Stronghold retirement/reactivation, are you pushing us to buy them with cc?

[Warrgames]

Why do people want to know why they made the choice to limit the number of strong holds? Its not like you are going to believe them if they told you. You are going to keep believing whatever reason you want regardless of what they say.

[BrintoSFJ]

Yes they "want" us to buy each and every stornghold with CC instead of creds, thus the "inactivation->reactivation cost" for stonghold bought with creds. why does it actually surprise you? when they deicded to make people pay for something like quick bar or hide head slot or quest reward you should have gotten the hint. some of you people are really something.

[Deewe]

Most likely, a deactivated stronghold would be "nullified" when it comes to decorations.

If you reactivate it you'll most likely have to decorate it all over again.

This would mean that deactivated strongholds take up nearly no database space since they are just the empty default ones (and thus just stored as "owned: 1/0" pretty much).

Otherwize there wouldn't be any need to deactivate one.

That's why I stated unless deactivated strongholds are emptied.

 

Now from a design point and a customer retention point view, such implementation of more strongholds would be wrong.

 

In MMO design thing is, as long as the game is live, you have to keep everything players earn in game available.

There's a reason MMO never delete non active characters accounts even years later. Because you might loose a former client who'd eventually come back.

 

DB administrators and the guys paying the bill for the data storage and the backups would be more than happy to delete all that crap but they can't. At least from a business point of view.

 

Then consider asking a player to empty a stronghold. Some people are going to spend quite some time furnishing them. Requiring them to loose all that work to access new ones is of a big deal. One way to mitigate the issue would be to do like in Wildstar in which players can save/load a housing layout. Although I'm not sure SWTOR is bending that way.

[Pantaro]

Take a chill pill. We have no idea why this exists or if it will be modified. It is a good question for all to ask during stream on Thursday. Let us not make conclusions about something we have no idea about.

 

Agreed,we don't have the full story yet and until it goes live nothing is set in stone.Simply those of us this matters to we need to bring it up during the stream and get answers.

[Tsillah]

Yes they "want" us to buy each and every stornghold with CC instead of creds, thus the "inactivation->reactivation cost" for stonghold bought with creds. why does it actually surprise you? when they deicded to make people pay for something like quick bar or hide head slot or quest reward you should have gotten the hint. some of you people are really something.

 

That is false reasoning. Things like quick bars or hide head slots are costs for F2P players. There is nothing strange in charging F2P accounts for such things. However, this is a cost that is applied also to subscribers who do pay for the game monthly. Now by itself I don't mind paying for certain things on top of the sub I pay, I mean I spend at least double my sub in the cartel market each month as it is.

 

However, when I am expected to pay for something such as a reactivation cost for an in-game feature, I start wondering why there is a reactivation to begin with and why there is a credit charge and why would I have to pay on top of what I pay already to avoid such costs. I may not like the answer when I get it but I do want one regardless and who knows, the answer might be satisfactory after all.

[OddballEasyEight]

Yes they "want" us to buy each and every stornghold with CC instead of creds, thus the "inactivation->reactivation cost" for stonghold bought with creds. why does it actually surprise you? when they deicded to make people pay for something like quick bar or hide head slot or quest reward you should have gotten the hint. some of you people are really something.

 

But the only people they "make" pay for that stuff is the people that aren't paying for the game in the first place.

[OddballEasyEight]

That is false reasoning. Things like quick bars or hide head slots are costs for F2P players. There is nothing strange in charging F2P accounts for such things. However, this is a cost that is applied also to subscribers who do pay for the game monthly. Now by itself I don't mind paying for certain things on top of the sub I pay, I mean I spend at least double my sub in the cartel market each month as it is.

 

However, when I am expected to pay for something such as a reactivation cost for an in-game feature, I start wondering why there is a reactivation to begin with and why there is a credit charge and why would I have to pay on top of what I pay already to avoid such costs. I may not like the answer when I get it but I do want one regardless and who knows, the answer might be satisfactory after all.

 

credit drain.

Or it might simply be there to deter people from constantly activating/deactivating/reactivating their different strongholds if they make more than 4 of them.

[Tsillah]

credit drain.

Or it might simply be there to deter people from constantly activating/deactivating/reactivating their different strongholds if they make more than 4 of them.

 

Seems a poor credit sink to be honest. I thought about that but the costs for it can't be that high and it will likely drive the people who would use it regularly to buying it with cartel coins instead. So as a credit drain I think the actual unlocking of room is more where it's at.

 

If they want to deter people from re/deactivating strongholds too much a cooldown will do the trick. So then yes it would look like an extra credit drain but then it will make a difference if it takes 5k or 100k to reactivate for example.

 

The thing is that if they bring out extra strongholds as it seems now and since there won't be a need to retire strongholds until they do, we may not even get an figure on those costs until they bring out stronghold no. 5 ....and there we have it. When these 4 come out next month and I have no idea what it will cost, will I feel I will have to buy them with cm to avoid the cost I fear might be higher than I like for reactivation? And if the nar shaddaa one we get "free" because we are subbed counts as bought with credits, will I fee it would be better to unlock it via CM anyways so that this "gift" is something I still feel I need to buy with CM.

 

Not much of a gift then is it, if you subbed and realise you'd be better off after all buying them via the CM?

[OddballEasyEight]

Seems a poor credit sink to be honest. I thought about that but the costs for it can't be that high and it will likely drive the people who would use it regularly to buying it with cartel coins instead. So as a credit drain I think the actual unlocking of room is more where it's at.

 

If they want to deter people from re/deactivating strongholds too much a cooldown will do the trick. So then yes it would look like an extra credit drain but then it will make a difference if it takes 5k or 100k to reactivate for example.

 

The thing is that if they bring out extra strongholds as it seems now and since there won't be a need to retire strongholds until they do, we may not even get an figure on those costs until they bring out stronghold no. 5 ....and there we have it. When these 4 come out next month and I have no idea what it will cost, will I feel I will have to buy them with cm to avoid the cost I fear might be higher than I like for reactivation? And if the nar shaddaa one we get "free" because we are subbed counts as bought with credits, will I fee it would be better to unlock it via CM anyways so that this "gift" is something I still feel I need to buy with CM.

 

Not much of a gift then is it, if you subbed and realise you'd be better off after all buying them via the CM?

 

Well credit drains don't have to be "effective" as such... just as long as you have a vast number of them. Swapping mods at end-game is a credit drain that most seem to simply avoid.

So that could be deemed "not effective" but it still does its job despite that.

 

A cooldown would probably be recieved more negatively than a reactivation cost IMHO.

 

But it's all a moot discussion anyway since we don't know the cost or even if we can buy new slots or not.

 

All I can say for certain is that it is a pretty poor way to "push for buying strongholds with cc" unless they are astronomically high.

So I just don't buy into the "paranoia" (I'm sorry, but I can't really find a nicer word for it) that the OP seems to be exibiting.

[Tsillah]

Well credit drains don't have to be "effective" as such... just as long as you have a vast number of them. Swapping mods at end-game is a credit drain that most seem to simply avoid.

So that could be deemed "not effective" but it still does its job despite that.

 

A cooldown would probably be recieved more negatively than a reactivation cost IMHO.

 

But it's all a moot discussion anyway since we don't know the cost or even if we can buy new slots or not.

 

All I can say for certain is that it is a pretty poor way to "push for buying strongholds with cc" unless they are astronomically high.

So I just don't buy into the "paranoia" (I'm sorry, but I can't really find a nicer word for it) that the OP seems to be exibiting.

 

I actually am the OP and it's not paranoia. I had some concerns because of what things could mean. I've said all along that I don't know the details and therefore I don't know whether those concerns were valid and that's why I was asking for information.

[DarthVengeant]

There is a fee if you buy the hold(s) with Credits and not CCs if purchased with CCs there is no fee [it can be assumed this is just the base hold that needs purchased with CCs and that the other rooms can be purchased with creds]. I seriously wonder how many will choose to use credits over CCs in the end?

 

Strongholds is why I have saved up nearly 6000cc.

[BrintoSFJ]

That is false reasoning. Things like quick bars or hide head slots are costs for F2P players. There is nothing strange in charging F2P accounts for such things. However, this is a cost that is applied also to subscribers who do pay for the game monthly. Now by itself I don't mind paying for certain things on top of the sub I pay, I mean I spend at least double my sub in the cartel market each month as it is.

 

However, when I am expected to pay for something such as a reactivation cost for an in-game feature, I start wondering why there is a reactivation to begin with and why there is a credit charge and why would I have to pay on top of what I pay already to avoid such costs. I may not like the answer when I get it but I do want one regardless and who knows, the answer might be satisfactory after all.

 

Yeah and when did they ever say they are not going to charge subscriubers extra money? did you forget we had to pay for cathar too? when they decided to charge f2p(most of the f2p would never even pay) for something as unreasonable as quick bar or quest reward or hide head slot instead of something much more reasonable like sith or jedi claas/advanced class; you should have gotten the hint that they would go several step further and start charging every player; subscriber or otherwise; extra money for unreasonable thing. it is really laughable how naive some people can be.

[OddballEasyEight]

I actually am the OP and it's not paranoia. I had some concerns because of what things could mean. I've said all along that I don't know the details and therefore I don't know whether those concerns were valid and that's why I was asking for information.

 

Well, considering that:

A: There are only 4 strongholds at launch

B: We don't even know if there ever will be any more

C: We have no idea what the reactivation cost will be

D: We don't know what the CC cost will be

I'd say that it's waaaay too early to make a post like the OP.

 

Besides, IF reactivation costs were introduced specifically to make us buy the strongholds with CC instead of credits, they would have to be extremely high to motivate any significant number of players to use real money instead of credits.

Something in the region of several hundred thousand credits for reactivation.

And that sounds unlikely considering the fact that the DK/Cor strongholds will be cheap enough for a lvl 15 to buy with only regular gameplay done.

And since there are only going to be 4 strongholds for the forseeable future, it also makes no sense as a motivator to buy with CC instead of credits since it's not even going to be a factor for quite some time*

 

*and by that I mean maby this entire year.

 

The reason there isn't a fee for those who bought one with cc isn't to push people to do that, but more likely it's because it would be unreasonable to put a reactivation fee on something you bought for real money.

Edited July 16, 2014 by OddballEasyEight

[Tsillah]

Yeah and when did they ever say they are not going to charge subscriubers extra money? did you forget we had to pay for cathar too? when they decided to charge f2p(most of the f2p would never even pay) for something as unreasonable as quick bar or quest reward or hide head slot instead of something much more reasonable like sith or jedi claas/advanced class; you should have gotten the hint that they would go several step further and start charging every player; subscriber or otherwise; extra money for unreasonable thing. it is really laughable how naive some people can be.

 

I'm not going to call you stupid because that would be against the forum rules probably, but this is one of the worst replies I've seen in a long time in any forum. Of course BW can charge for whatever they want, but then people can also stop playing a game when they want. We all have our limits for what we find acceptable and BW are aware that if they are not careful they will push people away. That's why I speak of a careful balance they need to strike.

 

Of course if you read this you will probably misinterpret what I say again and answer it with something that has nothing to do really with what I am talking about...again.

[Tsillah]

Well, considering that:

A: There are only 4 strongholds at launch

 

That is a pointless argument. We know now more are planned and so I want to consider my options with more information so I can make better choices in preparation of what's coming.

 

B: We don't even know if there ever will be any more

 

Eric Muso himself gave an answer here in this thread that the only reason for retirement would be having more than 4 strongholds. I doesn't take a genius to figure out more are planned.

 

C: We have no idea what the reactivation cost will be

 

And I would like to know this, hence my questions.

 

D: We don't know what the CC cost will be

 

Again, that's why I came here asking about this.

 

I'd say that it's waaaay too early to make a post like the OP.

 

That is your point of view. I like to prepare for what's coming.

 

The biggest problem here is not my questions but the fact that some people make assumptions. Asking questions is not the same as complaining about something. Most of my considerations are hypothetical and for a very simple reason: a lack of info. All I am doing here is asking information and giving context to why I am asking such questions.

 

If other people like yourself interpret that as criticism, jumping the gun or paranoia, that's your problem. But please don't act like I said or did something I didn't actually do. All I want is more info. I have an analytical mind, I guess you don't. So don't worry about my questions if you don't want to know how this stuff works. It's all hypothetical until we get real answers. I got one answer, more are welcome.

[Anaesha]

Except Eric didn't say they had more planned He said IF and WHEN they do more. Which can't be taken as a confirmation that they plan to do more. Edited July 16, 2014 by Anaesha

[Tsillah]

Except Eric didn't say they had more planned He said IF and WHEN they do more. Which can't be taken as a confirmation that they plan to do more.

 

Which is all very silly if you think about it.

 

Why bring up retirement and reactivation costs at all if you're not actually planning to bring out more strongholds?

[Warrgames]

Which is all very silly if you think about it.

 

Why bring up retirement and reactivation costs at all if you're not actually planning to bring out more strongholds?

 

Because they are planning head.

If a lot of people like GSH and it brings in enough money then yes they will add more strongholds.

If few people use and spend money on GSH then no they aren't going to add more strongholds.

[DarthDymond]

Which is all very silly if you think about it.

 

Why bring up retirement and reactivation costs at all if you're not actually planning to bring out more strongholds?

As the situation with the Infiltrator class in GSF showed, plans change. I think the point is that people shouldn't take this as an absolute guarantee that there will be more Strongholds down the line.

 

That caveat aside, yeah clearly they are laying the groundwork to introduce more based on the anticipation that they eventually will do so. (Although, again, the same could probably be said of the additional GSF classes).

[Anaesha]

Which is all very silly if you think about it.

 

Why bring up retirement and reactivation costs at all if you're not actually planning to bring out more strongholds?

 

It's called planning ahead. However, If GSH flops like some members seem to think it will (not referring to you btw) they won't waste time and resources to make more holds.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Anaesha

[Pantaro]

GSH is a cartel market goldmine waiting to happen,who are we kidding lol I have friends who wanna play the moment they heard me talking about it that never played an mmo before.An that is great for the game

[Warrgames]

GSH is a cartel market goldmine waiting to happen,who are we kidding lol I have friends who wanna play the moment they heard me talking about it that never played an mmo before.An that is great for the game

 

Not really, not everyone wants or cares about. Few people in my guild have shown any interested in GSH. My only interest in GSH starts and ends at the legacy bank. Just because you and your friends like an idea doesn't mean everyone else does.

 

How long are these people who have never played mmo going to keep playing?

[Tsillah]

It's called planning ahead. However, If GSH flops like some members seem to think it will (not referring to you btw) they won't waste time and resources to make more holds.

 

That's why I say they have them planned. That doesn't mean they actually will. I also understand that things can change but dropping an ambiguous comment about something like reactivation costs when there may never be any is not planning ahead but poor judgment in communication.

 

If they are not sure it will happen they shouldn't have brought it up to begin with until it became relevant as far as I'm concerned.

[Pantaro]

Not really, not everyone wants or cares about. Few people in my guild have shown any interested in GSH. My only interest in GSH starts and ends at the legacy bank. Just because you and your friends like an idea doesn't mean everyone else does.

 

How long are these people who have never played mmo going to keep playing?

 

That's also like i refuse to blow money in the cash shop but clearly most people in game do.Works both way.So we can agree to disagree on that one.

[aeterno]

off topic Q, cant find a more fitting thread on page one:

 

There a stream planned this week?