Quote Originally Posted by Ittapupu_Berry View Post
Well we could have a broken system that allows people (who don't have 20 hours to spare) to get a house, or a system that only allows people capable of all-nighters to have one.
They're both horribly broken systems. In my eyes neither are good enough.

Quote Originally Posted by Ittapupu_Berry View Post
I believe that bonuses to players should be looked over and approved by the game devs before implemented but the idea of a lotto vs current system is just picking your poison. I'd like the poison that gives more people a chance and allows players to play the game while house hunting.
The end result is basically the same. It only changes who gets a house. Not how many people have access to housing. Lottery is not a solution. It's swapping one awful system with another.

Quote Originally Posted by Ittapupu_Berry View Post
Side note:we need more homes, we really do and that should be something to definitely hope for but in the mean time... improving (not necessarily fixing) a broken system would be positive
Sorry but I fail to see how a system that intentionally employs such blatant favouritism can be seen as better. I was a pretty new player when I started aiming for a house. Had the lottery system been in at the time I likely would have quit. The odds would have been crazily stacked against me. I wouldn't want to play a game that punishes new players for simply being new players.

More houses, vastly expanded improvement on apartments that give them more space and the ability to garden properly, a form of proper instanced housing...stuff like this and similar would mitigate the rng of getting a house. Lottery would not.