Can we have an official response on the RMT sub FC farms?

[Raim]

You're just dodging the idea of nerfing subs because you benefit from them. Its obvious the gil (and other items) from submarines are balanced around the expectation that your FC has 4+ members to share the rewards with. People bypass this by making solo shell FCs with friends and alts so they can have their own gil printing machine for themselves. Heres a real list of solutions that can be mix and matched:

-Lower the gil price of vendor items brought by submarines
-Have the amount of items brought by a sub scale based on how many subbed, active accounts are in the Free Company so one person doesn't receive much profit alone
-Have submarine missions use FC points, an amount unviable with one person alone
-Make submarines flat out not work unless you have 4+ active accounts in the Free Company

[Leathium]

Person A: *sees an unlocked back door in a bank* "Wow, the potential for a robbery exists here."
Person B: *appears from out of nowhere, totally unprompted* "I'm not a bank robber! Stop accusing me! This is slander!"
Person A: "What? I never said you were. Just that the possibility for a robbery exists here, and someone in charge of the bank should do something about it."
Person B: "I am DEFINITELY not a robber. In fact, NOBODY would ever rob this bank! And even if I WERE in the business of obtaining money illegally, I certainly wouldn't do it this way! There are far more efficient ways to illegally earn money, like blackmail, or prostitution. Let me tell you more of those easier ways now!"
Person A: "That's nice, but the door is open so I feel like we should talk about it at least-"
Person C: "I can vouch, unequivocally, that person B would NEVER rob a bank!!! After all, there are more efficient ways to illegally obtain money!!"
Person A: "who the hell are you?? Look, I really just want to hear back from the owners of the bank."
Person D: Yesterday someone accused ME of robbing a bank. I am a persecuted class! *weeps, wipes eyes with 100 dollar bills*

This thread is embarrassing. By itself it's just someone asking for a response from Square about the possibility for RMT from a money printing side hustle that exists in game. Square hasn't posted a reply in these forums in like 6 years. This would've sank to the bottom of the page in a day, but for whatever reason certain people can't help themselves and just bite the hook every time; ironically, doing so only makes them look suspicious as hell in the process. {Great job!}

Lmao, this is exactly what I been trying to say in this topic.

[Ayan_Calvesse]

And here is how I would feel about it:
-It doesn't affect me, I'm not someone who is involved in RP events, I dont really RP in general, and I find RP a waste of time.
-I'm not a fan of lalafells, I barely have any Lalafell friends, mostly playing them for the memes.
-I will simply not care, because I don't have a weird fan fictional fantasy about Catgirls playing barbie dolls with Lalafells.

What would Affect me and make me feel involved:
-Someone complains Dark knight is too overpowered and needs their damage nerfed.
-Someone complains or demands removing or changing a cooldown the dark knight has to something weaker or worse.
-Someone debates that Dark knight is dumb job and should be changed.

In general, this purely off topic but still apply to the general idea of this topic, people who feel affected by those "false accusations" of RMT will feel involved as they are sussy, people who LUL and ignore it, will ignore it, and not try to hire a lawyer.

The issue is not what you think - its that your being slandered with a broad sweeping claim without actual nuance.

For example if 10 houses in a ward are all owned by SubGil lets say; this topic implied through its title that SubGil is engaged in RMT - the less informed reader is therefore going to propagate which could very well be a lie. There is also the case that even worse; someone might take that a step further check the placard on SubGil and find the owners name and put in a uninformed report on said owner - all because they started with the false premise that Sub FCs are engaging in RMT which may or may not be true.

Your Dark Knight example is a apt one - regardless of the claim made; it would affect you. Someone saying "We need to nerf DRK openers" without the full picture (like BiS or General lack of knowledge that Dps output of the other tanks) would propagate essentially a lie based on "judgement heuristics" or "click responding". The statement being true or not is not even the issue; a convincing lie will travel the world 3 times before the truth even gets out of bed so they say.

People are likely raising issue because they run Sub-farms but that does not mean they are engaging in RMT; which this thread does imply; the fact that people are responding the way they are is proof enough that folks are comming to that "Click response"

[CatStarwind]

For example if 10 houses in a ward are all owned by SubGil lets say; this topic implied through its title that SubGil is engaged in RMT - the less informed reader is therefore going to propagate which could very well be a lie.

Please point to where in this thread a specific "SubGil" is implicated.

Otherwise I highly suggest reading the unlocked back door analogy.

[Zigrin]

https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../housing_land/ It is against the rules to own multiple FC houses on one service account on the same world. Only people allowed to do that are players owning multiple houses before patch 4.2, which was released January 30th 2018.


Quote:
You may only purchase and maintain one private plot and one free company plot per World per service account.

[Ayan_Calvesse]

Please point to where in this thread a specific "SubGil" is implicated.

Otherwise I highly suggest reading the unlocked back door analogy.

Ok so I reccomend reading the post where I went over explaining the concept of implications; you point out a characteristic of one group - then imply a behavior; this should not be a revelation; now lets dissect the back door analogy.


*sees an unlocked back door in a bank* "Wow, the potential for a robbery exists here."
++first point; this thread begins more with "Wow that door must've been left unlocked so that someone could rob the bank"
Person B: *appears from out of nowhere, totally unprompted* "I'm not a bank robber! Stop accusing me! This is slander!"
++Second point; this is actually accurate; in this situation Person B actually is a smoker on break who did not want to be locked outside.
Person A: "What? I never said you were. Just that the possibility for a robbery exists here, and someone in charge of the bank should do something about it."
++Third point; the damage is already done because you have already leveled a accusation with the implication.
Person B: "I am DEFINITELY not a robber. In fact, NOBODY would ever rob this bank! And even if I WERE in the business of obtaining money illegally, I certainly wouldn't do it this way! There are far more efficient ways to illegally earn money, like blackmail, or prostitution. Let me tell you more of those easier ways now!"
++Fourth point; I do not think anyone here ever actually claimed RMTers never use Subfarms; this is the point in that the Person B is giving a legitimate reason the door is unlocked other then robbery which was first implied.
Person A: "That's nice, but the door is open so I feel like we should talk about it at least-"
++Fifth Point; This is backpeddling and does not change the fact Person A has already told the owers (see point 7 of the example) BEFORE even speaking with Person B
Person C: "I can vouch, unequivocally, that person B would NEVER rob a bank!!! After all, there are more efficient ways to illegally obtain money!!"
++Sixth Point; Person see is a 3rd party who actually can vouch for the context person B is providing.
Person A: "who the hell are you?? Look, I really just want to hear back from the owners of the bank."
++Seventh Point; Notice how the fact person A has in this example implied that they have already reported to the managers; if you combine this with the first point - you have at that point said to the owner. "Wow that door must've been left unlocked so that someone could rob the bank"
Person D: Yesterday someone accused ME of robbing a bank. I am a persecuted class! *weeps, wipes eyes with 100 dollar bills*
++Eighth Point; This is a classic strawman fallacy - you provide Person D because your argument does not really apply to Person B.

[Ayan_Calvesse]

https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../housing_land/ It is against the rules to own multiple FC houses on one service account on the same world. Only people allowed to do that are players owning multiple houses before patch 4.2, which was released January 30th 2018.


Quote:
You may only purchase and maintain one private plot and one free company plot per World per service account.

I actually like this; but there is a "small" problem with it.

What defines maintain in this example? I'm on record saying I am fine with no shell FC's; I hate the concept of it to begin with. The issue is that language has some issues.
"You may only purchase and maintain one.."that's not entirely true in the literal sense; you may purchase as many as you wish; but you can only maintain 1 per world per service account for private homes; mechanically this is built into the game (if you attempt to take on a second private on a alt it will let you know you cannot). You can bid on a 2nd FC home on the same account or you can have it abdicated to you which is what we are seeing happen and I have no beef with that being changed - its probably worth noting in the example we started with that multiple service accounts are involved (as there are more then 8 homes listed).

Furthermore the above statement can only be true *if* we combine both conditions "You may only purchase AND maintain"; because by SE's grandfathered rules - long time accounts can maintain multiple private estates due to grandfathering; and this brings a interesting question to mind; what if a grandfathered account tries to bid on a new private? Does it ask them to pick what home on the list they wish to give up or (more likely) informs them that they will give up ALL estates to relocate?

I wish lodestone was up so that I could examine more of the context that quote came from; thats not to accuse you of bad faith; more so to see if in the entire post that SE addressed their own grandfather clause.

[PaalHenrik]

You left out the part where it says at the bottom that if you leave the FC that was bought by you, you are then free to buy another plot.

[Zigrin]

I actually like this; but there is a "small" problem with it.

What defines maintain in this example? I'm on record saying I am fine with no shell FC's; I hate the concept of it to begin with. The issue is that language has some issues.
"You may only purchase and maintain one.."that's not entirely true in the literal sense; you may purchase as many as you wish; but you can only maintain 1 per world per service account for private homes; mechanically this is built into the game (if you attempt to take on a second private on a alt it will let you know you cannot). You can bid on a 2nd FC home on the same account or you can have it abdicated to you which is what we are seeing happen and I have no beef with that being changed - its probably worth noting in the example we started with that multiple service accounts are involved (as there are more then 8 homes listed).

Furthermore the above statement can only be true *if* we combine both conditions "You may only purchase AND maintain"; because by SE's grandfathered rules - long time accounts can maintain multiple private estates due to grandfathering; and this brings a interesting question to mind; what if a grandfathered account tries to bid on a new private? Does it ask them to pick what home on the list they wish to give up or (more likely) informs them that they will give up ALL estates to relocate?

I wish lodestone was up so that I could examine more of the context that quote came from; thats not to accuse you of bad faith; more so to see if in the entire post that SE addressed their own grandfather clause.

Maintain as prevent demolition. If you own 8 solo FC houses on 8 characters on one world on the same service account, then you're clearly above 1 FC house limit. Right now game doesn't check that rule and nothing happens.

[Reinha]

"Maintain" under the current rules is being a member in the fc you bought (not relocated) a house for. Nothing more, nothing less. The game doesn't check if you are a free company master on that server even though it should. Buying a new free company house should require a new account if you are already an owner of one.