So, what now? Lotteries with 150+ bids until... when?

[Raim]

today i just found out a friend had bought a large private house,
then made a "solo" FC, and bought a second large house... solo ... just this, this shouldnt be allowed ...
there should be some kind of minimum requirement as a fc to bid on a large house, like 10 minimum ppl or something idk ...
ofc its allowed by the system in place and not against any rule, but still ...
kinda annoying

There are minimum requirements. You have to finish ARR MSQ and be a certain rank in the GC. Then I believe you need 4(?) members for 30 days. But typically people just pay some new players to join their FC temporarily till they buy the plot.

[PaalHenrik]

There are minimum requirements. You have to finish ARR MSQ and be a certain rank in the GC. Then I believe you need 4(?) members for 30 days. But typically people just pay some new players to join their FC temporarily till they buy the plot.

For FCs, you only now need to have 4 members in the FC and whoever has been in it for 30 days can purchase a plot (FC has to be 30 days old as well - stating the obvious) but you don't need to be ranked in a GC or even be in one to buy a FC house or to even get past the initial quests from the Adventurer's guild. That's for personal purchases only.

[Zer0ofTime]

They honestly shouldn't have opened more bids just for the remaining houses, they should have added at least 1 more ward to the round. Infact every round even if there are plots left over, they should still add another ward before restarting the bid round. Having 8908 people bidding on 1 small is not what they intended because their base intent had the whole ward empty at the start of bidding. With the intent all housing would have been bought after the first round. They have spent WAY too much time on this as is without adding more wards.

[drtasteyummy]

> look for house
> find 3 good ones
> can only try for one
> lose
> all gone
> next week only 3 million cubbyholes

they could at least increase the odds for each try per week.

[anguel]

they could at least increase the odds for each try per week.

that is actually a good idea

[Jojoya]

they could at least increase the odds for each try per week.

Except the odds would be increasing for all players who have been trying.

You can't give 150 different players a 100% chance of winning if there's only one plot available.

[anguel]

Except the odds would be increasing for all players who have been trying.

You can't give 150 different players a 100% chance of winning if there's only one plot available.

obviously there would be a hard limit in place

[Jojoya]

obviously there would be a hard limit in place

How do you place a hard limit on bad luck protection when it's players competing against players, and the number of players involved each time changes?

Let me change the number in my example. Let's say you have 150 different players who have maxed out their chance of winning at 20%. There's still only one plot available. The 20% chance becomes useless because you're still competing against 149 others.

The only way to improve a player's chances of winning is to reduce the number of players competing against each other.

[Reinha]

The only way to improve a player's chances of winning is to reduce the number of players competing against each other.

This. And because players don't want to have to get more gil, camp at a placard, take time off work to be first or do anything beyond bidding, they asked for a fairer lottery system, yet for some reason are now trying to find arbitrary ways to exclude other players without doing anything significant that would differentiate them from other players. So much for fairness, huh?

[Silverbane]

The only way to improve a player's chances of winning is to reduce the number of players competing against each other.

That's true for characters, but not players.
Last lottery, I (one player) entered 8 times in the lottery for one small plot, using the 8 housing-qualified characters on my account [on that world]. My odds of winning were 8X better than a player that only entered once: 18% instead of 2.3%.

I won, BTW.