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

[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?

[GenJoe]

I just don't even understand this mentality. Why can't we band together to demand what SE originally promised us (separate from FC, more affordable) instead of coming up with these elaborate ways to punish one another for not making housing their number one priority upon every single login? Are we playing a real estate mmo? Or should housing be a fun and entertaining side activity for those who enjoy it?

I just can't see anyone enjoying this content with the level of stress some folks want to add.

Because the way SE decided to implement housing early on, it's not feasible to have 3,4, 5 times the wards we currently have just to satisfy demands.. We're working within a very finite system. If SE could magically come up with a way to add 24 more wards for each city, great.. What would be better is if they could consolidate the wards combine the main and subdivision, then double it to have 120 houses in each ward... We all have ideas on how housing could be better, but fact of the matter is, SE has already admitted that they can't just simply keep on adding more wards, at least not at a rate even remotely close to meeting the demand for housing..

You can blame SE for their shortcomings, it's very real.
But any change to Housing done at this point will be all an afterthought, you can't scrap the system entirely and start over from scratch, which is what doubling/tripling the wards will require.. Even separating FC/personal housing, I think it's too late to do that, they should've just waited to perfect the player housing before rushing it out intermingled with FC houses, but they didn't.. Too late to go back now.

[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]

Sounds like you're referencing the economy right around the launch of ARR. On new servers, that was a dark time of chain wipes in coil devouring hundreds of thousands of gil - but it was taking it that gil from already destitute battle classes. Pre-nerf repair costs were totally out of line. Crafters suffered no similar drain. This, coupled with the pressure to gear yourself out to be among the first to clear coil (gear that naturally came from crafters), really put non-crafters between a rock and a hard place, money wise.

So what penalties to the rich were there, exactly? That the early-adopters set about strangling the economy the moment people started pushing coil, to buy themselves houses? That's certainly what I was doing. I didn't feel penalized. I felt like I had everyone else over a barrel.

That was just a prelude for things to come, though. Now, there's several tiers of crafting gear between new players and large profits. I rather expect Heavensward to negate that gap, of course.

[StouterTaru]

Yes, I would say that was roughly 2-3 months after ARR launched. You dance around the issue, but never address how taxing the rich helps the poor, or anyone in general.

It makes plots available so those who can barely afford them can't handle the upkeep costs, and turns the game into a job for them? It substantially deflates the economy requiring ever more effort to keep that house, boosting RMT?

Easier solution, boot people who aren't paying to play the game anymore.

[Zorlinta]

Would be probably easier to make them implement some kind of mixed system like allowing other kind of housing plots in distinct new areas, and left untouched the ones that exist now. So like High-class houses (current ones) and Mid-class houses wich could be cheaper and have ownership valid while their suscription active (so 3-months max with option to renewal).

[Yeldir]

Taru, I find repeating myself to be tiresome. So, you will get what you deserve, as you seem unwilling to actually read my posts.

Yes, I would say that was roughly 2-3 months after ARR launched. You dance around the issue, but never address how taxing the rich helps the poor, or anyone in general.

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.

It makes plots available so those who can barely afford them can't handle the upkeep costs, and turns the game into a job for them? It substantially deflates the economy requiring ever more effort to keep that house, boosting RMT?

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.

In regards to RMT, does it not stand to reason that, in a deflated economy, gil sellers would have to expend more effort to generate the same amount of gil? So it doesn't boost it, exactly.

I'm beginning to regret using the word "tax" in the title of my thread. Cash burning would have been more appropriate.

[Madjames]

Yes, I would say that was roughly 2-3 months after ARR launched. You dance around the issue, but never address how taxing the rich helps the poor, or anyone in general.

It makes plots available so those who can barely afford them can't handle the upkeep costs, and turns the game into a job for them? It substantially deflates the economy requiring ever more effort to keep that house, boosting RMT?

Easier solution, boot people who aren't paying to play the game anymore.

My thoughts exactly. If you do not pay a sub, you do not deserve to keep an abandoned plot and keep it from someone such as my self that is an active subscriber *2.

[Zorlinta]

My thoughts exactly. If you do not pay a sub, you do not deserve to keep an abandoned plot and keep it from someone such as my self that is an active subscriber *2.

If so then mogstation would be happier if house system becomes something like extra retainers where you need to pay monthly to keep it working. NO THX.

Also surely nothing really would change because you cannot be sure that current owners are not activer suscribers.

[StouterTaru]

Taru, I find repeating myself to be tiresome. So, you will get what you deserve, as you seem unwilling to actually read my posts.

In regards to RMT, does it not stand to reason that, in a deflated economy, gil sellers would have to expend more effort to generate the same amount of gil? So it doesn't boost it, exactly.

I read your posts, it doesn't change the fact that those without housing have a hard time making gil, and in a deflated economy they would have a harder time. Look at all the "OMG, I spent 3 months busting my butt to save up 4 million for a house and now there are none" threads.

Then you say that players running quests would see a huge boost to their buying power, but RMT botting/hacking the quests/dungeons would have a harder time making gil. You make what, less than a million raw gil doing the MSQ through 2.55? Believe it or not, like it or not, RMT amounts for a substantial amount of the currency in the economy.

It's still taxing the rich for an imaginary benefit to the poor, which really hurts the poor substantially and barely scratches the rich.