Restructure Housing

[Wayfinder3]

This is an interesting post but certainly not one I ever thought I'd want to make. I have a large home in the goblet, I've had it for a long time so I am not particularly bothered by the results of losing the lottery....or at least I should be. In truth, I have a gripe with this so called *Fair* system.

To explain my point, lets propose a thought experiment.

Fair - impartial and just, without favoritism or discrimination.

5 players are locked in a room and told 4 of them will die at complete random. One of them at random will be allowed to survive. The odds are technically fair for everyone, but is the circumstance itself fair? Absolutely not. What's fair is never having to compete in such an experiment to begin with giving everyone equals odds of being happy.

This is a Hyperbole but it stands as an example of why this fair system isn't really fair. You can't have a system that rewards exploitation through allowing FC's to dog pile a plot, and personal home are just out of luck while simultaneously gatekeeping your community and call it impartial. If everyone were assured to have their own plot, of any size. it WOULD be fair with only variation being the location of said plot. This is why some form of instances housing is necessary. You cannot expect to grow as a game and continue to hide behind the excuses of the past, poor code is no longer an excuse. I am willing to lose my large for the chance that EVERYONE gets one, because that's fair.

I understand the developers feel bad when they read negative comments but you all do it to yourself. You've known this housing system was flawed for years. You have failed to appease your player base while simultaneously promoting toxicity under the guise of "being fair." This is a bit personal, but I've never seen a development team with so much promise fumble the bag on something so consistently that their entire community knows they're inept. By this point, nobody in the community has any faith that you will create a great system as you continue down this path. If they did, they've likely stopped after the results of this most recent wave of plots.

Just stop digging the hole and climb out

[Ayan_Calvesse]

I disagree; your logic is flawed.

The system is "fair" in the sense that every individual has the same chances of having the same outcome. Even in the case of a FC piling on - the "exploitation" is merely that if 25 people bid and 24 are all in the same FC; then 23 bidders are "comfortable" with the outcome whether they win or lose - but each bidder has a 4% chance that their number is drawn. So just as #25 might be upset that 1-24 win; 1-24 would likely be just as cheesed if #25 wins instead; so the likelyhood of success is "fair" but how the losers will react to the outcome is different and not a matter of fairness - merely a matter of having lost.

The system in that regard is impartial; the randomizer has the same likelyhood of drawing #25 as it does any other number and no individual of the 25 is considered more likely (favoritism/discrimination). It is "just" largely depending on how you see what justice is - as many argue its just a synonym to "fair" - morals being a latter discussion based on your own personal philosophical belief.

A Utilitarian would argue it is not "just" because it is morally reprehensible that #25 should be able to benefit rather then the 24 other souls in the FC; the largest good being the FC winning rather then the individual.

Likewise the Categorical imperative would suggest that provided all are acting in the same regard and not to exempt themselves from the overall outcome; then it would be "fair"; but looking at Kants formulation about selfishness - 1 person putting themselves above 24 others would similarly be deemed "unfair" that they should profit.

Natural law might agree it is unfair however because at its core all players should be offered a identical experience; the problem with applying these maxims boils down to the fact that by the very fact a FC is competing with a private bidder; we are already comparing apples and oranges. If the system were to be "fair" it would not be allowing both parties to bid on the same house; because a FC groups experience should only be compared to the experiences of a FC group and a individuals experiences to those of a individual.

then you got like the 4 flavors of objectivism? But honestly going into depth about the virtue of selfishness and Ayn Rand I would rather not ramble much longer; only to try and point out where I feel the lotto is callous and impartial; but generally is "just" and "fair".

Mind you no system is likely to take into account everyone's circumstances.