Savej Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Just pay for the WZ access separately as long as it is less than the sub fee... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UGLYMRJ Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) Three a week is fine. F2P was never meant for PvPers to play for free. The real issue is somehow making the three games they play quality games. Maybe have a F2P-only queue? A F2P queue could actually work assuming there is enough of them... which I think there would be. I still like my idea of a recruit bracket because it would improve the fresh 50 experience for ALL players and give a normalized queue for people who prefer that kind of system. Here's the thread if ya didn't catch it before. I agree that something needs to be done though. I think it's a fair assumption to say that a fresh 50 on a F2P model would NOT want to subscribe if put up against a fully min/max team with 3-4 players from Don't Panic or MVP.... Subscription... lost. Edit: IDK now... after thinking about it... that would be tough. If there was a F2P queue... with them only getting 3 WZ's a week it would probably take forever to pop. I see them getting some decent attention from the F2P model but not enough for that on 3 WZ's a week. Edited October 17, 2012 by UGLYMRJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UGLYMRJ Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Yeah I agree while I thought it might be a bit more giving to much access would be a negative as they want players to ultimately pay to play this game. That's the way I see it... if they do it right it has potential to revive the game. I think if they're smart about it they could pull in a large amount of subs from this and more money means more content and more attention to this game. Which I still feel has a ton of potential. It's just harder to revive than it is to start strong and that's what is hurting em. If they would have held off until this year for release I think we would be standing a much higher populations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqgarvis Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Most of you lack empathy, you have to look at this from Bio Wares perspective, and a new players perpective. Bio Wares target demographic for F2P is us (well people who will be consistant players, and will want/need to have full access). They shouldn't make F2P enticing so that current subscribers will drop and join F2P, but at the same time they want those people that "Taste" the end game content to desire and ultimately pay for end game content. They aren't so much concerned about the people who are going to hit 50, play for a week then quit or someone who doesn't play addictively, they want a specific personality demographic. People have money and will spend it, if they choose to spend it, the trick is getting people to make that choice. For those of you concerned with the 3 Warzone limit per week, while I am sure you are all either entrepreneurs or game developers yourself (so yes you have THE solution), it doesn't matter since the F2P model and its success or failure completely lies on Bio Ware. While I think there are many obvious reason to NOT increase the weekly warzone limit here is one that I think you will find interesting. The people who start and play F2P will be queueing Warzones with you, the more games they play per week the more you will complain and since they don't have an option of increasing gear at your rate (outside of paying for it) they won't have decent gear for quite some time, so less is more in how it will effect the subscribed players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joesixxpack Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) > 3 is fine for a bit of fun and test drive. > Want more? Pay more, and it's scalable so not much to complain about there. > Want even more? $15 per month sub is cheap. Not everyone can afford it? Such is life. /Thread. Edited October 17, 2012 by Joesixxpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UGLYMRJ Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 > 3 is fine for a bit of fun and test drive. > Want more? Pay more, and it's scalable so not much to complain about there. > Want even more? $15 per month sub is cheap. Not everyone can afford it? Such is life. /Thread. LOL well said sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technohic Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Why not just 3 a week in which they can use WH gear; but can queue as much as they want in recruit, but htye can only be on a team with other free to players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soljin Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 > 3 is fine for a bit of fun and test drive. > Want more? Pay more, and it's scalable so not much to complain about there. > Want even more? $15 per month sub is cheap. Not everyone can afford it? Such is life. /Thread. This! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelodicSixNine Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) This will make world pvp more prevalant hopefully! With those death penalty(medical probe limited) for F2P players? haha Edited October 17, 2012 by MelodicSixNine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 its free u want more things for free? 50 cents a day = full game features u cannot even buy candies for that No. I want MORE paying PvPers - I want to make sure the experience doesn't suck for F2P players who try it one week. 3 warzones doesn't offer that because of reasons I've listed. After 3, I bet most F2P players will be frustrated by the experience...not encouraged to play more and surely unlikely to PAY for more. There are better ways to do this IMO. A weekly allotment of 6-8 with a 3 per day cap, or limit it to 3 WINS per week...because 3 frustrating warzones where you're out-gunned and out-manned that end in a slaughter will most certainly NOT encourage players to buy more WZ's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groncho Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 No. I want MORE paying PvPers - I want to make sure the experience doesn't suck for F2P players who try it one week. 3 warzones doesn't offer that because of reasons I've listed. After 3, I bet most F2P players will be frustrated by the experience...not encouraged to play more and surely unlikely to PAY for more. There are better ways to do this IMO. A weekly allotment of 6-8 with a 3 per day cap, or limit it to 3 WINS per week...because 3 frustrating warzones where you're out-gunned and out-manned that end in a slaughter will most certainly NOT encourage players to buy more WZ's. i agree with having more players sadly those who where gaming dind't left due to the cost of the game They left left due to other things all the ppl rolling in f2p for pvp will fight against full wh augmented ppl......give them 3 or 5 or 15 free Wz's they will still be rolled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technohic Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Maybe not. How many cartel coins for full augmented WH gear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldin Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) No. I want MORE paying PvPers - I want to make sure the experience doesn't suck for F2P players who try it one week. 3 warzones doesn't offer that because of reasons I've listed. After 3, I bet most F2P players will be frustrated by the experience...not encouraged to play more and surely unlikely to PAY for more. There are better ways to do this IMO. A weekly allotment of 6-8 with a 3 per day cap, or limit it to 3 WINS per week...because 3 frustrating warzones where you're out-gunned and out-manned that end in a slaughter will most certainly NOT encourage players to buy more WZ's. Agreed. (Though limiting 3 wins per week would likely encourage F2Ps to intentionally lose, so they could keep playing warzones) I highly doubt we'll see many F2P players willing spending money on passes week after week. Which means either they will subscribe, or they will simply leave the game. Which means less players playing warzones, which hurts the game as a whole. Really, they should just be giving warzones away for free, or at least only charging players a one-time unlock fee. And then make money by putting "Increase Commendations Earned" buffs in the shop. Edited October 17, 2012 by Coldin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trews Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 > 3 is fine for a bit of fun and test drive. > Want more? Pay more, and it's scalable so not much to complain about there. > Want even more? $15 per month sub is cheap. Not everyone can afford it? Such is life. /Thread. We have a winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirorx Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Isn't that the point of F2P? Try and lure them in and hopefully get them hooked so they pay to advance? I dont think so. I think a trial is designed to do this. Rather than adopting an actual F2P for all of us, in which the company makes money off micro transactions. They have actually taken away so much content that F2P is not viable and despite EA's CEO claiming that subscription games are going to the wayside in a world of F2P games, they have come up with a way to force SWTOR to continue as a P2P game but with micro transactions that will, and you can quote me later, be a huge part of this games future. Here is some stuff from EA's CEO http://www.rantgaming.com/2012/07/23/ea-ceo-riccitiello-on-swtor-f2p-and-their-shift-in-business-model/ This guy loves money and getting you to part with it,is what the future holds. If you think your going to stay P2P and only pay 15 dollars a month, think again. You will pay for the content you have been paying for since January and you will also be nickle and dimed to no end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UGLYMRJ Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 No. I want MORE paying PvPers - I want to make sure the experience doesn't suck for F2P players who try it one week. 3 warzones doesn't offer that because of reasons I've listed. After 3, I bet most F2P players will be frustrated by the experience...not encouraged to play more and surely unlikely to PAY for more. There are better ways to do this IMO. A weekly allotment of 6-8 with a 3 per day cap, or limit it to 3 WINS per week...because 3 frustrating warzones where you're out-gunned and out-manned that end in a slaughter will most certainly NOT encourage players to buy more WZ's. I agree... and I think THIS solves that problem. I think this one simple change will fix a lot of frustration for fresh 50's and the F2P players that are coming. While I'm glad they're limited... 3 a week is a little harsh. But with PvP as it stands right now, I don't really see it being an enjoyable experience for fresh 50's who only get to experience 3 WZ's a week. Unless some changes are made I don't see the F2P model being effective for getting subscriptions from potential PvP'ers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DegreesOfFreedom Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 > 3 is fine for a bit of fun and test drive. > Want more? Pay more, and it's scalable so not much to complain about there. > Want even more? $15 per month sub is cheap. Not everyone can afford it? Such is life. /Thread. ^ Cold truth man. Ya I agree, this is exactly what f2p model would do. And while I also agree with you OP that the limit is a little too small, you have to look at it from the perspective of the company, they want to make some money. Honestly though if the people do not want this model, they can always play guild wars 2, which is another excellent game in my opinion and also superior and better spvp (competitive) at the moment. Plus there's no limitations!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synthsovereign Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) I agree with the OP. The goal with F2P is twofold: 1) Get more people into the game to enhance the enjoyment of participating in an MMO for the paying players. Basically, from BioWare's perspective, they hope this will make them more money as current subscribers will enjoy their product more. 2) Make the experience so enjoyable that F2Players will want to become subscribers. Again, basically, BioWare wants to make more money. Which is fine. Limiting Free to Players in the number of Warzones they can play is a TERRIBLE idea. Instead, F2P's should receive a different Daily PvP quest than subscribers. Heck, just make it the same quest that the game launched with where they need to get 6 actual wins instead of our current 4 losses/2 wins quest. That way, F2P's continue to make the game as fun as possible for subscribers, and, are still incentivized to want to become subscribers themselves since gearing would become fundamentally easier. Maybe even consider keeping the F2P PvP Weekly the same as it is for everyone right now, but allow subscribers to get one that is 8 losses/4 wins? Edited October 17, 2012 by synthsovereign Grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vimm Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Three a week is fine. F2P was never meant for PvPers to play for free. The real issue is somehow making the three games they play quality games. Maybe have a F2P-only queue? Maybe. Or maybe that's a terrible idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PowerReaper Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 3 war zones? how will they get weeklies done? ROFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polebreaker Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I agree with the OP. The goal with F2P is twofold: 1) Get more people into the game to enhance the enjoyment of participating in an MMO for the paying players. Basically, from BioWare's perspective, they hope this will make them more money as current subscribers will enjoy their product more. 2) Make the experience so enjoyable that F2Players will want to become subscribers. Again, basically, BioWare wants to make more money. Which is fine. Limiting Free to Players in the number of Warzones they can play is a TERRIBLE idea. Instead, F2P's should receive a different Daily PvP quest than subscribers. Heck, just make it the same quest that the game launched with where they need to get 6 actual wins instead of our current 4 losses/2 wins quest. That way, F2P's continue to make the game as fun as possible for subscribers, and, are still incentivized to want to become subscribers themselves since gearing would become fundamentally easier. Maybe even consider keeping the F2P PvP Weekly the same as it is for everyone right now, but allow subscribers to get one that is 8 losses/4 wins? Good ideas. Successful f2p systems slow free player progress, they dont just cut it off and make it impossible to compete. Paying $$ should be a bonus, not a requirement. How about f2p'ers can play however much they want, but there is no dailyi/weekly quest, and they get only half the xp/comms/credits per match. And also lose the HORRIBLE item restriction idea that has all but killed "f2p" in Sony's games... restrictions are not an incentive to pay. They are a turnoff, and nobody's going to keep a 20gig game loaded and updated for 3 warzones a week... that idea is a frelling joke. There are far better Actually Free pvp games out there than this one. Ah well, welcome thread to the pvp forum, where it will never again even have a chance to grace a bigwig's eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I agree with the OP. The goal with F2P is twofold: 1) Get more people into the game to enhance the enjoyment of participating in an MMO for the paying players. Basically, from BioWare's perspective, they hope this will make them more money as current subscribers will enjoy their product more. 2) Make the experience so enjoyable that F2Players will want to become subscribers. Again, basically, BioWare wants to make more money. Which is fine. Limiting Free to Players in the number of Warzones they can play is a TERRIBLE idea. Instead, F2P's should receive a different Daily PvP quest than subscribers. Heck, just make it the same quest that the game launched with where they need to get 6 actual wins instead of our current 4 losses/2 wins quest. That way, F2P's continue to make the game as fun as possible for subscribers, and, are still incentivized to want to become subscribers themselves since gearing would become fundamentally easier. Maybe even consider keeping the F2P PvP Weekly the same as it is for everyone right now, but allow subscribers to get one that is 8 losses/4 wins? I like this idea actually. P2P needs to be incentivized over F2P. That's how I've found the best F2P games to be set-up...I wanted MORE and paying a sub gave me that...same content, just a helluva lot easier time achieving my goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doomsdaycomes Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 There should be no restriction for F2P to do anything. Do BW not understand the F2P model at all? All they did with this was extend the free trial a bit its still a subscription game really. With F2P you only should be paying for stuff like xp boosts maybe a boost to make mobs drop more credits and of course visual changes to your armour hair make up piercings whatever lol. With this "F"2P theyre launching at the min its absolutely not going to bring anyone back into the game for an extended period at all at best it may coax a few new subs who may or may not stick it out. A cynic would say this is just EA/BW/Whoever trying to squeeze a few more dollars out of the game without thinking about its long term survival as an MMO cause there is no way with this model that the game is going to survive The above model is known as P2W, or pay to win. If Swtor ever goes that route, I will unsub and move onto the next game. I'm not overly fond of limiting Free Players so harshly, but at the same time I pay 15 bucks a month. As someone pointed out, that's little more than 50 cents a day. If someone actually cares about the game, a full sub is nothing. If not, then they can be restricted to hell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I'm not overly fond of limiting Free Players so harshly, but at the same time I pay 15 bucks a month. As someone pointed out, that's little more than 50 cents a day. If someone actually cares about the game, a full sub is nothing. If not, then they can be restricted to hell What a jaded and negative attitude... We need people to TRY, and LIKE, this game. Restricting them "to hell" sure doesn't help with that. We need them to WANT more...not just PAY more. They've already demonstrated an unwillingness to pay for the game NOW, how on earth do you think restricting them "to hell" encourages them to subscribe?! Do you not see the problem with that thinking??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkSaberMaster Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 What a jaded and negative attitude... We need people to TRY, and LIKE, this game. Restricting them "to hell" sure doesn't help with that. We need them to WANT more...not just PAY more. They've already demonstrated an unwillingness to pay for the game NOW, how on earth do you think restricting them "to hell" encourages them to subscribe?! Do you not see the problem with that thinking??? Well, dern. I can't believe somebody actually gets it about F2P and why it will not save this game or encourage people to play and subscribe to it. The highlighted part is the core of my above statement. But some people would rather bury their heads in the sand and hope and dream that F2P is the second coming for this game. If people didn't subscribe to the game before after it's been out these last 10 months, they are not going to subscribe now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts