Disallow Relocation, At Least Temporarily

[Catstab]

Nothing you have said convinces me

Please, be reasonable. Currently a system exists that SE created to save FCs from disbanding and players from losing time and money. You want to destroy/limit that system and threaten FCs with massive losses in an attempt to manipulate their behavior.

I'm telling you that it won't work. I'm telling you it's poor system design.

I'm objectively right in both of these counts. You may not possess the design oriented skillset to see it, but SE development personnel does.

A mist 35 at the placard is a once in a lifetime opportunity for most players. 99% of FCs will relocate to one, given the chance, even if you punish them. You want to punish them for it. Bad call.

If nothing I can say will convince you that "less suffering for campers" is not better than "more suffering for FCs" then there is no point in trying to reason with you.

[Mimilu]

Please, be reasonable. Currently a system exists that SE created to save FCs from disbanding and players from losing time and money. You want to destroy/limit that system and threaten FCs with massive losses in an attempt to manipulate their behavior.

I'm telling you that it won't work. I'm telling you it's poor system design.

I'm objectively right in both of these counts. You may not possess the design oriented skillset to see it, but SE development personnel does.

You, the leader of FC with a medium house and someone who would benefit from the system staying as is, being objective? Trying to get an upgrade?
And what kind of picture are you trying to paint here? "Mean, old Mimi thinks FCs should suffer! Look at how unreasonable they are, thinking people should be patient and wait 30-days before just jumping for plot to plot. I, Catsab, am looking out for the little man. The little man who already owns a house. A Medium house in Lavender Beds."
You still haven't answered my questions: Why should those with houses get preferential treatment of those who don't? And why should FCs get preferential treatment over single-players?

[Catstab]

thinking people should be patient and wait 30-days?

A mist 35 at the placard is a once in a lifetime opportunity for most players. 99% of FCs will relocate to one, given the chance, even if you punish them. Therefore adding a punishment for engaging in normal gameplay is bad . It won't create the change you want. It will hurt people. Hurting people is bad, so if the suggestion is "let's hurt people" then the suggestion is bad.

Your question does not warrant an answer because the above fact is true either way and that is sufficient reason your suggestion cannot be considered.

[Jojoya]

Did you not read my post above? Or are you joking?

With your limitation in place, FCs will occasionally, perhaps often - kick out all their offline members, demolish their house, relinquish their house, repurchase a new house, reinvite their members, rebuild every single FC private chamber, decorate every single private chamber, lose all workshop progress to bypass the relocation limiter.

So your idea is hurtful to FCs, and it's a bad idea.

If it was limited to only individual players and not FCs, it would be a less bad idea.

You're acting as if FCs frequently relocate their houses on a whim to gain some benefit only FCs will get that is triggered by relocating. The only thing a FC might gain by relocating is an additional garden plot if they move from small to medium or medium to large, same as an individual owner. That's not such a major benefit that a FC is going to kick their members and demolish the house just so they can move again within 30 days of the last move when they can wait out the 30 days then relocate when something they want more becomes available.

I personally would recommend 7 days instead of 30 days but it's still a sound idea.

A mist 35 at the placard is a once in a lifetime opportunity for most players. 99% of FCs will relocate to one, given the chance, even if you punish them. Therefore adding a punishment for engaging in normal gameplay is bad . It won't create the change you want. It will hurt people. Hurting people is bad, so if the suggestion is "let's hurt people" then the suggestion is bad.

Your question does not warrant an answer because the above fact is true either way and that is sufficient reason your suggestion cannot be considered.

So a FC or private owner that's already beyond their 30 day cooldown gets the plot over the FC who just recently relocated.

No sane FC leader is going to take the time to kick all their members, remove their house furnishings and relinquish the current house because the plot would have already sold in the amount of time it takes to do all that. They'll wait for the next opportunity after their cooldown has ended.

You're making this all dramatic when there's no reason to.

[Mimilu]

A mist 35 at the placard is a once in a lifetime opportunity for most players. 99% of FCs will relocate to one, given the chance, even if you punish them. Therefore adding a punishment for engaging in normal gameplay is bad . It won't create the change you want. It will hurt people. Hurting people is bad, so if the suggestion is "let's hurt people" then the suggestion is bad.

Your question does not warrant an answer because the above fact is true either way and that is sufficient reason your suggestion cannot be considered.

What fact? You keep presenting scenarios like they're fact while dodging the questions.
How does your scenario answer why FCs should get preferential treatment over single-players? How does your scenario answer why those with houses should get preferential treatment over those who don't own houses?
Would you dismantle your own FC for a Mansion? You seem really keen on Mist 5/35.
And how is relocating not punishing those who don't already own a house? They can wait up to hours for the chance only for someone with a house to leisurely stroll by take it. And usually it's not even mediums or mansions, it's someone going from one small house to another.

[Catstab]

What fact?

"Adding a punishment for engaging in normal gameplay is bad"

That one. At this point I'm just copy/pasting what I've already said. My point is made. If you don't see the suggestion is a bad one, it's not my problem.

[Penthea]

Did you not read my post above? Or are you joking?

With your limitation in place, FCs will occasionally, perhaps often - kick out all their offline members, demolish their house, relinquish their house, repurchase a new house, reinvite their members, rebuild every single FC private chamber, decorate every single private chamber, lose all workshop progress to bypass the relocation limiter.

So your idea is hurtful to FCs, and it's a bad idea.

I don't think many fcs would want to risk ending up with no house by demolishing their current house just so they can placard spam at another plot.

The situation you brought up would only be likely to happen if the fc aimed to purchase a plot that had no previous owner (which means no placard spam), which happens only when new wards are released. And on top of that it would only happen if the fc bought their house less than 30 days before the new wards were released. That's a lot of conditions that need to be met for the situation you illustrated to be likely to happen.

I personally would recommend 7 days instead of 30 days but it's still a sound idea.

I personally was thinking of two weeks. A week is alright too, but no less than that otherwise the mechanic wouldn't fulfill its goal very well.

[Saefinn]

How about this as a compromise instead. Add a relocation window, which I'd set at maybe 5 hours.

This is a window where those who want to relocate and jump the timer for purchase can do so. Outside of that window, they are subject to the same system as everybody else.

If they do a relocation window of 5 hours, it allows people to still relocate to more suitable plots when they free up and it wouldn't have much of a negative impact because plots don't normally become available within the first 5 hours of being up.

And it means when the house is likely to become available isn't going to have somebody come in and relocate to it.


Relocation I think is necessary. Because with the problem as it is, people just buy what they can get, relocation allows them to have some agency of choice again and at a cost so it's not frivolously done. For what I wanted to do with my plot the Lavender Beds made the most sense but I was only successful at getting one in Mist.

However, I was courteous enough in that I only relocated to a Lavender Beds plot that nobody was trying to camp. I know relocation sucks for the person who has been waiting hours and I didn't want to be /that/ guy because it has happened to me many times before.

[Themarvin]

If relocation is an issue, then just add a 3 hour timer on it.

[Mimilu]

"Adding a punishment for engaging in normal gameplay is bad"

That one. At this point I'm just copy/pasting what I've already said. My point is made. If you don't see the suggestion is a bad one, it's not my problem.

You've been copy/pasting. And still not showing any facts. You view my suggestion as s punishment, that's not a fact, that's your opinion. :B

I personally would recommend 7 days instead of 30 days but it's still a sound idea.

I personally was thinking of two weeks. A week is alright too, but no less than that otherwise the mechanic wouldn't fulfill its goal very well.

I was going to reply to Penthea's reply yesterday asking if 14 days would a better alternative but Catstab happened. :B