Time to Restart Housing Demolition

[Silverbane]

But hey, at least it's good to know you're part of the "hoarders should be punished" group.

There is no way any rational person could conclude that from anything I've posted.

Here's a tip: when someone humiliates you in the forum by demonstrating that what you've posted is nonsense, give yourself a few minutes to regain your emotional balance before you respond. You might spare yourself further humiliation by doing so.

[Kenky]

There is no way any rational person could conclude that from anything I've posted.

Here's a tip: when someone humiliates you in the forum by demonstrating that what you've posted is nonsense, give yourself a few minutes to regain your emotional balance before you respond. You might spare yourself further humiliation by doing so.

No rational way? Alright, I'll play.

You want Fairness. In all forms, I imagine. That means Hoarders need to lose what they have in order for there to be an even-playing field. Doesn't matter if they were obtained fair and square (Which they were, but people like you don't seem to acknowledge that.) the mere fact that they have more than 1 of the limited items means the hammer MUST come down.

You either want fairness and thus, the hoarders must be dealt with. Or stand with the Hoarders and prove you're a hypocrite. There's your rationale.

Now do you realize why people vouch for Instanced Housing? It gives everyone what they want, while leaving those that have it already un-punished, because punishing the Hoarders would be a dick move, not to mention increasingly stupid for SE to do, given the hoarders pay multiple fees in order to hold their houses. Means they make more money by leaving them alone. A disappointing realization, yet a realization nonetheless.

Listen to your own tip and stop looking in the mirror. You're just becoming pitiful at this point.

[Silverbane]

No rational way? Alright, I'll play.

You want Fairness. In all forms, I imagine. That means Hoarders need to lose what they have in order for there to be an even-playing field.

No, it doesn't. You still don't understand that fairness is about the process, not the result.

But what's so "fair" about taking away houses from people who acquired them fairly under the previous rules?
When SE made some wards FC-only, and some wards personal-only, would it have been fair to take away the personal houses in the newly-designated FC-only wards, or the FC houses in the newly-designated personal-only wards?

What you fail to understand, and perhaps can't understand, it that "fairness" isn't the issue when it comes to grandfathered "hoarders" or houses in the "wrong" wards.
And it's not a contractual issue, either: the TOS is pretty clear that you own nothing in the game.

SE's reputation is the issue, and if they want the reputational upsides and downsides of grandfathering in all houses acquired under the previous rule sets, that's their decision.

Stop pretending you can predict or even guess what I think about something: you clearly lack the necessary education to do so.

[UkcsAlias]

"You cannot punish those in the Now, for following the rules of the Past."

Yet IRL this happens A LOT! How often do social media messages get removed because the platform suddenly decides to change oppinion? People sometimes even get banned for old content. Content that originaly was no issue.

Hoarding houses without any tax might initialy have been fine, but now you might have to pay monthy to the government for that. Yet at that point you didnt do anything wrong. The government still changed it to make the housing market more fair and promote those hoarders to at least make the rent low enough or otherwise they wont generate profit (too high rent and no one will rent, resulting in a loss). The values of tax can even adjust.

Or lets take a bitcoin as an example. Governments have changed the category of its value several times (cash, banked money, stock value), with greatly diffirent numbers of tax attached to them (cash often having 0%).

Or what about a car. Your perfectly fine 30s car is not legal to drive on roads even if it would be in the same quality as it would have been in the 30s. Many parts had to be added in order to make it road legal. Which costs money to apply.

Punishing is a very viable option to do. IRL this happens already. The problem is the scale of punishing though. Instantly taking away 7 houses when someone owns 8 is quite harsh and not realy a good idea. But adding a tax to maintain the 7 extra houses is something that would be perfectly normal IRL (and this scale can be steep). As this will push those players towards either maintaining income, or let those players decide to expire a few of them.

[Kenky]

Yet IRL this happens A LOT! How often do social media messages get removed because the platform suddenly decides to change oppinion? People sometimes even get banned for old content. Content that originaly was no issue.

Hoarding houses without any tax might initialy have been fine, but now you might have to pay monthy to the government for that. Yet at that point you didnt do anything wrong. The government still changed it to make the housing market more fair and promote those hoarders to at least make the rent low enough or otherwise they wont generate profit (too high rent and no one will rent, resulting in a loss). The values of tax can even adjust.

Or lets take a bitcoin as an example. Governments have changed the category of its value several times (cash, banked money, stock value), with greatly diffirent numbers of tax attached to them (cash often having 0%).

Or what about a car. Your perfectly fine 30s car is not legal to drive on roads even if it would be in the same quality as it would have been in the 30s. Many parts had to be added in order to make it road legal. Which costs money to apply.

Punishing is a very viable option to do. IRL this happens already. The problem is the scale of punishing though. Instantly taking away 7 houses when someone owns 8 is quite harsh and not realy a good idea. But adding a tax to maintain the 7 extra houses is something that would be perfectly normal IRL (and this scale can be steep). As this will push those players towards either maintaining income, or let those players decide to expire a few of them.

Social media: Everythings public domain and often politics and "cancel culture" rules that section. While yes, it certainly happens, it really shouldn't.. The statement I made more-so pertained directly to SE, not a general blanket statement. There'll obviously be exceptions.

The only reason that statement works is because SE has said they aren't going to touch them. To go back on their word would cost a lot more than a few subs, I'll wager.

Car: That issue stems mostly from updated rules and regulations about vehicle safety, not really comparable to the hoarding. I can see where the example works, but only barely.

Comparing IRL with Taxes and such to a Game that is meant to be played for FUN first and foremost is.. A risky venture. Adding a "Tax" to the hoarders wouldn't really do much as they (probably, if not definitely) are sitting on quite a large pile of gil. So they could weather it almost indefinitely. Or piss the hoarders off to such an extent SE loses their guaranteed sub money (which isn't much. But it's SE we're talking about..) Sure, you open up the plots for others to use. But SE has lost guaranteed income.

Remember. The Hoarders pay every month and actively show up to keep their houses. To make them give up one of their plots (and risk pissing them off, causing them to leave) and let someone else have it who may leave in a month or two is.. Well, it's a risk that I don't think many companies would go for.

[DatPotato]

Diminishing the actual crisis of a war and saying the game is facing a homelessness crisis.

Hahahahahaha my god

[VerdeLuck]

This isn't about hoarders or grandfathered houses, this is about restoring the auto demo feature. If there's going to be limited housing, they should be for people actively subbed and using them, not people who unsub and don't even enter them.

[Drakengarde]

To fix the housing situation need probably like 50 more wards so like an additional 13 wards across all housing districts should do it.

[Toutatis]

To fix the housing situation need probably like 50 more wards so like an additional 13 wards across all housing districts should do it.

This is still a finite and fixed amount of houses and it would be only a temporary fix. Unless they move away from a fixed and finite amount of houses, the same problem will occur again and players who join in the future would not have access to houses.

If they maintain the same flawed and static system, at minimum auto demolition has to be re-enabled . It wouldn’t answer all the needs but it would allow some active players to get a house. I have a house now and I don’t give a damn about what would happen to it if I stop subbing for whatever reason and I think it’s fair that the plot can go to someone actively playing - it’s just a pixel house that has no use outside the game. Auto-demolition hasn’t been used for a long time now and I am pretty sure that there would be a good number of plots freed up by re-enabling it.

[Rhea_]

Who is Zepla? O.o

A fairly big FFXIV centric streamer/content creator. Zepla HQ