falcon_Xtreme Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 (edited) There are people including myself who subscribe for just pvp. if you remove the warzone restrictions for f2p (as hinted in the dev post) why should said group of subscribers continue paying and supporting the game. taking 8 man ranked from us and giving us 3 arenas and the promise of f2p players stinks tbh Edited August 15, 2013 by falcon_Xtreme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrewFromPhilly Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Tbh i think that shows how little biofail thinks of pvp, that surely most players would rather be doing the *awesome* story driven content and pve and will only occasionally dabble in pvp (ha!). Anyway, why support the game that has done almost nothing pvp-wise since release? The game that has actually removed about as much pvp-content as they've added since release? Take advantage of it. Cancel the subscription and keep playing pvp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suromir Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Tbh i think that shows how little biofail thinks of pvp, that surely most players would rather be doing the *awesome* story driven content and pve and will only occasionally dabble in pvp (ha!). Anyway, why support the game that has done almost nothing pvp-wise since release? The game that has actually removed about as much pvp-content as they've added since release? Take advantage of it. Cancel the subscription and keep playing pvp. because it's a fact, despite what pvp'ers tell themselves, that PVP is a small portion of the playerbase and most are here for the PvE you seem to forget that BioWare has their fabled "metrics" that tells them exactly who's doing what and how many there are...they wouldn't be doing this if the sub PvP'ers were a significant portion of the playerbase...they'd lose money. fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodsy Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 I guess the idea behind it is open up PVP to everyone to try increase the number of people who actively play PVP. If it works i guess they would start adding more content that requires sub or a cartel market unlock. Just a way of luring people into a potential profit increase. Imagine when patch 2.4 goes live and all the F2P flock to PVP along side there normal questing as a way to level fast or avoid planet missions. They get a taste for it and start playing PVP more seriously. Once there hooked BAM! they release sub content and/or Cartel unlock content. Although that would mean a HUGE influx of "noob" PVP players meaning drastic loses for experienced PVP players. All fun and games! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankiel Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 (edited) I for one am happy with the change. Last month I was f2p. The only thing I did miss was warzones. Now I can unsubscribe and do warzones. Win! Besides this will get us more players in pvp. Win! Edited August 15, 2013 by jankiel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Moonshadow Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Dunno why you're complaining. More bodies to drop. right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcon_Xtreme Posted August 15, 2013 Author Share Posted August 15, 2013 I for one am hapy with the change.Last month I was f2p. The only thing I did miss was warzones. Now I can unsubscribe and do warzones. Win! Besides this will get us more players in pvp. Win! thats the point! the group of people that subscribe to only pvp (however big or small that amount is) will follow suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcon_Xtreme Posted August 15, 2013 Author Share Posted August 15, 2013 (edited) because it's a fact, despite what pvp'ers tell themselves, that PVP is a small portion of the playerbase and most are here for the PvE you seem to forget that BioWare has their fabled "metrics" that tells them exactly who's doing what and how many there are...they wouldn't be doing this if the sub PvP'ers were a significant portion of the playerbase...they'd lose money.fact. the significant difference between the pvp/pve player base has nothing to do with my comments which were clearly directed to those like me that pay to pvp (no matter how small or large that group is) there will still be a drop in paid subscriptions for these actions. cause and effect. why pay for something if you can get it for free? Edited August 15, 2013 by falcon_Xtreme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Moonshadow Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 thats the point! the group of people that subscribe to only pvp (however big or small that amount is) will follow suit. And? What does it matter if PVPers aren't paying anymore? Not like you're losing anything of value. You play to kill each other. So what are you really losing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcon_Xtreme Posted August 15, 2013 Author Share Posted August 15, 2013 And? What does it matter if PVPers aren't paying anymore? Not like you're losing anything of value. You play to kill each other. So what are you really losing? nothing. i'll be gaining 15 dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Moonshadow Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 nothing. i'll be gaining 15 dollars. So there is zero problems. You just created the thread to freak out for no reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcon_Xtreme Posted August 15, 2013 Author Share Posted August 15, 2013 So there is zero problems. You just created the thread to freak out for no reason. knee jerk reaction i guess. im bruce banner again now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rykko Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 I'm guessing subs will get as much ranked/arena access as they want, but subs will be even less value for money. Assuming the costs are the same you will be able to pick up passes for that on the GTN as a F2P. I don't mind as I bought all the unlocks I needed with the extra credits from being a sub and outside of Treek there's nothing I'm interested in on their cash shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlrikFassbauer Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 (edited) I didn't realise that there was a 2-class-system regrding PvP ? Edited August 15, 2013 by AlrikFassbauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skaol-dirtyd Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 (edited) And? What does it matter if PVPers aren't paying anymore? Not like you're losing anything of value. You play to kill each other. So what are you really losing? Well himself and others who go that route would not be losing anything. As stated they would be gaining their sub fee back. Who would be losing is Bioware & the rest of the active sub base. Why? Well besides the obvious reason of loss of revenue from the PVP subs that will go F2P, it will also mean less development dollars for the company to create more content. Now this could be the initial scenario. If somehow they think that opening up the WZ's will attract people to sub then it may pull the revenue back in down the road. However I just don't see this happening. Of course that is just my opinion and like the Dude says: "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." Edited August 15, 2013 by Skaol-dirtyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aries_cz Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 I have to admit, this part of the blog has hit me as a bit odd. there are people who only sub to have unlimited warzones. I am concerned that sub base will drop again if this is introduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpactHound Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 (edited) Am I the only person seeing the fact that free players will have nothing to use but bolster, and subscribers get to wear their pvp purples they earn? I thought it was kind of obvious. Free players interested in pvp get to mess around, but can never top out if they want to be serious. That's the lure to buy a subscription or at the very least buy a crappy temp gear license. Edited August 15, 2013 by ImpactHound edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pathlight- Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 The last fail in a long line of BW's pvp blunders. The incompetence of those guys in Austin is unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aries_cz Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Am I the only person seeing the fact that free players will have nothing to use but bolster, and subscribers get to wear their pvp purples they earn? I thought it was kind of obvious. Free players interested in pvp get to mess around, but can never top out if they want to be serious. That's the lure to buy a subscription or at the very least buy a crappy temp gear license. Well of course it is a ploy to sell more purple authorization tokens, but still, I wonder if it will outweigh the amount of lost subscribers who apparently only subscribe because of PvP... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briljin Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 because it's a fact, despite what pvp'ers tell themselves, that PVP is a small portion of the playerbase and most are here for the PvE Or they finally understand that a thriving PvP base requires far more participants than PvE. Try and remember that any given WZ should have 16 players, four times the number you need for a standard PvE instance. Not to mention there is no cool down upon WZs, so you need a much larger pool of players to sustain a constant WZ turn over rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalenMourne Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 (edited) Guess i have to say the same thing in every one of these threads. Exact quote: Removing the F2P restriction for entering the Warzones. Entering is the key word. Flashpoints are free to enter, but the rewards are limited. The pass removes the limit. I bet you the warzone pass will become the same thing. They will put a weekly cap on coms. With new gear coming roughly every 6 months they will cap the coms to ensure it will take 4-6 months to fully gear up best in slot without paying anything. And those saying you can just buy the pass off the gtn, what happens when you all drop to ftp and there are not enough passes to go around? Who is gonna subsidize you? The pve crowd? Lol , doubt it.. Even if all the strictly pvp players dropped to ftp you will still have to spend money to gear. You might be able to spend less than a full sub, but don't think you will be able to go full free. These people are running a business, trust me they have looked over the numbers and thought of all this. They will balance with the expectation that more people will come back because they can now play ranked and reg pvp without a sub, but will still have to spend some money to remain competitive. Edited August 15, 2013 by GalenMourne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordArtemis Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 There is little point in complaining that what you once paid for you will now get for free. If that is a problem I imagine one could continue paying if they wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neoforcer Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 There are people including myself who subscribe for just pvp. if you remove the warzone restrictions for f2p (as hinted in the dev post) why should said group of subscribers continue paying and supporting the game. taking 8 man ranked from us and giving us 3 arenas and the promise of f2p players stinks tbh Becasue you will not be able to wear top end gear giving you a huge disadvantage over me the subscriber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
announcerharris Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 I doubt ranked PvP will be an option for F2P players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedip_enguin Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 Removing the restriction increases the available PvP playerbase, meaning more matches, which should theoretically improve things for PvP players They simply need to reward subs more comms per match played or some other incentive in order to keep the sub worthwhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts