1 House 1 FC per DC Only

[CatStarwind]

It's your opinion to have even though it's pretty wrong and based on outdated info.

It's more that it happened. The restriction existed and then was removed due to technical problems.

[Sindele]

But.. it didn't. It never existed in the way you want it to exist. The restriction that existed and was rolled back, was re-implemented and exists to this day.

[Themarvin]

It's more that it happened. The restriction existed and then was removed due to technical problems.

Please make your own thread, I didn't ask for all this sidetracked stuff and personal vendettas or whatever.

[WinglessSeraphim]

Please make your own thread, I didn't ask for all this sidetracked stuff and personal vendettas or whatever.

He can't. They keep getting deleted or locked.

[CatStarwind]

But.. it didn't. It never existed in the way you want it to exist. The restriction that existed and was rolled back, was re-implemented and exists to this day.

For the record, the exact section in Patch 4.2:

Players will be permitted to own only one private and one free company estate per World per service account.

Please make your own thread, I didn't ask for all this sidetracked stuff and personal vendettas or whatever.

He can't. They keep getting deleted or locked.

I'm not sure why I can't? I mean, I certainly did. I really don't understand the insistence in gas lighting (keep getting deleted/locked??) from accounts who only come out of the woodwork when discussing this exploit.

[WinglessSeraphim]

For the record, the exact section in Patch 4.2:




I'm not sure why I can't? I mean, I certainly did. I really don't understand the insistence in gas lighting (keep getting deleted/locked??) from accounts who only come out of the woodwork when discussing this exploit.

Yes, I only come out when discussing this (not an) exploit because nothing else interests me but very rarely. It's adorable that you keep using the word 'gaslighting'. Like your views on this 'exploit', your views on what 'gaslighting' is are wrong. No one is trying to make you doubt your own sanity. I'm not even sure how anyone could do that in a gaming forum.

When you are done picking and choosing what you find in your search of my posts, maybe you can work on your posts full of misinformation.

[Sindele]

Yes, I know what it says on the patch, the same as I know what it says on the site. But there was never a mechanical restriction on FC transfers. Any claim to the contrary is false.

[Starien]

It says "own" and not "build" - what do you propose as a "solution" to this "problem" ?

If you are like me, you have occupied many FCs and maybe even helped one build a house. If you are kicked from the FC or leave of your own volition due to any circumstance, do you then believe that player should never ever again be able to build a house for another FC down the line on the same World? That strikes me as unreasonable.

The reality remains that many FC wards are barren and riddled with vacancies. There is no dearth of available plots for any FC that wishes to build on one.

It's clear that there are some players who are taking clever advantage to build on multiple FC plots, but I am curious what a solution to this would be which would not end up hurting players who switch FCs.

[ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain]

Despite how much information you were given, you literally failed the take home test even after you had the study guide. 2+2=4 but here you are arguing with everyone that there is a situation it should equal 3 or 5 and you can't even provide a laughable reasoning as to why other than to throw out some copout response like "adorable circular logic". Pathetic.

You learned absolutely nothing. In fact you probably degraded further.

Guess we have to unpack the hooked on phonics kit all over again.

Here is what you asked last time, to set up your concave brain chess:


--------
And here is the response you waited for:


--------
[B]So that you could just come back with "OH BUT YOUR CIRUCLAR LOGIC".


That was it. That was your big boy play.
Clearly you did not read or process any of what was discussed around these points.

UNNAMED_ was not enforced on rules specific to a raid. Housing has no specified rules either, but you bring up the "MALICIOUS GLITCHING" which DOES fall under rules related to harassment and player experience in section 3. But you don't like this answer because it does not drop the hammer on people purchasing multiple plots.

That's where you bring out your one garbage one trick pony response:



Again, here you are parroting your favorite lines from patch notes or a Plot and Housing Guide with the intent of misrepresenting it like an official stated rule or requirement in the Terms of Service. For weeks now you have attempted to inject this into people's discussion and thought process to build your dead argument. Sorry Pinocchio, but it's not happening.

This statement holds ZERO weight.

But before I leave you on this one post:
Let's make believe for a moment and say that owning multiple plots is now against the rules in the Terms of Service.

In order for you to report it you would need to:

1. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual in question has warranted grounds to be investigated in the first place over anything relating to plots (Because police don't just search you just because someone said so.)
2. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence the same individual in question owns those plots.
3. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt the individual in question has done something nefarious to acquire those plots or something nefarious with said plots.
4. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt the individual has actually engaged in RMT activity with proof of a transaction and it's details.

Let me just start by saying you will never be able to prove a single point in that list above. Not before, not now, not anytime ever.

[Jojoya]

It says "own" and not "build" - what do you propose as a "solution" to this "problem" ?

If you are like me, you have occupied many FCs and maybe even helped one build a house. If you are kicked from the FC or leave of your own volition due to any circumstance, do you then believe that player should never ever again be able to build a house for another FC down the line on the same World? That strikes me as unreasonable.

The reality remains that many FC wards are barren and riddled with vacancies. There is no dearth of available plots for any FC that wishes to build on one.

It's clear that there are some players who are taking clever advantage to build on multiple FC plots, but I am curious what a solution to this would be which would not end up hurting players who switch FCs.

What I think would be the easiest way to accomplish it (assuming no other changes to how housing currently works) would be to consider the FC Master the house owner, and limit players to being FC Master of one FC per world per service account.

That wouldn't restrict a player from moving between FCs or having characters on the same world in different FCs. It also wouldn't prevent someone from taking an active leadership role in multiple FCs on the same world as they could still be appointed an Officer while someone else was the FC Master. It shouldn't impair FCs with multiple unique members (unless they all have their own FC outside of the shared one). It also doesn't change the power the FC Master already has over their FC and its housing since they control all rank permissions.

The only time I can think of that it might be come an issue is in a very small FC where all members other than the FC Master have other characters that are already FC Masters of other FCs on the same. It could be others could brainstorm and come up with a situation where it would create a problem that I haven't considered (other than the problem of "but this means I can't get multiple FC houses on the same world").