Ban Service Accounts with more than 1 FC house

[NanaWiloh]

My final words on this are as follows. Neither the housing community or Free companies should have too pay the price for the devs refusal to solve this issue properly.

[Naphtalia]

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.

I don't often post on here, as is obvious, but I do read threads that catch my eye over the year or so I've been here. I agree with you that it's not a luxury but the vast responses I've seen to people having our viewpoint is that they shouldn't *have* to settle. For example, I remember a response essentially saying: "Why should I have to have a small when I don't want a small?"

So I do think in an ideal world people shouldn't be picky but....

[Naphtalia]

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.

So, ultimately, you'd need someone to admit in game that they're trading houses for the GMs to do anything. As far as I'm aware, they don't take outside screenshots into consideration. I'm also guessing the duplicate named FCs don't flag them either because they ultimately don't have written proof that they're owned by the same person. Anyone know if they investigate IPs (I'm guessing not because that would probably have squashed those issues a while ago)?

[NanaWiloh]

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.

Only way this idea would work is if you are restricted to 1 free company per world. So no alts in free companies of friends, family, etc. Be you the FC lead or just a member. Cost your punishing more players then those that own multiple FC homes. It's choosing the greater of two evils to solve a problem.

[neia]

Only way this idea would work is if you are restricted to 1 free company per world. So no alts in free companies of friends, family, etc. Be you the FC lead or just a member. Cost your punishing more players then those that own multiple FC homes. It's choosing the greater of two evils to solve a problem.

I don't think that's the be all and end all. For example, they could design the automatic FC transfer system in a way to where it will only transfer to characters whos service accounts do not currently own an FC with an FC house. Keep going down the list until it finds a suitable character, if not, the land is relinquished.

[NanaWiloh]

I don't think that's the be all and end all. For example, they could design the automatic FC transfer system in a way to where it will only transfer to characters whos service accounts do not currently own an FC with an FC house. Keep going down the list until it finds a suitable character, if not, the land is relinquished.

There is a way around that but I wont say what it is, do not wish too add to the problem. I can be confident I am not the only one would realize or as realized how to get around this idea.

[Nyastra]

It is kind of annoying how my alt can't have a home (nor share in my main's home) due to being on the same world but hey, if I made a shell FC I could do that only I don't *want* to do that. So alas.

[s32ialx]

So, ultimately, you'd need someone to admit in game that they're trading houses for the GMs to do anything. As far as I'm aware, they don't take outside screenshots into consideration. I'm also guessing the duplicate named FCs don't flag them either because they ultimately don't have written proof that they're owned by the same person. Anyone know if they investigate IPs (I'm guessing not because that would probably have squashed those issues a while ago)?

Basically yes, Square Enix can collect and use IP addresses internally. Japanese privacy law (APPI) allows companies to process IPs for legitimate business purposes, and ToS enforcement falls under that. But IPs can't be used as standalone proof of multi‑ownership, so they aren't the primary tool for housing enforcement. GMs rely on in‑game behaviour, account activity, FC control patterns, and plot maintenance history, not IP matching alone.

That said, you don't need someone to openly admit "I'm trading houses" for an investigation to happen. If an entire ward is filled with FCs like BluesFC1, BluesFC2, BluesFC3, all clearly controlled by the same person, that's already enough behavioural evidence for a GM to look deeper into account ownership and activity. We also can't say for certain whether people do or don't report these cases, that part is unknown. What we can say is that the system doesn't automatically flag FC plot stacking. Without a report, there's no trigger for a GM to review anything.

So while Square Enix can use IP data internally, it's only ever supporting evidence. Housing enforcement ultimately depends on reports and in‑game behavioural patterns, not IP tracing.

[Naphtalia]

Basically yes, Square Enix can collect and use IP addresses internally. Japanese privacy law (APPI) allows companies to process IPs for legitimate business purposes, and ToS enforcement falls under that. But IPs can't be used as standalone proof of multi‑ownership, so they aren't the primary tool for housing enforcement. GMs rely on in‑game behaviour, account activity, FC control patterns, and plot maintenance history, not IP matching alone.

That said, you don't need someone to openly admit "I'm trading houses" for an investigation to happen. If an entire ward is filled with FCs like BluesFC1, BluesFC2, BluesFC3, all clearly controlled by the same person, that's already enough behavioural evidence for a GM to look deeper into account ownership and activity. We also can't say for certain whether people do or don't report these cases, that part is unknown. What we can say is that the system doesn't automatically flag FC plot stacking. Without a report, there's no trigger for a GM to review anything.

So while Square Enix can use IP data internally, it's only ever supporting evidence. Housing enforcement ultimately depends on reports and in‑game behavioural patterns, not IP tracing.

I see. I just assume that it's not enough since those multi-owned wards have existed for years now from what I've been told. I'm unsure what behavior would be necessary for them to actually act on it if those wards haven't done anything enough to warrant removal yet.

[NanaWiloh]

Here is a solution and its a hands off one for SE. Ill explain best I can how it will work as it may be a little confusing!!

Solution is restrict housing permissions: Example of how it would work

-Player A joins a FC with a house only FC they are apart of on said world. So the restrictions will not apply and they can have or be granted full access to housing permissions.

-Player A creates a new character same world joins another FC with a house. But be they a member or FC lead they have access only too these housing permissions in said FC:

Access too:
1. estate access
2. Orchestra
3. Garden
4. chocobo stable
5. FC chest
6. Greeting book
7. House reliq.

No access too:
-Furnishings and storage
-remodel
-No airship or sub access (can donate materials only)
-company credits
-company actions



Only the character in the first FC you join on a world can have full housing permissions. Every character on that world that comes after and joins a different FC with a house will have their permissions restricted as listed above. This idea cant be bypassed by using multiple accounts, has bringing a character in from a different account will trigger the restriction for all other characters on the account that exist on the same world. Think of this like and infectious disease its spreads with every FC with house you join. Under this idea if you want to control 8 FC houses all on the same world you will need 8 accounts 1 account for each house.