Shell FCs are a bigger problem than we think...

[ElysiumDragon]

There's a substantial difference between a smaller, less busy FC, and a blatantly obvious Shell FC. 3 major tells being a low FC Rank, characters at starting level or just above Level 50, and fewer than 5 FC members (usually 1, 2, or 3 members).

[Lachesia]

Of which shell FC's lack the major criteria needed to get FC housing. Including Rank. Time. And numbers. "Shell" FC's don't benefit from much since they often don't meet the requirements to get the housing.

[Lachesia]

It's true that not every FC with 4 or fewer total members (including FC Master) is a failed FC.

It's also true that not every FC with 4 or fewer members is a legitimate FC. Many are shells used to exploit the housing system to sate personal greed.

A FC that drops to a single member (the FC master) immediately after acquiring a house and stays that way is not "exchanging members". Please don't pretend it is. That's a player being inconsiderate of others, especially when that's not the only FC with a house they have on their account.

I doubt "being considerate" was ever a phrase listed as being part of the housing concepts when they were developed. If being considerate was a core philosophy for housing, SE would be doing something about the exploiters. You probably should stop pushing it as such.

I don't agree with the person you quoted that small FCs should have their houses taken away but SE needs to take a closer look at how the housing system is being exploited by some individuals through use of small FCs and how that is blocking access to the content for others.

I agree that they need a better system in place, the lottery is a good idea...on paper, but in practice, it falls short of what it was supposed to be. Very short. The fact remains that much of the data that SE is using for their decision making is based off the Japanese servers, which are larger and older than the EU, NA, and now OCE data centers. Many of the groups on the Japanese servers are not huge in terms of numbers, and are fairly dedicated and small groups that only use the FC housing as another benefit/means of entertainment with the perks you get from the FCs. And while shells are a problem, if you notice I mentioned that it should be taken into consideration that not EVERY small FC is a shell or failed FC. Calling a free company that has at max 4 members a failed FC is fairly dismissive of those who are content to just work with a small group of trusted friends or companions in game. No one was talking about people who just drop to a single member in an FC this is explicitly about those small groups being called 'shells' when they aren't. We don't have all the data on which FC's are 'shells' and which are just small groups, which is why generalizing smaller FCs as shelled or failed is not only rude but legitimately takes away from people who are actually working on building themselves up by lumping them in with those that are exploiting the system.

You misunderstand when I said being considerate towards others is the reason the housing system was built the way it is. No one can see the future, and therefore, they cannot predict what measures will be used against the system they were hoping would give everyone a fair chance at housing. I disagree that they put so much emphasis on FC housing and they should have left it mixed. Furthermore they need to implement that an FC can only attempt at *one* plaque per lottery.

[Lachesia]

Regardless of how many members try to buy plots. Yes it causes the ratio to become more difficult for people to get into a housing plot of their choice, but that's the whole point of the lottery isn't it? Giving everyone a fair chance at at least one location? They should have limited it to 1 FC plot being purchased and multiple members could bid into that plot for a better chance, rather than let people attempt for multiple plots at the same time.

[ElysiumDragon]

Shell FC's (mostly used for house trading back in the day) are the scourge of the Spriggan server. Many wards have Large homes owned by dead FC's with a single low-level member left. If there's going to be talk of the issue of shell FC's, then I would like to discuss the possibility of evicting such tenants on the grounds of universal best interest, and letting those homes reenter the market and be won by established players.

[UkcsAlias]

Housing should just have paid wards (which in turn also enables people to buy any size). This money can be used to get more servers with it (sure, maintenance wise this might still add some costs at some point, but usualy at that point servers should be more efficient). This therefor should then be sustainable.

Free wards then still have the advantage that a player never paid for it. But this is more legacy (maybe you can even make houses in old wards cost money at that point), and you could always give the paid houses extra advantages (better farming).

This then also disrupts the RMT market massively. Because why would you buy a house from them if SE is already providing the option reliably?

Only those shell FCs that just lock out a large house then can have the advantage of having ward 1, and therefor being a bit more visible.

The only problem is that the hardware can be an issue to obtain. Which was the issue we had a while ago.

Islands would already provide the free method of housing anyway, so its not like they will be missing out on everything.

[Illmaeran]

Housing should just have paid wards (which in turn also enables people to buy any size).

I would happily pay $20 US for a medium plot that would be mine until the day the servers are taken down; no matter how long of a break I take. Even if I stop playing the day after buying it and only come back the day the servers go down, it's still there in my name. That would be completely worth it for me. Hell, I might even buy one for my alt too!

Having a single "free" plot (the kind we have now) per account with as many premium plots as one's willing to pay for seems a reasonable option to me.

[ElysiumDragon]

I'd have no objection to paying an increased sub fee if it meant I could own a Medium House for as long as I paid the fee. Not just as a lump sum, but as a maintenance fee to keep the servers running.

I know people generally dislike 'cash shops', but the 'free' option isn't working at this point, and I think SE need to seriously consider the possibility.

[Besame]

I'd have no objection to paying an increased sub fee if it meant I could own a Medium House for as long as I paid the fee. Not just as a lump sum, but as a maintenance fee to keep the servers running.

I know people generally dislike 'cash shops', but the 'free' option isn't working at this point, and I think SE need to seriously consider the possibility.

Playable content has always included housing in the description. Many have been unable to utilize housing as part of the monthly sub we pay for. If they start charging for a house, perhaps next they can charge so much per dungeon or x-amount for special crafting receipes...no??? um hmmm. didn't think so In their inept short-sightedness, SE did not think out of the box when planning for housing. Most likely, they did not think it would be so popular but guess what? Now, it is up to them to back up what is promised in the playable content description.

[BrokentoothMarch]

I'd have no objection to paying an increased sub fee if it meant I could own a Medium House for as long as I paid the fee. Not just as a lump sum, but as a maintenance fee to keep the servers running.

I know people generally dislike 'cash shops', but the 'free' option isn't working at this point, and I think SE need to seriously consider the possibility.

I would be against this. I came in this game with the advertisement promising a shot at housing with my fee. To essentially do that and then go "No, sorry. Actually you gotta pay more!" screams utterly gross. My opinions on the cash shop are poor as is, I'd hate to add false advertising to bandaid the devs incompetence.

Then again, they are keen on bandaiding everything.