During the claiming period allowing lateral first come first serve relocations

Allowing relocations and limiting them only to lateral moves on newly vacated houses during the claiming period allows for house shuffling into more desirable plots, and ensures that the same amount of large/medium/small plots remain available to bid on during the next bidding cycle.

We all have preferences whether we want to have a beach front plot, a secluded nature plot, a plot by the pool, or simply in the same ward with friends. Given the current housing situation with limited wards, there isn't any decent mechanism for that.

I think even if they limited to same housing area lateral moves... goblet med -> goblet med/small in the same or different ward, that would still be better than the current system if people were worried about less plots being available for more popular housing areas...

One of the big arguments by the pro-loterites was "But lottery allows people who have jobs and kids to get a house without having to deal with the login queues and rush"

What you are suggesting brings back that very first-second rush of First-Come-First-Serve relocation. The very second the plots were chosen at 1am in the morning people would feel obliged to log in, check their placard, then run as fast as possible to the better house and try to snag it with a relocation.

Wouldn't those busy and responsible people who have their lives, jobs and kids miss out, while the (as the pro-loterites termed them) no-lifers do those long 1am queues, and bot-fueled rush in the first second of the results period hoping for a relocate to the better house?

Edit: If you want a better house under this system you need to bid for it. If you win, then you can relocate your Goblet 52 into it. If you don't win, then you stay in your Goblet 52.

That disrupts things for those who had legitimately won the plot via the lottery and opens the door to a lot of trolling via relocation. There's also the question of whether the system coding can sustain both FCFS and lottery purchase mechanics at the same time.

I don't see that ever happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibi

One of the big arguments by the pro-loterites was "But lottery allows people who have jobs and kids to get a house without having to deal with the login queues and rush"

What you are suggesting brings back that very first-second rush of First-Come-First-Serve relocation. The very second the plots were chosen at 1am in the morning people would feel obliged to log in, check their placard, then run as fast as possible to the better house and try to snag it with a relocation.

Wouldn't those busy and responsible people who have their lives, jobs and kids miss out, while the (as the pro-loterites termed them) no-lifers do those long 1am queues, and bot-fueled rush in the first second of the results period hoping for a relocate to the better house?

Edit: If you want a better house under this system you need to bid for it. If you win, then you can relocate your Goblet 52 into it. If you don't win, then you stay in your Goblet 52.

---

This is not about "getting" a house. Under no circumstances do the number of houses available, change during this period. This is a shuffling period. For every house that gets relocated into, another house is vacated that can be relocated into while relocating is active or bid on during the next bidding cycle.

This is not the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caspergrey

This is not about "getting" a house. Under no circumstances do the number of houses available, change during this period. This is a shuffling period. For every house that gets relocated into, another house is vacated that can be relocated into while relocating is active or bid on during the next bidding cycle.

This is not the same thing.

---

I guess I am confused about what you are asking for then. Are you asking for a new part of the lottery be added at the end of the claiming period that allows players to relocate without having to deal with the lottery? Are you saying the claiming period should include a first come first serve relocation so that you can snipe houses from other players by relocating to the plot? I think both would be pretty terrible and defeat the purpose of having a lottery, to make it fair for everyone.

It sounds like you just want the ability to freely relocate your house around without having to go through the lottery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

That disrupts things for those who had legitimately won the plot via the lottery and opens the door to a lot of trolling via relocation. There's also the question of whether the system coding can sustain both FCFS and lottery purchase mechanics at the same time.

I don't see that ever happening.

---

I think you might have misinterpreted the suggestion.

The lottery still exists. At the start of the lottery, all open plots become available to be bid on.

It's simply saying, that as people move into plots they've won, any vacated plots during this time period are available for some sort of lateral or less relocation. For the same of argument, it would be fine it it was even limited to within a ward. Effectively creating a shuffling period before the next period starts.

In the most conservative example, where relocations are restricted to lateral moves in the same housing area... if I have a small in Lavender Beds, and another small in Lavender Beds gets vacated, say I have a friend in that ward, I have an option to immediate re-locate to that plot, while vacating my current plot which will be available to be bid on in the next bidding cycle.

Once the new bidding cycle begins, relocations are no longer allowed until the next claim cycle.

You have to win the plot, if you already got a plot you can try and win the plot and then decide if you want to relocate or not, but you wont get dips over the actual winner of the plot, which is fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amenara

I guess I am confused about what you are asking for then. Are you asking for a new part of the lottery be added at the end of the claiming period that allows players to relocate without having to deal with the lottery? Are you saying the claiming period should include a first come first serve relocation so that you can snipe houses from other players by relocating to the plot? I think both would be pretty terrible and defeat the purpose of having a lottery, to make it fair for everyone.

It sounds like you just want the ability to freely relocate your house around without having to go through the lottery.

---

No the claiming period/shuffling period would be the same period. In the most conservative example if you limit relocations to lateral moves in the same housing area, it would look like this:

Bidding period ends and winners are announced:

As people claim their houses, any vacated houses are free for relocation as long as it's in the same housing area and is a lateral or downward move... small-> small, medium -> (medium, small). Think of it as open shuffling, where you're taking a plot, but opening up a plot to be available for bidding the next cycle... maybe you just want to be in a ward with your friend.

Once the next bidding cycle begins, everything is locked again.

But yes, it allows anyone to relocate under certain criteria before the next lottery bidding.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "fair". The bidding system severely limits lateral movement. When free shuffling is allowed, a plot is vacated for every one that is relocated into... there are many more opportunities for players to move into a new plot while giving other players the opportunity to do so with their previous plot. More houses are moved into, and more people are moving into houses that they want without affecting the number of houses/plot sizes available in the next lottery cycle.

Right now, fewer players overall are getting into houses that they want in a strict bidding system, with fewer opportunities to do so. Allowing some form of shuffling is an overall benefit to more players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caspergrey

No the claiming period/shuffling period would be the same period. In the most conservative example if you limit relocations to lateral moves in the same housing area, it would look like this:

Bidding period ends and winners are announced:

As people claim their houses, any vacated houses are free for relocation as long as it's in the same housing area and is a lateral or downward move... small-> small, medium -> (medium, small). Think of it as open shuffling, where you're taking a plot, but opening up a plot to be available for bidding the next cycle... maybe you just want to be in a ward with your friend.

Once the next bidding cycle begins, everything is locked again.

But yes, it allows anyone to relocate under certain criteria before the next lottery bidding.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "fair". The bidding system severely limits lateral movement. When free shuffling is allowed, a plot is vacated for every one that is relocated into... there are many more opportunities for players to move into a new plot while giving other players the opportunity to do so with their previous plot. More houses are moved into, and more people are moving into houses that they want without affecting the number of houses/plot sizes available in the next lottery cycle.

Right now, fewer players overall are getting into houses that they want in a strict bidding system, with fewer opportunities to do so. Allowing some form of shuffling is an overall benefit to more players.

---

I guess I just don't see the problem with bidding on the plot you want to relocate into? It reminds me of the old system of relocations where you got to completely bypass the system in place for new home buyers and relocate whenever you wanted. It gives relocators an advantage again that I disagree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Themarvin

You have to win the plot, if you already got a plot you can try and win the plot and then decide if you want to relocate or not, but you wont get dips over the actual winner of the plot, which is fair.

---

Think if it this way. The lottery ends, and player A who won a house decides to vacate their current home.

That leaves 1 open house for the next lottery. Come next lottery, everyone who wants that house bids, and a new homeowner wins. 2 players are happy.

Now, under the proposed system, after player A vacates, player B who lives next door likes that house better. So player B relocates during the claiming period. Then player C likes player B's old house so they relocate. And then at the start of the next cycle, player C's house is available for the lottery.

In the first example 2 people got into houses they wanted.

In the second example 4 people got into houses they wanted, in the same period of time.

Allowing some sort of shuffling while houses are getting vacated during the claiming period makes more houses available to more players overall. Limiting relocations to same housing area/same house size or smaller helps to maintain that the same quality of houses are available for the next lottery cycle as would have been if there was no relocation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amenara

I guess I just don't see the problem with bidding on the plot you want to relocate into? It reminds me of the old system of relocations where you got to completely bypass the system in place for new home buyers and relocate whenever you wanted. It gives relocators an advantage again that I disagree with.

---

The point is that overall more players get into houses they want. The problem with strict bidding is less houses open up which creates a deadlock.

It's not an advantage, if anything it actually relieves pressure for new homebuyers because existing homeowners have a separate mechanism to get into a house they want.

Consider the following scenarios:

In the current system:

The lottery ends, and "player A" who won a house decides to vacate their current home.

That leaves 1 open house for the next lottery. Come next lottery, everyone who wants that house bids, and a maybe a new homeowner wins. 2 players are happy.

under the proposed system,

After "player A" vacates, "player B" who lives next door likes that house better. So "player B" relocates during the claiming period. Then "player C" likes "player B's" old house so they relocate. And then at the start of the next cycle, "player C's" house is available for the lottery.

In the first example 2 people got into houses they wanted. Also now, the new homebuyer is having to compete with "player B" for "player A" old house lowering the chance of them getting into a new home.

In the second example 4 people got into houses they wanted, in the same period of time.

also, Llimiting relocations to same housing area/same house size or smaller helps to maintain that the same quality of houses are available for the next lottery cycle as would have been if there was no relocation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caspergrey

I think you might have misinterpreted the suggestion.

The lottery still exists. At the start of the lottery, all open plots become available to be bid on.

It's simply saying, that as people move into plots they've won, any vacated plots during this time period are available for some sort of lateral or less relocation. For the same of argument, it would be fine it it was even limited to within a ward. Effectively creating a shuffling period before the next period starts.

In the most conservative example, where relocations are restricted to lateral moves in the same housing area... if I have a small in Lavender Beds, and another small in Lavender Beds gets vacated, say I have a friend in that ward, I have an option to immediate re-locate to that plot, while vacating my current plot which will be available to be bid on in the next bidding cycle.

Once the new bidding cycle begins, relocations are no longer allowed until the next claim cycle.

---

It's still not going to happen because it cracks open the door again for plot resales via relocation. Seller relinquishes plot just before the claiming period starts, buyer is waiting at placard to claim plot when relocation begins.

It's also going to complicate a system that already had one major bug screw up plot purchases and continues to have smaller bugs with specific respect to relocation.

I'll be honest. Unless the number of players looking to buy houses ends up less than the number of houses available to purchase by large margin (pardon me a moment as I roll on the floor laughing hysterically), First Come First Serve is a dead system for housing purchase in this game. The system already has enough ways to abuse it even when it's strictly lottery. FCFS only makes it worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

It's still not going to happen because it cracks open the door again for plot resales via relocation. Seller relinquishes plot just before the claiming period starts, buyer is waiting at placard to claim plot when relocation begins.

---

Except this would still require both parties to already own a house, of the same (or smaller) housing size. The seller wouldn't be able to just pick up the buyer's old plot, as they wouldn't have a house to relocate.
Besides, we already have house sales through FC plots. Which is an easier method, since there's way more wards that are (currently) FC-only. And with SE messing up the first lottery, the 30-days requirement isn't as effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

It's also going to complicate a system that already had one major bug screw up plot purchases and continues to have smaller bugs with specific respect to relocation.

---

I'll agree with this, though. They probably got a lot of spaghetti code going on, considering that one major bug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

I'll be honest. Unless the number of players looking to buy houses ends up less than the number of houses available to purchase by large margin (pardon me a moment as I roll on the floor laughing hysterically), First Come First Serve is a dead system for housing purchase in this game. The system already has enough ways to abuse it even when it's strictly lottery. FCFS only makes it worse.

---

OP isn't asking for the FCFS purchase system. They're asking for a relocation system outside the lottery period. The difference between them is that the latter wouldn't actually affect the amount of plots re-entering the lottery.

No, won't happen and should not happen. Once again bringing unhealthy practices to housing and favours botters who run them all night to insta tp to a new plot. No. Be grateful you have a house you can even relocate and bid like the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aelin_Ashryver

No, won't happen and should not happen. Once again bringing unhealthy practices to housing and favours botters who run them all night to insta tp to a new plot. No. Be grateful you have a house you can even relocate and bid like the rest.

---

How does this favor botters? By limiting relocations to same housing district and lateral or lesser moves what does a botter have to gain? Again, having a relocation system benefits more players overall... the current bidding system creates a deadlock on plots and more people in less desirable plots, and less ability to build actual housing communities with friends. The same lottery system would still exist.

This feels like a very blanket judgement using botters as a straw man argument to completely shut down an idea to an actual problem that exists for players with homes who maybe just want to be in the same ward with their friends. I'm sure the original idea can be improved upon, but saying that people "should be grateful they have a house they can even relocate and bid like the rest" is not a path to helping improve the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caspergrey

--- to completely shut down an idea to an actual problem that exists for players with homes who maybe just want to be in the same ward with their friends. - ...

---

☝️
Not owning plot by you pal is no actual problem.

You don't see raiders going "i still don't have my mount from 4/4 fight, make it drop 2 at once instead of 1!!" or "i'm 500 pulls into ultimate, add checkpoint to this fight i dont wanna slog through that first phase anymore!!" because those neither are actual problems either.

Am I unfairly comparing apples and oranges? Yes. But is the question about "actual problems" the one I wanna comment on? Yes
It the housing system is not broken, do not fix it. Lottery was player idea, invisible timer was player idea, I am honestly afraid what what people who may feel a little bit entitled to houses (but hush we cannot be sure of what's really in their hearts, maybe they actually have sick mom or kid or puppy - who only wants them to have house in videogame) invent as their next strategy to move the damn goalposts
to benefit of actually no one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burmecia

☝️
Not owning plot by you pal is no actual problem.

You don't see raiders going "i still don't have my mount from 4/4 fight, make it drop 2 at once instead of 1!!" or "i'm 500 pulls into ultimate, add checkpoint to this fight i dont wanna slog through that first phase anymore!!" because those neither are actual problems either.

Am I unfairly comparing apples and oranges? Yes. But is the question about "actual problems" the one I wanna comment on? Yes
It the housing system is not broken, do not fix it. Lottery was player idea, invisible timer was player idea, I am honestly afraid what what people who may feel a little bit entitled to houses (but hush we cannot be sure of what's really in their hearts, maybe they actually have sick mom or kid or puppy - who only wants them to have house in videogame) invent as their next strategy to move the damn goalposts
to benefit of actually no one.

---

I'm not sure what argument you are making. I am trying to propose a system that benefits more players overall. If your argument is that it's not that big of a problem and the difference in number of players that would benefit isn't worth the development cost, then that's fair. But please make your argument clear. I am trying to make a suggestion that I think would benefit the overall player base. I honestly think that this would as a whole make more players happy and get more players into houses that they want. I welcome any constructive criticism with regards to any blind spots or holes in my thinking, but is there anything wrong with trying to imagine a housing system that could be an improvement on what we have? Isn't that the point of having a housing forum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caspergrey

I'm not sure what argument you are making. I am trying to propose a system that benefits more players overall. If your argument is that it's not that big of a problem and the difference in number of players that would benefit isn't worth the development cost, then that's fair. But please make your argument clear. I am trying to make a suggestion that I think would benefit the overall player base. I honestly think that this would as a whole make more players happy and get more players into houses that they want. I welcome any constructive criticism with regards to any blind spots or holes in my thinking, but is there anything wrong with trying to imagine a housing system that could be an improvement on what we have? Isn't that the point of having a housing forum?

---

I don't see the issue of a transfer as being a problem as long as the users doing the transfers haven't already placed bids on another property. Seems harmless enough to me to give people that option. It's certainly better than the old system which many complained about.

Since part of the intention of lottery is to limit player behavior of camping, this is unlikely to happen as it would encourage players to camp their wards just in case an open plot which they would like to relocate to open up.

Also as mentioned already, this is going to add additional work which doesn't benefit the majority of the player base. Already, instead of working out a proper solution to retrieve the gil from owners who won the lottery last round, they took a shortcut and decided to implement a NPC for you to voluntarily turn your gil in, which is not going to happen for the majority of players who won a house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caspergrey

How does this favor botters? By limiting relocations to same housing district and lateral or lesser moves what does a botter have to gain? Again, having a relocation system benefits more players overall... the current bidding system creates a deadlock on plots and more people in less desirable plots, and less ability to build actual housing communities with friends. The same lottery system would still exist.

This feels like a very blanket judgement using botters as a straw man argument to completely shut down an idea to an actual problem that exists for players with homes who maybe just want to be in the same ward with their friends. I'm sure the original idea can be improved upon, but saying that people "should be grateful they have a house they can even relocate and bid like the rest" is not a path to helping improve the game.

---

It doesn't help more players overall, it will succeed in just annoying players that would rather have bid on those more desirable plots normally than have to deal with beating others to a relocation, camping was not fun and should not be brought back in any form. You have a house, maybe not in the perfect spot, but you still have one. More than can be said for plenty other people. And if one of those players WITHOUT a house sees the best plots just getting relocated onto it just brings back that bad feeling of 'well I wont get the plot I want because I don't have a house yet'. Further rubbing salt into the no house having wound. Bidding lets you get the house of your dreams without already needing a house. That's a good thing I wouldn't want to see go away.

As for what a botter has to gain, it should be obvious if they are currently sitting on a plot in a lesser location and they see a chance to relocate to a nicer one AKA more expensive one... they will. A plot on a bad spot may be £50-250 depending on size, a better spot can ez add another £100 to a large.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caspergrey

I'm not sure what argument you are making. I am trying to propose a system that benefits more players overall. If your argument is that it's not that big of a problem and the difference in number of players that would benefit isn't worth the development cost, then that's fair. But please make your argument clear. I am trying to make a suggestion that I think would benefit the overall player base. I honestly think that this would as a whole make more players happy and get more players into houses that they want. I welcome any constructive criticism with regards to any blind spots or holes in my thinking, but is there anything wrong with trying to imagine a housing system that could be an improvement on what we have? Isn't that the point of having a housing forum?

---

I guess we are both here not really understanding each others' argument.

Presented idea is to bypass lottery within claiming period? - People with houses/plots, new or old assumably, could get first dibs on plots waiting for next entry period, but only those of equal size/smaller size; plots which didn't have any claimants on the last entry period or which were freed during the ongoing claiming period?

And the problem this would fix is the easier, more secure acquisition of more desirable plot for relocator?

I can try try to be even clearer next time if I still make no sense. At the moment this is all I can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caspergrey

The point is that overall more players get into houses they want. The problem with strict bidding is less houses open up which creates a deadlock.

It's not an advantage, if anything it actually relieves pressure for new homebuyers because existing homeowners have a separate mechanism to get into a house they want.

Consider the following scenarios:

In the current system:

The lottery ends, and "player A" who won a house decides to vacate their current home.

That leaves 1 open house for the next lottery. Come next lottery, everyone who wants that house bids, and a maybe a new homeowner wins. 2 players are happy.

under the proposed system

---

I disagree. Your proposal absolutely gives the relocator an clear advantage over another plot that was abandoned during a lottery cycle just as it did pre-lotto. What if non-home owners like the first abandoned plot better than the one the one the relocator would leave behind under your proposed system?

I've been playing the housing game for eight years and I believe this current lottery system to be the most fair system ever implemented. The lotto system makes it nearly impossible for grandfathered multi-home-owners to relocate into bigger plots and resell them for profit. It also ensures that everyone has an equal shot at a plot, provided they have the cash for it. Furthermore, it increases the value and appreciation of the plots people currently own because it is now that much harder to get a plot. The current lotto system eliminated the unhealthy placard spamming too. I think things are just fine as they are.