Forcing players to pay to keep housing is unfair.

[Klamor]

To play the devil's advocate here, I'm interested in peoples' opinions on this while considering that active duty military play these games as well. If I cared about a house (I don't) and bought one, should I really lose it just because I get deployed for several months to a year? One could argue the whole "not using it" scenario, sure. But if my subscription says active (which it does when I'm deployed) because I have the income to do so, why shouldn't I get to keep the items I worked for, the house included?

Now, I'll say the housing situation in this game is absolutely horrid, and its implementation is the reason for my lack of interest in it, but I'm just curious what reason(s) is/are valid for simply having an active subscription to be sufficient to "keep what you kill".

Well if this person is in active military or any job that they are away for long periods of time. They do not need a gardening plot, chocobo stable(rarely gonna be dyeing the bird). If it's their own personal FC then they wont be using the airships. They also wont be able to reset the timer for reclamation. So please tell me why they need a house and not an apartment, as all the features of a house/personal FC they will hardly be at the house to use.

First off the military do great things for the country they represent, what happens if they do die or are seriously injured that they cant play? Is SE supposed to just keep their house there as a personal shrine for other players? I'm sorry I don't mean to come off insensitive saying this. Thank god this is all SE does pre 14 if you was away for more than 3 months your whole account was at risk of being deleted.

The subscription provides access to the servers, and the data they contain (the game). By abiding the rules and playing the game properly, one obtains a personal house or personal FC house to take part in the content that opens up which is all that you mentioned. The "not using it currently" argument doesn't carry through when they return and continue using it where they left off. Also, provided said service member has any family, in the event of their death the subscription would likely be terminated, thus allows for the demolition of housing or otherwise deletion of the account in its entirety as some companies already do.

[Dustytome]

To play the devil's advocate here, I'm interested in peoples' opinions on this while considering that active duty military play these games as well. If I cared about a house (I don't) and bought one, should I really lose it just because I get deployed for several months to a year? One could argue the whole "not using it" scenario, sure. But if my subscription says active (which it does when I'm deployed) because I have the income to do so, why shouldn't I get to keep the items I worked for, the house included?

At this point, yes. You should know by now what you're getting into. Do I think someone deployed deserves to have their house removed? No. Unfortunately this is how this game is and these are the rules of housing they have set. If apartments don't do it for you and you need housing that is kept despite being gone long periods of time, this game - as it is now - is not for you. Only SE can change that by investing in a functional system, not simply inflating a problematic one.

[Masekase_Hurricane]

To play the devil's advocate here, I'm interested in peoples' opinions on this while considering that active duty military play these games as well. If I cared about a house (I don't) and bought one, should I really lose it just because I get deployed for several months to a year? One could argue the whole "not using it" scenario, sure. But if my subscription says active (which it does when I'm deployed) because I have the income to do so, why shouldn't I get to keep the items I worked for, the house included?

Now, I'll say the housing situation in this game is absolutely horrid, and its implementation is the reason for my lack of interest in it, but I'm just curious what reason(s) is/are valid for simply having an active subscription to be sufficient to "keep what you kill".

Well if this person is in active military or any job that they are away for long periods of time. They do not need a gardening plot, chocobo stable(rarely gonna be dyeing the bird). If it's their own personal FC then they wont be using the airships. They also wont be able to reset the timer for reclamation. So please tell me why they need a house and not an apartment, as all the features of a house/personal FC they will hardly be at the house to use.

If they ever make an exception, that should be it. Deployed players should keep everything.

When Everquest 2 was not F2P, I deployed to Egypt and was gone for a couple of months. When I came back, I only had to pay the weekly rent cost (cost less then gear repairs) to open it for the next week. All my stuff was where I left it.

As I said earlier in this thread. Deployed players help us all keep playing the game. Its not too much to ask for them to be able to keep certain features when they are called to duty (one that could cause them permanent injury or end their lives for our safety). That's the honorable thing to do.

That would allow everyone to have access to the features they've paid for.

First off the military do great things for the country they represent, but what happens if they do die or are seriously injured that they cant play? Is SE supposed to just keep their house there as a personal shrine for other players? Thank god this is all SE does pre 14 if you was away for more than 3 months your whole account was at risk of being deleted. I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive.

[Kaethra]

To play the devil's advocate here, I'm interested in peoples' opinions on this while considering that active duty military play these games as well. If I cared about a house (I don't) and bought one, should I really lose it just because I get deployed for several months to a year? One could argue the whole "not using it" scenario, sure. But if my subscription says active (which it does when I'm deployed) because I have the income to do so, why shouldn't I get to keep the items I worked for, the house included?

Now, I'll say the housing situation in this game is absolutely horrid, and its implementation is the reason for my lack of interest in it, but I'm just curious what reason(s) is/are valid for simply having an active subscription to be sufficient to "keep what you kill".

If they ever make an exception, that should be it. Deployed players should keep everything.

When Everquest 2 was not F2P, I deployed to Egypt and was gone for a couple of months. When I came back, I only had to pay the weekly rent cost (cost less then gear repairs) to open it for the next week. All my stuff was where I left it.

As I said earlier in this thread. Deployed players help us all keep playing the game. Its not too much to ask for them to be able to keep certain features when they are called to duty (one that could cause them permanent injury or end their lives for our safety). That's the honorable thing to do.

The best and fair thing to do for everyone would be to open more districts as current plots fill up. Districts are instances. It doesn't hurt anything to open more up. Nor does it cost anything (the data storage info is VERY small due to instantiation of objects, to put it shortly, our computers bear the brunt of that storing the actual models and textures locally). This way they could extend the period before destruction/closure or even eliminate it entirely.

That would allow everyone to have access to the features they've paid for.

[Dustytome]

Districts are instances. It doesn't hurt anything to open more up. Nor does it cost anything (the data storage info is VERY small due to instantiation of objects, to put it shortly, our computers bear the brunt of that storing the actual models and textures locally). This way they could extend the period before destruction/closure or even eliminate it entirely.

The wards are ZONES, not instances. They're constantly up.

[Kaethra]

The wards are ZONES, not instances. They're constantly up.

Read up on what instance means in programming. I'm not using the term in a MMO sense. Even though they are closely related.

Anytime you copy an Object (Zone is an object), you're making an instance of it. If you see two mobs with the same name, model, and texture, they are instances of one another. Its a trick to call on a single file and use it more than once without it taking double the space in memory.

If they double the districts from 12 to 24, there is NO impact on memory due to instantiation. Only the storage in the database (simple numbers measured in bytes) that show location of items placed, orientation, and type as well as any characters in them.

[alimdia]

Read up on what instance means in programming. I'm not using the term in a MMO sense. Even though they are closely related.

You cannot disregard the MMO term because it explains how instances are used in this game, ward instances are never closed, they are live using RAM and CPU 24/7 as long as the server is running, we were explained as much before, which is why they can't freely add more wards, but house instances are closed once you exit or logout and the position of furniture is saved, recreated when you re-enter the house.

This is also why we're getting an increased item limit inside houses but not outdoors, because outdoors is always taking resources.

[KarstenS]

This is also why we're getting an increased item limit inside houses but not outdoors, because outdoors is always taking resources.

Maybe you listen closer next time.

There are 2 kinds of resources.

1. Server resources
2. Client resources

The reason for not increasing the amount of outdoor furnishings are the client resources. FFXIV is not streamloading like other games. When you enter an area, the game loads the entire map with all objects into graphics memory. There seems to be a limit they currently can't bypass.

[Niwashi]

Read up on what instance means in programming. I'm not using the term in a MMO sense. Even though they are closely related.

Anytime you copy an Object (Zone is an object), you're making an instance of it. If you see two mobs with the same name, model, and texture, they are instances of one another. Its a trick to call on a single file and use it more than once without it taking double the space in memory.

If they double the districts from 12 to 24, there is NO impact on memory due to instantiation. Only the storage in the database (simple numbers measured in bytes) that show location of items placed, orientation, and type as well as any characters in them.

That usage of the word is irrelevant in this context. (And by that usage, zones are instances too, just a special type of instance.) Doubling the zones doubles the memory, because you don't just have twice the number of possible instances, you have twice the number of concurrently active instances.

Zones are up on the servers all the time, with everything in them loaded into working memory all the time. Instances (or non-zone instances if you prefer), are not. What makes instanced housing more efficient is the fact that once people leave their house, the instance is closed, and all that memory space is freed up to use for a different instance. In a shared space, whether that's a housing ward or Central Thanalan, the servers never get that chance to close that area and use the space for something else.


Even your mob comparison doens't really fit. That multiple mobs of the same type share the same name, model, and texture is irrelevant, because the server doesn't know about any of those details. To the server a mob is an object ID of some sort that it can map to a set of rules about how that mob acts. But it computes the mob's actions separately for each of them. Even where multiple mobs share a common ID and set of rules, they each have their own position, movement, actions, HP, aggro status and so on, and those are the sort of things the server is tracking.

[ThePatron13]

To play the devil's advocate here, I'm interested in peoples' opinions on this while considering that active duty military play these games as well. If I cared about a house (I don't) and bought one, should I really lose it just because I get deployed for several months to a year? One could argue the whole "not using it" scenario, sure. But if my subscription says active (which it does when I'm deployed) because I have the income to do so, why shouldn't I get to keep the items I worked for, the house included?

The subscription does not inherently guarantee you access to housing though, the only justification would have to be some kind of additional charge to keep housing or other content like that, and you would end up with the "not using it" argument again.