Why I think SE DOES NOT CARE about it's housing system :/

Now, granted this is going to piss people off, but whatever. People have inactivated subs due to poor housing system b/c they can't get one for whatever reason. Situations like this in the photo should never be allowed to happen. It's unfair to anyone trying for a house, and it's a loophole SE should have thought of LONG AGO. Multiple FCs do this, as well as players with several alts.

https://scontent-mia3-2.xx.fbcdn.net...37&oe=5E3120A1

You are allowed ONE FC HOUSE, if your FC already has a house, you cannot purchase another. That's the rule, the loophole is simple. Make an alt, give it a FC by itself, rename the tag to your original FC. Once that's done several times, it looks like this - or, another member makes a random FC and renames it's tag, whatever. It's still a plot being used to benefit a specific player/FC. If you have the ONE FC HOUSE rule, but implement ACCOUNT-SERVER-SHARED HOUSING, it's impossible to loophole. All 8 characters on a world server would share a single plot, which would be cool because you'd always have a house, even on an alt without having to spend gil more than once.

Solution? The people doing this do not care about other people having the same opportunities they have with housing since they own multiple plots. "Well, I have the money, I was here first, etc" excuses should only be valid on that first come, first serve basis for buying a plot of land. After that, congrats you have something, now stop being greedy and let the rest of us get a piece too. Take the biggest plot someone owns on an account/world and make that their house plot. refund their gil from other plot purchases and return their items from other plots to the resident caretaker. 1 person may quit b/c they don't like this, but you just gave 7 other paying subscribers an opportunity 1 greedy person prevented them.

Two FCs cannot share the same name, so why can they share the same tag? Correct this, and we will stop seeing the situation where it appears the same FC has multiple plots. You also have people owning an FC when there's only 1 person in it. To remain as an FC, it should have 3 DIFFERENT PLAYER ACCOUNTS with members. You need 3 signatures to make an FC, so there should be the same requirement to keep 3 different members (not your main and 2 alts). This would also prevent people from making an FC just to buy an additional plot of land because, again, account housing...

Implement instanced housing. Apartments are a good example of how these work. Why can't you use the same system, but allow someone to choose the size of their house? It can be like a condo building. Condos appear similar to apartment buildings, but different sizes...

I've pointed this out in several other posts, but I guess you're not going to look at those. So let me put it in blunt specifics right here.

Players who own several houses obtained them prior to the Housing Rework. They used the systems they had at the time and SE cannot touch them, because they are legitimate purchases (at the time of said purchase).

SE isn't going to do jack to these players as they already have to play by our rules. They have to enter every house every 30 days or risk losing them. That's all that can be done. It would be seen as unfair and abusive for SE to take the housing from them when they worked to get said houses when they got them. At this point, it's just becoming a "They should get punished for having what I don't have" Complain-train and it's just getting embarrassing.

And again with the "Implement instanced housing! It'll fix our issues". Where do you get this from? I've seen it thrown around so frequently it's confusing. We already have instanced housing, but people deem them "not good enough", so adding MORE won't do anything.

- "Apartments would be better if they were the size of a small / had the same systems as a small"
Then why buy a small? It would be logically questionable to throw 4m+ gil out of your savings to get a house when you could get everything a house offers for 1/10th of the cost. For bragging rights? Nobody goes to the wards in the first place, so brilliant brag there.

-"Apartments would be better if they could be upgraded"
Same could be said about housing in general. Don't know why Apartments get a special spoon in that regard. Especially given its price-cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TR_RA

Situations like this in the photo should never be allowed to happen. It's unfair to anyone trying for a house, and it's a loophole SE should have thought of LONG AGO.

---

Ex-Post Facto. It would be unfair for anyone who followed all the rules to have their homes completely striped from them, especially if they have thousands of items in them worth dozens of mil. This is why Square Enix didn't go for the Ex-Post Facto enforcement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TR_RA

Two FCs cannot share the same name, so why can they share the same tag? Correct this, and we will stop seeing the situation where it appears the same FC has multiple plots.

---

Which solves what? Making FC tags unique doesn't stop those who want multiple houses from owning multiple houses. It just makes it harder for other players to see who is doing it. I'm fairly certain there are multiple house owners out there who are already using unique tags for their multiple shell FCs just to avoid potential harassment. Not everyone cares to flaunt what they're doing.

If you require a specific number of members, then players will set up multiple service accounts to create the extra members needed then let the extra service accounts lapse. Being inactive doesn't remove anyone from a FC. People are already doing that for housing, access to recruit-a-friend rewards, etc.

Players will always find ways to manipulate a system to get what they want regardless of the intent of the game. Game developers can only go so far in trying to close the loopholes before they start impacting things negatively for those who are playing as intended.

This will always be a problem. There is no way to prevent. It's why the game needs an improved instanced system for housing so even if they can't stop players from owning multiple plots they can at least ensure that every player who wants a house can get one.

The temp rule on FC houses was lifted long ago. The only one that is still in place is the one for personal houses. The current rules are as follows you are allowed 8 FC houses and 1 personal house per world. As for tags it seems like from that picture there is no code in place to stop FC's from having the same tag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kenky

Players who own several houses obtained them prior to the Housing Rework. They used the systems they had at the time and SE cannot touch them, because they are legitimate purchases (at the time of said purchase).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

Ex-Post Facto. It would be unfair for anyone who followed all the rules to have their homes completely striped from them, especially if they have thousands of items in them worth dozens of mil. This is why Square Enix didn't go for the Ex-Post Facto enforcement.

---

When it comes to owning/purchasing multiple FC houses, both the above quotes are inaccurate.

Any player right now can own 8 FC houses as OP has stated. The restriction on purchasing additional FC houses after the purchase of the 1st FC house is not there. This has been tested by the people of the housing market Discord.

However, I disagree with OP for several reasons. In the past, I'd have argued that SE should close the loophole that enables alts to own additional FC houses.

However, we don't want a situation where an FC leader goes inactive and retains permissions for the crucial FC functions. Or if iirc, with 4.2, where FCs had to figure out which members already belonged to FCs with houses on other characters,otherwise they wouldn't be able to purchase an FC house. In other words, closing the loophole causes too many problems for legit players/FCs.

Quote:

---

To remain as an FC, it should have 3 DIFFERENT PLAYER ACCOUNTS with members. You need 3 signatures to make an FC, so there should be the same requirement to keep 3 different members (not your main and 2 alts). This would also prevent people from making an FC just to buy an additional plot of land because, again, account housing...

---

This is easy to get around with friends. On Balmung, there are house flippers who work in teams. It only penalizes, solo/duo/tri person FCs.

Blame SE for locking significant gil producing assets like workshop,airships,submarines(nearly 5-10million gil per week when ranked up) behind FC housing. These should have been made available for individual players right from the start.

There is but one simple solution; future housing to be instanced. Existing wards will become legacy wards.

People who want to live in persistent neighborhoods can 'fight' over the houses in legacy wards.

Everyone else can be guaranteed at least 1 personal and 1 FC house with instanced housing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwistedTea

When it comes to owning/purchasing multiple FC houses, both the above quotes are inaccurate.

Any player right now can own 8 FC houses as OP has stated. The restriction on purchasing additional FC houses after the purchase of the 1st FC house is not there. This has been tested by the people of the housing market Discord.

However, I disagree with OP for several reasons. In the past, I'd have argued that SE should close the loophole that enables alts to own additional FC houses.

However, we don't want a situation where an FC leader goes inactive and retains permissions for the crucial FC functions. Or if iirc, with 4.2, where FCs had to figure out which members already belonged to FCs with houses on other characters,otherwise they wouldn't be able to purchase an FC house. In other words, closing the loophole causes too many problems for legit players/FCs.



This is easy to get around with friends. On Balmung, there are house flippers who work in teams. It only penalizes, solo/duo/tri person FCs.

Blame SE for locking significant gil producing assets like workshop,airships,submarines(nearly 5-10million gil per week when ranked up) behind FC housing. These should have been made available for individual players right from the start.

There is but one simple solution; future housing to be instanced. Existing wards will become legacy wards.

People who want to live in persistent neighborhoods can 'fight' over the houses in legacy wards.

Everyone else can be guaranteed at least 1 personal and 1 FC house with instanced housing.

---

I was referring to personal housing but I understand that the OP is complaining about FCs and how this might cause confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

Ex-Post Facto. It would be unfair for anyone who followed all the rules to have their homes completely striped from them, especially if they have thousands of items in them worth dozens of mil. This is why Square Enix didn't go for the Ex-Post Facto enforcement.

---

It's not even a question about being fair, it's a legal issue. Forget the gils, million or billion it doesn't matter since it's just virtual currency anyway. But people have been buying housing decor for 'real' money, so even if SE doesn't care about "fairness" and just tell the people with multiple houses "rule change, I'm taking your excess house, suck it up" like these train-posts are suggesting, they WILL care about the potential legal quagmire that will follow it. The people with multiple houses, if they had buy mog station decor and stuck into those houses can bring SE to court for scamming, and have a fairly good case at that. Unless the houses were obtained as a ToS violation at the time of acquisition (which again has been said time and time again they were not), grandfathering them in wasn't a simple generous gesture, more like a legal obligation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raven2014

It's not even a question about being fair, it's a legal issue. Forget the gils, million or billion it doesn't matter since it's just virtual currency anyway. But people have been buying housing decor for 'real' money, so even if SE doesn't care about "fairness" and just tell the people with multiple houses "rule change, I'm taking your excess house, suck it up" like these train-posts are suggesting, they WILL care about the potential legal quagmire that will follow it. The people with multiple houses, if they had buy mog station decor and stuck into those houses can bring SE to court for scamming, and have a fairly good case at that. Unless the houses were obtained as a ToS violation at the time of acquisition (which again has been said time and time again they were not), grandfathering them in wasn't a simple generous gesture, more like a legal obligation.

---

There would be no case for scamming. The player has received the item they purchased. A purchase of a housing item on the mogstation is not a guarantee of always owning a house in the game. The only mogstation items that a player would risk losing if their house was taken from their account would be partially consumed food items and the player clearly had access to the intended use of the item if it was partially consumed. The remaining items can be removed and used in other housing that character has access to. If SE felt they needed to take such a drastic step (extremely unlikely), they certainly would give players reasonable notification to allow them to retrieve items from their houses first.

There's no legal issue here. SE could do it if they wanted and players would have no recourse other than cancelling their accounts to show their dissatisfaction with such an action.

It's still not something SE would do unless they are going to totally revamp the entire housing system and remove the wards altogether. Nothing would be solved by doing so. At most there would be a minor and very brief increase in the number of available houses on worlds where plots are hard to find before things returned to the current state. There aren't that many players out there with multiple private houses on the same world.