The housing system in this game NEEDS A COMPLETE GD OVERHALL. Complete stupidity....

[HeyMcFly]

The housing system needs an overhaul & to put a stop to players using click-programs to obtain houses while they're AFK. Also, the loophole that exist with players still owning multiple houses: What should of happened there is those players should of had their gil & items refunded & allowed to keep only one house, like when you lose a house-- you either choose to have a personal house or an FC house, yet can't have both- It sounds selfish & unfair but there are people selling large FC houses for real money on reddit & SE doesn't bat an eye- no, it's not fair to the playerbase that follows the rules but its a harsh & quick sentence to a long standing issue SE willingly ignores & refuses to find a better solution.

[LaylaTsarra]

Also, the loophole that exist with players still owning multiple houses: What should of happened there is those players should of had their gil & items refunded

No they broke no rules. Multiple housing purchases were allowed for alts. Sorry but in case you don't know alts still can't use a mains house. They can't even use a mender in that house or easily teleport to it. They did the right thing and you can continue to complain about it but they're not going to change their stance on it.

[GeminiReed]

No they broke no rules. Multiple housing purchases were allowed for alts. ... They did the right thing and you can continue to complain about it but they're not going to change their stance on it.

I'll agree that Square is unlikely to claw back the grandfathered properties. But with enough complaints there's a chance they'll address the synthetic and harmful rarity. At the very least they should provide alternatives for game features (gardening, workshops, submersibles, and airships) that are locked to their poorly thought out implementation.

[JohnSpawnVFX]

No they broke no rules. Multiple housing purchases were allowed for alts. Sorry but in case you don't know alts still can't use a mains house. They can't even use a mender in that house or easily teleport to it. They did the right thing and you can continue to complain about it but they're not going to change their stance on it.

They did the wrong thing, out of fear of backlash. What do you think would happen if SE did the right thing and forced people to pick one house and relinquish the rest?

Imagine saying SE condones selfish players who can't be satisfied with owning one house and exploited loopholes. Imagine being so entitled to claim certain players deserve several limited houses just because they got here first and decided to be a blight on the playerbase.

[LaylaTsarra]

They did the wrong thing, out of fear of backlash. What do you think would happen if SE did the right thing and forced people to pick one house and relinquish the rest?

Imagine saying SE condones selfish players who can't be satisfied with owning one house and exploited loopholes. Imagine being so entitled to claim certain players deserve several limited houses just because they got here first and decided to be a blight on the playerbase.

No they didn't do it wrong. Keep whining about it they're not listening. Trying to penalize people who did nothing wrong after the fact is simply wrong. Demonizing people isn't working.

[LaylaTsarra]

I'll agree that Square is unlikely to claw back the grandfathered properties. But with enough complaints there's a chance they'll address the synthetic and harmful rarity. At the very least they should provide alternatives for game features (gardening, workshops, submersibles, and airships) that are locked to their poorly thought out implementation.

No they aren't and shouldn't.

And relative to other issues they need to fix it by offering these in other venues. I think most people would agree. I see no reason why Airships/subs especially can't be coupled to GC now especially since only one person is needed to craft anything in a workshop.

[Edax]

They did the wrong thing, out of fear of backlash. What do you think would happen if SE did the right thing and forced people to pick one house and relinquish the rest?

Imagine saying SE condones selfish players who can't be satisfied with owning one house and exploited loopholes. Imagine being so entitled to claim certain players deserve several limited houses just because they got here first and decided to be a blight on the playerbase.

You shouldn't punish people who don't break the rules. Otherwise how is anyone supposed to know how to play the game when subjective morality enters into it? In a first-come first-serve system, of course players are entitled to what they can get. I can only imagine what fun you might be at a buffet. "WHO ATE ALL THE CRAB?! YOU'RE SO ENTITLED!"

[Deceptus]

You shouldn't punish people who don't break the rules. Otherwise how is anyone supposed to know how to play the game when subjective morality enters into it? In a first-come first-serve system, of course players are entitled to what they can get. I can only imagine what fun you might be at a buffet. "WHO ATE ALL THE CRAB?! YOU'RE SO ENTITLED!"

If there's a line of people behind you at the buffet, it's immoral to take ALL the crab or a whole plateful.

[JohnSpawnVFX]

No they didn't do it wrong. Keep whining about it they're not listening. Trying to penalize people who did nothing wrong after the fact is simply wrong. Demonizing people isn't working.

Right, it's not wrong to use exploits and make fake FCs to get something you're not able to get ordinarily. Do you people ever listen to yourselves or you're too busy basking in the glory of having multiple houses on a limited market?

You shouldn't punish people who don't break the rules. Otherwise how is anyone supposed to know how to play the game when subjective morality enters into it? In a first-come first-serve system, of course players are entitled to what they can get. I can only imagine what fun you might be at a buffet. "WHO ATE ALL THE CRAB?! YOU'RE SO ENTITLED!"

Ofc, which is why they can't completely close the loopholes that allow these people to get more than they're allowed to. When it becomes an issue that's big enough to affect many players on several DCs, it's stops being "subjective morality". First come-first serve doesn't imply "I can have more than the share I'm entitled to of something limited", it just means I'll be able to do business first, if I arrive before everyone else. In most places first come-first serve also has a limit of "X items per costumer".

I'd certainly be more fun than the people going "I'm just going to claim I work at the restaurant so I can bypass the "only 2 crab cakes per costumer" policy. It's not like I'm committing a crime."

[LaylaTsarra]

Right, it's not wrong to use exploits and make fake FCs to get something you're not able to get ordinarily. Do you people ever listen to yourselves or you're too busy basking in the glory of having multiple houses on a limited market?

People with multiple PERSONAL HOUSES didn't use exploits but you know that. They were allowed to buy houses with alts and some took advantage of that option given their alts couldn't share a house. And they still can't for your information. Keep trying to justify your outrage. SE dealt with those people fairly and will continue to do so.

They changed the rules and now one can only own one personal house per server per account. We are allowed to purchase houses on other servers. That is permitted at the current timel. Is that also evil in your world of what should or shouldn't be? Perhaps everyone should run what they should do by you before proceeding.