Suggestion: Do not allow multiple service accounts all own houses.

I hope this is in the right area of the forum since it seemed the feedback area was only for the forum itself and the App.

Anyway, on my server there is a single person who owns at minimum 4 houses from three different service accounts. The houses are completely unused besides making their yard obnoxious to look at, and making it annoying to use the marketboard/retainer bell. I've already contacted a GM, with a reply from GM Verethentus. They were very kind and understood the issue, but are unable to do anything since this person isn't *technically* breaking any rules. I do fully understand that and am not mad at the GM or anything, but the issue is still frustrating in multiple ways. The biggest being it just feels unfair that so many people are trying to fight for a house, while this guy has owned 4 completely unused houses since they added the new wards in last year. Including a Large and a Medium.

if someone has the time/money/effort to have multiple service accounts, i mean it's his money to do with what he wants, no? are they being a jerk by doing so? sure. is it against the rules? no. *shrug* just take solace in the fact that you're not spending that kind of money?

I'm as angry at the folks who use loopholes to gain multiple houses as the next person but this isn't even near that. If somebody is paying for 3 accounts and that somebody wants to have 3 houses, one on each account, there's nothing wrong with that. Is it excessive? Probably, but it's also not even "skirting" the rules in the way that some loopholes are.

As for how the house is used... I'm sorry, but that's not your business, it's nobody's business except for the housing owner. And unless you're on the game at your house 24-7, you have no way of knowing whether or not they are unused. People play at different times. People own a house to decorate when new stuff comes out and never go back otherwise. People take week breaks. People take month breaks. If they're not using it, you'll know when the timer restarts and they lose them - and if they don't lose them, it means they're visiting them enough to keep them open. And that's all the requirements there are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryButz

it just feels unfair

---

Just because it feels unfair doesn't mean it is. We all play by the same rules.

If SE was really going to consider putting effort into somehow lumping multiple accounts into a single paying player entity purely so they could restrict housing even more, I'd rather they put that effort into FIXING THE HOUSING SYSTEM, which is kind of the actual problem here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkstainedGwyn

I'm as angry at the folks who use loopholes to gain multiple houses as the next person but this isn't even near that. If somebody is paying for 3 accounts and that somebody wants to have 3 houses, one on each account, there's nothing wrong with that. Is it excessive? Probably, but it's also not even "skirting" the rules in the way that some loopholes are.

As for how the house is used... I'm sorry, but that's not your business, it's nobody's business except for the housing owner. And unless you're on the game at your house 24-7, you have no way of knowing whether or not they are unused. People play at different times. People own a house to decorate when new stuff comes out and never go back otherwise. People take week breaks. People take month breaks. If they're not using it, you'll know when the timer restarts and they lose them - and if they don't lose them, it means they're visiting them enough to keep them open. And that's all the requirements there are.

---

I'm fairly sure the houses are unused if they have practically 0 furnishing and the characters have literally been level 1 for over a year lol. But anyway, if a yard causes others to have to go into awkward camera angles to use the Marketboard/Retainer bell, then yes, it is most definitely is other peoples business. I very clearly said that I completely understand they aren't breaking any rule technically, and never said they're doing any loopholes. I'm only saying that it's dumb and shouldn't really be a thing. And pretty scumbaggy to boot.

OR

They could just give us instanced housing and actually fix the problem.

Arguments like this always make me uneasy, because I see it as a slippery slope to "And spouses shouldn't each have a house on their accounts, they should have just one and share it". If someone is paying to maintain another account, they have every right to another house as the rules say, they are doing nothing wrong. I technically have 2 houses because of this, one on my account, and one on my husbands. Are you going to say we're doing something wrong, despite following all of the rules?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AriesMouse

OR

They could just give us instanced housing and actually fix the problem.

Arguments like this always make me uneasy, because I see it as a slippery slope to "And spouses shouldn't each have a house on their accounts, they should have just one and share it". If someone is paying to maintain another account, they have every right to another house as the rules say, they are doing nothing wrong. I technically have 2 houses because of this, one on my account, and one on my husbands. Are you going to say we're doing something wrong, despite following all of the rules?

---

I feel like most of you are completely missing the point. I'm only saying it's scummy for one single individual player to own 4 houses, and not letting separate service accounts by the same person buy more houses would stop that. That's all. You and your husband are different people with different accounts, so I don't even see how what you said relates to this in the first place. Why even worry about a slippery slope which would very obviously never happen?

Even if you ignore the fact it's completely unfair for the person paying for multiple subscriptions and then getting less benefits, it'd be completely impossible to actually detect or enforce this.

Not everyone with multiple accounts has them under the same Square Enix account. How is SE going to tie them all together? By the payment card they use? You've just blocked a whole family from each having their own house just because one of the parents pays for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by worldofneil

Even if you ignore the fact it's completely unfair for the person paying for multiple subscriptions and then getting less benefits, it'd be completely impossible to actually detect or enforce this.

Not everyone with multiple accounts has them under the same Square Enix account. How is SE going to tie them all together? By the payment card they use? You've just blocked a whole family from each having their own house just because one of the parents pays for everyone.

---

Well I was thinking more of a blanket statement type of rule. Where they'll only take care of these issues when they actually arise. Also, yes. It'd be unfair for the people paying for a second or third account just to get extra homes for them to sell for Gil or RMT. I can live saying that. It's scummy. Shouldn't be happening. I'd much rather have as many people have chances to get a home as possible, instead of some individuals having 4+ all to themselves. Sure my idea isn't perfect, but it's better than just doing nothing about it because of no rules/regulations stopping it.