I get why you feel that way, but that's not the case. We've had members join up AFTER my co-leader and I spent all our gil purchasing the house and then decide to stick around to get permissions and take things. People who show up after we've purchased our house aren't entitled to the estate just because it belongs to the FC. Sure, if they had a hand in helping to purchase the plot and the permit they do. But I'm talking people who either don't contribute anything(be it gil or mats or even helping lower level players within the fc) or join up after the estate is there. People can't steal or plan to steal what they can't see, and they'll get tired of waiting within a few days. Not to mention, I don't enjoy having members who just intend to use us for housing features; I've had people ask to join up to use our stables and chocobo food and then leave when their bird is the color they want, or people who said, in all honesty, that they don't care about the fc and they just want a room of their own. Restricting access to the estate discourages these types of "members". That isn't the problem.
The problem is that this feature can be used to abuse others all because the devs won't allow people to vacate furnished rooms from the lawn. All features in this game can be used to abuse and/or harass others. voting to kick a member from a dungeon/trial/raid, the rank system in FCs, even Linkshells and the MB if a person is popular enough. However, all of those systems have the means for players to remove themselves or protect themselves from harassment. This case did not have that. Because you cannot vacate from the lawn, these players could not protect themselves or their items. Everything in game has potential for exploitation. That's why almost everything has a backup plan or a way out. This situation could have been avoided had the devs allowed for people to vacate furnished rooms. It's that simple.


Reply With Quote





