How many people have multiple houses?

[Teryaani]

I think the worst part of that tumblr post, for me anyways, was the attitude with which those two approached the few neighbors they had - like any house not decorated by them and in their private theme was an eye-sore that they needed to grab and re-build so that everyone on their server could come in and take tours of the pretty ward... or some such. I just don't understand that mentality.

It's the sort of thing that might make people make their homes intentionally an actual eyesore (Dodo nests, cannons pointed at their snobbish neighbors, garish colors). Given that it's pixels and there isn't an homeowners association to complain to, it would make for a unpunishable gesture toward their snobbish neighbors.


I completely agree with the sentiment that it should be 1 personal house/account/server. It just makes sense if square is going to have this as a limited resource. Square should do something to correct this system that's been broken now since mid ARR.


(unrelated to anything you said in your post - general statement not directed at you)
As far as the homeowners themselves....yeah, the system let them do it, but that doesn't mean they should. People giving them grief? Tough. They chose to do something that any person would have found inadvisable and the court of public opinion is going to judge them.

[Khalithar]

What exactly constitutes an 'unusually high price' to the point it's not allowed and reportable?

They would never gice an exact number. By keeping it vague it gives them leeway to make the decision, if they said "more than double the price is against the rules" but then someone put double -1 gil then they aren't breaking the rules.

By being vague intentionally it gives them more room to navigate what they think is too high.

[Dustytome]

They would never gice an exact number. By keeping it vague it gives them leeway to make the decision, if they said "more than double the price is against the rules" but then someone put double -1 gil then they aren't breaking the rules.

This never made sense to me. If they don't want people selling houses, make the game mechanics work to prevent it. If they don't mind it up to a certain point then just tell us what that point is. Being vague is not helpful on either front, all it does is create more work for the GMs because we don't know what is and isn't reportable, so report everything and more frustration for us the users because when we don't know the exact rules it feels like everyone's breaking them and getting away with it.

[Airmid_Caduceus]

This never made sense to me. If they don't want people selling houses, make the game mechanics work to prevent it. If they don't mind it up to a certain point then just tell us what that point is. Being vague is not helpful on either front, all it does is create more work for the GMs because we don't know what is and isn't reportable, so report everything and more frustration for us the users because when we don't know the exact rules it feels like everyone's breaking them and getting away with it.

Part of it has to do with Japanese culture. In Japanese society, it's considered offensive to outright tell someone "no" or making firm statements like that. So instead of being rude, they say things like "that may be difficult" or "we shall see". Combine that with the concept of "face" (roughly similar to honor, for us Western devils) where admitting fault is one of the worst things that can happen to you, and you get stuff like what happens with SE. They don't want to be rude by making firm statements, but they also can't risk losing face by admitting error. That's why pretty much the entire 1.0 team was either laid off or in the case of the previous executive in charge, resigned in shame when they shut it down.

But that's only part of it, I'm not saying that's all the reason, just that it plays a role.

[Reinha]

This never made sense to me. If they don't want people selling houses, make the game mechanics work to prevent it.

The game mechanics already work to prevent it. Personal plot ownership cannot be transferred and plots cannot be traded. The sellers ask for a ransom and then release the plot after which it's the buyer's job to buy it from the game. The only way to stop people from circumventing the restrictions is by removing face-to-face gil trading entirely.

[Kosmos992k]

The game mechanics already work to prevent it. Personal plot ownership cannot be transferred and plots cannot be traded. The sellers ask for a ransom and then release the plot after which it's the buyer's job to buy it from the game. The only way to stop people from circumventing the restrictions is by removing face-to-face gil trading entirely.

Actually if the house plot relinquished wen on a RNG based cooldown before becoming available to buy, say 12 hours +/- 1-12 hours based on RNG, it would completely break the ability to relinquish a plot to someone else for gil.

[Paladinleeds]

Actually if the house plot relinquished wen on a RNG based cooldown before becoming available to buy, say 12 hours +/- 1-12 hours based on RNG, it would completely break the ability to relinquish a plot to someone else for gil.

Personally I am not convinced that would be enough. I think a bigger variance is needed. You can quite easily stay awake for 24 hours (the max your idea suggests).

[Bourne_Endeavor]

The game mechanics already work to prevent it. Personal plot ownership cannot be transferred and plots cannot be traded. The sellers ask for a ransom and then release the plot after which it's the buyer's job to buy it from the game. The only way to stop people from circumventing the restrictions is by removing face-to-face gil trading entirely.

That isn't a prevention though. People put all sorts of things on the market board to absurdly high prices with no restrictions. Since the devs dislike house selling, they should just lock it based on your account.

Tbh I am sort of glad these guys bought 28 houses on their own server. It's wrong yes, but it speaks very loud and draws the necessary attention to this problem that it lacked previously. Sometimes you need a necessary evil to push the envelope, and I think these guys did it, for better or worse.

I was thinking the same. If this doesn't scream "fix your awful housing system, SE." I don't think anything ever will.

[Dustytome]

The game mechanics already work to prevent it. Personal plot ownership cannot be transferred and plots cannot be traded. The sellers ask for a ransom and then release the plot after which it's the buyer's job to buy it from the game. The only way to stop people from circumventing the restrictions is by removing face-to-face gil trading entirely.

As Kosmos said they could tack on additional time after it's relinquished. In addition they could make it so you can't purchase additional homes for a certain period of time after relinquishing an estate, unless moving servers. Once the moving system is in place you shouldn't need to relinquish the home first anyway unless you're doing something you shouldn't be like selling it. You'd have to lock down FCs as well so you can't be given ownership of an FC with a house if you already own an fc with a house, nor could you purchase a house for a fc if you're the leader of an fc with a house. There's then the choice Square would have to make to widdle down houses people already have forcefully, or simply apply the new rules and let it put a stop to further issue.

So what happens if a character (who owns a home) tries to purchase another one?

If a character owns a personal plot and tries to buy another plot as a personal plot the system won't let them. In future, you'll have the option to move if the character already has a plot.

[LunnaRavenheart]

I guess this is housing hello from ragnarok ... 30

http://eu.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...&house=&order=