"Vacate Chambers" without Estate Access

[crc0427]

Actually I tested this and estate hall access permission seems to do NOTHING. our member we tested with was still able to enter the houde and make a room.

[ToasterMan]

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.

This wouldn't be such a problem if housing was available for all players rather then just a few FC's and rich players

[AnnietheCat]

This wouldn't be such a problem if housing was available for all players rather then just a few FC's and rich players

I do agree with you, but that's a separate issue. However, the person wanting to use our stables wanted to use /our/ chocobo foods and /our/ seeds and /our/ soil. She wasn't going to pay for anything. So while I'm against the cost of personal housing, especially knowing first hand how difficult it can be to scrape that kind of gil together, the fact of the matter is the estate access setting helps to weed out the people who only want to /use/ Free Companies rather than be a part of them. Or at least that's how I use it. And much more than "a few" FCs have housing, and I'm far from rich and I bought myself a cottage. ¯\_(⌣̯̀⌣́)_/¯

[Silhouettic]

And much more than "a few" FCs have housing, and I'm far from rich and I bought myself a cottage. ¯\_(⌣̯̀⌣́)_/¯

The question is how long ago? I'm part of a relatively new FC (only a few months old) and things as they are there is no way for us to obtain a house at this time. We have every officer checking for vacant plots in all 3 areas, all wards, multiple times a day but the fact is that it's all gone with no ETA on when exactly anything is going to become available. Any newer players or FCs are restricted from housing purely on availability with no concrete dates for relief in sight. I'm sorry that people seem to be wanting to join your FC for the wrong reasons. It will be an issue until the matter is resolved though.

[AnnietheCat]

snip for length

I agree with you, but what I'm saying is that the housing restriction feature does currently have a use. The number of plots wasn't the problem at the time we had a majority of these requests; the players simply didn't have the gil to buy their own houses and somehow though a casual fc would be okay with being used like that. But this thread has nothing to do with the limited housing, and that's an issue that SE needs to actually fix. This thread is about the estate access feature being abused, and I simply stated that it does, currently, have a use. I was saying this to combat the idea that it doesn't have a place in this game and that everyone, regardless of circumstances, is entitled to the FC estate just because they happen to be part of that fc. To reiterate my point: all features in this game can be abused, and the problem is that SE didn't have the foresight to plan for this kind of situation, which is the reason this feature was able to be abused. The existence of this feature is not to blame for the behavior of that fc leader.

[Niwashi]

the person wanting to use our stables wanted to use /our/ chocobo foods and /our/ seeds and /our/ soil. She wasn't going to pay for anything. So ... the fact of the matter is the estate access setting helps to weed out the people who only want to /use/ Free Companies rather than be a part of them.

...This thread is about the estate access feature being abused, and I simply stated that it does, currently, have a use. I was saying this to combat the idea that it doesn't have a place in this game and that everyone, regardless of circumstances, is entitled to the FC estate just because they happen to be part of that fc.

But you keep mixing together different accesses. The ability to enter the FC house doesn't let them use your stables, food, gardens, seed, etc. You can block all of that, i.e. all of the exploitable stuff, without blocking access to the house. That specific access setting doesn't protect you from anything. Nobody has said that the other access settings aren't useful, only that there's no legitimate purpose for this particular one.

[saberchic]

Wow. I had no idea this was even going on. Was this ever resolved?

I don't know why SE doesn't perma-ban that player as she is extorting and harassing them.

[AnnietheCat]

snip

I also made mention of people who stated, and I quote "I can't afford a house and I just want a private room. I don't really care about being part of a company."

Restricting house features as a whole to the lowest rank level does, in fact, weed out shitty people who just want to use the company instead of wanting to be a part of it. So rather than blaming the feature, SE needs to be blamed for not having a contingency for this. Had those members been able to vacate from the lawn and pick up their items from the caretaker npc, this whole situation could have been avoided. Just because a feature can and has been exploited doesn't mean the feature doesn't have a place. FC's in general are exploited daily by RMT groups who store all the cheated gil they make in the fc chest so that they can give it to buyers without looking suspicious. There's three of those bot companies on Coeurl that I know of, btw. Also, four of the people I encountered who just wanted to use the fc estate were on coeurl, one of which tried to take the fc from me while I was away for a family emergency.

No one has the right to your FC estate just by being a part of it, especially those who did nothing to help you get it or just want to use that and not care about the fc at all. So it's great that you don't like it or need it. However, some of us like the feature and do use it. While you might not need it, there may be people on other servers who are constantly faced with users and abusers and want to weed them out. It does have a legitimate purpose, especially now with estate rooms, crafting benches, and food items scattered around plots. So I mean it's great that you have never dealt with those types of people, really, go you. But some people have and that's probably precisely why that feature was added in the first place. I didn't pay for a fc plot and nearly everything in it for my fc to be taken advantage of by assholes.

TL;DR: everything is exploitable and therefore it is SE's job to plan for this, and in this case they dropped the ball. The feature itself isn't useless and if you don't like it, don't use it. However, the fact remains that SE was unhelpful in this situation and /they/ believe the feature couldn't be exploited(the GMs somehow thought there was a loophole, after all). So tell SE to add a loophole, instead of removing a feature that some of us may actually use.

[Rina_Leonhart]

~

The ETA on possible open plots: Count 45 days forward from the start of patch 3.1 this is when people who have quit the game and don't plan on coming back (so who have not even logged in since patch) will have their housing removed from them. At least on my server, there are a lot of *ghost plots* I see around. Chances are there will be quite a few across the servers that will open up and give those fast enough a chance to get a house (and not through another player and the *relinquish* fee. Was in patch notes.

[Niwashi]

I also made mention of people who stated, and I quote "I can't afford a house and I just want a private room. I don't really care about being part of a company."

Restricting house features as a whole to the lowest rank level does, in fact, weed out shitty people who just want to use the company instead of wanting to be a part of it.

So when I point out that it isn't the notion of access settings in general, but just this specific one I have a problem with, you respond by just bringing up yet another one?

Ok, the only reason I can see for any company with a house wanting to restrict which of its members can have private rooms in that house is if it's a big enough FC that they'd hit the limit on the total number of private rooms they can have. But that's reason enough that it has to remain a setting, so if you want to make sure that only members who are around for a while can have a room, that's fine. It still has nothing to do with the question of whether being able to enter the FC house is something that can be restricted from FC members.

When it comes down to a matter of simply being whether you like another player and want them in your group, that's a decision for the FC leader and officers to make, implemented by inviting a player to join or kicking them out. No access setting is going to take care of just generally keeping out whoever you don't want there. How would you deal with someone who wants to be in your FC just because they like the tag that adds after their name, or because having an FC tag after their name keeps them from getting other FC invites? Access settings are for protecting the FC from people who would exploit it, not for finding who you want to play with and who you don't. That part is up to you.