Thread: 4.2 Housing Update

Originally Posted by StouterTaru

I don't think you understand what that means.

I understand what the preposition 'from' means, lol. I just don't feel that this situation, regulation of virtual housing, falls into the sliding scale of context mentioned in your definition. Which I suppose boils down to opinion since we don't have an official source to cite on whether it does or not. Would it make you feel better if I phrased it as, "In my opinion, hoarders shouldn't throw around the word 'punishment' when talking about losing their multiples."? I could provide you with the Merriam Webster definition if you like, as it's the definition of punishment that I use and why I take issue with it being used in such a way. In the end, we are simply arguing semantics anyway, which pales considerably next to the topic at hand, and why I only mentioned it in passing at the end of my post.

Originally Posted by MizArai

There is also no guarantee that the number of people who are happy would outweigh the number of people upset

I can concede that you are correct in most of your post and that I heartily hope that you are right about SE continuing to take the issue seriously until housing is sorted out. But I can't agree with this line quoted here and have to point out that it is objectively wrong. Even if every single hoarder only owned one extra home, the ratio of upset/happy people if they were resold would be, at the very least, 1:1. But there are enough well documented cases to show multiple owners having way more than one extra home to tip the scales well in favor of the people who would be able to buy a house. And, even if that weren't the case, the probability of FCs scoping up those resold houses would tilt the scales even further in favor of the number of people to be made happy by such a change.

In the end, you are probably correct. It would probably be too much work for SE for too small a benefit to the playerbase for them to reclaim hoarders multiples and it is as futile for me to advocate this as it is to advocate instanced housing or dynamic wards. Still, the official word is that they are still taking feedback, so I will continue to give mine, even if it ultimately falls on deaf ears.

Originally Posted by Rymm

Even if every single hoarder only owned one extra home, the ratio of upset/happy people if they were resold would be, at the very least, 1:1. But there are enough well documented cases to show multiple owners having way more than one extra home to tip the scales well in favor of the people who would be able to buy a house. And, even if that weren't the case, the probability of FCs scoping up those resold houses would tilt the scales even further in favor of the number of people to be made happy by such a change.

I've seen quite a few people in the forums who have commented in these threads claiming they either own no personal home or only one personal home and don't want the homes of people with multiple homes taken from them. What you're failing to take into account is the people who don't have a horse in the race, but see it instead as the start of a very slippery slope and setting a very bad precedent.

edit: I'm right there with you wishing they would do instanced housing, as long as I can still visit everyone's house, since I'm a nosey neighbor and love to visit random houses to see what all people have done with them. :-D

Originally Posted by MizArai

I've seen quite a few people in the forums who have commented in these threads claiming they either own no personal home or only one personal home and don't want the homes of people with multiple homes taken from them. What you're failing to take into account is the people who don't have a horse in the race, but see it instead as the start of a very slippery slope and setting a very bad precedent.

But you have to realize that there are also people like me, on the other side of the fence. I also don't have a horse in the race, as I already own a home, but still think the fairest route would be to reclaim the multiples. There is no way to get concrete numbers on the proponents or opponents of the issue short of polling the entire playerbase. The only numbers we can be sure of at this point is the ratio of those who would loose their excess houses verses those who would gain access to housing.

If only SE would make this whole argument moot by fixing housing... if only.

Originally Posted by MizArai

I've seen quite a few people in the forums who have commented in these threads claiming they either own no personal home or only one personal home and don't want the homes of people with multiple homes taken from them. What you're failing to take into account is the people who don't have a horse in the race, but see it instead as the start of a very slippery slope and setting a very bad precedent.

edit: I'm right there with you wishing they would do instanced housing, as long as I can still visit everyone's house, since I'm a nosey neighbor and love to visit random houses to see what all people have done with them. :-D

In Star Wars, people could own 1 of each fortress (3) plus one of their faction but they were all instances. In the main hubs, boards with housing were listed according to what the owners allowed to be seen and you could pop to them and look around.

It is of my opinion that this doesn't fix the problem but creates new ones.

1) FCs are getting prioritized (somewhat good but you can "buy" an FC). Get 4 people together to temp buy a house and viola.
2) This hurts the ability for private owners to get a house at all. Essentially now no one will want to give up their plot out of fear that they will not be able to get a bigger plot later.
3) Freezing housing sales for individuals only creates an off balance. Unless you buy a plot this weekend then you will be unable to buy a plot at 4.2 drop. So even if a house gets demolished, RIP because only FCs will be able to buy it.
4) Want two houses? Temporarily make an FC with 4 randos and buy a house. They can leave after and you can still have your secondary private estate! How thoughtful.
5) Did SE even consider FC leader changes? Think about it... Because if it auto-demolishes on lead change, the whole FC loses its house making FCs potentially hostile take overs.

I really feel like SE has put their head in the sand on this patch.