Housing discrimination

There are a lot of people out there that register FC's just to get houses with options, then kick everyone so they are the only people left in that FC. So technically those houses are not being used to form communities, simply because people know FC's get priority when relocating houses and because FC's get benefits.

I've seen a lot of FC's out there that have less then 10 members and the month after that still hasn't changed... some even have only 1 or 3 members and next time you see them weeks after its still the same while those players are clearly online.. Tho its often just 1 or 2 of them at the same time. It's unfair that some people can't get housing because some who "claim" to build communities are not even trying to achieve that.
I'm sure SE only gave them priority in the assumption that an FC that builds a community potentially can persuade people to resub for a longer amount of time assuming they have fun as a group. So I believe everyone not meeting this expectation should lose their benefits!

So please add an option where FC's require at least 10 different members to log in once every 30 days. That way FC's have to be larger then 10 members for it to maintain a constant 10+ logins and fake FC's would lose their housing much faster.

Why?
Why take away the option to get a house from smaller communities?
Why not setting similar restrictions to private houses?

Do you call & 3 player FC a community?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SXTC

Do you call & 3 player FC a community?

---

I don't think SE is going to change the rules for FC formation but I could be wrong. Some people create small FC's so they can share them with alts or family. I personally have a FC on Balmung for example that i share with a number of my alts (4 others) and about 5 of my friends. I'm not interested in opening it up to the general community but that's me. From the point of view of use I'm sure I use that house more than most given I'm there everyday.

What they do need to change is the ability of people to use FC's to buy more than one house for themselves and their alts. Anytime someone can buy 60 houses using FC loopholes the issue needs to be addressed. I'm not sure how they can tie FC's to one account they obviously do it for private homes. Perhaps there can only be one leader of a FC per account (or real life address) per server I don't know but the current system is in need of a major fix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SXTC

So please add an option where FC\\'s require at least 10 different members to log in once every 30 days. That way FC\\'s have to be larger then 10 members for it to maintain a constant 10+ logins and fake FC\\'s would lose their housing much faster.

---

This is the stupidest thing i read today. Not everyone wanna be in an fc with full of strangers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SXTC

I've seen a lot of FC's out there that have less then 10 members and the month after that still hasn't changed... some even have only 1 or 3 members and next time you see them weeks after its still the same while those players are clearly online.. Tho its often just 1 or 2 of them at the same time. It's unfair that some people can't get housing because some who "claim" to build communities are not even trying to achieve that.

---

Some people don't like large communities so they don't want to be in a fc with more than a handful of people. There is nothing wrong with this.

Some people don't even want to be in a any sort of permanent group and would prefer to be in a fc by themselves. I'm fine with this as long as the account has only one fc house per server. I honestly would love to see SE allowing players to invite their alts to their own fcs without needing the help of a second person to do it on their behalf. Not only would this make some things easier for these people, it would also reduce the incentive to have multiple fc houses per server.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SXTC

So please add an option where FC's require at least 10 different members to log in once every 30 days. That way FC's have to be larger then 10 members for it to maintain a constant 10+ logins and fake FC's would lose their housing much faster.

---

So you think other fc members should be punished if some players happen to not log in? This sort of thing can lead to drama either by pressuring someone to log in more often, or by recruiting people that the fc don't even want just so they can keep their house. I get the feeling you have little experience in leading communities if you did not consider these problems.

A better way to fix the issue of shell fcs taking over wards is to bring back the purchase restriction to one fc house per server per account, and keep it that way. SE eventually quietly lifted this restriction and well some people figured out it was no longer in place...which of course lead to some accounts creating multiple shell fcs. Sigh, removing that restriction was such a step backwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SXTC

Do you call & 3 player FC a community?

---

There are some fcs with several times that amount and the members never talk to each other or do anything together. Would you call that a community?

My own fc has around 45 individual people but that did not come quickly. We're quite fussy about the sort of people we recruit and keep in our ranks. Because of this for the first month we didn't even reach 10 members. If the rules you want were in place we would have lost our house before we even had the chance to build the community we wanted.

And before you say "build your community before you buy a house" first of all houses are usually not available to purchase so you take what you can get the moment it becomes available, because it could be several months or more before you see another unclaimed plot. Secondly having a house is an excellent recruitment tactic because this shows you can provide housing content for members.

Shell fcs are certainly a problem but I dislike your suggestion because it punishes legitimate fcs whose only crime is to be smaller than you would personally like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SXTC

Do you call & 3 player FC a community?

---

You don't know if a house, even a personal, caters to a CWLS, raid team, linkshell or discord server. My FC for example has 5 members...for my 42man Temple Knight RP CWLS.

There's really nothing wrong with the system. It's working as intended. If you want FC privs and/or a house then you can level up your FC through GC turn-ins by spamming Shisui in like two hours. Just stick the FC house on an alt if you want one there.

Anyway, only 30% of housing is owned by FCs according to the lodestone regardless. They're not exactly causing a crisis even if there are dead FCs strewn in, they're no worse for housing than people who stay subbed solely to maintain their personals even when they aren't actively playing the game and don't use their house.

Personals should get access to workshop tho.

I have a small FC composed a 10 members with a goal of one day having 20. About 4 to 5 of us are on at any given time though rarely ever all at the same time. When I started my FC I did so with the aim of keeping it small as large FC's are more prone to drama especially when a FC house is involved. I can easily give more access to the garden and airships having only 10-20 memebers then I could having 100+. More people you have the more iron fisted you have to be about who can use what or conflicts will break out. If you enjoy the drama and logistic Hell that comes from a Large FC with a house. Have fun knock yourself out but don't force you crap on smaller FC's cause you got a issue with them having a house.

wow, makes me wonder how much people aren't abusing the FC function since pretty much everyone here seems to..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SXTC

wow, makes me wonder how much people aren't abusing the FC function since pretty much everyone here seems to..

---

People are disagreeing with you, because there are much easier and better ways to get rid of the "abuse" probleme.
Your way may solve the "abuse" problem but also will destroy small communities and that is never the way to go.
The better way would be to make it that you don't have to abuse the system, like giving the workshop, one of the main reasons for the abuse, also to the private houses.
But if you insist on limiting the housing to FC's with more than X members I insist on also taking away private housing because the can't support X members either, just to be fair.

Also personal attacks and baseless accusation wont get you sympathizers, they will just paint you in a bad light.

And for your earlier question:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SXTC

Do you call & 3 player FC a community?

---

The more or less official number to count as a community is 4. 4 members are a community and are needed to form a FC.
When the FC is formed it may grow or shrink but it is still a community.
Also there is another way to form a community, linkshells and they only need a single member.
Also there in the light of social research you talk about a community as a group of people with similar interests goals starting at 2 people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SXTC

wow, makes me wonder how much people aren't abusing the FC function since pretty much everyone here seems to..

---

That's a bold statement. How do you get the impression that "everyone here" is abusing the fc function?

I'm certainly not in any way. I "own" one fc house. In fact I'm only in one fc across all of my characters, and it's the one that I lead. I just don't like your suggestion because it punishes legitimate fcs who also own only one fc house.

I know a few small fcs with less than 10 members, and they are active. They just want to stay small because they want the fc to be just for them and their irl friend group. What's wrong with this? Is it only because a fc house can serve more? Well their only other option is private houses but if they switched to that then they would need two private houses to give housing access to everyone in their group. And they would also be locked out of the workshop. That isn't a better alternative. And neither is inviting people you may not even want just so you can inflate your roster to keep the fc house.

You're also making the assumption that 10+ members must mean a legitimate community, which is very much incorrect as I have pointed out earlier there are some large fcs in which almost everyone are strangers to each other and they do nothing together. There is far more to community than just the number of people involved.

And you're forgetting...raid teams need only 8 members! So with your suggestion fcs with only raid team members wouldn't be eligible for a fc house even though they are very much an active group.

There is certainly a problem with shell fcs but your suggestion is not a good fix. It would be swapping one set of problems for another while punishing legitimate fcs. The best way to combat this issue is to make the fc house purchase restriction permanent and to also allow all characters on the same server be able to access to same private home, which would reduce the incentive to get multiple houses.

And in addition to the above perhaps also make fc tags unique to reduce the bragging rights of owning multiple houses. Seeing something like <meep> <meep2> <meep3> and so on in a ward doesn't quite have the same visual impact as <meep> on every single house.

Disclaimer: I have no idea if a fc uses <meep> as a tag, and if they do I have no idea if they have multiple fc houses...if they happen to I was not intending to call anyone out! I just chose a nonsense word for the above example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

That's a bold statement. How do you get the impression that "everyone here" is abusing the fc function?

I'm certainly not in any way. I "own" one fc house. In fact I'm only in one fc across all of my characters, and it's the one that I lead. I just don't like your suggestion because it punishes legitimate fcs who also own only one fc house.

I know a few small fcs with less than 10 members, and they are active. They just want to stay small because they want the fc to be just for them and their irl friend group. What's wrong with this? Is it only because a fc house can serve more? Well their only other option is private houses but if they switched to that then they would need two private houses to give housing access to everyone in their group. And they would also be locked out of the workshop. That isn't a better alternative. And neither is inviting people you may not even want just so you can inflate your roster to keep the fc house.

You're also making the assumption that 10+ members must mean a legitimate community, which is very much incorrect as I have pointed out earlier there are some large fcs in which almost everyone are strangers to each other and they do nothing together. There is far more to community than just the number of people involved.

And you're forgetting...raid teams need only 8 members! So with your suggestion fcs with only raid team members wouldn't be eligible for a fc house even though they are very much an active group.

There is certainly a problem with shell fcs but your suggestion is not a good fix. It would be swapping one set of problems for another while punishing legitimate fcs. The best way to combat this issue is to make the fc house purchase restriction permanent and to also allow all characters on the same server be able to access to same private home, which would reduce the incentive to get multiple houses.

And in addition to the above perhaps also make fc tags unique to reduce the bragging rights of owning multiple houses. Seeing something like <meep> <meep2> <meep3> and so on in a ward doesn't quite have the same visual impact as <meep> on every single house.

Disclaimer: I have no idea if a fc uses <meep> as a tag, and if they do I have no idea if they have multiple fc houses...if they happen to I was not intending to call anyone out! I just chose a nonsense word for the above example.

---

What they mean is that anyone with a small FC or an FC house at all without having FC numbers backing it proper (even should there be a totally legitimate community behind it), is abusing and "not using the system as intended".

I surmise that they dislike personal housing too because it presumably caters to individuals (even though plenty of people use their personals to host a bunch of people).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SXTC

wow, makes me wonder how much people aren't abusing the FC function since pretty much everyone here seems to..

---

As someone with a small FC of only my friends and a few family members (were under 10 people with only 4-6 being active daily) this would really hurt us as its been really hard to find members an recruit.. (we made our FC at the end of Stormblood)

All the gil cost for the FC came from my personal funds.. i bought the land and the house materials myself and paid for the workshop too..

If anything this idea would make it harder for FCs to recruit since everyone wants the FC to have a house and be a high rank while recruiting..

But I could agree with removing the FC houses that are only owned by a single FC member..

Also here's whats going to happen to this thread.. those with multiple houses will come in an start yelling at people about wanting to take away houses.. theyll claim only a small number of houses are owned by the same people.. theyll be rude an insult anyone who thinks the current system is bad.. and eventually the OP will never return to his thread because its so toxic.. and the multi house owners will claim victory an leave the thread to die.. or theyll derail it about off-topic for several pages them claim victory an leave..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PewPewPewPewPew

Based on the data mass extracted by Mew directly from the lodestone for August 2020:

Single ownership FC houses with plots make up 7,390 total plots out of 107,092 total plots owned by FCs across all worlds (which is 30% of all houses available in the entire world).
That means only 7% of all existing FC owned plots are single-owner FC plots. At the same time, single owner FC plots make up 2% of all 342,720 plots across all worlds.

If we expand and look at that same data for FCs with 1-3 people total, the total number of FC's with a roster ranging from 1 to 3 people make up 21,209 FCs that hold plots.
That means just under 20% of all existing FC owned plots are owned by FCs with a roster of 1-3 characters. Meaning FCs with a roster of 1-3 characters make up only 6% of all 342,720 plots across all worlds.

Conclusion: These numbers show that shell FCs are too insignificant to be a leading cause of housing shortages. This data was extracted directly from lodestone as of last month.

---

Posting this from another thread here because based on the above data:

One-man FCs or FCs with less than 4 people are not a significant cause to house shortages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baxcel

theyll claim only a small number of houses are owned by the same people..

---

But...that's a fact. The lodestone stats are available and have been compiled into publicly available documents that you may peruse at your leisure.

At any rate, it's not discrimination if you have equal opportunity as everyone else to do something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PewPewPewPewPew

Posting this from another thread here because based on the above data:

One-man FCs or FCs with less than 4 people are not a significant cause to house shortages.

---

Maybe not now but it is a problem that will get worse if SE do not make the purchase restriction on fc houses permanent. Removing that has increased the amount of shell fcs quite noticeably on some servers. As I mentioned before in another thread, it is an issue that will one day far outpace the hoarding of grandfathered players if SE continue to turn fc purchase restriction on and off instead of keeping it on. While the problem with shell fcs is relatively small right now when you look at the game as a whole, there is something to be said about tackling an issue before it becomes a serious problem. History has shown us several times that some players or fcs buy as many houses as they possibly can and sometimes it's to the point that they strongly dominate wards. This is not good when housing is a limited resource.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuut OP's suggestion on how to tackle the above is not what I would consider a good solution. It would too easily punish legitimate fcs who are small whether that's through just starting off, having difficulty in recruiting the sort of members they want or wanting to stay small for the happiness of the members.

If a requirement on the amount of members having access to a fc house is to have a specific base number, then it should be 4. Not 10. As it is now 4 is the minimum requirement to do group content. 10 doesn't even make sense considering it's not even a group size for any content and you need only 8 to do raid content. But even this I disagree with, I just happen to be more okay with 4 as a base requirement than 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

Maybe not now but it is a problem that will get worse if SE do not make the purchase restriction on fc houses permanent. Removing that has increased the amount of shell fcs quite noticeably on some servers. As I mentioned before in another thread, it is an issue that will one day far outpace the hoarding of grandfathered players if SE continue to turn fc purchase restriction on and off instead of keeping it on. While the problem with shell fcs is relatively small right now when you look at the game as a whole, there is something to be said about tackling an issue before it becomes a serious problem. History has shown us several times that some players or fcs buy as many houses as they possibly can and sometimes it's to the point that they strongly dominate wards. This is not good when housing is a limited resource.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuut OP's suggestion on how to tackle the above is not what I would consider a good solution. It would too easily punish legitimate fcs who are small whether that's through just starting off, having difficulty in recruiting the sort of members they want or wanting to stay small for the happiness of the members.

If a requirement on the amount of members having access to a fc house is to have a specific base number, then it should be 4. Not 10. As it is now 4 is the minimum requirement to do group content. 10 doesn't even make sense considering it's not even a group size for any content and you need only 8 to do raid content. But even this I disagree with, I just happen to be more okay with 4 as a base requirement than 10.

---

By the logic of shell FCs being a bad thing, then why not tackle personals?

lmfao

Penthea is now making up facts on housing ownership. Let's have a discussion about removing every single personal house that doesn't have 3 tenants immediately ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arielen

By the logic of shell FCs being a bad thing, then why not tackle personals?

---

Well I personally don't think they're bad as long as the account has only one fc house per server. I mentioned this before in the beginning of another post in this thread, along with a reason why a person may have a fc of this kind. Not everyone who has a one-man fc is doing so with the sole goal of hoarding.

Even if a person has several accounts I'm okay with this as long as the restrictions remain at one fc and one private house per server because the impact these people under this restriction can have is minimal unless they have enough money to keep subs rolling on a large number of accounts. Which appears to be a rare occurrence to me, obviously due to the tremendous cost of this sort of activity.

The main difference between personal and fc houses is the workshop. Some fcs have shell fcs with the sole purpose of using the extra workshops to funnel the money to the main fc. If we are to look at abuse of the housing system, fcs have the potential to abuse it far more due to the increased amount of gil they can generate with these houses. Catstab actually presented a very good solution to this that would simultaneously grant fcs without houses access to workshops and reduce the incentive to create shell fcs to purchase additional houses.

Abuse or taking advantage of the limitations of the housing system is going to happen whether we like it or not. As long as housing is a limited resource there are going to be issues somewhere about uneven distribution. The best we can hope for is to make purchase restrictions be always at only one private and one fc house per server per account. The only legitimate solution to any of this is a fully fledged instanced housing system with unlimited plots...but as I mentioned so often already it doesn't look like we will ever see this.

And well personals have already been tackled due to the purchase restriction being one per server per account and it has not been lifted since it came to the game. An improvement to this that I want to see is to allow all characters within the same server and account to access to same private home. It would be beneficial to anyone who has alts within the same server, and it would reduce the incentive to purchase several houses.

FC membership is something that is always in flux. Maintaining FC membership above a certain threshold and also have a certain number of players log in every 30 days is a logistical nightmare. This change will make it so that shell FCs don't get housing, sure, but it also makes it so that small FCs will be in higher and more constant state of stress just to keep their FC house. What will end up happening is you get fewer bigger FCs being able to maintain houses and the vast majority of the remaining houses being occupied by individuals. At which point you will not have put a dent in the housing shortage at all, you have just allowed more private houses to be taken up at the expense of small FCs.

Quote:

---

Maybe not now but it is a problem that will get worse if SE do not make the purchase restriction on fc houses permanent. Removing that [...]

---

That restriction was in place for a whopping, staggering, unbelievable...

1 week.

It went live on January 29 2018 and was removed on February 6.

edit - It is possible it wasnt removed until the 4.21 hotfix (which removed FC only restriction in new wards) and not the 4.20 hotfix, on Feb 20, meaning it may have existed for 3 weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

Maybe not now but it is a problem that will get worse if SE do not make the purchase restriction on fc houses permanent. Removing that has increased the amount of shell fcs quite noticeably on some servers.

---

Justice is partly being served by that. The reason why so many players want the shell FCs is to run workshops to make gil selling rare items from submersibles.

The number of FCs in general (real and shell) doing this has greatly increased the number of rare items getting to market, driving the prices down rapidly compared to the past. That's led to occasional comments from some players that's it's not worth doing anymore because they feel like the gil being earned wasn't worth the time and effort to level the subs and build a good farming configuration.

But it does hurt the real FCs who were using the workshops to fund FC activities as much as the shell FCs. They're also getting less back as supply increases. We're still making a decent amount from our FC fleet but we're more of a small to mid-sized social FC so we don't really need that much gil for the things we do. Larger FCs would feel it more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

Justice is partly being served by that. The reason why so many players want the shell FCs is to run workshops to make gil selling rare items from submersibles.

The number of FCs in general (real and shell) doing this has greatly increased the number of rare items getting to market, driving the prices down rapidly compared to the past. That's led to occasional comments from some players that's it's not worth doing anymore because they feel like the gil being earned wasn't worth the time and effort to level the subs and build a good farming configuration.

But it does hurt the real FCs who were using the workshops to fund FC activities as much as the shell FCs. They're also getting less back as supply increases. We're still making a decent amount from our FC fleet but we're more of a small to mid-sized social FC so we don't really need that much gil for the things we do. Larger FCs would feel it more.

---

Thinking about this it does make me wonder if the workshop needs another look at by SE. Is it perhaps too easy to get a workshop up to date even with a relatively new fc? I don't recall it being difficult for us to achieve this and we're certainly not a fc who heavily concentrate on it. Even when we lag behind it never takes us long to catch up. Could this be a contributing factor as to why it's quite tempting to create shell fcs? Because the amount of workshop effort involved isn't quite as much as it could or even should be? I would be very interested to read people's opinions about this. Especially anyone from a fc who craft with the workshop content very often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

Thinking about this it does make me wonder if the workshop needs another look at by SE. Is it perhaps too easy to get a workshop up to date even with a relatively new fc? I don't recall it being difficult for us to achieve this and we're certainly not a fc who heavily concentrate on it. Even when we lag behind it never takes us long to catch up. Could this be a contributing factor as to why it's quite tempting to create shell fcs? Because the amount of workshop effort involved isn't quite as much as it could or even should be? I would be very interested to read people's opinions about this. Especially anyone from a fc who craft with the workshop content very often.

---

You can buy premade sub stuff via the mb or the sub discord so that doesn't help lol. However, shell FCs don't have enough members required to farm for company credits to maintain submarines and airships with any regularity. You can powerlevel a new FC to 6 in the span of like 2 hours of spamming Shisui of the Violet Tides, but you need like 10k credits for 1 voyage or something like that. Shell FCs aren't spamming them in other words. The only real benefit is gardening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SXTC

There are a lot of people out there that register FC's just to get houses with options, then kick everyone so they are the only people left in that FC. So technically those houses are not being used to form communities, simply because people know FC's get priority when relocating houses and because FC's get benefits.

I've seen a lot of FC's out there that have less then 10 members and the month after that still hasn't changed... some even have only 1 or 3 members and next time you see them weeks after its still the same while those players are clearly online.. Tho its often just 1 or 2 of them at the same time. It's unfair that some people can't get housing because some who "claim" to build communities are not even trying to achieve that.
I'm sure SE only gave them priority in the assumption that an FC that builds a community potentially can persuade people to resub for a longer amount of time assuming they have fun as a group. So I believe everyone not meeting this expectation should lose their benefits!

So please add an option where FC's require at least 10 different members to log in once every 30 days. That way FC's have to be larger then 10 members for it to maintain a constant 10+ logins and fake FC's would lose their housing much faster.

---

My FC is small, consisting of a relatively miniscule number of friends and some alts, but we use our FC house. Why should we be punished because of less scrupulous players, Karen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

Thinking about this it does make me wonder if the workshop needs another look at by SE. Is it perhaps too easy to get a workshop up to date even with a relatively new fc? I don't recall it being difficult for us to achieve this and we're certainly not a fc who heavily concentrate on it. Even when we lag behind it never takes us long to catch up. Could this be a contributing factor as to why it's quite tempting to create shell fcs? Because the amount of workshop effort involved isn't quite as much as it could or even should be? I would be very interested to read people's opinions about this. Especially anyone from a fc who craft with the workshop content very often.

---

With respect to the workshop, I don't see why any FC should feel penalized for being "new". There's still going to be a time investment to rank up all the vessels assuming no one in the FC is rich and willing to buy the parts off the MB.

Then again, having someone rich in the FC willing to donate the gil is generally the only way the FC will get a house in the first place. FCs have no gil making activities that deposit the gil directly to the FC chest. They're reliant on member donations until they get their first airship/submersible built.

It's not how easy it is to get the workshop up to date that creates an incentive for shell FCs. It's how easy it is for a single player to get a FC to the rank necessary to purchase a house. I remember when the wards were added in 4.2 and SE announced that only FCs would be allowed to buy at first that people were posting guides on how solo players could get an FC to the proper rank within 2 days. It's too easy to spam Expert delivery turn-ins or mass craft HQ items to generate the credits.

If SE wants to promote FCs as active social groups instead of gil making opportunities, they need to take a look at what WoW did with guild levels, perks and challenges - then try to avoid making some of the mistakes that ended up causing the system to suffer. The guild challenges themselves were a good idea - the guild was rewarded for doing things as a guild group. Maybe if FC houses were purchased with company credits instead of gil but company credits could only be earned while doing specific content with a group that includes at least 3 FC members? The game is old enough it's probably not worth SE's time to overhaul the FC system beyond what they're working on for rank permissions to cut down on theft by compromised accounts.

Quote:

---

The number of FCs in general (real and shell) doing this has greatly increased the number of rare items getting to market, driving the prices down rapidly compared to the past

---

This tier is also absolute garbage compared to prior tiers.

No mount.
No minion.
No rare component for house item crafting.
No uncommon component for sub or house upgrading.
No uncommon or rare component for glam.
No common, high-use component for crafting (either workshop or FOR workshop).
No "oh wow, really?" luxury crafting item from old content. (polarized glass from a couple sub updates ago)

The same sub builds that were good last tier are just as good this tier.There's one new sub build thats seeing use, but it has a 4 day turnaround time, and won't be better than 2x 2day.

The profit this tier is down because the new sectors added 1 thing that people care about, and its a novelty umbrella that anyone who just wants an umbrella won't spend money on because you can get one from restoration for a few k in mats.


You could add hi-mythrite and dress material to the loot table and they would instantly be the most valuable thing added this batch by an unsurpassable margin.