RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Virella · **10-20-2015, 11:54 AM**

(10-20-2015, 11:42 AM)Oli! Wrote:
(10-20-2015, 11:35 AM)Virella Wrote: Well you could put that logic to anyone who is in a FC "Why don't you just use your personal room? Why do you need your own house? Why don't you give it away to some FC? You selfish jerk!". It's a wee bit flawed, greedy or not, we can apply it to personal housing in general. I for one never think they should have allowed personal housing, or made a different system for it. Wildstar system for personal housing? Yes please!

It's not flawed because it's not an applicable comparison.

There are mechanical differences between rooms and houses, such as the inability to garden, or train chocobos.

The two are not, and will not be on equal enough footing for a comparison, until they are functionally identical.

But it is. Why would one person have a claim on one house, why he or she could not be giving it to a FC and allow more people to use these features as well? They can do very much the same with their FC garden, stables ect as well without being the leader. It is by your logic still ONE person owning it, seeming it does not seem to matter if a person owns a FC already or not.

So why only FC leaders should suffer from being targeted? Personal housing is flawed in general; people with lots of gil will own houses, who don't have it won't, simple as that. That is what SE needs to address, not the few odd exceptions who happen to have both.

Vyce · **10-20-2015, 11:58 AM**

(10-20-2015, 11:54 AM)Virella Wrote:
(10-20-2015, 11:42 AM)Oli! Wrote:
(10-20-2015, 11:35 AM)Virella Wrote: Well you could put that logic to anyone who is in a FC "Why don't you just use your personal room? Why do you need your own house? Why don't you give it away to some FC? You selfish jerk!". It's a wee bit flawed, greedy or not, we can apply it to personal housing in general. I for one never think they should have allowed personal housing, or made a different system for it. Wildstar system for personal housing? Yes please!

It's not flawed because it's not an applicable comparison.

There are mechanical differences between rooms and houses, such as the inability to garden, or train chocobos.

The two are not, and will not be on equal enough footing for a comparison, until they are functionally identical.
But it is. Why would one person have a claim on one house, why he or she could not be giving it to a FC and allow more people to use these features as well? They can do very much the same with their FC garden, stables ect as well without being the leader. It is by your logic still ONE person owning it, seeming it does not seem to matter if a person owns a FC already or not.

So why only FC leaders should suffer from being targeted? Personal housing is flawed in general; people with lots of gil will own houses, who don't have it won't, simple as that. That is what SE needs to address, not the few odd exceptions who happen to have both.

Except nobody is victimizing FC leaders. It is YOUR house. Having a house is optional. It is YOUR FC. Having a FC is optional. Having a FC and a house means other people can use the house that you OPTIONALLY opted for. You can furnish it and use it the way you like, but other people can use and live in it too. They can restrict their customization to their private quarters, and everybody wins.

SessionZero · **10-20-2015, 11:59 AM**

(10-20-2015, 11:54 AM)Virella Wrote: So why only FC leaders should suffer from being targeted? Personal housing is flawed in general; people with lots of gil will own houses, who don't have it won't, simple as that. That is what SE needs to address, not the few odd exceptions who happen to have both.

We're not talking about them. We're talking about people who buy up land for the purpose of re-selling it at ridiculous markups. This isn't ArcheAge, it isn't meant to be a cutthroat dog-eat-dog game world. The issue of in-game realtors needs to be addressed because it's not something that was ever intended to be a mechanic. It's a loophole, and a shitty one, and needs to not be a thing.

Virella · **10-20-2015, 12:04 PM**

(10-20-2015, 11:58 AM)Vyce Wrote:
(10-20-2015, 11:54 AM)Virella Wrote:
(10-20-2015, 11:42 AM)Oli! Wrote:
(10-20-2015, 11:35 AM)Virella Wrote: Well you could put that logic to anyone who is in a FC "Why don't you just use your personal room? Why do you need your own house? Why don't you give it away to some FC? You selfish jerk!". It's a wee bit flawed, greedy or not, we can apply it to personal housing in general. I for one never think they should have allowed personal housing, or made a different system for it. Wildstar system for personal housing? Yes please!

It's not flawed because it's not an applicable comparison.

There are mechanical differences between rooms and houses, such as the inability to garden, or train chocobos.

The two are not, and will not be on equal enough footing for a comparison, until they are functionally identical.
But it is. Why would one person have a claim on one house, why he or she could not be giving it to a FC and allow more people to use these features as well? They can do very much the same with their FC garden, stables ect as well without being the leader. It is by your logic still ONE person owning it, seeming it does not seem to matter if a person owns a FC already or not.

So why only FC leaders should suffer from being targeted? Personal housing is flawed in general; people with lots of gil will own houses, who don't have it won't, simple as that. That is what SE needs to address, not the few odd exceptions who happen to have both.
Except nobody is victimizing FC leaders. It is YOUR house. Having a house is optional. It is YOUR FC. Having a FC is optional. Having a FC and a house means other people can use the house that you OPTIONALLY opted for. You can furnish it and use it the way you like, but other people can use and live in it too. They can restrict their customization to their private quarters, and everybody wins.

Then the FC leader in question is a massive dick, and you shouldn't be dealing with those type of people in the first place Tongue

Not to mention, lots of plots seem to be bought with gil thrown together by people on top of that. If a FC leader paid the house for it him/herself? I totally get you when you put that statement up, but often FC leaders tend to be well, just FC leaders in name, and the FC house bought together with friends.

@Reilan because I'm too lazy to quote

Yeah, I totally agree though. As I said it is a silly system in the first place. I think they should had never allowed people to buy their personal house in the wards, they should had come up with a different system for it.
Surely it would suck if it for example was all instanced, and we all had to go trough the same entrance to get to our personal house ect, but it would at least give everyone a chance to get a house, while the FCs can have them out in the wards, and keep them in the open world. But... it is too late for that, and it's left for SE to fix this now.

Vyce · **10-20-2015, 12:06 PM**

(10-20-2015, 11:59 AM)SessionZero Wrote:
(10-20-2015, 11:54 AM)Virella Wrote: So why only FC leaders should suffer from being targeted? Personal housing is flawed in general; people with lots of gil will own houses, who don't have it won't, simple as that. That is what SE needs to address, not the few odd exceptions who happen to have both.

We're not talking about them. We're talking about people who buy up land for the purpose of re-selling it at ridiculous markups. This isn't ArcheAge, it isn't meant to be a cutthroat dog-eat-dog game world. The issue of in-game realtors needs to be addressed because it's not something that was ever intended to be a mechanic. It's a loophole, and a shitty one, and needs to not be a thing.

According to our newly uncovered information, we can technically file tickets on the realtors and have them dealt with as long as we did not actually exchange gil.

Oli! · **10-20-2015, 12:09 PM**

(10-20-2015, 12:04 PM)Virella Wrote: Then the FC leader in question is a massive dick, and you shouldn't be dealing with those type of people in the first place Â

Should Not Deal With != Does Not Exist.

There are FCs out there that lock out certain members from using the stables and the gardens, or restrict them from using them in certain ways. It's not unreasonable therefore that those people would seek to have property of their own that they can do what they want with, including having unrestricted access to the features that they want, whether it be access to those features that they did not have, or simply more gardening and decorating space. This ties into the former point that I was making; the two are not comparable because there are other factors that have the potential to take place in one, that would not happen in the other, in which someone has complete control.

Some people may have reasons for not leaving and finding a new FC. Maybe they have business there to attend to. Maybe they've got friends there, whatever.

But not everything is as simple as shutting bad people out of your life.

Virella · **10-20-2015, 12:28 PM**

(10-20-2015, 12:09 PM)Oli! Wrote:
(10-20-2015, 12:04 PM)Virella Wrote: Then the FC leader in question is a massive dick, and you shouldn't be dealing with those type of people in the first place Â

Should Not Deal With != Does Not Exist.

There are FCs out there that lock out certain members from using the stables and the gardens, or restrict them from using them in certain ways. It's not unreasonable therefore that those people would seek to have property of their own that they can do what they want with, including having unrestricted access to the features that they want, whether it be access to those features that they did not have, or simply more gardening and decorating space. This ties into the former point that I was making; the two are not comparable because there are other factors that have the potential to take place in one, that would not happen in the other, in which someone has complete control.

Some people may have reasons for not leaving and finding a new FC. Maybe they have business there to attend to. Maybe they've got friends there, whatever.

But not everything is as simple as shutting bad people out of your life.

Oh if we speak about gardening for example? Maybe the FC is using the garden just to grow minions, glazenuts to make gil for the FC ect, so the FC leader is locked out for using it for his or her own personal gain. My old FC never had the leader doing anything with the house, an officer did the decoration, the gardening and all that, he was really just the FC leader in name, and I think most FCs are ran like that.

I feel as if I'm bashing my head against a brick wall now though, and you're only willing to see it from one side, whereas I already said the system is stupid multiply times, but every argument you've brought up can be turned around so easily as well.
Not everyone is some greedy booman who happens to own a FC house you know? If you don't like how it is being ran, well, there's always other options, such as making gil to buy your own home, joining another FC ect.

That said, people without a FC, and with a personal house, don't have access to a personal rooms in their house. Should we go whine about that as well? I don't see anyone making a massive issue out of that as well, whereas I see plenty of FCs using alts ect to make rooms for their roleplay purposes, while people without a FC but a personal house have just a house to roleplay in. Housing system is massively flawed. Yes this is one step, but trying to bash down the people who happen to have gil for both just sounds like jealously.

**Unnamed Mercenary** · **10-20-2015, 12:34 PM**

Seriously, people. Take a breath. BREATHE.

Count to 10. Slowly.

It's gonna be OK

--

Nothing is really changing here. Sure the couple of people who afforded a house and quit the game are going to lose their property. (Good! They aren't using it!)

The new reclamation system isn't going to fix asshole FC leaders or people aiming to make insane gil profits by wasting their gil to buy a plot and selling it for more to recoup that loss now that it did previously.

Lydia Lightfoot · **10-20-2015, 12:34 PM**

Perhaps this has been answered elsewhere, but has SE given any reason for the lack of demand-driven wards?

Housing in another MMO, Lord of the Rings Online, was very much like it is in FFXIV - wards of houses, and each ward had the same layout as the other wards. Their system was set up to generate two (or three? I don't remember) vacant wards if the existing wards were 90% of a given house size (there were three sizes) were purchased, or if the existing wards were just 80% full overall across all sizes. Servers with low populations just ended up with few wards, while the popular ones had many wards.

I'm totally at a loss as to why that wouldn't work for FFXIV. Has there been a dev explanation for the current Super Restricted Availability Policy?

Aaron · **10-20-2015, 12:37 PM**

Y'all sound like a Home Owners Association committee.

Virella · **10-20-2015, 12:39 PM**

(10-20-2015, 12:34 PM)Unnamed Mercenary Wrote: Seriously, people. Take a breath. BREATHE.

Count to 10. Slowly.

It's gonna be OK

--

Nothing is really changing here. Sure the couple of people who afforded a house and quit the game are going to lose their property. (Good! They aren't using it!)

The new reclamation system isn't going to fix asshole FC leaders or people aiming to make insane gil profits by wasting their gil to buy a plot and selling it for more to recoup that loss now that it did previously.

If anything that 80% money back guarantee is going to justify it even more to sell houses at high prices. I'm kinda sure this is going to do more damage then good, with the exception of a few people getting lucky enough to snatch a plot who happens to be open.

Kage · **10-20-2015, 12:46 PM**

(10-20-2015, 12:34 PM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote: Perhaps this has been answered elsewhere, but has SE given any reason for the lack of demand-driven wards?

Housing in another MMO, Lord of the Rings Online, was very much like it is in FFXIV - wards of houses, and each ward had the same layout as the other wards. Their system was set up to generate two (or three? I don't remember) vacant wards if the existing wards were 90% of a given house size (there were three sizes) were purchased, or if the existing wards were just 80% full overall across all sizes. Servers with low populations just ended up with few wards, while the popular ones had many wards.

I'm totally at a loss as to why that wouldn't work for FFXIV. Has there been a dev explanation for the current Super Restricted Availability Policy?

I've read that LotRO reached similar issues according to this post.

There is housing in other worlds so the issue is that the far more populated wards reach full much faster. Their system applies to the worlds at large and not per world so there's plenty of housing on the other worlds but the more active ones got full. They implemented essentially what SE is doing now.

Cato · **10-20-2015, 01:09 PM**

I think most people will agree that FFXIV's housing system has numerous flaws and hasn't been implemented as well as it could have been. I don't think we'll get a major revamp of the system until the PS3 is dropped though. I can relate to the frustration - I'd love to purchase a house for my own character after having a bunch of fun with Wildstar's and Rift's player housing.Â

After all, decorating a part of the game world that belongs to you serves to encourage long term investment - especially if there's all sorts of nifty perks and features attached to something like player housing.

Hopefully there will be more wards and plots added in 3.1 - and hopefully larger servers such as Balmung will get a lot more than needed to tide us over for quite some time.

Edgar · **10-20-2015, 01:16 PM**

Inactivity on FC/player parts ruin everything, so this is a good place to start in improving the housing system. I see it as a "two birds, one stone" response.

Lydia Lightfoot · **10-20-2015, 01:35 PM**

(10-20-2015, 12:46 PM)Kage Wrote: I've read that LotRO reached similar issues according to this post.

There is housing in other worlds so the issue is that the far more populated wards reach full much faster. Their system applies to the worlds at large and not per world so there's plenty of housing on the other worlds but the more active ones got full. They implemented essentially what SE is doing now.

It did... sort of. People didn't understand the system, and so they would complain because they couldn't get the exact specific land spot that they wanted (certain spots in a ward are always more popular than others due to the view or whatever, I'm sure that's the case in FFXIV too). What they didn't realize was that if they and a friend paid a little gold to buy up the last couple spots for houses of that size, it would trigger the server to generate new wards due to crossing that "availability threshold", which it wasn't currently wasn't due to those couple of "not in the popular spot" houses of the given size being available.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (7): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next » Jump to page:

Reclamation of Inactive Housing (details)

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes