Turn on Demolish for Housing and fix housing please.

[Shibi]

If you can't afford the monthly sub, don't be sad if you lose your home.

It isn't that expensive. if somebody can cut down on their 2-3 slices of avocado toast a week, then they would have MORE than enough to pay for their sub.

The problem is that many millennials can't do without their avocado toast and Starbucks coffee, and then complain they can't afford their monthly sub and lose their home. It is a sad state of affairs.

OK Boomer.

(and I say that as someone with grandkids in the family :P)

Y'all

What's this Y'all cap?

You realise that people on the forums rarely, if ever, agree something should happen?

[AwesomeJr44]

He kind of is, should bring the quality up a little more though, has been going downhill lately

Looks like the quality meter was set to a lower setting than it should have been. Here, lemme just turn that up real quick. There, it should be better now.

[Midareyukki]

I'm sorry, I don't see where I said any of that. I did say that I'm in favor of demolition as a necessary evil even though I lost a house twice in the past due to needing to take extended breaks.

Even though I lost houses twice to Life Happens extended breaks, I'm in favor of demolition as a necessary evil. Then again, I'm not one of those people who puts such a high priority on keeping a house that I won't cut my sub for months or longer if necessary. On the flip side, now that my life situation's better than it was before, the sub cost is a non-issue so I have no problems with maintaining it indefinitely to keep the house I got recently.

It was this. And "hostage" is probably too harsh, you're right.

But it is kind of daft to have to go through this entire process only to lose it because "lol you decided to take a break". I'm not even bothered about it financially. I only mentioned it because you did. I'm bothered about the process of having to get a house to begin with. The financial aspect comes as an additional "pressure". It's 11€ a month, so while it does add up depending on the financial system you live in (not just you yourself, but your country and policies. Because it isn't easy to improve your situation just anywhere, and it certainly is not where I live), a sub isn't going to kill you. The real issue is the limit and how much is lost in the loss.

You don't value having a house, and that's fine. But other people do. You might find that a stupid thing to value, but that's your opinion, other people are entitled to value whatever they feel like. And you managed to keep yourself stable, that's great, unfortunately life isn't so benevolent for everyone, and it's not as easy for other people to afford it. Considering what you lose and the process to reobtain it, then yeah, it does suck to want to take a break or wait until your situation is better and find that you lost all your progress.

When I mention "selfish" I mean that you came across as saying "Welp, now that my situation is better, I'm totally in favour of this. Before I was mildly inconvenienced even if I understood, now I'm totally for it".


If you want my opinion, it's the following:

If you're a raider and you don't sub for 40 days, you lose out on good gear. But there are plenty of ways to deal with it. A house? Not so much. If your players feel bad about wanting to take a break but willingly come back later, then something's bloody wrong with your product. Because then you alienate them from content just so that they feel "Gee, I don't have a house, but thank god, now I'm free to do what I want without needing to acquiesce to stupidly strict limits". Trying to get back a house isn't as easy as gearing up for raids and other portions of the content in-game. So it's not the same. And in turn, you basically create a FOMO situation in a game whose main appeal lately has been in subverting FOMO. It might not be "true" FOMO, sure... but it's still a fear of losing your accomplishments out of the logic that "someone else also wants a house".

The problem really is the process, not the financial aspect. The moment you lose a house, you have to start all over. And if it's a Medium or large, it's incredibly punishing. You think locking players out of houses isn't fair, but this is shoving the unfairness toward other people in turn. When in reality what we should be advocating for are systems that don't promote this sort of competitive streak for a house. Why did we even go for the absolute worst method possible rather than pushing for a proper solution that didn't apply such pressure on players?

I think that 40 days is too short. Make it 50 days, because one week really does make a big difference. At least, it would to me. At least until there's an alternative. IMO? Island Sanctuary is a start, but the devs definitely need to do something with it. It may be a necessary evil, but it is still evil and we should try to have something better regardless.

What's this Y'all cap?

You realise that people on the forums rarely, if ever, agree something should happen?

Oh look, someone didn't get a joke.

Yes, I know. But the point remains that a lot of people asked for it, and the devs acquiesced.

DUUH.

Guess what else people asked for A LOT before Stormblood hit, even with detractors. GENDER-LOCKED OUTFITS.

So yeah. In general? If anyone wants anything done, it's better to think of what consequences will follow. Hence y'all. It's called Generalization.

[MintnHoney]

Looks like the quality meter was set to a lower setting than it should have been. Here, lemme just turn that up real quick. There, it should be better now.

Could you replace the batteries, please? The quality hasn't come back up after adjusting the settings, so I hope we don't have to get a new one installed.

[Illmaeran]

You don't value having a house, and that's fine. But other people do. You might find that a stupid thing to value, but that's your opinion, other people are entitled to value whatever they feel like. And you managed to keep yourself stable, that's great, unfortunately life isn't so benevolent for everyone, and it's not as easy for other people to afford it. Considering what you lose and the process to reobtain it, then yeah, it does suck to want to take a break or wait until your situation is better and find that you lost all your progress.

When I mention "selfish" I mean that you came across as saying "Welp, now that my situation is better, I'm totally in favour of this. Before I was mildly inconvenienced even if I understood, now I'm totally for it".

I do value the house I have now and those I had in the past. However, having one wasn't so important that it kept me from stopping my sub when necessary. I don't believe I said anything regarding how I feel about other people value their houses. I've spoken about myself throughout all of this; please don't take what I say and expand on it in a direction I didn't go.

Keep myself stable? The times I had to quit the game were periods of extreme instability in my life. If life had been stable I wouldn't have had to stop playing. My circumstances have improved now, yes, and that's what I spoke to directly. I didn't say anything about others or make any values judgement toward others in anything I said.

I don't believe I said anything close to "Welp, now that my situation is better, I'm totally in favour of this. Before I was mildly inconvenienced even if I understood, now I'm totally for it". I did say I'm in favor of it as the best solution in bad circumstances. I also spoke to understanding the necessity of it when it impacted me directly in the past. Perhaps it would have been more clear had I said something like I was in favor of it in the past even when it meant losing my house and am still in favor of it now. I believe it's better to give other people the opportunity to have a house by demolishing a plot and recycling it into the general player base than to let someone keep possession over extended periods of absence (many months to a year or more as happened originally) from the game.

I don't understand how favoring a mechanism that helps others out even to the point of my own detriment could be considered selfish.

[Escence]

I've been trying to get a house on Lamia ever since this new lottery system was implemented and it is horrible!!!

Why is it bad??

1. Demolish is not turned on so houses never come back to the market.
2. Every house on Lamia is taken in Shirogane and Empyreum.
3. Only 1 chance per week.
4. Competition is 150+ in the lotto per attempt.

I'd gladly sit outside a house for 14 hours clicking multiple times a week against 10 ppl over only getting one chance a week again 150 people.

Seriously the worst idea ever.

I've been playing off and on since 1.0. I've come and gone and come back multiple times. Mainly just trying other thing. Nothing has ever really pissed me off and made me want to quit because of bad design until now. I never needed/wanted a house until Endwalker and I so wish I tried before Endwalker because this is seriously the dumbest design I have ever seen.

Just let us pay real life money for a premium ward with guaranteed housing or double/triple the gil cost for a premium ward. This is ridiculous!!

From what I seen before even having demo on did not really fix the housing availability because you would have crap ton of people sitting a palcard trying to give the few available spaces. The system need to design in the way to were the server itself makes more wards available depending on fullness of the other wards and from there it would be nice if they gave us the ability to upgrade our homes so that way it would eliminate 300 people going for 1 large plot.

[Avoidy]

Demo wouldn't fix the shortages but without demo the system basically relies on people transferring off-world for homes to become available. The current system relies on a steady flow of available homes or it locks up. So without demolition, the system can't operate effectively at all. I don't even like demolition; I think it's disgusting. But this system was built with demolition in mind as a way to keep it functioning. SE is running their housing system half-cocked, basically. The only reason the housing system has revived a bit on balmung is because lots of people left for dynamis and freed up a ton of homes. Without that, it's just gridlocked for months with maybe one or two homes showing up due to a relocation or something, and there'll be hundreds of people trying to buy it. Even now, with dynamis and dozens of homes available again, each house had 50+ people trying for it on balmung.

Basically this system can't exist without a way of freeing up homes again. Demo sucks. But so does the current system. In a perfect world, they'd just keep the genuinely unique neighborhood setup they have now and just add more wards as needed on a world by world basis.

[Helgarm]

I am an on again off again player, so what I think may not be valid but I understand that they do not want instanced housing. I also play ESO and couldn't they keep the wards like they are now and just have one plot be instanced like ESO. So this way it is a combination of both. They would have the live server aspect of people walking around or whatever that they want, but also be able to have a house for everyone.

[Kaisea]

Would you still be in favor of auto demolish if you owned a house? That question is for you, and I don't actually need an answer to that. Your honest answer however, holds all sorts of implications about what you deem is and is not fair when it comes to housing. Monday morning quarterbacking won't bring you an enjoyable experience, and allowing the housing system to strip you of that enjoyment is equally bad, if not worse.

Yes I would, absolutely. Using your logic, by allowing homeowners to keep their house when they are not playing the game, active game players are being denied their chance at getting and enjoying a house and that is just selfish.

[Kaisea]

Hard disagree. We've had enough conversations on the subject to know that there's a large number of players, both current house owners and those without houses, that would prefer a house in an instanced area over one in a ghost town, aka the wards.

Keep in mind that if an improved instanced system was added that allowed for houses instead of just apartments, every current house owner that switches to it would open a spot in the wards for those who want a ward house.

As for "normal", instanced housing is normal. That's what the majority of MMOs with housing use. A ward style system is rare. I don't think any other MMO has the ongoing drama over housing like this game does thanks to the choice to use ward housing.



No one needs a house, period. It doesn't matter if they log in daily or one a year. It is optional content and has little bearing on other game content.

What makes you so special that you should be entitled to a house over the player that only plays 3 months a year?

It's a very strange take on your part considering the game's Producer and Director encourages players to take breaks to play other games then come back later to enjoy the content the player wants to enjoy. Then again it's a very strange take on the developer's part to implement a system that prevents all interested players from enjoying it.


Neither placard clicking nor the lottery would have been necessary if all housing was fully instanced from the start.

I strongly disagree with your statement that no one "NEEDS" a house. If your most enjoyable activities in the game are furniture crafting (both indoor and outdoor), house design and gardening then you absolutely DO need a house. Apartments are no substitute for a house because they have no outdoor space. Only if apartments were modified to include outdoor space could they serve as a weak substitute for a real house.