Housing needs to be account based

[ChrysOCE]

Overall I tend to like your thoughtful posts, Jojoya, so I wanted to keep you honest on this one. Life often presents us with situations where we can't get everything we want, and sometimes we have to make choices between which of two things that are important to us is more important. Choosing Thing A over Thing B doesn't in any way demonstrate an objective lack of interest in Thing B; it simply shows which one was rated higher relative to the other.

I know people who have had to choose between having a roof over their head and taking care of a lifelong pet. To suggest that a person "isn't really interested" in whichever one they give up would be both inaccurate and needlessly cruel.

I would agree with that IRL. But in a video game, no, not at all and I think it's pretty clear, Jojoya is talking about this situation specifically.
They have a choice of being on a world with plenty of housing available (they even HAD a house and chose to give it up and move back to Primal!). They also have a choice in picking up a house in a "less desirable" residential district. If they care about having a house, that badly, they would either pick up a Goblet house or move to a world that has housing available.
Edit: misread the initial quote. Still, I would assume that is just misspoken, about real life just moving somewhere else. Anyway, in game - they are right.

[LilimoLimomo]

I would agree with that IRL. But in a video game, no, not at all and I think it's pretty clear, Jojoya is talking about this situation specifically.
They have a choice of being on a world with plenty of housing available (they even HAD a house and chose to give it up and move back to Primal!). They also have a choice in picking up a house in a "less desirable" residential district. If they care about having a house, that badly, they would either pick up a Goblet house or move to a world that has housing available.
Edit: misread the initial quote. Still, I would assume that is just misspoken, about real life just moving somewhere else. Anyway, in game - they are right.

Human desires work exactly the same inside and outside of video games; stuff in games generally feels less important to us than real life stuff, but they're all being processed in the same system in our grey matter. If I saved up for years and only have enough gil to buy Glam A or Glam B, it's possible to want them both almost equally, and choosing one over the other doesn't demonstrate that I'm "not really that interested" in the other. To assume otherwise is to operate in bad faith, because that's simply not how making hard choices works.

[ChrysOCE]

Human desires work exactly the same inside and outside of video games; stuff in games generally feels less important to us than real life stuff, but they're all being processed in the same system in our grey matter. If I saved up for years and only have enough gil to buy Glam A or Glam B, it's possible to want them both almost equally, and choosing one over the other doesn't demonstrate that I'm "not really that interested" in the other. To assume otherwise is to operate in bad faith, because that's simply not how making hard choices works.

It is when it comes to housing, in FFXIV. If housing is that important, you will take whatever house you have available, whatever residential district it is. If there is no housing, but it is that important, you will move worlds to obtain one. And, again, they HAD a house and decided to move back to Primal and available housing in Goblet isn't wanted. There's no impossible choice there, comparable to IRL.

[Kaurhz]

I find it really hard for Yoshi-P to decide to implement our so desired instanced housing in this game, I mean, you would have to demolish every personal house, every FC house, every venue, people would get mad af.

This is not worth the backlash they would receive. There is a reason they did not boot people from grandfathered plots.

But account based housing, yeah that's easy to do. The only ones who will complain are the ones who have multiple houses, which are the source of all these problems already.

It would help alleviate the problem which does exist on some very highly populated servers, yes. But it wouldn't be as significant as you might think. Those plots would still get eaten up. The main source of the problem is the sheer population of some servers, and this is only on a small hand-full of servers. At best you would have miniscule mitigation. -- I do understand to others the solution to the problem - "Just move to another server lul" -- This does not address the root cause of the issue on some servers, and similarly people shouldn't need to in some instances shift worlds just to get a house. It's such a laughable non-solution.

Would just be better to have variable distribution of wards and such. Lower-populated servers have less, and highly-populated should have more, IMO.

Also this game needs more account wide stuff. Mogstation and seasonal items, achievements, MSQ, all that should be account wide.

It absolutely does yes.

[LilimoLimomo]

It is when it comes to housing, in FFXIV. If housing is that important, you will take whatever house you have available, whatever residential district it is. If there is no housing, but it is that important, you will move worlds to obtain one.

I don't even think you realize it, but you're moving the goal posts. I'm saying this:

We can't always get what we want, so sometimes we have to choose between two things that are both important to us. Choosing Thing A over Thing B doesn't in any way demonstrate an objective lack of interest in Thing B; it simply demonstrates which one was rated higher relative to the other.

But you are talking about something meaningfully different. You are comparing "how much they want the house" to some threshold of importance that you refer to as "that important".

To clarify the difference, we can convert this into simple math. I'm saying:

The statement of inequality A > B does not tell you anything about the magnitude of either A or B, save that A's magnitude is greater than B's magnitude.

You are trying to disprove my statement by saying:

B < T, where T has a value of "That Important"

I hope you can see how that doesn't have any bearing on what I'm saying.

[ChrysOCE]

I don't even think you realize it, but you're moving the goal posts. I'm saying this:

We can't always get what we want, so sometimes we have to choose between two things that are both important to us. Choosing Thing A over Thing B doesn't in any way demonstrate an objective lack of interest in Thing B; it simply demonstrates which one was rated higher relative to the other.

But you are talking about something meaningfully different. You are comparing "how much they want the house" to some threshold of importance that you refer to as "that important".

To clarify the difference, we can convert this into simple math. I'm saying:

The statement of inequality A > B does not tell you anything about the magnitude of either A or B, save that A's magnitude is greater than A's magnitude.

You are trying to disprove my statement by saying:

B < T, where T has a value of "That Important"

I hope you can see how that doesn't have any bearing on what I'm saying.

This is just going to go around in circles. Yea, sure everything is a choice and there is a consequence to every decision that must be weighed up. But this is about an online game and housing, it aint that deep. There is housing available. Either they take an available Goblet lot or they move off Primal (and they were prepared to move the first time, to Dynamis, so any friends or FC they originally had, on Primal, didn't stop them then).

[Stormpeaks]

I don't even think you realize it, but you're moving the goal posts. I'm saying this:

We can't always get what we want, so sometimes we have to choose between two things that are both important to us. Choosing Thing A over Thing B doesn't in any way demonstrate an objective lack of interest in Thing B; it simply demonstrates which one was rated higher relative to the other.

But you are talking about something meaningfully different. You are comparing "how much they want the house" to some threshold of importance that you refer to as "that important".

To clarify the difference, we can convert this into simple math. I'm saying:

The statement of inequality A > B does not tell you anything about the magnitude of either A or B, save that A's magnitude is greater than A's magnitude.

You are trying to disprove my statement by saying:

B < T, where T has a value of "That Important"

I hope you can see how that doesn't have any bearing on what I'm saying.

We dont need to do calculations tbf

it's very easy

Player 1 : I want a medium house of my choice, I'm going to move to Dynamis and stay in contact with my friends via discord and I'll go with them often via DC travel as to not lose contact and so we can keep doing the things we were doing before.
Player 1 moves to Dynamis, gets a house they want with a high probability chance, if not, gets another medium

Player 2 : I want a medium house but I dont want to move to Dynamis because I want the convenience of my own DC, my friends, and I dont want to use DC travel
Player 2 bids on houses on their main DC and gets in line with other players there.

It aint rocket science, we dont need calculations for that.

Idk why you're going on full blast math to try and justify them not moving, it just doesnt matter, if they want a house, they move, if they dont care enough, they dont move and dont get it and they bid on their main DC.

it aint that deep.

[Absimiliard]

The housing demo timer should be reduced to 15 days.

[Stormpeaks]

The housing demo timer should be reduced to 15 days.

Yeah God forbid people have a life outside of the game.

Want to go on vacation with the kids ? Nah you gotta stay home because otherwise your house will demo

Great idea bro lmao. Try touching grass because with this suggestion alone and how out of touch it is I don't think you go outside much, else you would think and not even suggest something like that.

Small edit : I know my post is a bit aggressive, and I dont regret it, I am tired of people and their absolutely terrible ideas to "fix" housing, actually tired of them, the solution is to add wards, not to remove multiowner's houses or people with multiple houses (which by the way together make less than 5% of the total amount of houses, aka it wouldnt fix anything at all, anything would fill in a single cycle and the problem repeats), Dynamis is also basically used as a "quarantine zone" for multiowners so they dont even go that much in old worlds anymore which means they have 0 impact on them.

Yall need to either settle for an area you dont like, and get a small there and work your way up, or move to Dynamis and get a much better chance at getting the plot of your choice.

It really is time to stop with all the "take their houses away from them i want it!!!!!"

No, they worked harder than you do to get them.

Deal with it.

[LilimoLimomo]

We dont need to do calculations tbf

100%! You do not need to do calculations. But when communication via words is failing, converting arguments into their mathematical/logical cores — without the distracting filigree of words — can cut away the excess and ease communication and shared understanding. Where words can have us running around in circles, it is trivial to see that given only A > B you cannot arrive at the outcome of B < T.

Idk why you're going on full blast math to try and justify them not moving

This is the statement that reminds me that I'm having a discussion on an internet forum, where there's a tendency for discussions to become a battle between two opposing sides rather than a collaborative and reasoned discussion in search of truth.

Because I'm in no way aiming to justify the OP. Regardless of which side of a debate you're on, and regardless of which side of a debate the person who made an argument was on, when someone presents a flawed argument, it's in everyone's best interest that that specific argument be corrected. Flawed arguments waste everyone's time and add noise that gets in the way of reaching a coherent outcome. Correcting a flawed argument does not mean that that one side or the other is wrong; it just means that's not an argument that can be used in a logical and well-reasoned debate.

And with that in mind, I saw a pretty good argument against OP from a commenter I generally appreciate and respect. But at the tail end of their good arguments was something illogical. Because I value logic and respect this commenter and know they are better than that, I replied with a correction.

It's a bit silly that something as simple as pointing out a bad argument has people assuming I'm on the side of their enemies, but that's what so many of us have become accustomed to on the internet, so I get it.