We have 30-day Ressurection pass. 30-day Healing pass. 30-day Foraging pass. Why is there no 30-day Loresinging pass? Bards are already royally screwed by the F2P system with half of their higher level spells being blocked due to the room-effect spells. It would be really nice if we could turn loresinging on as a profession with a pass. It's our primary profession skill like Clerics with raising and Empaths with healing. Having to buy a pass for every single item is a bit over-the-top, and I don't want to subscribe this character just so I can loresing when the need arises.
ADAGIO
ASHRAAM
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/01/2016 11:06 AM CDT
I'm sure Simu would sell dozens or more of these every duskruin.
I have a F2P bard I made for fun, and I like to play him once in a while, but I don't want to subscribe him because he can never go back to being F2P. It's too bad I can't enjoy the bard skill of loresining during events like DR and EG. It's so much more exciting to be able to perform the discovery yourself, but buying a token for every - single - item is seriously out of the question.
I'd be interested to see some analytics on how often those 10 simucoin tokens are purchased for F2P bards. There's probably very few F2P bards anyway because of how hard the restrictions hit that particular profession. Giving that 30 day pass similar to Empath and Cleric passes would be really worth it, and probably add another revenue stream for popular events like DR and EG.
I have a F2P bard I made for fun, and I like to play him once in a while, but I don't want to subscribe him because he can never go back to being F2P. It's too bad I can't enjoy the bard skill of loresining during events like DR and EG. It's so much more exciting to be able to perform the discovery yourself, but buying a token for every - single - item is seriously out of the question.
I'd be interested to see some analytics on how often those 10 simucoin tokens are purchased for F2P bards. There's probably very few F2P bards anyway because of how hard the restrictions hit that particular profession. Giving that 30 day pass similar to Empath and Cleric passes would be really worth it, and probably add another revenue stream for popular events like DR and EG.
ADAGIO
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/20/2016 03:15 PM CDT
Would love to hear an official point-of-view on this thought. I realize that F2P forums are read, but rarely seem to have replies as to whether ideas are realistic, feasible, not possible, or even slated for future development (RSN!). My little bard gets very sad when people ask for lore singing, but otherwise I'm happy to continue my F2P social game style and if I subscribe I lose the opportunity to play the game during months when I have no interest in being a full-time subscriber.
LADYFLEUR
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/20/2016 03:22 PM CDT
The only reason most subscribers have utility bards is for loresinging, so this would be a non-starter.
AMMINAR
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/20/2016 05:27 PM CDT
>>>Would love to hear an official point-of-view on this thought. I realize that F2P forums are read, but rarely seem to have replies as to whether ideas are realistic, feasible, not possible, or even slated for future development (RSN!). My little bard gets very sad when people ask for lore singing, but otherwise I'm happy to continue my F2P social game style and if I subscribe I lose the opportunity to play the game during months when I have no interest in being a full-time subscriber.
>>The only reason most subscribers have utility bards is for loresinging, so this would be a non-starter.
Why a non-starter? I don't see why this shouldn't exist, at the right price. Say, the cost of an extra basic character slot ($2.50). And a 30-day foraging pass is $2.00, to compare.
It already exists to some extent with the $0.10 single-item loresinging pass, which isn't so bad. Does your little bard get asked to sing to 20+ items a month? Because that's about where I think the monthly option should be priced if it existed.
>>The only reason most subscribers have utility bards is for loresinging, so this would be a non-starter.
Why a non-starter? I don't see why this shouldn't exist, at the right price. Say, the cost of an extra basic character slot ($2.50). And a 30-day foraging pass is $2.00, to compare.
It already exists to some extent with the $0.10 single-item loresinging pass, which isn't so bad. Does your little bard get asked to sing to 20+ items a month? Because that's about where I think the monthly option should be priced if it existed.
LADYFLEUR
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/20/2016 05:30 PM CDT
>I don't see why this shouldn't exist, at the right price. Say, the cost of an extra basic character slot ($2.50). And a 30-day foraging pass is $2.00, to compare.
That's definitely not the right price, as it costs an entire extra account access ($15) to have a utility bard for loresinging purposes. Anyone can forage, so the comparison doesn't make sense at all.
>It already exists to some extent with the $0.10 single-item loresinging pass, which isn't so bad. Does your little bard get asked to sing to 20+ items a month? Because that's about where I think the monthly option should be priced if it existed.
It should definitely be per item. If you're singing $15+ worth of items a month, then you should subscribe. If you don't, then you shouldn't care.
That's definitely not the right price, as it costs an entire extra account access ($15) to have a utility bard for loresinging purposes. Anyone can forage, so the comparison doesn't make sense at all.
>It already exists to some extent with the $0.10 single-item loresinging pass, which isn't so bad. Does your little bard get asked to sing to 20+ items a month? Because that's about where I think the monthly option should be priced if it existed.
It should definitely be per item. If you're singing $15+ worth of items a month, then you should subscribe. If you don't, then you shouldn't care.
AMMINAR
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/20/2016 05:50 PM CDT
>That's definitely not the right price, as it costs an entire extra account access ($15) to have a utility bard for loresinging purposes. Anyone can forage, so the comparison doesn't make sense at all.
Who on earth pays an entire new account subscription just for loresinging? Don't be silly. Plenty of people just use an extra character slot and hand the items off from same-account characters through intermediaries.
Who on earth pays an entire new account subscription just for loresinging? Don't be silly. Plenty of people just use an extra character slot and hand the items off from same-account characters through intermediaries.
ADAGIO
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/21/2016 09:09 AM CDT
>>That's definitely not the right price, as it costs an entire extra account access ($15) to have a utility bard for loresinging purposes. Anyone can forage, so the comparison doesn't make sense at all.
You're not very smart if you pay $15 extra just to have another character who can loresing. Just make a F2P character to hold stuff, hand them the stuff you want to get loresung, and pay $2.00 to add a character to your existing PRIME account, and have your F2P "mule" give them the items. This is already being done, likely every day.
I guaranty you that Simutronics would sell likely hundreds or possibly thousands of these loresinging passes every year, and players like myself won't have to sit out and feel like they can't ever use their primary class skill.
Empaths have healing passes.
Clerics have resurrection passes.
THESE are the classes that actually require you to have a completely different account. There's no reason for your primary character to be logged in for loresining, but you can't healbot or raisebot your primary character with a utility account. And yet, the passes exist for less than your basic subscription. Why does it not exist for loresinging!?
You're not very smart if you pay $15 extra just to have another character who can loresing. Just make a F2P character to hold stuff, hand them the stuff you want to get loresung, and pay $2.00 to add a character to your existing PRIME account, and have your F2P "mule" give them the items. This is already being done, likely every day.
I guaranty you that Simutronics would sell likely hundreds or possibly thousands of these loresinging passes every year, and players like myself won't have to sit out and feel like they can't ever use their primary class skill.
Empaths have healing passes.
Clerics have resurrection passes.
THESE are the classes that actually require you to have a completely different account. There's no reason for your primary character to be logged in for loresining, but you can't healbot or raisebot your primary character with a utility account. And yet, the passes exist for less than your basic subscription. Why does it not exist for loresinging!?
ADAGIO
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/21/2016 09:43 AM CDT
>> It already exists to some extent with the $0.10 single-item loresinging pass, which isn't so bad. Does your little bard get asked to sing to 20+ items a month? Because that's about where I think the monthly option should be priced if it existed.
This is a great question, and the answer is that sometimes. I guess this month was a big deal because there was an event that lots of people needed loresinging done, and apparently that happens a lot. As an individual player, I would just buy the $.10 token every time I found something that needed to have loresinging, but as a social player that is not only tedious, but can become expensive fast.
Once again, I'm not interested in being a subscriber (primarily because I can't revert back to F2P during months when I will play very little). I'd rather have access to my account on the few days when I can play for the small micro-transaction fees than have to turn the account when I can't justify a subscription. But, in those months where I am active reguarly, having a 30-day pass similar to what Clerics and Empaths - for my class defining ability that does not explicitly earn me money - would be greatly appreciated!
This is a great question, and the answer is that sometimes. I guess this month was a big deal because there was an event that lots of people needed loresinging done, and apparently that happens a lot. As an individual player, I would just buy the $.10 token every time I found something that needed to have loresinging, but as a social player that is not only tedious, but can become expensive fast.
Once again, I'm not interested in being a subscriber (primarily because I can't revert back to F2P during months when I will play very little). I'd rather have access to my account on the few days when I can play for the small micro-transaction fees than have to turn the account when I can't justify a subscription. But, in those months where I am active reguarly, having a 30-day pass similar to what Clerics and Empaths - for my class defining ability that does not explicitly earn me money - would be greatly appreciated!
DAID
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/21/2016 09:49 AM CDT
>That's definitely not the right price, as it costs an entire extra account access ($15) to have a utility bard for loresinging purposes.
Ditto on the idea that for something like a utility bard (which would differ from a utility mage to spell your other character up), it should be assumed as on the same account rather than a new one. This would mostly go for a ranger for foraging as well leading to ...
>Anyone can forage, so the comparison doesn't make sense at all.
Rangers have a huge professional bonus, to the point that a capped wizard or sorcerer with 1x perception is only slightly better than a level 0 ranger. It's pretty clear the foraging pass is designed to prevent over-reliance on F2P rangers. Since your main character is a mage, I guess you should know this (or you never forage).
Ditto on the idea that for something like a utility bard (which would differ from a utility mage to spell your other character up), it should be assumed as on the same account rather than a new one. This would mostly go for a ranger for foraging as well leading to ...
>Anyone can forage, so the comparison doesn't make sense at all.
Rangers have a huge professional bonus, to the point that a capped wizard or sorcerer with 1x perception is only slightly better than a level 0 ranger. It's pretty clear the foraging pass is designed to prevent over-reliance on F2P rangers. Since your main character is a mage, I guess you should know this (or you never forage).
DOUG
LADYFLEUR
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/21/2016 10:38 AM CDT
>You're not very smart if you pay $15 extra just to have another character who can loresing. Just make a F2P character to hold stuff, hand them the stuff you want to get loresung, and pay $2.00 to add a character to your existing PRIME account, and have your F2P "mule" give them the items. This is already being done, likely every day.
That's a nice thought, but this presumes that one has a subscription level account already, which F2P entirely bypasses.
>Empaths have healing passes.
>Clerics have resurrection passes.
There's the town healer and the town cleric, while there's no town bard. Loresinging has always been a subscription level utility service.
That's a nice thought, but this presumes that one has a subscription level account already, which F2P entirely bypasses.
>Empaths have healing passes.
>Clerics have resurrection passes.
There's the town healer and the town cleric, while there's no town bard. Loresinging has always been a subscription level utility service.
ADAGIO
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/21/2016 12:59 PM CDT
>>That's a nice thought, but this presumes that one has a subscription level account already, which F2P entirely bypasses.
F2P already has a mechanic to loresing it's own items. It costs $.10 per item. However, this is a role-playing game. My enjoyment comes from being able to interact with other players. The second you make that opportunity cost too high, it makes F2P feel incapable of performing the primary function of the game. If I could keep my subscription level at F2P, and be able to use my character's profession defining ability, I would pay the appropriate amount. Right now, it's not actually feasible.
>> There's the town healer and the town cleric, while there's no town bard. Loresinging has always been a subscription level utility service.
There's also a town locksmith, but no F2P locksmithing pass (might need to be addressed since I beleive F2P can only pick and disarm their own boxes, and there's no way to remove that restriction with a pass). Are you suggesting that it's better for players to use the town NPCs over going to an actual player just because you want to protect this precious "subscription level" service?
I'm getting the distinct impression that you are one of those vocal forum browsers that just has a strong dislike of the F2P account type existing within this game. Which is a shame because it's players that respond in this fashion that drive customers away from the game. Why is the idea that loresinging is coveted? Assess isn't protected by "subscription level", 405 isn't protected by "subscription level" which gives more information based on lores, the AI crystal is present for a lot of this information. Loresinging is really two things - a great way to interact with other players for role-play and story (because some items have cool loresongs, right?) - and a great way to get the exact specifics of items. People asked me to loresing items for them while I was wandering around town, and I kept having to turn them away. That's sad. That ruins my ability to interact in a game designed to promote interacting with other people. Your point-of-view seems extremely prejudiced against F2P players.
F2P already has a mechanic to loresing it's own items. It costs $.10 per item. However, this is a role-playing game. My enjoyment comes from being able to interact with other players. The second you make that opportunity cost too high, it makes F2P feel incapable of performing the primary function of the game. If I could keep my subscription level at F2P, and be able to use my character's profession defining ability, I would pay the appropriate amount. Right now, it's not actually feasible.
>> There's the town healer and the town cleric, while there's no town bard. Loresinging has always been a subscription level utility service.
There's also a town locksmith, but no F2P locksmithing pass (might need to be addressed since I beleive F2P can only pick and disarm their own boxes, and there's no way to remove that restriction with a pass). Are you suggesting that it's better for players to use the town NPCs over going to an actual player just because you want to protect this precious "subscription level" service?
I'm getting the distinct impression that you are one of those vocal forum browsers that just has a strong dislike of the F2P account type existing within this game. Which is a shame because it's players that respond in this fashion that drive customers away from the game. Why is the idea that loresinging is coveted? Assess isn't protected by "subscription level", 405 isn't protected by "subscription level" which gives more information based on lores, the AI crystal is present for a lot of this information. Loresinging is really two things - a great way to interact with other players for role-play and story (because some items have cool loresongs, right?) - and a great way to get the exact specifics of items. People asked me to loresing items for them while I was wandering around town, and I kept having to turn them away. That's sad. That ruins my ability to interact in a game designed to promote interacting with other people. Your point-of-view seems extremely prejudiced against F2P players.
LADYFLEUR
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/21/2016 01:18 PM CDT
My point of view will change only when existing subscribers are also given the ability to revert to F2P at will. Right now, F2P is asking to have their cake and eat it too (the flexibility of not subscribing). Commitment to the game should have subscription level rewards.
ADAGIO
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/21/2016 03:51 PM CDT
>>My point of view will change only when existing subscribers are also given the ability to revert to F2P at will. Right now, F2P is asking to have their cake and eat it too (the flexibility of not subscribing). Commitment to the game should have subscription level rewards.
That's unfortunate. It's interactions with close-minded players like this that drives the casual F2P people away. I'm already being turned off by a community that treats F2P as a drain on the game, when in reality a properly supported F2P class of players can be a massive boon to both the community and the revenue stream of the game company.
The fact that you can't downgrade to F2P subscription tier from a subscriber tier is the exact reason these types of things need to be implemented. I don't get to have any cake as F2P. In fact, I barely get to have a turnip. But, I would like to eat that turnip, as raw and bitter as it might be - and giving small tokens of access to F2P accounts makes the hardship of playing that account (like the massive XP reduction, the lack of access to spells, lack of access to events and merchants, limits on treasure, the list goes on and on) seem acceptable in order to have fun in an RP community with the ability to interact with other players.
Bards should be able to interact at the same level as Clerics, Empaths, Wizards, and even Rangers who can all use passes to gain access to their class-defining attributes. Bards seem to be punished in just about every way possible... It's a crying shame, and I hope the development recognizes that bias from players who express clear resentment towards the F2P community should be dismissed as non-constructive feedback.
That's unfortunate. It's interactions with close-minded players like this that drives the casual F2P people away. I'm already being turned off by a community that treats F2P as a drain on the game, when in reality a properly supported F2P class of players can be a massive boon to both the community and the revenue stream of the game company.
The fact that you can't downgrade to F2P subscription tier from a subscriber tier is the exact reason these types of things need to be implemented. I don't get to have any cake as F2P. In fact, I barely get to have a turnip. But, I would like to eat that turnip, as raw and bitter as it might be - and giving small tokens of access to F2P accounts makes the hardship of playing that account (like the massive XP reduction, the lack of access to spells, lack of access to events and merchants, limits on treasure, the list goes on and on) seem acceptable in order to have fun in an RP community with the ability to interact with other players.
Bards should be able to interact at the same level as Clerics, Empaths, Wizards, and even Rangers who can all use passes to gain access to their class-defining attributes. Bards seem to be punished in just about every way possible... It's a crying shame, and I hope the development recognizes that bias from players who express clear resentment towards the F2P community should be dismissed as non-constructive feedback.
LADYFLEUR
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/21/2016 03:56 PM CDT
>It's a crying shame, and I hope the development recognizes that bias from players who express clear resentment towards the F2P community should be dismissed as non-constructive feedback.
And I hope that Development realizes that the more that is given to F2P and Basic for free in terms of mechanical advantages that used to be subscription level only, the more they will lose their Premium and multi-Premium subscribers, because making your long-term customers feel more and more foolish for spending what they're spending is hardly the path to long-term customer retention either. I get what you're saying, but it was set in stone the day they decided to add a F2P model in a subscription model game, because the two systems are incompatible without allowing all accounts to revert to F2P at will. Otherwise, the F2P side will always get to have their cake (flexibility) and eat it too, while enjoying benefits that even subscribers don't enjoy.
And I hope that Development realizes that the more that is given to F2P and Basic for free in terms of mechanical advantages that used to be subscription level only, the more they will lose their Premium and multi-Premium subscribers, because making your long-term customers feel more and more foolish for spending what they're spending is hardly the path to long-term customer retention either. I get what you're saying, but it was set in stone the day they decided to add a F2P model in a subscription model game, because the two systems are incompatible without allowing all accounts to revert to F2P at will. Otherwise, the F2P side will always get to have their cake (flexibility) and eat it too, while enjoying benefits that even subscribers don't enjoy.
LADYFLEUR
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/21/2016 03:58 PM CDT
And this isn't "resentment" speaking, it's economic facts. It makes no sense to expect subscribers to pay more and get more limited flexibility to the game because they have been around longer, while allowing new accounts the flexibility to come and go at will. F2P gets access to their characters to "interact" or RP at any point without paying a cent extra. That's the tradeoff you get, because subscribers have to fork over money every month just to access their characters for the same purposes.
ADAGIO
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/21/2016 04:56 PM CDT
>>It makes no sense to expect subscribers to pay more and get more limited flexibility to the game because they have been around longer, while allowing new accounts the flexibility to come and go at will.
This makes it sound like you're not aware just how limited the F2P accounts actually are when compared to subscribers. Subscribers have access to an incredible amount of content that F2P won't ever see, or will have incredible hardship to ever see. Along with tremendous perks.
I'm not going to disagree that it would be ideal for a game like GS4 to allow subscribers to downgrade to F2P accounts when they want to take a break, so they can continue to interact, but lose all the advantages. The problem is the mechanical side and the "legacy" of that subscription. Are you implying that subscribers are "envious" of F2P game access to limited content, character progression, and interactivity because they can still log into the game without paying a subscription fee?
That sounds like a really big stretch.
Devs, please consider giving a more notable loresinging pass to fall in line with the:
-Healing Pass
-Resurrection Pass
-Foraging Pass
-Spell Pass
Bards aren't going to make bank on this option. Even a 24hour pass would be better than 1 item at a time for $.10. No one has time for that!
This makes it sound like you're not aware just how limited the F2P accounts actually are when compared to subscribers. Subscribers have access to an incredible amount of content that F2P won't ever see, or will have incredible hardship to ever see. Along with tremendous perks.
I'm not going to disagree that it would be ideal for a game like GS4 to allow subscribers to downgrade to F2P accounts when they want to take a break, so they can continue to interact, but lose all the advantages. The problem is the mechanical side and the "legacy" of that subscription. Are you implying that subscribers are "envious" of F2P game access to limited content, character progression, and interactivity because they can still log into the game without paying a subscription fee?
That sounds like a really big stretch.
Devs, please consider giving a more notable loresinging pass to fall in line with the:
-Healing Pass
-Resurrection Pass
-Foraging Pass
-Spell Pass
Bards aren't going to make bank on this option. Even a 24hour pass would be better than 1 item at a time for $.10. No one has time for that!
DRUMPEL
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/21/2016 10:39 PM CDT
How about...
$5.00 for a week long pass (7 days)?
Maybe you see you'll have a few days of decent play time in a week and don't want the hassle of $.10 per loresing....drop $5 for the week.
If you end up buying 4 weeks ($20) in one month, then maybe you should look into a basic subscription since it would be cheaper. The cost of wanting to to loresing for 30 days ought to be broken up enough to benefit the F2P people, but be steep enough so the thought of buying passes for a full 4 weeks (or 30 days...whatever) costs more than a basic subscription. Those that buy a couple passes a month, so be it. Those that are buying 3-4 passes a month, clearly they'd spend the same or save some cash just subscribing to a basic subscription.
At least, that's how I would set it up.
-Drumpel
$5.00 for a week long pass (7 days)?
Maybe you see you'll have a few days of decent play time in a week and don't want the hassle of $.10 per loresing....drop $5 for the week.
If you end up buying 4 weeks ($20) in one month, then maybe you should look into a basic subscription since it would be cheaper. The cost of wanting to to loresing for 30 days ought to be broken up enough to benefit the F2P people, but be steep enough so the thought of buying passes for a full 4 weeks (or 30 days...whatever) costs more than a basic subscription. Those that buy a couple passes a month, so be it. Those that are buying 3-4 passes a month, clearly they'd spend the same or save some cash just subscribing to a basic subscription.
At least, that's how I would set it up.
-Drumpel
DOUG
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/21/2016 11:14 PM CDT
>>At least, that's how I would set it up.
It seems a reasonable premise - but I feel there's a snag.
It is very rare that a casual player only wants access to one facet of her chosen profession for casual play. Loresinging + Gift + Spells (as an example) might be what one casual player could want access to.
That means the $5 suggestion probably needs to be split up a bit - or it is just as punishing in price on the top end as $.10 per loresong is.
One potential suggestion (I moderately like this, but think it has holes), would be to use the DR approach to popular item purchases. Create a casual bundle (3 or 4 of the most popular items), and charge $3 for the first week in a four-week period, then up it to $4 for the second week in that same period, then $5 for the third week, then $6 for the last successive week. Or, spend $2 more for a monthly subscription and have it all and the convenience too!
Or something like that. . .
As a brief side note - it might be worth reiterating to all customers about putting an active account on hold if it isn't likely to be used for some period of time. And review that time period and internal process to allow customers to do a month on / month off / month on again scenario. Maybe.
Doug
It seems a reasonable premise - but I feel there's a snag.
It is very rare that a casual player only wants access to one facet of her chosen profession for casual play. Loresinging + Gift + Spells (as an example) might be what one casual player could want access to.
That means the $5 suggestion probably needs to be split up a bit - or it is just as punishing in price on the top end as $.10 per loresong is.
One potential suggestion (I moderately like this, but think it has holes), would be to use the DR approach to popular item purchases. Create a casual bundle (3 or 4 of the most popular items), and charge $3 for the first week in a four-week period, then up it to $4 for the second week in that same period, then $5 for the third week, then $6 for the last successive week. Or, spend $2 more for a monthly subscription and have it all and the convenience too!
Or something like that. . .
As a brief side note - it might be worth reiterating to all customers about putting an active account on hold if it isn't likely to be used for some period of time. And review that time period and internal process to allow customers to do a month on / month off / month on again scenario. Maybe.
Doug
DAID
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
09/22/2016 08:28 AM CDT
>I'm getting the distinct impression that you are one of those vocal forum browsers that just has a strong dislike of the F2P account type existing within this game.
This isn't limited to discussions on F2P. The usual perspective is "Does this have a direct benefit for the poster?" If answer yes, support. If answer no, vehemently oppose. E.g. "Does my character live in this town," "Do I already have a non-F2P bard for loresinging," etc.
This isn't limited to discussions on F2P. The usual perspective is "Does this have a direct benefit for the poster?" If answer yes, support. If answer no, vehemently oppose. E.g. "Does my character live in this town," "Do I already have a non-F2P bard for loresinging," etc.
TALISMANPRIME
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
10/08/2016 04:11 AM CDT
Which of the Simucoin purchases are "permanent" for F2P accounts?
At my job, I go from periods of relatively quiet, to busy (teaching classes) to no-free-time whatsoever! (tax season)
It seems to me that the choice of being a Bard is not a good one for F2P - especially I can't bring myself to "lose" my F2P account, by activating it and then only to let it go inactive for a couple of months at a time. Can anyone point out which purchases are "permanent"?
For example, in an old post from 03/03/2015, I saw that these were permanent for F2P players:
+10 Locker Items
+100k Silver at Bank
Move Bank to another town.
Other items, like the Society Pass, appear to be 30 days at a time, and can be login "Boost" rewards, which seems like a good way to try them until works calms down. Can anyone point out which Simucoin purchases are permanent for F2P players?
At my job, I go from periods of relatively quiet, to busy (teaching classes) to no-free-time whatsoever! (tax season)
It seems to me that the choice of being a Bard is not a good one for F2P - especially I can't bring myself to "lose" my F2P account, by activating it and then only to let it go inactive for a couple of months at a time. Can anyone point out which purchases are "permanent"?
For example, in an old post from 03/03/2015, I saw that these were permanent for F2P players:
+10 Locker Items
+100k Silver at Bank
Move Bank to another town.
Other items, like the Society Pass, appear to be 30 days at a time, and can be login "Boost" rewards, which seems like a good way to try them until works calms down. Can anyone point out which Simucoin purchases are permanent for F2P players?
ROBLAR
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
10/08/2016 02:25 PM CDT
Just looking at the wiki, I see:
Bank Account Cap Increase
Bank Account Transfer
Initial Element Attunement
Profile Quote Pass
Title Change Pass
Bank Account Cap Increase
Bank Account Transfer
Initial Element Attunement
Profile Quote Pass
Title Change Pass
TALISMANPRIME
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
10/15/2016 04:22 PM CDT
Do you think the +10 item locker increase is permanent - but not for F2P accounts?
For example, would it move a 0 item locker to 10.. or does one have to have the initial locker first?
For example, would it move a 0 item locker to 10.. or does one have to have the initial locker first?
MNOEME
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
11/17/2017 11:58 PM CST
I have a F2P bard that I've been tinkering to see if the build works, etc. Having never played a bard before, I want to explore the "perks" of the profession; however, I come to this massive roadblock that prevents me from being able to LEARN how to loresing (via trial & error).
I don't want to pay on a PER ITEM basis for hands-on experience in LEARNING the art of loresinging.
I would like to just be able to have a relatively BRIEF but UNLIMITED session in which I can try different methods on different items and get a feel for it ... and possibly hone/tweak as I go.
I would prefer that this be in the number of hours (24-hour, 8-hour, 2-hour, 1-hour) ... whatever length seems appropriate and allows for a low/reasonable cost.
Would you be amenable to such a change/addition?
I would be happy to buy loresinging passes if it allowed for small chunks of time. Even one hour would be fantastic.
I don't want to pay on a PER ITEM basis for hands-on experience in LEARNING the art of loresinging.
I would like to just be able to have a relatively BRIEF but UNLIMITED session in which I can try different methods on different items and get a feel for it ... and possibly hone/tweak as I go.
I would prefer that this be in the number of hours (24-hour, 8-hour, 2-hour, 1-hour) ... whatever length seems appropriate and allows for a low/reasonable cost.
Would you be amenable to such a change/addition?
I would be happy to buy loresinging passes if it allowed for small chunks of time. Even one hour would be fantastic.
NAAMIT
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
11/18/2017 08:19 AM CST
This seems like a completely reasonable change, especially for an ability that takes considerable trial and error to 'learn' if one isn't running straight for the spoiler bowl.
DOUG
LUXELLE
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
11/18/2017 01:29 PM CST
Even if you run straight to the spoiler bowl ... it still takes time!
I haunted that wiki page for months.
---
Rohese: "... the TownCrier (tune in if you haven’t, it’s without doubt the best thing to ever happen on LNet)"
;tune towncrier
TownCrier News Submission link: http://bit.ly/TownCrierNews
TownCrier News Dailies via Email: http://bit.ly/2ivAJfw
LORDEVARIN
Re: 30-Day Lore Singing Pass
11/18/2017 01:40 PM CST
I approve.
!>tell child to be quiet
The child cries, "I don't wanna!"
!>tell child to be quiet
The child cries, "I don't wanna!"
