[Suggestion & Discussion] Increasing the number of houses in which we can be tennants

[ZeroRaziel]

Hello folks o/
Right now we can be freeloaders in up to just 2 houses of our friends.
Since tennant system been introduced we got Shirogane and most likely going to get Ishgard housing relatively soon.
Probably Square Enix could expand this number up to 3 (or even 4 o_o) with the relases of a new Housing Area?
Would you like this kind of change?
Are there some downsides to this?

[LisSquid]

I have my FC as a "house" where I let my friends live with me and have their own private rooms. What limitations are there that allows FCs to house so many people, but not private homes? Is this to make FCs special? Seems pretty ridiculous when fc homes already have extra bells and whistles.

I don't see why private homes couldn't be increased up to 6 (perhaps 2 cottage, 4 medium, and 6 for large). Or, hell with it. Smash all 6 people in a small. Cohabitation, baby!

[ZeroRaziel]

I have my FC as a "house" where I let my friends live with me and have their own private rooms. What limitations are there that allows FCs to house so many people, but not private homes? Is this to make FCs special? Seems pretty ridiculous when fc homes already have extra bells and whistles.

I don't see why private homes couldn't be increased up to 6 (perhaps 2 cottage, 4 medium, and 6 for large). Or, hell with it. Smash all 6 people in a small. Cohabitation, baby!

That makes sense, yes, but I was also referring to in how many houses YOU can be a tenant :P Right now even if you don't have your own house and don't even consist in any FC, when your third friend tries to allow you to live in his home they get an error message, saying that you already a tenant in too many houses ( 2 =| )
That's especially weird since you can invite up to 3 friends to your house.

[LisSquid]

That makes sense, yes, but I was also referring to in how many houses YOU can be a tennant :P Right now even if you don't have your own house and don't even consist in any FC, when your third friend tries to allow you to live in his home they get an error message, saying that you already a tennant in too many houses ( 2 =| )
That's especially wierd since you can invite up to 3 friends to your house.

Oh, duh. You're right! The number of houses you can be a tenant in is actually laughably small.

[Jojoya]

Garden access might be seen as a problem by SE if the limit on shared estates was increased. It might also be a matter of technology limits (certainly we've got plenty of other strange limitations).

If you're trying to convince SE this is needed, it's probably best to state what problem(s) are you experiencing that would be corrected by increasing the limit.

[ZeroRaziel]

Garden access might be seen as a problem by SE if the limit on shared estates was increased. It might also be a matter of technology limits (certainly we've got plenty of other strange limitations).

If you're trying to convince SE this is needed, it's probably best to state what problem(s) are you experiencing that would be corrected by increasing the limit.

Thing is there are no any real problems. It's mostly about small QoL improvements. Just like increasing our inventory space, getting a Chocobo Saddlebag, Glamour Dresser or increasing a number of furniture we can place and a Storeroom and etc.
Right now if more than two of your friends owning a house ask you to help them furnishing/decorating it, setting up some rare music on Orchestrion or even teaching them how to use a garden you have to either turn some of them down or constantly juggle between houses by evicting yourself each time to try to help your other friend. Which is quite a chore and a hassle.
Another inconvenience is accessibility. Sometimes teleporting to close friends house is more convinient from a Teleport Menu than from a Friends List (and 4x times cheaper). Some of players also don't want to allow everyone to their houses except for friends, so only way to teleport to them and enter theirs house is if you are a tenant =|

Iirc when housing was introduced there were just 5 wards with no subdivisions. So it was 450 houses per world. Now we have 5760 houses per world (7200 if Ishgardian housing area happens), so statistically much more players possess a house now. Since the amount of houses increased more than 10 times it might make sense to allow us to be tenants in more than just 2 houses.

Ofcourse if it's a coding limitation thats a different story. Just decided to bring this whole topic up since housing came a long way since ARR and Square Enix might have kind of forgotten about this feature whatsoever :P

[Jojoya]

Iirc when housing was introduced there were just 5 wards with no subdivisions. So it was 450 houses per world. Now we have 5760 houses per world (7200 if Ishgardian housing area happens), so statistically much more players possess a house now. Since the amount of houses increased more than 10 times it might make sense to allow us to be tennants in more than just 2 houses.

I think the point of adding the tenant system was to give more players access to a house as opposed to allowing a single player access to more houses.

We might have more houses but we also have a lot more players than the game had when the tenant system was added in 3.1. While more players might have a house in general, I wouldn't be certain that the percentage of players who currently own a house is greater than it was in 3.1 (though it's possible).

I don't have any objections to SE increasing the number but I'm not certain that the examples you gave would be ones that they want to encourage by allowing players to be tenants in more houses. I doubt they've forgotten about the feature but they may not be interested in expanding it further if players have been using it more for things they didn't intend (like selling housing items marked binding and sharing Orchestrion rolls) than in the manner they did intend.

[DrWho2010]

its more likely that it's easier to keep the coding the same for tenants than having it different.

[ZeroRaziel]

I think the point of adding the tenant system was to give more players access to a house as opposed to allowing a single player access to more houses.

Yes, I am totally agree on that. But I assume that besides this Square Enix wanted to encourage players who wanted to have a shared estate experience besides Free Company house. If they simply meant it to be solely for those who don't have their own private house yet, they could have limited this system only to such players.

I don't have any objections to SE increasing the number but I'm not certain that the examples you gave would be ones that they want to encourage by allowing players to be tenants in more houses. I doubt they've forgotten about the feature but they may not be interested in expanding it further if players have been using it more for things they didn't intend (like selling housing items marked binding and sharing Orchestrion rolls) than in the manner they did intend.

But why sharing Orchestrion rolls is unintended? o_o When you invite someone to your house, there is a particular option to allow or not allow that person to edit your Orchestrion. So it feels like (at least to me) that this option was added deliberately by SE so those who have some rarer music pieces could set them up for those who don't have them.
And while selling untradeable furniture is an issue by itself, I am not sure that increasing the number of houses we can be tenants at, or how many players we can invite into our own will affect those who do that, since sellers most likely don't have an intention of staying in a buyers house and it takes less then a minute to join one and leave. Besides, if I understand correctly, this whole untradeables selling thingy could be done via FC house, so it would probably still be around even if tenant system has never existed in a first place.
The point is, that this small change will affect positively those who use this system exactly as intented (I kinda assume that this would be a majority of player base) while not giving anything to those who might abuse it in some way.