Disallow Relocation, At Least Temporarily

[Catstab]

You view my suggestion as s punishment

You're suggesting the removal of an existing quality of life upgrade, under the mistaken impression it will have a side effect of positively influencing player behavior.

Removing quality of life upgrades from the game simply reduces quality of life for players. You'd think that was obvious - but here you are, acting like you haven't heard my point when I've said several times that this change brings only bad things, and no good things.

You call my facts opinions but you are suggesting removing a beneficial feature from the game. This is objectively bad, not opinion.
You say that patching out a quality of life upgrade would change player behavior, but that's a guess. And I personally disagree with your guess, and I think anyone who understands system design will also disagree.

[Penthea]

You're suggesting the removal of an existing quality of life upgrade, under the mistaken impression it will have a side effect of positively influencing player behavior.

Removing quality of life upgrades from the game simply reduces quality of life for players. You'd think that was obvious - but here you are, acting like you haven't heard my point when I've said several times that this change brings only bad things, and no good things.

You call my facts opinions but you are suggesting removing a beneficial feature from the game. This is objectively bad, not opinion.
You say that patching out a quality of life upgrade would change player behavior, but that's a guess. And I personally disagree with your guess, and I think anyone who understands system design will also disagree.

Uh...they're suggesting a cooldown, not a complete removal.

[Mimilu]

You're suggesting the removal of an existing quality of life upgrade, under the mistaken impression it will have a side effect of positively influencing player behavior.

Removing quality of life upgrades from the game simply reduces quality of life for players. You'd think that was obvious - but here you are, acting like you haven't heard my point when I've said several times that this change brings only bad things, and no good things.

You call my facts opinions but you are suggesting removing a beneficial feature from the game. This is objectively bad, not opinion.
You say that patching out a quality of life upgrade would change player behavior, but that's a guess. And I personally disagree with your guess, and I think anyone who understands system design will also disagree.

Like Penthea said, I am not suggesting the removal of relocating, just suggesting adding a restriction/cooldown to make it easier for those who don't own a house, FC or personal.
If you view putting limits or restriction as the same thing as removing a function, then I don't know what to do for you. It's a common thing for scares resources.
Also, what happened to this not being your problem? >w>

[Catstab]

Uh...they're suggesting a cooldown, not a complete removal.

A cooldown exists. OP is suggesting it's removal. Person relentlessly claiming that limiting relo will help people is suggesting lengthening to 8,640 times it's current length. (yes, literally)

In the case of social FCs, both are unacceptable reductions to quality of life. It's not going to happen, plain and simple.

Argue for the timer to be abolished or replaced with a better system. That improves life for campers.

Removing (or limiting severely) a quality of life upgrade only reduces quality of life. It's a bad idea.

[Catstab]

If you view putting limits or restriction as the same thing as removing a function, then I don't know what to do for you

While I appreciate your attempt to use my own arguments against me, you've misread them. Here, go back and look again.

Limiting it in a way that would force people to use the old system is objectively a bad idea

I get that you only want to increase the cooldown 8600-fold. This would force people to occasionally use the old system. This would be a bad change, as I've said. Don't change what I've said and argue against your imaginary version of me, please.

[Mimilu]

I get that you only want to increase the cooldown 8600-fold. This would force people to occasionally use the old system. This would be a bad change, as I've said. Don't change what I've said and argue against your imaginary version of me, please.

It wouldn't force anyone who plays in the confines of the rules to do anything. Only those who don't want to play with in the parameters would suffer, which is not mine or the devs' problem (unless cheating is involved, which the GMs will handle).
If someone is as bloodthirsty as your example that they would destroy their FC at the chance to get Mist 5/35, that is on them, not on the community.
If they can't be patient and wait so others can have a chance at getting a house, then that is on them.
And what cooldown are you talking about? The 5 minute one? Like that is substantial in any way.

[Catstab]

those who don't want to play with in the parameters would suffer

Exactly my point, thank you.

Burdening FCs with a conditional need to partially disband to relocate is an unreasonable amount of suffering. Especially since your suggestion offers no benefit whatsoever. You only guess that it will change player behavior. No evidence suggests you are correct in this guess.

Placing this restriction on private estate owners could possibly be considered. Placing the restriction on FCs conditionally removes their access to a quality of life feature, and there is no justification for it.

[Penthea]

A cooldown exists.

And it's only 5 minutes. We know there are cases in which players have used this small cd to troll first time buyers. They are rare but they exist and some have engaged in this multiple times, not just once. Some chose to do this in new wards which frankly very much spoiled the chances of some players to get a house without the dreaded placard spam.

Relocation does present problems to first time buyers. Bringing in a longer cd will increase the chances of first time buyers being able to get a house. Sure a plot is opened elsewhere after someone relocates but you are not told by the game where this plot is, and it can easily mean several more hours of placard spamming if you go to that plot. This is demoralising to say the least, which is very evident from the many complaints in these forums from players who experienced exactly this.

In the case of social FCs, both are unacceptable reductions to quality of life.

Speaking as a leader of a social fc, I disagree. If your fc has a house you're already very fortunate. I fail to see how waiting to relocate would be very detrimental to a fc. The only really impactful mechanical thing from getting a bigger house is extra gardening patches. Yes having a bigger space is nicer, but that's all it is. Nicer. It doesn't lock fcs out of certain features.

Yes I am a leader of a fc who did relocate to a bigger house but at the time there were much smaller limits on the amount of npcs and crafting stations you could have in a house. The limit was so low that a cottage couldn't have one of each of the very useful npcs. These are the primary reasons why we chose to move because we wanted to provide as much as possible for our fc. These limitations are no longer so tight. So these days a fc in a cottage doesn't keenly feel the limitations of the size of their house, obviously aside from furnishing space.

A fc or an individual getting a nicer house doesn't matter more than a homeless individual or homeless fc getting their first house.

Removing (or limiting severely) a quality of life upgrade only reduces quality of life. It's a bad idea.

It's a redistribution of QoL. By placing a longer cd on relocation for those who purchased or relocated their house, it makes it easier for first time buyers to get a house.

Again I say that 30 days is too long. I think a week or two would be enough.

[Mimilu]

Exactly my point, thank you.

Burdening FCs with a conditional need to partially disband to relocate is an unreasonable amount of suffering. Especially since your suggestion offers no benefit whatsoever. You only guess that it will change player behavior. No evidence suggests you are correct in this guess.

Placing this restriction on private estate owners could possibly be considered. Placing the restriction on FCs conditionally removes their access to a quality of life feature, and there is no justification for it.

Again, you, the leader of an FC with a medium house and who is clearly gunning for Mist 35, are only prioritizing FCs that own a house. Screw anyone, FC or single-player, who doesn't already own a house.
The poor, poor relocators need to be protected! I mean, the housing timers can go past 24 hours, 288 times the 5 minutes wait new house owners have to wait before they can relocate, but you know, people who already own houses need them more. >w>

[Catstab]

Again, you, the leader of an FC with a medium house and who is clearly gunning for Mist 35

Please stop bringing up the imaginary Catstab you have inside your head. The real me is right here. Honestly, stop. I've said enough here in this thread that you have plenty of material to use in this discussion and you don't need to make stuff up about me. I'm very uncomfortable with you imagining what I must be thinking according to you, and then acting as if I said those things. I'm not 'clearly' anything. If you have a question, ask it.

I'm the leader of an FC. We have an LB 41. We do not desire to relocate ever again. I argue on behalf of all FCs that would like to relocate.

Mist 5/35 is commonly considered the most desirable large in game, although some people consider shirogane 30/60 to be just as good. I used 'placard Mist 35' as an example of an opportunity that could not be passed up. Any FC leader with the opportunity to claim a house like that will do it - whether your suggestion goes through or not. So your suggestion fails to save the house and partially disbands the FC, thereby creating suffering for no benefit.

Again, lets make things better for campers, not worse for relocators.