Ban Service Accounts with more than 1 FC house

[Sierra_Liassa]

The only acceptable solution to this is Square implementing auto-scaling wards or instanced housing. That would solve the availability issues overnight; so what if a player buys up a whole ward, when a new one could spin up instantly or you have an instanced house for yourself?

But banning players for interacting with the game in a way that's been allowed for over a decade? That just reeks of spite and jealousy, and wouldn't even solve the issue. Once the ban wave goes through and a number of people pick up a house, and you're left with full wards and no availability once more, what then? You're back at square one, only this time there's no boogeyman to point fingers at.

No, the only way to solve this fairly for all involved is to do away with houses being such a limited commodity. Anything else is misplaced anger at the players, when it's Square who's enforcing artificial scarcity.

[neia]

But banning players for interacting with the game in a way that's been allowed for over a decade? That just reeks of spite and jealousy
No, the only way to solve this fairly for all involved is to do away with houses being such a limited commodity. Anything else is misplaced anger at the players, when it's Square who's enforcing artificial scarcity.

This is a kind of funny response with lots of anger reeking through your words. Your null points have been addressed multiple times throughout this thread. Everyone wants instanced housing. However a retroactive rebalance, with a hard limit of 1 FC House per Service account is just simply fair, though also wishful thinking.

SE can't do anything about the artificial scarcity given the current systems they have to work with. Sure it's great to want new systems and we all do, but preventing players from hoarding those scarce resources is a simple step they can take right now that would benefit the 99.9% at the expense of the 0.01% who greedily hoard them.

[Sierra_Liassa]

This is a kind of funny response with lots of anger reeking through your words.

Says the person wanting to ban people from the game, and who's routinely levied personal attacks on those who disagree with them throughout the thread.

Your null points have been addressed multiple times throughout this thread.

Ah, yes. "I disagree with you, so your points are null". Except they haven't been addressed at all.

Everyone wants instanced housing. However a retroactive rebalance, with a hard limit of 1 FC House per Service account is just simply fair, though also wishful thinking.

Except it isn't. Taking things from people who've legitimately earned them is not fair at all. You might disagree with with people owning more houses, but at the end of the day, these players were and are playing by the rules using mechanics that have been pretty solidly established for over a decade. It sets a dangerous precedent to change established rules in such a drastic way to disenfranchise players, especially in a time when the active population is already falling off.

SE can't do anything about the artificial scarcity given the current systems they have to work with.

Now that's a bold-faced lie. They absolutely could do things without removing player's accomplishments within the constraints of the game. When was the last time they added new wards? Sure it's not dynamic, but they could use existing systems to increase the number of them to add supply, at least until a better solution was implemented. (By the way, I'll answer that so you don't have to: it was 6.3, almost 2 years ago. Is no new wards for nearly 2 years acceptable?) But even so, that only distracts from the fact that they've failed to implement a system to expand housing on demand and moves the onus from Square to the players.

Sure it's great to want new systems and we all do, but preventing players from hoarding those scarce resources is a simple step they can take right now that would benefit the 99.9% at the expense of the 0.01% who greedily hoard them.

Would it? Are you really claiming that 99.9% of the plots are owned by 0.01% of the players? That's an insane assertion, and I'd love to see the data you have to back that claim up.

But regardless, that still doesn't address the issue with scarcity. Let's pretend your suggestion does go through. Square bans all the players owning more than one house, and now there's a gold rush for people to get houses. Everyone plays by the rules. Every plot is claimed, each with its own unique player; nobody does any shenanigans with extra service accounts. There's still going to be a lot of people without houses.

How do you fix that?

Using your system, you cannot. The only way to fix this long-term is to do instanced housing or scaling wards.

[neia]

Says the person wanting to ban people from the game, and who's routinely levied personal attacks on those who disagree with them throughout the thread.



Ah, yes. "I disagree with you, so your points are null". Except they haven't been addressed at all.



Except it isn't. Taking things from people who've legitimately earned them is not fair at all. You might disagree with with people owning more houses, but at the end of the day, these players were and are playing by the rules using mechanics that have been pretty solidly established for over a decade. It sets a dangerous precedent to change established rules in such a drastic way to disenfranchise players, especially in a time when the active population is already falling off.



Now that's a bold-faced lie. They absolutely could do things without removing player's accomplishments within the constraints of the game. When was the last time they added new wards? Sure it's not dynamic, but they could use existing systems to increase the number of them to add supply, at least until a better solution was implemented. (By the way, I'll answer that so you don't have to: it was 6.3, almost 2 years ago. Is no new wards for nearly 2 years acceptable?) But even so, that only distracts from the fact that they've failed to implement a system to expand housing on demand and moves the onus from Square to the players.



Would it? Are you really claiming that 99.9% of the plots are owned by 0.01% of the players? That's an insane assertion, and I'd love to see the data you have to back that claim up.

But regardless, that still doesn't address the issue with scarcity. Let's pretend your suggestion does go through. Square bans all the players owning more than one house, and now there's a gold rush for people to get houses. Everyone plays by the rules. Every plot is claimed, each with its own unique player; nobody does any shenanigans with extra service accounts. There's still going to be a lot of people without houses.

How do you fix that?

Using your system, you cannot. The only way to fix this long-term is to do instanced housing or scaling wards.

You're just trolling and not interested in actual debate. Low effort rage bait post. NEXT

[Sierra_Liassa]

You're just trolling and not interested in actual debate. Low effort rage bait post. NEXT

Nice projection. Can't refute any points, so resorts to personal attacks and accusations of trolling.

[neia]

Nice projection. Can't refute any points, so resorts to personal attacks and accusations of trolling.

Your points have been addressed. You just don’t like the answers.

Likewise, accusing others of “personal attacks” while repeatedly calling people liars, spiteful, and jealous isn’t engaging with arguments - it’s projection.

[Aelin_Ashryver]

Better to just ignore the homeless troll at this point I think. They won't ever get their way anyway.

[Veritas-Ancora]

I would be fine with a ban like this.

Square has neglected keeping up with the work-arounds.

[Brandr]

Banning won't happen because one shouldn't be punished for doing something that wasn't forbidden beforehand.

Though, I totally agree with SE either:

1. Destroying FCs with less than 4 members

2. Destroying FC houses with less than 40 active members

3. Destroying the whole Sub/Airship system and making something new, more interesting and for everyone

[Sierra_Liassa]

Banning won't happen because one shouldn't be punished for doing something that wasn't forbidden beforehand.

Though, I totally agree with SE either:

1. Destroying FCs with less than 4 members

2. Destroying FC houses with less than 40 active members

3. Destroying the whole Sub/Airship system and making something new, more interesting and for everyone

Wholeheartedly agreed on point 3. 1 and 2 might be a little extreme when it comes to smaller free companies or friend groups, but 3 would be a good change. It still runs into some of the same issues as before, where once the plots are all claimed we're back at square one again, but it would help remove the incentive for some people to hold onto some houses. I'd go so far to say it's a must if Square added scaling wards; without that, inflation would go through the roof.

But apparently that position means we want to keep the status quo, because it's not arbitrarily and retroactively punishing people who did things that were perfectly within the rules.