Hope you got a house this lottery otherwise you'll probably be waiting another 5years

[Hasrat]

Which would be fine if SE were actually doing that as the demand appears instead of responding two years later.

There would be no delayed response if that had been using a fully instanced system from the start.

Y'all keep misinterpreting this. It's not about responding "as the demand appears." The system is designed to be imbalanced. There will always be demand.

The point at which they respond is when the proportion of unsatisfied players begins to approach the proportion of satisfied players.

Example: As long as they can satisfy 80% of the demand for housing, the system is working "good enough" and they don't need to do anything.
Over time, that number slips, and now housing is only meeting 60% of the demand.
Throw a few more wards at the problem (and let's be completely fair here, even just a few wards, across all housing districts, across all servers, is still a fair chunk of housing).
Satisfaction is back above 80%, problem solved. Repeat.

Numbers used are purely for example purposes. "80%" is their target, but they're comfortable letting it ride all the way down to "60%". As long as they can continue to say "most of the demand for housing is met," the system is working. More than "80%" and they're spending more than they need. Less than "60%" and they can't really call it "good enough."

[Pablomaldito]

Y'all keep misinterpreting this. It's not about responding "as the demand appears." The system is designed to be imbalanced. There will always be demand.

The point at which they respond is when the proportion of unsatisfied players begins to approach the proportion of satisfied players.

Example: As long as they can satisfy 80% of the demand for housing, the system is working "good enough" and they don't need to do anything.
Over time, that number slips, and now housing is only meeting 60% of the demand.
Throw a few more wards at the problem (and let's be completely fair here, even just a few wards, across all housing districts, across all servers, is still a fair chunk of housing).
Satisfaction is back above 80%, problem solved. Repeat.

Numbers used are purely for example purposes. "80%" is their target, but they're comfortable letting it ride all the way down to "60%". As long as they can continue to say "most of the demand for housing is met," the system is working. More than "80%" and they're spending more than they need. Less than "60%" and they can't really call it "good enough."

When over 90% of bidders cannot get a house, talking about "most of the demand" being met is kind of pointless.

[Hasrat]

When over 90% of bidders cannot get a house, talking about "most of the demand" being met is kind of pointless.

You're confusing demand for housing vs demand met. Which, I'm pretty sure I already covered earlier in the conversation. There are thousands of players already satisfied with housing. Proportional to the bidders that didn't get in, the bidders are in the minority, and thus, yes, most of the demand has been met.

Allow me to reiterate, for, like, the fifth time here, the system is not designed to accommodate everyone. There will never be a point where 100% of bidders will get a house. The goal is only to keep the number of bidders proportionally lower than the number of players that already have a house.

Please, please come back with the actual obvious argument of how this is clearly far too shortsighted, placing short-term cost saving measures over long-term solutions. Seriously, how is nobody pointing out how an instanced system, or any other actual solution would genuinely save them time and money in the long run and quite likely actually reduce the amount of required hardware and upkeep.

Because kinda all these responses have been similarly shortsighted. This is the (most likely) reality (as I see it, anyway). Everyone wants to point to the flaws in the system. The system is working as intended. The real flaws are the flaws in reality, where they try to save a buck now and end up spending even more later.

[Darthgummibear]

Proportional to the bidders that didn't get in, the bidders are in the minority, and thus, yes, most of the demand has been met.

If you actually believe this, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Hasrat]

If you actually believe this, I have a bridge to sell you.

Take the number of bidders on the remaining plots in the previous round of lotteries. Divide by total number of all plots across every district/ward.

From what I've seen, there were not more bidders than there were occupied houses. So, again, most of the demand is met.

There are only, what, several hundred to maybe a few thousand still left without a house on any given server? Versus the several thousand already using the system?

If you don't understand that, you're just not understanding how demand actually works.

[Siniztor]

Take the number of bidders on the remaining plots in the previous round of lotteries. Divide by total number of all plots across every district/ward.

From what I've seen, there were not more bidders than there were occupied houses. So, again, most of the demand is met.

There are only, what, several hundred to maybe a few thousand still left without a house on any given server? Versus the several thousand already using the system?

If you don't understand that, you're just not understanding how demand actually works.

I can tell you demand high enough people were paying for fc's like 700 mil gil for a large (60 mil plot)....

I wish they only allow 7,200 ( the number of houses) a week to run savage thats all you get... then let them post for 5 years plus till they band aid fix it...
Its a optional part of the game but not restricted.

Its pretty simple if you have people posting for 5 years plus saying there is not enough houses to meet the demand seems like theres a problem... when you have redidit pages decanted to selling shell Fc's theres a problem, people wanting houses so much there willing to pay crazy amounts to get a fc

FYI I had 486 bidders on the plot i bid on in the mist last round... thats 1 house a small in the Mist even (#19 on the boardwalk someone upgraded freeing it)

[Darthgummibear]

Take the number of bidders on the remaining plots in the previous round of lotteries. Divide by total number of all plots across every district/ward.

From what I've seen, there were not more bidders than there were occupied houses. So, again, most of the demand is met.

There are only, what, several hundred to maybe a few thousand still left without a house on any given server? Versus the several thousand already using the system?

If you don't understand that, you're just not understanding how demand actually works.

You're cherry-picking your data to support your bullshit defense of this awful system while completely ignoring several other factors, yet I'm the one who doesn't understand how this works. Right.

[Siniztor]

You're cherry-picking your data to support your bullshit defense of this awful system while completely ignoring several other factors, yet I'm the one who doesn't understand how this works. Right.

^^^^ 1,000% this.

[Hasrat]

You're cherry-picking your data to support your bullshit defense of this awful system while completely ignoring several other factors, yet I'm the one who doesn't understand how this works. Right.

I'm not cherry-picking anything. Y'all are the ones misusing "demand" to only apply to the players that currently do not have houses, when the term is more correctly applied across the board.

There is a supply of 7,200 houses per server. Assuming all houses are now occupied, the system has met the demand of 7,200 players (not really, with all the problems with the system).

Unless the remaining players yet waiting for an opportunity at a house meets or exceeds 7,200 players, then by definition, the system is meeting most of the demand. This is simple maths.

And I already told y'all, I ain't defending the system. I'm pointing you towards better arguments.

Please, please come back with the actual obvious argument of how this is clearly far too shortsighted, placing short-term cost saving measures over long-term solutions. Seriously, how is nobody pointing out how an instanced system, or any other actual solution would genuinely save them time and money in the long run and quite likely actually reduce the amount of required hardware and upkeep.

Because kinda all these responses have been similarly shortsighted. This is the (most likely) reality (as I see it, anyway). Everyone wants to point to the flaws in the system. The system is working as intended. The real flaws are the flaws in reality, where they try to save a buck now and end up spending even more later.

[Oizen]

I'm not cherry-picking anything. Y'all are the ones misusing "demand" to only apply to the players that currently do not have houses, when the term is more correctly applied across the board.

There is a supply of 7,200 houses per server. Assuming all houses are now occupied, the system has met the demand of 7,200 players (not really, with all the problems with the system).

Unless the remaining players yet waiting for an opportunity at a house meets or exceeds 7,200 players, then by definition, the system is meeting most of the demand. This is simple maths.

And I already told y'all, I ain't defending the system. I'm pointing you towards better arguments.

Dont know what you're smoking but you did flat out say "the demand is met" which is the most laughable thing I've seen said about this housing system on this forum yet.