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

[Yeldir]

This thread has really turned into a textbook example of the have/have not aspect of human psychology.

On one end of it, you've got the haves, who will do any kind of mental gymnastics they can possibly squeeze themselves through to justify the current system.

On the other end, you've got people who want to tear it down. I suppose I'm the latter, although in a rather different sense, as the system I'd like penalizes me as much as anyone else (plot taxation).

That, and even if I had a home this very moment, I'd still want to be taxed, and I'd still want my home to be something I could lose. That does make me less selfish than a lot of you. If that makes you mad, well, maybe you should reflect on why.

[Madjames]

This thread has really turned into a textbook example of the have/have not aspect of human psychology.

On one end of it, you've got the haves, who will do any kind of mental gymnastics they can possibly squeeze themselves through to justify the current system.

On the other end, you've got people who want to tear it down. I suppose I'm the latter, although in a rather different sense, as the system I'd like penalizes me as much as anyone else (plot taxation).

That, and even if I had a home this very moment, I'd still want to be taxed, and I'd still want my home to be something I could lose. That does make me less selfish than a lot of you. If that makes you mad, well, maybe you should reflect on why.

The big problem is INACTIVE people. SE needs to combat that and give inactive people that are probably not coming back their homes to us paying subscribers.

[StouterTaru]

This thread has really turned into a textbook example of the have/have not aspect of human psychology.

On one end of it, you've got the haves, who will do any kind of mental gymnastics they can possibly squeeze themselves through to justify the current system.

On the other end, you've got people who want to tear it down. I suppose I'm the latter, although in a rather different sense, as the system I'd like penalizes me as much as anyone else (plot taxation).

That, and even if I had a home this very moment, I'd still want to be taxed, and I'd still want my home to be something I could lose. That does make me less selfish than a lot of you. If that makes you mad, well, maybe you should reflect on why.

I think this post is a textbook of human psychology, specifically projection. You left out the part where the system you want would also BENEFIT you greatly, but it's easy to forget that since you're not selfish.

[Voldemort]

This thread has really turned into a textbook example of the have/have not aspect of human psychology.
On one end of it, you've got the haves, who will do any kind of mental gymnastics they can possibly squeeze themselves through to justify the current system.
On the other end, you've got people who want to tear it down.

Except Housing is the only aspect of the game that is limited in content that falls into haves and have-nots.
Every single player can do quests to level up
Every single player can participate in hunts without a linkshell
Every single player can access a free company with no hurdles
Even something as arduous as getting Dreadwyrm gear or the Relic weapons can be achieved with enough time and effort, as everyone can access it.


However, Housing is nothing like the above. It wouldn't matter if everyone on the server had hundreds of millions of gil, there physically is not enough houses to go around. Which then actually limits players from experiencing content associated with housing.

This is probably why players are upset. There is actual content that is and will be missed by a vast majority of players not due to "I can't grind enough gil/am too lazy", it's the reality that having gil does not mean you get a house.

[Nalien]

On one end of it, you've got the haves, who will do any kind of mental gymnastics they can possibly squeeze themselves through to justify the current system.

Hope that isn't directed at me, because I'm against both the current system and turning housing into Tenancy Simulator.

Still waiting for someone to point out the big difference between what I've suggested and Rent. The only real one seems to be that Rent favours the mega-rich, which.... lol.

[GenJoe]

Still waiting for someone to point out the big difference between what I've suggested and Rent. The only real one seems to be that Rent favours the mega-rich, which.... lol.

You're right, rent would alienate more people and I think that's what us the rent advocates are after..

Personally, I'm in suppose of both, inactivity check plus an upkeep, I admit it may limit the housing to mostly wealthy, but I feel like even then we'd have problems with shortage on housing on most servers. Also, if being rich was the only way to own and maintain a house, people would just put more effort into making the gil, many people are already capable of earning much more gil than they currently do, they just don't because there's no need for it. Will this make the task a chore? That depends, people who did the Zeta grind wouldn't say that it was a chore even though they probably hated the grind on more than a few occasions, but the grind is necessary for an MMO, grind to keep a house on top of the other grinds we already have, I don't think it'll change things too much.

[Nalien]

Will this make the task a chore? That depends, people who did the Zeta grind wouldn't say that it was a chore even though they probably hated the grind on more than a few occasions, but the grind is necessary for an MMO, grind to keep a house on top of the other grinds we already have, I don't think it'll change things too much.

There is a difference though; Zeta had a cut off. If you had to continually grind Atma every month to maintain your Atma weapon, redo Animus books because they wore off every month, do new Sphere Scrolls, etc., people would be just as pissed at the Relic grind as they are at this Rent concept.

Like I said earlier, I don't see much problem with a Rent if it has some cut off that effectively means I pay the same thing just in smaller installments. Having an endless Rent system just increases the amount I'd sink into my house; If it cost me 10m, by now it would perhaps have cost me 12m. That would keep inflating, and if I got bored of owning virtual land and wanted to pass it on to someone else... Well now we have a problem. I want something back, the more I sink into it the more I'm going to want back. That creates a situation where owners are less willing to give up land they're not using. Surely we want a situation where people who've grown bored of their house want to move it on quickly? Rent doesn't achieve that. A proper land for sale system does.

Both what I've suggested earlier, and Rent, achieve the exact same thing. The only real difference is Rent annoys a great deal of people and further 1%s house owners, while what I've suggested actually rewards people for being reasonable and passing on their land to someone else.

[Krylo]

Suggesting system that blocks everyone who isn't even richer than already required out of housing, accuses everyone else in thread of being selfish and elitist despite the only person agreeing with him being a self-admitted elitist.

Hold on a moment. I've got something for this. . .

It's around here somewhere. . .

Haven't pulled it out in awhile. . .

Oh there it is:

[Yeldir]

Your teenage girl would hold up better if there was any accuracy to your halfhearted attack on my personal character, Kry.

Problems with your accusation(s):

1. I suggested a system that would unblock access to housing. You think my piddling 100k on small lots matters to the armies of people with tens of millions saved up for homes they aren't allowed to buy? You really think that the people reading this thread are dumb enough to think I'm in favor of blocking people from content?

2. I didn't accuse everyone of being selfish. I accused "a lot of people" if being selfish, and from my context of "haves" and "have nots", the accusation is specifically and obviously (to anyone with a brain and a pulse) levied against "haves" who want their homes to last forever, at any cost (to everyone but themselves), and damn SE's claims that their server architecture can't support thirty wards of empty homes owned by inactive players.

3. If you actually look at this thread, I'd say at least a third of the posters agree with me. Many more agree partially, but think that things need to be changed with different forms of upkeep and/or player eviction. Some of them have suggested good alternatives.

4. Elitist? Me? I'm like the Robin Hood of Famfrit. I give, and give, because others deserve to have.