is the "logic trap" of the equity argument. By asking for an instanced system to exist alongside the ward system, proponents are essentially asking for a privileged tier of gameplay that bypasses the "fair" rules everyone else has to follow.
From your perspective, this is "unfair by design" for several reasons:
1. The "Double Standard" of Responsibility
If both systems exist, you create two classes of citizens in the same game:
The Ward Owner: Must pay their "rent" in the form of a sub and active play, or they lose their home to the auto-demolition timer. They are "punished" for being inactive.
The Instance Owner: Likely has no demolition timer because their house doesn't take up a physical "plot" on the server map. They get the same benefit (a house) without the same risk (losing it).
The Unfairness: Why should one person have to "earn" their house every month while the other gets to keep it forever?
2. The Devaluation of the "Equal" Struggle
If you can get an instanced house with zero effort or luck, the ward house stops being a "reward" and becomes a burden.
People who won the lottery "fair and square" feel screwed because they are now the only ones being "taxed" (by the demo timer and the lottery stress) for something that others are now getting for "free."
It turns the ward system from a "prestigious community" into a "punishment zone" for people who happen to like seeing their neighbors.
3. The "Pseudo-Equity" Shield
Proponents argue for "both" because it sounds like a compromise, but in practice, it’s a way to avoid the hard truth: they want the benefits of the system without the constraints of the rules.
They want the creativity of housing, but they don't want to deal with the scarcity that makes the current rules "fair."
By asking for both, they are trying to have their cake and eat it too—preserving the "neighborhood feel" for those who want it, while creating an "easy mode" for themselves.
The Bottom Line
When people ask for both, they aren't arguing for equality (the same rules for everyone). They are arguing for convenience disguised as fairness.
They are essentially saying: "I want a version of this game where the 'unfair' parts (luck and timers) don't apply to me, but I still want the 'fair' version to exist so the game doesn't feel empty."



Reply With Quote



