Why Removing Houses from inactive is NOT a solution.

[Syrehn]

It's pure numbers. Compare how many theoretical housing plots there are versus how many players there are. Yes, I suppose if SE doesn't do any other change to their housing system, freeing up inactive plots will... do slightly more than zero. But why the heck continue to defend their cruddy housing system? We should be pushing them to improve it in far better ways.

Looking at it practically, we're 2 years into FC housing and a year into personal housing, so the likelihood of your efforts at pushing them to improve a.k.a "change to an entirely different housing structure where it's all instanced and everyone gets as many houses as they want" is zero.

As previously stated, they're going to work with the current structure and attempt to provide solutions for said structure regardless of how some individuals feel about it or not.

[Titor]

As previously stated, they're going to work with the current structure and attempt to provide solutions for said structure regardless of how some individuals feel about it or not.

Unless you work for SE directly, this is a pretty definitive statement. They could very well tack on instanced housing to the current housing, similar to how they added other/new features to current housing (airships, private rooms, etc).

[Syrehn]

Unless you work for SE directly, this is a pretty definitive statement. They could very well tack on instanced housing to the current housing, similar to how they added other/new features to current housing (airships, private rooms, etc).

It's a definitive statement because SE is already making steps in the direction that will continue to support their current model. These steps are the inactivity timer, house sharing, and that they'll be adding more wards once they iron out their housing transfer system.

No I don't work for SE but, but as mentioned in my previous post, considering that we're 2 years into FC housing (released in 2.1) and 1 year into personal housing (released in 2.38) it's highly unlikely any instanced housing changes will be made (who knows though I could be wrong). IMO, if they had any intentions of altering their system to incorporate instanced housing it would have been done already.

[JubjubTubs]

Jubs is still waiting on the answer to the question of why some of you are defending removing inactive accounts that hit a certain timer of being unsubbed. Cause right now it... it looks like a couple of you are just simply going to drop a deuce all over any suggestion and/or change that doesn't follow your own 'personal' system idea. Doesn't matter if it is beneficial or good or not, just going to throw a tantrum when it doesn't fellow your own xyz.

[Titor]

IMO, if they had any intentions of altering their system to incorporate instanced housing it would have been done already.

They were not even sure the game was going to succeed in the reboot, so they were probably just using what resources they had to see if there was enough interest to continue with it. Heck, we are /just now/ getting the ability to try on multiple items. Or get a proper EU datacenter. I think we are just beginning to see proper structual revamps and system/QoL changes.

[BunnyChain]

I've started to check up on plots. Went through 180 of them (Lavender Beds, Ward 1, 8, 3 [1-30], 6 [31-60]) and found 22 more likely to be inactive or 39 less likely to be inactive. If you only take the more likely inactive plots you have about 12%, let's say 10% are inactive - that would make about 144 from the total of 1440 plots. However my sample is somewhat small (12.5%) and there might be a few people who don't play but still pay a subscription.

I've checked a few more wards across the 3 housing areas on my server.

Sample size 90; Goblet, Lavender Beds, Mist; Ward 3 1-30

Likely to be inactive: 14 (Goblet 6, Lavender Beds 5-7, Mist 3-5)
Less likely to be inactive: 4 (2 of those are likely to be dummy characters kept in FCs with housing)

Taking only the more likely inactive characters/FCs into account = 12.6%.
Seems like my estimated number before is likely to be correct. c:

If it's right, you can expect about 181 plots to open up.

[StouterTaru]

If it's right, you can expect about 181 plots to open up.

I dug through the lodestone for the FCs with houses on my server, looked at the membership and previous week/month ranking for about half of the ~600 FCs with houses. About 20% of them had more than 1 member and nobody leveled past 50.

Since that leaves ~850 personal houses, and guessing that the abandon rate is higher for personal houses, I'm betting 25% reclaim rate on my server if they use 90 days, which would be about twice your number.

[Titor]

Sample size 90; Goblet, Lavender Beds, Mist; Ward 3 1-30.

This is extreme extrapolation/data bias. If you only took 1-30 from from ward 3, then yes, you are sampling the most likely to be inactive wards (ward 3 non subdivision is one of the oldest wards, which seems to be your sample)

By sure subscription decay, wards 1-6 non subdivision are most likely to have the largest number of 'inactive' players. Since wards 7-8 and all the subdivisions came out more recently, one would expect the number of inactive players to go down. Plus you did not state your criteria for judging 'inactive'. If you just started observing recently, within the past month, that is not even within the proper time range for housing relinquishment anyway.

Even if your number is correct-- Great! 181 plots open up.

They fill with new active players (probably within the first week!)

Now pretty much all the housing is active players, and everyone knows if they unsubscribe for a bit they lose their house, which means housing owners are going to continue remaining active to keep their house, and fewer will be lost due to inactive relinquishment.

What now!?

[Syrehn]

Now pretty much all the housing is active players, and everyone knows if they unsubscribe for a bit they lose their house, which means housing owners are going to continue remaining active to keep their house, and fewer will be lost due to inactive relinquishment.

We don't actually know yet if the inactivity timer is going to be based off of unsubscribed players; that's pure speculation so far. SE very well might include players who haven't logged into the game (even if they are subbed) for x amount of days as inactive as well.

[Ayerinn]

This is extreme extrapolation/data bias. If you only took 1-30 from from ward 3, then yes, you are sampling the most likely to be inactive wards (ward 3 non subdivision is one of the oldest wards, which seems to be your sample)

Even if your number is correct-- Great! 181 plots open up.

They fill with new active players (probably within the first week!)

Now pretty much all the housing is active players, and everyone knows if they unsubscribe for a bit they lose their house, which means housing owners are going to continue remaining active to keep their house, and fewer will be lost due to inactive relinquishment.

What now!?

new wards are added, that's what. Population of a city increases? You expand housing. changing housing to instanced now would piss people off to no end and I wouldn't blame them.