Apartments need Rent

[Catstab]

they should release their ill gotten gains

You've got to drop the idea that legitimately gained in-game rewards are "ill gotten."

Your own personal problem with multi house owners doesn't make their gameplay against the rules. Their gains are simply gotten. There is no "ill" about it, that is your false perception.

[Almagnus1]

You've got to drop the idea that legitimately gained in-game rewards are "ill gotten."

Your own personal problem with multi house owners doesn't make their gameplay against the rules. Their gains are simply gotten. There is no "ill" about it, that is your false perception.

And you've got to accept that I have opinions you don't like... or perhaps you're one of these players with ill gotten gains and don't like the truth being pointed out?

[Kenky]

And you've got to accept that I have opinions you don't like... or perhaps you're one of these players with ill gotten gains and don't like the truth being pointed out?

The problem here between you and Catstab is complicated.

While Catstab is correct and nothing was obtained through "ill-gotten" means and is entirely by the rules at the time, that doesn't mean it's okay to own multiples of a limited resource. But none of us are in the right position to judge and condemn others for what they choose to do. So long as they use what they have then we can't complain about them having it.

it could certainly be made better with certain choices, but making players have to pay "rent" on an apartment only makes apartments less desirable, completely invalidating the point to the gil-sink mentality. Adding rent to houses would kill the desire for plenty of house-owners and all of the people that have houses probably are pretty well-off gil-wise, so it would need to be a large "rent sum" in order to make them consider relinquishing. Which has one of two end results. Either only the super-wealthy (and bots) own the houses, or every ward becomes a ghost town because nobody wants to pay 3M+ on a small, only to be charged an extra 50K+ every month to keep it.

(Exaggerated numbers, but you get the point)

[Almagnus1]

The problem here between you and Catstab is complicated.

No it's not, they hate me and hate anything I have to say and will make their disdain abundantly clear.

While Catstab is correct and nothing was obtained through "ill-gotten" means and is entirely by the rules at the time, that doesn't mean it's okay to own multiples of a limited resource. But none of us are in the right position to judge and condemn others for what they choose to do. So long as they use what they have then we can't complain about them having it.

**looks at social media** This is the internet, anyone can (and will) complain about anything. Even when it may not make much sense. =)

it could certainly be made better with certain choices, but making players have to pay "rent" on an apartment only makes apartments less desirable, completely invalidating the point to the gil-sink mentality. Adding rent to houses would kill the desire for plenty of house-owners and all of the people that have houses probably are pretty well-off gil-wise, so it would need to be a large "rent sum" in order to make them consider relinquishing. Which has one of two end results. Either only the super-wealthy (and bots) own the houses, or every ward becomes a ghost town because nobody wants to pay 3M+ on a small, only to be charged an extra 50K+ every month to keep it.

(Exaggerated numbers, but you get the point)

Thing of it is.... we've already shown that the 10k/week is trivially doable which means that 50k/month is as well... so all you're really doing is a knee jerk reaction to "it's another expense". Whatever the housing rent would be set at, it'd have to be a weekly expense but the expense should be set at like half the median (or mean) weekly gil generation of a a service account with at least one level 80 disciple of war or disciple of magic. I'm suggesting half (and a higher percentage) as to not make the theoretical average player house poor. Should SE charge rent on houses then the initial price of the house should also be reduced with the difference being converted to rent and whatever the leftover amount is mailed to the player as a refund.

Look at it this way, it's the difference in revenue stream between FFXIV and FFXV or FFXIII and how it can make sense to put the FFXIV base game on sale as SE really doesn't make THAT much on the FFXIV base game compared to what they make for the subs, especially when you look at the cost for the sub across an entire expansion compared to average package. While there will be a few that will get the collectors edition with all the things, that only only equals about 50% of the sub income for that expansion cycle AT BEST.

[Catstab]

No it's not, they hate me and hate anything I have to say.

Untrue. I have no feelings toward you personally one way or another.

I simply disagree with the idea that grandfathering should be undone, because I know it would damage player experiences. You have expressed before that you think this damage would ultimately be for the greater good. Both myself and SE disagree and think it would destroy a lot of player enjoyment and cost SE a lot of sub money and customer faith.

I also disagree regarding this apartments and rent idea. I moderate on a discord called Sadu's Housing Alerts. What we do is hand out information to first time house hunters and give them a space to coordinate their ward-checks with one another, to help determine the age of open plots. The discord is 10,000 strong between campers and volunteers. A lot of people put blood, sweat, and tears into the timer daily. And one of my first pieces of advice is "Get an apartment. It's cheaper, it gives you a place to play decorator for now, and it never demolishes even if you take a break!" The housing system is brutal. We all know it. Apartments permanence is one of the best things about housing. Suggesting we make apartments expire is bad for players, it just is.

I did also disagree when you suggested (in jest, apparently?) that relocation "has to go." My reasoning here was that FCs in the past would have to boot offline members to demolish their bedrooms to move a house before 2017. Relocation was added to the game then and stopped FCs from having to disband to move. This is helpful because some FCs never recover from that disband, and playing with your friends should not be made harder.

So I don't hate you, you're off base with that one. I just find you to be off-base also when you attack what I see as cornerstones of housing. And I'm the sort of person who's generally not afraid to walk up to someone and say "you haven't quite thought this through, allow me to show you what you're not seeing."

[Almagnus1]

Untrue. I have no feelings toward you personally one way or another.

And yet... you will respond to almost every single post I make. It's almost like you're in some ersatz mating ritual...

[Catstab]

And yet... you will respond to almost every single post I make.

You've previously made some accusations that were pretty ridiculous, and those got the no response at all that they warranted. But when you're being civil and conversing with me directly as you are now, I have no reason not to respond. And in the case that you're airing proposed negative changes to housing and asking publicly for feedback, I don't see why you would be surprised by responses from anyone in particular, or why you would take responses personally.

You may perceive me however you like. I'm simply someone who pops up to say "relocation was a good idea" and "grandfathering was a good idea" and "apartments should last forever with no maintenance" when the conversation calls for such things to be said.

[Catstab]

And you've got to accept that I have opinions you don't like... or perhaps you're one of these players with ill gotten gains and don't like the truth being pointed out?

You can have opinions. Frame them as opinions, then. "I feel they should release their gains that I find to be ill gotten" instead of "they should release their ill gotten gains." The second one sounds like you're quoting facts, when you are not.

And I have a small house on one alt for RP purposes, yes. I took two of my servers 5,760 houses and did it well within the rules. For SE to come and delete my alt house would make as much sense as SE coming to de-level my combat classes, or to strip me of my mounts and minions. It's earned rewards, and SE is smart enough to know that, which is why they grandfathered in their players.

I get that you personally care nothing for the players' experience on this game, but SE quite literally makes caring about players their business.