We need another Housing purge

[Nixxe]

I am all for them changing the policy to deal with the loophole, but yeah it is a stretch to call it an exploit, but I do think the main reason people lump them together is based around the "advantage" it carries.

Giving FCs any sort of advantage was just a generally bad decision to begin with.

[Awha]

Giving FCs any sort of advantage was just a generally bad decision to begin with.

I do like the idea of giving FC's convenience advantage, but the game should still have other means for all players to take part in features like gardening plots, workshops, airship / submarines etc . . .

[Hamada]

If I understand what you're talking about, it's not an exploit. In the context of a video game, an exploit is something that is not functioning properly due to a problem with the code causing performance that deviates from the developer's expectations and which allows players to take advantage of it for their own personal gain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJwP...youtu.be&t=334
https://gyazo.com/a10349884445b9da734f4e4eb2c1bea6
So how can you sit there explain how it fits how you define an exploit then say it is not an exploit????????????
Cat here posted said they had to transfer from account 3 to account 2 to bypass that rule, that is breaking 2.1, they explained here how they broke 2.1 of the ToS and made other posts about breaking what I linked in the video.

[Nixxe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJwP...youtu.be&t=334
https://gyazo.com/a10349884445b9da734f4e4eb2c1bea6
So how can you sit there explain how it fits how you define an exploit then say it is not an exploit????????????
Cat here posted said they had to transfer from account 3 to account 2 to bypass that rule, that is breaking 2.1, they explained here how they broke 2.1 of the ToS and made other posts about breaking what I linked in the video.

Because none of it is the result of improperly functioning game code, it is therefore not an exploit. I do not think this concept is the least bit difficult to grasp. I am well aware that SE considers the aftermarket sale of houses to be against the rules, but being against the rules does not make something an exploit.

[Hamada]

Because none of it is the result of improperly functioning game code, it is therefore not an exploit. I do not think this concept is the least bit difficult to grasp. I am well aware that SE considers the aftermarket sale of houses to be against the rules, but being against the rules does not make something an exploit.

https://www.truthaboutdeception.com/...the-rules.html
The exploit being referred to is having 3 accounts, 1 account filled with fc houses, while the second can't do this because it was during those 4.2 rules. To find a loophole around this, exploit the rules, so on, account 3 buys fc house, transfers it to account 2, and repeats that process. Exploiting the game is not limited to "result of improperly functioning game code"

[Awha]

https://www.truthaboutdeception.com/...the-rules.html
The exploit being referred to is having 3 accounts, 1 account filled with fc houses, while the second can't do this because it was during those 4.2 rules. To find a loophole around this, exploit the rules, so on, account 3 buys fc house, transfers it to account 2, and repeats that process. Exploiting the game is not limited to "result of improperly functioning game code"

Just wondering, how do you feel about the players that were grandfathered in with multiple plots? Going to take a shot in the dark but I am willing to bet most players that currently own multiple plots were carry overs from the old system.

[Hamada]

Just wondering, how do you feel about the players that were grandfathered in with multiple plots? Going to take a shot in the dark but I am willing to bet most players that currently own multiple plots were carry overs from the old system.

Like the Mateus couple? I could care less, nothing we can do about that because that was before rules came out. However I would argue they could tenant people with no access now to at least give people to use a house and npcs but there is no moral or rules to stand on to say they must. Especially when it comes to that couple, they bought houses before there existed a shortage. Why are they obligated to lift their house with poor server population balance due to shortsightedness? Another problem with this comes from denoting officially RP servers and such, when you are appealing to a global audience, you can't just expect everyone to act like your home town. I really think there is some truth to japeanse player base catering, especially when you see all the lack of communication, something you even pointed out. I still think it is wrong to excuse rule breaking because of that, however.
What I find offensive here is someone barging in this thread showing off how they exploited the current system, telling others to buy FC houses not personals so they can break another rule. It is also quite clear with this cat person it is done to once again violate this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJwP...youtu.be&t=334


With older owners like that its more or less showing SE why the system is bad and too limited. When you compare the Mateus couple, who actually furnish all their homes and use them, compare that to a barren ward with a person saying "This is the only house I use, sort of" with that house even going unfurnished for the most part, you have to consider what is being done here. You are correct, most are likely to have houses before 4.2, but a poster here clearly showed by their own postings and words, gained many houses after 4.2 and given this was done on a high population server, the fact they said they needed account transfer homes, the fact they said buy FC house not personal so you can resell it, it should show you why I am sitting here stating this is wrong having a poster show off how they are breaking the rules.

[illgot]

Like the Mateus couple? I could care less, nothing we can do about that because that was before rules came out. However I would argue they could tenant people with no access now to at least give people to use a house and npcs but there is no moral or rules to stand on to say they must. Especially when it comes to that couple, they bought houses before there existed a shortage. Why are they obligated to lift their house with poor server population balance due to shortsightedness? Another problem with this comes from denoting officially RP servers and such, when you are appealing to a global audience, you can't just expect everyone to act like your home town. I really think there is some truth to japeanse player base catering, especially when you see all the lack of communication, something you even pointed out. I still think it is wrong to excuse rule breaking because of that, however.
What I find offensive here is someone barging in this thread showing off how they exploited the current system, telling others to buy FC houses not personals so they can break another rule. It is also quite clear with this cat person it is done to once again violate this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJwP...youtu.be&t=334


With older owners like that its more or less showing SE why the system is bad and too limited. When you compare the Mateus couple, who actually furnish all their homes and use them, compare that to a barren ward with a person saying "This is the only house I use, sort of" with that house even going unfurnished for the most part, you have to consider what is being done here. You are correct, most are likely to have houses before 4.2, but a poster here clearly showed by their own postings and words, gained many houses after 4.2 and given this was done on a high population server, the fact they said they needed account transfer homes, the fact they said buy FC house not personal so you can resell it, it should show you why I am sitting here stating this is wrong having a poster show off how they are breaking the rules.

OliverB broke no rules and continues to break no rules, because the rules are in totality what they are. There are flaws in the housing system but those flaws are intentional as a back up so that FCs do not lose their workshops and FC houses if the leader stops playing (which happens). SE is not going to nit pick through who and why every time an FC changes hands. They do not care because they created the system and have refused to change it since its inception.

Yes, OliverB is exploiting the existing system, but it is a system that was intentionally developed.

Comparing that to the Adventure Squad Limit Break exploit in which players took advantage of a system they were not suppose to have access too outside of the adventure squad is ludicrous.

No matter how selfish OliverB is being, they have not broken any rules.

[Awha]

Like the Mateus couple? I could care less, nothing we can do about that because that was before rules came out. However I would argue they could tenant people with no access now to at least give people to use a house and npcs but there is no moral or rules to stand on to say they must. Especially when it comes to that couple, they bought houses before there existed a shortage. Why are they obligated to lift their house with poor server population balance due to shortsightedness? Another problem with this comes from denoting officially RP servers and such, when you are appealing to a global audience, you can't just expect everyone to act like your home town. I really think there is some truth to japeanse player base catering, especially when you see all the lack of communication, something you even pointed out. I still think it is wrong to excuse rule breaking because of that, however.
What I find offensive here is someone barging in this thread showing off how they exploited the current system, telling others to buy FC houses not personals so they can break another rule. It is also quite clear with this cat person it is done to once again violate this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJwP...youtu.be&t=334


With older owners like that its more or less showing SE why the system is bad and too limited. When you compare the Mateus couple, who actually furnish all their homes and use them, compare that to a barren ward with a person saying "This is the only house I use, sort of" with that house even going unfurnished for the most part, you have to consider what is being done here. You are correct, most are likely to have houses before 4.2, but a poster here clearly showed by their own postings and words, gained many houses after 4.2 and given this was done on a high population server, the fact they said they needed account transfer homes, the fact they said buy FC house not personal so you can resell it, it should show you why I am sitting here stating this is wrong having a poster show off how they are breaking the rules.

I understand where you are coming from, but try to look at it from another point of view. Sure you can chastise the player for their actions, but the real entity that should get your ire is SE. SE already knows the lengths many players will go through to obtain an advantage in-game the community warned them how the new rules do very little to curb the buying and reselling of plots. This is a game were their ignore clear rule breaks so the burden is on SE to be clear with what is not allowed and what is considered a grey area. SE had all the information to act on this possibility but they made the choice to ignore it. I get you consider that hand holding, but given SE stance on certain rule breaks I do not think it is fair to punish players for actions SE was made aware could and will be used to bypass their rules.

Also you have to take into account what can SE really do. The current system is in place to protect FC's from inactive ownership should ownership never transfer over? If that rule set remains transferring of FC's will always be a thing, thus will always be a means to bypass the limit. How should SE handle those cases were an alt gets an FC plot due to inactively in a FC, yet already has a plot and FC plot on another character. I happened to gain access to another plot this way. Was not my intent, but I was next in line for ownership and my alt gained ownership. Should I be punished for something that I did not intentionaly do?

On a different note, you mentioned something about house being unfurnished . All of mine are unfurnished (outside the FC house I got through ownership being inactive), yet I have no intent to sell it is just one of those cases were I found the extra amenities worth the investment. Granted, I did not do this on a high population server, but does lack of furnishing show intent to sell or something?

[OliverB]

Damn, he still doesn't get it.