Alleo's Signature

[Alleo]

@Rymm: In the end her point was that a sub alone should be enough to keep the house and not also have someone go into this. Because right now thanks to the timer people are forced to sub a certain amount of time if they want to keep it and the point was that if they force it like that, sub alone should be enough. We can now argue endlessly about the semantics since she did not include the timer in her words (maybe without calling someone else blind and other things) but in the end if you want to own a house right now thanks to the timer you are forced to sub and visit it. And as the OP pointed out, this was something that goes against one of their promises, thus if they go against it make it at least so that sub is all you need.

[ko_]

@Rymm: In the end her point was that a sub alone should be enough to keep the house and not also have someone go into this. Because right now thanks to the timer people are forced to sub a certain amount of time if they want to keep it and the point was that if they force it like that, sub alone should be enough. We can now argue endlessly about the semantics since she did not include the timer in her words (maybe without calling someone else blind and other things) but in the end if you want to own a house right now thanks to the timer you are forced to sub and visit it. And as the OP pointed out, this was something that goes against one of their promises, thus if they go against it make it at least so that sub is all you need.

But that promise as the way the system we have stands is impossible to keep. The timer like it or not is a must as without it noone would have a house who didn't sign into the game at the beginning. And that's a way more unfair system then the timer. Fact is with what we have the system we got is the best and most fair you can make it. You want to keep your house, you must use it. Otherwise it's poof and someone else will use it.

[Dualgunner]

But that promise as the way the system we have stands is impossible to keep. The timer like it or not is a must as without it noone would have a house who didn't sign into the game at the beginning. And that's a way more unfair system then the timer. Fact is with what we have the system we got is the best and most fair you can make it. You want to keep your house, you must use it. Otherwise it's poof and someone else will use it.

No, the most fair system would be you keep the house until your sub expires.

[Zojha]

No, the most fair system would be you keep the house until your sub expires.

Strangely enough, that would be even more "extortionate" (for a lack of a better word) than the current system, which allows you to unsub for a month (31 days) and get back without much issue (timer is 45 days).

[ko_]

No, the most fair system would be you keep the house until your sub expires.

Not with the system we have now sadly D: If it was that way then no new players would be able to get a house cause players would just hold them all. Honestly the only answer is to make a new system but who knows what hang ups with the code they have. I get people hate the current system, but unless they change it this is what we got, and unless I'm missing something the timer is the most fair way. I'm not saying it's the best, but with the way the system is with the limit housing, the timer is the best we can ask for.. with this system. Under anything else yeah this would be horrible but this is the system we have.

[Alleo]

No, the most fair system would be you keep the house until your sub expires.

But only if there is enough time to still take a break and not pay sub. Heck make it two months without a sub and it would be a much better system right now. (My wish is still that we would get private instance houses so that I could switch one house over to that) Because its easier to just pay a sub from everywhere (or tell someone to pay it for you while you cant do it at the moment) then having to pay sub and going into the game.

I dont think I get it honestly :c as the timer is there so people can't hold the houses unfairly. If I'm missing something please explain. :c

Timer would still be there but only together with the sub and without the going into the game thing. So for example if you know you go on a vacation or business trip that might take you more than 45 days you now would be in a bad place if you dont have access to the game somehow. If you for example play it on PS4 but cant take the console with you, you would need to buy the game for a laptop or tell someone your log in data to log in for you. With only the sub you can just do the 180 sub and be done with it. No need for the game or for other people to log into this. SE would still get the money out of this because people would still be force to sub but it would make it easier for those of us that own houses and simply are not able to play it or just dont want to play it for a time. And for those that argue that people that cant even visit a house every 45 days should not have one: What is the line were someone deserves it or not? What if the person that would lose it under the system right now (because of a lengthy trip or sickness) used the houses every day until that happened? Is it fair that they lose it? What if those others that keep theirs because they play constantly use it less, because they are only going in there once a week? Do they deserve it more?

[Dualgunner]

I dont think I get it honestly :c as the timer is there so people can't hold the houses unfairly. If I'm missing something please explain. :c

Think of it like the sub *is* the timer. Sub runs out, timer runs out or goes on a 10-15 day countdown.

[Corue]

The ideal housing system would just be that people get to keep their houses forever and whenever a ward is filled a new one opens up.

Unfortunately, since the higher-ups at SE graciously gifted the dev team with the finest servers 1997 had to offer, I doubt that would be possible.