Suggestion: Do not allow multiple service accounts all own houses.

[InkstainedGwyn]

Just ignore him whenever he posts. You're giving him room to brag, which is exactly what he wants and exactly why he butts into all of these posts, and why he owns the houses. If everybody ignored him, then he'd just be running around bragging to empty air.

Arguing with him isn't going to change his mind, nor is it going to get the rules changed.

[MaybeOliverB]

No I don't care one bit for you. I just read the forums and see you butt into every single post where someone says SE should enforce 1 FC 1 Hour per account rule. You try so hard, throwing yourself out there into every post about this issue so you can keep hold onto so many houses that would be better used by other players instead of a hoarder. And the way to came to own so many houses is besides the point. People don't care how you came to own them in, people are disgusted by people like who think they need to own as many houses as you, especially when you gloat about it all the time. Your gil can buy you groupies, but it won't buy you friends.

How naive of you to think I'm not prepared in case SE want to change the rules and punish the sub 1% of the house owners who own more than a fc house per account. I'm just here to tell people that multi house owners are not an issue right now because the auto-demolition timer is a lot more damaging. How I ended up with all these houses is relevant considering you started your last post with false information regarding how I acquired them. Funny that someone that leads a large/generic FC tries to school me on how to make friends. You obviously care about all those members

If you ever want primed tier 3 FC buffs, let me know. I'll give you a discount to help you out since you can't run dual 24/7 tier 3 FC buffs.

[worldofneil]

If you ever want primed tier 3 FC buffs, let me know.

Curious how you'd do that since the primed ones aren't tradeable?

I'll give you a discount to help you out since you can't run dual 24/7 tier 3 FC buffs.

I'm sure you're already aware of this, but to everyone else, you don't need 27 FCs to pull this off. 6 is enough (and you'd still be building up a surplus).

[MaybeOliverB]

Curious how you'd do that since the primed ones aren't tradeable?

You can carry them in your inventory and activate them in any FC you want. Great way to get to gil cap at the beginning of an expansion

I'm sure you're already aware of this, but to everyone else, you don't need 27 FCs to pull this off. 6 is enough (and still be building up a surplus).

You don't need 27, but it helps when you're selling them to other FCs.

[MistyMew]

Fix availability at SEs end , not limit/ restrict or punish players anymore. It is ses problem ..dynamic instanced supply SE

[Freyt]

I'd be fine with one service account own one house per server.

Raising prices is a fake suggestion. It's not only impractically to say the least, but it only enhances the problem if actually implemented. Selling houses isn't done with a markup of an X amount of gil, it's done with a 2X or 3X times amount of gil or similar. It's a suggestion made to enhance the profits of those who are abusing the system currently. Same with the suggestion for a 5 day auto demolition timer, it merely gives these people more opportunity to acquire more real estate.

These suggestions should be taken as the opposite of seriously. They are designed to exploit the player base.

The specific problem we run into with limited player housing is with FC housing. If the FC lead drops and your character is forced into the leadership position, you effectively own the house. What needs to be addressed here is this specific situation. If we can knock this out of the way with some sort of change or compromise, then SE should theoretically be able to impose limitations without much negative feedback, aside from those few players who are currently exploiting the system.

[AriesMouse]

The specific problem we run into with limited player housing is with FC housing. If the FC lead drops and your character is forced into the leadership position, you effectively own the house. What needs to be addressed here is this specific situation. If we can knock this out of the way with some sort of change or compromise, then SE should theoretically be able to impose limitations without much negative feedback, aside from those few players who are currently exploiting the system.

I think one way, going forward, to combat the issue with fc housing, is to tether more than one person as the owner. So, like buying a house, an FC needs 4 people to have a house, and it should require that many people to keep it (change up the numbers a little based on house size possibly?). All people required must also be leveled and GC ranked to be able to purchase and own a house, and it takes that many people stepping into the house every 45days to keep it. It doesn't have to be 4 specific people in the FC, so if your fc is sizable, just your basic fc population will likely have it covered no issue, but it would remove the option for people to make shell fcs to keep houses anymore. Grandfather in those already in place just for PR and the like, and because there are some fcs out there that are just intentionally small and want to stay that way, but going forward, make a change. Or, you know, instanced housing already.

[Freyt]

I think one way, going forward, to combat the issue with fc housing, is to tether more than one person as the owner. So, like buying a house, an FC needs 4 people to have a house, and it should require that many people to keep it (change up the numbers a little based on house size possibly?). All people required must also be leveled and GC ranked to be able to purchase and own a house, and it takes that many people stepping into the house every 45days to keep it. It doesn't have to be 4 specific people in the FC, so if your fc is sizable, just your basic fc population will likely have it covered no issue, but it would remove the option for people to make shell fcs to keep houses anymore. Grandfather in those already in place just for PR and the like, and because there are some fcs out there that are just intentionally small and want to stay that way, but going forward, make a change. Or, you know, instanced housing already.

My thinking is somewhat along the same lines.

The issue is mostly with inheritance. There's no need to increase the number of people that have to enter the FC house. Here are the changes I'd make:

• A person who already leads an FC that owns a house may not lead another FC that owns a house.
• In the event that a person that already owns an FC that owns a house does inherit another FC that owns a house, ownership will be transferred immediately to the next member to login, as if the player in question was inactive.
• In the event that the above is not possible due to lack of members, the house will become forfeit within 45 days.
• The timer of 45 days will not reset in the event that a new owner falls under the same restrictions as noted above.
• If a total of 45 days pass under the ownership of such a player within 90 days, the house will be forfeit. This means that you cannot play "hot potato" with FC ownership to avoid the penalty.

[LarryButz]

A non-factor, next.

Lol after seeing this comment + you supposedly owning 27 houses, that makes your opinion on this pretty much a non-factor as well.