Previous
First off, I played GS3 a long time ago, back in the days when it was on AOL. Ahh, good time, good times. So here I am, back to check it out now that it's "Free to play".
The current setup is more like free-to-try, not free-to-play. Sure, you could play indefinitely but after level 10 the experience penalty begins to take its toll. Not being able to join a professional guild is a sever limiting factor, so is the inability to go past Rank 1 in Societies. Many, many restrictions that can be eased with SimuCoins, but only temporarily and nothing like a subscription.
Why not focus more on driving subscription growth instead of hoping for a few bucks from SimuCoins? For starters, the subscription price is too high. While I've always loved this game, 15 dollars a month is too much. You can play countless other subscription based games for 10 dollars a month. The player-base for this game is low now, you need to drive growth and to do that, you need to at least be comparable in cost. If you do not want to lower your month-to-month cost, then you should consider adding bulk up-front discounts to subscriptions. One month is 14.99, but buy three months in advance and it's 12.99, six months is maybe 10.99, a year is 8.99, etc. This provides you with instant capital and prevents cancellations of subscriptions. This is probably the most important thing for free-to-play accounts, give them the option of buying months of subscriptions and if they lapse, they just go back to free-to-play. Give me the option to buy subscriber months at "normal" prices and I will.
If you want subscribers, they need to experience the FULL game of Gemstone. If you MUST impose limits, they should be reasonable. No limits should prevent someone from playing a class better than another, otherwise you are pay-to-win, not free-to-play.
Just some thoughts. I've always loved this game and hope I will continue to.
GSTOTT
GS4-WYROM
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/04/2015 03:39 PM CDT
F2P does offer the entire game at no charge. Subscribers do get more benefits than the F2P user, but we don't want to reduce the value of our subscription levels. We already have many players that feel the F2P subscriber already takes away from them (I get emails about this from time to time).
Speaking strictly on subscription growth, we've been advertising quite a bit over the last year. Between emailing ex-players, actual banner ads on websites, and other various avenues we've been taking, we've probably hit the plateau of where GemStone IV will be on outside traffic. I've also been looking in a lot of other MUDs out there. What GemStone IV (and essentially Dragonrealms) offer far exceeds what a lot of free games out there offer. It also has a dedicated staff still doing updates pretty regularly, which you don't really find (it's usually one guy out there doing it in his spare time when he feels up to it). I don't see looser restrictions on F2P areas bringing in more subscribers. I think we've cornered the market on most the current player base out there that exist and are willing to subscribe. You can get an idea by checking out reddit and a few forums that still talk about MUDs often.
~Wyrom, APM
>>They call him Wyrom, not afraid to get dirty; work all day, in game by 5:30; loresongs eloquent, item embellishment, double speed development... ~Silvean
Speaking strictly on subscription growth, we've been advertising quite a bit over the last year. Between emailing ex-players, actual banner ads on websites, and other various avenues we've been taking, we've probably hit the plateau of where GemStone IV will be on outside traffic. I've also been looking in a lot of other MUDs out there. What GemStone IV (and essentially Dragonrealms) offer far exceeds what a lot of free games out there offer. It also has a dedicated staff still doing updates pretty regularly, which you don't really find (it's usually one guy out there doing it in his spare time when he feels up to it). I don't see looser restrictions on F2P areas bringing in more subscribers. I think we've cornered the market on most the current player base out there that exist and are willing to subscribe. You can get an idea by checking out reddit and a few forums that still talk about MUDs often.
~Wyrom, APM
>>They call him Wyrom, not afraid to get dirty; work all day, in game by 5:30; loresongs eloquent, item embellishment, double speed development... ~Silvean
GSTOTT
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/04/2015 09:05 PM CDT
I would have to disagree on the entire game part. I mean, you could say that "Since you can get to level 100 on a F2P account, you have the whole game" which I suppose at it's core, would be true. However, Gemstone is more than just grinding out to 100, no? No professional guilds (therefore you cannot contribute as a master), no society levels (same as before), no helping others with spells, etc. That is the whole game, being able to interact with others. A F2P account cannot contribute to the community much. :(
I agree that GS is above others in it class, no doubt. That's not in question.
What about simply adding the option of buying months in advance? Your existing subscribers would surely take advantage of that, which would provide guaranteed revenue, although I suppose you must weigh gain of new income vs. loss of potential full "margin" cost from existing subscribers. I think the die-hard would continue to subscribe to Platinum, etc, though.
I'm not sure how existing subscribers could possibly feel that something has been taken from them by F2P. Sorry you have to hear that. :(
I agree that GS is above others in it class, no doubt. That's not in question.
What about simply adding the option of buying months in advance? Your existing subscribers would surely take advantage of that, which would provide guaranteed revenue, although I suppose you must weigh gain of new income vs. loss of potential full "margin" cost from existing subscribers. I think the die-hard would continue to subscribe to Platinum, etc, though.
I'm not sure how existing subscribers could possibly feel that something has been taken from them by F2P. Sorry you have to hear that. :(
FIREPHOENIX
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/04/2015 09:59 PM CDT
I've said what Wyrom just said for some time with stats to back it. DR and GS have something like 25-35% of the entire MUD market after the ftp introduction based on nightly players and the community as a whole. www.mudstats.com and the reddit forums based on sub followers illustrate the market share.
When you begin to take a 15 dollar subscription down to even 12 you lose 3 dollars of revenue. I've played the average ftp account with success at 9. If you wanted to play nearly at an account level with savings you could pay the 9 average. Having said that lowering the subscription from 15 to 12 then requires a return in some way to replace that lost revenue. This is where the market has difficulty because you need to generate so many new players in a finite market that you'd have difficulty replacing it by lowering the revenue stream since you can't attract enough people to offset the loss.
Lets say Gemstone has 500 standard accounts, which would be a loss of $1500 in monthly revenue. You would need about 170 ftp accounts that average 9 dollars and that's probably on the high end for purchases. If we assume half at $4.50 per ftp account monthly then we need 350 accounts just to replace the revenue loss and equal zero sum. That would double the nightly peaks of the game and it would be twice as big as any fantasy MUD that exists. It's just not realistic.
We've seen that when GSIV and DR went to ftp we largely pulled away from the market share of Aardwulf, that was the biggest mud by about another 50-80 active players nightly. You also see some smaller games lose players to make up for the new player shift increases in DR and GSIV.
This is theorycraft, but it's got enough factual support that I believe it to be closely true.
When you begin to take a 15 dollar subscription down to even 12 you lose 3 dollars of revenue. I've played the average ftp account with success at 9. If you wanted to play nearly at an account level with savings you could pay the 9 average. Having said that lowering the subscription from 15 to 12 then requires a return in some way to replace that lost revenue. This is where the market has difficulty because you need to generate so many new players in a finite market that you'd have difficulty replacing it by lowering the revenue stream since you can't attract enough people to offset the loss.
Lets say Gemstone has 500 standard accounts, which would be a loss of $1500 in monthly revenue. You would need about 170 ftp accounts that average 9 dollars and that's probably on the high end for purchases. If we assume half at $4.50 per ftp account monthly then we need 350 accounts just to replace the revenue loss and equal zero sum. That would double the nightly peaks of the game and it would be twice as big as any fantasy MUD that exists. It's just not realistic.
We've seen that when GSIV and DR went to ftp we largely pulled away from the market share of Aardwulf, that was the biggest mud by about another 50-80 active players nightly. You also see some smaller games lose players to make up for the new player shift increases in DR and GSIV.
This is theorycraft, but it's got enough factual support that I believe it to be closely true.
ARIETTA
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/05/2015 01:48 AM CDT
I think $14.95 per month is a great value for a game with the depth, complexity, and support of Gemstone IV. F2P is a good option for returning players, or those who want to experience GS4 for the first time. For players who want more, the basic subscription price is very reasonable.
~ GtG
~ GtG
ERYKK2
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/05/2015 03:54 AM CDT
I returned to GS once I saw the F2P option was available. I played a Wizard up to level 30, before reactivating my higher level Wizard.
Just having the F2P option is a wonderful addition for those who don't want to pay any money and still enjoy GS. I also advocated for several changes, but I do think it was designed well to allow free play while still promoting incentives to subscribe.
I can understand some of the frustration when it comes to access to things like guilds, and societies. But, you do have the option of buying into the society for something like $3 to $4 per month. Hopefully guilds will be a purchase option in the future as well.
Just having the F2P option is a wonderful addition for those who don't want to pay any money and still enjoy GS. I also advocated for several changes, but I do think it was designed well to allow free play while still promoting incentives to subscribe.
I can understand some of the frustration when it comes to access to things like guilds, and societies. But, you do have the option of buying into the society for something like $3 to $4 per month. Hopefully guilds will be a purchase option in the future as well.
GS4-WYROM
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/05/2015 09:54 AM CDT
I think the wrong way to look at our F2P options is from a person who is currently playing GS. Yes, it's free, but you're going to feel like we've taken away some from you if you're use to subscribing. Is it like a trial? Sort of. You are definitely free to try it as long as you want. It's not going to fill the void of everything we have to offer. But if you're a player who is coming back from a 10 or 15 year hiatus? The F2P is great to get back involved. You don't have to commit to the subscription. You can try the game out as long as you want. You can see all the new things we've done. There are absolutely no restrictions on RP and hanging around (unless you want to get to a specific town).
But if grinding, skills, and all that jazz are important to you, the best way to deal with it would be to subscribe. Yes, I know not everyone has the budget to toss into this game. Or feel it's worth it to them. But by subscribing, you're supporting the game as well.
~Wyrom, APM
>>They call him Wyrom, not afraid to get dirty; work all day, in game by 5:30; loresongs eloquent, item embellishment, double speed development... ~Silvean
But if grinding, skills, and all that jazz are important to you, the best way to deal with it would be to subscribe. Yes, I know not everyone has the budget to toss into this game. Or feel it's worth it to them. But by subscribing, you're supporting the game as well.
~Wyrom, APM
>>They call him Wyrom, not afraid to get dirty; work all day, in game by 5:30; loresongs eloquent, item embellishment, double speed development... ~Silvean
BRANDTJRT
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/05/2015 12:55 PM CDT
Looking at things, it seemed like one thing that could streamline things would be some kind of monthly bundle for getting several things at once, for a month at a time. Or the ability to group several purchase options for monthly purchase. If a person is routinely getting things, ie society access, removal of experience penalty, etc, making it easier to keep spending money seems a good idea to me.
One other thing that seems like it should be in the F2P accounts is related to titles. While it seems fine needing to get a thing to change title, I think it would be a lot better if one could always use the default title for their profession.
One other thing that seems like it should be in the F2P accounts is related to titles. While it seems fine needing to get a thing to change title, I think it would be a lot better if one could always use the default title for their profession.
ARIETTA
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/05/2015 02:40 PM CDT
<<<Looking at things, it seemed like one thing that could streamline things would be some kind of monthly bundle for getting several things at once, for a month at a time. Or the ability to group several purchase options for monthly purchase. If a person is routinely getting things, ie society access, removal of experience penalty, etc, making it easier to keep spending money seems a good idea to me.>>>>
But they already have that. It's called a basic subscription, and it's only $14.95 a month. :)
~ GtG
But they already have that. It's called a basic subscription, and it's only $14.95 a month. :)
~ GtG
BRANDTJRT
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/05/2015 03:41 PM CDT
>>But they already have that. It's called a basic subscription, and it's only $14.95 a month. :)
While I don't disagree, as evidenced by my non-free account, it still seems if purchasable bonuses were packaged together in smaller packages, it may be preferable. Actually, it seems like the kind of thing that would be great to poll F2P accounts on. My thought was people would rather spend less time buying, more time otherwise.
While I don't disagree, as evidenced by my non-free account, it still seems if purchasable bonuses were packaged together in smaller packages, it may be preferable. Actually, it seems like the kind of thing that would be great to poll F2P accounts on. My thought was people would rather spend less time buying, more time otherwise.
TUMBLEKEGGER
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/13/2015 11:45 AM CDT
As someone who has brought Cleric, Paladin, Empath, Monk, Bard, and Warrior to level 20+ each using the F2P system, I have some feedback on the restrictions.
1st - Warriors / Rogues not having the ability to access the guild is crippling. It literally makes them feel worthless to play. They can barely touch anything, have to spend all their CMAN points on abilities that they would be able to train using the guild, and much more difficult to enjoy (mechanically).
I disagree that the eventual addition of a guild access pass would make sense since the Warrior and Rogue guilds are basically essential. Some people want to argue that you don't "need" the guild to succeed in this game. I would argue that the mechanics of the Warrior and Rogue class are designed around the ability to use skills in the guild. Having access to CMANs and specific abilities that you can only get via the guild (warcries, various stun maneuvers, etc) are a balancing issue for F2P characters of these classes.
Now, restricting access to specific abilities within the guild - like Sheath Making, or Lock Mastery, and such - where the player could potentially earn cash and be rewarded "bot style", that I understand restricting. The abilities the guilds offer for the practical use in combat, however, should absolutely not be restricted to F2P.
These guilds are a grind of supreme dedication. It's not fun. No matter how you look at the guild ranks, mastering disarm / berserk / tackle / and tricks is tedious and time-consuming. There's absolutely no reason to require players to have a pass.
The next major area of concern was Bards. Can you not figure out some better way to make their spells work then completely disabling them? Spell Pass gives you 15 minutes to use your spells. Bard spells do not operate the same way as 90% of the other classes. You cannot get any benefit from having 15 minutes to use Song of Power or Song of Noise for hunting. These skills are disabled and disable the class because they cannot buy a spell pass to last for an entire hunt.
Bard spellsongs need to seriously investigated for F2P so they can be useful for F2P - otherwise the Bard is the worst F2P class in the game to date. Can't loresing, can't purify gems, can't use songs for your party, and you can't use any area affect spellspongs because they are locked out without a spell pass. Due to the way the Bard class works, this is extremely restrictive.
The last issue is the 30 second delay after linking to a target for healing. This is not entirely horrible, but it makes people actually dislike F2P empaths. There are players looking for methods to block linking Empaths because they know it will take them 30x longer to heal (30 times longer because a normal empath can heal you in 1 second, and an F2P empath requires at least 30 seconds). Players are willing to wait when there's no other option - but sometimes that 30 seconds is the difference between life and death.
This should be shorter. 10 seconds maybe. It should also be a 10 second RT instead of a 30 second hidden timer.
Finally - give Subscribers the ability to find the F2P items in the Store. I know you don't want to confuse players, but really just some big BOLDED warnings on the item indicating that the item is for FREE TO PLAY ONLY should suffice. Players should be able to buy these items with their own Simucoins to give to friends and family that want to try GS4, but don't want to subscribe.
Everything else - IMO - is working fine. If you want a society, it's $2.00 a month. Cheap. No problem. If you want higher grade equipment - then you're probably going to need to subscribe anyway because that stuff is expensive. You want faster EXP? Totally understand, so buy some EXP enhancers or subscribe. Don't like the bank and locker restrictions? Expand via Simucoins, or make some friends that will help you bank and locker your items. Hell, it's cheap to move your bank account from one city to another compared to the subscription.
1st - Warriors / Rogues not having the ability to access the guild is crippling. It literally makes them feel worthless to play. They can barely touch anything, have to spend all their CMAN points on abilities that they would be able to train using the guild, and much more difficult to enjoy (mechanically).
I disagree that the eventual addition of a guild access pass would make sense since the Warrior and Rogue guilds are basically essential. Some people want to argue that you don't "need" the guild to succeed in this game. I would argue that the mechanics of the Warrior and Rogue class are designed around the ability to use skills in the guild. Having access to CMANs and specific abilities that you can only get via the guild (warcries, various stun maneuvers, etc) are a balancing issue for F2P characters of these classes.
Now, restricting access to specific abilities within the guild - like Sheath Making, or Lock Mastery, and such - where the player could potentially earn cash and be rewarded "bot style", that I understand restricting. The abilities the guilds offer for the practical use in combat, however, should absolutely not be restricted to F2P.
These guilds are a grind of supreme dedication. It's not fun. No matter how you look at the guild ranks, mastering disarm / berserk / tackle / and tricks is tedious and time-consuming. There's absolutely no reason to require players to have a pass.
The next major area of concern was Bards. Can you not figure out some better way to make their spells work then completely disabling them? Spell Pass gives you 15 minutes to use your spells. Bard spells do not operate the same way as 90% of the other classes. You cannot get any benefit from having 15 minutes to use Song of Power or Song of Noise for hunting. These skills are disabled and disable the class because they cannot buy a spell pass to last for an entire hunt.
Bard spellsongs need to seriously investigated for F2P so they can be useful for F2P - otherwise the Bard is the worst F2P class in the game to date. Can't loresing, can't purify gems, can't use songs for your party, and you can't use any area affect spellspongs because they are locked out without a spell pass. Due to the way the Bard class works, this is extremely restrictive.
The last issue is the 30 second delay after linking to a target for healing. This is not entirely horrible, but it makes people actually dislike F2P empaths. There are players looking for methods to block linking Empaths because they know it will take them 30x longer to heal (30 times longer because a normal empath can heal you in 1 second, and an F2P empath requires at least 30 seconds). Players are willing to wait when there's no other option - but sometimes that 30 seconds is the difference between life and death.
This should be shorter. 10 seconds maybe. It should also be a 10 second RT instead of a 30 second hidden timer.
Finally - give Subscribers the ability to find the F2P items in the Store. I know you don't want to confuse players, but really just some big BOLDED warnings on the item indicating that the item is for FREE TO PLAY ONLY should suffice. Players should be able to buy these items with their own Simucoins to give to friends and family that want to try GS4, but don't want to subscribe.
Everything else - IMO - is working fine. If you want a society, it's $2.00 a month. Cheap. No problem. If you want higher grade equipment - then you're probably going to need to subscribe anyway because that stuff is expensive. You want faster EXP? Totally understand, so buy some EXP enhancers or subscribe. Don't like the bank and locker restrictions? Expand via Simucoins, or make some friends that will help you bank and locker your items. Hell, it's cheap to move your bank account from one city to another compared to the subscription.
CHULAK
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/13/2015 12:07 PM CDT
>1st - Warriors / Rogues not having the ability to access the guild is crippling. It literally makes them feel worthless to play. They can barely touch anything, have to spend all their CMAN points on abilities that they would be able to train using the guild, and much more difficult to enjoy (mechanically)
I haven't done a F2P Warrior, though I did bring Durakar through to level 96 so far with only a bare minimum amount of guild training. Until here recently, we are talking about 1 or fewer ranks in Disarm, Warcries, and Tackle. I think I did a little more with Berserk in the lower levels but rarely ever used it then. Even now I only have about 20 ranks in berserk, around 11 in Tricks, and all the rest are below that. I was always able to hunt decently the whole way through despite lacking the guild skills.
An announcer shouts, "Introducing our new combatant, Duskruin Arena Hero Durakar al'Yari Faendryl the Captain of the Mist Harbor Militia, hailing from Isle of the Four Winds!"
I haven't done a F2P Warrior, though I did bring Durakar through to level 96 so far with only a bare minimum amount of guild training. Until here recently, we are talking about 1 or fewer ranks in Disarm, Warcries, and Tackle. I think I did a little more with Berserk in the lower levels but rarely ever used it then. Even now I only have about 20 ranks in berserk, around 11 in Tricks, and all the rest are below that. I was always able to hunt decently the whole way through despite lacking the guild skills.
An announcer shouts, "Introducing our new combatant, Duskruin Arena Hero Durakar al'Yari Faendryl the Captain of the Mist Harbor Militia, hailing from Isle of the Four Winds!"
KRAKII
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/13/2015 12:46 PM CDT
I started my Thief after I realized that they could train in everything that a Fighter could train in for physical combat, and also get Disarm Traps & Pick Locks, for less than the Fighter could. (Actually, I re-rolled the Fighter to become the Thief.) Since I had just come from being a Fighter, I left him as an open-melee combat build.
He was 30+ levels and semi-retired before the first (Warrior) Guild even opened. Never mind the advent of Combat Maneuvers a half-dozen years after that.
Neither the Guild skills nor CML are required or necessary. (Amended: "in all towns." Newer towns stocked with newer builds of creatures may be more difficult to get started in.) Though they certainly do add a good deal of flavor and additional capabilities.
Fast forward to after we got fix-skills, and he still hasn't bothered to accept the invitation to the Guild. He did train up in Hiding & Ambush, though, so he's a strike-from-the-shadows weenie-weapons type now. His current CMans are:
Combat Focus/3
Shadow Mastery/4
Combat Mobility/2
Evade Mastery/2
Divert/4
Vanish/1
Predator's Eye/2
Almost entirely Stances, passive (learn them and they are 'always on', costing no stamina), or reactive (like "oh crap stand me up to get swung at"). I usually don't remember that I know Divert. I can't recall having to try using Vanish. (I picked up one rank reactively when it was the "ooooh! new shiny!")
None of them would come through the Guild, I don't think.
There are times that I kill a creature [granted, only man-sized HP & flimsy armor] with unaimed strikes in only 5 seconds, including 2 for the hide + 3 for swinging the dagger.
When I did get around to rolling up a Fighter again, I played him very differently from the first one.
He actually has done some Guild work, but I think his dues lapsed about 6 years ago and I never bothered to get him re-instated.
TLDR version: I disagree that Guilds are necessary and/or vital to the Warrior/Rogue. They may add another facet to your capabilities, but it is definitely an addition rather than a required core mechanism.
He was 30+ levels and semi-retired before the first (Warrior) Guild even opened. Never mind the advent of Combat Maneuvers a half-dozen years after that.
Neither the Guild skills nor CML are required or necessary. (Amended: "in all towns." Newer towns stocked with newer builds of creatures may be more difficult to get started in.) Though they certainly do add a good deal of flavor and additional capabilities.
Fast forward to after we got fix-skills, and he still hasn't bothered to accept the invitation to the Guild. He did train up in Hiding & Ambush, though, so he's a strike-from-the-shadows weenie-weapons type now. His current CMans are:
Combat Focus/3
Shadow Mastery/4
Combat Mobility/2
Evade Mastery/2
Divert/4
Vanish/1
Predator's Eye/2
Almost entirely Stances, passive (learn them and they are 'always on', costing no stamina), or reactive (like "oh crap stand me up to get swung at"). I usually don't remember that I know Divert. I can't recall having to try using Vanish. (I picked up one rank reactively when it was the "ooooh! new shiny!")
None of them would come through the Guild, I don't think.
There are times that I kill a creature [granted, only man-sized HP & flimsy armor] with unaimed strikes in only 5 seconds, including 2 for the hide + 3 for swinging the dagger.
When I did get around to rolling up a Fighter again, I played him very differently from the first one.
He actually has done some Guild work, but I think his dues lapsed about 6 years ago and I never bothered to get him re-instated.
TLDR version: I disagree that Guilds are necessary and/or vital to the Warrior/Rogue. They may add another facet to your capabilities, but it is definitely an addition rather than a required core mechanism.
TUMBLEKEGGER
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/13/2015 01:08 PM CDT
What I am hearing is "I chose to gimp my character, and made it work, therefore it's fine that F2P should have zero access to the guild (no current access and only "plans" to create a pass) because I made a mechanically poor decision for my character."
Not buying it. Just because you did something 15+ years ago before the guild opened, doesn't change the fact that this game is now 100% different when it comes to using maneuvers. They're now part of the game's balance, and factor into everything. The more people tell me about how they chose to gimp themselves, and that's why it's OK for F2P to not even have the option, the more I wonder if those people are just angry the game has F2P at all?
Look at it this way.
Berserk costs 30 CMAN points without the guild
Feint costs 30 CMAN points without the guild
Disarm costs 30 CMAN points without the guild
Tackle costs 30 CMAN points without the guild
That is 120 CMAN points!! You're telling me it's OK that F2P warriors are denied access to 120 CMAN points worth of skills that are super important in today's CMAN heavy game? Not to mention losing out on Warcries and Batter Barrier (to get those pesky locked gates opened)??
Let's please not compare your personal "achievements" to what is reasonably a massive mechanical and training points advantage. No other F2P class suffers such a massive detriment (with the exception of Bards) to their training and ability options.
Restricting Societies is fair to all because it impacts all classes (though some rely on their society slightly more than others). Restricting banks, lockers, coin capacity, carrying capacity --- all fair and balanced between classes. Even restricting certain spells and abilities, or having cooldowns on abilities is not as significant a detriment or disadvantage as losing out on guild options.
Restricting Guilds, especially for Warriors and Rogues heavily (and I can't stress this enough) imbalances the F2P class support.
Please tell me what other class sacrifices as much as the Warrior and Rogue who are restricted from using *class specific abilities* provided by their guilds while also losing a massive amounts of CMAN options due to the CMAN savings guild training offers?
Not buying it. Just because you did something 15+ years ago before the guild opened, doesn't change the fact that this game is now 100% different when it comes to using maneuvers. They're now part of the game's balance, and factor into everything. The more people tell me about how they chose to gimp themselves, and that's why it's OK for F2P to not even have the option, the more I wonder if those people are just angry the game has F2P at all?
Look at it this way.
Berserk costs 30 CMAN points without the guild
Feint costs 30 CMAN points without the guild
Disarm costs 30 CMAN points without the guild
Tackle costs 30 CMAN points without the guild
That is 120 CMAN points!! You're telling me it's OK that F2P warriors are denied access to 120 CMAN points worth of skills that are super important in today's CMAN heavy game? Not to mention losing out on Warcries and Batter Barrier (to get those pesky locked gates opened)??
Let's please not compare your personal "achievements" to what is reasonably a massive mechanical and training points advantage. No other F2P class suffers such a massive detriment (with the exception of Bards) to their training and ability options.
Restricting Societies is fair to all because it impacts all classes (though some rely on their society slightly more than others). Restricting banks, lockers, coin capacity, carrying capacity --- all fair and balanced between classes. Even restricting certain spells and abilities, or having cooldowns on abilities is not as significant a detriment or disadvantage as losing out on guild options.
Restricting Guilds, especially for Warriors and Rogues heavily (and I can't stress this enough) imbalances the F2P class support.
Please tell me what other class sacrifices as much as the Warrior and Rogue who are restricted from using *class specific abilities* provided by their guilds while also losing a massive amounts of CMAN options due to the CMAN savings guild training offers?
GOLDENOAK2
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/13/2015 01:13 PM CDT
<<I disagree that the eventual addition of a guild access pass would make sense since the Warrior and Rogue guilds are basically essential. Some people want to argue that you don't "need" the guild to succeed in this game. I would argue that the mechanics of the Warrior and Rogue class are designed around the ability to use skills in the guild. Having access to CMANs and specific abilities that you can only get via the guild (warcries, various stun maneuvers, etc) are a balancing issue for F2P characters of these classes.>>
Hate to break it to you, but guild skills are not the holy grail for warrior/rogue survival and success. Some of the skills are nice to have, but to say the classes are designed around them is just not true.
Hate to break it to you, but guild skills are not the holy grail for warrior/rogue survival and success. Some of the skills are nice to have, but to say the classes are designed around them is just not true.
TUMBLEKEGGER
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/13/2015 01:29 PM CDT
>>Hate to break it to you, but guild skills are not the holy grail for warrior/rogue survival and success. Some of the skills are nice to have, but to say the classes are designed around them is just not true.
Being able to move rooms or increase your stance by 40% when stunned is a life-saving ability that only rogues in the rogue guild can master.
Being able to berserk and break stuns/webs/etc.. reliably while being able to reliably control the bursts of berserk feature is something only warriors who master berserk in the guild can accomplish.
I've been a warrior guild master. I've seen the benefits of being able to use skills on higher level critters, have access to warcries to put RT on targets that would otherwise be immune to my disabling skills, or being basically immune to disarm because of my skills training.
Is the question here really "can it be done"? Because that's the stupidest question to ask for the F2P class. You can be a two-handed sorcerer and "succeed" by some people's standards. You're going to suck at your class / job / and be the worst mutant in the game, but you can do it! Should you be required to do it though? Should players be required to play a class limited in such a massive way (120 CMAN points of options to consider)??
I think not.
Not to mention - what exactly are you guys arguing against here? Having more people in the guild? Why is restricting the guild so important to those who disagree that it's "necessary" (which is not the basis of my argument). F2P characters are already at major mechanical disadvantages to subscribers. Why tack on one more major disadvantage to specifically Warriors and Rogues?
Being able to move rooms or increase your stance by 40% when stunned is a life-saving ability that only rogues in the rogue guild can master.
Being able to berserk and break stuns/webs/etc.. reliably while being able to reliably control the bursts of berserk feature is something only warriors who master berserk in the guild can accomplish.
I've been a warrior guild master. I've seen the benefits of being able to use skills on higher level critters, have access to warcries to put RT on targets that would otherwise be immune to my disabling skills, or being basically immune to disarm because of my skills training.
Is the question here really "can it be done"? Because that's the stupidest question to ask for the F2P class. You can be a two-handed sorcerer and "succeed" by some people's standards. You're going to suck at your class / job / and be the worst mutant in the game, but you can do it! Should you be required to do it though? Should players be required to play a class limited in such a massive way (120 CMAN points of options to consider)??
I think not.
Not to mention - what exactly are you guys arguing against here? Having more people in the guild? Why is restricting the guild so important to those who disagree that it's "necessary" (which is not the basis of my argument). F2P characters are already at major mechanical disadvantages to subscribers. Why tack on one more major disadvantage to specifically Warriors and Rogues?
ROBLAR
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/13/2015 01:50 PM CDT
<Being able to move rooms or increase your stance by 40% when stunned is a life-saving ability that only rogues in the rogue guild can master.>
Unless this is blocked for F2P, this is a CMAN (Stun Maneuvers/stunman)
<Being able to berserk and break stuns/webs/etc.. reliably while being able to reliably control the bursts of berserk feature is something only warriors who master berserk in the guild can accomplish.>
Not true. Perhaps your stats (DIS) are set too low. I raised a shattered warrior and did not have significant ability to berserk issues while using the CMAN berserk at I believe rank 3. Even warrior guild masters of berserk will have a fumble chance to not break stuns/webs/etc..
Other than those two points, I agree it should be a F2P Simustore option. However, it should be at a high enough cost that when packaged with even one or two other store monthly passes (like experience or loot), the monthly subscription would be a superior bundle. Basically, because it would be best to get some revenue out of F2P and the micro store transactions are supposed to be the offset. A pay option should therefore be available.
If you mean you'd like guild access free, on a free account, because it is "necessary" for a warrior, I do not agree.
Your point about increased people in the guild is valid, so long as they are present.
<F2P characters are already at major mechanical disadvantages to subscribers.>
This is by design, to incentivize subscription. To produce store transactions on essentially a trial account at the minimum.
Congratulations on achieving high levels and hope you are enjoying the game (return?).
Unless this is blocked for F2P, this is a CMAN (Stun Maneuvers/stunman)
<Being able to berserk and break stuns/webs/etc.. reliably while being able to reliably control the bursts of berserk feature is something only warriors who master berserk in the guild can accomplish.>
Not true. Perhaps your stats (DIS) are set too low. I raised a shattered warrior and did not have significant ability to berserk issues while using the CMAN berserk at I believe rank 3. Even warrior guild masters of berserk will have a fumble chance to not break stuns/webs/etc..
Other than those two points, I agree it should be a F2P Simustore option. However, it should be at a high enough cost that when packaged with even one or two other store monthly passes (like experience or loot), the monthly subscription would be a superior bundle. Basically, because it would be best to get some revenue out of F2P and the micro store transactions are supposed to be the offset. A pay option should therefore be available.
If you mean you'd like guild access free, on a free account, because it is "necessary" for a warrior, I do not agree.
Your point about increased people in the guild is valid, so long as they are present.
<F2P characters are already at major mechanical disadvantages to subscribers.>
This is by design, to incentivize subscription. To produce store transactions on essentially a trial account at the minimum.
Congratulations on achieving high levels and hope you are enjoying the game (return?).
CHULAK
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/13/2015 02:10 PM CDT
>What I am hearing is "I chose to gimp my character, and made it work, therefore it's fine that F2P should have zero access to the guild (no current access and only "plans" to create a pass) because I made a mechanically poor decision for my character."
I didn't choose to gimp my character. Other than berserk I never saw much need for any of the guild skills as I leveled, didn't even train in their associated CMANs. Due to this and the grind that guild skills are - I chose not to partake in what I find to be a terribly boring activity.
>Not buying it. Just because you did something 15+ years ago before the guild opened, doesn't change the fact that this game is now 100% different when it comes to using maneuvers. They're now part of the game's balance, and factor into everything.
Absolutely not true. I have been working with Durakar from level 0 to level 96 over the past 4 years with little to no use of the guild skills over this time. Look at my prior post, even now my guild skills are laughable at best.
>You're telling me it's OK that F2P warriors are denied access to 120 CMAN points worth of skills that are super important in today's CMAN heavy game? Not to mention losing out on Warcries and Batter Barrier (to get those pesky locked gates opened)??
>No other F2P class suffers such a massive detriment (with the exception of Bards) to their training and ability options.
>Restricting Guilds, especially for Warriors and Rogues heavily (and I can't stress this enough) imbalances the F2P class support.
>Please tell me what other class sacrifices as much as the Warrior and Rogue who are restricted from using *class specific abilities* provided by their guilds while also losing a massive amounts of CMAN options due to the CMAN savings guild training offers?
You're right in that no other F2P class suffers from a detriment to the option of 'free' CMAN training or similar. However, the flip side to this is that no other class even HAS this option to begin with (Alchemy and Illusions being the closest things). By restricting guild access it leaves something to grow into once an account is turned into a subscribing account, or once the guild skill access gets coded in for a SimuCoin option.
And so you don't think I am just hating on F2P, I think that having F2P is a great boon to Gemstone. It gives anyone the chance to play and experience this game I have loved for nearly 20 years now.
An announcer shouts, "Introducing our new combatant, Duskruin Arena Hero Durakar al'Yari Faendryl the Captain of the Mist Harbor Militia, hailing from Isle of the Four Winds!"
I didn't choose to gimp my character. Other than berserk I never saw much need for any of the guild skills as I leveled, didn't even train in their associated CMANs. Due to this and the grind that guild skills are - I chose not to partake in what I find to be a terribly boring activity.
>Not buying it. Just because you did something 15+ years ago before the guild opened, doesn't change the fact that this game is now 100% different when it comes to using maneuvers. They're now part of the game's balance, and factor into everything.
Absolutely not true. I have been working with Durakar from level 0 to level 96 over the past 4 years with little to no use of the guild skills over this time. Look at my prior post, even now my guild skills are laughable at best.
>You're telling me it's OK that F2P warriors are denied access to 120 CMAN points worth of skills that are super important in today's CMAN heavy game? Not to mention losing out on Warcries and Batter Barrier (to get those pesky locked gates opened)??
>No other F2P class suffers such a massive detriment (with the exception of Bards) to their training and ability options.
>Restricting Guilds, especially for Warriors and Rogues heavily (and I can't stress this enough) imbalances the F2P class support.
>Please tell me what other class sacrifices as much as the Warrior and Rogue who are restricted from using *class specific abilities* provided by their guilds while also losing a massive amounts of CMAN options due to the CMAN savings guild training offers?
You're right in that no other F2P class suffers from a detriment to the option of 'free' CMAN training or similar. However, the flip side to this is that no other class even HAS this option to begin with (Alchemy and Illusions being the closest things). By restricting guild access it leaves something to grow into once an account is turned into a subscribing account, or once the guild skill access gets coded in for a SimuCoin option.
And so you don't think I am just hating on F2P, I think that having F2P is a great boon to Gemstone. It gives anyone the chance to play and experience this game I have loved for nearly 20 years now.
An announcer shouts, "Introducing our new combatant, Duskruin Arena Hero Durakar al'Yari Faendryl the Captain of the Mist Harbor Militia, hailing from Isle of the Four Winds!"
KRAKII
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/13/2015 02:12 PM CDT
I wasn't saying that my character is gimped. I was saying that I'm perfectly viable (withOUT having to do the grind of Guildwork) using only things available through the CMan List itself.
Do I have fewer nifty things that I can do with trap components?
Yes, absolutely.
Did I save myself one incredible amount of time wrestling with trapped boxes trying to master Lock Mastery?
You're damn skippy. (There is a reason the acronym for that Guildskill is "LFM".)
Some people value having access to Guildskills. They're welcome to them. And to the experience/fame that they accrue. Other people don't.
For neither of those groups are they "necessary" skills. They're the pickle alongside your sandwich, not the meal itself.
Do I have fewer nifty things that I can do with trap components?
Yes, absolutely.
Did I save myself one incredible amount of time wrestling with trapped boxes trying to master Lock Mastery?
You're damn skippy. (There is a reason the acronym for that Guildskill is "LFM".)
Some people value having access to Guildskills. They're welcome to them. And to the experience/fame that they accrue. Other people don't.
For neither of those groups are they "necessary" skills. They're the pickle alongside your sandwich, not the meal itself.
TUMBLEKEGGER
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/13/2015 02:32 PM CDT
>>I didn't choose to gimp my character. Other than berserk I never saw much need for any of the guild skills as I leveled, didn't even train in their associated CMANs. Due to this and the grind that guild skills are - I chose not to partake in what I find to be a terribly boring activity.
I'm sorry you didn't see that you are significantly more vulnerable to being disarmed until you train disarm by spending 30 CMAN points or become even better at avoiding the CMAN by training all 63 ranks in the guild. Yes, you are gimped to anything that tackles when compared to a warrior trained in Tackle because you don't have the training to help avoid being tackled. You are also weaker to being affected by Warcries, which is commonly used by warrior-type creatures (ever try a warcamp?).
Just because you didn't recognize the disadvantage you chose to impose on your character, doesn't mean it isn't there. Requiring F2P accounts to make the same decision you made just because you were able to overcome those disadvantages isn't really a a valid argument.
I'm sorry I didn't use quotes in my original post, but the 15 years comment was related to Krakki's comment on how he made a warrior to level 30 before the warrior guild even opened, so that was not in response to your feedback on guild skill usage. I see absolutely no reason to bring up the state of Warriors / Rogues or any other class from 15+ years ago - GS3 was a completely different game when you take CMANs into consideration.
>>You're right in that no other F2P class suffers from a detriment to the option of 'free' CMAN training or similar. However, the flip side to this is that no other class even HAS this option to begin with (Alchemy and Illusions being the closest things). By restricting guild access it leaves something to grow into once an account is turned into a subscribing account, or once the guild skill access gets coded in for a SimuCoin option.
The detriment is that many of those skills are most valuable in the early training of a character's life. I would love on my little 24 F2P warrior to not have to "waste" points on Feint. It's used almost every time I start combat with a target, but it restricts my CMAN training substantially. I also have to rely on Shield Bash to knock my foes over, when I could have trained Tackle by now.
Opening the guild to F2P isn't like handing out free candy (or Pickles to use Krakki's reference). It's opening up the option of spending your considerable time grinding and toiling at something that will eventually pay off, while not limiting your class in such a significant way. No other class has combat defining abilities like Warriors and Rogues. The guild restriction should not exist.
I'm sorry you didn't see that you are significantly more vulnerable to being disarmed until you train disarm by spending 30 CMAN points or become even better at avoiding the CMAN by training all 63 ranks in the guild. Yes, you are gimped to anything that tackles when compared to a warrior trained in Tackle because you don't have the training to help avoid being tackled. You are also weaker to being affected by Warcries, which is commonly used by warrior-type creatures (ever try a warcamp?).
Just because you didn't recognize the disadvantage you chose to impose on your character, doesn't mean it isn't there. Requiring F2P accounts to make the same decision you made just because you were able to overcome those disadvantages isn't really a a valid argument.
I'm sorry I didn't use quotes in my original post, but the 15 years comment was related to Krakki's comment on how he made a warrior to level 30 before the warrior guild even opened, so that was not in response to your feedback on guild skill usage. I see absolutely no reason to bring up the state of Warriors / Rogues or any other class from 15+ years ago - GS3 was a completely different game when you take CMANs into consideration.
>>You're right in that no other F2P class suffers from a detriment to the option of 'free' CMAN training or similar. However, the flip side to this is that no other class even HAS this option to begin with (Alchemy and Illusions being the closest things). By restricting guild access it leaves something to grow into once an account is turned into a subscribing account, or once the guild skill access gets coded in for a SimuCoin option.
The detriment is that many of those skills are most valuable in the early training of a character's life. I would love on my little 24 F2P warrior to not have to "waste" points on Feint. It's used almost every time I start combat with a target, but it restricts my CMAN training substantially. I also have to rely on Shield Bash to knock my foes over, when I could have trained Tackle by now.
Opening the guild to F2P isn't like handing out free candy (or Pickles to use Krakki's reference). It's opening up the option of spending your considerable time grinding and toiling at something that will eventually pay off, while not limiting your class in such a significant way. No other class has combat defining abilities like Warriors and Rogues. The guild restriction should not exist.
KRAKII
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/13/2015 02:56 PM CDT
I think you raise good points, about Warriors & Rogues.
(I just happen to disagree with them. They're still good points, and the upper management can address them as they will.)
.
However--and I apologize for leaving this untouched, since arguably the character I've played the most since 2002 has been a Bard--I think you create an entirely separate thread about the Bards' F2P situation, and shout it loud and long both here and in "The Bad & the Ugly" folders.
What you describe for Bards is... well, that's just ugly.
Keep raising a stink about that! I got your back on this one.
(Just, you know... not on the Warriors & Rogues. <shrug> We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.)
(I just happen to disagree with them. They're still good points, and the upper management can address them as they will.)
.
However--and I apologize for leaving this untouched, since arguably the character I've played the most since 2002 has been a Bard--I think you create an entirely separate thread about the Bards' F2P situation, and shout it loud and long both here and in "The Bad & the Ugly" folders.
What you describe for Bards is... well, that's just ugly.
Keep raising a stink about that! I got your back on this one.
(Just, you know... not on the Warriors & Rogues. <shrug> We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.)
TANDL
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/13/2015 05:36 PM CDT
So I don't have a warrior or rogue so I won't comment on those but I want to ask after your bard concerns.
Which songs are unable to be used without a pass that your concerned with? 1017 and 1018?
For 1018... doesn't 1007 have a self-buff only version? It seems like using that same logic for Power would be the easiest thing. Assuming I'm not misremembering that being how Kai's works any idea why that isn't the case for Power? Would it be acceptable if it were?
For noise I really can't think of a good way to make it work without doing a custom FtP purchase... any ideas on that one on your end?
Past that I do agree the empath delay needs some work. They said awhile ago that it was a model that all empaths would move towards long term... but I am holding out hope that at least blood transfer can be made exempt before that happens (for both FtP and regular subscriptions).
Tal.
Which songs are unable to be used without a pass that your concerned with? 1017 and 1018?
For 1018... doesn't 1007 have a self-buff only version? It seems like using that same logic for Power would be the easiest thing. Assuming I'm not misremembering that being how Kai's works any idea why that isn't the case for Power? Would it be acceptable if it were?
For noise I really can't think of a good way to make it work without doing a custom FtP purchase... any ideas on that one on your end?
Past that I do agree the empath delay needs some work. They said awhile ago that it was a model that all empaths would move towards long term... but I am holding out hope that at least blood transfer can be made exempt before that happens (for both FtP and regular subscriptions).
Tal.
TUMBLEKEGGER
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/13/2015 07:08 PM CDT
>>Unless this is blocked for F2P, this is a CMAN (Stun Maneuvers/stunman)
You can get 5 ranks of the CMAN Stun Maneuvers, which equates to 50 ranks of the ability.
At 60 ranks, and 63 ranks there are new unique abilities unlocked, achievable only by Rogues in the Rogue Guild. These are +40% to you stance and the ability to move rooms while stunned.
With the CMAN only, you are unable to use these options.
>>Not true. Perhaps your stats (DIS) are set too low. I raised a shattered warrior and did not have significant ability to berserk issues while using the CMAN berserk at I believe rank 3. Even warrior guild masters of berserk will have a fumble chance to not break stuns/webs/etc..
In regards to Berserk, training higher ranks in that CMAN will allow you to break your Berserk sooner. If you are not mastered in Berserk through the Warrior's Guild, I believe you must wait 12 rounds before you'll be able to break the Berserk, while guild masters can break it at 9 rounds. It actually has been a few years, and unfortunately the Wiki doesn't discuss the benefits as directly for Berserk as it does for the other abilities.
>>Which songs are unable to be used without a pass that your concerned with? 1017 and 1018?
Bards cannot use 1011 (Song of Peace), 1015 (Song of Depression), 1016 (Song of Rage), 1017 (Song of Noise), 1018 (Song of Power). Considering that they cannot use any of those room effect songs - I can only assume that means they cannot use 1030 either because it works in the same manner as these songs, but I couldn't be bothered to get a Bard to level 30 and test it (especially since they were so incredibly hard to level in F2P compared to other class options).
No, they cannot apply 1006 or 1007 to their party - though they will work fine for just the bard. This is annoying because... bard... but it isn't the primary concern. (Not sure what happens for F2P with 1025 either).
You can get 5 ranks of the CMAN Stun Maneuvers, which equates to 50 ranks of the ability.
At 60 ranks, and 63 ranks there are new unique abilities unlocked, achievable only by Rogues in the Rogue Guild. These are +40% to you stance and the ability to move rooms while stunned.
With the CMAN only, you are unable to use these options.
>>Not true. Perhaps your stats (DIS) are set too low. I raised a shattered warrior and did not have significant ability to berserk issues while using the CMAN berserk at I believe rank 3. Even warrior guild masters of berserk will have a fumble chance to not break stuns/webs/etc..
In regards to Berserk, training higher ranks in that CMAN will allow you to break your Berserk sooner. If you are not mastered in Berserk through the Warrior's Guild, I believe you must wait 12 rounds before you'll be able to break the Berserk, while guild masters can break it at 9 rounds. It actually has been a few years, and unfortunately the Wiki doesn't discuss the benefits as directly for Berserk as it does for the other abilities.
>>Which songs are unable to be used without a pass that your concerned with? 1017 and 1018?
Bards cannot use 1011 (Song of Peace), 1015 (Song of Depression), 1016 (Song of Rage), 1017 (Song of Noise), 1018 (Song of Power). Considering that they cannot use any of those room effect songs - I can only assume that means they cannot use 1030 either because it works in the same manner as these songs, but I couldn't be bothered to get a Bard to level 30 and test it (especially since they were so incredibly hard to level in F2P compared to other class options).
No, they cannot apply 1006 or 1007 to their party - though they will work fine for just the bard. This is annoying because... bard... but it isn't the primary concern. (Not sure what happens for F2P with 1025 either).
GOLDENOAK2
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/13/2015 08:28 PM CDT
Sorry, but any way you spin it...guild skills are useful and no doubt increase the potential of warriors/rogues...but they are NOT vital for advancement or success. There are a lot of rogues out there who never even bother to advance skills past a certain point because its just too much PITA factor for the gain.
If you want the skills, suck it up and get a basic account...or wait until some option comes for simucoin purchases. Otherwise, just enjoy what you have and make the most of it.
For one thing...forget about always mastering CMANs until you get higher level. Instead get more variety of lower level cmans.
VANKRASN39
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/13/2015 08:59 PM CDT
Honestly if you're playing so much to get three characters to level twenty and you are that concerned about mechanics, perhaps it is time to subscribe
TUMBLEKEGGER
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/14/2015 12:45 AM CDT
>>Sorry, but any way you spin it...guild skills are useful and no doubt increase the potential of warriors/rogues...but they are NOT vital for advancement or success. There are a lot of rogues out there who never even bother to advance skills past a certain point because its just too much PITA factor for the gain.
I'm not sure why the point is being completely missed. I'm not spinning it that the guild skills are absolutely essential. I'm pointing out that the guild skills are a major mechanical advantage. If you deny that they are significantly advantageous, then you clearly play a different game.
>>This is the point:
The incentive (mechanically) to chose a Warrior or a Rogue over a Paladin or a Ranger is not there. There is absolutely zero reason to ever play a F2P Warrior or Rogue when you have the option to play a Paladin or a Ranger.
F2P Warriors vs F2P Paladins:
Paladins will have Better AS/DS. They will have substantially easier leveling curve. They have access to all of their abilities. Nothing is restricted save for cooldowns on area effect spells (30 seconds between casts). Paladins rely very little on active CMANs because their spells fill in where Warriors rely on CMANs. Without the Warrior's guild, you have to spend additional CMAN points on skills that you would otherwise have for no TP/CMAN point cost.
F2P Warriors can't use ARMOR skills on other players (neither can paladins), make sheaths, or provide any benefit other than the ASSESS verb to other players. They are far worse off in the F2P design than a Paladin - Mechanically, and rely heavily on outside support especially if the Warrior player wishes to remain free.
Now, lets look at what a Warrior would gain if they had the Warrior guild. They'd gain potential AS benefits from Warcries. Easy access to a knock-down ability (which paladins get easily via spells). Feint - the most commonly used CMAN in a Warrior's arsenal. And, of course, Berserk - which accomplishes what a Paladin is able to accomplish with 1635 (and the Beseech verb).
Can you live without having these skills? Oh sure. You can live as a Warrior dual-wielding cudgels or scimitars and plinking things to death if you wanted to. Does it make sense to restrict your ability to play this game so heavily when you can just roll up a better class (Paladin) and have all the skills you're denied as F2P at your disposal for free without any restriction?
A subscribed Warrior is capable of performing at easily the same level as a subscribed Paladin. A F2P Warrior is considerably weakened by their restrictions. Does this make any sense?
Why do people agree that specific classes should be more heavily impacted by the F2P restrictions than other classes? This makes no sense from a balancing perspective...
Why would you play a Rogue when the Ranger has access to all it's skills, and is restricted far less? Similarly to how the Warrior compares to the Paladin...
Here are the primary mechanical F2P restrictions:
1. No Society Access without a pass.
2. Can't use your spells on other players without a pass.
3. Can only bank in a single city. Have to pay $1.00 every time you want to move cities.
4. Bank account deposit restrictions that can be increased by small increments with SimuCoin purchases.
5. No locker access (not even a pass for this one).
5. Cannot hold more than 5000 silver and perform combat actions.
6. Limited access to the Adventurer's Guild
All of the above limitations are not class specific.
7. Warriors and Rogues cannot use their class-specific Guild abilities?
See how this imbalances the game against two particular classes when the remaining classes are not impacted in such a way?
Hell - Wizards and Sorcerers can still use their money-making skills (925 and 735) if they buy a SimuCoin pass for them. No gating issues to use them. Clerics and Paladins can still raise the dead with the queue system, and Empaths can still heal. None of these restrictions impact combat ability in the least!
At first, I was opposed to Society restrictions, but at least that restriction is fair. It impacts every single F2P player - not just individual classes. There are a few classes that get greater benefit from Societies than others (Warrior and Rogue being in the top of the list for relying on those Society bonuses while heavy mana usage Pures being reliant also).
So yes, this unfairly gimps Warriors and Rogues - and only Warriors and Rogues. It makes the F2P model broken for those two classes since they are at a substantial disadvantage when compared to other class options.
I sure do hope they reconsider some of the mechanics. The above is an example of what is broken for Warrior and Rogue. The spell restriction system messes with Bards pretty badly - but seems to work great for everyone else. Some of these rules need to be less concrete and more flexible to help improve balance and make each class just as viable as the rest to draw in F2P customers.
>>Honestly if you're playing so much to get three characters to level twenty and you are that concerned about mechanics, perhaps it is time to subscribe
This comment adds nothing to the discussion. I played over 7 characters to level 20+ using the F2P subscription model in the first couple months after it was released so I could test it out for my personal enjoyment and to help the community understand how the F2P model works since there was and still is so much uncertainty about the limitations. I have a regular subscription with a normal account. I've played this game off and on for 18 years... What exactly is your point?
Most people appreciate the effort and time it took to figure out what is working and what is broken.
I'm not sure why the point is being completely missed. I'm not spinning it that the guild skills are absolutely essential. I'm pointing out that the guild skills are a major mechanical advantage. If you deny that they are significantly advantageous, then you clearly play a different game.
>>This is the point:
The incentive (mechanically) to chose a Warrior or a Rogue over a Paladin or a Ranger is not there. There is absolutely zero reason to ever play a F2P Warrior or Rogue when you have the option to play a Paladin or a Ranger.
F2P Warriors vs F2P Paladins:
Paladins will have Better AS/DS. They will have substantially easier leveling curve. They have access to all of their abilities. Nothing is restricted save for cooldowns on area effect spells (30 seconds between casts). Paladins rely very little on active CMANs because their spells fill in where Warriors rely on CMANs. Without the Warrior's guild, you have to spend additional CMAN points on skills that you would otherwise have for no TP/CMAN point cost.
F2P Warriors can't use ARMOR skills on other players (neither can paladins), make sheaths, or provide any benefit other than the ASSESS verb to other players. They are far worse off in the F2P design than a Paladin - Mechanically, and rely heavily on outside support especially if the Warrior player wishes to remain free.
Now, lets look at what a Warrior would gain if they had the Warrior guild. They'd gain potential AS benefits from Warcries. Easy access to a knock-down ability (which paladins get easily via spells). Feint - the most commonly used CMAN in a Warrior's arsenal. And, of course, Berserk - which accomplishes what a Paladin is able to accomplish with 1635 (and the Beseech verb).
Can you live without having these skills? Oh sure. You can live as a Warrior dual-wielding cudgels or scimitars and plinking things to death if you wanted to. Does it make sense to restrict your ability to play this game so heavily when you can just roll up a better class (Paladin) and have all the skills you're denied as F2P at your disposal for free without any restriction?
A subscribed Warrior is capable of performing at easily the same level as a subscribed Paladin. A F2P Warrior is considerably weakened by their restrictions. Does this make any sense?
Why do people agree that specific classes should be more heavily impacted by the F2P restrictions than other classes? This makes no sense from a balancing perspective...
Why would you play a Rogue when the Ranger has access to all it's skills, and is restricted far less? Similarly to how the Warrior compares to the Paladin...
Here are the primary mechanical F2P restrictions:
1. No Society Access without a pass.
2. Can't use your spells on other players without a pass.
3. Can only bank in a single city. Have to pay $1.00 every time you want to move cities.
4. Bank account deposit restrictions that can be increased by small increments with SimuCoin purchases.
5. No locker access (not even a pass for this one).
5. Cannot hold more than 5000 silver and perform combat actions.
6. Limited access to the Adventurer's Guild
All of the above limitations are not class specific.
7. Warriors and Rogues cannot use their class-specific Guild abilities?
See how this imbalances the game against two particular classes when the remaining classes are not impacted in such a way?
Hell - Wizards and Sorcerers can still use their money-making skills (925 and 735) if they buy a SimuCoin pass for them. No gating issues to use them. Clerics and Paladins can still raise the dead with the queue system, and Empaths can still heal. None of these restrictions impact combat ability in the least!
At first, I was opposed to Society restrictions, but at least that restriction is fair. It impacts every single F2P player - not just individual classes. There are a few classes that get greater benefit from Societies than others (Warrior and Rogue being in the top of the list for relying on those Society bonuses while heavy mana usage Pures being reliant also).
So yes, this unfairly gimps Warriors and Rogues - and only Warriors and Rogues. It makes the F2P model broken for those two classes since they are at a substantial disadvantage when compared to other class options.
I sure do hope they reconsider some of the mechanics. The above is an example of what is broken for Warrior and Rogue. The spell restriction system messes with Bards pretty badly - but seems to work great for everyone else. Some of these rules need to be less concrete and more flexible to help improve balance and make each class just as viable as the rest to draw in F2P customers.
>>Honestly if you're playing so much to get three characters to level twenty and you are that concerned about mechanics, perhaps it is time to subscribe
This comment adds nothing to the discussion. I played over 7 characters to level 20+ using the F2P subscription model in the first couple months after it was released so I could test it out for my personal enjoyment and to help the community understand how the F2P model works since there was and still is so much uncertainty about the limitations. I have a regular subscription with a normal account. I've played this game off and on for 18 years... What exactly is your point?
Most people appreciate the effort and time it took to figure out what is working and what is broken.
VANKRASN39
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/14/2015 01:16 AM CDT
I don't think it's necessary for them to make all classes equally viable under f2p.
BRANDTJRT
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/14/2015 01:34 AM CDT
While there is apparently debate about the degree of need for warrior/rogue guilds (mine are still at a happy point with enough variety that I can always compensate), it seems clear to me that does change the balance in what F2P characters one might choose. It seems bad to make some less usable given the goals of F2P.
Best I think would be if profession guilds were set up like societies are now. Let F2P characters get a rank or two in each skill to get a taste but then require a pass, though they could also then be restricted from being guildmasters? Or a different formula for max ranks per level?
But really, adding a guild pass now is only wins: F2P characters can do guild stuff, other guild members have more people to do tasks with (see that recent complaint thread), and more simucoins are bought. Triple win, no need to argue about the degree of need for guild skills.
No idea on fixing Bards, though it seems it'd be good to have a spellsong alternate version spell pass to start?
GIBESON1
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/14/2015 07:07 AM CDT
For my two cents on the matter as I see it. F2p was set up to get away from the 30 day free trail. Its jokable that you can learn the ins and outs of gemstone in 30 days. This gives NEW players and returning a real chance to learn the game see if they like it learn its little quirks. F2p is for the causal player the I'm going to play a day or two a week and that's enough for me.
Can you play F2p to cap sure. Should you (IMO) no. You are setting yourself up against mechanical advantages right from the start if this is your plan. Can you buy this pass or that pass to make it better sure , but once you start down that road as I see it, its time to sub. Some where around level 20 for me at least would be the time to think should I bite the bullet and sub or should I just keep on keeping on. If your at the point where you understand that you're at a disadvantage because your f2p and you think its hindering you that drastically its time to pony up.
A lot of the problems with F2p is people who have been playing the game for 20 years with a subscription and know how the game is with all these pearks. Then get on to this F2p model and all of a sudden its why you do this simu?! Try looking at F2p as your extended 30 day trail of the game with the goal from simu to get you to sub because that is the end goal for them here.
My main issues with allowing F2p people into those guild is the player base myself included. I don't do guild stuff because I feel its a total time sink , its often near impossible to find a partner to help you and when you do , for me at least I feel bad bugging this person for 2 hours with the hey can I tackle you over and over again. Do I feel letting f2p people in the guild will help this no here's why. So say they allow the option for a pass its a few bucks. I'm more than willing to start a f2p account hunt them in the downtime from my main pay a few extra bucks a month and now have a guild bot in my pocket to further my other guy. This now removes me from helping anyone else in the guild because I have no need to be around any longer than to get a task and leave , to seek out other people in my rank range to get or give help to.
Can you play F2p to cap sure. Should you (IMO) no. You are setting yourself up against mechanical advantages right from the start if this is your plan. Can you buy this pass or that pass to make it better sure , but once you start down that road as I see it, its time to sub. Some where around level 20 for me at least would be the time to think should I bite the bullet and sub or should I just keep on keeping on. If your at the point where you understand that you're at a disadvantage because your f2p and you think its hindering you that drastically its time to pony up.
A lot of the problems with F2p is people who have been playing the game for 20 years with a subscription and know how the game is with all these pearks. Then get on to this F2p model and all of a sudden its why you do this simu?! Try looking at F2p as your extended 30 day trail of the game with the goal from simu to get you to sub because that is the end goal for them here.
My main issues with allowing F2p people into those guild is the player base myself included. I don't do guild stuff because I feel its a total time sink , its often near impossible to find a partner to help you and when you do , for me at least I feel bad bugging this person for 2 hours with the hey can I tackle you over and over again. Do I feel letting f2p people in the guild will help this no here's why. So say they allow the option for a pass its a few bucks. I'm more than willing to start a f2p account hunt them in the downtime from my main pay a few extra bucks a month and now have a guild bot in my pocket to further my other guy. This now removes me from helping anyone else in the guild because I have no need to be around any longer than to get a task and leave , to seek out other people in my rank range to get or give help to.
MAXMANJ
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/14/2015 07:58 AM CDT
<< What I am hearing is "I chose to gimp my character, and made it work, therefore it's fine that F2P should have zero access to the guild (no current access and only "plans" to create a pass) because I made a mechanically poor decision for my character." >>
No. What you heard was that your claim that "They can barely touch anything." is false. My rogue is nearly level 94 and I can't stand guild skills, so I don't use them. It has been exceedingly easy to hit things and level. I use shadow mastery and the hide while in RT CMAN on a regular basis, and occasionally surge of strength when boxes load me down and I want to avoid the RT they add.
Complaining that you enjoy guild skills is valid. Complaining that you can barely hit things is bogus.
Josh
No. What you heard was that your claim that "They can barely touch anything." is false. My rogue is nearly level 94 and I can't stand guild skills, so I don't use them. It has been exceedingly easy to hit things and level. I use shadow mastery and the hide while in RT CMAN on a regular basis, and occasionally surge of strength when boxes load me down and I want to avoid the RT they add.
Complaining that you enjoy guild skills is valid. Complaining that you can barely hit things is bogus.
Josh
KRAKII
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/14/2015 09:25 AM CDT
Also, don't look at it as "Warriors and Rogues can't access their combat/utility Guild skills."
Look at it as, "NO F2P profession can join a Guild." That's across-the-board for everyone.
Frankly, that seems fair.
It just happens that, after those two Guilds were opened, it was decided that no mechanical benefits would accrue to any other of the professions' Guilds.
This is part of the limitation imposed by access to FREE GAME.
Want more? Pay more.
Look at it as, "NO F2P profession can join a Guild." That's across-the-board for everyone.
Frankly, that seems fair.
It just happens that, after those two Guilds were opened, it was decided that no mechanical benefits would accrue to any other of the professions' Guilds.
This is part of the limitation imposed by access to FREE GAME.
Want more? Pay more.
TUMBLEKEGGER
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/14/2015 09:56 AM CDT
>>Also, don't look at it as "Warriors and Rogues can't access their combat/utility Guild skills."
>>Look at it as, "NO F2P profession can join a Guild." That's across-the-board for everyone.
>>Frankly, that seems fair.
It would seem fair to me if any other guild offered combat skills. Only the Warrior and Rogue guild give their class unique abilities that can be used in combat.
What would be smarter is to prevent players from using skills the guild offers to just have like a "potion bot", or a "sheath bot". The rest of the guild offers absolutely nothing in the way of "bot" advantage, which is one of the primary reasons F2P is restricted (spell bots, heal bots, raise bots, enchanting / ensorcelling bots, and locksmiths). That would make perfect sense to me, but limiting access to combat skills? That's a completely different issue, and is currently limited for F2P Warriors and Rogues. I see no logic for this limitation, and it makes those two classes less appealing than pretty much any other option (save Bard IMO).
>>Look at it as, "NO F2P profession can join a Guild." That's across-the-board for everyone.
>>Frankly, that seems fair.
It would seem fair to me if any other guild offered combat skills. Only the Warrior and Rogue guild give their class unique abilities that can be used in combat.
What would be smarter is to prevent players from using skills the guild offers to just have like a "potion bot", or a "sheath bot". The rest of the guild offers absolutely nothing in the way of "bot" advantage, which is one of the primary reasons F2P is restricted (spell bots, heal bots, raise bots, enchanting / ensorcelling bots, and locksmiths). That would make perfect sense to me, but limiting access to combat skills? That's a completely different issue, and is currently limited for F2P Warriors and Rogues. I see no logic for this limitation, and it makes those two classes less appealing than pretty much any other option (save Bard IMO).
DOUG
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/14/2015 09:59 AM CDT
>>Frankly, that seems fair
Perhaps the unpopular opinion (and I'm sure it'll come back to bite me), but 'fair' should mean 'equitable for all' in an RPG.
The scenario, if described accurately, would suggest that mechanisms put into the game on the subscription level to ensure 'equitable' aren't in place based on the F2P model.
It's a decision - and one that I'm not in the best position to qualify and argue - but I would hesitate to call it 'fair'.
Doug
Perhaps the unpopular opinion (and I'm sure it'll come back to bite me), but 'fair' should mean 'equitable for all' in an RPG.
The scenario, if described accurately, would suggest that mechanisms put into the game on the subscription level to ensure 'equitable' aren't in place based on the F2P model.
It's a decision - and one that I'm not in the best position to qualify and argue - but I would hesitate to call it 'fair'.
Doug
KRAKII
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/14/2015 10:21 AM CDT
I think we should also consider that F2P is less than a year old, and very much a work-in-progress.
Keep making suggestions of ways to add to/improve it, on all fronts. (Which I totally agree that an "access to profession Guild" would be an improvement, and should be considered.)
Keep making suggestions of ways to add to/improve it, on all fronts. (Which I totally agree that an "access to profession Guild" would be an improvement, and should be considered.)
BRANDTJRT
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/14/2015 10:28 AM CDT
>>I think we should also consider that F2P is less than a year old, and very much a work-in-progress.
That's definitely something people should keep in mind since it sounds like a lot of people (not necessarily in this thread, mind you) don't think things will change much. My personal feeling is that by maximizing the classes a free player can get the most experience from will also lead to maximizing possible new/returning players. If someone only wants to try to play a Bard, it seems like that may be a player that won't be here, or at least a lot more likely than other classes given the current situation.
That's definitely something people should keep in mind since it sounds like a lot of people (not necessarily in this thread, mind you) don't think things will change much. My personal feeling is that by maximizing the classes a free player can get the most experience from will also lead to maximizing possible new/returning players. If someone only wants to try to play a Bard, it seems like that may be a player that won't be here, or at least a lot more likely than other classes given the current situation.
KRAKII
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/14/2015 11:13 AM CDT
And perhaps those three professions are worth annotating when being created F2P:
| * | Warrior: this subscription level has NO ACCESS to the Guild at this time, and there are useful utility skills there that may impact the character's advancement. |
| * | Rogue: this subscription level has NO ACCESS to the Guild at this time, and there are useful utility skills there that may impact the character's advancement. |
| ** | Bard: due to the unique mechanics of this profession's spells, this subscription level has NO USEFUL ACCESS to a majority of the profession's spell list through the SimuCoin Store. Players are cautioned in advance. |
RISHIB1
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/14/2015 02:32 PM CDT
It was posted earlier in the thread, but I didn't see anyone comment on it...by giving F2P free access to the guilds, partner rep requirements would be wiped out by people rolling up an F2P character to be their partner rep bot.
I think that's a real problem. In the context of other restrictions that exist to prevent free spellbots and healbots, the current restriction makes sense.
Now, along the same lines, there may be a reason to prevent paid access for F2P that I haven't thought of yet. Or maybe it's being worked on.
As far as empathic linking for healing, given that Estild has posted that he wants to transition all empaths to a linking system (I believe subscribed accounts would have 15 seconds for linking), this complaint might go away. I've suggested a hybrid method that involves the use of stamina for empaths that don't wish to link. However, none of that changes that it would be a significant nerf, not only for empaths, but for the general population if they've got to wait. And I don't know what the balancing buff would be.
Rishi
- Player of Kembal
Speaking to Plur, Belnia says, "You're no Kembal."
[Roll result: -2112 (open d100: 82)]
A giantman thief crouches and sweeps a leg at you, but only manages to trip himself.
I think that's a real problem. In the context of other restrictions that exist to prevent free spellbots and healbots, the current restriction makes sense.
Now, along the same lines, there may be a reason to prevent paid access for F2P that I haven't thought of yet. Or maybe it's being worked on.
As far as empathic linking for healing, given that Estild has posted that he wants to transition all empaths to a linking system (I believe subscribed accounts would have 15 seconds for linking), this complaint might go away. I've suggested a hybrid method that involves the use of stamina for empaths that don't wish to link. However, none of that changes that it would be a significant nerf, not only for empaths, but for the general population if they've got to wait. And I don't know what the balancing buff would be.
Rishi
- Player of Kembal
Speaking to Plur, Belnia says, "You're no Kembal."
[Roll result: -2112 (open d100: 82)]
A giantman thief crouches and sweeps a leg at you, but only manages to trip himself.
TUMBLEKEGGER
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/15/2015 09:19 AM CDT
>>It was posted earlier in the thread, but I didn't see anyone comment on it...by giving F2P free access to the guilds, partner rep requirements would be wiped out by people rolling up an F2P character to be their partner rep bot.
This is a reasonable argument despite how painful it would be to actually create a bot since you have to level the bot up for it to be able to master skills and then learn the ranks.
However, there's a much better solution to prevent repetition bots. Instead of blocking F2P from the guild entirely without a pass, you block the GLD TEACH verb (and also I think GLD NOMINATE and GLD PROMOTE) the same way that spells are blocked. You can buy a 15 minute pass for 5-15 simucoins that allows you to use TEACH, NOMINATE, and PROMOTE, and this solves the problem.
If F2P were to access the guild, they could learn the skills, but they could not teach the the skills, thus preventing other players from leveraging the F2P accounts as "bots" for their own rep tasks.\
There's definitely better ways to keep the guild from being leveraged by the subscriber community (bots) other than blocking access entirely.
This is a reasonable argument despite how painful it would be to actually create a bot since you have to level the bot up for it to be able to master skills and then learn the ranks.
However, there's a much better solution to prevent repetition bots. Instead of blocking F2P from the guild entirely without a pass, you block the GLD TEACH verb (and also I think GLD NOMINATE and GLD PROMOTE) the same way that spells are blocked. You can buy a 15 minute pass for 5-15 simucoins that allows you to use TEACH, NOMINATE, and PROMOTE, and this solves the problem.
If F2P were to access the guild, they could learn the skills, but they could not teach the the skills, thus preventing other players from leveraging the F2P accounts as "bots" for their own rep tasks.\
There's definitely better ways to keep the guild from being leveraged by the subscriber community (bots) other than blocking access entirely.
GS4-WYROM
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/15/2015 11:19 AM CDT
Just to summarize, if guilds were accessible by F2P accounts, do you feel the F2P subscription tier would be more complete?
~Wyrom, APM
>>They call him Wyrom, not afraid to get dirty; work all day, in game by 5:30; loresongs eloquent, item embellishment, double speed development... ~Silvean
~Wyrom, APM
>>They call him Wyrom, not afraid to get dirty; work all day, in game by 5:30; loresongs eloquent, item embellishment, double speed development... ~Silvean
TUMBLEKEGGER
Re: Consider changes to the F2P setup.
08/15/2015 12:43 PM CDT
>>Just to summarize, if guilds were accessible by F2P accounts, do you feel the F2P subscription tier would be more complete?
For Warriors and Rogues - Yes.
The remaining classes feel relatively complete and functional for combat with the exception of the Bard class (due to restrictions on Area Effect abilities that make up a large % of their higher level spells).
It would be entirely reasonable to put limitations on specific elements of the various guilds. Alchemy, Sheath-Making, Lock Mastery could have their own passes. Access to specific GLD verbs (TEACH, PROMOTE, and NOMINATE) could be restricted by a single "Guild Ranking" pass for a low cost and low duration (similar to a spell casting pass).
For Warriors and Rogues - Yes.
The remaining classes feel relatively complete and functional for combat with the exception of the Bard class (due to restrictions on Area Effect abilities that make up a large % of their higher level spells).
It would be entirely reasonable to put limitations on specific elements of the various guilds. Alchemy, Sheath-Making, Lock Mastery could have their own passes. Access to specific GLD verbs (TEACH, PROMOTE, and NOMINATE) could be restricted by a single "Guild Ranking" pass for a low cost and low duration (similar to a spell casting pass).
