Ban Service Accounts with more than 1 FC house

[Aidorouge]

Actually it's not working as intended.

It would be pretty amusing if the only reason house hoaders haven't gotten punished already is because people just haven't filled out enough report tickets while pointing out the part of the policies they may be violating.

But then, writing out tickets is such a slog, and for many people they probably don't know which rules are being stretched, they only SUSPECT something is amiss, or they don't care enough to report at all.

[NanaWiloh]

That entire conversation is a waste. This topic has been talked about multiple times over the years. SE has not tried too investigate the issue at all. If it was and exploit they would have looked into long ago. Also take what GMs say with a grain of salt, the level of uniformed or lack of guidelines they seem to suffer from is problem in itself.

[Yodada]

Actually it's not working as intended.

Technically it still does working as intended.

There is a small fine print you are seem to eager to overlook.

Purchase and maintain.

So technically transferred and maintain is not bypassing the first (which is actually already technically limited in game with the house account flag) of purchase and maintain.

But that are probably just semantics at this point, shruge

[Burmecia]

Technically it still does working as intended.

There is a small fine print you are seem to eager to overlook.

Purchase and maintain.

So technically transferred and maintain is not bypassing the first (which is actually already technically limited in game with the house account flag) of purchase and maintain.

But that are probably just semantics at this point, shruge

Don't think so, since that character's account is flagged as being the FC house haver which held the winning ticket.
Example. Players A, B, C and D may have FC with A as their leader; they bid for house and D wins. Eventually D leaves the FC and the rest decide to sell the FC to Player Z.
But who maintains the house now? Original FC lead A, original lottery winner D or new FC lead Z?
Obviously in practice it would be Z, I suppose, but D's account remains flagged for having FC house for as long as the house stands.

[NanaWiloh]

Don't think so, since that character's account is flagged as being the FC house haver which held the winning ticket.
Example. Players A, B, C and D may have FC with A as their leader; they bid for house and D wins. Eventually D leaves the FC and the rest decide to sell the FC to Player Z.
But who maintains the house now? Original FC lead A, original lottery winner D or new FC lead Z?
Obviously in practice it would be Z, I suppose, but D's account remains flagged for having FC house for as long as the house stands.

Free Company homes belong to the Free Company not a singular player. So you are wrong does not matter who holds the winning ticket they are not the owner of the home.

[Naphtalia]

Wanted to add some thoughts to this:

When it comes to the ToS, I'm inclined to agree with the person who pointed out that "purchase and maintain" is the actual written guideline for house ownership. Therefore, it would not include those who inherited a house as they did not purchase it themselves. As far as the system is concerned, once the lead is transferred that person is now the new owner. The original owner's character would not show a flag unless they rejoined that FC, meaning they could now go and purchase a new house with a new FC.

When you look at it from a technical standpoint (and the standpoint SE most likely is as well), the system is working as they intended it to as it does prevent one person from purchasing and maintaining more than one FC or private on one character (it will physically prevent you from being allowed to bid). Inheritance/lead transfer is a whole other thing that I believe isn't actually a part of the established ToS, at least from my look through of it. I'm also inclined to believe that they were specific on their word choice here to include "and" instead of just simply "or" but that's my own tin foil hat theory.

I also would like to ask what people suggest to do about inheritance then since that is ultimately what the issue is at hand if we take a step back from people just being angry about multi-owners. Ultimately the loophole exists because of the ability to give another player leadership in your FC and I'm assuming here that they aren't going to suddenly do away with being able to give people leadership transfer abilities. So, outside of getting instanced housing together, what does everyone here suggest as a solution?

Final thought, even if multi-owners are forced to give up all of their houses I'm sure there's an awareness that there still won't be enough houses for everyone because of wanting a specific plot or a specific size on a X or Y server. So, personally I think this will just be a bandaid solution and we'll have another discussion coming up about how housing is still unfair because some still won't be able to get the plot they actually want. So, will getting rid of multi-owners actually fix the issue at hand for all of you?

[NanaWiloh]

In the FC lottery when a FC wins any member of the FC can complete the purchase, they do not need to hold the winning bid.

[s32ialx]

Technically it still does working as intended.

There is a small fine print you are seem to eager to overlook.

Purchase and maintain.

So technically transferred and maintain is not bypassing the first (which is actually already technically limited in game with the house account flag) of purchase and maintain.

But that are probably just semantics at this point, shruge

Free Company homes belong to the Free Company not a singular player. So you are wrong does not matter who holds the winning ticket they are not the owner of the home.

Wanted to add some thoughts to this: I'm also inclined to believe that they were specific on their word choice here to include "and" instead of just simply "or" but that's my own tin foil hat theory.

The word “and” in “purchase and maintain” is not a loophole. It’s a statement of total ownership scope, not a list of separate permissions. You are allowed to purchase one plot and maintain one plot, but they must be the same plot. You are not allowed to maintain multiple plots by acquiring them through other means. If you end up maintaining more than one FC plot on the same world, regardless of how you got them, you are in violation.

The phrase "purchase and maintain" in the Lodestone rules is not a loophole, and it's not giving players multiple acquisition pathways. It's a combined ownership limit, not a list of permissions.

It does not mean:

• "You can purchase one house and also maintain another through inheritance or FC transfer."

It does mean:

• "You may have at most one plot that you either purchased or now maintain, regardless of how you got it."

The rule is written this way because Square Enix is limiting total plot control per service account per world, not just limiting the act of clicking the ‘Purchase' button.

This is exactly why the GM clarified that:

• Maintaining multiple FC plots via transfer is against policy, even if the system doesn't auto-block it.
• Inheritance does not exempt you from the ownership limit.
• The limit applies to the plot you control, not the method you used to obtain it.

And this is where the real abuse happens:
Players are exploiting FC mechanics, specifically leadership transfer and FC inheritance, to bypass the ownership limit. If an FC leader quits, or if someone pays for ownership of an FC, the new leader instantly gains control of that plot. If they already own another FC plot on that world, they are now maintaining multiple FC plots, which violates the rule.

This is how some individuals end up controlling:

• Entire wards
• Multiple FC houses
• FC shell networks
• RMT‑linked FC transfers

None of this is "working as intended."

It's working as exploitable, and that's why GM enforcement exists.
The "and" in "purchase and maintain" is not permission to obtain housing through other means.
It's a restriction stating you may purchase one AND maintain that same one, not multiple.
If you maintain more than one FC plot on the same world, regardless of how you acquired them, you are in violation of the housing policy.

[NanaWiloh]

The word “and” in “purchase and maintain” is not a loophole. It’s a statement of total ownership scope, not a list of separate permissions. You are allowed to purchase one plot and maintain one plot, but they must be the same plot. You are not allowed to maintain multiple plots by acquiring them through other means. If you end up maintaining more than one FC plot on the same world, regardless of how you got them, you are in violation.

The phrase "purchase and maintain" in the Lodestone rules is not a loophole, and it's not giving players multiple acquisition pathways. It's a combined ownership limit, not a list of permissions.

It does not mean:

• "You can purchase one house and also maintain another through inheritance or FC transfer."

It does mean:

• "You may have at most one plot that you either purchased or now maintain, regardless of how you got it."

The rule is written this way because Square Enix is limiting total plot control per service account per world, not just limiting the act of clicking the ‘Purchase' button.

This is exactly why the GM clarified that:

• Maintaining multiple FC plots via transfer is against policy, even if the system doesn't auto-block it.
• Inheritance does not exempt you from the ownership limit.
• The limit applies to the plot you control, not the method you used to obtain it.

And this is where the real abuse happens:
Players are exploiting FC mechanics, specifically leadership transfer and FC inheritance, to bypass the ownership limit. If an FC leader quits, or if someone pays for ownership of an FC, the new leader instantly gains control of that plot. If they already own another FC plot on that world, they are now maintaining multiple FC plots, which violates the rule.

This is how some individuals end up controlling:

• Entire wards
• Multiple FC houses
• FC shell networks
• RMT‑linked FC transfers

None of this is "working as intended."

It's working as exploitable, and that's why GM enforcement exists.
The "and" in "purchase and maintain" is not permission to obtain housing through other means.
It's a restriction stating you may purchase one AND maintain that same one, not multiple.
If you maintain more than one FC plot on the same world, regardless of how you acquired them, you are in violation of the housing policy.

Then Yoshi p and the Devs are guilty of one Hell of blunder. As I said previously this is not the first time multi house ownership has been discussed. No appology will be acceptable and should not be accepted. Only a total and complete scraping of the current system should be accepted. We are going on 6 yrs of this now, no excuse for not correcting if it was not intended. But we know the devs will do absolutely nothing to correct this issue if ever. If Yoshi and devs comes out and says they were unaware, I will post a thread ripping them a new one even if it costs me a forum ban. I personally believe they know what's going on and do not act out of wanting to keep the ward system. They also want players to have the freedom of having multiple free companies even if does have a negative effect on housing.

[neia]

Final thought, even if multi-owners are forced to give up all of their houses I'm sure there's an awareness that there still won't be enough houses for everyone because of wanting a specific plot or a specific size on a X or Y server. So, personally I think this will just be a bandaid solution and we'll have another discussion coming up about how housing is still unfair because some still won't be able to get the plot they actually want. So, will getting rid of multi-owners actually fix the issue at hand for all of you?

Wanting a specific plot is not a luxury anyone has when it comes to FC housing.

Currently, the majority of FC houses on Materia are hoarded by Gil farmers. Take these away and for Materia, this will probably guarantee adequate supply for the forseeable future. I understand this solution isn't scalable to the more populous data centers, as those worlds will likely have more legitimate FC's than the maximum amount of plots.

But I think removing the ability for multiple FC plots on a single service account will go a long way to make the system more fair for everyone.