A possible fix for "submarine income"

[Ayan_Calvesse]

Ask SE why they they don't.

Maybe it's something technical in nature? I suspect there would still be an effective limit they could allow per workshop. We keep seeing additional menu windows added in other content once a list gets big enough.

Still, even if it's only 20 subs per workshop it would potentially open up a fair number of small houses for other players to buy.

It's not going to solve the medium and large problem, though, and that seems to be what is generating the majority of "not enough" complaints.

Thats sorta where I wonder as the submarines are really just "tracked" as a small entry of data. It might be something technical as I know the DB they use is prone to HUGE levels of upkeep needed (see housing server not being available) and yeah really just I think it would remove the "ghost houses" that are strictly there for the purpose of having a submarine bay as most the submillionaires would likely consolidate their workshops into their most valuable property they own. Especially if you limited people to 1 FC per world.

However I DO wonder how often that limit is a problem. I understand the reason you can have more then 1 FC on a world is to consider that someones alt might be preserving a FC for when members return; but I do wonder how much of a issue that is.

[MAJRIS]

Still, even if it's only 20 subs per workshop it would potentially open up a fair number of small houses for other players to buy

I'm not sure if I follow. Why would anyone in their sane mind give up small house when you suggest to allow 20 subs in each of them, and thus multiply their earning power by 5?
Nothing what's been suggested will have significant impact for already established companies. People have fuel for three years in advance.

btw - three new planned worlds. without SE putting their foot down (PS they wont, housing is fomo) you can bet these worlds will become dead on arrival and compromised with multiowners/investors first week as housing wards open.

/remindme in 365 days.

[Ayan_Calvesse]

This is why I would simply link all subs to "workshop" rather then giving each home a payload. So if you have 3 houses; the workshop is the same regardless which one you enter - all your subs are in the workshop and that number is tied to your account rather then your FC or character.

[Jojoya]

This is why I would simply link all subs to "workshop" rather then giving each home a payload. So if you have 3 houses; the workshop is the same regardless which one you enter - all your subs are in the workshop and that number is tied to your account rather then your FC or character.

That would be problematic in the case of legitimate FCs unless workshops were removed as FC content and made as content for individual players only.

The game hasn't added any content that's effective for FCs to earn gil outside of the workshop (even if some FC Masters/officers abuse the workshop for personal gain). Take the workshop away from the FC and they're going to be strapped if they're using workshop proceeds to fund FC events and/or other FC member perks.

If SE were to add other content that FCs could use for earning gil (and wouldn't lead to a situation like WoW's "cesspool" guilds), then I'd be good with changing workshops to individual only and one per account. Short of that, better to just remove workshops from housing and change the things needed to operate the workshop to be entirely company credit based. I know some fear that would penalize the small FCs but it really wouldn't. It's a rare active FC that isn't flowing with excess Company Credits after a couple of months.

If the FC is mostly inactive with someone just logging in to send out subs then there's going to be a problem. Quite honestly that's the way it should be.

[Ayan_Calvesse]

That would be problematic in the case of legitimate FCs unless workshops were removed as FC content and made as content for individual players only.

The game hasn't added any content that's effective for FCs to earn gil outside of the workshop (even if some FC Masters/officers abuse the workshop for personal gain). Take the workshop away from the FC and they're going to be strapped if they're using workshop proceeds to fund FC events and/or other FC member perks.

If SE were to add other content that FCs could use for earning gil (and wouldn't lead to a situation like WoW's "cesspool" guilds), then I'd be good with changing workshops to individual only and one per account. Short of that, better to just remove workshops from housing and change the things needed to operate the workshop to be entirely company credit based. I know some fear that would penalize the small FCs but it really wouldn't. It's a rare active FC that isn't flowing with excess Company Credits after a couple of months.

If the FC is mostly inactive with someone just logging in to send out subs then there's going to be a problem. Quite honestly that's the way it should be.

How do you figure?

Under the change the Workshop would still exist; it would just be linked to the FC master rather then the build he owns? Just trying to figure what you mean as the submarines are not really "FC content" with regards to voyages. If your referring to construction - simply have the projects be a seperate interactable maybe?

[Jojoya]

How do you figure?

Under the change the Workshop would still exist; it would just be linked to the FC master rather then the build he owns? Just trying to figure what you mean as the submarines are not really "FC content" with regards to voyages. If your referring to construction - simply have the projects be a seperate interactable maybe?

How do I figure that it should be a problem for an inactive FC? Because that's what has given rise to the sub farms in the first place.

The "FC" is just a facade for the sub farms, existing solely for the sake of purchasing a FC house so the workshop can be obtained. Once the FC house has been obtained and the workshop set up, no one in the FC has to be active outside of logging in to take care of the subs.

If subs and airships weren't intended to be FC content, they wouldn't have been limited to FCs that own a FC house in the first place. That it only takes a single FC member to run it on behalf of the entire FC doesn't turn it into non-FC content.

The Fabrication Station was at minimum group content when first introduced even if they later changed it in Stormblood. I remember very well the days of "Can anyone help? My FC is building an airship but nobody else online has a crafting class unlocked so I need 3 crafters to come AFK in our workshop while I add materials. I'll pay for your time".

SE needs to revisit their vision for workshops in light of how the player base has chosen to make use of them.

Do they still want workshops to be limited to FCs? Then they need to find ways to prevent workshops from being operated by solo players.

Are they okay with solo players running a workshop? Then take away the FC and FC house requirements.

Do they still want house ownership to gate access to workshops? If so, then they need to revamp the housing system so any FC (and player if not FC content) can get a house on demand on their home world instead of competing over what houses are available. If not, detach the workshops from housing.

Are they okay with the sub farms that have sprung up? Then give every character the ability to run subs if the player wants.

Regarding would the workshop be linked to the FC Master in the event it's detached from housing but otherwise remain FC content, that would be up to the FC Master just as it currently is. Ultimately, the FC Master has all the power in a FC. What access members have is at the discretion of the FC Master. SE stays completely out of what goes on in FCs (outside of Prohibited Activities violations), and so there's no formal system that allows FC members to hold a FC Master accountable for misuse of what the FC has.

That's the drawback of player FCs/guilds/clans/etc. in MMORPGs. In the end, the player at the top can do pretty much what they want and members have no recourse other than to leave. There is no punishment for mismanagement.

It's a good argument for why there should be no formal content with rewards unique to player organized groups in MMORPGs if one member or a small group of members can control who will get the rewards. It's too easy for the decision makers to abuse the system for their personal gain.

Remove workshops from housing and FCs to make them solo player activity, and then every player has equal opportunity to benefit dependent on how much time and effort they choose to put into the content.

[WinglessSeraphim]

Do they still want workshops to be limited to FCs? Then they need to find ways to prevent workshops from being operated by solo players.

Are they okay with solo players running a workshop? Then take away the FC and FC house requirements.

Professor Jojoya: Remember when in order to create items in the workshop, it required 4 members to be standing in the workshop in order for that to happen and then SE removed that requirement?

[Jojoya]

Professor Jojoya: Remember when in order to create items in the workshop, it required 4 members to be standing in the workshop in order for that to happen and then SE removed that requirement?

Yes I do. Read 2 paragraphs above what you quoted and my comment even earlier that removing the group requirement doesn't mean it's not FC content. It was removed because the smaller FCs pointed out that it can be very different to have 4 members on at the same time with all 4 also having a crafting class unlocked (back then, most players ignored crafting because the barrier to reach the meaningful recipes was a lot steeper than it is now).

There's a difference between me running the workshop, selling the voyage loot on the market board and then putting the gil into the Company Chest where it is used to benefit the entire FC and me running the workshop, selling the voyage loot and then using the gil as I want for myself.

In the first case, I'm using it as FC content and the FC benefits from it. In the second case, I'm using it as solo content for my own sake and not for the benefit of a FC group.

Might as well argue that dungeons are solo content because any competent tank can solo them while the rest of the party does nothing. Just because something can be done a certain way doesn't mean that's the intent of the content.

[Ayan_Calvesse]

The question to be asked is what is the issue with submarines - I feel like the FC/Non-FC content arguement is more a strawman. The question is - whats wrong with submarines? If the issue is that subFC's are eating housing; thats the problem my suggestion aims to solve. If the issue is a persons own personal access to submarines; that's another discussion.

The solution offered essentially minimizes the changes needed as even running subs can be managed by FC permissions.

[UkcsAlias]

That would be problematic in the case of legitimate FCs unless workshops were removed as FC content and made as content for individual players only.

I dont see any problem with that. Its a highly skewed system now as big FCs gain less per member than small FCs. Idealy you want a system that scales up as FCs increase, but in its current system, as its usualy just a few with access, most members just dont get any value anyway.

The entire FC system is outdated here. At best you could still keep access behind an FC, but make each member manage their own submarine. Alternatively still allowing the FC to have some ships to enable members to get specific resources (like a retainer, but with fixed cycles in which you can request the desired resources - with fixed values given back). This then at least makes it beneficial to have FC subs.