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.

[HyoMinPark]

We have a mansion in our ward that has been virtually empty for a year and a half it has 5 items in it a garden and a stable. They log on to pay the sub as we see the player appear every few weeks. I am glad they are forced to log on.

You quoted me, but I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here?

I never once said that people should be able to keep housing based off of just having an active subscription, and not have to log in/access the house to keep it.

Clarification on what you mean would be much appreciated, because I'm honestly confused as to why you quoted me, and then commented.

[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.

[ThePatron13]

I have to agree with the sentiment that the current time is a valid constraint. As Nyerieri stated the auto demolition doesn't actually happen until 45 days of inactivity, for such a constrained market we need limits like that. It would be infuriating to see houses sitting unused for several months.

[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.

[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.

[Masekase_Hurricane]

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.

As far as I know SE don't delete your account after any period of time. I have known people that have returned from 3+years after leaving in 1.0. I also left the game for a year and a half and my account was still there. Also if the account isn't a recurring payment then it would be just left sat there family wouldn't bother to deal with it. Most family members would also just cancel the recurring payment and not delete your account especially if they knew you loved the game.