Is the F2P/Preffered system too prohibitive, and if so, what should change?

[Atashirley]

The restrictive chat thing sounds bad.

 

What I don't like is the credit cap though, or at least how low it is.

 

If a player has the ethic or ingenuity to acquire "x" amount of credits, then they should be able to enjoy them. I believe this would encourage the player(s) to spend more time on the game and thus contribute to the community in some way in doing so, and potentially even look to sub/spend cash based on their experience and time invested. The current set-up is much more like an ultimatum, as I doubt the f2p population sticks around for very long once they realize the extent of their limitations.

 

The other thing is that it's great for subbers and cashers to make more money. As it stands, cartel items sold over the credit cap appeal to a very narrow audience (presumably those who sub or cash but prefer to buy other things). But if F2P/preferred players could conceivably pay for these items with hard-earned credits then the market would open up much more, and you're less likely to have clowns price-crashing out of desperation.

 

So yeah, that's my perspective. Idk about any chat restrictions because I subbed relatively quickly in this game, but that sounds lame as well.

[Volthorne]

repair costs, augment costs, the cost of moving around the mods, they are adding gambling in a few days that is a pure credit sink, etc etc. not to mention- its going to sell for a bit higher then mil, I think, not that its difficult to make at lvl 50 + and that is the whole point - its not something you would be forced to do, its something that will be another option for people

Repair costs are (hopefully) minimal at worst (unless you die. A lot.). Augment is fairly expensive, yes, but you only need to do it once per piece of gear and then never again. Moving around mods? Please, don't make me laugh. If you're going to be serious about PvP then you get a second set of armor specifically for PvP. Or, if you just like buying armors and want a bunch of different armors with very good mods then you buy more mods, not move them around. None of those are permanent credit sinks.

 

Now, you do mention gambling, but unless there are a lot of super rare rewards, then it's going to release, get a few days of attention, and then only ever be used by newer players looking to get better gear potentially faster. Or used by noone because it will be terrible, of which there is a chance to happen.

 

are you claiming that subscription is free? because subscribers are paying a minimum of $13 a month for that continuous access. the whole thing is choice. do you want to pay a lumpsum to get unlocks and then have, ostensibly no monthly fee, and be able to play as sporadically or as regularly as you wish. or do you just want to be a set monthly fee and get all access. think of it as a phone plan. you could go for prepaid and pay on per call/text basis, or just buy a monthly unlimited plan and not worry about having to refill your minutes in the middle of the month.

Uh.... what. How do you even get such a line of thought from what I said? I was describing how there are zero "perks" that subscribers need to buy once they subscribe. Literally nothing. Everything they buy from there-on-out is cosmetic or superficial to actually playing the game. Your example is also faulty. Freeps and Preferred must also pay a monthly fee of sorts even after they've unlocked everything else if they want to access Warzones, or Ops, FPs, or space missions in the form of weekly passes ($10/mo per content mode, or 1.4mil credits, assuming they're being sold at 350k/pass).

 

It was certainly better conceived than that fallacy-ridden yarn about the pack of hipsters trying to score free beer.

That's not even my analogy....? I will also agree it was pretty bad.

 

-snip for brevity-

Look, that's all well and good, assuming that each person who buys the "lease" is moving into an identical house - or for more cohesiveness, an apartment - but why does renting the apartment get you more "free" things for less of a cost than buying the apartment? You rented the apartment, great, and the landlord gives you all of this furniture for free! But then he takes it away again after you stop renting... And to top it off, the utility bills (monthly vs the yearly property tax) you have to pay if you buy the apartment (and all the furniture) are three times higher than the rent you previously had to pay, in which utilities are always included....

 

Why did you get the free furniture in the first place? Why did your utilities skyrocket? Can you explain either of those to me in a reasonable fashion?

 

I don't know if this is intentional or not, but it's a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

Oh really? By all means, please continue! Enlighten me to this "blatant misrepresentation" you claim I have committed.

 

The statement is absolutely correct. It most certainly is not even close to "false".

 

So, to the first.....

 

Name one perk. Appearance Kiosk.

Still false, the Appearance Kiosk is not a "perk". It provides neither advantage nor benefit.

 

1) Subs get quite a few perks for subscribing that F2P/Preferred do not get, no matter how much they unlock or pay for.

 

2) Subs are still required to pay money for certain perks, despite being subs. I can give examples if you wish, if this part still confuses you. The operative words in the statement are "can" and "do", not "have to".

 

3) To further clarify #2, there are perks that F2P and Preferred purchase in the game that Subs also have to pay for IF THEY WANT THEM. The automatic payment of coins for subs helps, and a person could wait quite a few months to afford to purchase items, but essentially a sub does not get those items or perks for free in most cases. All three could buy certain perks and items on the GTN when and if they come available.

1) Everything a Sub gets, Freeps and Preferred can get as well via payment of either hard-currency or soft-currency, be it temporary or permanent, with the exception of pre-order and CE-exclusive bonuses. Stating otherwise is both ridiculous and irresponsible.

 

2) You have not given me a single example yet. Everything that could be considered a "perk" (that is, it conveys an advantage or benefit) is either inherently unlocked to Subs, in which case they need not pay, or is available via credits, in which case they need not pay - though they still could in the style of "Pay2GoFaster". They are required to pay $0 past their subscription fee.

 

3) To further clarify, the only reason Subs would buy perks from the CM is to in turn sell them on the GTN to Freeps and Preferred for a sum of soft-currency.

 

-snip for irrelevant-

 

BTW...I am the OP. Perhaps you were not aware that I am an advocate of lessening some of the more draconian features in the F2P system. I find it rather odd that you would decide to focus your vitriol on me considering I started the topic in the first place.

And I made my views on your suggestions clear some pages earlier. I admire you for having the balls to start this topic, but I vehemently disagree with you on any of your suggestions would impact restrictions in the slightest. At the very best they make the restrictions less noticeable as opposed to actually doing something about them.

 

EDIT:

I believe they have some message restrictions, as far as having to wait to post the next message, correct? If that is so, that must be what folks are complaining about. I think open unrestricted communication between free and preferred players (NOT SUBS) is the way to go.

1 minute between messages sent in General Chat is the restriction. It really sucks if you're trying to have a conversation with multiple people. Or, you know, trying to ask questions about stuff like new players do.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Volthorne

[Umbura]

F2p players have no forum privileges, only subs can post.

Unless you mean limitations, then yes, a F2p forum might be a good idea.

 

And a piece of the wall of crazy for F2p players, yes.

Good idea.

...

Is it possible to put that idea on the wall of crazy ? Plz !

Edited June 3, 2014 by Umbura

[Fidelicatessen]

After the cap is reached it sounds with every single coin that is deposited. Apparently that is viewed as a nag to subscribe to the game, and many folks seem to find that rather sleazy. I'm not sure about that, but I do think it is a bit excessive. Shutting off the sound would suffice.

 

Do those folks find it more or less sleazy than playing a game for free and yet complaining about the limitations?

[scarlet_magpie]

Make them wash your car. Give them each $5 for doing it. BOOM problem solved. They start learning that money has to be earned and they can become preferred.

 

This won't work. I do not want to be responsible for financial transactions for somebody else's children. Neither do I think it is healthy for a child of 11 to have an online account which involves real money payments.

 

F2P is ideal for the kids to play until such time as they are old enough to decide if they wish to commit to paying for something. At that point (15 years or so) , your point may work.

 

I like to help them out in-game (the same way I like to help them to learn to play football). I simply said i wish the incoming trade option was available (ie: F2P'ers can only RECIEVE goods and credits.).

 

Apart from that, it works. It's FREE and a great game.

[SgtJeremy]

It should be more restrictive. Give freebies 25-30 levels. Preferred 30-35 levels. Don't care about the fluff crap like Hide helmet and stuff. I was preferred decided to sub cause I need the unlimited Warzones, but if it wasn't for my enjoyment of PvP I wouldn't bother subbing at all. With $30-40 you don't really need to sub ever if you don't care about Warzones. Bam get my hide head slot, match colours I'm good to PvE. Most flashpoint gear isn't all that great. Freebies get full comms, maybe cut those too. Free to Play should just be an appetizer to the good stuff.

[DarthTHC]

This won't work. I do not want to be responsible for financial transactions for somebody else's children. Neither do I think it is healthy for a child of 11 to have an online account which involves real money payments.

 

F2P is ideal for the kids to play until such time as they are old enough to decide if they wish to commit to paying for something. At that point (15 years or so) , your point may work.

 

I like to help them out in-game (the same way I like to help them to learn to play football). I simply said i wish the incoming trade option was available (ie: F2P'ers can only RECIEVE goods and credits.).

 

Apart from that, it works. It's FREE and a great game.

 

You just talked yourself into a circle.

 

You don't want to be responsible for financial transactions for someone else's kids... but you're ok with dictating what those kids should and should not be able to do WRT online accounts.

 

How about the kids who aren't yours wash your car, you give them each $5 or $10 and they take the money to mom or dad and ask them to make their accounts preferred with it?

 

If mom & dad won't let them, oh well, maybe they can buy an ice cream next time the truck rolls around or, better yet, stuff it into a piggy bank. But, hey, they learned how to earn money.

 

BOOM problem solved again.

[GreySix]

What I read when I see threads like this: "I'm a subscriber at the moment but I want to stop paying for the game and don't want to give up the subscriber perks that I like."

 

Yeah, that fits me.

[Dropadeuce]

What I read when I see threads like this: "I'm a subscriber at the moment but I want to stop paying for the game and don't want to give up the subscriber perks that I like."

 

That's what i got out of it..

[Guancyto]

I was in beta, bought the game new, and subscribed for six months (plus the free one that came with the game) at the start. Then a couple more months at the advent of F2P to see how things had turned out. Just now I've bought another month's subscription because I was curious about Rise of the Hutt Cartel and subscribing for a month was cheaper.

 

I'm going to say something crazy and say, as a person who has endured F2P restrictions for more than a year now, F2P restrictions are way more annoying and petty than they are actually restrictive. As a freeper, you cannot go five minutes without being reminded that you are not a subscriber. But as a freeper, you don't give a damn. After a while, you just start to point and laugh at the desperation of it. "Oh god, please subscribe, we'll... we'll lower your vendor prices! We'll give you credit boxes! We'll stop bothering you about having too many credits! We'll do the dishes! We'll take you out to that fancy place you like! We can change, baby, don't be like this!"

 

The vendor prices were always too low (for those things one actually bought from vendors anyway). The XP was always too high, and rest XP just made it worse. I remember, I leveled my first few characters under Sub XP rates. We were overleveled for everything, even without bonuses or flashpoints. We got off Korriban at level 13 for goodness' sake!

 

Credit cap? Credits are pretty close to worthless when playing, useful only at endgame and in buying unlocks. Purple items? Blues are perfectly sufficient for 95% of the play experience.

 

The really stupid restrictions don't exist to get freepers to subscribe. They exist so that a subscriber who has let their sub lapse is suddenly thrust into a world where dignity does not exist and bad things happen for no reason. They exist so that a lapsed sub suddenly has to think about all the little things that they're missing which don't particularly matter but are made to felt as though they are the most important things. They exist to make transitioning between the two feel like driving on bricks instead of asphalt (but both are totally roads). They exist for threads like this, where the subscribers can get together and talk about all the things in which they are better than the common rabble, none of which really make a difference in 90% of the game (and in the remaining 10%, they can totally pay credits for everything if they're smart about it). They exist to be complained about.

 

They exist so current subscribers will continue to spend hundreds of dollars on a game they have already beaten.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Guancyto

[DarthTHC]

I was in beta, bought the game new, and subscribed for six months (plus the free one that came with the game) at the start. Then a couple more months at the advent of F2P to see how things had turned out. Just now I've bought another month's subscription because I was curious about Rise of the Hutt Cartel and subscribing for a month was cheaper.

 

I'm going to say something crazy and say, as a person who has endured F2P restrictions for more than a year now, F2P restrictions are way more annoying and petty than they are actually restrictive. As a freeper, you cannot go five minutes without being reminded that you are not a subscriber. But as a freeper, you don't give a damn. After a while, you just start to point and laugh at the desperation of it. "Oh god, please subscribe, we'll... we'll lower your vendor prices! We'll give you credit boxes! We'll stop bothering you about having too many credits! We'll do the dishes! We'll take you out to that fancy place you like! We can change, baby, don't be like this!"

 

The vendor prices were always too low (for those things one actually bought from vendors anyway). The XP was always too high, and rest XP just made it worse. I remember, I leveled my first few characters under Sub XP rates. We were overleveled for everything, even without bonuses or flashpoints. We got off Korriban at level 13 for goodness' sake!

 

Credit cap? Credits are pretty close to worthless when playing, useful only at endgame and in buying unlocks. Purple items? Blues are perfectly sufficient for 95% of the play experience.

 

The really stupid restrictions don't exist to get freepers to subscribe. They exist so that a subscriber who has let their sub lapse is suddenly thrust into a world where dignity does not exist and bad things happen for no reason. They exist so that a lapsed sub suddenly has to think about all the little things that they're missing which don't particularly matter but are made to felt as though they are the most important things. They exist to make transitioning between the two feel like driving on bricks instead of asphalt (but both are totally roads). They exist for threads like this, where the subscribers can get together and talk about all the things in which they are better than the common rabble, none of which really make a difference in 90% of the game (and in the remaining 10%, they can totally pay credits for everything if they're smart about it). They exist to be complained about.

 

They exist so current subscribers will continue to spend hundreds of dollars on a game they have already beaten.

 

Your words say that you're perfectly happy as a Premium. Your tone says your complaining. Which is it?

[Guancyto]

My... tone says I'm complaining.

 

In text.

 

What.

 

Look, it's simple. The restrictions are stupid, sure. They're also really not a big deal, and more importantly, they're not in place for the benefit (or detriment) of Preferred players. It's not about me. It's about you, and about making you not want to give an honest try at being Preferred because you've heard such awful things about it.

 

The point I'm trying to make is the restrictions are more "style" than "substance." They're intended to feel much heavier than they are. They're annoying, but they're not actually restrictive. I'm quite happy as Preferred. Spend some time that way and you'll see that the supposed 'perks' you get for subscription amount to basically, "the idiot boyfriend who doesn't accept you broke up will stop texting you all the time" and "you can be more lax about managing your (ingame) money."

 

Fifteen a month for that? Pfft.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Guancyto

[LordArtemis]

Still false, the Appearance Kiosk is not a "perk". It provides neither advantage nor benefit.

 

I think people that value appearance might disagree. Now your just being silly for the sake of argument IMO.

1) Everything a Sub gets, Freeps and Preferred can get as well via payment of either hard-currency or soft-currency, be it temporary or permanent, with the exception of pre-order and CE-exclusive bonuses. Stating otherwise is both ridiculous and irresponsible.

 

Actually your statement turns out to be pretty silly. But that seems to be a pattern for some reason. I think it's pretty clear, once again, what I meant. Now I am sure you knew what I meant, and just decided that you wished to argue.

 

2) You have not given me a single example yet. Everything that could be considered a "perk" (that is, it conveys an advantage or benefit) is either inherently unlocked to Subs, in which case they need not pay, or is available via credits, in which case they need not pay - though they still could in the style of "Pay2GoFaster". They are required to pay $0 past their subscription fee.

 

The great thing about being me is that I do not need to give you anything, and you most certainly do not define what is and what is not a perk. You define it for yourself, you have indicated you do not agree, and you are entitled to that view.

 

Thats not to say your definition of a perk is wrong....only that you do not define it for me. I am more than capable of doing that myself.

 

3) To further clarify, the only reason Subs would buy perks from the CM is to in turn sell them on the GTN to Freeps and Preferred for a sum of soft-currency.

 

I'm pretty sure it is likely there are subs that purchase perks from the CM to use personally. Again, that much should be obvious. In fact, I can think of one sub that has purchased perks from the CM for personal use.

 

That sub would be me.

 

Id like to make it pretty clear that, though you certainly have a right to express your opinion, I think it's pretty obvious that folks in this thread do not appreciate your input.

 

Perhaps you should either change your combative nature or choose to move on to another topic...or start your own.

Edited June 4, 2014 by LordArtemis

[LordArtemis]

Do those folks find it more or less sleazy than playing a game for free and yet complaining about the limitations?

 

I'll bet money you already know the answer to that "question".

[LordArtemis]

I have pointed out the specific parts of the F2P setup here that folks seem to complain about the most web wide. It was not meant to indicate that that is the only thing that is wrong with the F2P system, or even that anything needs to be changed....the idea was to discuss what folks felt...is the F2P/Preferred system too prohibitive (or not enough), and if so what should change?

 

Most folks seem to have been content with sharing how they feel about the current system, what they find right or wrong with it, whether or not it should be more or less restrictive, and I appreciate all the opinions in this respect.

 

To the folks that decided to use the thread to forum PVP, insult free players and the like, I say.....

 

Shenanigans.

[jpscjpsc]

As a sub I feel like F2P is not prohibitive enough. Some of the legacy perks should have been instantly available to subs and should only need to be unlocked by.

 

Quick travel for example should have the reduced cooldown immediately rather than be unlockable.

 

I'm speaking as a very new sub (not even hit the 2 month mark yet) who has a friend who is F2P and its made almost no difference at all to levelling speeds (im marginally higher than him right now). Perhaps at 55 it'll change? I'm not sure, but they should be selling the benefits of subbing not to just level 55s but to lower levels as well since thats where new subs start.

 

I'm not producing much of an alternative here I know but I feel like subbing is just a bit of a rip-off compared to F2P. They don't need to change too much but for me the key benefit of subbing vs F2P should always be convenience, I should never feel restricted from reaching content immediately (i.e. being slowed down by travel skill cooldowns).

 

I spend 13 hours working/ travelling to work 5 days a week (not complaining about that of course) and I would prefer to get a little more reward for the cash I spend - or I'm happy to see those playing for free 'punished' a little more. Let the flames begin!

[Umbura]

I spend 13 hours working/ travelling to work 5 days a week (not complaining about that of course) and I would prefer to get a little more reward for the cash I spend - or I'm happy to see those playing for free 'punished' a little more. Let the flames begin!

Yes indeed. You meet always two kind of people playing MMOs. But they don't need to fight.

Look at this new concept developed by... hmmm... I don't want to advertise : CREDD. Make your own opinion.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Umbura

[GreySix]

Yes indeed. You meet always two kind of people playing MMOs. But they don't need to fight.

Look at this new concept developed by... hmmm... I don't want to advertise : CREDD. Make your own opinion.

 

Nice.

[DarthTHC]

My... tone says I'm complaining.

 

In text.

 

What.

 

Look, it's simple. The restrictions are stupid, sure. They're also really not a big deal, and more importantly, they're not in place for the benefit (or detriment) of Preferred players. It's not about me. It's about you, and about making you not want to give an honest try at being Preferred because you've heard such awful things about it.

 

The point I'm trying to make is the restrictions are more "style" than "substance." They're intended to feel much heavier than they are. They're annoying, but they're not actually restrictive. I'm quite happy as Preferred. Spend some time that way and you'll see that the supposed 'perks' you get for subscription amount to basically, "the idiot boyfriend who doesn't accept you broke up will stop texting you all the time" and "you can be more lax about managing your (ingame) money."

 

Fifteen a month for that? Pfft.

 

OK, I get it. You're saying the exact opposite of what so many complain about. You're saying that the Preferred and F2P restrictions are so laughable as to not be restrictions at all. The game's perfectly good with them in place.

 

I'll take that answer. It's a good one.

 

Me, I pay my $15 per month because I get entertainment value from the game and I want the game to keep existing and keep growing, and revenue is the only way that's going to happen. I believe in offering compensation when a person or business offers me something of value, just as I believe that I should receive compensation when I offer a business (usually my employer) something of value.

[Bluejayoo]

I am a subscriber and plan to stay that way. I think the game is more than worth $15 / month.

 

Recently I tried to get a few of my relatives that play WoW to switch over. They tried for a few days using the F2P access to see if they would be interested in the game. All quit saying the F2P model was slimy and money grubbing.

 

These are people that pay monthly to play WoW. They are not adverse to paying a subscription to play an MMO. But the F2P system as it is so pathetic with its ridiculous restrictions like not being able to hide your helm unless you pay that I feel it is turning players off to the game rather than encouraging them to subscribe.

 

I understand that EA wants to encourage subscriptions and only went with a F2P model because the original released failed miserably, but there has to be a way to make the F2P game seem less petty.

[Atashirley]

I'm speaking as a very new sub (not even hit the 2 month mark yet) who has a friend who is F2P and its made almost no difference at all to levelling speeds (im marginally higher than him right now). Perhaps at 55 it'll change? I'm not sure, but they should be selling the benefits of subbing not to just level 55s but to lower levels as well since thats where new subs start.

 

I'd wager that you're missing something. Leveling as a sub is laughably easy thanks to the "rest XP" mechanic. I avoid mobs whenever possible, skip some bonus quests, and scarcely do dailies, but I'm still over-leveled on every planet I hit by at least 2 levels.

 

I am a subscriber and plan to stay that way. I think the game is more than worth $15 / month.

 

Recently I tried to get a few of my relatives that play WoW to switch over. They tried for a few days using the F2P access to see if they would be interested in the game. All quit saying the F2P model was slimy and money grubbing.

 

These are people that pay monthly to play WoW. They are not adverse to paying a subscription to play an MMO. But the F2P system as it is so pathetic with its ridiculous restrictions like not being able to hide your helm unless you pay that I feel it is turning players off to the game rather than encouraging them to subscribe.

 

I understand that EA wants to encourage subscriptions and only went with a F2P model because the original released failed miserably, but there has to be a way to make the F2P game seem less petty.

 

This is more or less my take as well. It's not that I want the experience of free-to-play gamers to be on par with subscribers, but as it stands I think it's too much of an ultimatum. The game might as well tell you to "sub or leave".

 

My problem with that isn't even that there will be less f2p users around, but less players in general, some of whom could be potential subbers should they enjoy their initial trial of the game (maybe halt the spam, etc. until lvl 20 or so?)

Edited June 4, 2014 by Atashirley

[Guancyto]

DarthTHC, you keep using that word "perfectly." I do not think it means what you think it means!

 

It's not 'perfectly' fine, but it's totally manageable.The restrictions are petty, with all the good and bad that comes with that.

 

If I had to change one thing... hmm. Early Bounty Hunter quest on Nal Hutta. You meet with the Hutt, and get your pay (for bein' a gorram bounty hunter) from his receptionist afterward. Quest reward is a credit box. F2P can't get credit boxes as quest rewards.

 

For me, who is used to that sort of thing, this is hilarious. It's really obvious they just didn't notice the interaction.

 

For an actual new player, they are level 3. They have been at the game for maybe half an hour, and they get the message, "sorry bounty hunter, to get your pay for hunting bounties, you have to subscribe to the game!" First impressions are super important, and it's a huge 'screw you' like none other, right inside the first hour. I'd guess it's individually responsible for driving away scores of new players.

 

Nothing big, just change the quest reward.

[Volthorne]

I think people that value appearance might disagree. Now your just being silly for the sake of argument IMO.

But it's still not a perk. That's like saying that being able to go to a body-shop and have your car repainted from blue to red is a perk. It's a service you pay for, just like the appearance designer. Being able to run at level 1 as opposed to level 10 is a perk. Getting ranks in piloting 5-10 levels sooner is a perk. Being able to pay to change your hair colour is not.

 

Actually your statement turns out to be pretty silly. But that seems to be a pattern for some reason. I think it's pretty clear, once again, what I meant. Now I am sure you knew what I meant, and just decided that you wished to argue.

So my valid and true statement is "silly", as opposed to your statement which I have shown to be false? I guess that's pretty indicative of who actually did their homework.

 

The great thing about being me is that I do not need to give you anything, and you most certainly do not define what is and what is not a perk. You define it for yourself, you have indicated you do not agree, and you are entitled to that view.

 

Thats not to say your definition of a perk is wrong....only that you do not define it for me. I am more than capable of doing that myself.

I am using the literal definition from Google, Websters, Dictionary.com, etc. The fact that you want to ignore such a definition and make up your own (such as"having a red car instead of a blue car is a perk even though they're the exact same in every way!") makes me highly suspicious of your intent and logical capabilities.

 

I'm pretty sure it is likely there are subs that purchase perks from the CM to use personally. Again, that much should be obvious. In fact, I can think of one sub that has purchased perks from the CM for personal use.

 

That sub would be me.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Sure, you could buy xp boosts (a perk, albeit temporary) from the CM to use for yourself... but you already inherently have the equivalent of said boosts enabled at all times as a Sub (plus Rest XP on top of that - another inherent perk).

 

Id like to make it pretty clear that, though you certainly have a right to express your opinion, I think it's pretty obvious that folks in this thread do not appreciate your input.

You mean YOU don't appreciate my input. Please, if you're going to make a statement, you should at the very least verify its integrity before doing so. I'm certain you haven't gone around and PM'd every single person still involved here about their stance on my input. I find your veracity to be superfluous at best.

[Ergos]

i recently started a second account to try out the f2p system and the onlything that really got me anoyed was the inability to talk to people on starting planets.

 

I know this is a way to try and stop the gold spammers, but its a bad one, after all, there is alot of new people that never tryed MMO before that wants to see if its something they would like.

 

But at the moment the starting planets are more or less solo planets for f2p people, since you cant group up with people, other then sending the "rude" invites without speaking to them.

 

You see people wanting to do same heroics as you and cant send them a wisper

 

Bad bad, afterall this IS an MMO, you shouldnt take away the ONE thing that makes it different to any other single player game, the ability to actually talk to others from start!

 

my 2 cents

[LordArtemis]

But it's still not a perk. That's like saying that being able to go to a body-shop and have your car repainted from blue to red is a perk. It's a service you pay for, just like the appearance designer. Being able to run at level 1 as opposed to level 10 is a perk. Getting ranks in piloting 5-10 levels sooner is a perk. Being able to pay to change your hair colour is not.

 

So my valid and true statement is "silly", as opposed to your statement which I have shown to be false? I guess that's pretty indicative of who actually did their homework.

 

I am using the literal definition from Google, Websters, Dictionary.com, etc. The fact that you want to ignore such a definition and make up your own (such as"having a red car instead of a blue car is a perk even though they're the exact same in every way!") makes me highly suspicious of your intent and logical capabilities.

 

We are arguing here over the definition of a word. That IMO is the very definition of silliness. This is the definition I am using, which is naturally only one of many.......

 

Perk - a good thing that you have or get because of your situation.

a. an added bonus, an item added that has value.

b. a benefit or advantage that you get from a situation.

 

We were not originally able to change our appearance after creation. It was designed specifically to be permanent according to the original devs (cant remember the link or quote, it is located in the ETA on AC change thread). The new dev team seems to have decided against this view and offered it to all players. But they had to pay with coins to use it.

 

It is now a perk of playing the game...you can change your appearance post creation. That is perhaps valuable to some folks, myself included. There are games on the market that do not allow this.

 

If you do not believe that the appearance designer qualifies as a perk, then so be it. I don't see that as an unreasonable view.

 

It was one of many examples of things that have been added to the game that both subs and freeps have to pay for if they desire them. The CM is filled with these items, Legacy is filled with these items, IMO arguing over this one particular items definition is simply silly at best. After all, you are correct...it does not fit a few of the definitions of perk. But it does fit one IMO....IN MY OPINION, which in the end means next to nothing naturally.

 

In other words, my opinion should not be so important to you so that you desire to argue the semantics over and over again on such a narrow interpretation of the issue.

 

I'll tell you what. I will simply offer my apologies If I offended you, point out you have made your opinion clear to me and I accept it, and leave it at that.

 

Hopefully then the discussion can continue and this foolish back and forth can end. I hope to see further contributions to this discussion and the forum in general from you in the future.

 

If that does not satisfy you, let me know what will and I will endeavor to provide it.

Edited June 5, 2014 by LordArtemis