Please more housing wards soon. And no more FC/Private Hybrid.

[PredatoryCatgirl]

if I knew it's actually 300 different people who have bidded on it

It is. 300 *people* in one FC. That is the core of what I'm saying. An FC is not one person. And that FC with 300 people deserves a larger chance at a house than an FC with 4 people, because 300 people using the house is better than 4. At the same time, the 4 person FC doesn't deserve to be locked out of bidding completely, it just deserves a lesser chance unless it strategically goes for houses that the 300 person FC wouldn't bid on.

[Stormpeaks]

It is. 300 *people* in one FC. That is the core of what I'm saying. An FC is not one person. And that FC with 300 people deserves a larger chance at a house than an FC with 4 people, because 300 people using the house is better than 4. At the same time, the 4 person FC doesn't deserve to be locked out of bidding completely, it just deserves a lesser chance unless it strategically goes for houses that the 300 person FC wouldn't bid on.

What you seem to forget is that on extremely populated worlds, some wards are now unrestricted, and the plots are EXTREMELY limited, so please do tell me if you think lets say 200 bids of an FC on a small that is unrestricted (also open to personal housing) is fair and equal, while people bidding on it for personal can only bid once ? Do you not deserve a chance because you bid as personal and the FC decided to bid with their entire FC ?

That's the point debaters here seemed to successfully ignore. Yeah, okay, I get it. You want bigger FCs to win so more people get access to housing, yada yada. Fine. Make them pay for it as much as they need to muster up dozens of entrants. It is loophole'ing the system, after all. Why it's not penalized in any way? I'm bringing this point up again but even in RL lotteries you do pay the symbolic price for the ticket and if you're buying ten tickets, you pay ten times the symbolic price. Why it's not present here?

Out of posts for the day, that seem like a solution tbh, add a stacking fee for each bid on the same house from the same FC, bidding on it as FC, that is non refundable.

[Antoine_Lenheim]

It is. 300 *people* in one FC. That is the core of what I'm saying. An FC is not one person. And that FC with 300 people deserves a larger chance at a house than an FC with 4 people, because 300 people using the house is better than 4. At the same time, the 4 person FC doesn't deserve to be locked out of bidding completely, it just deserves a lesser chance unless it strategically goes for houses that the 300 person FC wouldn't bid on.

Again, if you think that 300 man FC that is using a house is somehow better than 4 man FC using the house, and that one of the parties in an objectively RANDOM LOTTERY deserves a LESSER chance, then we do need to just lock the small FCs out of the bidding completely and only allow titanic 100+ man FCs to battle themselves on who can muster up the strength and gil to outbid their opponents. Only then we will have peace, tranquility... and equality.

[PredatoryCatgirl]

Again, if you think that 300 man FC that is using a house is somehow better than 4 man FC using the house, and that one of the parties in an objectively RANDOM LOTTERY deserves a LESSER chance, then we do need to just lock the small FCs out of the bidding completely and only allow titanic 100+ man FCs to battle themselves on who can muster up the strength and gil to outbid their opponents. Only then we will have peace, tranquility... and equality.

Okay, I'm going to explain why this is wrong.

FC1 has 4 active members and can only afford 1 bid. FC2 has 100 active members and can afford 50 bids.

Current system, both FCs bid on the house (lets say its a premium plot): FC1 has a slightly less than 2% chance of winning.

Current system, FC1 bids on the house, FC2 does not (lets say its a less desirable plot; FC2 is aiming higher because they have more resources): FC1 has a 100% chance of winning.

System you're proposing, FC2 does not bid on the house, FC1 cannot bid on the house: no one uses the house.

You are wrong. The two things are not the same. That is not an opinion, it is an objective fact that can be mathematically proven. I will no longer entertain this talking point. Call me when you have something else.

You want bigger FCs to win so more people get access to housing, yada yada. Fine. Make them pay for it as much as they need to muster up dozens of entrants.

On this point, I actually agree with you. I'd love to see a system that takes a portion of the bid upon loss. If you can pile 20 bids on a large, you can afford to lose 5M for every bid that loses.

[Antoine_Lenheim]

You are wrong. The two things are not the same. That is not an opinion, it is an objective fact that can be mathematically proven. I will no longer entertain this talking point. Call me when you have something else.

The "system" that I "proposed" was an exaggerated attempt to reflect on the apparently alright system you're agreeing with, that big FCs should have bigger chances to win. My real system and proposition was to limit amount of entrants from 1 FC to one. This way it gives everyone a fair, equal, even, square, use whatever term you'd like here, chance to win.

[PredatoryCatgirl]

The "system" that I "proposed" was an exaggerated attempt to reflect on the apparently alright system you're agreeing with, that big FCs should have bigger chances to win.

So you admit your point was a strawman argument then? Cool. Bye.