Stop complaining. You wanted this.

[SanadaX]

I'm talking about the original system, which may well predate you if you think it was bot-laden.

That was the best system by far and the cope that "that ship has sailed" is beyond me. We should be vocal about it the same way people were vocal about this lottery. Everyone thought it was what they wanted turns out it wasn't. You are seeing the Salt Mines in 4k right now across multiple sites. Some of it warranted due to the bug but most are upset they didn't win for the fourth year in a row.

[Jojoya]

I'm talking about the original system, which may well predate you if you think it was bot-laden.

The original system only lasted 9 months after the introduction of housing and was at a time when the active player base was much smaller.

It would never work with the size of the current player base. Whether some players would resort to RMT to get the gil needed to purchase would be a tiny blip among the logistical problems.

SE needs to confront the core problem of supply. They can twist the system any way they like and there will always be problems that leave players unhappy unless the supply meets demand.

[Sindele]

Well, the RMT argument gets thrown at literally anything short of 'SE hands me a house for free' these days, so, you know.

[Oizen]

Well, the RMT argument gets thrown at literally anything short of 'SE hands me a house for free' these days, so, you know.

Probably doesn't help that every gold selling website says they make their gil from house flipping

[Sindele]

Considering the RMT housing trade already exists and is inherently less risky to pull off, I gotta say, that claim seems rather suspect.

[Oizen]

Considering the RMT housing trade already exists and is inherently less risky to pull off, I gotta say, that claim seems rather suspect.

google it.

[Big_Bap]

The RMT boogeyman is thrown around by the same people who claim capitalism is the reason why their life is so miserable.

[SuperSxyNerd]

I agree with the OP 110%

[S0lara]

The RNG code was created by a person, and they inputted 0 as one of the possible choices for output. I have coded in Python and Mathematica before, and if you import random, and then you list the parameters, e.g. list=1,2,3,4,5... It is pretty easy to see, that when they listed their parameters for the housing lottery system, they included 0 (zero) in the list of possible choices that could be rolled. If they did in fact did put zero into their list, as in: listhousing or list1 (whatever you want to call it) = 0,1,2,3,4,5..., when as stated earlier, it should have been list1=1,2,3,4,5...

If what I stated is correct, then in all fairness, they should roll back EVERYONE's bids, because if 0 (zero) was counted as a possible RNG choice, then EVERY roll is invalidated and needs to be done again. I know it sucks for some people, but in all fairness, if zero (0) was included, then redoing it is the most fair solution.

[UkcsAlias]

If what I stated is correct, then in all fairness, they should roll back EVERYONE's bids, because if 0 (zero) was counted as a possible RNG choice, then EVERY roll is invalidated and needs to be done again. I know it sucks for some people, but in all fairness, if zero (0) was included, then redoing it is the most fair solution.

It could also be a "round(rand(0,numplayers))" in the code. In which case the last player only gets a 50% chance of winning, and the other half of his getting the 0 as result.

Without knowing the code, you cant tell anything. Its very likely something subtle being overlooked, that in tests did show it worked