Square should get its own house in order

[Flashgordon1975]

A simple look through the ward navigator will show you TONS of "FC"s with only 1 member and a medium/large ward. Sometimes, even that only member is a level 1 character.

It's clearly a violation of the rules and it's really frustrating for real players and real FCs being unable to found a medium ward while we have to see this daily.

Yet there are tons of houses available.

[TaleraRistain]

What exactly should SE do? If they fulfill the requirements for purchasing, then they are allowed to purchase. How exactly is SE going to prove wrongdoing here? It's not against the rules to buy an FC house on a lower level character. It's also not against the rules to be the only one in your FC. It doesn't necessarily mean house flipping, either. I have friends who do not want to join another FC and have made their own FC because they were going mad from spam invites. I had another where everyone abandoned him and the house passed to his hands when he was the newest member. SE is not going to be able to filter out these legitimate FCs from those who may be attempting to circumvent rules. Not unless they implement further restrictions like the current "Can't buy if in an FC with house" rule that really does nothing except punish legitimate players.

[Kittypryde]

I have a good friend who's a high level omnicrafter and is sort of a hermit. He is in a solo FC, and prefers it that way. He likes the quietness, drama free vibe of a solo FC. He also loves doing airships. Solo.
I have another friend who has a 2 person FC for her and her RL husband. They like their peace and quiet also.
There are many players like this that don't like FCs with 5, 10, 20-200 other players . Not all FCS under 4 members are up to no good. Chill and put the pitch forks down. Lol

[Jojoya]

I have a good friend who's a high level omnicrafter and is sort of a hermit. He is in a solo FC, and prefers it that way. He likes the quietness, drama free vibe of a solo FC. He also loves doing airships. Solo.
I have another friend who has a 2 person FC for her and her RL husband. They like their peace and quiet also.
There are many players like this that don't like FCs with 5, 10, 20-200 other players . Not all FCS under 4 members are up to no good. Chill and put the pitch forks down. Lol

I understand not wanting to be part of a FC with several other players but a single player doesn't make a Free Company. A Free Company is a group of players.

Your good friend is taking advantage of the system to get access to things individuals aren't intended to have.

Square Enix might as well open up Free Company storage, airships and submersibles to all players if they are going to allow solo member FCs to have those things.

[ChocoFeru]

I still think that the new housing changes should be retroactive.

Give them the usual 45 days for a normal demolition so they have enough time to choose the house they want to keep in that account, and done.

"B-but it's not their fault, they did nothing wrong and it wasn't against the rules!" rules change to fit the needs of the present, and when a single FC abuses the system, new rules has to be made.


Imagine that everybody on the same server had the same mindset. I would create 7 more alters and create a FC with every single one, and buy a FC and personal houses. And now imagine every single person did the same. Would you deffend it still? Wouldn't you shout out the problem to SE?

I don't understand conformism on this matter. Every time somebody points out a problem in the system, there are always the same persons that pops and try to "dismantle" people's arguments with fallacy such as "it's not specifically written in the rules".


I wish we had a more JP-community mindset, where people understands it's a system problem, yet they keep pointing out the exploiters. It's too much to ask, I guess.

[k99]

I don't understand conformism on this matter. Every time somebody points out a problem in the system, there are always the same persons that pops and try to "dismantle" people's arguments with fallacy such as "it's not specifically written in the rules".

If you really want something to be done, you'd probably need to play detective and follow up all those threads on reddit. Go set up your own sting operation and prove someone was flipping a house. Maybe with enough people doing fake transactions to catch sellers red handed, you'll help crack down on house flipping.

[ChocoFeru]

If you really want something to be done, you'd probably need to play detective and follow up all those threads on reddit. Go set up your own sting operation and prove someone was flipping a house. Maybe with enough people doing fake transactions to catch sellers red handed, you'll help crack down on house flipping.

I don't need to do it, since the FC Master stated it publicly that they had over 30+ FC's to provide to a single FC. Case closed.

[TaleraRistain]

"B-but it's not their fault, they did nothing wrong and it wasn't against the rules!" rules change to fit the needs of the present, and when a single FC abuses the system, new rules has to be made.

New rules have been made. If you are in an FC with a house on any character, then you can't get an FC house on that account on any other character. It doesn't matter if it's your FC house or not. SE sees it as "your" FC house because you could inherit it due to inactivity in the FC. So if people have the situation where they have an account with alts that were grandfathered in, they can shuffle that around, but they can't get more. They would have to be completely separate accounts. They might be able to sell that shell FC if they have one in the future. They can't generate more. SE had a hole in their rules and logic. They've plugged it. They can't punish players for playing within their rules. But they can and have prevented them from continuing to do so unless they wanted to incur the significant expense of having to pay for multiple accounts.

[k99]

Case closed.

lol. Where in the rules does it say it's against the rules for 30 separate FC's to provide collectively to one main FC? No case to begin with here.

Some players are just ridiculously well resourced and can organize such a massive operation. 8-man parties have trouble fighting a single boss and this entire FC organized a full scale operation so successfully. Honestly impressive.

Dick move? Yeah definitely. But against the rules? No (unfortunately).

[ChocoFeru]

lol. Where in the rules does it say it's against the rules for 30 separate FC's to provide collectively to one main FC? No case to begin with here.

Heh, the fallacy came back fast again. Whenever you can't counter the logic, you have to use the fallacy of "there are no specific rules for X stuff".
There are rules against abusing the system, and this is the case. There aren't/won't be specific rules for every single stuff in this world, because that would take a lifetime to write.

You can still use that argument anyways, but it's weightless.

Some players are just ridiculously well resourced and can organize such a massive operation. 8-man parties have trouble fighting a single boss and this entire FC organized a full scale operation so successfully. Honestly impressive.

Dick move? Yeah definitely. But against the rules? No.

So? I don't care if somebody is well resourced, it shouldn't affect me in any way, nor should affect it on other players. Yet it does.

You keep using the ToS as an excuse, huh? Check it: http://support.na.square-enix.com/ru...2&tag=users_en
Yeah, they're generic rules. Using your logic, I could do ANYTHING that isn't specifically written in the rules, right? Even if it's bad for the community, and nobody could say anything about it because I would be all like "it's not written in the rules, shutup!"


That's not how it works. We have the right and duty to talk about anything negative that happens in this game/community, and no matter how much you keep saying "it's not against the rules", we should keep pointing out the exploiters.

Thanks to that community feedback, SE changed the Housing rules. If we all were immobilists, nothing would have been changed.