Fake FCs' Housing Abuse

[PaalHenrik]

I'm pretty stoked honestly given that the goal was to get an official response. Such an abused loophole should be given a closer look.

You are adorable. Forum moderators aren't devs.

[Jojoya]

It definitely would.

The rules have changed in the 2 years since my post you quoted. They have changed the information regarding FC houses.

As far as we can tell, they are enforcing the currently published rules. I won't say I'm in complete agreement with those rules but I also can't say I have evidence they aren't enforcing them.

I'm pretty stoked honestly given that the goal was to get an official response. Such an abused loophole should be given a closer look.

So the response you wanted is for the moderators to shut down discussion of your topic?

SE is well aware of what is happening. They have better data on it than any of us as players can obtain. If they wanted to do something about it, they've had that ability all along.

[CatStarwind]

As far as we can tell, they are enforcing the currently published rules.

It's established they are not.

SE is well aware of what is happening. They have better data on it than any of us as players can obtain. If they wanted to do something about it, they've had that ability all along.

Honestly given how impactful the quality of life updates have always been, that is extremely unlikely. What's more likely is ancient code that would require a tremendous amount of work to rectify. Generally they rely on the community not to abuse and exploit edge cases, as demonstrated by the absolute disappointment expressed in the zoom mod debacle just this year and the debuff timer before that. SE is not omniscient, they can not know nor predict every kind of abuse.

[Stormpeaks]

It's established they are not.



Honestly given how impactful the quality of life updates have always been, that is extremely unlikely. What's more likely is ancient code that would require a tremendous amount of work to rectify. Generally they rely on the community not to abuse and exploit edge cases, as demonstrated by the absolute disappointment expressed in the zoom mod debacle just this year and the debuff timer before that. SE is not omniscient, they can not know nor predict every kind of abuse.

Still going at it are we ? It aint abuse, nor is it exploit, you can stop trolling now.

[CatStarwind]

Still going at it are we ? It aint abuse, nor is it exploit, you can stop trolling now.

Using an edge case for an unintended function is indeed an exploit. Systematically taking advantage of that flaw is an abuse of said exploit.

[Stormpeaks]

Using an edge case for an unintended function is indeed an exploit. Systematically taking advantage of that flaw is an abuse of said exploit.

Okay buddy, obviously the devs disagree, so you can keep complaining about it as much as you want.

[Jojoya]

SE is not omniscient, they can not know nor predict every kind of abuse.

You're acting like this is some sudden new development. It is not. They are very much aware of it and have chosen to do nothing despite player reports that have been submitted over the years.

If they felt it was a problem, they would have done more about the situation than clarify language in the housing guide telling players how they can also obtain multiple FC houses.

Again, I don't like it considering the supply limitations of the system but it is SE's choice. Banging your head against their door screaming "DO SOMETHING" is only going to give you a headache.

[CatStarwind]

Okay buddy, obviously the devs disagree, so you can keep complaining about it as much as you want.

The devs have not, as far as I've seen, issued any sort of opinion directly on the matter. That is after all the reason for my initial thread and why I was heartened to see that it was closed and forwarded to relevant parties.

What the devs have clearly stated is plain on the play guide: "You do not have a character on the same World on the same service account that purchased and maintains a free company plot".

You're acting like this is some sudden new development. It is not. They are very much aware of it and have chosen to do nothing despite player reports that have been submitted over the years.

If they were aware then as I previously mentioned it would be made me clear in some official fashion.

If they felt it was a problem, they would have done more about the situation than clarify language in the housing guide telling players how they can also obtain multiple FC houses.

There is no such language in the housing guide that explicitly mentions or endorses owning multiple FC plots on a single world with a single service account. However, the opposite is quite clearly defined in the requirements as quoted above.

Banging your head against their door screaming "DO SOMETHING" is only going to give you a headache.

I appreciate your concern but rest easy knowing that I've no ire. I simply wish to ensure attention to something that affects the community at large.

[Jojoya]

If they were aware then as I previously mentioned it would be made me clear in some official fashion.

They don't detail every little thing about the game in "official fashion". If they truly felt that the multiple house ownership was against their spirit of their rules and didn't want players to do it, they would have told us "please don't buy multiple houses" just as they tell us "please don't use third party tools".

There is no such language in the housing guide that explicitly mentions or endorses owning multiple FC plots on a single world with a single service account. However, the opposite is quite clearly defined in the requirements as quoted above.

See above. Not every little detail of how to play the game gets explicitly mentioned or explained. That the language telling players how they can get multiple FC houses exists in the official housing guide says enough to those who aren't putting their fingers in their ears screaming "I'm not going to listen to that!"

I appreciate your concern but rest easy knowing that I've no ire. I simply wish to ensure attention to something that affects the community at large.

As we've all said, the attention is already there. They are aware of it.

Their response has been to add more wards instead of taking houses away. Clearly they don't see it to be a serious problem (if a problem at all) and see no reason to take action against individual players unless they find evidence of things specifically against the ToS, such as purchasing houses with the intent to resell for profit whether gil or real money.

[CatStarwind]

Not every little detail of how to play the game gets explicitly mentioned or explained.

Which is absolutely fair. I just feel in this particular instance it would be tremendously helpful.

As we've all said, the attention is already there. They are aware of it.

Are they though? Despite my requests I've yet to see any. On the contrary, what I saw more of was "SE doesn't read anything here". So which is it?

Their response has been to add more wards instead of taking houses away. Clearly they don't see it to be a serious problem (if a problem at all) and see no reason to take action against individual players unless they find evidence of things specifically against the ToS, such as purchasing houses with the intent to resell for profit whether gil or real money.

When limits were first introduced and the restriction officially stated they grandfathered those who previously owned multiple plots before the rule change. It borders on malicious to misconstrue such goodwill and apply it to this current abuse. Regardless if the loophole was being grossly exploited or not additional wards would have been added. Given said restrictions, it is clear that they do see it as a problem. However it may not have such a high priority given the low attention.

That the language telling players how they can get multiple FC houses exists in the official housing guide says enough to those who aren't putting their fingers in their ears screaming "I'm not going to listen to that!"

Again there is no such language. A small notation to give consideration for an edge case is not an instruction on how to circumvent a clearly stated requirement. This is exactly why it is an exploitative loophole.