Reclamation of Inactive Housing announced

[LaylaTsarra]

What someone does with the game while they pay it is just their call. If they want to get a house and only visit it once a year they should be free to do so, as they bought it and they're still paying customers. These players aren't the ones at fault for not being houses for everyone. Square-Enix is. So stop trying to dictate how other paying customers have to play, because that's none of your business. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I'm tired of this truly selfish nonsense.

I totally agree. Paying the sub fee should be the defining issue. Fix housing already because what they are doing to paying members in my view is wrong. I own a house, I visit it everyday, but that is in no way the reason why it think the way that I do.

[Crimsonwolf3400]

I think you pay lip service to the ideas of compassion and harmony, but at the end of the day, the only ideas I see you get behind are the ones that preserve the estates of the haves at the expense of the have nots. Your lofty words are so much doubletalk. If you were such a nice guy, you'd be willing to accept some self-sacrifice for the good of the community.

I've yet to "get behind" any ideas posted. You really have no idea what I would support, but you make assumptions to further your cause. Your posts are inflammatory, your sarcasm is provocative, and your decision to ignore, fabricate, or twist statements posted by others is reminiscent of satirical, political pundits. If you're conscientious of your own nature, as you posted previously, I would ask that you please try to curb your self-stated aggression for the sake of productive discussion, unless your only intent is to incite other users.

I've shown nothing but support for the idea of those without a home getting one, and my own will be shared the first day I am able to. I would even go so far as to agree that some homes should be reclaimed, as there are undoubtedly those taking advantage of the system. I still can not support this system as it is being implemented though, as the flaws are numerous.

1) The spirit of the system is designed to open up housing as adding more is financially prohibitive, yet those who subscribe will still be evicted if they fail to enter their home.
2) The system does nothing to address the issue of people owning multiple homes across their account for the sake of resale.
3) The loss of irretrievable items is of considerable consequence and cost, and seems a hefty punishment to levy on players for what may be a temporary absence.
4) While my own subscription has not lapsed since launch, I have numerous friends and acquaintances who will take breaks, sometimes between patches, to the point where I would say that such a thing is commonplace. Yet the 45 day timer for demolition seems to enforce players to remain for every patch, despite their personal support or enjoyment of the introduced content.
5) The 35 day timer for storing removed housing items and the 80% plot refund is unexplainable for a system that is designed to only target inactive players.
6) This implementation is designed in spirit to provide housing to more people, yet the current announced plans will demolish homes being utilized by people other than the owner when it launches beside shared housing.
7) Despite all of these negatives, the majority of players will still be without a home, the current system will still be manipulated, and even a 33% increase of housing to accompany Ishgard estates would have little effect on the homeless population.

Most, if not all, arguments to those points will return us to the fight between those with and those without, in which there is no winner, or hoping for more in the future, which is what has been happening to lead us to this point. While some of my points I would be willing to concede individually, the accumulation of so many negatives is too significant to ignore.

The launch player who left after hitting 60 may lose his house to one who joined for HW and plays actively, who may in turn lose his house again if he gets bored to the original owner when they return for 3.3. Neither person "wins" in this scenario, and they have both actively lost something they worked for. While such shuffling of assets solves an immediate issue, even with some new wards, it has considerable potential to harm the player base long-term.

I would be just as happy as you would to see those who are hoarding land for profit, or those who have long since quit with no desire to return, to lose their plots to people who are more deserving. I just find that the flaws of this system outweigh the benefits, and it can't even promise the return of these very same homes to the active sale market.

[Seryl199]

I know... that reclamation is only step one.

That's it. Step one. Housing reclamation accomplishes one very specific goal. It demolishes the estate of a player that goes unused for 45 days. That estate goes on sale to the public. That's something that effects both those with houses and those without. It provides X homes to the market, against Y number of players that are seeking housing and have prepared for it. I assure you that Y greatly exceeds X. Reclamation does not provide more houses. It prevents the market from going stagnant.

Oh, yeah, the opportunity to get homes really hurts those without homes. Because they might have to give them up if they quit!!! Tragic. Whatever, dude.

The opportunity doesn't hurt them, but chances are that a great many of them are still going to be without homes once reclamation has gone into effect. What that opportunity does do, however, is pit anyone without a house against anyone who doesn't maintain a continuous subscription, and it brings into play potent personal opinions of things like entitlement that can quickly turn a discussion into an argument.

People need to realize that the market is stagnant. Reclamation will revive it and keep it fresh. It adds no additional houses to existence. Housing is not a completed project, and it's not in a healthy state, considering how divisive a subject it is. It needs continued adjustments until it can accommodate a vastly larger portion of the player base, or it will continue to be limited and will remain a divisive and volatile subject between those that have it and those that don't.

[Lexia]

"This person has this one character on this locked server, but s/he doesn't raid nor do anything; s/he just comes into the game to chat with his/her friends. I want that player's character deleted so that I can create/move mine there to actually play the game as I think that everyone should. Oh, and also delete that other player's items from his inventory, as s/he never uses them and they're just taking precious resources that could be dedicated to increase my own bag space."

What someone does with the game while they pay it is just their call. If they want to get a house and only visit it once a year they should be free to do so, as they bought it and they're still paying customers. These players aren't the ones at fault for not being houses for everyone. Square-Enix is. So stop trying to dictate how other paying customers have to play, because that's none of your business. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I'm tired of this truly selfish nonsense.

Well the thread is original about people complaing about the 45 day limit being too short which it is not if you care so much for your house person can step in it once and go their way. Stop using it as some trophy, unlike character data you buying the game (not even paying the sub since get 30 days free) gets you a character unlike housing. So it not really a comparable argument.

[Ibi]

It needs continued adjustments until it can accommodate a vastly larger portion of the player base, or it will continue to be limited and will remain a divisive and volatile subject between those that have it and those that don't.

And honestly, SE's willingness to implement the system as they did (knowing they weren't going to satisfy even a fraction of the demand) and go over a year before making even a minor (and clearly extremely divisive) adjustment suggests that we're probably always going to be in that second situation, it's just a matter of the extent.

With the comments they've made, I'll personally be surprised if we ever make it to a situation where even half the people who want a personal house are able to get one.

[OfTheWhitewind]

snip

Having a character is waaaay different than owning a house since the latter is entirely optional and nothing more than a player trophy. So they are far from the same thing. You're basically comparing apples and oranges.

[Crimsonwolf3400]

Having a character is waaaay different than owning a house since the latter is entirely optional and nothing more than a player trophy. So they are far from the same thing. You're basically comparing apples and oranges.

Character space is limited on some servers, and the deletion of characters is the only way to free up space for new ones.
http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...06d0909189e479

[LaylaTsarra]

Character space is limited on many servers, and the deletion of characters is the only way to free up space for new ones.

Yeap even if they are paying a subscription and don't log in for 45 days, their characters should be deleted. Shame on them.

[Crimsonwolf3400]

Yeap even if they are paying a subscription and don't log in for 45 days, their characters should be deleted. Shame on them.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not endorsing deletion or advocating retention of characters, I'm simply pointing out a similarity in characters and housing in response to the previously quoted user. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, of course.

[loreleidiangelo]

No it should be how often you enter your house, someone even mentioned here on the forums that they play often (think it was everyday) but hadn't entered their house for months. So this person that plays everyday but hasn't bothered to visit their house for months which is a extended amount of time is what just using it a trophy or something? While the people that do want a house and would actually use it are left out.

...oh my god, you honestly believe that someone logging in once every 45 days and entering their house and then immediately logging out is somehow "using" it more than someone who pays their sub but, for whatever reason, can't or chooses not to login for those 45 days? Because by SE's rules that's their current definition of "use" that you are so furiously defending.

Look past your self-righteous keyboard rage to realize that the only difference between what I suggested and what SE wants is two minutes of login time; an inconvenience for the sake of being inconvenient. It in no way encourages or forces players to actively use and appreciate the functions of their house any more than they already do or do not do. Use logic, please; don't just arbitrary bang your hands on your keyboard and yell about how people need to be "using their house or losing it" when SE's defined concept of "use" doesn't actually require you to interact with any housing function beyond the front door.