Housing Credit System

Proposal for housing credit system with the following features:
- equal opportunity housing availability based on the amount of effort players are putting into the game
- scale outpaces housing demand and ensures ample supply

Approach:
Players accumulate land use credits by a combination of crafting, combat and time, with the goal of ensuring players stay active to be rewarded. To discourage grinding or botting, this is capped daily, similar to the offline xp buff to balance casual and hardcore gamers.

Land use credits redeem for a small, medium or large land token. Instead of purchasing a lot and construction permit directly with gil, users purchase using tokens. Since increased player activity directly correlates to increased active number of subscribers (ref), the time to acquire a token has a net positive effect on subscriber income. This provides a control variable (average time to produce token) to correlate with the necessary hardware investment for increased housing.

FAQ:
Q: How is this any different than grinding for gil and how will this increase my chance of getting a home?
A: Take for example a group of 10 players who all start playing the game at the same time. In the current system, in a fresh server, the first of these players to reach the minimum gil requirements for land are likely (by some percentage) to purchase and build homes. Lets say the server can currently accommodate 1 home per 1 active players (my current math indicates this is true per yoshi-p on max 5k FF concurrent user per server divided by homes per area * areas ~50*30*5~6k). In the current system, each of these players are eligible. This idea of land for every one active player causes shortages when exceptions occur and inactive players are granted land for extended periods. By creating a higher barrier for entry which is not purely monetary and instead is merit based; obtaining a house becomes a rare, challenging and rewarding accomplishment.

Q: There are alot of assertions and guesswork in the math and statistics. How can we have confidence this would actually work?
A: Even if I had access to the raw data to do the math, there would be alot of guesswork because the system is built on human behavior and we have yet to create a universal economics model to account for all human behaviors (or if you have, you are working on wall street/HK and keeping it to yourself). One of the ways we can test if players will like new ideas is A/B testing. For example, launch a new server with some incentive such as gained XP but at the caveat that housing uses an experimental system. If the experiment is successful on this server, you have gained hard data on the value proposition.

Q: What about FC homes?
A: One simple solution using this approach is to require N members to provide tokens for the FC home purchase. All members providing tokens could use a system similar to the one for forming the FC which required multiple signatures to create it.

I'd like to point you to the Fix Housing Megathread ^.~

It'll make it easier for SE to see our housing requests if theyre all in one place.

Thank Milkie, added to megathread.

Crafting, combat, and time also produce gil. I still think the fix is putting ARR prices back. 40m small, 200m medium, 500m large. Those were the original prices.

Players: Please, cheaper!
Yoshi P: The rich will buy entire wards, then
Players: Please!

We literally begged devs for the system we have currently. This suggestion seems sort of in spirit with bringing the prices back up, so that essentially players 1-5 months old aren't competing for houses with 6-18 months old players. Unfortunately, I don't see an entirely new housing only currency being programmed in, any more than an instanced housing system.

Not only your idea is unpractical and encourage botting; you don't understand the fundamental issue is supply (hardware servers) is unable to meet the demand (rapid player base growth)

New players will never be able to get a house because they will never be able to compete with old players; therefore, no, not a great idea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catstab

Crafting, combat, and time also produce gil. I still think the fix is putting ARR prices back. 40m small, 200m medium, 500m large. Those were the original prices.

Players: Please, cheaper!
Yoshi P: The rich will buy entire wards, then
Players: Please!

We literally begged devs for the system we have currently. This suggestion seems sort of in spirit with bringing the prices back up, so that essentially players 1-5 months old aren't competing for houses with 6-18 months old players. Unfortunately, I don't see an entirely new housing only currency being programmed in, any more than an instanced housing system.

---

New currencies are programmed in all the time, this piggybacks off the token system we have for every new raid tier, trial etc.

The benefit of the token system over gil is the rate which you make gil is not directly related to your time investment. This system would be similar to the "hunt log" and "craft log" except reward you with a token.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

Not only your idea is unpractical and encourage botting; you don't understand the fundamental issue is supply (hardware servers) is unable to meet the demand (rapid player base growth)

New players will never be able to get a house because they will never be able to compete with old players; therefore, no, not a great idea

---

This idea addresses the fundamental problem, in this case the economics priciple is price elasticity of demand.
"Price elasticity of demand is a measurement of the change in consumption of a product in relation to a change in its price."

When you make the good or service more expensive (more difficult to attain), then the supply available is not consumed as quickly (with variable coeffecient for luxury goods). When new housing is released in Ishgard, in the current system, to your point, new players will have less chance of attaining unless they have the minimum gil necessary and/or already have a home (assuming the transfer mechanic will still be in place). If all players at the time of release needed to complete some set of "hunt/craft/X logs" with diminishing returns outside of the "offline xp" buff, the resulting purchase tokens will have a competitive rush where all players have an opportunity to attain it.

This is not an impractical idea since it applies the same token approach to housing that we already have for weekly gathering and raiding rewards. It doesn't encourage botting unless you have a bot that you can do all of your crafting/gathering/combat for you, in which case, you will have the same chance as someone who is not botting due to the offline xp buff which discourages continuous back-to-back grinding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharlim

This idea addresses the fundamental problem, in this case the economics priciple is price elasticity of demand.
"Price elasticity of demand is a measurement of the change in consumption of a product in relation to a change in its price."

---

For one, your idea only encourages botting resulting much negative impacts on entire FF14 as whole.
Second and most important of all, FF14 house issue is result of supply (sever hardware) is unable to meet demand (player base growth)
Issue was never how you obtain a plot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharlim

New currencies are programmed in all the time

---

FC credits, gil, tomestones, etc has all existed for years. Now if you're saying "like raid tokens" then you mean an actual inventory item? That sounds like a mistake "Oops I left my housing tokens on my retainer"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharlim

This idea addresses the fundamental problem.

---

The fundamental problem is that the number of houses available world wide is less than the number of players world wide, not to mention the supply of houses is static across all worlds while the player populations vary widely. Some JP worlds are in a decent position because there are 5,760 houses to share among their 6,500 active players (not every player wants a house, of course). Compare that to NA worlds with the same 5,760 houses to share between 15,000 players.

Your suggestion addresses nothing. It's just exchanging the Hello Kitty Band-aids for Teenage Mutant Turtle Band-aids. It doesn't matter how many tokens you've got if there is still no house to buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

For one, your idea only encourages botting resulting much negative impacts on entire FF14 as whole.
Second and most important of all, FF14 house issue is result of supply (sever hardware) is unable to meet demand (player base growth)
Issue was never how you obtain a plot.

---

Does it encourage botting more than a new set of trials or crafting/grinding quests?

re: housing supply see response to Jojoya below on how this approach increases the price to balance the demand (player base growth) to meet the supply (server hardware)
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...ect-prices.asp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catstab

FC credits, gil, tomestones, etc has all existed for years. Now if you're saying "like raid tokens" then you mean an actual inventory item? That sounds like a mistake "Oops I left my housing tokens on my retainer"

---

Yep, you got it. Personally to me it sounds exclusive and fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

The fundamental problem is that the number of houses available world wide is less than the number of players world wide, not to mention the supply of houses is static across all worlds while the player populations vary widely. Some JP worlds are in a decent position because there are 5,760 houses to share among their 6,500 active players (not every player wants a house, of course). Compare that to NA worlds with the same 5,760 houses to share between 15,000 players.

Your suggestion addresses nothing. It's just exchanging the Hello Kitty Band-aids for Teenage Mutant Turtle Band-aids. It doesn't matter how many tokens you've got if there is still no house to buy.

---

Right - to address the fundamental problem on the quantity of houses available not meeting the demand from the number of players seeking houses - this proposal makes acquiring a house an endgame activity. How many of the 15k NA players have cleared every alliance raid, normal raid, trial/ex trial, crafting challenges etc. Players would need to be endgame to acquire and this drastically reduces the drain on supply since the number of players who can clear the required hurdles is alot less.

Instead of housing as it is today - which all players feel they are entitled too once they have a few mil, housing becomes a goal that you are rewarded with after putting in the effort. It gives you something to work towards and feels good when you acquire it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharlim

Right - to address the fundamental problem on the quantity of houses available not meeting the demand from the number of players seeking houses - this proposal makes acquiring a house an endgame activity. How many of the 15k NA players have cleared every alliance raid, normal raid, trial/ex trial, crafting challenges etc. Players would need to be endgame to acquire and this drastically reduces the drain on supply since the number of players who can clear the required hurdles is alot less.

Instead of housing as it is today - which all players feel they are entitled too once they have a few mil, housing becomes a goal that you are rewarded with after putting in the effort. It gives you something to work towards and feels good when you acquire it.

---

Why should any player be forced into specific end game activity just to have a chance to enjoy a house, which has nothing to do with combat? That makes no sense.

In the end, we're all paying the same subscription fee to get access to the content we specifically enjoy. Telling a customer that they are less deserving of the product they enjoy because they don't pay all of your other products and/or don't spend all of their money with your company is a good way to lose customers completely.

SE has already set requirements to be eligible to own property. Reach level 50 and obtain the rank of Second Lietenant with your chosen Grand Company. Adding in additional requirements, especially one that relies heavily on time investment, is not only necessary it is unhealthy for both the player and for the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharlim

Does it encourage botting more than a new set of trials or crafting/grinding quests?

re: housing supply see response to Jojoya below on how this approach increases the price to balance the demand (player base growth) to meet the supply (server hardware)
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...ect-prices.asp

---

Do you even realize how absurd that idea is and the consequence that costing this game.
Not mention it not only encourage more botting and it will also encourages people to buy clear from RMT group
You are just going to destroy the community and turned this game into unofficial pay to win
Why am I saying that?
It is simple, non raider is the majority for mmorpg
We don’t need another credit system
FC credit already proven it does nothing

A credit system actually already exists. It’s the Grand Company Seals, in form of your Grand Company rank. Second Lieutenant is required to purchase any housing. It fits the lore and it is achievable through both combat and non-combat means.

Problem with anything sold by NPC is that it does not scale well as the game expands. What used to require full raid can be solo’d an expansion or two later. What was an astronomical sum to most is now gained by simply going through MSQ. And once you have set a rate, it would cause tremendous backlash to raise that rate. Existing players would get upset that what seemed to be almost within their reach a while ago is now pushed further away. New players would feel that they can never catch up so they lose the will to continue.

If SE actually considers to make housing availability to be tied to special achievements, it’ll need to be implemented in a new residential area to avoid backlash. So it would not solve the issue with existing housing areas, and controversy is likely to ensue among the “top” players (whatever the type) on where the cut-off line should have been.

And if an exclusive area is set up to top-raiders, drama would ensue among FCs and static’s on who gets into the raid first once it becomes farm status (or even before that). And a large sum of gil (or real world money) would likely be given to the top raiding groups to “escort” their client to get the achievement needed for housing.

It’s a scenario that benefit only the top 1%. It’ll do nothing to decrease the demand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharlim

Yep, you got it. Personally to me it sounds exclusive and fun.

---

"Exclusive and fun" lol

At least you wrote personaly, which is an important detail: you're sugesting an activity log based on stuff YOU think are relevant in a game that caters to a multitude of playstyles. And the devs themselves recognize this, having differences in playstyle reason enough for a vote kick.

So, yeah. By making the system worse you're just hiding the problem, not addressing it at all. Hard pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

Why should any player be forced into specific end game activity just to have a chance to enjoy a house, which has nothing to do with combat? That makes no sense.

In the end, we're all paying the same subscription fee to get access to the content we specifically enjoy. Telling a customer that they are less deserving of the product they enjoy because they don't pay all of your other products and/or don't spend all of their money with your company is a good way to lose customers completely.

SE has already set requirements to be eligible to own property. Reach level 50 and obtain the rank of Second Lietenant with your chosen Grand Company. Adding in additional requirements, especially one that relies heavily on time investment, is not only necessary it is unhealthy for both the player and for the game.

---

To your point, there are already requirements in place - level 50 and 2nd LT with GC. One of my core arguments is this requirement is outdated and has not scaled with the game and should be raised.

I completely argee on the potential impact of your counterargument; the introduction of the housing credit/token system I am proposing would make housing less accessible to all players. SE has done a pretty good at this though in other regards. For example, you can reach essentially max ilvl now through multiple means - crafting, bozjan and raiding. IMO it would be bad for players to be required to do some specific content they are not interested in - but if there were multiple paths - then it becomes similar to attaining endgame mounts and/or endgame gear.

This fits into the existing flow how we invest our time into the game already. Imagine an endgame "housing points tree/nodes", where maybe combat oriented players get different options than crafters, etc. Players who love to complete everything are then given another level of depth. There was a classic secret of mana game that did something like this and I loved spending hours developing the different areas. Stardew Valley is another modern example, though this level of complexity may start to overlap with instance based housing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

Do you even realize how absurd that idea is and the consequence that costing this game.
Not mention it not only encourage more botting and it will also encourages people to buy clear from RMT group
You are just going to destroy the community and turned this game into unofficial pay to win
Why am I saying that?
It is simple, non raider is the majority for mmorpg
We don’t need another credit system
FC credit already proven it does nothing

---

Lots to respond to in this blurb. Will try to extrapolate your main points:
1. feeling that this idea will make the game worse, with specific example of encouraging RMT
2. non-raiders are majority and this proposal does not cater to the majority
3. credit(s) system(s) already exists (GC/FC) and are not useful

For 1 - any activity in the game which is easily repeated can be botted. This credit/token system I am proposing does add potentially another system with some inherent repeatable nature since I propose crafting is one way to get points/credits/tokens, and I've even heard of raiding bots also. The only options I see to solve this are to remove/replace/do not add any new systems which are easily repeatable or come up with a new system.

For 2 - raiding would be one way to get the "housing points/credits/tokens". If you've played a game which has a graph/node/tree based skill system, this is how I imagine this, where you can reach equivalent nodes through multiple means - such as crafting or combat - so you are not forced into one particular activity.

For 3 - I think the existing GC and/or FC credit system could potentially be a part of this proposed system. Open to any ideas here. The existing system is so intertwined with other resources and activities though that I think a new credit/token would be simpler to implement rather than overhaul the existing one, and maybe phase it out over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seleni

A credit system actually already exists. It’s the Grand Company Seals, in form of your Grand Company rank. Second Lieutenant is required to purchase any housing. It fits the lore and it is achievable through both combat and non-combat means.

(reduced full quote fit word count)

It’s a scenario that benefit only the top 1%. It’ll do nothing to decrease the demand.

---

Cool, some good points in here! Dissecting it; let me know if this does not summarize your main points accurately:
1. how does this proposal scale better than the existing GC credit system and/or anything sold by NPCs
2. rolling out achievement locked housing in control groups and new residential areas vs retrofitting existing areas
3. does this idea propose an exclusive area/option for top raiders

I want to respond with thoughts on these in reverse order, because I think 2 and 1 are potentially a lot longer more complex debate than 3.

For 3, I've seen this sentiment from a few people, so I probably didn't explain my thoughts on this very well initially. Raiding would be one option in the "housing skill tree", but you could also follow a "crafting branch" in the tree to get the same results as a top-raider for example. So it would encourage endgame specialization in area(s) of your choosing.

For 2, I would recommend standing this system up the next time a new server is added to a DC with this new housing system, encourage new players using leveling incentives, and use this approach to A/B test rather than retrofitting into an existing world. Retrofitting into an existing world is an interesting idea though also, since it opens the option for the new area to have different new features gated behind this new system and if players sell their homes in old areas to get into the new area this could open up housing as well, so this could also be a formula to play with.

For 1, this is an interesting point on long term implications of the scalability of such as a system. In a simplified example, if I need to get 1 gatherer and 1 crafter to 80 for a small or 100 raids etc, 2-2 for med or 200 raids, 3-3 for large or 300 raids, then the general population can potentially reach critical mass due to the reasons you mentioned (easier for more tenured players with higher ilevel and more friends). In this scenario, either you have to continue increasing the difficulty in which case new players have a seemingly unachievable goal or you wind up in the same situation again, it just kicks the can down the road for X years. If you have a better solution that does not have this same side effect, I'm in support, but I honestly think this is OK to defer for a few years because it provides time for more hardware and hosting cost planning it should become cheaper to simply add more resources (so long as crypto mining doesn't shut down the internet) but I admit this makes assumptions about the server infrastructure which I don't know. The hardware utility trend could also be a completely wrong prediction and maybe overly risky assessment, open to additional thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rofel

"Exclusive and fun" lol

At least you wrote personaly, which is an important detail: you're sugesting an activity log based on stuff YOU think are relevant in a game that caters to a multitude of playstyles. And the devs themselves recognize this, having differences in playstyle reason enough for a vote kick.

So, yeah. By making the system worse you're just hiding the problem, not addressing it at all. Hard pass.

---

Yep, we're really all sharing opinions on these forums and not facts for the most part, since we don't have alot of data on player activity and strong correlations on player behaviors to different feature releases etc.

In retrospect I should have maybe titled it "housing skill tree" since I'm proposing essentially tokens to unlock nodes in a tree or graph. IMO this approach would make the housing system better and cater to multiple playstyles (raiding, crafting etc), but that might not have been clear from all the discussions so far or you may not agree, and that's OK.

I understand, and I'm sorry if my wording was harsh.

It's just the bucket list of what should be rewarded rubbed me in the wrong way, plus the "entitlement" argument because I think I didn't get what is the scenario of your proposal.

When you say "the server can currently accommodate 1 home per 1 active players" is this based on what? A fresh server, which does not address what we current have, or a clean state on housing itself?

I do agree the current system does not work, and I would not have a problem in "making the player work" for a house, as long as said player is able to get the house after the hurdle, which I don't see (yet) how this system would address the shortage problem besides trying to discourage the majority of the casual playerbase to engage in this content.

Again, sorry about my rant, it was uncalled for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharlim

Yep, we're really all sharing opinions on these forums and not facts for the most part, since we don't have alot of data on player activity and strong correlations on player behaviors to different feature releases etc.

In retrospect I should have maybe titled it "housing skill tree" since I'm proposing essentially tokens to unlock nodes in a tree or graph. IMO this approach would make the housing system better and cater to multiple playstyles (raiding, crafting etc), but that might not have been clear from all the discussions so far or you may not agree, and that's OK.

---

No worries Rofel! I agree with most everything you said and you raise a good argument towards how to keep it fair for all players. I think this is solvable though in the context of this credit/skill system, but I also concede some of the other housing ideas in the forums could have less tradeoffs.

For the one home per one active player, this is based on a pretty big statistical assertion I have that somewhere around half of active players invest in housing plots and the other half either stop short and rotate out for new players coming in or just stick with FC housing and apartments. There are a alot of holes in this model, one glaring one that you can have more than 1 plot and an FC apartment etc, but I think XIV team has a similar model considering the numbers below.

In NA active players according to ffxivcensus.com is 280k. Game Housing has 4 districts x 24 wards x 60 plots = 5760 x servers(8 aether + 8 primal + 8 crystal) = 138,240 housing plots spread across NA. The statistics here might even be stochastic since players tend to concentrate on some servers more than others and player progression per server is likely not evenly distributed either. But I think it’s interesting that the number of housing plots across NA is roughly 50% the active player projection. I could be overthinking it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharlim

For the one home per one active player, this is based on a pretty big statistical assertion I have that somewhere around half of active players invest in housing plots and the other half either stop short and rotate out for new players coming in or just stick with FC housing and apartments.

---

Can you share your statistics please?
How were these stats compiled?

Or, hear me out.

We can stop coming up with ways to punish other players and put more pressure on SE to solve the problem they created in a way that is fair to everyone paying the same each month in subscription costs. I know its easy to point fingers and scream "but they don't play as much as I or partake in the same content as I, so therefore I deserve exclusive access to this other piece of content and they do not". But it is not other players that are the problem. It is the way SE is handling housing on a more fundamental basis. I think everyone deserves a house if they want one.

Housing is in and of itself its own piece on content, not a reward for completing content, like weapon or armor drops. Some people I am sure like to log in and decorate their homes and have little interest in other aspects of the game. They are still playing the game, they are still partaking in their favorite piece of content and should be able to reap the benefits of that content without some other dude screaming at them from afar that they are more deserving just because they feel they are. It is not up to us to police other players or try to have them punished for enjoying the content they enjoy. It is up to us to put more pressure on SE to open that content to all who want to partake.

Should we need to farm tokens on a consistent basis to participate in savage, or ultimate? What about the 24 man raids? Hunts? And then only have a set number of instances open and getting into one of those instances was done by a lotto or by having to click on the entrance for hours. Hoping that someone already in the instance ran out of tokens and is going to be forcibly removed. Imagine if this was the case? Ppl would be going nuts, putting pressure on SE to change it. So why is it that with a piece of content like housing, we don't look to SE for change, and instead we try to come up with the most creative ways possible to say they we are more entitled that someone else and therefore should have exclusive access?

Other players are not the problem. You are not more deserving to have access to a piece of content just because you feel you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catstab

Crafting, combat, and time also produce gil. I still think the fix is putting ARR prices back. 40m small, 200m medium, 500m large. Those were the original prices.

Players: Please, cheaper!
Yoshi P: The rich will buy entire wards, then
Players: Please!

We literally begged devs for the system we have currently. This suggestion seems sort of in spirit with bringing the prices back up, so that essentially players 1-5 months old aren't competing for houses with 6-18 months old players. Unfortunately, I don't see an entirely new housing only currency being programmed in, any more than an instanced housing system.

---

Bringing old prices is no different then now. Most players having no chance. Worse old prices will make rmt worse, rmt players will have a field day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MicahZerrshia

Or, hear me out.

We can stop coming up with ways to punish other players and put more pressure on SE to solve the problem they created in a way that is fair to everyone paying the same each month in subscription costs. I know its easy to point fingers and scream "but they don't play as much as I or partake in the same content as I, so therefore I deserve exclusive access to this other piece of content and they do not". But it is not other players that are the problem. It is the way SE is handling housing on a more fundamental basis. I think everyone deserves a house if they want one.

Housing is in and of itself its own piece on content, not a reward for completing content, like weapon or armor drops. Some people I am sure like to log in and decorate their homes and have little interest in other aspects of the game. They are still playing the game, they are still partaking in their favorite piece of content and should be able to reap the benefits of that content without some other dude screaming at them from afar that they are more deserving just because they feel they are. It is not up to us to police other players or try to have them punished for enjoying the content they enjoy. It is up to us to put more pressure on SE to open that content to all who want to partake.

Should we need to farm tokens on a consistent basis to participate in savage, or ultimate? What about the 24 man raids? Hunts? And then only have a set number of instances open and getting into one of those instances was done by a lotto or by having to click on the entrance for hours. Hoping that someone already in the instance ran out of tokens and is going to be forcibly removed. Imagine if this was the case? Ppl would be going nuts, putting pressure on SE to change it. So why is it that with a piece of content like housing, we don't look to SE for change, and instead we try to come up with the most creative ways possible to say they we are more entitled that someone else and therefore should have exclusive access?

Other players are not the problem. You are not more deserving to have access to a piece of content just because you feel you do.

---

Well said, weary of the "entitled" thinking they should get more than any other subscriber by time spent or deeds done No imagined "punishments", this is supposed to be a positive experience lol.

There is a thing though for those that will and will not do these things.

SE want everyone to have a chance at things, that is why it is not going to happen... they want the 1month old new player as well as the 5 year veteran to have a shot at it, and that is how it is going to remain, removal og grandfathering and 1 person FC's would be in its place, or just with the new coming areas up, make it so if not already, that if you try to relocate a house you wont be able to as already exceeded the limit, FC included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Besame

Well said, weary of the "entitled" thinking they should get more than any other subscriber by time spent or deeds done No imagined "punishments", this is supposed to be a positive experience lol.

---

If housing was truly a positive experience, we wouldn't have horror stores of people failing Signage Ultimate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MicahZerrshia

Or, hear me out.

We can stop coming up with ways to punish other players and put more pressure on SE to solve the problem they created in a way that is fair to everyone paying the same each month in subscription costs. I know its easy to point fingers and scream "but they don't play as much as I or partake in the same content as I, so therefore I deserve exclusive access to this other piece of content and they do not". But it is not other players that are the problem. It is the way SE is handling housing on a more fundamental basis. I think everyone deserves a house if they want one.

Housing is in and of itself its own piece on content, not a reward for completing content, like weapon or armor drops. Some people I am sure like to log in and decorate their homes and have little interest in other aspects of the game. They are still playing the game, they are still partaking in their favorite piece of content and should be able to reap the benefits of that content without some other dude screaming at them from afar that they are more deserving just because they feel they are. It is not up to us to police other players or try to have them punished for enjoying the content they enjoy. It is up to us to put more pressure on SE to open that content to all who want to partake.

Should we need to farm tokens on a consistent basis to participate in savage, or ultimate? What about the 24 man raids? Hunts? And then only have a set number of instances open and getting into one of those instances was done by a lotto or by having to click on the entrance for hours. Hoping that someone already in the instance ran out of tokens and is going to be forcibly removed. Imagine if this was the case? Ppl would be going nuts, putting pressure on SE to change it. So why is it that with a piece of content like housing, we don't look to SE for change, and instead we try to come up with the most creative ways possible to say they we are more entitled that someone else and therefore should have exclusive access?

Other players are not the problem. You are not more deserving to have access to a piece of content just because you feel you do.

---

Agree 100%. Everyone who pays their sub should have the same opportunities, this was actually at the heart of my proposal through a merit based system - but it's alot more complex than a lottery system which can achieve the same result with less complexity to manage.

This thread and the others in the megathread served the purpose of providing visibility to SE, and looks like they are moving forward with the lottery system + fc housing. I hope their decision was in part influenced by these forum discussions. If so, I would say these conversations were a success, thank you for your feedback!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItMe

Can you share your statistics please?
How were these stats compiled?

---

I used https://ffxivcensus.com/ for population estimates and counted the number of available houses on each server in my datacenter as the sample set. At the time I wrote this every server in my DC on average only had a handful of plots available. Larger sample set across all DCs would improve accuracy which is why I mentioned it's a "pretty big statistical assertion", but keep in mind many institutions regularly support statements with much smaller sample sizes!

280000 active NA players based on ffxivcensus/24 servers/5520 plots per server = approximately 2 players per house. If this is close to reality, it means about half of active players would be without a home or sharing FC housing and apartments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Besame

Well said, weary of the "entitled" thinking they should get more than any other subscriber by time spent or deeds done No imagined "punishments", this is supposed to be a positive experience lol.

---

Not sure how the thread started to take this turn, but appreciate the positivity and reinforcement that we are all equal!

Unless anyone has any other thoughts on this thread I would consider this topic closed as SE has announced a new housing lottery + FC system. Thanks everyone for your feedback and discussion!

Recap link of the live letter which discussing new housing lottery:
https://novacrystallis.com/2021/07/f...mark-detailed/