Fake FCs' Housing Abuse

[Catstab]

Are YOU sure you thought about this for more than 2 seconds?

100%, friend. Thanks for asking.

So I, like many players, pay for more than a month at a time, so I'm a full sub and I can fit up to 7 alts on my account per server.

The proposed change means a head-count requirement for FC housing, similar in concept to the head count requirement for FC forming.

At present, people offer a one-time fee to sign FC charters on frequent occasion. So if alts are for sale to form FCs, alts would be for sale to house them in larges. Hopefully that makes sense.

[Arielen]

100%, friend. Thanks for asking.

So I, like many players, pay for more than a month at a time, so I'm a full sub and I can fit up to 7 alts on my account per server.

The proposed change means a head-count requirement for FC housing, similar in concept to the head count requirement for FC forming.

At present, people offer a one-time fee to sign FC charters on frequent occasion. So if alts are for sale to form FCs, alts would be for sale to house them in larges. Hopefully that makes sense.

To expand on what Catstab said, in case it's unclear: people would just create dummy alts they never intend to play and let them sit and rot in the FC of someone who wants to play solo. And that's only if someone's own alts didn't count towards the 4 character requirement, which they do.

[Warghoul570]

Option C can be a 30-45 day timer to replace member 4 in order to preserve the house

[Sotaris]

Option C can be a 30-45 day timer to replace member 4 in order to preserve the house

It wouldn't fix anything when you can just make alts to join the FC.

[Themarvin]

Require 6 players from 6 different accounts for house to stay active and it will go into demolition mode... or put on tax on FC houses like 2millions per month, which means more people would eb better in one, and with that involve a player tax of coin drops like 5% or something that will stack up, untill fulfilling the requirements, also would promote more active FCs.

[Sotaris]

That would probably punish more people than you think.

[Mykll]

I admit to wanting to create a FC just for myself, no alts, no friends, and get a single house, finally, to be that FC house, because it has things not available for a private house. I don't want 2 houses, I just want the 1. Eventually.

[MilkieTea]

Require 6 players from 6 different accounts for house to stay active and it will go into demolition mode... or put on tax on FC houses like 2millions per month, which means more people would eb better in one, and with that involve a player tax of coin drops like 5% or something that will stack up, untill fulfilling the requirements, also would promote more active FCs.

So... FCs with 5 or 4 players are SOL? FCs that are small friend groups exist, dude.

[Arielen]

Require 6 players from 6 different accounts for house to stay active and it will go into demolition mode... or put on tax on FC houses like 2millions per month, which means more people would eb better in one, and with that involve a player tax of coin drops like 5% or something that will stack up, untill fulfilling the requirements, also would promote more active FCs.

1. They can't even figure out how to let you mail your own alts or visit another one of your own character's personal house, they won't be able to sort out '6 different accounts'. And even then, people would just pay or ask for friend alts to bloat their fc artificially.
2. Taxes are dumb and also bad. There are tons of people that bust their cheeks affording so much as a small house and they'd never be able to handle upkeep. This doesn't mean they somehow don't deesrve a house.
3. Taxing player coin drops isn't a system that exists either, and it seems very silly in general. Far too complicated just to stop less than solo fcs from existing. And even then less than 5% of housing is owned by FCs.

These suggestions aren't even worth the effort of implementing as FCs aren't the cause for housing deficit anyway, as less than 30% of all houses are owned by FCs in general.

[Almagnus1]

Easiest way to solve this is to require that FCs cannot keep housing unless they have at least four active subscriptions associated with the FC. Either way, people are still going to find loopholes in whatever gets implemented and continue to exploit that...

That said, I'm still in favor of adding additional requirements that are generally invisible to an active FC because the entire thing with shell FCs needs to go away.