Housing Ownership System Abuse

[ErysNight]

Hrmm...just because something doesn't go against rules doesn't automatically mean that doing that thing cannot be selfish or greedy. A rule or lack of one doesn't make an action bad or good. It simply makes it permitted or not allowed.

You need context there though. There is an entire post surrounding that quote that makes it situational. If the game does not have any parameters that would make someone feel as though something is "greedy" when owning multiple homes was a normal occurrence, then what you're saying doesn't apply. Owning multiple homes was a game given norm.

There were not enough interested people to even fill a ward and lets not talk about the Goblet. So you're right but only with the right context.

[ErysNight]

I'm interested to learn what the REAL IDEAL amount of houses to own per person are per the pitchfork mobs on these forums.

As people continuously cite the website that says "Temporary Changes" for the housing standards, you claim a player can have 2 houses per service account (1 FC, 1 personal) right?

So does that mean the players with 5+ service accounts now can own 10+ houses comfortably without people whining and demonizing them?

Are you only upset that this is legally (within the parameters of the TOS with GM notice btw) being done all on one service account?

This game is easily afforable for some players and it brings them levels of joy in which they can afford upwards of $100 a month for multiple service accounts.

Entertain me OF. What are the logical loops you'll jump through to demonize this incredibly legal method of owning multiple homes?

I am legit interested in opinions on this.

[Doozer]

I'm interested to learn what the REAL IDEAL amount of houses to own per person are per the pitchfork mobs on these forums.

As people continuously cite the website that says "Temporary Changes" for the housing standards, you claim a player can have 2 houses per service account (1 FC, 1 personal) right?

So does that mean the players with 5+ service accounts now can own 10+ houses comfortably without people whining and demonizing them?

Are you only upset that this is legally (within the parameters of the TOS with GM notice btw) being done all on one service account?

This game is easily afforable for some players and it brings them levels of joy in which they can afford upwards of $100 a month for multiple service accounts.

Entertain me OF. What are the logical loops you'll jump through to demonize this incredibly legal method of owning multiple homes?

I am legit interested in opinions on this.

Legal =/= moral. No loops required.

[ErysNight]

Legal =/= moral. No loops required.

Lol! I was hoping for that answer!

So even if we have the real world funds to pay for multiple service accounts and seek out our own personal fulfillment, we're supposed to what? Restrain ourselves for internet strangers?

Please be specific on what your moral opinion is!

[Doozer]

Lol! I was hoping for that answer!

So even if we have the real world funds to pay for multiple service accounts and seek out our own personal fulfillment, we're supposed to what? Restrain ourselves for internet strangers?

Please be specific on what your moral opinion is!

My moral opinion is irrelevant, actually. You asked, I answered. End of.

[ErysNight]

My moral opinion is irrelevant, actually. You asked, I answered. End of.

Lol, that's no fun. You're trying to toss in one liners with no substance. Makes one wonder why you even exist here then? Is it just to cause more drama?

You do this in most posts, don't contribute to the topic in a meaningful way but try to egg on things. Look, i understand it's boring during content droughts, but try harder!

Lol, but no worries! I accept that you don't have anything to contribute to my topic!

[Almagnus1]

I'm interested to learn what the REAL IDEAL amount of houses to own per person are per the pitchfork mobs on these forums.

How about SE actually makes the restrictions laid out at https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../housing_land/ permanent, and then extends those onto all the grandfathered in houses after a grace period?

For that matter, any FC that has less than 3 members should lose their house (but done with enough time that it's akin to the AFK timer and not immediate).

So does that mean the players with 5+ service accounts now can own 10+ houses comfortably without people whining and demonizing them?

As long as each account is compliant with the restrictions linked above, I'm fine with that. That means operating a ward is going to take 15 accounts, which is going to work out to be like $2250/year for the entire ward. FYI I'm using my sub cost which is roughly $75/six months or $150/year to estimate this. If someone wants to be a whale and waste their money that way - it's funding FFXIV regardless so we might as well let them.

That also means that it's in SE's best interest to retroactively enforce the restrictions because right now you can tie up a ward with only 2 accounts due to stuff being grandfathered in - which means only $300/year.

[ErysNight]

How about SE actually makes the restrictions laid out at https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../housing_land/ permanent, and then extends those onto all the grandfathered in houses after a grace period?

For that matter, any FC that has less than 3 members should lose their house (but done with enough time that it's akin to the AFK timer and not immediate).



As long as each account is compliant with the restrictions linked above, I'm fine with that. That means operating a ward is going to take 15 accounts, which is going to work out to be like $2250/year for the entire ward. FYI I'm using my sub cost which is roughly $75/six months or $150/year to estimate this. If someone wants to be a whale and waste their money that way - it's funding FFXIV regardless so we might as well let them.

That also means that it's in SE's best interest to retroactively enforce the restrictions because right now you can tie up a ward with only 2 accounts due to stuff being grandfathered in - which means only $300/year.

I appreciate you acknowledging that the changes are indeed listed as temporary.

So SE providing more actual clarity on what the housing standards and then "if someone can afford it, then sure why not".

I can respect this view!

[Almagnus1]

I appreciate you acknowledging that the changes are indeed listed as temporary.

So SE providing more actual clarity on what the housing standards and then "if someone can afford it, then sure why not".

I can respect this view!

I want SE to pick a set of rules, apply it to everyone equally, move forward, and leave them in place permanently.

I want the grandfathered stuff to end, but for SE to give everyone a way forward and also not penalize them for choosing to let go of the houses. That means SE should give people a long enough grace period before changes take effect (like the time between 5.0 and 5.1 for example) to get subscriptions spun up and alts rolled so that they will be compliant, or not penalizing players for deciding to demolish a house that will be demolished at the end of the grace period by giving them a 100% refund for the house value and allow them to put the decorations up on the market assuming that would normally be possible with the decorations (instead of what would normally they'd normally) so that it's as painless as possible. That also means that if you fail to act during the grace period you will have the houses demolished.

The only way to stop threads like these from appearing is to normalize everything so there are no more haves and have nots. The restriction policy is the closest thing SE has given us to a policy that will fairly distribute housing if the restrictions were applied retroactively.

[ErysNight]

snip.

There will always be Have and Have nots. Even in your scenario outlined here, you're only looking at it one dimensionally. Conversely, I think the only thing SE is required to do is ensure that everyone as equal access to all **functionality** that the game offers.

So housing actually servers 4 different types of functionality:
1.) Decorating
2.) Workshops
3.) Crossbreed Gardening
4.) Aetherwheels

I don't think it's right that 2 of those are locked behind owning a physical plot. If we take this notion and compare it to what you're asking for, there are a couple holes in the logic.

1.) If you're issue with someone owning multiple homes is that it stops others from the decorating function, then your concept of "have's and have nots" don't apply here because EVERYONE can decorate in game. Apartments and FC rooms are instanced and available for way cheaper. If you're going to add a layer to this argument and say everyone should have an equal decorating experience, then you should then be focusng on getting SE to purge the notion of different sized houses and make Apartments and FC rooms which are already widely available equal.

2.) If you're issue with someone owning multiple homes is that it stops others from having a workshop or a garden, then you should be advocating that SE rather make those functionality public and not locked behind owning a physical plot since everyone paying the same sub should get the same content access.

In both scenarios, someone owning a ward is not the issue.

Square enix punishing long standing members that THEY elected to grandfather in 2 years ago, for a short term fix (because taking away grandfathered houses will not fix the housing crisis) is bad business. These players have been active paying customers for a lot longer than housing has been popular.

IMO, it's SE's duty to ensure everyone gets full access to the same features for our sub (regardless if players choose to pursue them or not) as a baseline and then implement instanced housing wards while leaving existing players alone.

Because from your earlier point. $450 a month for owning a ward is definitely a flex some of us would do to keep our homes and sure, some people would still seek to demonize even if it's within SE's rules but you're not going to solve this problem by trying to punish people you're mad at.

It's just my opinion but housing people Haves and Have nots, should band together to try and convey to SE that they need to fix this situation asap in the best interest of all the players.

Of course it's an opposing opinion, I am not trying to change your mind, just offering a different perspective.