Disallow Relocation, At Least Temporarily

[Catstab]

I don't see how my suggestion

Current: FCs can relocate without losing members, FC private chambers, or workshop progress. FCs will relocate if they find an open Mist 35 mansion, for instance.

Your suggestion: FCs will still relocate if they find a Mist 35. If they are within the 30-day cooldown these FCs will lose their workshop progress and kick any members that are offline, in duty, in cutscene, afk, or busy. These members will lose gil and in some cases mog station or event items, some of these members will not come back.

Again, relocation was a step forward for FCs. Limiting it in a way that would force people to use the old system is objectively a bad idea, for the reasons given here. You want people to "pay the price" if they happen to find a rare or desired open plot. I think that inflicting these losses on social FCs is unreasonable. I think undoing Square Enix's work building the relocation system to do so is out of the question.

edit: forgot that FC members that are in duty, in cutscene, afk, or busy would need to be kicked as well. added

[Mimilu]

Current: FCs can relocate without losing members, FC private chambers, or workshop progress. FCs will relocate if they find an open Mist 35 mansion, for instance.

Your suggestion: FCs will still relocate if they find a Mist 35. If they are within the 30-day cooldown these FCs will lose their workshop progress and kick any members that are offline, in duty, in cutscene, afk, or busy. These members will lose gil and in some cases mog station or event items, some of these members will not come back.

Again, relocation was a step forward for FCs. Limiting it in a way that would force people to use the old system is objectively a bad idea, for the reasons given here. You want people to "pay the price" if they happen to find a rare or desired open plot. I think that inflicting these losses on social FCs is unreasonable. I think undoing Square Enix's work building the relocation system to do so is out of the question.

edit: forgot that FC members that are in duty, in cutscene, afk, or busy would need to be kicked as well. added

And AGAIN, only people who can't be patient and/or play with in the confines of the suggested lockdown "pay that price".
I would hope a social FC would value their members and the hard work they put in over a digital dollhouse because that's pretty much what the scenario you keep bringing up is showing, that that FC values the house over its members.
Why should characters or FCs that already own a house get preferential treatment over characters or FCs that are still trying to get a house?

People keep telling those still trying to get houses to just be patient and persistent, maybe one day you'll get lucky and someone won't casually stroll by and relocate to the plot you've been standing hours at, so I don't see why it's an issue to tell those with houses to be a little patient and to give others a chance to get a house (and maybe even put some thought into where you buy your house, give it some weight).

[Catstab]

And AGAIN, only people who... "pay that price"

Or things can stay like they are, rather than any FC "paying that price." Because no FC members should lose their gil, time, money, and FC over a house.

There is zero sense in undoing SE's work on the relocation system to purposefully hurt FCs in the hope that it improves housing, when it probably won't even do that.

It's a bad idea unless FCs are exempt.

If you want an improvement, we should think of a way campers will suffer less. Not find a way to make members of social FCs suffer more.

[Mimilu]

Or things can stay like they are, rather than any FC "paying that price." Because no FC members should lose their gil, time, money, and FC over a house.

It's a bad idea unless FCs are exempt.

I don't think things should stay like they are. Nothing you have said convinces me.
You still didn't answer the question: Why should FCs with a house get preferential treatment over FCs that are still trying to get a house?
And to add: Why should FCs get preferential treatment over players at all? Because they're a group? Your scenario clearly shows an FC that values a house over the group, not even batting an eye as they destroy everything they worked toward and kicking members left and right.

Adding: Make others suffer more? Those poor, poor homeowners, having to wait 30 days to relocate. Not being able to just scoop up whatever plot they want under other people's noses, people without houses.

[Catstab]

Nothing you have said convinces me

Please, be reasonable. Currently a system exists that SE created to save FCs from disbanding and players from losing time and money. You want to destroy/limit that system and threaten FCs with massive losses in an attempt to manipulate their behavior.

I'm telling you that it won't work. I'm telling you it's poor system design.

I'm objectively right in both of these counts. You may not possess the design oriented skillset to see it, but SE development personnel does.

A mist 35 at the placard is a once in a lifetime opportunity for most players. 99% of FCs will relocate to one, given the chance, even if you punish them. You want to punish them for it. Bad call.

If nothing I can say will convince you that "less suffering for campers" is not better than "more suffering for FCs" then there is no point in trying to reason with you.

[Mimilu]

Please, be reasonable. Currently a system exists that SE created to save FCs from disbanding and players from losing time and money. You want to destroy/limit that system and threaten FCs with massive losses in an attempt to manipulate their behavior.

I'm telling you that it won't work. I'm telling you it's poor system design.

I'm objectively right in both of these counts. You may not possess the design oriented skillset to see it, but SE development personnel does.

You, the leader of FC with a medium house and someone who would benefit from the system staying as is, being objective? Trying to get an upgrade?
And what kind of picture are you trying to paint here? "Mean, old Mimi thinks FCs should suffer! Look at how unreasonable they are, thinking people should be patient and wait 30-days before just jumping for plot to plot. I, Catsab, am looking out for the little man. The little man who already owns a house. A Medium house in Lavender Beds."
You still haven't answered my questions: Why should those with houses get preferential treatment of those who don't? And why should FCs get preferential treatment over single-players?

[Catstab]

thinking people should be patient and wait 30-days?

A mist 35 at the placard is a once in a lifetime opportunity for most players. 99% of FCs will relocate to one, given the chance, even if you punish them. Therefore adding a punishment for engaging in normal gameplay is bad . It won't create the change you want. It will hurt people. Hurting people is bad, so if the suggestion is "let's hurt people" then the suggestion is bad.

Your question does not warrant an answer because the above fact is true either way and that is sufficient reason your suggestion cannot be considered.