Housing Ownership System Abuse

[Arielen]

ok but can't u see my main class, I don't WEAVE, it's beneath me

do drugs about it

[ramsesh]

do drugs about it

Wait did I show skooma somewhere? Oh nO

[Almagnus1]

Someone is always gonna get burned when someone else tries harder. You will never avoid this, its impossible. There are people who care more about certain things in life than you do and are willing to do more for it than you are. You should be happy there are outlets like this existing for people to throw more money at. More money translates into more game development budget. Boohoo that it's not being used on HOUSING, but that money is going in and benefiting the game no matter how much you want to argue that it's at the expense of players suffering in housing. Selfish? Sure okay its selfish. What are you going to say now? More about morals? You are literally just here screaming out loud with the hopes of attracting a crowd large enough to have the upper hand in this discussion. But there will be no resolution for you. Resolution isn't achieved by attacking users. Resolution is only achieved by going after the source, so the people who make this game. Why don't you try contact a GM or something? Why don't you sit down and talk with them and post your chat log to show that you're right, have this argument with them and see what they say. But you'll probably still be dissatisfied with the outcome anyways.

What you people are arguing is to literally stop people from enjoying the game the way they want. You want an enjoyment cap because other people's enjoyment absolutely disgusts you and the only way to fix it is to tell everyone what is the 'right amount of fun' by your personal standards. Since you cannot dedicate X amount of time and X amount of dollars, nobody else should be allowed to do more than what you can because that would be abuse of the system. Pathetic.

Let's look at this from a purely money point of view:

If we look at award of 60 houses, going by the restrictions, that means it's somewhere between 30-60 subs for that ward... in other words SE is expecting that a ward will require enough subscriptions to generate between $4.5-9k/year (assuming that an annual subscription costs $150). If a player wants to own a ward IMO they should pay for the ward. Why should you get a discount?

Not really if we are operating within the scope and rules of the game we have no obligation to think of those around us.

And that is the exact selfish behavior that has caused this entire debacle. Anyone that shares that line of thinking is part of the problem and they should at least be honest about it.

[PewPewPewPewPew]

... $4.5-9k/year (assuming that an annual subscription costs $150). If a player wants to own a ward IMO they should pay for the ward. Why should you get a discount?

But what if I told you I can easily shoulder this kind of pocket change spending for hobbies?

Are you going to tell me how much of a scumbag I am now? How I'm so morally unjust and such a terrible person? Let me guess, I have 'no life' and that the only thing I have are just houses and how I must be like this in real life too? Or that I should go look in a mirror now in disgust because I bought up a bunch of pixel space in a game?

You really think your diatribes about flimsy morals are going to stop someone like me from guilt? No. They aren't. And it wont stop others alike because we don't live to satisfy people online. There are many players like me out there, not just in this game but every game. People who have the money to easily invest in the hobbies they enjoy. What may be expensive and outrageous spending for you and others, is justified and manageable by just as many others. There will always be people like me who can and will pay more for more things. You can cry to SE and your internet crowd of forum posse as much as you want to change whatever, but it ain't going to satisfy you. People who are determined to have more houses for whatever reason are gonna get those houses within the rules and limitations of the TOS and you'll still be in last place both in game and out of game.

And so what of it? Ok, so I'm selfish for wanting what I want out of my money spent. Sorry I'm selfish for expecting to get what I want from what I put in. It is the amount of entitlement that people like you put on display every other thread which is simply abhorrent. That for putting in 1/100th of the work, you expect to have 100x of what you put in. Insane. And then when there are people putting in 100x of the work you do, it's WRONG, it's IMMORAL, it's SELFISH, it's GREEDY. What's next, you're going to demand the govt put controls on corporate salaries so we can't get too rich to buy pixel houses in mass? Mind blowing.

People this matter has to be solved by going straight to the source and not complaining about and demonizing players. Several among us house people have already gone to the GM on your behalf, turned ourselves in and got told that nothing we did was wrong.

But you don't believe it, you don't buy it. OK, then how about instead of coming to the forums every few days and opening the same thread about nothing and going to the same dead end, go talk to the GMs and have a debate with them. If this matter is truly important to you, don't you think an increased # of people complaining to the GMs and engaging in conversation with them will raise awareness? If you don't think so, then give up and accept that this is how things are.

[Awha]

Let's look at this from a purely money point of view:

If we look at award of 60 houses, going by the restrictions, that means it's somewhere between 30-60 subs for that ward... in other words SE is expecting that a ward will require enough subscriptions to generate between $4.5-9k/year (assuming that an annual subscription costs $150). If a player wants to own a ward IMO they should pay for the ward. Why should you get a discount?



And that is the exact selfish behavior that has caused this entire debacle. Anyone that shares that line of thinking is part of the problem and they should at least be honest about it.

Nothing wrong with putting your own enjoyment above others. It is okay to be selfish, so what exactly is the problem since I fail to see it? Or let me rephrase how exactly is it the problem of the player base that does have?

Thing is you have not pointed out why the player base that is operating within the rules has any obligation to alter their behavior. By what metric can we say their actions are bad, or even. the cause of the current housing system.

Reality is you have grounds to vilify the players. Your beef is with SE but instead of only taking it out with SE you also feel the need to go after the players that are just playing within the scope of the game.

[Almagnus1]

But what if I told you I can easily shoulder this kind of pocket change spending for hobbies?

Then what's your problem?

Nothing wrong with putting your own enjoyment above others. It is okay to be selfish, so what exactly is the problem since I fail to see it?

And this is the entire disconnect right here. It's not OK to be selfish, but this is a point we're not likely going to agree over - so since we're not going to find common ground from this, we're not likely to agree on much else relating this housing cluster.

[PewPewPewPewPew]

And this is the entire disconnect right here. It's not OK to be selfish, but this is a point we're not likely going to agree over - so since we're not going to find common ground from this, we're not likely to agree on much else relating this housing cluster.

By who's definition is it not OK to be selfish? Yours? And who made you the police of whether that's ok or not?

[Miminming]

And this is the entire disconnect right here. It's not OK to be selfish, but this is a point we're not likely going to agree over - so since we're not going to find common ground from this, we're not likely to agree on much else relating this housing cluster.

Why not? it's not like he is killing anybody or breaking any rule and law, it's a game and he win the throphy fair and square by raising the money to bought the land, not every olympic athellete got gold medal.

and this point shaming him and trying to make him lose the house he work hard for is the selfish one.

[Penthea]

Nothing wrong with putting your own enjoyment above others. It is okay to be selfish, so what exactly is the problem since I fail to see it?

This really depends on the degree at which you put your enjoyment above others.

I personally do not think that hoarding a limited resource is okay. Especially when that resource is designed to and does work perfectly fine when you have only one of each type. It's not as if you need two or more fc or private houses to make a certain type of mechanic to work correctly. One of each is enough to do everything housing has to offer.

Reality is you have grounds to vilify the players. Your beef is with SE but instead of only taking it out with SE you also feel the need to go after the players that are just playing within the scope of the game.

You could say this about a multitude of thread topics where heated debates happen.

Even if a person does not use names or locations to point out exactly who is hoarding and where, hoarders very often voluntarily reveal themselves. I don't think anyone should be surprised when the focus is put on them when they enter a thread and tell people, entirely out of their own choice, that they engage in this behaviour. And because SE never enter these conversations the debates between players stay between players.

It is especially not surprising that very heated debates happen when a certain someone we all know actively trolls and laughs at players who do not have a house. They are a very vocal individual so they make the entire hoarding group look very bad. Really bad.

So yea it's all well and good to say "your beef is with SE" but when hoarders reveal themselves they are making themselves a target. They of course have the right to reveal themselves, but they should not be shocked that people have something against them when they enter a thread that specifically criticises their behaviour.

I've seen this sort of thing happen with so many topics. Player complains about a thing, player who does that thing enters the thread, what they say makes it clear they do the thing, people who agree with OP argue with them, people who agree with those who do the thing argue back...it's constant back and forth until the thread inevitably unravels itself into a mess, people get tired of the thread, it dies...and the whole process happens again when someone makes a new thread with the same topic.

I've seen the above happen with housing, parsers, tanking, healing, dps, party finder, raiding, hunts, msq roulette...anything that criticises how people play, act, or the ability/inability to do something very often become an argumentative mess.

I have seen this happen in literally every gaming forum I have been in. These threads about house hoarders are not particularly special. It's just players being players.

[PewPewPewPewPew]

Hrmm...just because something doesn't go against rules doesn't automatically mean that doing that thing cannot be selfish or greedy. A rule or lack of one doesn't make an action bad or good. It simply makes it permitted or not allowed.

It is true that selfishness is not inherently a bad thing. It really depends on what you do with the selfishness and your motives. Everyone needs to be a bit selfish at times for the preservation of their own well-being. Whether that's things like making sure you have enough food to eat, or cutting someone out of your life who is a source of stress.

But going too far one way or the other is bad. Being too selfless can mean denying your own well-being, and being too selfish can mean denying the well-being of others. It is especially damaging when neither end of the spectrum is even necessary.

This really depends on the degree at which you put your enjoyment above others.

Would you stop already with these "It's selfish but not if .... " interjections? Who made you the righteous king to determine what degree of 'selfishness' is allowed and not allowed? We get it. You think it's bad. Selfish is bad for certain things by whatever your personal standard is. And you want to be on the "good" side like the others against multi house ownership so you don't have to face the mob either. You want to stick to your 'morals' and preach to people what the RIGHT WAY is. You are literally that guy every thread, trying to stay 'neutral' but it's painfully obvious what your intent is. You spend all your posts trying to tell US to accept and admit what we are and that what we are doing is harming others. Yet you continue to try and put on the face of a saint so you can stand above both parties. Every time you come on here and type out this "It's selfish but" yadda yadda, you continue to push the negative image on people that wanting more is bad. So we're selfish, OK get over it. Keep it to yourself. We all kept to ourselves with our selfishness. None of us ran out there to rub it in your face. People on the forum are the ones who dug us up out of the ground and try to make examples of us. Why do you have to keep going out there and bring it back up and constantly raising the "Selfishness is bad" discussion over and over again to reinforce that negative image attached to it? You tell us that selfish actions affect other players, well don't you think your constant echoing of SELFISH BAD SELFISH BAD is also damaging to people? And then you always cop out with a half-assed answer because you don't want to have a target on your back.

Like what I said to the other insane entitled player, why don't you go ask a GM if selfish is bad and ask why SE doesn't conform to your views of enforcing selfishness so you can post it out there and say "LOOK SE SAYS BAD MORALS ARE BAD". You aren't contributing everything in your hundreds of cop out posts.