Housing Ownership Restrictions

[Almagnus1]

It's more of a procedural divestment, in that case. You get an email on day 35 saying "enter your house within 10 days or lose it." Whereas an earlier post of yours suggested emailing players with the message "pick one house not to lose, and you lose the others."

Hopefully the difference makes sense.

That's putting it rather crudely and misunderstanding what I was suggesting.

Specifically all players that were grandfathered in with more than one personal house would (for example) receive a mail message similar to the following at 6.0's launch:

When 6.1 releases, we will be demolishing all personal houses on your service account on the datacenter <datacenter> not at <address>. However, should you relinquish the extra personal houses before that deadline, you will be refunded the current market value of each house, and also all decorations currently in the house will be returned to you unbound. We strongly recommend that you relinquish your extra houses before the release of 6.1.

That's basically doing the same thing as the AFK demolish, but a bit kinder as it allows players to better recover the wealth they had from that house. Measures should also be taken so that only the affected players would get that refund, and not everyone that owns a house. So it's not abused.

Currently a single service account can own 8 FC houses and 1 personal. To own more than 9 means(a ward), the person/group is paying multiple subscriptions.

Let me quote a couple of things from https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../housing_land/ :

Each service account may only possess one free company estate hall and one private estate per World.

Once this limit has been reached, it is not possible to purchase further plots of land in the same World on that service account, including separate characters on the same World.

A free company may only purchase land if it has four or more members.

If what you're saying is true, that means the extra houses were grandfathered in.

Also why do people keep glossing over the fact, that ~70% of the houses on NA servers are owned as personals?

Can you please share your data source?

[Catstab]

Specifically all players that were grandfathered in with more than one personal house would (for example) receive a mail message similar to the following at 6.0's launch:[saying that they were losing all but 1 house with no way to stop it]

That's basically doing the same thing as the AFK demolish, but a bit kinder as it allows players to better recover the wealth they had from that house.

I understood what you meant when you said "delete all of their personal houses except one" since it was self explanatory. This deletion would not be similar to auto-demolition (that which you're calling 'AFK-demolish')

1. auto-demolition already refunds 80% of what you paid for a plot. Unless you're saying that last 20% makes a difference, your system is not 'kinder'
2. auto-demolition can be stopped by logging in. Your system would take away the grandfathered houses regardless of player input. This is not 'kinder'
3. SE knew full well what it was doing when it grandfathered personal houses. They crunched the numbers, they decided that the (small) disruption to housing caused by multiple plot owners was not worth losing these players subscriptions and loyalty. They are not going to go back on this decision.

SE knows we need more housing. They are making more housing, new wards have been promised. https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes...f3579a73d109cf

The problem is that 24,000 characters are trying to fill 5,040 houses (3,780 after FCs take their 25%.) 24,000-3,780= 20,220 homeless

The problem is not:
-People or FCs who own 1 house and do not decorate it
-People or FCs who own 2 houses and decorate them
-People or FCs who own 2 houses and garden and use submarines
-People or FCs who own more than 2 houses

SE is never going to take away the grandfathered houses. SE is as likely to do that as they are to say "You know what, 1 combat class per character makes more sense. Please choose which class you want to stay at 80, and the rest will be deleted. You may make additional characters if you wish to play other roles." Taking things away from people who already earned them is anti-fun and people quit games over it. It's a bad game design decision, it's a bad business decision. It's not happening.

[TwistedTea]

Let me quote a couple of things from https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../housing_land/ :

The website that you linked also states this:
Temporary Changes to Purchasing Land

Next, it's talking about purchasing land from the placard. There's a distinction between purchasing FC houses from the placard and inheriting/owning FC houses.

Here's an example of a ward owner who reported themselves to the GM:

Can you please share your data source?

https://mewfc.com/
Data has been obtained via the Lodestone

There are 120,960 plots across the 3 North American Data Centers and as of earlier this week, 33,962 Free Companies owned a house.

[Almagnus1]

auto-demolition already refunds 80% of what you paid for a plot. Unless you're saying that last 20% makes a difference, your system is not 'kinder'

I'm suggesting that they should get back the 100% on the houses they are releasing (and all the decorations returned to the house owner) instead of the 80% they would normally. It's also a situation where the minority has caused the problem, aka "this is why we can't have anything nice".

The problem is that 24,000 characters are trying to fill 5,040 houses (3,780 after FCs take their 25%.) 24,000-3,780= 20,220 homeless

I agree that's part of it, and also:

The problem is not:
-People or FCs who own more than 2 houses

That's an aggravating factor for the problem you described. Unfortunately, that's a point we disagree on.

The website that you linked also states this:
Temporary Changes to Purchasing Land

The restrictions show the intended ownership model that SE would like for the playerbase to follow, and one that would also fairly distribute houses to the playerbase.

Next, it's talking about purchasing land from the placard. There's a distinction between purchasing FC houses from the placard and inheriting/owning FC houses.

The same policy for purchasing should be applied to ownership, otherwise you create haves and have nots.

Let me highlight a key point from there:

[9:09 a.m.][GM]Gm Voxpainet >> That is also, most likely, the same answer a Supervisor will provide to you if you were to speak to them. Does that answer your query?

That reads like the GM asked the supervisor for a hot take, and the supervisor got it, so (more than likely) the supervisor didn't actually do much research so the take provided here may not be accurate of what SE actually thinks, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

[9:12: a.m.][GM]GM Voxpainet >> As long as you are not using those properties to harass or grief other players, in whatever way that would be possible, or engaging in fraud or RMT, then I believe you do not need to worry.

Since owning multiple houses is unfairly denying other players the ability to participate in the system going by the restrictions outlined at https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../housing_land/ , it's griefing. This line is shows that the ward owners should worry.

https://mewfc.com/
Data has been obtained via the Lodestone

It's also showing the cultural differences between what works in Japan (where there's a significantly higher housing turn over rate) and what doesn't in the North American and European markets. Changes should be made to account for the cultural differences that are also aggravating this problem.

There's also no discussion on the multiple housing ownership because Mew is part of the problem here, and they'd rather not provide ammo that will get them shot.

[TwistedTea]

The restrictions show the intended ownership model that SE would like for the playerbase to follow, and one that would also fairly distribute houses to the playerbase.

Short of SE coming out and officially saying that owning 8 FC houses on a single service account is against the TOS, it's irrelevant to talk discuss intended house ownership model.

When housing was first introduced, it was obscenely expensive and FC only. There was no autodemo as well.

That reads like the GM asked the supervisor for a hot take, and the supervisor got it, so (more than likely) the supervisor didn't actually do much research so the take provided here may not be accurate of what SE actually thinks, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

You're shifting the goal posts for what constitutes as official evidence.
Should SE officially state on their website what is against the TOS regarding housing? Sure. But until SE does so, a GM is a very credible source.

Since owning multiple houses is unfairly denying other players the ability to participate in the system going by the restrictions outlined at https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../housing_land/ , it's griefing.

See above, there are no loopholes.

It's also showing the cultural differences between what works in Japan (where there's a significantly higher housing turn over rate) and what doesn't in the North American and European markets. Changes should be made to account for the cultural differences that are also aggravating this problem.

This is rather hypocritical. Considering that this post is about a ward owner on Spriggan, a formerly dead world before the autodemo freeze.

There's also no discussion on the multiple housing ownership because Mew is part of the problem here, and they'd rather not provide ammo that will get them shot.

This is a guilt by association argument. But fortunately, anyone can scrap the Lodestone data regarding FC housing for themselves.

[Almagnus1]

You're shifting the goal posts for what constitutes as official evidence.
Should SE officially state on their website what is against the TOS regarding housing? Sure. But until SE does so, a GM is a very credible source.

It's not as explained above.

This is rather hypocritical. Considering that this post is about a ward owner on Spriggan, a formerly dead world before the autodemo freeze.

You gave no context for the post, and instead presented it as evidence. I treated it as such, don't be a hypocrite when I filet your "evidence" because it's really not.

[TwistedTea]

It's not as explained above.
You gave no context for the post, and instead presented it as evidence. I treated it as such, don't be a hypocrite when I filet your "evidence" because it's really not.

Lol, the context was provided if you read:

You stated:

It's also showing the cultural differences between what works in Japan (where there's a significantly higher housing turn over rate) and what doesn't in the North American and European markets. Changes should be made to account for the cultural differences that are also aggravating this problem.

My reply was addressing your above quote.

Here's an example of a ward owner who reported themselves to the GM:

At the end of the day, you're not SE or a GM; the official sources of evidence

I could respect a stance for universal restrictions across all servers. It does seem hypocritical to call out ward owners on dead NA/EU worlds but not on JP servers.

[Almagnus1]

I could respect a stance for universal restrictions across all servers. It does seem hypocritical to call out ward owners on dead NA/EU worlds but not on JP servers.

I don't read Japanese, and I've enough experience with the translators to know that it's going to give me Engrish when I translate it and Hydalaen only knows what kind of response, so IMO there's no point in browsing a forum I can't natively read - so the take came from the data provided by Mew... which is pretty minimalistic tbh. It would be far better data if they broke it down by server, and then broke down the FC statistics to show how many and of what size owned the houses... but I suspect they don't want to disclose that information because it would only be ammo to use against them.

[worldofneil]

The restrictions show the intended ownership model that SE would like for the playerbase to follow, and one that would also fairly distribute houses to the playerbase.

Whilst I agree that is possible... their own actions suggest that's not the case.

1) They published that website, but then changed the "rules" a week later. Since the in-game system is what is actually used, it looks more like someone didn't get a memo to actually update the website or they just don't care it's technically out of date because they already put it under a "temporary" section.

2) There's nothing in game that actually sends you to the website. We all know that there was a restriction in-game and it was removed. For over 2 years players can buy multiple FC houses without having any knowledge that this website even exists.

That reads like the GM asked the supervisor for a hot take, and the supervisor got it, so (more than likely) the supervisor didn't actually do much research so the take provided here may not be accurate of what SE actually thinks, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Or maybe it is accurate... We've seen before that when something happens that SE don't like, they will fix it, fast. People friending their own alts or the whole Ungarmax thing for example. For less serious issues they still do hotfixes, like next week they're adding some hotfixes for the 5.3 content.

I do appreciate you're not happy with how things are, but housing has been this way for a very long time. Literally years. If SE really they wanted to change it, they would have so that inaction would suggest that for them it's "working as intended", even if you disagree.

[Almagnus1]

Or maybe it is accurate... We've seen before that when something happens that SE don't like, they will fix it, fast. People friending their own alts or the whole Ungarmax thing for example. For less serious issues they still do hotfixes, like next week they're adding some hotfixes for the 5.3 content.

I do appreciate you're not happy with how things are, but housing has been this way for a very long time. Literally years. If SE really they wanted to change it, they would have so that inaction would suggest that for them it's "working as intended", even if you disagree.

I think it's people taking using a favorable take from a GM as "evidence" when the reality is that:

[9:03 a.m.][GM]Gm Voxpainet >> I will not be able to elaborate further on matters of housing, however, as that is out of the scope of my services.

Which basically means the entire thing is a hot take from a GM, and shouldn't be considered anything other than that. And it's definitely not something we should be waving around as "evidence".