Fix Housing Megathread

[Catstab]

NOTE: Catstab should be read as "[grandfathered in houses and shell FCs] and [people owning wards] are two separate issues, actually.

Hi! Thanks for the note.

You're mistaken, though. "People owning wards" is what I quoted, and the two paragraphs that follow break down each of the two issues. That is two separate issues that you are collapsing into one. Issue 1 is your perception that 8 players are one player, they aren't. Issue 2 is how many houses an account can hold.

edit: went back and numbered them, for your ease-of-use

[Arielen]

why did we go from housing to human rights

[Almagnus1]

Hi! Thanks for the note.

You're mistaken, though. "People owning wards" is what I quoted, and the two paragraphs that follow break down each of the two issues. That is two separate issues that you are collapsing into one. Issue 1 is your perception that 8 players are one player, they aren't. Issue 2 is how many houses an account can hold.

edit: went back and numbered them, for your ease-of-use

When all you're doing is cherry picking words and writing paragraphs (instead of capturing a complete thought) you can literally write any response and justify it however you want... and completely dodge what was actually posted. Especially since the notable examples of people owning wards are using grandfathered in houses in addition to shell FCs to do it.

Way to fail at reading comprehension mate.

[BrokentoothMarch]

why did we go from housing to human rights

Because these are the same two or three people who were squabbling in another separate thread. At this point, they're unable to separate themselves from their own cases and are basically just attacking one another. The conversation is bound to lose the plot.

[Catstab]

Way to fail at reading comprehension mate.

You said outright you are reading my point opposite to how I've written it, even when I am quite clear it stands as written.

1. Grandfathering - not an issue. SE made this decision, most players support it. You belong to an vocal minority. I explained above why you're wrong. Accept it or don't. Moving on.
2. Shell FCs. Not really a solvable problem unless you can come up with a system to protect small FCs from losing their houses if a member or two stops playing.
3. Ward owners - this is two issues.
3a. No single player owns a ward, so this complaint indicates you do not understand the game mechanics. A minimum of 8 players are needed to own a ward.
3b. Should 8 FCs fit on on one account, though? Much like issue 2, this is going to take a sophisticated solution or it will hurt casual players.

There is is in one brick, since itemizing it was incomprehensible to you. Now can you formulate a response that isn't just personal insults?

So you have identified two non-problems, and two that are difficult to solve.

[Almagnus1]

2. Shell FCs. Not really a solvable problem unless you can come up with a system to protect small FCs from losing their houses if a member or two stops playing.

It is, and if you are referring to the micro FCs (that is, less than four people) in many other games guilds get outright deleted after they drop below a specific membership threshold (like only having a single member). With proper server-side logging, SE will be able to see which FCs are abusing any membership requirements (by rotating players amongst them, for example), and be able to take action against those FCs. IMO SE implementing a FC deletion policy would basically solve the shell FC problem.

3a. No single player owns a ward, so this complaint indicates you do not understand the game mechanics. A minimum of 8 players are needed to own a ward.

Except the two on Mateus proved this wrong... and they did it because they have grandfathered-in personal housing in addition to shell FCs... and yet you want to claim that grandfathered-in personal housing isn't part of the "I own a ward problem".

3b. Should 8 FCs fit on on one account, though? Much like issue 2, this is going to take a sophisticated solution or it will hurt casual players.

And like I have been saying for a while, FCs should check for number of account subscriptions (and it should require 4). SE can do something like a time debt when you drop below four (so players have a grace period of sorts, and pay off the debt at a constant rate by being at or above the subscription threshold), or just take the simple route of having the FC get outright deleted if it drops to just one member. And (as I have been saying for a while) with all of this the gardening and workshop should be accessible to the general population (largely because most FCs lock out this content to most members). FCs should be better defined into a social thing (as that was their original intent), especially since talking to yourself is not socializing.

Hey look, it's a solution for this issue that won't hurt the casual players that you keep ignoring EVERY SINGLE TIME it gets posted.

There is is in one brick, since itemizing it was incomprehensible to you.

And there's the responses that you will either fail to acknowledge or strawman into something else.

[Catstab]

[Shell FCs existing] is [a solvable problem], and if you are referring to the micro FCs (that is, less than four people) in many other games guilds get outright deleted after they drop below a specific membership threshold (like only having a single member).

So anyone who can kick members has demolish + disband powers? Yeah, that needs a lot of work before implementation.

Except the two on Mateus proved [Catstab's statement that one player account cannot hold 60 houses] wrong... and they did it because they have grandfathered-in personal housing in addition to shell FCs..

It is not possible to have 30 characters who lead 30 FCs on one account. Even using grandfathered accounts, it would take 4 players to hold a ward. 16 houses per player per world, absolute maximum. You're conflating "person" and "player." So the ward you describe is owned by at minimum 4 players, at maximum 60 players, and likely somewhere in the middle. tldr: Your observation remains incorrect.

FCs should check for number of account subscriptions (and it should require 4).

Hey look, it's a solution for this issue that won't hurt the casual players that you keep ignoring EVERY SINGLE TIME it gets posted.

It should be noted that FC signatures do not have to be different service accounts. Your three signatories can all be from one service account. So the premise that 4 service accounts are needed to form an FC is not correct. It's 2.

The "time debt" system sounds like a lot of work. Essentially an auto demolition timer that could never be reset, only slowly replenished by having 2+ members in. I don't think many dedicated workshop operators would decline to pull in a second player for 45 cumulative days. So you won't get any of the players you're going after. The kind of people a system like this would primarily punish are college students, military folks, people who are in the hospital, and people who work abroad. Folks with low game knowledge and low time investment. And again, that's assuming that SE can program a demolition timer that counts both down in some circumstances and up in others. It's quite possible they cannot.

[Almagnus1]

So anyone who can kick members has demolish + disband powers? Yeah, that needs a lot of work before implementation.

You should make sure your officers (or whomever has kick privilege) are people worthy of the role.... and if the FC leader isn't smart enough to do that, then the FC was probably doomed from the start.

It is not possible to have 30 characters who lead 30 FCs on one account. Even using grandfathered accounts, it would take 4 players to hold a ward.

Depends how you count the ward. Most people are prolly thinking 30ish (a single page) not 60 (two pages) as 30ish is how many are visible at one time.

You're conflating "person" and "player."

No I'm not, you're just putting words in my mouth.

It should be noted that FC signatures do not have to be different service accounts.

I am well aware of that, but that is a topic for another thread, and if you really want to argue semantics on that go for it.

The "time debt" system sounds like a lot of work.

And that's why it's a good idea... it screws over the shell FCs while being invisible to the legitimate (as in 4+ member) FCs.

Essentially an auto demolition timer that could never be reset, only slowly replenished by having 2+ members in. I don't think many dedicated workshop operators would decline to pull in a second player for 45 cumulative days.

If it's set at 4 unique subscriptions (which is what I have been saying) they would need to have it at 4 unique subs for half the time. Also, the timer should be shorted to like 2 weeks, and not 45 days. That also forces the FC to stay active as there's no reason why the FC release timer (which is what we're talking about) should be the same as the FC auto-demo timer. Shorter timer will help to kill off a failed FC faster so people can move past the failure and onto other things. Failing faster is always a good thing, especially when you learn from your failures.

The kind of people a system like this would primarily punish are college students, military folks, people who are in the hospital, and people who work abroad. Folks with low game knowledge and low time investment.

Bolding the important part, but it's not necessary to call everyone in all those groups idiots, ya know?

And again, that's assuming that SE can program a demolition timer that counts both down in some circumstances and up in others.

And way to assume SE is incompetent... What I'm suggesting isn't impossible to code.

[Seleni]

If it's set at 4 unique subscriptions (which is what I have been saying) they would need to have it at 4 unique subs for half the time. Also, the timer should be shorted to like 2 weeks, and not 45 days. That also forces the FC to stay active as there's no reason why the FC release timer (which is what we're talking about) should be the same as the FC auto-demo timer. Shorter timer will help to kill off a failed FC faster so people can move past the failure and onto other things. Failing faster is always a good thing, especially when you learn from your failures.

2 weeks is too short. Some FCs might be formed by family or friends. They shouldn’t have to worry about losing their FC house for going on a 2-weeks trip/cruise together.

[Jojoya]

And all of these points, regardless of which side of the debate you fall on, would be non-issues if SE would stop pouring resources into the wards that cause the problem and start putting the resources into creating an improved instanced housing system.

Instanced housing - let's every player have a house. Can even let players have multiple houses per character.

Instanced housing - no timers needed because it's just a matter of saying to the game "I'm ready to buy a plot" and the game provides.

Instanced housing - no demolition needed because one player owning a house or multiple houses doesn't prevent other players from owning a house.

You can come up with excuses on why instanced housing can't work but the reality is that it does. We see it in other MMOs that used instanced housing, that let their players own multiple houses per character, that don't have a demolition system, and that don't have a fraction of the housing related drama this game has generated.