Quote Originally Posted by Aniise View Post
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.



Quote Originally Posted by Aniise View Post
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.

Quote Originally Posted by Aniise View Post
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.