Stop complaining. You wanted this.

[SuperSxyNerd]

I agree with the OP 110%

[S0lara]

The RNG code was created by a person, and they inputted 0 as one of the possible choices for output. I have coded in Python and Mathematica before, and if you import random, and then you list the parameters, e.g. list=1,2,3,4,5... It is pretty easy to see, that when they listed their parameters for the housing lottery system, they included 0 (zero) in the list of possible choices that could be rolled. If they did in fact did put zero into their list, as in: listhousing or list1 (whatever you want to call it) = 0,1,2,3,4,5..., when as stated earlier, it should have been list1=1,2,3,4,5...

If what I stated is correct, then in all fairness, they should roll back EVERYONE's bids, because if 0 (zero) was counted as a possible RNG choice, then EVERY roll is invalidated and needs to be done again. I know it sucks for some people, but in all fairness, if zero (0) was included, then redoing it is the most fair solution.

[Jojoya]

I'm talking about the original system, which may well predate you if you think it was bot-laden.

The original system only lasted 9 months after the introduction of housing and was at a time when the active player base was much smaller.

It would never work with the size of the current player base. Whether some players would resort to RMT to get the gil needed to purchase would be a tiny blip among the logistical problems.

SE needs to confront the core problem of supply. They can twist the system any way they like and there will always be problems that leave players unhappy unless the supply meets demand.

[UkcsAlias]

If what I stated is correct, then in all fairness, they should roll back EVERYONE's bids, because if 0 (zero) was counted as a possible RNG choice, then EVERY roll is invalidated and needs to be done again. I know it sucks for some people, but in all fairness, if zero (0) was included, then redoing it is the most fair solution.

It could also be a "round(rand(0,numplayers))" in the code. In which case the last player only gets a 50% chance of winning, and the other half of his getting the 0 as result.

Without knowing the code, you cant tell anything. Its very likely something subtle being overlooked, that in tests did show it worked

[Oizen]

Considering the RMT housing trade already exists and is inherently less risky to pull off, I gotta say, that claim seems rather suspect.

google it.

[Xelanar]

People did not want this. People just want their house, and rightfully so.
Developers need to address plot scarcity, instead of refining or changing the method of aquiring plots. By the end of the day, no matter the underlying system, only X amount of people per ward will be happy and privileged. Everyone else will stay empty handed and frustrated.

Developers should instead focus on providing more houses for a continulously increasing playerbase.

[Valodion]

The RNG code was created by a person, and they inputted 0 as one of the possible choices for output. I have coded in Python and Mathematica before, and if you import random, and then you list the parameters, e.g. list=1,2,3,4,5... It is pretty easy to see, that when they listed their parameters for the housing lottery system, they included 0 (zero) in the list of possible choices that could be rolled. If they did in fact did put zero into their list, as in: listhousing or list1 (whatever you want to call it) = 0,1,2,3,4,5..., when as stated earlier, it should have been list1=1,2,3,4,5...

If what I stated is correct, then in all fairness, they should roll back EVERYONE's bids, because if 0 (zero) was counted as a possible RNG choice, then EVERY roll is invalidated and needs to be done again. I know it sucks for some people, but in all fairness, if zero (0) was included, then redoing it is the most fair solution.

Again, No. Making everyone, even those not affected with a 0 Winner should not be subject to a roll back. You have to also consider the impact THAT would have on players/free companies that actually won and already invested time and gil into their new plot. AGAIN, it is unfortunate this happened, but not everyone should be punished because of it.

[SanadaX]

Again, No. Making everyone, even those not affected with a 0 Winner should not be subject to a roll back. You have to also consider the impact THAT would have on players/free companies that actually won and already invested time and gil into their new plot. AGAIN, it is unfortunate this happened, but not everyone should be punished because of it.

"If I can't win neither can you"

[Keridwyn]

If what I stated is correct, then in all fairness, they should roll back EVERYONE's bids, because if 0 (zero) was counted as a possible RNG choice, then EVERY roll is invalidated and needs to be done again. I know it sucks for some people, but in all fairness, if zero (0) was included, then redoing it is the most fair solution.

What you're asking for is a total server rollback. They can't just roll back the lotto because people have already moved in and started building/decorating. Which means some have likely bought furnishings from vendors and the MB. Which means refunding that gil. Which means reversing those transactions. The only way to accomplish that is to roll back the servers to prior to the lotto happening.

You're asking for people who didn't participate in or care about housing to lose days of progress. Either that or you're asking for the people who won and started the process of enjoying their plots to lose out on millions of gil when they didn't do anything wrong either.

In short, a total rollback is the least fair solution.

[SanadaX]

What you're asking for is a total server rollback. They can't just roll back the lotto because people have already moved in and started building/decorating. Which means some have likely bought furnishings from vendors and the MB. Which means refunding that gil. Which means reversing those transactions. The only way to accomplish that is to roll back the servers to prior to the lotto happening.

You're asking for people who didn't participate in or care about housing to lose days of progress. Either that or you're asking for the people who won and started the process of enjoying their plots to lose out on millions of gil when they didn't do anything wrong either.

In short, a total rollback is the least fair solution.

Only thing I can see working is increase the total amount of wards to 30. 50/50 split down the middle for FC and personal. SE gets what they want and we.... well maybe the odds be in everyone's favor.