Nope you didn't add enough plots SE...

[Themarvin]

They aren't going to and they shouldn't. Sorry but the take away crowd like you aren't going to win this battle.

Relative to FC housing they do need to fix it so that only 1 FC can be owned/led by one account period. The issue of FC priority isn't a bad concept but enabling it so that FC's have a day or two head start should be the maximum time allowed and the exclusion of personal purchase for extended time needs to stop.

Nothing wrong with removing grandfathering, people lose skills and abilities all the time as well in various classes, veteran players do not get to keep the extra skills they had from eg. 2.0.

If they fix an item ingame, then that does not mean if you already had it, you would still keep an over powered stat, that has been fixed, if given the choice to pick 1 house and 1 FC house to keep, you would just have to do so.

And finally, there is no reason to be personal.

[Alyanna_Elingval]

Nothing wrong with removing grandfathering, people lose skills and abilities all the time as well in various classes, veteran players do not get to keep the extra skills they had from eg. 2.0.

If they fix an item ingame, then that does not mean if you already had it, you would still keep an over powered stat, that has been fixed, if given the choice to pick 1 house and 1 FC house to keep, you would just have to do so.

And finally, there is no reason to be personal.

I don't agree with this. You're not talking about streamlining a job, or removing an item evenly across every player who has it. You're talking about retroactively singling out specific players for doing something that wasn't against the rules when they did it. Are they going to give people back their gil? Compensate them for housing items they can neither sell, store or use because they don't have room in the house(s) they have left?

Imagine if players had been allowed to friend their alts and share houses with them. Then one day SE said players shouldn't be allowed to friend alts, and stopped allowing it, but grandfathered the players who had already done it. But then they change their minds and retroactively de-friended every player from their alts regardless of the issues it caused. Would that be fair?

[LaylaTsarra]

I don't agree with this. You're not talking about streamlining a job, or removing an item evenly across every player who has it. You're talking about retroactively singling out specific players for doing something that wasn't against the rules when they did it. Are they going to give people back their gil? Compensate them for housing items they can neither sell, store or use because they don't have room in the house(s) they have left?

Imagine if players had been allowed to friend their alts and share houses with them. Then one day SE said players shouldn't be allowed to friend alts, and stopped allowing it, but grandfathered the players who had already done it. But then they change their minds and retroactively de-friended every player from their alts regardless of the issues it caused. Would that be fair?

The take away crowd doesn't care that people did nothing wrong. They simply want the houses these people purchased legally for alts who still can't share a house. They can't even teleport to a main's house where friends can do that using friend teleport let alone be able to do anything with that house after they jump through hoops to get there.

Had alts been able to share housing many who bought multiple houses would not have done so. I've actually created small FC's on other servers where my als can share the FC house along with a small group of my friends because they simply can't share a private house.

The argument is mute in my opinion because the development team has already made the decision to grandfather them and the chances of them changing their mind is extremely small in my view.

[LaylaTsarra]

Nothing wrong with removing grandfathering, people lose skills and abilities all the time as well in various classes, veteran players do not get to keep the extra skills they had from eg. 2.0.

According to you lol. Those people did nothing wrong. They followed the rules. They invested time and effort into their houses. Some houses have over 400 pieces of furniture where exactly are they supposed to put all that if a house had to be given up? Taking them away from people who did nothing wrong and followed the rules is WRONG. Sorry but to appease your desire for a house taking something from someone who followed the rules isn't going to happen.

And I'm personal how in what way. You mean by calling you part of the take away crowd? That is exactly who you are. You're actively trying to propose that the development team remove something that people worked hard for and who broke no rules.

or like someone proposed in the JP housing forums proposed. Whenever new wards are released one ward should exclude FC access and be open to individuals. FCs still get first dibs iin the wards open to them and individuals get a chance in the one open to them.

Perhaps ONE ward could be FC but I don't particularly care for that solution. I think FC's and privates should share housing in the same areas. I would prefer to see a very limited time of exclusivity allowing FC's the opportunity to get a FC house for their members. And seriously any FC who wants a house should be able to do that with a days head start. They certainly don't need 3 months.