In-depth analysis of the housing situation.

[Drkdays]

I would agree on the seeming superfluous bit, but the argument made was that those guys didn't actually break the rules as they were written back then and square doesn't want to punish them for it by taking their extra houses away. Which I can understand. It'd be kind of like being wealthy enough to build a second or summer vacation home irl and then being told you had to sell it because other people are homeless.

Admittedly, I can't grasp why someone would want the stress of logging into multiple houses regularly to make sure they're not demolished, but that's how they want to play and Square sided with them when they set up the current system.

Would it really be a punishment though? It's about accountability. SE should step up and confront individuals about the lack of spacing, not just let it slide with passivity. Sure, they'd lose homes, but that would mean equality. Ultimately, they wouldn't lose more than anyone else. Sure, it would suck-a lot, I'll admit-but it's a decision SE made that became an instant double standard. *Housing is super limited, so getting one will be a struggle. You're gonna lose sleep over this.* *You have 20 houses already, so you get to keep them, and there are even ways for you to get more.* We can't really have things both ways...

The only changes the players with tons of homes would experience differently is the amount of space they have to accomplish what they can already do with just one space. And don't even get started on multiple crafting/workshop spaces. Money is not an issue for players with this many houses, and frankly what else requires a lot of money apart from...houses...

The first-come-first-served idea is the same as dog-eat-dog. I thought this was supposed to be a community game, not an episode of The Walking Dead. We should not have to suffer resource hoarding real estate giants in a fantasy RPG fighting game.