Please turn on Auto-Demo again?

[Heh]

SE favouring people that for what ever reason can't play the game than those that can play the game is ridiculous. There is a genuine housing crisis in a game that SE won't solve, and one of the few safeguards to ensure that there is actually a turnover of properties has been suspended multiple times. This is an MMO, life moves on, why do SE cater to those that aren't playing.

All it is doing is hurting those that play the game, especially the newer players that have to pay lots of money for house and FC house only materials.

Whilst they're at it, they should demo houses from accounts who own multiple properties. That's another ridiculous legacy system that hurts the game.

Yes. This is just sadness

[Elevin]

Yup, I saw a ward on mine that is in a similar situation, not as bad, but has like 8 FCs with the same tag, just slightly different. I'd like to understand the dev's ridiculous reasoning as to why they haven't changed their policy towards old accounts.

I also think going forward, a few wards should purely be dedicated to FCs and that the FC leader has to enter the house to prevent auto demolition, not just any member. Would be good also if there were a minimum number of active accounts required for an FC house such as 4 active accounts to prevent auto demolition.

On top of that, I think things such as this should be considered griefing by the player. With housing being a finite yet, critical part of the game, then hoarding houses by individual players whether it be over multiple or single accounts should be banned.

[UkcsAlias]

Whilst they're at it, they should demo houses from accounts who own multiple properties. That's another ridiculous legacy system that hurts the game.

They definitely should do that. They should just force them to demolish the additional houses within a certain timespan, and any object that would normaly be removed entirely is then refunded to them (making the demolition more graceful - if something like food was partialy used, a full refund of that food). If not done within that time, only the latest house will be preserved and the rest autodemolished.

Or maybe if the island sanctuaries can be made somewhat similar to houses (im not suspecting this to be the case, but then again we dont know the full details yet), convert those houses to a sanctuary.

[Elevin]

They definitely should do that. They should just force them to demolish the additional houses within a certain timespan, and any object that would normaly be removed entirely is then refunded to them (making the demolition more graceful - if something like food was partialy used, a full refund of that food). If not done within that time, only the latest house will be preserved and the rest autodemolished.

Or maybe if the island sanctuaries can be made somewhat similar to houses (im not suspecting this to be the case, but then again we dont know the full details yet), convert those houses to a sanctuary.

I'm honestly worried about this whole island sanctuary thing having heard to little from the devs. One of the beauty of housing is that I can share it with my partner and friends as well as the FC house. Yet the Islands sounds like a completely solo situation.

It's bad enough that you cannot share apartments which I would love to do.

[Jojoya]

I'm honestly worried about this whole island sanctuary thing having heard to little from the devs. One of the beauty of housing is that I can share it with my partner and friends as well as the FC house. Yet the Islands sounds like a completely solo situation.

It's bad enough that you cannot share apartments which I would love to do.

They've said Island Sanctuary is "mostly solo content". That makes me think that others will be able to visit our Islands though there may be restrictions (owner must be online and present, or can only visit if on a friends list, or similar). I doubt that would extend to making others tenants, though.

[Kenky]

Whilst they're at it, they should demo houses from accounts who own multiple properties.

Oh boy. This again..

Listen. I get it. You're upset. But (on average) the players owning multiple plots played by the rules when they got them. As such, they should not be punished. In terms of FC-housing, plenty of FCs can share the same 5-digit tag. While that isn't much of a defense to certain groups, it could just as easily be people changing their tag to add fuel to the fire. (Sadly, I am bringing this up as people are indeed that petty.)

You wouldn't really be okay with a police officer coming to arrest you for breaking the NEW law that was put in place today, because what you did YESTERDAY goes against it, would you? That just seems outright backwards.

And, for the record, if you're buying House-only Materials, despite not owning a house, that's on you. Don't claim that SE is bad because you bought something you can't use, despite knowing you can't use it.

[UkcsAlias]

Listen. I get it. You're upset. But (on average) the players owning multiple plots played by the rules when they got them.

Rules can change, and in games this happened often enough.

Something might initialy not be an issue, but there can be a point where it is. And acting to those moments is normal to do. I know a perfect example of this:

In team fortress, initialy it was not an issue to afk to get more items (and therefor more hats). However, at some point someone found a way to not require the game running and still act as if you are online. While also circumventing VAC (because you didnt connect to a VAC server, which was something the devs explicitly mentioned as feature). Technicaly there is absolutely no issue here (no one was realy getting disrupted, there was no market of items as there is now). But the devs at some point just decided enough is enough, and applied a penalty to the ones abusing that tool (while also making it uneffective by setting a cap on items). Those who didnt use it got a hat as reward, just to rub it in.

Limits sometimes just need to be adjusted. And yes, it might sometimes not be in your favour. But at the same time, if you had multiple houses, you already could have gotten a lot of value out of that (from farming). Thats a benefit that stays afterward as those items and gil are not suddenly removed.

[Kenky]

Rules can change, and in games this happened often enough.

In team fortress, initialy it was not an issue to afk to get more items (and therefor more hats).

There's a BIG difference between limited housing in an MMO and Infinite cosmetic items gained through random chance.

If the hats in TF2 were limited in some fashion (Example being only 200 of the Spys Fez, or Heavys lumberjack beard) then the comparison would be more apt. Valve also punished those who were caught using a Loophole and only them. So it falls again there, since again. The people owning multiple plots were playing by the rules of the time of purchase.

Punishing them now, especially when all of those houses essentially GUARANTEES they remain paying one (if not multiple) Subscription fees, would result in some pretty bad backlash. Getting rid of the people paying (for examples sake) 3x the amount other players are, to make way for someone that may buy the house, then stop playing.. Is kind of a risky venture. I am however, of the mind that if they use the space they have, then all is good but if you own multiple houses just for bragging rights, you should probably have them taken away.

[LaylaTsarra]

Rules can change, and in games this happened often enough.

They made the decision to grandfather them and rightfully so. You and others in the take away crowd need to get over it. They followed the rules and as such should not be penalized for doing what was allowed. Get SE to fix housing but not on the backs of those who followed the rules. They will not retroactively apply new rules to slap those following them in the face because you want them too.

A case in point people are still allowed to buy FC's and privates on multiple servers and many who can do and will with 6.1. With your wonderful philosophy they would be at risk at having them taken away at some later date if you were put in charge. SE had the option to limit housing to 1 per account and not per server for 6.1 but they haven't. You can bet they won't take these away if at some later date they decide to limit housing to one per account.

Applying new rules retroactively is not only bad business sense but also unfair to those who followed them.

[Nepentha]

Rules can change, and in games this happened often enough.

The Team Fortress example you give is a bug oversight. Housing prior to the restrictions put in place to limit how much you could own was not. Apples and oranges.

I am however, of the mind that if they use the space they have, then all is good but if you own multiple houses just for bragging rights, you should probably have them taken away.

You had me in agreement up till this. I doubt SE wants to police how people use their houses.