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

[CatStarwind]

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.

So you lied when you said this topic title implied a specific "SubGil", got it.

There is no 'group' here being "pointed out", rather a relatively hidden and silent game mechanic. Is queuing up an Ability as a caster during the GCD a "group" of people?

[Ayan_Calvesse]

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.

See this is where I see something of a issue; while I agree that there should be a enforced limit of 1/1 that is clearly not the case so I wonder what the literal intention of that rule that SE can clearly check actually is - because at the very least the spirit of the rule is that you cannot have more then 1 FC.

Its part of a problem with the "dead FC protection" system. The spirit of that system is that when a FC loses people; the last man standing becomes the leader (being leader does not really matter) to preserve the FC's work and possibly rebuild. The problem is that this means FULL Fc housing privilege's. I wonder if a hard coded "steward" rank could be set up in all FC's that cease to have more then 1 active account in the FC could be made; that FC being no longer able to alter the house or use the workshop.

"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.

That's the problem; if that rule was true we would not have grandfathered private homes.
The rules need to be consistent otherwise we are stuck trying to interpret them; in this case the problem is that there could be legitimate reasons for a 1 man FC (such as you still playing FF after your friends left the game) which results in you becoming master and now having full permissions over the house. I mean unless we deny alts the ability to join FC's or make FC membership accountwide on the world/DC?

[Reinha]

The rules need to be consistent otherwise we are stuck trying to interpret them; in this case the problem is that there could be legitimate reasons for a 1 man FC (such as you still playing FF after your friends left the game) which results in you becoming master and now having full permissions over the house. I mean unless we deny alts the ability to join FC's or make FC membership accountwide on the world/DC?

There is nothing wrong with having a free company with a house where you are the only active member left. You can still join other fcs with your alts if you want and that's fine, but it makes zero sense that your alts can join/create a new homeless fc and then bid on more houses on the same server. That is currently possible and it's what enables house hoarding using only one account.

[Ayan_Calvesse]

There is nothing wrong with having a free company with a house where you are the only active member left. You can still join other fcs with your alts if you want and that's fine, but it makes zero sense that your alts can join/create a new homeless fc and then bid on more houses on the same server. That is currently possible and it's what enables house hoarding using only one account.

The problem is that even if you could not bid; you would simply get a 2nd service account and boost it...then invite the alts on the other accounts and abdicate the FC to your own alts on the prime account which is how resellers are doing it at the moment. I wonder how lucrative the boosting system is for SE with these shell FCs bidding.

[Reinha]

The problem is that even if you could not bid; you would simply get a 2nd service account and boost it...then invite the alts on the other accounts and abdicate the FC to your own alts on the prime account which is how resellers are doing it at the moment. I wonder how lucrative the boosting system is for SE with these shell FCs bidding.

It would not stop hoarders using multiple accounts, but my point is they should have to use more accounts and boosts. Currently neither of those are needed to own multiple fc houses.

I have one fc house, but it would be possible for me to own 5 on the same server only using my main account and an entry level subscription. Square has made it as easy as they can.

[Ayan_Calvesse]

It would not stop hoarders using multiple accounts, but my point is they should have to use more accounts and boosts. Currently neither of those are needed to own multiple fc houses.

I have one fc house, but it would be possible for me to own 5 on the same server only using my main account and an entry level subscription. Square has made it as easy as they can.

Oh I am not arguing against your point I am augmenting it - if our goal is to increase the housing supply by resolving issues such as multiple FCs owning a home then I would think it better to limit the FC's that can run a house on a account. Also was there a reason for the number 5? Keep in mind that as it stands you do require 3 other player accounts to form a "new" FC.

[Reinha]

Also was there a reason for the number 5? Keep in mind that as it stands you do require 3 other player accounts to form a "new" FC.

You do need a friend/stranger/second account to sign the petition but other than that, your own alts are enough. After you acquire a house, kick all other characters but one and make sure the one remaining isn't the character whose bid won. Then repeat until you have 4 fcs with one character and a final fc with 4 characters.

[SweetEquity]

A single service account can hold 8 FCs and 1 personal per server, up to 40 per datacenter.

example: That's 9 houses on Lamia, Leviathan, Famfrit, Exodus (36) and 4 more on Ultros

Then head from Primal over to EU and repeat for 40 more..
Then onto Materia for 40 more... . you just need temporary friends.

Everyone's paid subscription allows for this. This is not breaking the rules . You can argue it breaks the spirit of the rule, and I will continue to disagree. If SE want to change it, they would have.

[Jojoya]

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

Instead of snipping out the part that shows what you'd like the system to be, try including the rest of the information that's right next to that graphic.

Ownership of Free Company Plots

Each free company may only maintain one estate plot at a time. (The free company cannot purchase additional plots, but moving to a different plot is possible.)

* If one character on a service account purchases and maintains a free company plot, no other characters on the same World associated with that service account will be able to purchase one.
* If the character leaves the free company that maintains this plot, characters on the account will be able to purchase a new plot.
* These conditions only apply to purchases made after the release of patch 4.2. Any land purchased before patch 4.2 will be unaffected, and no land or estates will be lost as a result of these changes.

I underlined the part that is relevant to multiple house ownership. That is why "owned by buyer" is a thing when it comes to FC houses. If the character who made the actual purchase of the plot leaves, that FC house is no longer "owned by buyer" even if other characters from the same service account remain in that FC. Additional FC houses can then be purchased on the same world and service account.

It is not unintentional on SE's part. If they did not want players to have the ability to have multiple FCs with houses, they wouldn't have added in a way for the owner status to be removed.

You can stress the word "maintain" if you want, but what does it really mean? Do I "maintain" multiple FC houses because one of my alts is the FC Master of a FC I maintain for my use and for friends to hide their alts in when they don't want those alts to be in the same FC as their mains, because this character is a member of a different FC with a house also on Coeurl and because I also run the workshop for my cousin's FC on Marilith?

"Maintain" means nothing in all of this unless SE chooses to post a definition of what they mean by "maintain" in the purchase guide.

Do I like this? No, I don't. As far as I'm concerned, it was a very bad decision on SE's part.

Yet it was the decision they made. I'm not going to take out my frustration on players who are doing what SE allows them to do. I'm going to ask SE to change the system.

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.

Where do you find this as the definition of "maintain"?

So question: let's say I have a friend with a FC and I have an alt in that FC on top of having my own FC with house. My friend is on a business trip to a part of the world with crappy internet service and effectively unable to play for 8 weeks. I and up resetting the demo timer as a FC member entering the house.

Am I now maintaining multiple FC houses and so my friend has to lose their house?

There is nothing wrong with having a free company with a house where you are the only active member left. You can still join other fcs with your alts if you want and that's fine, but it makes zero sense that your alts can join/create a new homeless fc and then bid on more houses on the same server. That is currently possible and it's what enables house hoarding using only one account.

You probably should list the context in which you believe it makes "zero sense" just for clarity's sake. Not everyone may be thinking about the situation in the same way as you.

Regardless, it is what SE allows. Rather than get angry with the player doing what SE allows them to do, shouldn't we be getting angry with SE?

[CharlotteSchweizer]

"Able to purchase a new plot" does not overcome the stated intention, just to be clear. It's an exploit of the system as it is being used, though I'm not sure how they'd ever close this loophole without preventing people who bought an FC house and ended up falling out with that FC from starting a new FC with a new house.