4.2 Housing Update

[BlackironTarkus]

You might be able to compensate the worth of the plot with enough Gil but what about the time and care that went into the houses? I know how invested some people are in stuff like that and I belive that it will make them really sad to give something up they've probably owned for a long time.

If they don't remove houses from people who own multiples when these rules go live or have a system in place to force relinquish you are left with a core group of 'elite' service accounts who are objectively better than any service account who does not own more than 1 house, because housing in this game is directly tied to power. Until they add a universal gardening plot somewhere and an airship hangar where anyone can perform these activities regardless of being homeless or not, these elite service accounts are actively hurting the community and barring players from content they could do if they owned a house.

[Aniise]

If they don't remove houses from people who own multiples when these rules go live or have a system in place to force relinquish you are left with a core group of 'elite' service accounts who are objectively better than any service account who does not own more than 1 house, because housing in this game is directly tied to power. Until they add a universal gardening plot somewhere and an airship hangar where anyone can perform these activities regardless of being homeless or not, these elite service accounts are actively hurting the community and barring players from content they could do if they owned a house.

Nah, I think your approach on this might be a bit too agressive, not to be rude. Or maybe it's better to say that it seems that you look only at the facts while I try to take emotional factors into account.

But...housing is tied to power? How exactly? You mean as some kind of status symbol? Or just because of the gardening stuff?
I honestly belive they _will_ add gardening to appartements in the future though, again for those famous 'fairness' purposes. But while this is just one of my stupid hopes, I still think as mean as it may sound to you, that it should be handeled 'first come, first served'.

The fact that poeple could own more that one house existed since they decided to implement personal housing. So, it existed for years. And I don't think it will throw the balance off as much as you think it will. But again...you can just say those are simply my assumptions. (Also sorry for my english, it's not my mother tounge and I hope you can still understand where I'm coming from with this)

[Sairys]

Nah, I think your approach on this might be a bit too agressive, not to be rude. Or maybe it's better to say that it seems that you look only at the facts while I try to take emotional factors into account.

I mean, the issue with the emotional factors you're taking into account is that they only those of the people that have been benefitting from the current system, and in turn you're arguing that they should continue to benefit.

The other side is that for every person that talks about the joy they've had decorating their second or third house (or their practically private ward), there is a group of people upset about the housing situation. People that want to experience that who are locked out.

There are FCs that want to get a house to get the benefits they convey for an FC, but that group of people is being told that they need to suck it up because someone really needs to have a cute library for their scholar alt while their warrior needs a trophy den. Because the one player would feel sad if they lost their two houses?
But somehow that one person is more important than the group of people that are frustrated/upset/angry?

Realistically, forcing people down to 1/1 is simple utilitarianism if you want to get ethical. It's the greatest good for the greatest number of people, it might suck for some, but it's going to be good for more people.

[Aniise]

There are FCs that want to get a house to get the benefits they convey for an FC, but that group of people is being told that they need to suck it up because someone really needs to have a cute library for their scholar alt while their warrior needs a trophy den. Because the one player would feel sad if they lost their two houses?
But somehow that one person is more important than the group of people that are frustrated/upset/angry?

I never stated that I thought that one group was more important that the other one. Sadly, with the housing system it's just like I said, 'first come, first served'. As hard as that may sound. But it would be the same the other way around.

Imagine that scholar who dreams of his 'own cute library' and really wants it, prepared for it and gathered all the money by himself, but gets outrun by that FC that prepared aswell. In that case that scholar need to suck it up just as well.
You wouldn't want to tell the FC that they have to give up their house for the benefit of the scholar, right? Then, why do it the other way around? Because the scholar already has another house, or an appartement, or a room in his FC's house? They both had the same chance of getting a house in this case. The other party was just a tad more lucky. Who are we to say who deserves it more?

Sadly that's what housing is in FFXIV. To change this, the _whole_ system would need a complete change that would probably result in taking all houses away, and install instanced housing or something like that, and I guarantee you that there would be a big uproar if they suddenly decided to do this.

Long story short, I just can't stand behind the idea of taking things from people they have owned for a while just 'for the greater good of the majority'. In my eyes it's plainly wrong, while in your eyes it might just be the best choice they can make at this point. I guess we just stand on different moral points there.

Edit: Also, with the new system added, it's almost guaranteed that each FC who wants a house will get one. Even the ones with less then 4 people; all they have to do is recruit a few players beforehand which isn't that much work tbh. :P

[Sairys]

Imagine that scholar who dreams of his 'own cute library' and really wants it, prepared for it and gathered all the money by himself, but gets outrun by that FC that prepared aswell. In that case that scholar need to suck it up just as well.
You wouldn't want to tell the FC that they have to give up their house for the benefit of the scholar, right? Then, why do it the other way around? Because the scholar already has another house, or an appartement, or a room in his FC's house? They both had the same chance of getting a house in this case. The other party was just a tad more lucky. Who are we to say who deserves it more?

The scholar in the example already has one house... so yeah, they should suck it up if an FC without a house beats them and the Scholar doesn't get it... too bad. Similarly, no... I wouldn't expect an FC with only one house to give it to a Scholar who already has one.

Simple maths really makes it balance out quite obviously, if there are more unique players in the fc than 1 then they are more important than the 1. Just to point it out... the devs have said who deserves it more with the way they've tilted everything in favour of the FCs now... it's the FCs.

Sadly that's what housing is in FFXIV. To change this, the _whole_ system would need a complete change that would probably result in taking all houses away, and install instanced housing or something like that, and I guarantee you that there would be a big uproar if they suddenly decided to do this.

Yeah, seems like they could avoid that by... not grandfathering people in and buying more time to add more wards in.

Long story short, I just can't stand behind the idea of taking things from people they have owned for a while just 'for the greater good of the majority'. In my eyes it's plainly wrong, while in your eyes it might just be the best choice they can make at this point. I guess we just stand on different moral points there.

It's not really morals it's ethics. But realistically, applying your stance against yourself, it's morally right to take the houses away because the emotions of those that don't have houses would be negatively impacted.

[Aniise]

Simple maths really makes it balance out quite obviously, if there are more unique players in the fc than 1 then they are more important than the 1. Just to point it out... the devs have said who deserves it more with the way they've tilted everything in favour of the FCs now... it's the FCs.

Wow, so the dev's have 'said' who is more important now huh? I don't think the rule changes should be interpreted exactly this way.
Yes, they give the FCs an advantage now which is surely a good and welcomed change, and I also wrote that a few pages ago if I recall correctly.
But I guess it's happening because of the uproar after the Shirogane launch. Not because they think Fc's are more important. This is just your personal interpretation.
And if people should give up their houses now only for the benefit of FCs or rather small FCs with less then 4 people...well... quoting myself:

Edit: Also, with the new system added, it's almost guaranteed that each FC who wants a house will get one. Even the ones with less then 4 people; all they have to do is recruit a few players beforehand which isn't that much work tbh.

If an Fc doesn't use that big advantage then the fault lies with them. Simple. People who've had two houses for like 4 years shouldn't be punished for it now. :/
We can turn in circles speaking about ethics and stuff while from your point of view it's morally right, and from my point of view it's morally wrong. I guess we won't change each others point of view no matter what.

[Rymm]

People who've had two houses for like 4 years shouldn't be punished for it now.

I would just like to point out that the word "punished" isn't correct here. Being impacted negatively by something does not necessarily make it a punishment. I agree that players who purchased multiple homes did not break any rules (I'll not go into whether or not it was morally/ethically wrong) that SE had in place for housing, largely because SE totally screwed up housing and there were loopholes all over the place.

It's like owning a home with a big, beautiful front lawn for years. Eventually the traffic in front of your house gets worse and worse and finally the city has to do something to relieve the gridlock. So they decide to add another lane, by widening the street and taking part of your front lawn to do it, maybe even chopping down a tree or two. Does it negatively impact the homeowner? Yes. Is the homeowner being punished? No. But the city needs to infringe on their luxury in order to make the lives of the majority of people better.