We need another Housing purge

[OliverB]

I have no idea what I’m talking about

Hilarious how you come up with scenarios. You have no idea about my previous distribution of grandfathered houses and how many houses I had in my possession when the restriction was ongoing. But please, keep on making hypothetical scenarios, it’s good entertainment.

[NanaWiloh]

What you fail to understand is that there is a person posting here explaining how they exploited the system while under those restrictions. They obtained 7 houses unfairly because of this. They posted here explaining how they unfairly gained 7 houses with the restriction by having account 3 buy the FC house, then changing the leadership to each alt on account 2. Because 9 houses was gained prior to the patch, and the second account can have 2 legitimately, that leaves 7 houses gained due to breaking ToS guideline 2.1. The post they made in this thread, post number 84, is proof of that violation. Really shocked seeing someone post how they did a game exploit on official forums, thought I saw everything.

FC system > Housing System what part of that dont you get. There is no rule against Buying a FC house passing leadership leaving then starting a new FC and getting a new house. If this was the case so many players would be in violation of the TOS it would not even be funny.

[Hamada]

Hilarious how you come up with scenarios. You have no idea about my previous distribution of grandfathered houses and how many houses I had in my possession when the restriction was ongoing. But please, keep on making hypothetical scenarios, it’s good entertainment.

You said it right here:

Correct, I did have to transfer ownership from service account #3 to my service account #2, #1 already being loaded with 9 houses when they doubled the amount of wards. That restriction was dropped when they allowed anyone to purchase a house. You can now purchase as many FC houses as you want, just like it's always been aside from those two weeks where people could only relocate or purchase an FC house.

[Lambdafish]

You said it right here:

Gottem.

Seriously though, if you are going to break the ToS, coming to the forums and bragging about it is a really stupid move. I hope the end result is a ban of at least 45 days so that housing demolition kicks in.

The Devs need to treat this kind of thing seriously, housing is very delicate right now, it's good for some servers, and not for others, and people gaming the system should be appropriately dealt with

[Cylla]

What are you talking about?
It does matter.
There is simply no system can satisfy the Balmung with such monesteric size of population

Stop with the "high pop" server crap already. All your doing, just like SE, is using it as an excuse. Low pop, High pop, it doesn't matter. It a problem regardless. Even people on low pop servers are doing it, they just aren't noticed like the higher population servers.

Please read. Thanks.

*edit - Let not go there with the whole Balmung thing as if I don't know what going on there. I moved off Balmung about two weeks ago. It isn't just Balmung suffering, so let just stop there and agree that it a problem for every server be it low or high pop.

[NanaWiloh]

The default housing rules are as follows. Every character on your account no matter what world they are on. Are allowed to own 1 FC house either by being a FC leader or Member of a FC that already owns a house. The temporary rule change set it so that characters on the same account and world could not PURCHASE a FC house while one of them was part of a FC that owned a house. It did not repeat did not change the ownership rule!! A player with 1 account buying multiple FC homes on the same account all at the same time. While retaining ownership on that account during the temp rules would have been a TOS violation. A player using 2 accounts is not cause the accounts are treated as two seperate players.

[Lambdafish]

A player using 2 accounts is not cause the accounts are treated as two seperate players.

That may depend on the GM, the post history on this thread indicates that it is one person. Had they kept quiet then maybe you would be right, but by making lots of noise about what they have done, I don't think a GM could turn around and say that it is two people, the evidence is there.

[Cylla]

That may depend on the GM, the post history on this thread indicates that it is one person. Had they kept quiet then maybe you would be right, but by making lots of noise about what they have done, I don't think a GM could turn around and say that it is two people, the evidence is there.

But the question is, will they do something about it or just turn the other way like normal and pretend they didn't see anything?
This isn't the first time it happened. Think about a year ago someone brought up an issue where in two people bought a whole ward. As far as I'm aware, those two people still have that ward claimed to themselves.

[NanaWiloh]

That may depend on the GM, the post history on this thread indicates that it is one person. Had they kept quiet then maybe you would be right, but by making lots of noise about what they have done, I don't think a GM could turn around and say that it is two people, the evidence is there.

The Temp rule was per account. Coming in now and saying it applies too people with multiple accounts and punishing them after the fact would look bad on SE. As stated before its not against the rules for the leader of FC with a house to pass leadership leave start a new FC and get a new FC house. If that was the case a lot of players would be in violation of the TOS mulitple accounts or not.

[Hamada]

But the question is, will they do something about it or just turn the other way like normal and pretend they didn't see anything?
This isn't the first time it happened. Think about a year ago someone brought up an issue where in two people bought a whole ward. As far as I'm aware, those two people still have that ward claimed to themselves.

That was different, there was no restrictions in place then. With this, they flat out explained how they got around the making purchases of FC houses when it was restricted to one FC house per account. Because they kept feeding FC houses to one account, being owned by 2 people or 1 does not matter, they where clearly bypassing a restriction, thus violating 2.1. Also as far as I am aware, they never came to the OF explaining how they bypassed or exploited some loophole.