Potential Housing Crisis Fix (Includes ability for permanent Housing (Sm, Med, Lrg)

[ShadowyZero]

we get our instance plot an they can keep the ward system with the removal of the timer because the demand for ward housing would go down an thus more ward houses would be available an open up for those that like it.

We can have both have a Fully instanced housing plot for individuals i.e. single instanced zone, and we can keep and maintain shared instances i.e Neighborhoods side by side without the two needing to intersect or overstep eachother. and as i mentioned previously if alot of people switch over to a private instanced that will free up lots of neighborhood homes so those who want to live in the neighborhood home can an if the developers see this then they'll realize there's not really a need for the demolitions timers anymore people will cycle in or out of housing themselves.

my counter argument ^

[Solowing]

I feel the more it's said, the less people understand what's being said.

If condos are permanent & wards aren't, a lot of people are going to be unhappy and the other way around. If condos are not permanent then again back to square 1 of the problem. So what do we do? Make everything permanent and then have people who cry they can't get something they want? Make everything on timers and get people that cry about losing things? It's impossible and that's the tradeoff SE has to consider.

Exactly!

In my opinion, I think the best way to go about this is, "top down improvements", so Apts have their standards bumped up without infringing on plots.

Raise the Ceiling, Raise the floor.

Both standards go up, but relatively nothing changes.

[s32ialx]

Alright , for an example of fairness in this sense. If we're going to have instanced housing in conjunction with ward housing , then instance housing is also going to have to have the 45 day demo timer. For parity.

Unless the ward system is going to be retired. And the demolition timer permanently disabled.

Exactly!

In my opinion, I think the best way to go about this is, "top down improvements", so Apts have their standards bumped up without infringing on plots.

Raise the Ceiling, Raise the floor.

Both standards go up, but relatively nothing changes.

Why can't we have both? I genuinely don't understand the logic that if ward plots have demolition timers, then instanced condos, which are essentially customizable, resizable apartments, must also have timers. That's not parity, that's artificial constraint. It makes no sense.

Permanent housing should be available to everyone, without expiration. And for those who want the outdoor yard aesthetic and accept the risk of demolition, ward plots can still exist, on top of their condo, not instead of it. This isn't an either/or situation. It's about giving players meaningful choice.

Apartments aren't a valid substitute. They're extremely limited, poorly designed, and immersion-breaking. Condos, as proposed, would offer scalable interiors, neighbor visibility, and city-based immersion, whether in Solution 9 or any major hub. The concept is flexible.

And how is it unfair to ward owners if they can have both a plot and a condo? The only "devaluing" happening is superficial, the prestige of owning a plot. That's not a fairness issue, that's entitlement. Housing should be about access and retention, not status.

Permanent condos don't erase wards. They relieve pressure, prevent loss, and give players a home that doesn't vanish because they took a break.

[Nyastra]

Why can't we have both? I genuinely don't understand the logic that if ward plots have demolition timers, then instanced condos, which are essentially customizable, resizable apartments, must also have timers. That's not parity, that's artificial constraint. It makes no sense.

Permanent housing should be available to everyone, without expiration. And for those who want the outdoor yard aesthetic and accept the risk of demolition, ward plots can still exist, on top of their condo, not instead of it. This isn't an either/or situation. It's about giving players meaningful choice.

Apartments aren't a valid substitute. They're extremely limited, poorly designed, and immersion-breaking. Condos, as proposed, would offer scalable interiors, neighbor visibility, and city-based immersion, whether in Solution 9 or any major hub. The concept is flexible.

And how is it unfair to ward owners if they can have both a plot and a condo? The only "devaluing" happening is superficial, the prestige of owning a plot. That's not a fairness issue, that's entitlement. Housing should be about access and retention, not status.

Permanent condos don't erase wards. They relieve pressure, prevent loss, and give players a home that doesn't vanish because they took a break.

Fairness isn’t about prestige or protecting only your choice, it’s about giving options while respecting everyone’s investment. Trade-offs are inevitable, no matter what system exists. Just so it's clear again, I have never claimed that we shouldn't have instanced & wards.

Having both ward plots and condos doesn’t magically make everything fair. Wards still have scarcity, demo timers, and prestige. Condos could be permanent, larger, or cheaper or hell, more expensive. That’s the reality of trade-offs.

By the same logic, people who said “If you want a house, just move” were called unfair so why is “if you don’t want demo timers, just take a condo” suddenly fine?

It’s about designing systems so players’ time, effort, and choices are respected, and trade-offs are clear. That’s what keeps getting missed.

I want everyone to have a home (in part so we can shut the hell up already) and two because I think everyone should have a home, but it comes with trade-offs that need to be considered.

[ShadowyZero]

Fairness isn’t about prestige or protecting only your choice, it’s about giving options while respecting everyone’s investment. Trade-offs are inevitable, no matter what system exists. Just so it's clear again, I have never claimed that we shouldn't have instanced & wards.

I want everyone to have a home (in part so we can shut the hell up already) and two because I think everyone should have a home, but it comes with trade-offs that need to be considered.

so lets talk about these Trade-offs because there are good ones and bad ones the two are not mutually exclusive.

Wards vs Solo Instance/Condo Apartment upgrade.

Good: Everyone gets to own a house regardless of what they want whether it be shared space or not, demand for wards lessens doesn't mean it completely vanishes but just makes it less potent an less obstructive to player's enjoyment, less demand in ward housing means they can either remove the demolition timer or extended it out make it so the timer matches with patch update schedule this way the developers will know for sure who is coming back and who isn't and thus wards can remain cycled in and out this is much better than just keep adding more wards or more servers to play on etc, limits for furnishing placements can then be increased further with less stress on the wards an less constraints on the instanced housing they could make this probably work, Apartments can accommodate more space,

Bad:Bot Farmers and house hoarders will still exist sadly for wards i don't think there is any good way to stop them without adding unnecessary restriction or making the demo timers more severe which people definitely don't want, people won't have community neighborhoods in instanced and people may be locked out from just visiting some people's instances, if house sizes are not upgrade-able within wards this would lead to players feeling left out and unfortunately this would only come about with a full overhaul but it seems despite any proposal ward enthusiasts insist this would ruin their time investment or efforts in constructing an they lengths they went to to obtain a certain plot(and let me paraphrase i'm not saying they shouldn't get upgrades but no matter what solution is offered someone always has grievances so i think the only thing to do is for ward enthusiasts to really sit down and talk about what they really do want out of the system and come to a consensus.) instanced housing would likely be stuck within one biome which may not be favorable to most because housing goers like being able to choose which terrain best suits them or their character, apartments would still be limited functions an limited in amounts of item placements and this is due to limitations of those servers they will crash if too many items load all at once,

as a net positive especially with this development team they give everyone freedom of choice by allowing you to choose which type of housing you favor and allowing you to own all of them at the same time if you choose to do that which means everyone gets what they want or need out of this feature and if everyone has a house we're likely to less complaints not more in the foreseeable future which is a good thing for both the developers and players.

[s32ialx]

Fairness isn’t about prestige or protecting only your choice, it’s about giving options while respecting everyone’s investment. Trade-offs are inevitable, no matter what system exists.

You and I are basically in agreement, my issue is with Solowing's framing. The idea that permanent condos must inherit demolition timers just because ward plots have them is arbitrary. If a condo costs the same, or even more (say, +5m or +10m for a large unit), then permanence becomes a feature you pay for, not a loophole. That's not unfair. That's a choice.

The only people who would be upset by permanent condos are those clinging to the prestige of ward ownership, the ones who bought FCs just to control entire wards, who farm gil endlessly, and who actively block others from having an equal experience. Condos remove that disparity, they level the playing field.

Permanent condos also give legitimate FC a chance to actually own housing, something many are denied because entire wards are locked down by shell FCs controlled by a single player. These players hoard plots, buy up FCs, and monopolize workshops to farm gil, all while preventing real FC communities from accessing housing at all. Condos break that cycle. They offer permanence and functionality to FCs who’ve been boxed out by exploitative ward control, giving them access to workshops, decor, and a stable home without needing to fight over limited plots.

This isn't about taking anything away from ward owners. It's about giving everyone a stable, immersive home, without needing to micromanage subs, demo timers, or exploit chains. If someone wants both a yard and a permanent interior, they can pay for both.

[Solowing]

You and I are basically in agreement, my issue is with Solowing's framing. The idea that permanent condos must inherit demolition timers just because ward plots have them is arbitrary. If a condo costs the same, or even more (say, +5m or +10m for a large unit), then permanence becomes a feature you pay for, not a loophole. That's not unfair. That's a choice.

The only people who would be upset by permanent condos are those clinging to the prestige of ward ownership, the ones who bought FCs just to control entire wards, who farm gil endlessly, and who actively block others from having an equal experience. Condos remove that disparity, they level the playing field.

Permanent condos also give legitimate FC a chance to actually own housing, something many are denied because entire wards are locked down by shell FCs controlled by a single player. These players hoard plots, buy up FCs, and monopolize workshops to farm gil, all while preventing real FC communities from accessing housing at all. Condos break that cycle. They offer permanence and functionality to FCs who’ve been boxed out by exploitative ward control, giving them access to workshops, decor, and a stable home without needing to fight over limited plots.

This isn't about taking anything away from ward owners. It's about giving everyone a stable, immersive home, without needing to micromanage subs, demo timers, or exploit chains. If someone wants both a yard and a permanent interior, they can pay for both.

The permanence I have requires me to utilize my plot, which indirectly requires a subscription at some point. How about this, let me pay 5 million Gil to remove the demo timer permanently off my plot, for parity? That's fair. and optional :P

Also if you are micromanaging a 45 day grace period.

[Nyastra]

You and I are basically in agreement, my issue is with Solowing's framing. The idea that permanent condos must inherit demolition timers just because ward plots have them is arbitrary. If a condo costs the same, or even more (say, +5m or +10m for a large unit), then permanence becomes a feature you pay for, not a loophole. That's not unfair. That's a choice.

The only people who would be upset by permanent condos are those clinging to the prestige of ward ownership, the ones who bought FCs just to control entire wards, who farm gil endlessly, and who actively block others from having an equal experience. Condos remove that disparity, they level the playing field.

Permanent condos also give legitimate FC a chance to actually own housing, something many are denied because entire wards are locked down by shell FCs controlled by a single player. These players hoard plots, buy up FCs, and monopolize workshops to farm gil, all while preventing real FC communities from accessing housing at all. Condos break that cycle. They offer permanence and functionality to FCs who’ve been boxed out by exploitative ward control, giving them access to workshops, decor, and a stable home without needing to fight over limited plots.

This isn't about taking anything away from ward owners. It's about giving everyone a stable, immersive home, without needing to micromanage subs, demo timers, or exploit chains. If someone wants both a yard and a permanent interior, they can pay for both.

We agree that expanding housing access is good. Where I disagree is the claim by people that instanced housing is “fair” while ward housing remains subject to demolition.

That creates two ownership classes with unequal rules. Choice under unequal constraints is still inequality. Saying “you can have both” doesn’t resolve that — it just pressures players who value wards into abandoning them if they want the same security. Again this is disguised as a choice.

Again, I’m not arguing against change. Never have. I’m arguing against pretending there’s a zero-loss solution. Any system SE chooses will disadvantage someone, just like the current one does. And people can't be acting as if the one is unfair while the other isn't. That's hypocritical. "HOUSING IS UNFAIR... oh but not this way, no this way is not unfair" Why? Because it benefits me. In its current state and possibly the future however way SE decided to implement a solution, it will be unfair to a degree and deciding what's acceptable and what isn't is the problem.

[Brandr]

The idea of S9 condos is very good, though I don't think it must necessarily be in S9 at all.

It could be at Crystarium or in any housing ward.

Either they spawn a new building or just add the medium and large apartments on the already existing apartment building.

[Solowing]

give players a home that doesn't vanish because they took a break.

You have a ward house?

Then it becomes acceptable for it to vanish because you "took a break"