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

[LaylaTsarra]

Using an anecdote to disqualify my point is what doenst hold water. I didnt suggest that you couldnt earn money the old fashioned way, but that it is more plausible that those who own multiple residences (8 FC houses and the like) are not doing that by grinding individually per alt, but instead using money generated from one character and distributing it to alts via intermediaries - something that isnt intended with the current systems in place.

NO you're pushing your version of how people with alts can afford to buy houses and that really isn't the case.

And the transfer of assets is certainly permitted. I'd like you to provide some evidence in the TOS that proves that asset transfers are not permitted. You just want to simply push your version of what you perceive is allowed.

And relative to the ownership of multiple FC houses and the abuse of some who own entire wards I won't disagree that they are certainly transferring funds for that purpose but that's not the case for your normal multi home owner.

[HadesNight]

...

There aren't loopholes. Just players playing the game using the system as intended. At the point in which a GM has openly confirmed it, people don't get to make up their own definitions and excuses about people that own multiple homes. The GM literally says "if the game allows you to do it, you're allowed to do it." That is not a loophole.

Also some players have multiple service accounts. Meaning they pay more irl sub money than most. That is not a loophole, that is a patron paying for a service and using that service. If a character on account A decides to gift a FC to a character on account B, it's all within the parameters of the game. It's not a loophole, these people are paying real money to play the game like everyone else.

This tax system recommended here would be detrimental. People that have gone through the trouble of owning multiple houses and can afford the real life money for those service accounts can also easily switch to RMT (If they aren't already silly rich in game) to pay for whatever monthly tax you impose. This just causes a NEED for more RMT because people will not give up something they've worked hard for in game. SE does not need to give players any motivation to move toward RMT.

SE should not retroactively seek to punish people that have played the game fair and square for YEARS because housing suddenly got popular and that's what imposing a sudden tax would do. It would also damage the poor people that managed to save and scrape for a house. They should just improve upon older systems and ensure that now that housing is popular everyone else can do it.

[MsMisato]

Oddly enough my alts all have 15 to 20+ million. One even has 120 million. I earned 500k on an alt on Spriggan yesterday selling materia she got from capping with A train hunts that morning. They didn't get the money from their main they earned it all by themselves. They are actually on different servers many of them. I'm glad you feel you know the answer to how people could afford more than one house but you don't.

Your loophole so to speak doesn't really hold water. Anyone wanting to get a house with an alt can earn that money easily enough. And I might add that asset transfers aren't forbidden for many things. Perhaps if SE was proactive and let alts share a house it wouldn't be an issue.

Relative to rentals I wouldn't hold your breath with SE instituting that little gem into the works after all this time.

The new end game expansion: FFXIV Landlord edition.

[Yshtola]

Imagine being so out of touch that you end up believing that trading gil to other characters is a loophole when it comes to housing acquisition. Who needs cable TV when you have the OF?

[Melichoir]

NO you're pushing your version of how people with alts can afford to buy houses and that really isn't the case.

And the transfer of assets is certainly permitted. I'd like you to provide some evidence in the TOS that proves that asset transfers are not permitted. You just want to simply push your version of what you perceive is allowed.

And relative to the ownership of multiple FC houses and the abuse of some who own entire wards I won't disagree that they are certainly transferring funds for that purpose but that's not the case for your normal multi home owner.

No, Im pushing the point that players who have alts and own multiple properties, particularly Mansions and the like, are not likely doing this by grinding and making money the 'old fashioned way' per alt.

If thats unclear, then let me be more clear: If you have 7 alts, and each one owns large and medium houses, I am skeptical that they are achieving this by having each single one grind up the 20-50 Million Gil, but rather that they have 1 Toon who is in a position to generate that kidn of money and are using Intermediaries or other methods to transfer the Gil/ownership to their alts so they can own multiple properties without grinding those alts to an appropriate level. Not that this cant happen or doesnt happen, but not likely to happen. If you manage to do this, congrats. But I am more confident to say you are not typical of this behavior in regards to owning multiple properties.

There aren't loopholes. Just players playing the game using the system as intended. At the point in which a GM has openly confirmed it, people don't get to make up their own definitions and excuses about people that own multiple homes. The GM literally says "if the game allows you to do it, you're allowed to do it." That is not a loophole.

SE has banned and suspended players for using mechanics in game that break the game (EX: remember about a year or two ago when using the LB from squadrons was a thing to clear Ultimates?) Players were 'playing the game as intended'. It's not their fault the ability remained after the fact. The game allowed it, people used it. SE retroactively punished players for it. This is because simply pointing out that there are loopholes in the system means that its working as intended is a foolish precedent to take, as well as relies on you not using any nuance to fully address the reality of the situation. Just because you can do it in game does not mean it is 'working as intended'.

Lets use our heads a hot second here instead of Quoting a GM and parroting that back as proof that everything is kosher:

The game purposefully prevents you from adding your own alts to your friends list without enlisting the help of lag time tricks or other factors. You have no means of actually directly trading with your alts either if they're on the same account. There is no real functional or safe way for you to pass off items/gil/etc to alts without an intermediary of some kind. This is literally built into the game intentionally.

Then we need to take a bit broader picture - Alts are a luxury and treated in game as independent entities. Meaning, They have their own MSQ, own retainers, own achievements, own items, own etc. Getting more than one PC per server actually requires you to buy the larger sub. This fact is bolstered by the simple basis that one character can play every job. FFXIV is not a new to the MMO market. There are plenty of MMOs that already demonstrated easily that mailing to alts, having multiple alts for class purposes, and the like is standard procedure. So the fact that FFXIV does the opposite of this means what? What you are left with is that the game was designed a certain way purposefully - alts are independent identities that are not meant to directly interact.

So tell me what is more likely - That a GM telling you that if its not exactly spelled out in the ToS, despite how the game is set up, how SE is trying to limit and address 1 player owning multiple properties, that SE doesnt even enforce or follow their own ToS to the T, that its perfectly fine. There are no issues or loopholes. That this is all above board.

Or people are exploiting indirect loopholes in an imperfect system to own multiple properties despite how the devs designed the game, and that there is actually no easy way to rectify said loopholes without introducing extremely draconian systems that would likely do more harm than help.

The issue isnt that they were able to purchase or acquire said property in of itself. The problem is that the means for that to occur is using loop holes in how the game deals with items/property in regards to alts. That is where the loophole is at.

Also some players have multiple service accounts. Meaning they pay more irl sub money than most. That is not a loophole, that is a patron paying for a service and using that service. If a character on account A decides to gift a FC to a character on account B, it's all within the parameters of the game. It's not a loophole, these people are paying real money to play the game like everyone else.

Im not addressing multiple service accounts. If you own 2-3-4 separate accounts, well, ok. Youre paying 13-15 per account a month to own those accounts. If you want to fork that money over than there's not much else I can say to that. Youre literally paying cash for a house at that point if that is your intended goal. If you want to burn money on that, then fine. I dont have an argument to stop you from doing that other than I think youre behaving foolishly, but I guess thats about that. I dont see that as a 'win' to say "Yeah, I bought up so much property....but I did so by spending 60+ a month."

This tax system recommended here would be detrimental. People that have gone through the trouble of owning multiple houses and can afford the real life money for those service accounts can also easily switch to RMT (If they aren't already silly rich in game) to pay for whatever monthly tax you impose. This just causes a NEED for more RMT because people will not give up something they've worked hard for in game. SE does not need to give players any motivation to move toward RMT.

Housing with a Gil cost tends to follow the same principle of "It would increase RMT." Its a cost that isnt easily acquired by poor players (as the argument goes) so their only recourse is to buy Gil from RMT. The goal of the tax is to do a few things - Create an upkeep system so that players who actually want their houses will pay to do so, address demo timer issues, and increase burden on players who use loopholes to own multiple properties per account by transferring gil across through intermediaries and not doing so by making that money themselves. A progressive tax would target players who own multiple properties per account harder. And if they want to resort to RMT to afford it, they are playing a big risk - Spending cash and possibly losing your entire account in the process of just keeping property. Most players tend to think about risk/reward. I doubt people will resort to RMT more frequently due to a tax. Lazy players might - but players who earn their keep probably wont.

SE should not retroactively seek to punish people that have played the game fair and square for YEARS because housing suddenly got popular and that's what imposing a sudden tax would do. It would also damage the poor people that managed to save and scrape for a house. They should just improve upon older systems and ensure that now that housing is popular everyone else can do it

SE does this all the time by introducing things into the game, despite the 'efforts' of players. Half the mounts from the mog tomestones are from beast tribes. The 'punishment' is the exclusivity of having said item no longer being exclusive. That effort you put it, lets make it so joe everybody who signed up a month or so ago get that mount you worked your butt off for.

But thats how it works. Just because you did something once upon a time doesnt mean SE will never introduce something that undermines your efforts, whether you think it fair or not. They dont have to ban you for owning multiple properties. They just need to introduce something that makes it not worth your while to own said properties.

Furthermore, I am beginning to wonder what it is you imagine the tax to be. I suggested 50k for a cottage per month with a deposit cap of 100k (so you could store up to 2 months worth of rent at any given time). Yet this is somehow to much a burden for players. Players who saved up 2.7-3.5 Million gil for a cottage, and need more gil than that to even furnish their property. Do you all feel that 'poorer' players are simply incompetent or incapable of meeting this tax burden? I mean, youre suggesting they are competent to get money to buy the property and furnish it, but not smart enough to meet a tax cost?

Imagine being so out of touch that you end up believing that trading gil to other characters is a loophole when it comes to housing acquisition. Who needs cable TV when you have the OF?

Indeed. Because actually analyzing how the game functions is pretty crazy and why certain design choices were made is madness.

[Yshtola]

Because actually analyzing how the game functions is pretty crazy and why certain design choices were made is madness.

Trading gil between players has been intended since housing came out in 2.1 You clearly weren't around when small houses had a sticker price of 50m or you're just clueless. Which one is it?

[Melichoir]

Trading gil between players has been intended since housing came out in 2.1 You clearly weren't around when small houses had a sticker price of 50m or you're just clueless. Which one is it?

This is why you can mail money to alts yes? Or add your alts as flists. Or dont need intermediaries?

I mean, we can look at almost every MMO on the market that gives you alts (or allows for it) and sending them mail is a straight forward process. Hell forget mail, shared banks? Or additional account options that allow you to access to things between alts?

Silly devs, being unable to resolve something as simple as sharing resources between one alt to another, right?

[Yshtola]

Good job on deflecting, I didn't expect any less to be honest.

Why are you focusing on using the mail system when there's a better alternative. Did you purchase this account and started using the forums or what?

[Melichoir]

Good job on deflecting, I didn't expect any less to be honest.

Why are you focusing on using the mail system when there's a better alternative. Did you purchase this account and started using the forums or what?

Sorry, was a bit late on the edit. I am pretty new to the forums though. I only started posting the other day.

[HadesNight]

snip

So I read all of it that was addressed to me, promise. But it's inherently clear that you're not absorbing the counter-points. Ungarmax is absolutely nothing like purchasing free companies, so to use that as a sentiment here doesn't make sense. Additionally, I can almost guarantee a GM wasn't going to go on record and say "if the game let you ungarmax during raid content, it's legal to do so." It's a fallacy to bring that up here.

You don't want us to quote the authorities back here, then I don't know what else to say lol. The GMs are the law here unless Yoshi takes it upon himself to address it/change it directly during a live letter. Are we supposed to take your opinion as law?

Re: Multiple Service Accounts. Even if people are just paying for one service account and have 8 FCs on it, that's still within their right. They are still paying that sub to use the game features as intended. That being said, I brought up multiple service accounts to address your point of this "loophole", your premise is "because SE doesn't allow you to add your own alt to a friends list, you are using a loophole if you somehow get assets to them on the same service account". That's nonsensical with your very own reply here. If you're not talking about people with multiple service accounts, then what does it mean? So it's ok for someone with multiple service accounts to transfer assets, but not someone to get a friend to help them do it? Both are using more than one service account. It's the same process.

Re: Tax system - Back to my original sentiment, as noted it is not right to retroactively punish people for having played this game longer. People that got their houses fair and square before the rules changed, or even after through the natural FC system should not be punished. SE should modify and improve their systems so more people can be home owners now that it's popular. Adding in an artificial tax does not solve a single problem. RMT runs rampant in this game and SE has a history of not effectively punishing the buyers, seeking to ban the sellers. If you think that people feel like it's Risky, look around at the game. People are boldly advertising for clears everyday that requires some (I personally know of 3 statics that do this) of logging into another players account and piloting them and getting paid via Paypal. SE's stance is like "well if you don't say it in game and are hush hush we can't possible take outside proof unless it suits us". I don't think this risk is big enough to people or else RMT wouldn't be as insane as it is today.

Re: Punishment, taking away someone's houses is different than adding in an old event reward. If you are conflating the white raven earrings to a physical plot in game where you've had to spend gil on the plot, and the items inside, then yeah. Nah lol.

Also LMAO @ Foolish. People have different means, it's not foolish to spend our own discretionary money. That's just insulting for no reason. Disposable income can be spent however a paying customer wants it to be spent. Especially if they can afford 5-6 service accounts a month. This game is exceptionally cheap entertainment to some.