Day 1 of nonsense: Why is this allowed?

[Kirutsuki]

Why not just nuke all of these? It's clearly not the intended use for housing in the game, why can't the devs just do SOMETHING. Ignoring it wont make it go away, just hire someone to sweep these out on a monthly basis.

[Jojoya]

Housing has multiple uses, and SE has decided intended or not that they will allow players to have multiple FCs with houses per world.

I don't like it as such but that's up to them and not us. Most of those FCs date back to early Shadowbringers so a lot of those houses were probably purchased back when Spriggan was still mostly empty. SE isn't going to take houses away from players that made their purchases within the rules at the time of purchase, even if the rules might have later changed.

So two questions for you in return: why are you complaining when there are still multiple houses available on Spriggan, and what made you pick on that particular LB ward instead of the other 3 LB wards that also have workshop farms set up (though one did a decent job of masking that it's mostly the same player)? Is it their questionable aesthetic taste in choosing all Paissa skins? As nauseating as that might be, it doesn't seem like a good reason to single them out.

Those players running workshop farms aren't preventing you or any other players on Spriggan from getting a house. Why does SE need to do something?

[Kirutsuki]

It's not about housing availability directly, but what limiting availability causes.

As with the blacklist, just because SE thinks it's the way because of some random thought process they have is not necessarily how it's supposed to be.
Whenever this topic is brought up someone comes out of the woodwork to try and justify it.

Plain put; it's an exploit of the games systems and as such should be treated as such. No matter how many pennies were used to fill an entire district with shell-FC's.
It sets a precedent that any other exploit or work around the game systems is also ok.

If a player finds a way to outright block other players from bidding to a plot then that should be "ok" by SE standards or by this logic.
If we set a precedent that something is ok, then there is no real line anywhere telling anyone what is NOT ok.

Additionally what this specifically does is make players ask for additional systems to be implemented in the game, like; instanced housing.
Which at best is a band-aid fix to the problem they are having and at worst might introduce ANOTHER housing exploit for these players to use.

So, on a fundamental level I have to most likely disagree with you that nothing should be done about this. Sure, you can worm a way around it to convince me or others to agree that it's fine, but
I'm not going to argue about opinions. Whatever SE decides to do or doesn't decide to do is up to them, on that we agree, but again.. It sets an example of such things being ok elsewhere in the game.

Oh and I just chose this ward at random cause it was the one I found first.

[Homeless_was_taken]

Plain put; it's an exploit of the games systems and as such should be treated as such. No matter how many pennies were used to fill an entire district with shell-FC's.
It sets a precedent that any other exploit or work around the game systems is also ok.

Actually, that specific screenshot you added was mainly done through player trading. Aka reaching out to people who wanted to leave the then 'dead' Spriggan server. Not only did they get to play wherever they wanted but they also had a nice fund to get a better plot right after. Regardless the Paissa Iron Dome will fend off any of your nukes.

[Kirutsuki]

Actually, that specific screenshot you added was mainly done through player trading. Aka reaching out to people who wanted to leave the then 'dead' Spriggan server. Not only did they get to play wherever they wanted but they also had a nice fund to get a better plot right after. Regardless the Paissa Iron Dome will fend off any of your nukes.

So an exploit. Gotcha.
I know how player trading works.

It's not intended to be used that way.
Otherwise you could just trade houses by giving player the house instead of logging off from the DC until you get booted from the property.

[Ayan_Calvesse]

So an exploit. Gotcha.
I know how player trading works.

It's not intended to be used that way.
Otherwise you could just trade houses by giving player the house instead of logging off from the DC until you get booted from the property.

I think exploit is not really a accurate term.

Its more that its probably being used as intended but in bad faith; I pondered why SE allowed this to work - reality is if SE wanted to stop this they could very easily - the flag they set for personal housing is a character file flag that associates your character to your account (think of your account name as your character and every "WOL" you make is just a alias of your account) the flag is world specific - this is why you can't have more then 1 personal per world. SE decided not to apply this same limit to FC's which is a odd choice but I suppose it does allow friends to FC sit for their friends while they submerge their FC's until the last content delay concludes. This is also contingent on those FC house-sitters logging in and visiting each of those houses roughly every month (which is easy because if they are running a sub-farm then they are already doing such.)

As such its likely not a exploit - just not in the spirit of the mechanic; SE could easily stop it from happening; its not like they cannot see multiple wards in game that are all ran by the same 4 accounts. If SE isn't doing something that's a choice; not because SE is helpless and if it were a violation of their rules they would have acted by now; SE has quickly responded to far less significant rules violations in the past and this one would probably be a pretty easy fix with a simple patch to have FC houses treated like personal homes by setting the same flag. Note that it's likely not a exploit because even if someone has a FC on that character; they cannot move that FC without first starting over.

Personally I think a easier fix would just to allow people to consolidate all workshops in 1 location and then apply the aforementioned flag.

Also note whats good for the goose is good for the gander; so if we applied those rules it would also apply to the Kingdom of Noctis (I think thats what its called) On Spriggan; which is actually a beautiful accomplishment where they turned a entire goblet ward into a full blown city with amenities and made the Goblet look much nicer.

[Khryseis_Astra]

I think exploit is not really a accurate term.

Its more that its probably being used as intended but in bad faith; I pondered why SE allowed this to work - reality is if SE wanted to stop this they could very easily - the flag they set for personal housing is a character file flag that associates your character to your account (think of your account name as your character and every "WOL" you make is just a alias of your account) the flag is world specific - this is why you can't have more then 1 personal per world. SE decided not to apply this same limit to FC's which is a odd choice but I suppose it does allow friends to FC sit for their friends while they submerge their FC's until the last content delay concludes.

My understanding was that the mechanism that allows for multiple FC ownership was put in place for those situations where an FC leader was inactive, so that leadership could be transferred to another FC member. That way the FC as a whole wouldn’t lost their property through demo (and all the members wouldn’t lose their FC rooms!), as long as someone else was active and available to take the reins.

Now was it intended to force this scenario multiple times on the same account by one person using their alts? Does anyone really think that’s “intended” when you’re required to have 4 members to create an FC in the first place? “Allowed” doesn’t always mean “working as intended.” Now if someone wants to purchase multiple accounts to get their one personal/one FC per server, more power to them, at least they’re paying to take up more of a limited resource!

For the most part, multi-ownership, while being distasteful to me in a system with artificial scarcity, is not the problem I feel needs to be addressed. It’s the artificial scarcity. Other games can allow for multiple housing residences of all shapes and sizes for each and every player because they’re instanced. The wards are fine for those that truly prefer them, but let everyone else just have their own space(s) to decorate and enjoy however they wish. Honestly everyone should be able to have multiple spaces, but that’s not the system we have right now.

This expansion is focused around the graphics update… but I really hope the next deals with the other systems in the game that are also outdated, like glamour and housing.

[Jojoya]

Additionally what this specifically does is make players ask for additional systems to be implemented in the game, like; instanced housing.
Which at best is a band-aid fix to the problem they are having and at worst might introduce ANOTHER housing exploit for these players to use.

Instanced housing done right isn't a band-aid. It is a solution. It's why so many other MMORPGs use it over a ward style system.

Instanced servers only have to be flexible enough to handle the players online at a given moment since the assets are only loaded when entered. Ward servers have to handle those both online and offline since part of the assets are always loaded even if a player is offline.

The question becomes if SE would create a good instanced system or if they would continue to make mistakes when it comes to judging why players want housing and how they use it.

As for it being an example that it's okay to bend the spirit of the rules, you'd be better off talking about 3rd party mods. That's where the example is really being set. That gets far more public discussion than the rare sub farms.

[LianaThorne]

It's not an exploit, the guideline says you're only allowed to purchase and maintain 1 FC house, keyword here being purchase.

The system in place that people have an issue with is a system that exists for the benefit of all FCs: to pass lead if the Master/Owner/etc. goes inactive.

Adopting houses bypasses the purchase rule.

Now, they could get rid of it but how to solve the issue if the Master goes inactive and no one can take lead? Are legit FCs supposed to just go poof for the sake of preventing multi-owners? Nah, that's not really a solution.

[Kirutsuki]

Instanced housing done right isn't a band-aid. It is a solution. It's why so many other MMORPGs use it over a ward style system.

Instanced servers only have to be flexible enough to......

The problem with instanced housing is that it completely removes the joy of housing. E.G showing off to others how your house looks.
Even if it had player visits enabled it would literally function the same way Island Sanctuaries do and no-one actually visits anyone's Islands.
So while decorating your house is cool, it'll eventually loose all novelty and be forgotten behind the instance. It is not a solution, at all.

And I doubt SE is going to fundamentally re-work how instances work in the game so you wouldn't even be able to join someone's home instance and play together with them since you'd constanly drop out of the hosts instance the same way you always teleport out of your house when you do a duty.