Housing Ownership Restrictions

[Catstab]

So what your saying

Nope.

What I'm saying is the only way to use a house wrong is to not enter it for 45 days. At that point, auto-demolition will take it away from you. People shouldn't concern themselves with how their neighbors are using their plots. SE knows we need more housing, and have said it is their aim to launch mode before patch 5.4.

source:
https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes...f3579a73d109cf

[Alien_Gamer]

Which is why SE needs to change the rules.

The needs of the many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs of the one.


I see one of the main issues with the housing system is resource distribution, and to fix that, you need to free the resources that players are taking up that exceed the restrictions listed at https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../housing_land/ .

While adding more wards helps, I still like the ward system (rather than the instanced one) as it allows for social and RP stuff that an instanced system cannot do - which is why FFXIV's genre is the MMORPG.

The issue isn't resource distribution of existing houses, the issue is simply that there's not enough supply for the demand. No amount of resource distribution will fix that issue. The solution is either a doubling of the number of existing wards or a mix of wards and instanced housing (not just more apartments); boom, everyone is happy...except SE who has to actually spend the money on additional server hardware and programming.

When the supply if is finally equal to the demand then people owning a ward is a non issue. We shouldn't be asking SE to put bad band aids on the situation and settling for something that will only piss off everyone. We should be pushing SE to actually do a viable fix.

[Almagnus1]

The first would not be an issue if SE delinked the workshop from FC housing.

I'm wondering why SE doesn't offer us an airship workshop at Garlond Ironworks in Mor Dhona, or somewhere else. Personally I'd like to have a personal airship that is functionally a house, but that's just me =D

-SE will never take the step being suggested here, where they forcefully divest players of their grandfathered houses

So you're saying that autodemolishing a house isn't a forced divestment?

I'm not sure why this thread mentions "FC housing is fine, no issues there." Currently anyone can acquire up to 8 FC houses per account.

I had not wanted to get into the FC side of things... but that seems unavoidable at this point....


Going by https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../housing_land/ the restriction for FC house purchase is tied to the purchaser not having an FC house on their account already (which IMO can be a bit confusing) and also requires that the FC has 4 people to purchase - assuming those are accurate. The 4 people restriction matches how many people are needed to create the FC in the first place, so that's a fair restriction.

IMO SE needs to add an autodemolish timer on the FCs that are less than three members, but instead of having the timer reset once the FC reaches above four members, it starts a count up until it hits the maximum duration for the count down timer.

For example, if the FC drops to three members, the countdown timer starts at like 45 days and once the FC gets a fourth member, the timer will remain active, but count up to 45 days until it's at 45 days when the timer will disappear. This is a fairer way to do it than just having the timer reset to 45 days once the FC has at least four members because people would game the reset system whereas the countdown/count up system forces FCs to have at least 4 members.

Active FCs shouldn't be affected by that change, and the micro and personal FCs should be able to pad out the FC by rolling alts and bringing them into the FC, so that way they still meet that requirement even if there is less than four actual players in the FC.

The main reason why I want the FC account restriction gone is to avoid confusion. Specifically with relocation, I don't know if anyone with the permission can do a relocaiton (like moving the FC house to Shirogane, for example) or if it's just the house owner that can do the relocation. Given how competitive the housing market is, I'd rather have the former so the FC can have everyone with that permission able to help make the relocaiton successful, rather than have the FC be severely disadvantage by the owner playing on a popoto. Likewise, I don't know what would happen to the FC house if the owner decides to ragequit and deletes their character, as (based on my understanding) I would expect the FC house to be demolished (and I hope that's not the case).

In other words, as we think of the FC house as being owned by the FC, it really shouldn't be tied to any one account IMO, and I totally get that this would allow a single account to manage up to three houses. I'm also completely fine if someone wants to whale it up and throw money at SE for additional subscriptions to keep their houses. Their willingness to be a whale means more money for SE to use to make cool stuff for the rest of us.

The issue isn't resource distribution of existing houses, the issue is simply that there's not enough supply for the demand.

Yes and no.

If one person is tying up a ward on a single account, that's preventing a whole lot of other people from getting a house.

When the supply if is finally equal to the demand then people owning a ward is a non issue.

A) That will never happen.

B) People owning an entire ward IS the issue.

[Catstab]

So you're saying that autodemolishing a house isn't a forced divestment?

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.

[TwistedTea]

People owning an entire ward IS the issue.

It really is not the issue. 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.

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

Even if SE were to reclaim all the non-legit and legit FC houses which make up the remaining ~30% of housing- there's not enough housing on NA servers for every individual player.

The persistent ward system is very bad with coping with increasing player populations.

[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.