I've probably spent a dozen hours recently between playing the game, reading forums, reading guides and the wiki, and looking at the store. The F2P restrictions were simply too much. I wanted to see what a Wizard, Ranger, Sorcerer and Warrior were like, but after spending the time to carefully create my Wizard and get him to level 6, my only option was to delete him entirely or create another account. So I made another account.
The only reason I can figure they set it up that way, is that a basic no frills basic account only has one character slot. Without getting into the economics behind that decision, I'll just say it still doesn't make sense, because extra slots can apparently be purchased.
The F2P store is just not, in any way shape or form, designed to entice new players to play. From what I can tell, it was designed around existing players, so that instead of buying a second subscription, they could instead make an account, level it up to some arbitrary number, and have an Empath, Wizard, Cleric or whatever around to do whatever it is that needs doing, while buying temporary passes that amount to less than 15 dollars a month.
This is a pretty catastrophic, top down design failure. When the only real difference between 'abuse' and 'proper play' is the amount of money being spent on the account, you have created an extremely problematic game environment. Accounts should also have a shared locker to transfer items between characters. Making a free account to hold onto an item for a minute while another account dances between characters so that they can easily exchange items? That's the type of design failure I'm talking about. Nobody wants to jump through hoops because the game isn't properly accommodating.
The system should have been designed around allowing free accounts to do as much as possible, and then restricting them to access to things that could be disruptive. The choices were quite clearly made to protect the current revenue streams, instead of attempting to expand them. More people own computers and have the internet than in 1996-200X in just the US, not to mention global growth. There is an order of magnitude more potential customers for this game, but the world is far more empty than when I used to play it, the lich net population was at around 350 last night, but a quarter or a half of those could be glorified bots for all I know.
I also know this will fall on deaf ears. Searching the GS4 subreddit, I found there were a lot of great suggestions when F2P launched well over a year ago. Former and current players had a lot of constructive and helpful thoughts on improving the experience for everyone. No meaningful changes were made almost 18 months later. That's shameful.
I'm actually in the process of creating a post on the r/Mud subreddit, where I'm going to essentially warn people about the shoddy, and quite frankly, hostile F2P implementation. I'd hate for some other player to chance across this game after a long hiatus like me, get enticed into creating a character only to find the myriad problems with the current F2P and subscription process.
Getting smacked by a titan last night as I hunted Velnalin was a great experience, as I quickly had another play drag me into town, a third player heal me, and a fourth resurrect me, even though my level 3 Sorcerer could have just as easily departed. Every interaction with the F2P game system and store, from the nerfed loot, spell casting, skinning, foraging, adventurer's guild etc. has been either unpleasant or downright frustrating. I want to make sure as few players as possible make the same mistake as me, thinking they are being invited back to GS4 with open arms, while they are really being patted down for their wallet.
BOOCHMAN
FIREPHOENIX
Re: F2P Accounts, Abuse, and Design
06/23/2016 02:30 PM CDT
Feedback seems credible. It could use some work and you bring up frustrations. It does seem, as you said, you did really like the game, so that's good. Price of entry needs to be eased some on the f2p. We've made suggestions in anticipation of some of this too, so it has to prove true at certain points along the line of player and development.
ROBLAR
Re: F2P Accounts, Abuse, and Design
06/23/2016 02:42 PM CDT
<I want to make sure as few players as possible make the same mistake as me, thinking they are being invited back to GS4 with open arms, while they are really being patted down for their wallet.>
Cool, so make sure you tell those readers to subscribe for the whopping $14.95 and partake in..
<Getting smacked by a titan last night as I hunted Velnalin was a great experience, as I quickly had another play drag me into town, a third player heal me, and a fourth resurrect me, even though my level 3 Sorcerer could have just as easily departed.>
Right?
Cool, so make sure you tell those readers to subscribe for the whopping $14.95 and partake in..
<Getting smacked by a titan last night as I hunted Velnalin was a great experience, as I quickly had another play drag me into town, a third player heal me, and a fourth resurrect me, even though my level 3 Sorcerer could have just as easily departed.>
Right?
BOOCHMAN
Re: F2P Accounts, Abuse, and Design
06/23/2016 03:58 PM CDT
I mean, that aspect was the best part. There was some type of event going on, and I was too low level for it, obviously. The Titan attacked me with 500+ AS to my measely 100 DS and hit me for several times my life total. The community of players having my back and helping me was neat, that's the quintessential Gemstone experience, that's what I was playing for, and special events bringing people together is a legitimate positive thing, why would I criticize the things they are doing right?
The miserable lack of loot, society access, troubling skinning, foraging, casting spells on players (not PVP, just buffing as a thank you or reason to hunt together, assuming I could find anyone my level) those are real problems. Many of which are easily fixable. F2P buffs only lasting, say, 30 minutes or an hour compared to four hours? There is a number out there, somewhere, that balances play environment concerns and ability to enjoy the game properly. Spending money at the store just to cast spells on another player is not the answer. 30 days unrestricted buff time (equivalent to whatever normal players get) is a reasonable thing people could opt in and out of, since they appear tied to the subscription model.
I only had 800 or so bounty points accumulated on my Wizard, the possibilities with enticing F2P options are endless. What about being able to buy spell passes or what have you through the Adventurer's Guild? You can create an entire F2P economy that way, and, of course, let people pay money to just get access to it instantly. That's how the F2P model is supposed to work and be successful. I wish I knew more about the inner workings of the game to be more specific, but I've just scratched the surface with the guilds, societies and what not, and unfortunately I'm not motivated to continue because of the current implementation. A lot of the big flashy spells and abilities are turned off if you are free to play. So not only is it harder to reach level 30, 40, 50, and what not, but even if I buy experience passes and reach those milestones, I'm still heavily restricted in what I'm allowed to do. That simply means I'm not going to do any of it.
The treasure implementation itself is a huge turn off. I only found locked treasures when I was randomly awarded some short lasting loot pass. Finding someone to open them was fun, almost all of the money I have came from these chests. Why isn't a more reasonable sliding scale in place? A system where F2P players receive 10% less silver, and 10% less gems, and can buy a pass for X a month to receive the normal amount would have worked fine. The idea is fundamentally built around money enhancing the experience, not enabling the experience.
I don't have the experience or knowledge to critique the overall game systems, both because I've experienced so little of them, and because, from what I can tell, they are well thought out and refined after years of development. For all I know, they might be the best around in that regard, but I have tons of knowledge and experience with F2P and subscription, and one time purchase game systems, and I can confidently say their implementation on those fronts is completely lacking.
The type of changes that I feel are necessary would likely require months. If I see they are making positive changes, I'll likely head back to check them out, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
The miserable lack of loot, society access, troubling skinning, foraging, casting spells on players (not PVP, just buffing as a thank you or reason to hunt together, assuming I could find anyone my level) those are real problems. Many of which are easily fixable. F2P buffs only lasting, say, 30 minutes or an hour compared to four hours? There is a number out there, somewhere, that balances play environment concerns and ability to enjoy the game properly. Spending money at the store just to cast spells on another player is not the answer. 30 days unrestricted buff time (equivalent to whatever normal players get) is a reasonable thing people could opt in and out of, since they appear tied to the subscription model.
I only had 800 or so bounty points accumulated on my Wizard, the possibilities with enticing F2P options are endless. What about being able to buy spell passes or what have you through the Adventurer's Guild? You can create an entire F2P economy that way, and, of course, let people pay money to just get access to it instantly. That's how the F2P model is supposed to work and be successful. I wish I knew more about the inner workings of the game to be more specific, but I've just scratched the surface with the guilds, societies and what not, and unfortunately I'm not motivated to continue because of the current implementation. A lot of the big flashy spells and abilities are turned off if you are free to play. So not only is it harder to reach level 30, 40, 50, and what not, but even if I buy experience passes and reach those milestones, I'm still heavily restricted in what I'm allowed to do. That simply means I'm not going to do any of it.
The treasure implementation itself is a huge turn off. I only found locked treasures when I was randomly awarded some short lasting loot pass. Finding someone to open them was fun, almost all of the money I have came from these chests. Why isn't a more reasonable sliding scale in place? A system where F2P players receive 10% less silver, and 10% less gems, and can buy a pass for X a month to receive the normal amount would have worked fine. The idea is fundamentally built around money enhancing the experience, not enabling the experience.
I don't have the experience or knowledge to critique the overall game systems, both because I've experienced so little of them, and because, from what I can tell, they are well thought out and refined after years of development. For all I know, they might be the best around in that regard, but I have tons of knowledge and experience with F2P and subscription, and one time purchase game systems, and I can confidently say their implementation on those fronts is completely lacking.
The type of changes that I feel are necessary would likely require months. If I see they are making positive changes, I'll likely head back to check them out, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
VANKRASN39
Re: F2P Accounts, Abuse, and Design
06/23/2016 04:03 PM CDT
>The type of changes that I feel are necessary would likely require months.
Simu moves at a glacial pace.
PFLATS
Re: F2P Accounts, Abuse, and Design
06/23/2016 04:21 PM CDT
I came back to Gemstone less than a year ago. Halt and Catch Fire got my buddy thinking back to Gemstone, he saw they had added monks and F2P accounts. So we made F2P monks.
A lot of the limitations felt unnecessarily putative. Technical solutions to social problems. Long story short, if I didn't have previous experience with Gemstone, I definitely would not be playing today.
A lot of the limitations felt unnecessarily putative. Technical solutions to social problems. Long story short, if I didn't have previous experience with Gemstone, I definitely would not be playing today.
DOUG
Re: F2P Accounts, Abuse, and Design
06/23/2016 05:36 PM CDT
Aaaand. . . did I mention the other strong opinions, differing priorities and competing ideas?
>>why would I criticize the things they are doing right?
Of all the commentary offered this one point jumped out at me. And so I offer in return the following:
Any well-reasoned critique of a collection of systems (like a game) should encompass those things that are working well, as well as those things that are gaps still requiring some work.
I get that flies in the face of today's methods (see earlier commentary about hope and opinion), but I've never been a lemming. Share good and bad - be different. Dare ya.
Doug
>>why would I criticize the things they are doing right?
Of all the commentary offered this one point jumped out at me. And so I offer in return the following:
Any well-reasoned critique of a collection of systems (like a game) should encompass those things that are working well, as well as those things that are gaps still requiring some work.
I get that flies in the face of today's methods (see earlier commentary about hope and opinion), but I've never been a lemming. Share good and bad - be different. Dare ya.
Doug
BOOCHMAN
Re: F2P Accounts, Abuse, and Design
06/23/2016 07:16 PM CDT
Doug, I'm afraid your point is lost on me. I didn't bother giving an in depth critique of a game system I've barely scratched because it doesn't really seem pertinent. I was actually very clear to point out what I thought worked well and in the games favor, none of which was even particularly on topic to the F2P discussion, I just thought I would include it to point out how I didn't choose not to subscribe to the game simply on its own merits.
I didn't fully understand your earlier point about hope and opinion, and I feel I understand it even less now. Your forum account name also shows up in blue, I'm not sure if that means you are a moderator, payed employee, developer, owner, or if that certain accounts just appear different for some reason. I thought I gave a very balanced and well thought out opinion on my experience, I'd be interested to hear what you felt was lacking.
DOUG
Re: F2P Accounts, Abuse, and Design
06/23/2016 09:50 PM CDT
>>I didn't bother giving an in depth critique of a game system I've barely scratched because it doesn't really seem pertinent.
We may be crossing streams of thought here, so I'll try to clarify - on these forums, yes. Your perspective as offered here served well. It was in your proposed sharing with Reddit that I took away that this will not be the case. If that was in err, please forgive me. My reasoning is fairly simple - some small percentage might still be attracted to the positives, and I am always interested in seeing this game continue and see 'new blood'.
>>Your forum account name also shows up in blue
It was intended I believe to recognize significant contributions to the game and community. Like most recognition programs, it has met with its challenges and detractors. In my personal case - there's only one thing you can be absolutely sure of: As long as this name has a blue tone to it, I am not a member of the game's staff. Additionally, staff names appear in red with various prefixes. In simple truth, I count myself as no more than any other posting here - a member of the community, with my own concerns, observations and (sometimes, fringe) opinions. I have used and continue to use all subscription types. I find some merit in many of your observations, even if we might not land on exactly the same 'reasons' or 'solutions'.
>>I thought I gave a very balanced and well thought out opinion on my experience, I'd be interested to hear what you felt was lacking.
Just to re-emphasize, here - yes. Absolutely. Your perspective as offered served well, and has generated interest / response. I simply hoped to get that extended to your social media posts. My only true regret in this whole exchange, though, is that we didn't meet in-game persona during your re-visit here. You clearly are invested (interested) and have great (and reasoned!) perspective to offer. Someone like that is hard for me to watch walk away.
Doug
We may be crossing streams of thought here, so I'll try to clarify - on these forums, yes. Your perspective as offered here served well. It was in your proposed sharing with Reddit that I took away that this will not be the case. If that was in err, please forgive me. My reasoning is fairly simple - some small percentage might still be attracted to the positives, and I am always interested in seeing this game continue and see 'new blood'.
>>Your forum account name also shows up in blue
It was intended I believe to recognize significant contributions to the game and community. Like most recognition programs, it has met with its challenges and detractors. In my personal case - there's only one thing you can be absolutely sure of: As long as this name has a blue tone to it, I am not a member of the game's staff. Additionally, staff names appear in red with various prefixes. In simple truth, I count myself as no more than any other posting here - a member of the community, with my own concerns, observations and (sometimes, fringe) opinions. I have used and continue to use all subscription types. I find some merit in many of your observations, even if we might not land on exactly the same 'reasons' or 'solutions'.
>>I thought I gave a very balanced and well thought out opinion on my experience, I'd be interested to hear what you felt was lacking.
Just to re-emphasize, here - yes. Absolutely. Your perspective as offered served well, and has generated interest / response. I simply hoped to get that extended to your social media posts. My only true regret in this whole exchange, though, is that we didn't meet in-game persona during your re-visit here. You clearly are invested (interested) and have great (and reasoned!) perspective to offer. Someone like that is hard for me to watch walk away.
Doug
