Housing Rant

to put it simple:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anByAnxx8EA

Okay? We know it's not okay to have Shell FCs. What we don't need is yet another post about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyhawk

Okay? We know it's not okay to have Shell FCs. What we don't need is yet another post about it.

---

Until Square Enix does something about it, it is indeed okay to have Shell FCs and own an entire ward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oizen

Until Square Enix does something about it, it is indeed okay to have Shell FCs and own an entire ward.

---

You are mistaken. The fact that they have taken steps literally against FCs proves otherwise. You are justifying a loophole in their already not-well-thoughtout plans. Just because they have not put a logical, common sense method in doesn't mean it's okay to do it.

That's like trying to justify crimes. "Sure, we know it's bad to hurt little Timmy, but in the end it's okay because we were born with arms and hands to slap him around a bit."

I actually think you are mistaken. They were working within the system as it was implemented. I wouldn't even call it a loophole, and I certainly wouldn't compare it to a "crime" lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyhawk

You are mistaken. The fact that they have taken steps literally against FCs proves otherwise. You are justifying a loophole in their already not-well-thoughtout plans. Just because they have not put a logical, common sense method in doesn't mean it's okay to do it.

That's like trying to justify crimes. "Sure, we know it's bad to hurt little Timmy, but in the end it's okay because we were born with arms and hands to slap him around a bit."

---

Justifying? No no, I don't like it, I think they're assholes for doing it. If it was up to me, I'd ban them from owning houses permanently, and remove all their houses without refunding any items in them
But its not up to me, its up to Square Enix, who have done absolutely nothing about this issue for years, they dont even really acknowledge it.

Rules without enforcement aren't rules, they're suggestions.
As such, in the current environment that Square Enix allows to exist, owning an entire ward or buying houses with shell FCs with the intention of RMT trading or whatever, is perfectly fine.

I do not like it, I wish they would do something about it, but this isn't a new issue, this has been ongoing for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyhawk

You are mistaken. The fact that they have taken steps literally against FCs proves otherwise. You are justifying a loophole in their already not-well-thoughtout plans. Just because they have not put a logical, common sense method in doesn't mean it's okay to do it.

That's like trying to justify crimes. "Sure, we know it's bad to hurt little Timmy, but in the end it's okay because we were born with arms and hands to slap him around a bit."

---

The steps they're taking are to hinder RMT resales of houses. The only impact the changes have on shell FCs is to make them wait 30 days after creating the FC to buy a house.

SE has made it clear that they're fine with the shell FCs when the "owned as buyer" restriction is placed at the character level, not the account level. If they weren't okay with them, they would have made it account level. They would have also placed a restriction on the minimum number of members needed to retain a house instead of just buy a house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

The steps they're taking are to hinder RMT resales of houses.

---

Yeah, pretty much. hinder but they can't stop it...

(From a reselling discord)
https://i.gyazo.com/97a0f835e567de1f...8a11530082.png

Mentioned in Kotaku (Click bait champion of the world, but still)

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2022/04/in...ousing-crisis/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibi

Mentioned in Kotaku (Click bait champion of the world, but still)

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2022/04/in...ousing-crisis/

---

the amount of misinformation in that article.

oh why do I bother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nepentha

the amount of misinformation in that article.

---

IKR!

Kotaku normal! "You won't believe what Naoki did to FFXIV housing!"

Has Kotaku ever been anything but tabloid journalism for the gaming world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arohk

to put it simple:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anByAnxx8EA

---

It is an idiot with a mic, that in populistic way is trying to get attention and don't got what it takes to be civil about it anyway.

How am I goign to take this person serious, with all these curse words, it is highly immature, and I would say it cater especially to very young people who does not know better anyway.

You can maximum have 1 house 1 fc house per account per server, if that person has multiple accounts, then they are paid for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

Has Kotaku ever been anything but tabloid journalism for the gaming world?

---

There are some trying for the crown!

https://i.gyazo.com/541838875de1e1d4...a0333f19c7.jpg

I wonder how much Activision Blizzard paid for that article

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oizen

I wonder how much Activision Blizzard paid for that article

---

I think the "author" can be bought for a nickel. But the final paragraph of that dross...

Quote:

---

Fortunately, the smarter players will know to move to World of Warcraft....where the developers actually listen to the player base.

---

ROFL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Themarvin

It is an idiot with a mic, that in populistic way is trying to get attention and don't got what it takes to be civil about it anyway.

How am I goign to take this person serious, with all these curse words, it is highly immature, and I would say it cater especially to very young people who does not know better anyway.

You can maximum have 1 house 1 fc house per account per server, if that person has multiple accounts, then they are paid for.

---

No one cares. You shouldn't have multiple service accounts so you can own multiple houses, and you should lose them all anyway. There is no way when you're contributing to that much of the problem that you're unaware its an issue, someone will tell you at some point and you have to decide on your own (as an awful person) that you don't care. That's just breaking the system.

In general, shell FCs owning houses is insane, and should provide almost no benefit whatsoever. You're only supposed to have one FC to do Company Workshop stuff with. At the very least, it should be the case that shell FCs (if they must exist) don't need a house to do any of that, just disassociate housing from company workshop activity. SE didn't give you an officially sanctioned work around by having you make other service accounts to own extra houses; they put the limitation there purposefully.

I really don't know why anyone would be opposed to instanced housing. If people complained enough about housing to get them to implement a stupid lottery system, they should clamor for that instead and get them to finally just do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corvus_V

No one cares. You shouldn't have multiple service accounts so you can own multiple houses, and you should lose them all anyway. There is no way when you're contributing to that much of the problem that you're unaware its an issue, someone will tell you at some point and you have to decide on your own (as an awful person) that you don't care. That's just breaking the system.

In general, shell FCs owning houses is insane, and should provide almost no benefit whatsoever. You're only supposed to have one FC to do Company Workshop stuff with. At the very least, it should be the case that shell FCs (if they must exist) don't need a house to do any of that, just disassociate housing from company workshop activity. SE didn't give you an officially sanctioned work around by having you make other service accounts to own extra houses; they put the limitation there purposefully.

I really don't know why anyone would be opposed to instanced housing. If people complained enough about housing to get them to implement a stupid lottery system, they should clamor for that instead and get them to finally just do that.

---

IF this is the new servers you refer to, then you can only have 1 house 1 FC per account per server, the amounts of houses you see there is either an FC with other people in it which has their alts make an FC + buy a house and possible multiple subscriptions involved as well.

Otherwise SE would step in as you have used a hack or exploit, as for the idiot with the mic, I stand with statement and so should you, was nothing but rude, immature and the typical conspiracy terrorist approach things adding nothing to the debate other than fuel on the fire, nothing constructive nothing at all nada, he earns his money on haters and easy to push people much the same way as terrorist leaders lures new prospects into their fold then tell them lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibi

There are some trying for the crown!

https://i.gyazo.com/541838875de1e1d4...a0333f19c7.jpg

---

I laughed so hard when I read that. It has to be satirical. No one is this ignorant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oizen

I wonder how much Activision Blizzard paid for that article

---

I quit WoW when they screwed up my Tree healer before Pandas and never looked back. I played for 8 yrs but only takes 1 thing to set me off looking for something else. It's just a game and there is always something out there that works :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyhawk

You are mistaken. The fact that they have taken steps literally against FCs proves otherwise. You are justifying a loophole in their already not-well-thoughtout plans. Just because they have not put a logical, common sense method in doesn't mean it's okay to do it.

That's like trying to justify crimes. "Sure, we know it's bad to hurt little Timmy, but in the end it's okay because we were born with arms and hands to slap him around a bit."

---

Provide evidence of them doing something. They aren't doing anything about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corvus_V

No one cares. You shouldn't have multiple service accounts so you can own multiple houses, and you should lose them all anyway.

---

There's nothing wrong with owning multiple services accounts to partake more of the game content you enjoy. Those who do are paying more to get the additional access.

The problem is SE not limiting the number of houses a single service account can have when there are not enough houses for every service account to have one house let alone multiple houses. The problem is SE prioritizing FCs without setting standards for what separates a FC from a solo player.

If the limit was 1 personal, 1 FC house per service account then someone with a single service accounts would still only have 2 houses. Because the limit is 1 personal and 1 FC house "owned as buyer" per world per service account, someone with one service accounts is technically able to get up to 9 houses per world and up to 80 houses total. Getting all 80 on a single service account is not likely to happen due to competition for plots on most worlds but we see it's certainly possible when there's no competition.

We can complain about what other players do all we want but as long as they are playing within the rules of the game, they are doing nothing wrong. It's on SE to fix and enforce their rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Battler-Ushiromiya

Provide evidence of them doing something. They aren't doing anything about it.

---

They are doing things. They aren't doing meaningful things that will solve the problems. They only deter those not really committed to housing as content, or who lack the time needed to take advantage of the loopholes.

But then that's what comes from having players insist a lottery will make them happy when a lottery doesn't solve what's actually making them frustrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

There's nothing wrong with owning multiple services accounts to partake more of the game content you enjoy. Those who do are paying more to get the additional access.

The problem is SE not limiting the number of houses a single service account can have when there are not enough houses for every service account to have one house let alone multiple houses. The problem is SE prioritizing FCs without setting standards for what separates a FC from a solo player.

If the limit was 1 personal, 1 FC house per service account then someone with a single service accounts would still only have 2 houses. Because the limit is 1 personal and 1 FC house "owned as buyer" per world per service account, someone with one service accounts is technically able to get up to 9 houses per world and up to 80 houses total. Getting all 80 on a single service account is not likely to happen due to competition for plots on most worlds but we see it's certainly possible when there's no competition.

We can complain about what other players do all we want but as long as they are playing within the rules of the game, they are doing nothing wrong. It's on SE to fix and enforce their rules.


They are doing things. They aren't doing meaningful things that will solve the problems. They only deter those not really committed to housing as content, or who lack the time needed to take advantage of the loopholes.

But then that's what comes from having players insist a lottery will make them happy when a lottery doesn't solve what's actually making them frustrated.

---

Yeah, I thought a lottery system would prevent hoarders from buying up several houses in a single round due to the 30 days restrictions but somehow the hoarders managed to find a loophole and circumvent the restrictions? This is especially obvious in Materia where a single FC has bought over the entire Ward 2 of Goblet district in all 5 Materia worlds, which should not be allowed in the first place? Unless each single FC is a separate service account?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeNada

single FC has bought over the entire Ward 2 of Goblet district in all 5 Materia worlds

---

SE should consider opening the wards to purchase in phases on new DCs. Opening 7200 houses in a single week was asking players to buy extras and collect. Interest in Goblet is by far the lowest of any housing district, so smart collectors focused their efforts on those houses and had no competition whatsoever.

The longer they leave open FC only wards the more time the cheaters have to spin their magic. I have the only house in a FC ward on Sophia all the other plots are open. Plots I check and I haven't checked them all have 0 bids. Personally this FC only ward idea is a bad one in my view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Themarvin

It is an idiot with a mic, that in populistic way is trying to get attention and don't got what it takes to be civil about it anyway.

---

You liking the way he talks is irrelevant to the information he conveys. I personaly don't care if someone uses curse words or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arohk

You liking the way he talks is irrelevant to the information he conveys. I personaly don't care if someone uses curse words or not.

---

it's bs what he comes with or a bad imitation of Weird Al, and not constructive at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaylaTsarra

The longer they leave open FC only wards the more time the cheaters have to spin their magic. I have the only house in a FC ward on Sophia all the other plots are open. Plots I check and I haven't checked them all have 0 bids. Personally this FC only ward idea is a bad one in my view.

---

The Empyreum wards will end up mixed over time just as the wards in other housing districts currently are. SE's goal is to make certain there is always something available for FCs that are looking. Once the initial rush dies down so they can gauge the remaining FC demand, they'll be able to switch many of the current FC purchase wards to personal purchase wards.

We also know that future changes can be world based. If world A has 100 FCs trying to get a house while world B only has 5, they'll have more FC wards on world A while more wards on world B will be set to personal.

But definitely the original split was overkill. The 0 bug didn't hit as many plots as some players think. Most of those empty FC plots are still empty because no one had entered at all, not because the winner information didn't transfer correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

We can complain about what other players do all we want but as long as they are playing within the rules of the game, they are doing nothing wrong. It's on SE to fix and enforce their rules.

---

I agree, that's why I said theoretically they should have the functionality in place to just remove ownership of the houses of hoarders. If you aren't meant to buy that many on a single service account, you aren't meant to circumvent that by buying multiple service accounts to get around that. I don't really see how it is totally different than ban dodging; but I think the fact of the matter is that it's uncommon; something that should nonetheless be dealt with on a case-by-case basis because of that. Just like, theoretically, not removing the relocation system entirely because a few unfortunate souls were trolled by someone who made it their personal mission to relocate to any plot someone was trying to own deliberately. Both of them would be/are a bad change, but saying "well they paid for it" isn't really great, because a lot of people can pay for a lot of things. like RMT. People would probably, again, care a lot less if they could simply own a house via instanced housing, then they'd just have pissed off venue owners to contend with. I personally doubt the kind of gil necessary to do that sort of thing would come without botting, either; but thats just a guess based on how often I see bots from multiboxers gathering 24/7 who have gone unpunished since at least Shadowbringer's release. I've even seen coordinated bot parties clearing maps. I know MMOs can't be perfect, but to seeing them get banned exclusively in waves while stuff like that happens doesn't exactly inspire confidence that they aren't directly connected.

Like there also isn't a totally accurate way to effectively automate preventing people from making new accounts and doing this. You couldn't do it via IP, and even then there's ways to get around that. Payment methods wouldn't work, it's a really circumventable problem not worth thinking about outside of having a GM handle it. In general, a lot of player to player problems should just be handled by GMs. I don't know why SE has such a hands off approach on people who make it their objective to break stuff and piss everyone off. They wouldn't even have to deal with them that often.

I think the intent is clear there, SE probably doesn't complain; because... obviously it's the same money for them, but I don't think it's a great idea long term to foster that kind of nonsense. It'd be better for a likely 60+ people to remain subbed because they're enjoying that facet of the game, rather than the 30 accounts for one person and all the bad PR for ignoring it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Themarvin

snip

---

i cant believe you compared a youtuber complaining about the shitty housing system and people circumventing deliberate limitations to terrorists
forget rude, you are unhinged dude