Can we get an Official clarification on housing Demolish timer (45 or 90?)

[Sicno]

Because it's comparable to denying you of a housing (that I took it first) just as much as me holding onto it and deny you of said housing. Different circumstances, same effect. I wanted my house at any cost, so I camped it and took it for myself ,knowing very well that the other person won't be able to purchase it after I have.

...You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

[WinterLuna]

...You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

You kept going on about people not being sympathetic and sarcastic about the 'friendly community' but you are actually very rude yourself.

[WinterLuna]

Now, the biggest issue I think everyone is running into here is the fact that the "reasons" that more than 45 days might be needed are NOT good reasons. We have ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE here that you deem to be "needing more than 45 days" saying she does not infact need it. The irony is the people who DON'T have an illness are the one's fighting the person who DOES that she needs more time to keep her house *facepalm*. None of us are saying there aren't circumstances which come up. That's life.

Thank you for posting this, because it's exactly my point except I couldn't word it as well.

[Malevicton]

You kept going on about people not being sympathetic and sarcastic about the 'friendly community' but you are actually very rude yourself.

tbf the person they were replying to was ridiculous. One person having something means one other person can't have the same thing, but why in the world does that matter? They were equating buying a house with taking a house from someone else. It was a pretty silly premise, and a very forced argument.

[WinterLuna]

tbf the person they were replying to was ridiculous. One person having something means one other person can't have the same thing, but why in the world does that matter?

There's ways to share disagreement without being rude though

[Malevicton]

There's ways to share disagreement without being rude though

They were nice the first time. "Stroke even the face of a Buddha three times, and his anger will be roused." They coulda been nicer, but I don't think it's fair to turn that around on them.

We're also wandering in the gray area between rude and blunt. The person really didn't know what they were talking about, so why is it rude to say that they don't know what they're talking about?

[Malicewolf]

Thank you for posting this, because it's exactly my point except I couldn't word it as well.

Your welcome ^^

tbf the person they were replying to was ridiculous. One person having something means one other person can't have the same thing, but why in the world does that matter? They were equating buying a house with taking a house from someone else. It was a pretty silly premise, and a very forced argument.

Well to be fair, half the time someone says something that's an inbetween, it kinda turns out like this

[WinterLuna]

They were nice the first time. "Stroke even the face of a Buddha three times, and his anger will be roused." They coulda been nicer, but I don't think it's fair to turn that around on them.

We're also wandering in the gray area between rude and blunt. The person really didn't know what they were talking about, so why is it rude to say that they don't know what they're talking about?

Sure, but for someone who keeps preaching about the friendliness of the community and claiming others have said horrible things, they aren't helping themselves.

[Sicno]

You kept going on about people not being sympathetic and sarcastic about the 'friendly community' but you are actually very rude yourself.

Ok, ok, I'll try to be as friendly as I can and try to explain this, even though at this point I'm really feeling trolled.

Because it's comparable to denying you of a housing (that I took it first) just as much as me holding onto it and deny you of said housing. Different circumstances, same effect. I wanted my house at any cost, so I camped it and took it for myself ,knowing very well that the other person won't be able to purchase it after I have.

This may come as a surprise to you, but... have you thought that people don't buy and decorate houses thinking of holding them from other people while they laugh and curl their evil mustache and that instead they bought them FOR THEMSELVES TO USE AND ENJOY? I'm thinking you may be mixing up 2 kinds of housing owners. On one hand there are the people who actually use the houses for themselves and on the other hand you have the ones who hoard them and use them as market shares, who buy them not to use them for themselves but to resell them later at a higher price. Judging by your comments you may be thinking mostly of the 2nd type.

First of all, this system will not solve that problem, on the contrary. House resellers have enough resources to buy multiple houses on multiple alts as soon as the first round of reclamation happens, this will mean that even more houses are owned by resellers at first, and they'll even have a constant supply of houses to resell as more and more plots get free over time.

Second, not only will this not solve the problem, it'll punish some of the players of the first kind, those who actually inhabited those houses. And like someone else commented, this puts an extra pressure on those players, a pressure nobody else in the game have to worry about. Raiders and crafters who take a break at worst may have to catch up on stuff when they get back, meanwhile house owners will see their hard work lost (no, getting part of the gil back while losing the plot and expensive pieces of furniture is not "compensation" enough). And that for trying to appeal to the newly formed FCs, players who started playing later, those who weren't interested in housing at the time but now are, etc. As valid as the reasons are for wanting to own a house those don't invalidate the original owner's reasons for acquiring one when they did. This system canibalizes on the original owners and it's just evil.

[Malicewolf]

I think you also misunderstand where those saying "45 is enough" are coming from though. There are more than those 2 types of people you described. I have no issues with the 1st one. If you own a personal house AND you use it, then by all means, enjoy! I don't care to take away a house you own and use. I care that those who have one simply for the sake of having one, but don't use it, don't decorate it, or have quit the game already but didn't think to sell it prior to leaving the game. Those are the houses I want (and I'm sure a majority of those arguing) to see become available. Yes, there will be some people trying to capitalize on this to be able to resell for higher returns. That's part of this game too, but they cannot buy an entire ward at once. They'll definitely get a few. But everyone's eyes will be on this when it occurs. They won't get them all. After the first initial rush, I'm sure things will settle and normalize. The first set that delete though will likely be utter chaos as it will likely be the biggest set of available houses to come from this update (unless a new ward does get implemented soon).

We don't want to take all your houses. We want those who don't deserve them to give it back to the community who is looking. What the definition of "deserve" is in this case is subjective however. I personally don't care if you take a 45, 60, or 90 day break. So long as those who have no intent to use their house lose them (but honestly, i think 45 is plenty of time).