Hard limit on flipping house plots

Based upon what people have been saying in these forums, this game lacks a mechanism for selling your house, such that house flipping has long been a black market activity, causing Medium and Large houses to be flipped for at least twice the going rate.

The game needs an in-game mechanism for a seller to recoup their purchase price. So instead of selling a Medium for $18m gil + markup, they can specify just the markup (say as a percentage). This would allow SE to collect statistics on how often houses change hands, and apply taxes (i.e., gil sink on these exchanges), which SE simply does not have with the current system. Not to mention the benefit that buyers can avoid the sketchy black market types, whom could just as easily take the money and run.

For rl real estate, I guess that it's typical that the agent doing negotation agree to 10% of the property value? This sounds like what SE has in mind when they say that houses shouldn't be flipped for an excessive amount.

For when selling an in-game house, perhaps 10% is a reasonable cap. But whatever the cap is, that will have a normalizing effect on what the black market can charge, since a reasonably-minded person will balk at the current 100%+ black market markups.

Mind you, there's benefit to being able to just sell your house in preparation for suspending your account for a few months, without losing the purchase price. It is evident that the current system is designed to lock home owners into their SE subscriptions, but this is transparent exploitation by SE, on a par with the black market.

I want you to really think about this for a moment.

If I hypothetically have a medium house, and I want 50m gil for it, I would already arrange that sale externally.

If SE adds a system like the one you describe, and I still want 50m gil for my house but SE puts a cap of 20m on the transfer, all I'm going to do is STILL arrange a buyer externally and have him give me 30m on the side and 20m through the in-game system. If the in-game system is heavily taxed, I may transfer the house for 1m through the system and 49m around it.

Respectfully, this solution solves nothing for this who know what supply and demand really makes their plots worth.

You could follow this up with a suggestion that the GMs take a personal look at trades that happen between a buyer and seller, sure, but that's not going to happen. This is suggested like a magic bandaid for all things housing related, but it's never something that's on the table.

Housing is intended in part as a gil sink. Owners do not need to recoup the purchase price if they are no longer going to be using it. They need to weigh the risk before they buy instead.

It's not like it's hard to make gil. If someone buys a house then later loses it when they stop playing, they can always earn the gil to buy another when they return to the game if they don't already have enough. There are plenty of gil sources and nothing major to spend it on other than buying a house.

Any official resell mechanism will increase house flipping. As Harmonea pointed out, there wouldn't be anything to prevent players from continuing to transfer additional profits through other means.

The only thing locking you to the game is you. You're the one letting ownership of virtual property bought with virtual currency in a game control your life choices. If you don't want to be playing then don't. If you lose a house you bought, so what? You can always buy another when you decide to you want to play again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harmonea

If SE adds a system like the one you describe, and I still want 50m gil for my house but SE puts a cap of 20m on the transfer, all I'm going to do is STILL arrange a buyer externally and have him give me 30m on the side and 20m through the in-game system. If the in-game system is heavily taxed, I may transfer the house for 1m through the system and 49m around it.

---

Yep, that is fairly obvious. However, you need to think in terms that the black market largely exists because there HASN'T been an in-game system. By it's very existence, an in-game system would be the preferred choice due to its greater convenience over a sketchy black market. And with a cap in place, this signals to buyers when they're being ripped off by paying more on the black market.

In other words, the 100% markups only exists because SE didn't provide an in-game selling mechanism. With such a system in place, the ease of black market sales would become less convenient, and your boast of quickly obtaining 30m "on the side" is nonsense. You're going to be competing against honest players that are selling their plots for legitimate reasons.

Don't forget that, by virtue of an in-game mechanism being REQUIRED for doing the exchange, this puts a magnifying glass upon people involved in the black market (i.e., house flippers), where it becomes quite apparent what some people are doing, and it just takes one ban-hammer to resolve the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

Housing is intended in part as a gil sink. Owners do not need to recoup the purchase price if they are no longer going to be using it. They need to weigh the risk before they buy instead.

It's not like it's hard to make gil. If someone buys a house then later loses it when they stop playing, they can always earn the gil to buy another when they return to the game if they don't already have enough. There are plenty of gil sources and nothing major to spend it on other than buying a house.

Any official resell mechanism will increase house flipping. As Harmonea pointed out, there wouldn't be anything to prevent players from continuing to transfer additional profits through other means.

The only thing locking you to the game is you. You're the one letting ownership of virtual property bought with virtual currency in a game control your life choices. If you don't want to be playing then don't. If you lose a house you bought, so what? You can always buy another when you decide to you want to play again.

---

Please don't hand wave the ease of earning gil, when we all know that it involves a time investment (not to mention the subscription required). I suppose that a house flipper would consider gil "easy" to earn.

Housing is NOT working as a gil sink when gil is simply exchanging hands outside the game, without a tax in place. Utter rubbish. The system exists because SE (probably) intentionally created the current system with artificial scarcity in mind, as described. When the upcoming new housing comes out, it will just be more of the same; a subscriber-sink.

Let's be clear that YOU might be willing to simply walk away from the game, and MYSELF can walk away from the game, both despite the artificial housing scarcity, but the system has the appearance of being a cheap ploy to keep subscribers tied to the game, rather than "lose" their virtual stuff (and the time used to accumulate and arrange that stuff).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tohe-Spidhire

I suppose that a house flipper would consider gil "easy" to earn.

---

You will literally never convince anyone of your point of view by taking a well-known forum member and insisting you're only being disagreed with because said forum member must have a habit of unsavory behavior. This is how you find yourself on ignore lists and your suggestions categorically discarded simply because of their source. Consider editing these insinuations out of your post if you actually want to discuss your suggestion and get your thread in front of the devs' eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tohe-Spidhire

Yep, that is fairly obvious. However, you need to think in terms that the black market largely exists because there HASN'T been an in-game system.

---

The "black market" exists because the supply doesn't meet the demand. An in-game system isn't going to change anything when players would still be able to dictate what price they're going to sell at regardless of any regulated system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tohe-Spidhire

Yep, that is fairly obvious. However, you need to think in terms that the black market largely exists because there HASN'T been an in-game system.

---

The "black market" exists because the supply doesn't meet the demand. An in-game system isn't going to change anything when players would still be able to dictate what price they're going to sell at regardless of any regulated system.

The scarcity doesn't even exist outside of the NA data centers. There are a few EU worlds with available housing. Almost every JP world has an abundance of housing to choose from. If SE was truly trying to try players to the game through house ownership, wouldn't that scarcity exists on all worlds instead of just worlds in a certain region?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tohe-Spidhire

Please don't hand wave the ease of earning gil, when we all know that it involves a time investment (not to mention the subscription required). I suppose that a house flipper would consider gil "easy" to earn.

---

It's easy for anyone to earn gil by simply playing the game. The trick is to make uses of the gil sources available and then spend it wisely, which a lot of players don't do.

No, I don't flip houses. I'm very much against it. I'm one of the ones who's been vocal about the need for an improved instanced housing system so every player who want a house can have one and not worry about a lack of houses or having to lose it to demolition.

But we don't have it so players need to learn to work within the limitations of the system that is in place. If you don't want to feel tied to a game by a house that will be lost if you stop playing for more than 6 weeks, don't buy the house. It's a simple and smart decision.

It is ultimately on you for deciding to tie yourself financially to a game for the sake of virtual property bought by virtual currency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harmonea

You will literally never convince anyone of your point of view by taking a well-known forum member and insisting you're only being disagreed with because said forum member must have a habit of unsavory behavior. This is how you find yourself on ignore lists and your suggestions categorically discarded simply because of their source. Consider editing these insinuations out of your post if you actually want to discuss your suggestion and get your thread in front of the devs' eyes.

---

Um, I didn't say they were a house flipper. If that's what you read from what I said, then you need to think about your biases.

Unfortunately, I'm not seeing constructive feedback, just some reactionary nonsense that is the eqiuvalent of, "Noooo, we can't possibly improve the system because of...mumble, mumble..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

The "black market" exists because the supply doesn't meet the demand. An in-game system isn't going to change anything when players would still be able to dictate what price they're going to sell at regardless of any regulated system.

The scarcity doesn't even exist outside of the NA data centers. There are a few EU worlds with available housing. Almost every JP world has an abundance of housing to choose from. If SE was truly trying to try players to the game through house ownership, wouldn't that scarcity exists on all worlds instead of just worlds in a certain region?

---

As I've already described, an in-game system would make it easy to identify house flippers.

That's an interesting observation about JP housing. However, is that hearsay, or are there stats? As for why, it could be something like a smaller proportion of JP to EU and NA players, or a cultural JP difference. Or maybe SE is concerned about self-image in JP and is afraid of being perceived of exploiting JP players?

I come from lotro, where they developed a system where they could spawn extra wards to accommodate the player base. So that's a 2004 MMO that, in 2012, modified their housing system in that manner. Frankly, I am quite skeptical of SE devs not having a similar solution, which leads me (as said) to conclude that SE Sales pushed for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tohe-Spidhire

As I've already described, an in-game system would make it easy to identify house flippers.

That's an interesting observation about JP housing. However, is that hearsay, or are there stats? As for why, it could be something like a smaller proportion of JP to EU and NA players, or a cultural JP difference. Or maybe SE is concerned about self-image in JP and is afraid of being perceived of exploiting JP players?

I come from lotro, where they developed a system where they could spawn extra wards to accommodate the player base. So that's a 2004 MMO that, in 2012, modified their housing system in that manner. Frankly, I am quite skeptical of SE devs not having a similar solution, which leads me (as said) to conclude that SE Sales pushed for it.

---

Create alts on each JP data center and see for yourself. That's what I did last fall and found most JP worlds with dozens if not hundreds of houses available in Mist, Goblet and Lavender Beds (low level alts couldn't get to Shirogane of course). Now that wards 19-21 are open to personal purchase, I plan to do another all world census once I'm not busy with new content.

Being a business that has to weigh and balance financial and technological considerations against player requests doesn't mean they're exploiting any one. If you believe that SE is out to exploit players in general, or NA players specifically, then don't do business with them. There are plenty of other games to be playing.

I played Lotro for 6-7 months in 2014. Housing there flat out sucked. It was terrible. Being able to dynamically expand Neighborhoods was useless when most of them were mostly empty on the servers I played on and many players in the forums were reporting their worlds in similar situations.

But LotRO had also designed Neighborhoods to mingle Fellowship and player houses from the start. Houses here were originally FC only. It was only after wards were mostly empty that SE decided to open houses to personal purchase. They probably hadn't foreseen that happening when they were originally designing and programming the wards, and so didn't foresee a need for dynamic expansion.

If SE really wanted to exploit us, houses would be a mogstation purchase with an additional monthly fee attached. That would be far more effective in exploiting players than allowing players to take breaks of up to 45 days from the game without losing a house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

...found most JP worlds with dozens if not hundreds of houses available

If you believe that SE is out to exploit players in general, or NA players specifically, then don't do business with them.

I played Lotro for 6-7 months in 2014. Housing ...sucked. ... terrible. Being able to dynamically expand Neighborhoods was useless when most of them were mostly empty on the servers I played on and many players in the forums were reporting their worlds in similar situations.

Houses here were originally FC only. It was only after wards were mostly empty that SE decided to open houses to personal purchase. They probably hadn't foreseen...

If SE really wanted to exploit us, houses would be a mogstation purchase with an additional monthly fee attached.

---

(Timmed quote to fit)

Thanks for the info. That's interesting about JP wards. So either the NA and EU markets simply have more players, and/or it's a difference in cultural mindset. For example, in another forum thread, someone commented that JP players were experts at the trial DDR, whereas the Echo mainly exists because NA players have a preference to overcoming adversity (i.e., struggling through a fight).

For lotro housing, you needed to hunt for available houses in the low-level wards. At the same time, it was like ffxiv in that you rarely saw anyone in your ward. So it's an exaggeration to say that lotro housing sucked; it did not. Having high-level wards that were mostly empty meant that a busy FC could easily get all their members in the same ward, without inconveniencing other FC players.

Heh, I can see how absurd it would have been to tie housing to FC membership. If SE had been smart, then founding an FC would spawn a ward for *that* FC's members, with an option to spawn additional wards as the FC membership grew. And separate wards could exist for non-FC players.

Why do you consider paying money at the Mog station to be an exploit? The reality would be that SE Sales actually considered Mog housing sales, but was scared of an overreaction from players.

If SE Sales is not being sly, then they can get something like the following done:

- implement the ability to spawn wards
- implement in-game house selling
- delete the accounts of house flippers, which is easy to spot via the in-game housing system
- sell a Mog Store option that allows you to suspend your account for either six months, or a year, without losing your house

Naturally, there can be a middle ground here. And I'm skeptical of the SE development team, which would be following directions from SE Sales. The game is competently put together, so the absurdity of the housing situation is incongruous with this competence, suggesting something intentional.

There is already such a system in place. If your housing is autodemolished, you recover 80% of the gil paid for it.

As for sales, that's why we have the random timer unto the plot open. It doesn't stop trading via FC-owned houses, but there's no good way to get that without harming legitimate players - but on the flipside, the house never being personal is the price they pay for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tohe-Spidhire

For lotro housing, you needed to hunt for available houses in the low-level wards. At the same time, it was like ffxiv in that you rarely saw anyone in your ward. So it's an exaggeration to say that lotro housing sucked; it did not. Having high-level wards that were mostly empty meant that a busy FC could easily get all their members in the same ward, without inconveniencing other FC players.

---

Oh, it absolutely sucked at the time I played. It might have been very easy to get a house but you had very little in the way of customization thanks to the hook system. Think it was something like 23 total hooks in a small house you could use to place a furnishing and each hook was designated for a specific type of housing item. If you wanted to put a large furnishing where a small furnishing hook was, too bad for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tohe-Spidhire

If SE Sales is not being sly, then they can get something like the following done:

- implement the ability to spawn wards
- implement in-game house selling
- delete the accounts of house flippers, which is easy to spot via the in-game housing system
- sell a Mog Store option that allows you to suspend your account for either six months, or a year, without losing your house

---

You don't know the game's engine and coding limitations. It may not be possible to dynamically spawn wards as a result. There have been many things over the years frustrating both developers and players because of the 1.0 "spaghetti code". They've been chipping away at it and making improvements as they can but there's no magic wand to fix everything on demand.

Again, if you're so skeptical of the company you shouldn't be doing business with them. Or if you feel it's just the ward system that's incompetently designed don't do it as content.

No matter how much you want to spin it as SE trying to exploit you, you are ultimately the one allowing virtual ownership of virtual property to tie you financially to the game. All you have to do to get rid of that tie is walk away from the house. It's not needed to enjoy the rest of the game.

There are still apartments if you want to participate in some form of housing. You can buy an apartment, take a break for 2 years and come back to the apartment as you left it. If SE was trying to exploit players, wouldn't they be forcing us to retain a subscription to keep the apartment as well? There are far more players with only an apartment than there are that own a house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

Oh, it absolutely sucked at the time I played. It might have been very easy to get a house but you had very little in the way of customization thanks to the hook system. Think it was something like 23 total hooks in a small house you could use to place a furnishing and each hook was designated for a specific type of housing item. If you wanted to put a large furnishing where a small furnishing hook was, too bad for you.

---

You were exaggerating the lotro housing issues before, and now you're exaggerating again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

You don't know the game's engine and coding limitations. It may not be possible to dynamically spawn wards as a result. There have been many things over the years frustrating both developers and players because of the 1.0 "spaghetti code". They've been chipping away at it and making improvements as they can but there's no magic wand to fix everything on demand.

Again, if you're so skeptical of the company you shouldn't be doing business with them. Or if you feel it's just the ward system that's incompetently designed don't do it as content.

No matter how much you want to spin it as SE trying to exploit you, you are ultimately the one allowing virtual ownership of virtual property to tie you financially to the game. All you have to do to get rid of that tie is walk away from the house. It's not needed to enjoy the rest of the game.

There are still apartments if you want to participate in some form of housing. You can buy an apartment, take a break for 2 years and come back to the apartment as you left it. If SE was trying to exploit players, wouldn't they be forcing us to retain a subscription to keep the apartment as well? There are far more players with only an apartment than there are that own a house.

---

That's the second time you've suggested that I leave the game. It is completely inappropriate for you to be encouraging other players to leave the game. Shame on you.

Though I have a sense of where you are coming from, it is not your job to be an SE apologist. Very nice and all for you to take the time to inspect JP servers, but you need to get your life priorities in order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tohe-Spidhire

That's the second time you've suggested that I leave the game. It is completely inappropriate for you to be encouraging other players to leave the game. Shame on you.

---

Why is it inappropriate when you are clearly unhappy with what you believe SE's business practices to be? If you don't have faith in a company, you shouldn't do business with them.

What's inappropriate is for you to be claiming that SE is exploiting players. That needs to stop.

I'm also amused that you're questioning my life priorities and calling me an SE apologist simply because I took a few days to do a world wide housing census. I got curious about something. I took the needed steps to learn more about it then shared what I learned with others who had likewise been curious. We all had a better understanding of the housing situation across all data centers as a result.

Personal attacks have no place in constructive discussion. Again, shame on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

Why is it inappropriate when you are clearly unhappy with what you believe SE's business practices to be? If you don't have faith in a company, you shouldn't do business with them.

What's inappropriate is for you to be claiming that SE is exploiting players. That needs to stop.

I'm also amused that you're questioning my life priorities and calling me an SE apologist simply because I took a few days to do a world wide housing census. I got curious about something. I took the needed steps to learn more about it then shared what I learned with others who had likewise been curious. We all had a better understanding of the housing situation across all data centers as a result.

Personal attacks have no place in constructive discussion. Again, shame on you.

---

-1 trolling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tohe-Spidhire

-1 trolling

---

No trolling on my part.

But I suspect many of us are now doubtful about you considering your unwillingness to engage in constructive discussion on a topic you started.