We need another Housing purge

[Solarra]

Since it looks like Square are going to stick with the ward system and it's inherent shortages (on large servers at least) then I think it would be beneficial to reinstate the rule that says only one FC house and one personal house per world for each account.

-Will some people pay for multiple accounts? Very probably.
-Will there be an issue if a FC Leader stops logging in and all other members also have a FC house? Yes, but it's very unlikely. Plus it won't affect the FC beyond leadership not transferring if someone isn't prepared to give up their other FC house.

I feel that now people are aware they can own more than one FC house it is going to be an ongoing problem until Square takes action.
I do not think that anyone who has bought a second FC House (or more) since the rule prohibiting this was relaxed, should be grandfathered in. A short grace period to let them chose which FC house they want to keep and to remove and store furnishings should be enough.

Instanced housing and not tying workshops to housing would have prevented so much trouble and ill-feeling, too late now I guess.

[Hamada]

There is nothing in the TOS stating you can not own more than one FC per account/service account.

Where are you getting this information?

Why do you twist the point on what is going on? That is not what I am saying, you are over simplying what I am saying to something I am not.
But here is where I am getting my information:
http://support.na.square-enix.com/ru...2&tag=users_en

2.1 Cheating and Botting. You may not create or use any unauthorized cheats, bots, automation software, hacks, mods or any other unauthorized software or hardware designed to modify the Game and gameplay. In addition, you may not take advantage of game system bugs and exploits during gameplay.

There was a rule for 1 FC per account when the new wards went up. A poster here admitted to bypassing that with NEW housing purchases during that time. So for where I got that information was from this very thread.

[Hamada]

Thing is how is it greedy to expect SE to give players a warning before dolling out punishments for "rules" they have not made an effort to enforce in the past?

You asked this before, you will get the same answer now.
People are warned when they agree to the ToS, it is a violation of 2.1.
Also your question is weird, what do you mean "how is it greedy to expect SE to give players a warning before dolling out punishments"? Alleo is referring to the defense of greed, defending acting immorally, Something you keep ignoring while you want to say to me "Refuse to give a straight answer" when you are not doing that yourself. What really gets me is you keep asking the same thing over and over again. I do not know how to answer your new question though since it makes no sense. I am here against someone bragging how they broke the ToS on the official form for the game, and teaching others how to do so, that is simply it.

[OliverB]

And I get that, but then why would Oliver (who is the person that owns all of them) go through the trouble of lying when there already enough heat on them for owning 22+ houses

You never addressed this. What exactly am I lying about?

[Hamada]

Ungarmax was a different issue, even they mentioned that the initial players "actively concealed the existence of the bug" thus making SE go through countless amounts logs to put all the pieces together. This loophole was brought up the day they announced the rules, even then one could assume it was working as intended since how else will SE be able to handle transferring ownership from inactive leadership.

I addressed all this in past posts, I asked you to stop repeating the same content in your posts and you keep doing it. You did not even explain or take back when I was trying to clear up what it stood for. So you shown others though implied messages the issues going on in this thread.

[Awha]

Contrary to what you may think, I do understand where you are coming from. I also wish SE would enforce their ToS more consistently, where we differ is you put the blame on the players, and SE. I put all the blame on SE for being lazy. To be frank it may be annoying to see, but I do not blame the players for taking advantage of lax rule enforcement. Rules are put in place to help facilitate order yet without enforcement of said rules mean nothing if they are not enforced consistently. Nevertheless, I am not okay with SE punishing players retroactively for rule breaks because they had a change of heart. Give players a warning that moving forward such actions will no longer be tolerated. In short the rule itself is only one part of the puzzle. I am not against people enforcing rules, what I am against is people seeking punishment for actions that have seemingly been ignored by those upholding the rules. One the kicker of all this is that the action itself is not against the rules you are upset about how they were obtained fair enough but once again what should be done about the players that have obtained an extra FC plot due passing of ownership, either by choice or inactivity. What reasonable solution does SE have.

Realistically the advantages for having multiple FC houses due to the amenities they offer is a tough thing to pass up if maximizing earning ability is something you are interested in. If this is a real issue for SE they should just remove attaching such benefits from FC houses. Either way if half this effort went into holding SE accountable instead targeting players maybe something would change.

[Skivvy]

While I am totally for instanced housing, I am a bit concerned about SE's server stability with the amount of instances it would create. I could be totally wrong (I know nothing about coding, servers, any of the things that seem to constantly fail with XIV), but I imagine they'd really have to beef things up to make it work.

I think many of here remember Raubahn Savage mode, or the times where we couldn't even get into our houses due to all the people hiding in them (when the afk-kick was alive and well).

In a perfect world, I'd love to see them take a big chunk of the funds they are receiving from the cash cow known as XIV, and put it back into the actual infrastructure. I'm tired of hearing that the servers will implode if they add more customization, or why they can't fix housing. I'm sure many other things can be blamed on that as well.

[Awha]

Yes, SE should allocate a larger portion of the profits made by FFXIV into FFXIV itself not just marketing.

[NanaWiloh]

Ending my time on this thread. Bye

[Hamada]

Contrary to what you may think, I do understand where you are coming from. I also wish SE would enforce their ToS more consistently, where we differ is you put the blame on the players, and SE. I put all the blame on SE for being lazy. To be frank it may be annoying to see, but I do not blame the players for taking advantage of lax rule enforcement. Rules are put in place to help facilitate order yet without enforcement of said rules mean nothing if they are not enforced consistently. Nevertheless, I am not okay with SE punishing players retroactively for rule breaks because they had a change of heart. Give players a warning that moving forward such actions will no longer be tolerated. In short the rule itself is only one part of the puzzle. I am not against people enforcing rules, what I am against is people
seeking punishment for actions that have seemingly been ignored by those upholding the rules. One the kicker of all this is that the action itself is not against the rules you are upset about how they were obtained fair enough but once again what should be done about the players that have obtained an extra FC plot due passing of ownership, either by choice or inactivity. What reasonable solution does SE have.

Realistically the advantages for having multiple FC houses due to the amenities they offer is a tough thing to pass up if maximizing earning ability is something you are interested in. If this is a real issue for SE they should just remove attaching such benefits from FC houses. Either way if half this effort went into holding SE accountable instead targeting players maybe something would change.

As I said I blame both, people have the ability to judge what is right and wrong. Asking SE to uphold their ToS in regards to a certain player who is violating forum ToS, game ToS and admitting exploiting the system during 4.2. That is not "punishing players retroactively for rule breaking" they know what they are doing is wrong and yet they are doing it anyway, admitting to do different things, and continue to do so. The player base "not knowing better" is not an excuse for that situation. Yes SE is to blame for the bad system, but so are players when they go this far.