’s recognizing that housing touches gil sinks, retention, RP communities, FC structures, and long-term ownership. If a proposal can’t clearly explain who benefits, who loses, and why that trade-off is acceptable, then it isn’t a finished solution, it’s a wishlist.
Criticizing SE for slow or incremental change is fair. Claiming there’s a zero-cost, zero-conflict fix they’re simply choosing not to implement is not.