Housing plots need rent. Sound horrible? Consider these facts:

[Yeldir]

It is disappointing to see people only thinking of themselves, when it comes to the idea of taxation. Destroying gil is an incredibly valuable feature, and serves the poorer players in very important ways - materia costs are lost, the cost of crafting gear sets is less, inflation in general is just plain less, making it easier to actually buy what you need to support your progress in becoming an earner, as opposed to someone with no means of generating gil.

Using the example Terrini provides, of your casual non-crafting player struggling to get a cottage for themselves, I'd like to call attention to two things: Firstly, on Brynhildr, 5% of the most expensive small lot size would work out to be 125,000 gil a month. That is easily obtainable by anyone who has been 50 for a month or two.

Secondly, please consider the example of Terrini in this way also - if Ter's server had a gil devouring housing rent engine chewing away at the savings of the mansion-owning master crafters, the server would have less total wealth in circulation, which would mean the price in pure gil of entry into crafting and gathering careers would be that much less, and more quickly reachable through gil generated as opposed to gil taken from other players. I shouldn't have to explain the importance of the distinction between those two income sources, and how they relate to new players and the barrier of entry they face when growing towards crafting for profit.

Please! Consider the broader advantages of having gil destroyed on a monthly basis. We associate the word "tax" with feeding some greedy fatcat money-for-nothing, but that really isn't how gil destruction works at all.

Think of it like this - Monsigneur Mansion has 1,000,000 gil. Cody Cottage has 100,000 gil. A tax of ten percent kicks in, and the His Highness now has 900,000 gil, and Cody Cottage has 90,000 gil. Who lost more? Mr. Mansion. Who'll have an easier time making up for the loss? Mr. Cottage. This form of gil destruction is the best and most useful means of reducing the distance between the haves and the have-nots because it almost exclusively targets the haves - homeowners.

[Krylo]

It is disappointing to see people only thinking of themselves, when it comes to the idea of taxation. Destroying gil is an incredibly valuable feature, and serves the poorer players in very important ways - materia costs are lost, the cost of crafting gear sets is less, inflation in general is just plain less, making it easier to actually buy what you need to support your progress in becoming an earner, as opposed to someone with no means of generating gil.

What?

No.

The effective price of entrance into any activity in an MMO stays roughly the same regardless of inflation. What's the best way to make money in any MMO? Farming it with in game methods, or using the AH/MB/Whatever? Always, always, always the latter unless it's within a few months of launch.

In the latter case inflation basically keeps everything with the same equivalent cost. If iron ore and Kirimu coat, for instance, costs 50 and 100,000 gil respectively, and that server sees a heavy bout of inflation increasing average costs x10, the average cost of iron ore will be 500, and Kirimu will be 1,000,000. In either case one has to farm and sell 2000 iron ore to buy a Kirimu coat (obviously these costs are off a bit, I think the going rate for a kirimu coat in iron ore is about 10,000, but I'm not gonna be bovvered to check).

The only way in which the barrier to entry is changed in any meaningful way is if the player completely refuses to engage with the market board in any meaningful way except to buy things. If they're one of those people who put up things for that vendor for 5 gil for sale on the MB for 1 gil.

The reason destroying gil is valuable isn't due to helping people get into crafting or lowering the difference between the haves and have nots. It's to make in game gil sinks matter. Take WoW, for instance. Back in the day I played on highly inflated servers and ones that weren't. In the servers with high inflation I could generally buy a mount upon hitting the level for it, and ride it around without any care/worry/thought. In the ones where there was little inflation it would take until I was 5-10 levels past being able to buy a mount to actually afford it.

When it came to purchasing crafting materials or whatever else though? Made no difference.

Indeed, it was EASIER for me to gain entrance into these things in servers that had massive inflation because I could buy whatever I wanted/needed from vendors and still have money left over to hit the market. Servers with low inflation had a HIGHER barrier to entry because my money went to in game gil sinks leaving me very little to invest in the larger economy.

Same goes for SWtOR, Vindictus, DFO, and every other MMO I've ever played. And, as someone on a 'rich' server here? Same goes here. Anything that a vendor sells I can buy without really thought or care because I regularly sell things on the MB. Would I have enough money to, without really caring, just buy my sister crafted stuff off the market to get her into ST if repairs and teleports were actually making a meaningful impact on my earnings? No. No, I would not.

However, as a player who hasn't maxed either crafts or gathering yet, while I can save up enough to buy a nice (small) house (if there were any plots available for me to spend gil in) in a couple months that requires constant and direct effort in making money while playing very very often. Earning 10% of that every month is going to require that I neglect most other parts of the game just to pay for the house. Especially if any of the next relic quests have multiple gil sinks like the materia (which didn't even destroy gil), or the kettles etc. etc. that cost a few million gil each step to forge through.

This isn't 'the haves' being selfish. This is people who understand how MMO economics ACTUALLY work saying, hey, you know what, this is just going to screw over anyone who isn't an omnicrafter or who doesn't want to immediately monetize their property. Especially considering the extra costs of actually building and decorating a home after you buy the plot.

It's only the poor who would be messed with, not the rich. It would only further the gap between 'haves and have-nots' not close it.

A cost of 1% or lower would serve the purpose without being as much a burden, but, at the end of the day, there's no reason for upkeep costs. It'd be just as easy to say '1 month unsubscribed = no house'. That's it. Not one month not logged in. Not one month without going into your house. One month unsubscribed. Hell, make it 2 or 3 months if people want. That'd be enough to free up housing.

That's all we need.

[GenJoe]

It's only the poor who would be messed with, not the rich. It would only further the gap between 'haves and have-nots' not close it.

That is true, upkeep would have to FORCE some people to give up their housing, that's the only way upkeep would free up plots. If it didn't, there wouldn't be a reason for it other than to pester people and that's not why we're suggesting it.
But do you really want to protect people's properties that badly? When clearly, the amount of gil for upkeep could be farmed in a matter of hours? (one or two hrs of spiritbonding should take care of it)

You seem to think that gil in this game belong to all the crafters, that is simply not true. non-crafters can earn just as much as an average crafter and indeed they do, when they NEED the gil.. The only reason I see my raider friends running around with 50k gil in their pockets is because they don't need the money at that very moment. Usually, they have a few spare materia that they could sell for some quick cash, OR they could go out and spiritbond.


The only reason crafters sit on a stockpile of gil is because some of it is necessary to cover the cost of business and crafters don't really have much of a constant source of gil sink and whatever we decide to spend money on, just happens to be cheaper for us since we can cut out the middle man. That is not to say that non-crafters are poor, they can have just as much cash flow when they want it to happen, they're just more comfortable sitting on a little bit of money if they don't need it immediately, some raiders use just as much, if not more gil than crafters. (Penta-melds anybody?) That money (10m+) still had to come from somewhere.


Way I see it, I like to think of raiders as akin to the stereotypical newly graduate in a high paying field of studies, 6 figure starting salary, but between buying an expensive car, and an expensive house and student loans, they don't have any savings.. That is not to say they're not wealthy though, they're just spending exactly as much as they're earning.
Crafters are a little different, because they need to reinvest some of the money back into the crafting in order to be successful, so saving gil is simply a necessity for them.


Now, when I say raiders, I generalize the majority of the player base that's into the dungeon crawling. Whether it be coils, primals, or just roulettes all day long. Technically, they should all have similar earning potential.
There are some people who opt out of the gil making game and I understand that, but do they really deserve to have a house without an active method for making gil? Housing is designed to cost a lot of money in this game and in order to buy one, you need to work for it.

I give props to people who save for literally over a year for a house, I commend them for the gumption, but that's really not the proper way to buy a house. Just not in this game when we're all competing for the same limited resource.

If SE designed two types of housing, instanced and non-instanced and treated houses as something of a mobile home and people could choose to move their instanced housing to the real game world where people could come to visit etc.. Then yes, penny savers would be able to have a house in its instanced form, but as long as houses are not instanced and limited in numbers, it's only natural it goes to whoever works to keep it.

It'd be just as easy to say '1 month unsubscribed = no house'. That's it. Not one month not logged in. Not one month without going into your house. One month unsubscribed. Hell, make it 2 or 3 months if people want. That'd be enough to free up housing.

Yes but in this case, you're taking people's houses away for unknown, real life circumstances that could really be completely out of their control. Upkeep would automatically enforce this anyway as nobody has an infinite amount of gil and SE could implement the upkeep system in a way where it works like a prepaid system and you have to deposit money into a separate chest in-game for months at a time.. At least with the upkeep, the fate of their own house in Eorzea is in their hands.. You foresee a long hiatus? deposit enough money in the "bank" to cover it.


Tbh though, I'd be happy with either method.. Houses need to rotate ownership, I already have my FC mansion, I could buy a new personal house anytime if I wanted to.. Why would I welcome a change in the game that would drain my money? because I can see a definite improvement in the QoL aspect of housing, neighbors! Too much of the wards are dead due to inactivity, it kinda takes away any reason for houses to be non-instanced in the first place.

[Krylo]

But do you really want to protect people's properties that badly? When clearly, the amount of gil for upkeep could be farmed in a matter of hours? (one or two hrs of spiritbonding should take care of it)

Firstly, the spirit binding market is already starting to crash. The only things keeping materia prices where they are now (for DoW materia) is the relic quest requiring so many of them and hardcore raiders. However, that portion of the quest will no longer be mandatory come HW, which only leaves hardcore raiders trying to min-max their stats while achieving accuracy caps. Which, what were the clear percentages for FCoB again? 5%? 10%? That's not a huge market and spiritbonding won't make you the same money anymore once 50 relics no longer matter.

Secondly, considering housing opens up new monetization methods as well as being necessary for unlocking some of the content (like airship building that's supposed to be coming)? Yes. It's important that people who scrounge money together and save it can get, and retain, a house.

At least in any argument that's going to be worked as an appeal to 'helping the poor downtrodden have-nots' like Yeldir's.

Housing is important, if you want to make it important and only for the rich then be honest about it (like you are), don't try to claim you're helping out the poor players by destroying gil when all you're doing is ensuring they're locked out of content.

Yes but in this case, you're taking people's houses away for unknown, real life circumstances that could really be completely out of their control.

Too bad.

Housing is a limited resource. Any limited resource should be for active players, not people who haven't logged in for months and may never do so again. If you want to give them some portion of their money back, whatever. I don't care. But allowing unsubscribed people to keep homes because 'but I might need to disappear for a few months' is bullshit. How about people who play every day, have plenty of revenue to buy a home, and can't because of them?

You can't lock out content from your playing and active subscriber base because you might annoy your inactive and non-paying subscriber base on the off chance they actually do decide to play again after 6 months.

On the other hand, they desperately need many of the things I can make, if they want to progress beyond one star. As a goldsmith, I sell to two target audiences - already rich players who can afford to kit themselves out in platinum DoW/DoM gear, and poor players and new crafters who must have my crafting jewelry to proceed.

See, this is funny to me because MY target audience is you. I sell things like ehcahtl sealant needed for 3/4* crafts, which you then craft and sell to people trying to break in.

But here's the problem, those poor players don't NEED your shit. They can buy some materia, eat some food, maybe get the FC leader to activate an FC buff, and craft themselves the next star set up and go without any help from you or buying your things. A lot of people don't because the cost of that materia and food over multiple sets and the effort/time to make that + craft their own gear is less than the prices you're charging.

Your economics at the high end, no matter how much you wish or think it to be true, don't actually exist in a vacuum of monopolization that treads all over the poor. Your prices are set by the market's inflation just like everything else, and less gil in the market is still going to make your Artisan's Apron cost the same amount in sold shards or whatever as it does now. The only difference is that if all the Gil is destroyed, the effective cost of things like repairs are going to shoot up for poor players.

[Yeldir]

But here's the problem, those poor players don't NEED your shit. They can buy some materia, eat some food, maybe get the FC leader to activate an FC buff, and craft themselves the next star set up and go without any help from you or buying your things. A lot of people don't because the cost of that materia and food over multiple sets and the effort/time to make that + craft their own gear is less than the prices you're charging.

Your economics at the high end, no matter how much you wish or think it to be true, don't actually exist in a vacuum of monopolization that treads all over the poor. Your prices are set by the market's inflation just like everything else, and less gil in the market is still going to make your Artisan's Apron cost the same amount in sold shards or whatever as it does now. The only difference is that if all the Gil is destroyed, the effective cost of things like repairs are going to shoot up for poor players.

You're really ignoring the whole point of my statements - which is that gil destruction increases the proportionate value of gil generated by quests, which is the primary means of income for new players who have yet to grasp the finer points of the market board. You're assuming every person is playing just like you, and has the same resources as you. The sweeping statement you're making about what players NEED or don't NEED is hinged on the assumption that they have the free time and mental resources of an experienced omnicrafter, which is a manifestly false assumption, and I point to the fact that my crafting jewelry sells like goddamn hotcakes as evidence of this incorrectness on your part. Allow me to be more specific. You assume, among other things, that:

Players will know what "no prior experience required" items to farm that are most efficient in persuading people like me to part with my gil, which is an assumption that only becomes correct after a period of trial and error, which varies from player to player, and,

That all new players are omnicrafters??? Your example of why they don't need my jewelry is that they can make their own? Not if they're not 50 goldsmith, they can't. And what about the 3* stuff they'll need to craft desirable 4* items? Those are even farther out of reach.

The assumptions you're making aren't very realistic. I, on the other hand, am simply stating the struggles I hear on my hypothetical "low end" economy. I play exclusively with people trapped in the low end. I'm buying them a mansion, because trying to save for one will cripple their entry into profitable crafting. I have the advantage of seeing this issue from both ends. I don't know where you're getting your wild notions about who has what resources, because they don't seem to match any server I know of.

I don't agree with tax system at all. i wouldn't be against a penalty system for the purpose of vacating lots. Everyday your house goes unused by you or your FC you get charged $xx amount of gil for the "upkeep' of that property in your absence. once the cost in penalties exceeds a certain percentage of your housing value the house becomes forfeited and returns to the market.

Also the gil sink theory, while applicable in the economic understanding between rich and poor players doesn't hold much weight in the context of absent players as any money in hands of a player who is absent has zero purchase power and is essentially 100% out of the market unless the player returns at some point.

Now this I didn't consider. Very interesting, Dante. I think it would work. What would you call such a system?

[StouterTaru]

You're really ignoring the whole point of my statements - which is that gil destruction increases the proportionate value of gil generated by quests, which is the primary means of income for new players who have yet to grasp the finer points of the market board.

Consider any fine ever against a major bank. The bank did something unethical/illegal to boost profits, and they take a big hit for it. They don't say "you got us, we'll just make a $billion less profit this quarter." If they did that, the CEO/board would be out of a job pretty soon.

The shareholders demand profits where they were the previous quarters, so they raise account/convenience fees and/or remove benefits, which hit the lower middle class the hardest.

----------------

Remember what happened when they first announced housing (giant money sink) was coming? Gil hoarding, everything easy to get/make on the market crashed to ~1/4 of its previous price. High end items took a hit, but nowhere near that. So the people scrimping up gil from dungeon drops lose their support means of income (tome items, GC seal items, dungeon drops) and have nothing but the raw gil itself, and the same price to buy the stuff they want. The money makers still were rolling in the gil, and costs for materials were down.

I was pulling in 500k per week on average from 15 minutes of crafting/restocking retainers each day, while the forums were filled with people complaining that repair bills made dungeons/raids/farming a losing enterprise.

Handouts to the rich aren't going to trickle down substantially, but penalties to them sure will.

[Yeldir]

What?

No.

...

and more quickly reachable through gil generated as opposed to gil taken from other players. I shouldn't have to explain the importance of the distinction between those two income sources, and how they relate to new players and the barrier of entry they face when growing towards crafting for profit.

I guess I'll have to explain the difference after all. The problem I'm struggling to describe to you depends on the purchasing habits of new players vs established omnicrafters.

Who buys the things new players produce as they level to 50 and beyond?
Other new players, or people taking up crafting for the first time, almost to the point of completely excluding established omnicrafters.

I do not buy shards. Ever. In fact, none of the things I craft use any materials below one-star. I've crunched the numbers, and it is almost never worth my time to make anything that uses the items new players generate.

On the other hand, they desperately need many of the things I can make, if they want to progress beyond one star. As a goldsmith, I sell to two target audiences - already rich players who can afford to kit themselves out in platinum DoW/DoM gear, and poor players and new crafters who must have my crafting jewelry to proceed.

Let me remind you at no point do I purchase items from what I'll call the "low level" economy. This means my money, and the money of other fatcats like me, never has any direct route of reaching the pockets of new players, while they are frequently forced to pay money directly to me to "reach my level", as it were.

That leaves new players selling to new players and people breaking into crafting for the first time - people who, frankly, don't have a whole lot of gil to throw around.

What that means is simple: all the money goes to the top, i.e., me. And then when a new patch hits with incredible new crafting recipes, the money at the top changes hands, but only with people who are at the top already, or reach it first. A new player can never, ever make anything your standard fatcat ever has to pay for. Do you see what I'm saying?

The net result of this is extreme wealth concentration, and it means the larger proportion of the gil on the low-end side of the market is "generated" from quests and the like. Reducing the total amount of gil possessed by the "haves" increases the relative value of the static gil reward provided by those quests.