Quote Originally Posted by s32ialx View Post
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.