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

[Melichoir]

Snip

I take you at your word that you read it. I dont have any reason to think otherwise.

Our disagreement boils down to what is considered within "Intended Design" and not.

My point is that just because it happens to occur in game doesnt mean that this is what the devs intend to occur. Simply saying "It's something you can do" is missing the a lot of some of the other aspects that are in the game, and not analyzing why something exists. Devs create the systems but no system is perfect. They may not choose to address an issue that goes against their intended design simply because there are no feasible solutions or what solutions they have dont work effectively enough to be long term viable.

Quoting a GM and not looking at the broader picture is also the same issue. "Using Ungarmax is fine " is not something they would say, and likewise theyre not going to endorse using suggested work arounds that allow for more property ownership than intended either. If those work around were fine, they would suggest it or explicitly tell us to use said work around. But they dont. Why not?

As a point - Ishtola up there says that trading between alts was intended. That since 2.1, this was meant to be a thing. Alright, Ill take that as fact. Then why is it devs put in a ton of inhibitors to accomplishing this? There are far more easy work around options they couldve introduced that would make it easy for them to allow trading between alts, including a shared account chest or even simply adding your alts to your mailing list automatically. Either the game's base code is so spagetti that they cant do this, or theyre choosing not to do this for design purposes. Given what we see in how the game is designed, what is more likely?

As for taxes, the point being made seems to be "Well, they did it fair and square before the rules change, so no punishing them." But under that concept, the rule change itself is a punishment against newer players. They will not get the same footing or advantages as an older player. Youre not arguing for a fair treatment in the rules, youre saying "These people get to have one set of rules cause they were grandfathered in, but newer players dont get this privilige". How is this justified? As for RMT, your point pretty much states that adding a tax will make it increase, but then suggest that people do it boldly currently. I dunno, but that sounds a lot like people dont fear the RMT punishment as it were, so why not just RMT non stop to get mansions or large scale houses? Why bother being poor when you can RMT? If RMT is as rampant and unchecked as suggested, than a tax is irrelevant. Youre not stopping anything, and a tax wont increase the amount of RMT by any significant margin.

Take RMT aside, how do you think people get houses? With Gil. Howd they get the Gil? By Grinding or getting Lucky. Most players put effort to get the property, and is part of the reason why Property has status or value beyond just Gil in this game. Same like Glamours. So how is it any different grinding for Gil to buy a property vs grinding reputation to get special mounts? I suspect that if the devs rolled up tomorrow and said "Were gonna give everyone a free mansions if they spend a week doing a daily quest!" that players who own mansions are gonna be a bit upset about that, let alone anyone else involved who went to trouble to get the gil for a house. First question thats gonna show up : We gonna get compensated if we bought a mansion/house?

But oddly enough, we see the devs do this very thing already, so its nothing new. And yeah, people give it flak as it were. So there is no winning or being fair. Or is it only unfair when ti comes to housing, but everything else its ok? Its a bit loosy goosy on whats fair. Introducing a tax system that discourages multiple property ownership is just a new means of addressing something in the game.

But lets be fair then. You want to meet players who have multiple houses halfway? Buy them out. Force them to give up property, but let them choose which ones, then pay them for it at max value. Worst case scenario for players - Item overflow and they cut even on the houses. Best case scenario - They bought the houses on the cheap and make a profit.

As for foolish, I said what I think. Being free to spend your income as you see fit is fine, but that doesn't mean that people cant critique you for what you spend it on, nor does it mean my opinion is somehow right. Its my opinion. Its what I feel about something. It by no mean is the end all be all, and no one has to take it to heart.

How are you new to the forum with over 1300 posts and a join date of 2015?

They were being flippant, so I decided to act in kind.

Holy... I feel dumb lol. I didn't even notice that lmaoooo. Must have been sarcasm.

I take back my welcome! *scandalized* xD

I do appreciate the kindness and gesture. As bullish and argumentative as I am or can be, I do admire and appreciate people who are cool like this.