Problem
I'm sure a lot of you are already aware of the story going around about two players who own 28 houses between them (Link to story). A lot of people see this as selfish, while others say they earned those plots fair and square and are entitled to keep them.
Suggested Solution
Instead of requesting for there to be a maximum amount of personal plots one account can own per world (which I suspect some people would start a war over), maybe it would be more practical to add a monthly upkeep cost for each house owned over a certain amount.
Upkeep Cost
The upkeep cost wouldn't have to be huge, but enough to make you continue to work to keep those extra houses. After all, if you're able to afford that many houses, it should be no problem, right? Maybe something like:The upkeep would be taken directly out of the character's on-hand gil at the start of each month, while a Free Company's upkeep would be taken out of their Free Company chest instead (as such, make sure only trustworthy people can withdraw gil from the Free Company chest). As such, if you plan on being away for a long time, you would need to make sure to have the required amount of gil on your character or in your Free Company chest to cover the upkeep for the months you won't be on.
- Small houses: 50,000g/month for each extra house over 5
- Medium house: 100,000g/month for each extra house over 3
- Large house: 150,000g/month for each extra house over 2
Result
This won't prevent people from buying as many houses as they want, nor will it force players to relinquish houses they already own, but it will make owning a large number of them a bit costly. Over time, players may get fed up with having to constantly pay the upkeep costs for the extra houses and decide to sell them.
Repercussions
Failure to meet a month's upkeep would earn a strike on that plot. When a strike is given, the owner of the plot would be sent an email telling them the name of the character that owns the plot, the world that character is on, the ward and plot number and how many strikes it has. To remove the strike, that month's upkeep must be paid off at the next month's upkeep. If last month's overdue upkeep was met but the current month's was not, the number of strikes would remain the same. With three strikes, the house would be demolished and put back up for sale.
I'm open to (mature) feedback about why this would be a good or bad idea, suggestions to make this better, or your own suggestion to address this issue. Don't make sarcastic comments akin to "this is dumb, you're dumb", I am simply trying to find a solution to the limited housing market so all players can enjoy the content.
*Edit: There have been some good replies from people explaining why they think this is a bad idea. Using their feedback, I agree that this is a bad idea and that a better solution must be found.