Day 1 of nonsense: Why is this allowed?

Why not just nuke all of these? It's clearly not the intended use for housing in the game, why can't the devs just do SOMETHING. Ignoring it wont make it go away, just hire someone to sweep these out on a monthly basis.

https://i.imgur.com/lyni83L.png

Housing has multiple uses, and SE has decided intended or not that they will allow players to have multiple FCs with houses per world.

I don't like it as such but that's up to them and not us. Most of those FCs date back to early Shadowbringers so a lot of those houses were probably purchased back when Spriggan was still mostly empty. SE isn't going to take houses away from players that made their purchases within the rules at the time of purchase, even if the rules might have later changed.

So two questions for you in return: why are you complaining when there are still multiple houses available on Spriggan, and what made you pick on that particular LB ward instead of the other 3 LB wards that also have workshop farms set up (though one did a decent job of masking that it's mostly the same player)? Is it their questionable aesthetic taste in choosing all Paissa skins? As nauseating as that might be, it doesn't seem like a good reason to single them out.

Those players running workshop farms aren't preventing you or any other players on Spriggan from getting a house. Why does SE need to do something?

It's not about housing availability directly, but what limiting availability causes.

As with the blacklist, just because SE thinks it's the way because of some random thought process they have is not necessarily how it's supposed to be.
Whenever this topic is brought up someone comes out of the woodwork to try and justify it.

Plain put; it's an exploit of the games systems and as such should be treated as such. No matter how many pennies were used to fill an entire district with shell-FC's.
It sets a precedent that any other exploit or work around the game systems is also ok.

If a player finds a way to outright block other players from bidding to a plot then that should be "ok" by SE standards or by this logic.
If we set a precedent that something is ok, then there is no real line anywhere telling anyone what is NOT ok.

Additionally what this specifically does is make players ask for additional systems to be implemented in the game, like; instanced housing.
Which at best is a band-aid fix to the problem they are having and at worst might introduce ANOTHER housing exploit for these players to use.

So, on a fundamental level I have to most likely disagree with you that nothing should be done about this. Sure, you can worm a way around it to convince me or others to agree that it's fine, but
I'm not going to argue about opinions. Whatever SE decides to do or doesn't decide to do is up to them, on that we agree, but again.. It sets an example of such things being ok elsewhere in the game.

Oh and I just chose this ward at random cause it was the one I found first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirutsuki

Plain put; it's an exploit of the games systems and as such should be treated as such. No matter how many pennies were used to fill an entire district with shell-FC's.
It sets a precedent that any other exploit or work around the game systems is also ok.

---

Actually, that specific screenshot you added was mainly done through player trading. Aka reaching out to people who wanted to leave the then 'dead' Spriggan server. Not only did they get to play wherever they wanted but they also had a nice fund to get a better plot right after. Regardless the Paissa Iron Dome will fend off any of your nukes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeless_was_taken

Actually, that specific screenshot you added was mainly done through player trading. Aka reaching out to people who wanted to leave the then 'dead' Spriggan server. Not only did they get to play wherever they wanted but they also had a nice fund to get a better plot right after. Regardless the Paissa Iron Dome will fend off any of your nukes.

---

So an exploit. Gotcha.
I know how player trading works.

It's not intended to be used that way.
Otherwise you could just trade houses by giving player the house instead of logging off from the DC until you get booted from the property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirutsuki

So an exploit. Gotcha.
I know how player trading works.

It's not intended to be used that way.
Otherwise you could just trade houses by giving player the house instead of logging off from the DC until you get booted from the property.

---

I think exploit is not really a accurate term.

Its more that its probably being used as intended but in bad faith; I pondered why SE allowed this to work - reality is if SE wanted to stop this they could very easily - the flag they set for personal housing is a character file flag that associates your character to your account (think of your account name as your character and every "WOL" you make is just a alias of your account) the flag is world specific - this is why you can't have more then 1 personal per world. SE decided not to apply this same limit to FC's which is a odd choice but I suppose it does allow friends to FC sit for their friends while they submerge their FC's until the last content delay concludes. This is also contingent on those FC house-sitters logging in and visiting each of those houses roughly every month (which is easy because if they are running a sub-farm then they are already doing such.)

As such its likely not a exploit - just not in the spirit of the mechanic; SE could easily stop it from happening; its not like they cannot see multiple wards in game that are all ran by the same 4 accounts. If SE isn't doing something that's a choice; not because SE is helpless and if it were a violation of their rules they would have acted by now; SE has quickly responded to far less significant rules violations in the past and this one would probably be a pretty easy fix with a simple patch to have FC houses treated like personal homes by setting the same flag. Note that it's likely not a exploit because even if someone has a FC on that character; they cannot move that FC without first starting over.

Personally I think a easier fix would just to allow people to consolidate all workshops in 1 location and then apply the aforementioned flag.

Also note whats good for the goose is good for the gander; so if we applied those rules it would also apply to the Kingdom of Noctis (I think thats what its called) On Spriggan; which is actually a beautiful accomplishment where they turned a entire goblet ward into a full blown city with amenities and made the Goblet look much nicer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayan_Calvesse

I think exploit is not really a accurate term.

Its more that its probably being used as intended but in bad faith; I pondered why SE allowed this to work - reality is if SE wanted to stop this they could very easily - the flag they set for personal housing is a character file flag that associates your character to your account (think of your account name as your character and every "WOL" you make is just a alias of your account) the flag is world specific - this is why you can't have more then 1 personal per world. SE decided not to apply this same limit to FC's which is a odd choice but I suppose it does allow friends to FC sit for their friends while they submerge their FC's until the last content delay concludes.

---

My understanding was that the mechanism that allows for multiple FC ownership was put in place for those situations where an FC leader was inactive, so that leadership could be transferred to another FC member. That way the FC as a whole wouldn’t lost their property through demo (and all the members wouldn’t lose their FC rooms!), as long as someone else was active and available to take the reins.

Now was it intended to force this scenario multiple times on the same account by one person using their alts? Does anyone really think that’s “intended” when you’re required to have 4 members to create an FC in the first place? “Allowed” doesn’t always mean “working as intended.” Now if someone wants to purchase multiple accounts to get their one personal/one FC per server, more power to them, at least they’re paying to take up more of a limited resource!

For the most part, multi-ownership, while being distasteful to me in a system with artificial scarcity, is not the problem I feel needs to be addressed. It’s the artificial scarcity. Other games can allow for multiple housing residences of all shapes and sizes for each and every player because they’re instanced. The wards are fine for those that truly prefer them, but let everyone else just have their own space(s) to decorate and enjoy however they wish. Honestly everyone should be able to have multiple spaces, but that’s not the system we have right now.

This expansion is focused around the graphics update… but I really hope the next deals with the other systems in the game that are also outdated, like glamour and housing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirutsuki

Additionally what this specifically does is make players ask for additional systems to be implemented in the game, like; instanced housing.
Which at best is a band-aid fix to the problem they are having and at worst might introduce ANOTHER housing exploit for these players to use.

---

Instanced housing done right isn't a band-aid. It is a solution. It's why so many other MMORPGs use it over a ward style system.

Instanced servers only have to be flexible enough to handle the players online at a given moment since the assets are only loaded when entered. Ward servers have to handle those both online and offline since part of the assets are always loaded even if a player is offline.

The question becomes if SE would create a good instanced system or if they would continue to make mistakes when it comes to judging why players want housing and how they use it.

As for it being an example that it's okay to bend the spirit of the rules, you'd be better off talking about 3rd party mods. That's where the example is really being set. That gets far more public discussion than the rare sub farms.

It's not an exploit, the guideline says you're only allowed to purchase and maintain 1 FC house, keyword here being purchase.

The system in place that people have an issue with is a system that exists for the benefit of all FCs: to pass lead if the Master/Owner/etc. goes inactive.

Adopting houses bypasses the purchase rule.

Now, they could get rid of it but how to solve the issue if the Master goes inactive and no one can take lead? Are legit FCs supposed to just go poof for the sake of preventing multi-owners? Nah, that's not really a solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

Instanced housing done right isn't a band-aid. It is a solution. It's why so many other MMORPGs use it over a ward style system.

Instanced servers only have to be flexible enough to......

---

The problem with instanced housing is that it completely removes the joy of housing. E.G showing off to others how your house looks.
Even if it had player visits enabled it would literally function the same way Island Sanctuaries do and no-one actually visits anyone's Islands.
So while decorating your house is cool, it'll eventually loose all novelty and be forgotten behind the instance. It is not a solution, at all.

And I doubt SE is going to fundamentally re-work how instances work in the game so you wouldn't even be able to join someone's home instance and play together with them since you'd constanly drop out of the hosts instance the same way you always teleport out of your house when you do a duty.

Again I must emphasize you can do all sorts of mental gymnastics to say robbing an entire district is not an exploit, but fundamentally it is.
Otherwise the game would have always had a little button for you to press that just gives ownership of the house.

The reason why SE hasn't done anything about it is the same reason they didn't touch blacklist system for almost 10years.
There wasn't a pressing concern to do anything until harassments came into question. This system will stay as is as long as majority of the playerbase just turns a blind eye to shenanigans like this.

But I 100% think we would be better off if SE fixed existing systems in the game instead of introducing new systems with new problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

Instanced housing done right isn't a band-aid. It is a solution. It's why so many other MMORPGs use it over a ward style system.

Instanced servers only have to be flexible enough to handle the players online at a given moment since the assets are only loaded when entered. Ward servers have to handle those both online and offline since part of the assets are always loaded even if a player is offline.

The question becomes if SE would create a good instanced system or if they would continue to make mistakes when it comes to judging why players want housing and how they use it.

As for it being an example that it's okay to bend the spirit of the rules, you'd be better off talking about 3rd party mods. That's where the example is really being set. That gets far more public discussion than the rare sub farms.

---

Instanced housing is another Homogenized system that I'd rather not have. A game doesn't stay unique when you're trying to rid it of anything that makes it such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirutsuki

Otherwise the game would have always had a little button for you to press that just gives ownership of the house.

---

It does though. It's called "finalize purchase". You can click that button when an empty plot is available for you to purchase. But it's pretty self evident from your post that's not good enough for you because you want control over other people's houses. Essentially, your desire is to rob them of what they obtained fair and square.

Why didn't anyone on Spriggan buy those houses when they were available? Why didn't you?

ccp? Chinese communist party?...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirutsuki

The problem with instanced housing is that it completely removes the joy of housing. E.G showing off to others how your house looks.
Even if it had player visits enabled it would literally function the same way Island Sanctuaries do and no-one actually visits anyone's Islands.
So while decorating your house is cool, it'll eventually loose all novelty and be forgotten behind the instance. It is not a solution, at all.

And I doubt SE is going to fundamentally re-work how instances work in the game so you wouldn't even be able to join someone's home instance and play together with them since you'd constanly drop out of the hosts instance the same way you always teleport out of your house when you do a duty.

---

I never had a problem showing off my house to others when I was playing RIFT and setting up my Dimensions. It was actually easier there to find other good housing designs to tour because there was a system with Likes displayed publicly and a keyword search.

Here, it's hit or miss when you pick a ward. The estate tags have no search system; you have to check the individual ward plot list.

Island Sanctuary is not the same as instanced housing. Instanced housing allows for random visitors (see apartments). Island Sanctuary does not. Island Sanctuary also had zero reason for anyone to visit another player's island until patch 6.4. By then, most of the player base adopted the mindset that Island Sanctuary was something to be ignored. That we're heavily restricted on where we can place items within Island Sanctuary doesn't help. We can't decorate within the buildings, only around them.

Instances don't have to be fundamentally changed in how they function in order for improvement to occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirutsuki

Again I must emphasize you can do all sorts of mental gymnastics to say robbing an entire district is not an exploit, but fundamentally it is.
Otherwise the game would have always had a little button for you to press that just gives ownership of the house.

The reason why SE hasn't done anything about it is the same reason they didn't touch blacklist system for almost 10years.
There wasn't a pressing concern to do anything until harassments came into question. This system will stay as is as long as majority of the playerbase just turns a blind eye to shenanigans like this.

But I 100% think we would be better off if SE fixed existing systems in the game instead of introducing new systems with new problems.

---

What is being robbed? Nothing is being robbed.

Essentially we are asking for them to fix an existing system and not asking them to introduce something completely new. The interior of a house is instanced. Apartments are instanced. But the player base is not being well served by the system as it currently exists. We're asking SE to fix it so it will.

If you think that wards are capable of being fixed to serve the entire player base better, how do you think it would be accomplished?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solowing

Instanced housing is another Homogenized system that I'd rather not have. A game doesn't stay unique when you're trying to rid it of anything that makes it such.

---

Most of us aren't asking SE to remove ward housing.

We're asking for them to improve the instanced housing the game already has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

Most of us aren't asking SE to remove ward housing.

We're asking for them to improve the instanced housing the game already has.

---

Personally I'd like to see both exist but I don't see a point to it ultimately after thinking about this for a while.

Square makes money off forced subscriptions to keep housing. Implement instanced where you don't have to have a subscription to keep it and I have two questions:

1. Who is actually going to stay in neighborhoods at that point if a free option exists? (Since I assume they would carry over everything involved in FCs and private housing unless it's specifically private housing only)
2. How is Square going to make up for the loss with the forced subscriptions no longer being a thing? A more invasive cash shop perhaps? Higher subscription prices in general?

I mean, personally, if I had a house I couldn't lose I'd just be subbing at expansion launches for a month or two and probably closer to the .4-.5 patches to catch up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

I never had a problem showing off my house to others when I was playing RIFT and setting up my Dimensions. It was actually easier there to find other good housing designs to tour because there was a system with Likes displayed publicly and a keyword search.

Here, it's hit or miss when you pick a ward. The estate tags have no search system; you have to check the individual ward plot list.

Island Sanctuary is not the same as instanced housing. Instanced housing allows for random visitors (see apartments). Island Sanctuary does not. Island Sanctuary also had zero reason for anyone to visit another player's island until patch 6.4. By then, most of the player base adopted the mindset that Island Sanctuary was something to be ignored. That we're heavily restricted on where we can place items within Island Sanctuary doesn't help. We can't decorate within the buildings, only around them.

Instances don't have to be fundamentally changed in how they function in order for improvement to occur.

What is being robbed? Nothing is being robbed.

Essentially we are asking for them to fix an existing system and not asking them to introduce something completely new. The interior of a house is instanced. Apartments are instanced. But the player base is not being well served by the system as it currently exists. We're asking SE to fix it so it will.

If you think that wards are capable of being fixed to serve the entire player base better, how do you think it would be accomplished?


Most of us aren't asking SE to remove ward housing.

We're asking for them to improve the instanced housing the game already has.

---

By asking for features, such as a upgradable instance (when plots don't even get to do that)

Same amenities as a ward plot (such as a yard and planting plot)

And no Demo timer (which plots are subject to)

Which is why I think your tradeoff should be visibility. Friend List limited instanced plot. You get a plot, decorate it to your hearts content. But if you want the masses to see it, try for a ward plot or use the Apt until then.


For me the idea is you get instanced housing, but ward house is still preferential for like venues/display homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reinha

It does though. It's called "finalize purchase". You can click that button when an empty plot is available for you to purchase. But it's pretty self evident from your post that's not good enough for you because you want control over other people's houses. Essentially, your desire is to rob them of what they obtained fair and square.

Why didn't anyone on Spriggan buy those houses when they were available? Why didn't you?

---

As discussed earlier the houses were never actually available when the transformation to a full FC ward happened. Most likely people left Spriggan and the people who originally owned the houses either contacted the FC or the Fc got in contact with the owners of the houses.
Sure some of them might have been a straight up eviction and a purchase, but more than likely people logged off for the duration of the ownership transfer.

And that kind of comment is really not worth responding, but I will. You CANNOT purchase more than 1personal house and 1FC house per service account.
Anything beyond that and you are using an exploit in how the system flags your character. It is not intentional use-case, it's an oversight from SE and they just either don't care or the issue isn't pressed, because;
"Well the ward still has plenty of S houses in there".

The main reason why Chaos in general has less traffic should be evident, why Spriggan still has housing plots. It's because everyone plays on Light AND there should be a consolidation of DC's for EU where the entire playerbase is limited to one DC.
People just moved to Light and ever since then Chaos has been open for shenanigans like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LianaThorne

Personally I'd like to see both exist but I don't see a point to it ultimately after thinking about this for a while.

Square makes money off forced subscriptions to keep housing. Implement instanced where you don't have to have a subscription to keep it and I have two questions:

1. Who is actually going to stay in neighborhoods at that point if a free option exists? (Since I assume they would carry over everything involved in FCs and private housing unless it's specifically private housing only)
2. How is Square going to make up for the loss with the forced subscriptions no longer being a thing? A more invasive cash shop perhaps? Higher subscription prices in general?

I mean, personally, if I had a house I couldn't lose I'd just be subbing at expansion launches for a month or two and probably closer to the .4-.5 patches to catch up.

---

You bring up a good point actually. Instanced housing could literally make all wards empty in an instant since there is no way of losing them.
And it would make these kinds of FC wards the norm for the entire district and only a select few people are willing enough to make that happen so the district system would just become un-used, even more so than it is today.

So I really hope they just fix issues with the current system, stop allowing these shady ownership exhanges and give more people options to buy M or L houses.
As it stands most available houses in Spriggan are S sizes. So there's clear demand for M or larger and at best for those we get 1L house a week and a few M houses for bidding per week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

I never had a problem showing off my house to others when I was playing RIFT and setting up my Dimensions. It was actually easier there to find other good housing designs to tour because there was a system with Likes displayed publicly and a keyword search.

---

That's kind of exactly what I mean. Instances work on other games because they are either newer games or they just designed their instance system from the ground up to be quite robust.
FF14 instance system is literally archaic and even Yoshi-P has stressed that if he could have his way he would re-design the entire system from ground up. Specifically for housing.
I believe he said this during the last update to the housing lottery system.

Regardless, you mentioned that there is no reason for anyone to visit Island Sanctuaries. Even IF it was available to randoms I think you mean.
So what is the reason for anyone to visit your instanced housing? We already have decorations in Island Sanctuaries. So if that isn't enough to entice people to come check the sick decorations, then what changes for housing?

It can't be the possibility to play duties together because of how instances work. So SE should then have to fix instances to work so that you wont get booted from a host's instance the second you enter a duty.
As you said, instances would have to be fundamentally changed, which is much larger of an issue to fix than to just try and fix the existing housing system so that people have enough houses to buy in a district and that these exploits are rooted out.

As for the robbing. Houses are supposed to go back in the sale market every other week and as long as the owner of the house has been logged out a period of a time.
But there are people literally keeping houses as hostage, selling them to the highest bidder in worst cases. Alot of these houses are literally someone keeping them so that they can do an ownership exhchange with anyone willing to pay more than the default gil amount.
OR they keep them as farms or just personal enjoyment, what ever it is someone is now without the option to buy a house from that district.

I don't know if I can make this any cleared, I probably can't. We will more than likely have to agree to disagree that this is or isn't a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

Housing has multiple uses, and SE has decided intended or not that they will allow players to have multiple FCs with houses per world.

---

They don't. If you are in an FC with a house (even if you don't own the FC), you cannot bid on another FC house with an alt on that same account. Not even for relocation. I have my own FC on my main but made an alt that was in another FC trying to relocate to a larger plot. I tried to help them bid on the larger plot and the game gave me an error message that I'm not allowed to bid on anymore FC houses because another character on my account already has an FC house. Which is pretty stupid since that FC already had a house at the time and was merely seeking to relocate, not buy a brand new house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by not_ya_wify

If you are in an FC with a house (even if you don't own the FC), you cannot bid on another FC house with an alt on that same account. Not even for relocation.

---

You can, sometimes. You can bid on the alt and the main if neither your alt or main bought the house for their respective fcs.

Here's the simple version:
-Did you buy any fc houses on this server? If no, all characters on your account can bid.
-If yes, is any buyer character still in the same fc they bought the house for? If no, all characters on your account can bid.
-If yes, that buyer character can relocate the fc house they originally bought but no other characters on the account can bid.

The game functions exactly how the rules are written:

Quote:

---

You do not have a character on the same World on the same service account that purchased and maintains a free company plot
* If the character in question purchased the plot, they may still submit a lottery entry for the purposes of relocation.

---

"Purchase" means you spent the money and bought the plot. "Maintain" means you are still using it, in other words you are still in the same fc and the plot has not been demolished. If you didn't "purchase", the restriction doesn't apply. If you no longer "maintain", it also no longer applies in that case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by not_ya_wify

They don't. If you are in an FC with a house (even if you don't own the FC), you cannot bid on another FC house with an alt on that same account. Not even for relocation. I have my own FC on my main but made an alt that was in another FC trying to relocate to a larger plot. I tried to help them bid on the larger plot and the game gave me an error message that I'm not allowed to bid on anymore FC houses because another character on my account already has an FC house. Which is pretty stupid since that FC already had a house at the time and was merely seeking to relocate, not buy a brand new house.

---

You can bid on additional FC houses as long as any alt on the acount that previously purchased (or paid to relocate) a house for a different FC is no longer in that FC. That holds true even if you have other alts still in that FC. They did not purchase the house so their presence in the FC, including as FC Master, has no impact.

Not going to say I like it but that's the way that SE has built the system. Only the character that actually made the purchase of a FC house already acquired matters when it comes to whether or not you can purchase additional houses. Remove that character from the FC they purchased the house for and more house purchases are fair game for any character on the same world/service account. That's been tested pretty thoroughly at this point.

That's why I'd rather see a system where "ownership" is tied to the FC Master and not the purchasing character. Despite fears that it would prevent transfer of FC Master in case of absence, it's going to be a very rare FC that doesn't have more than one eligible member.