Housing Ownership System Abuse

[Doozer]

I'm interested to learn what the REAL IDEAL amount of houses to own per person are per the pitchfork mobs on these forums.

As people continuously cite the website that says "Temporary Changes" for the housing standards, you claim a player can have 2 houses per service account (1 FC, 1 personal) right?

So does that mean the players with 5+ service accounts now can own 10+ houses comfortably without people whining and demonizing them?

Are you only upset that this is legally (within the parameters of the TOS with GM notice btw) being done all on one service account?

This game is easily afforable for some players and it brings them levels of joy in which they can afford upwards of $100 a month for multiple service accounts.

Entertain me OF. What are the logical loops you'll jump through to demonize this incredibly legal method of owning multiple homes?

I am legit interested in opinions on this.

Legal =/= moral. No loops required.

[Almagnus1]

I'm interested to learn what the REAL IDEAL amount of houses to own per person are per the pitchfork mobs on these forums.

How about SE actually makes the restrictions laid out at https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../housing_land/ permanent, and then extends those onto all the grandfathered in houses after a grace period?

For that matter, any FC that has less than 3 members should lose their house (but done with enough time that it's akin to the AFK timer and not immediate).

So does that mean the players with 5+ service accounts now can own 10+ houses comfortably without people whining and demonizing them?

As long as each account is compliant with the restrictions linked above, I'm fine with that. That means operating a ward is going to take 15 accounts, which is going to work out to be like $2250/year for the entire ward. FYI I'm using my sub cost which is roughly $75/six months or $150/year to estimate this. If someone wants to be a whale and waste their money that way - it's funding FFXIV regardless so we might as well let them.

That also means that it's in SE's best interest to retroactively enforce the restrictions because right now you can tie up a ward with only 2 accounts due to stuff being grandfathered in - which means only $300/year.

[ErysNight]

Legal =/= moral. No loops required.

Lol! I was hoping for that answer!

So even if we have the real world funds to pay for multiple service accounts and seek out our own personal fulfillment, we're supposed to what? Restrain ourselves for internet strangers?

Please be specific on what your moral opinion is!

[Doozer]

Lol! I was hoping for that answer!

So even if we have the real world funds to pay for multiple service accounts and seek out our own personal fulfillment, we're supposed to what? Restrain ourselves for internet strangers?

Please be specific on what your moral opinion is!

My moral opinion is irrelevant, actually. You asked, I answered. End of.

[ErysNight]

How about SE actually makes the restrictions laid out at https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../housing_land/ permanent, and then extends those onto all the grandfathered in houses after a grace period?

For that matter, any FC that has less than 3 members should lose their house (but done with enough time that it's akin to the AFK timer and not immediate).



As long as each account is compliant with the restrictions linked above, I'm fine with that. That means operating a ward is going to take 15 accounts, which is going to work out to be like $2250/year for the entire ward. FYI I'm using my sub cost which is roughly $75/six months or $150/year to estimate this. If someone wants to be a whale and waste their money that way - it's funding FFXIV regardless so we might as well let them.

That also means that it's in SE's best interest to retroactively enforce the restrictions because right now you can tie up a ward with only 2 accounts due to stuff being grandfathered in - which means only $300/year.

I appreciate you acknowledging that the changes are indeed listed as temporary.

So SE providing more actual clarity on what the housing standards and then "if someone can afford it, then sure why not".

I can respect this view!

[ErysNight]

My moral opinion is irrelevant, actually. You asked, I answered. End of.

Lol, that's no fun. You're trying to toss in one liners with no substance. Makes one wonder why you even exist here then? Is it just to cause more drama?

You do this in most posts, don't contribute to the topic in a meaningful way but try to egg on things. Look, i understand it's boring during content droughts, but try harder!

Lol, but no worries! I accept that you don't have anything to contribute to my topic!

[Doozer]

Lol, that's no fun. You're trying to toss in one liners with no substance. Makes one wonder why you even exist here then? Is it just to cause more drama?

You do this in most posts, don't contribute to the topic in a meaningful way but try to egg on things. Look, i understand it's boring during content droughts, but try harder!

Lol, no worries! I accept that you don't have anything to contribute to my topic!

I think you're trying a bit too hard, pal. You asked a question, I answered it succinctly. Sorry you're getting so upset because you're looking for a fight but I'm not giving it to you.

[ErysNight]

I think you're trying a bit too hard, pal. You asked a question, I answered it succinctly. Sorry you're getting so upset because you're looking for a fight but I'm not giving it to you.

You can clearly see from my other post to the person that actually was capable of bringing something of substance to the table that there isn't a fight, just an acknowledgment of opinions and moving on.

I mean you realize you have a post history right? I actually looked, saw you were only capable of drama inciting one liners and acknowledged back. If there is something to be sorry for, it's an inability to contribute something meaningful.

But that was a bit aggressive of me, so don't worry about responding back. It might actually turn into a fight then lol and that might mean you have to contribute a bit more. Let's just move on shall we?

[Almagnus1]

I appreciate you acknowledging that the changes are indeed listed as temporary.

So SE providing more actual clarity on what the housing standards and then "if someone can afford it, then sure why not".

I can respect this view!

I want SE to pick a set of rules, apply it to everyone equally, move forward, and leave them in place permanently.

I want the grandfathered stuff to end, but for SE to give everyone a way forward and also not penalize them for choosing to let go of the houses. That means SE should give people a long enough grace period before changes take effect (like the time between 5.0 and 5.1 for example) to get subscriptions spun up and alts rolled so that they will be compliant, or not penalizing players for deciding to demolish a house that will be demolished at the end of the grace period by giving them a 100% refund for the house value and allow them to put the decorations up on the market assuming that would normally be possible with the decorations (instead of what would normally they'd normally) so that it's as painless as possible. That also means that if you fail to act during the grace period you will have the houses demolished.

The only way to stop threads like these from appearing is to normalize everything so there are no more haves and have nots. The restriction policy is the closest thing SE has given us to a policy that will fairly distribute housing if the restrictions were applied retroactively.

[Doozer]

You can clearly see from my other post to the person that actually was capable of bringing something of substance to the table that there isn't a fight, just an acknowledgment of opinions and moving on.

I mean you realize you have a post history right? I actually looked, saw you were only capable of drama inciting one liners and acknowledged back. If there is something to be sorry for, it's an inability to contribute something meaningful.

But that was a bit aggressive of me, so don't worry about responding back. It might actually turn into a fight then lol and that might mean you have to contribute a bit more. Let's just move on shall we?

It's weirdly entitled of you to demand I do things, or don't do things. I'm free to post in whatever thread I want. If RagingStallion can start 3 troll threads a day, I can give a short answer in a thread. What are you going to do about it?

My point was, since you really need it spelled out for you (surprise) is that lots of things in real life are legal but are still immoral. Being fired for being black, gay, etc., for example. In some states or countries, that's legal. Does that make it right or fair? No. There are lots of things that are 'allowed' but are still wrong. One player owning all the houses in a single ward is technically allowed in the game, because, well, it happens. A lot. But is it really fair for one person to have 30+ houses while many have none despite wanting one? No. Legal =/= moral. Get it now? Or is this just one absurdly long one-liner?