• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AragornII

  1. Except, y’know, that’s not possible. Else I’d probably do that, but it’d still be unbalanced and deceptively advertised, and that’d still be a problem even if I wasn’t personally affected by it.
  2. No. You see, the thing about saving up is that you can do that for however long you need, whereas this subscription is, y’know, a monthly expense. So in a bad month, if you can’t afford it, you’re screwed. Whereas if you’re saving up, a month with less money simply means that it takes longer to get what you’re saving up for. So being able to save up for some outrageous price doesn’t mean I can pay the monthly, it just means that I have patience.
  3. Yes. I am glad I was told about it, but it really should be part of the tutorial.
  4. Perhaps the wiki was outdated then, or wherever I read it (it was a official source tho). Thanks for the information!
  5. Perhaps that wasn’t my best idea. I was just thinking about a way to give premium players a advantage in terms of skill without having the hard cap. Do you have a alternative for free players?
  6. Let’s say (as you seem to assume) that they’ll have to pay some outrageous price in one go. The advantage of that, however, is that it’s a onetime big splurge that I can save up for. So I can buy the game when times are good, and have access to the game even when times are bad. Currently, I’d have to pay regardless of if I can actually afford to. How is that supposed to be the better choice? Plus, with a bit more honest advertising, keeping the current premium, people can still choose to pay 8.88 a month OR buy the game. It’s not either/or, folks. The options can coexist. So, let’s say a newbie goes ‘whelp, that’s a lot of money for a game’, they can try it out for those 8,88 euros and decide if they’d rather keep paying that every month or if they want to save up and buy the game. And since most people here think it’s nothing, subscription would still happen. Nothing is lost, the only difference is that there’s options and that they’ll have to be more honest in their adds.
  7. According to what I’ve read, the skills slowly decay back to 20. Do you have a source to prove this is incorrect?
  8. I am glad it’s practically nothing to you. If I could afford it, I would. Unfortunately, it’s not practically nothing, as I’ve repeatedly explained. At this point, it would be really helpful if you could tell me if you actually read what I write. (Sincerity mode) Which, from what I’ve seen, is exceedingly difficult - partially because the prems can make the same products I can, except faster and in bigger batches. I’ll do it, but I still see no reason to keep a clearly unbalanced and deceptively advertised system in place instead of balancing the game without devaluing or removing premium (see my post for how I think that will work and why premiums will still have the advantage).
  9. No. A price is a price, like 1,99 for a newspaper. A subscription is paying a set price in advance to get that newspaper delivered every day/week/month/year. Those two are by no means the same.
  10. Exactly. It’s very difficult to hold onto premium through trading alone, and for obvious reasons it’s not exactly encouraged. But I think a lot less people would quit if their skills could get above 20, just slower than the premium players. Or at least that skills grinded in premium don’t decay back to 20 when you don’t play premium. Exactly. That way, newbs wouldn’t expect a free game and get a subscription based one; they’d expect a subscription based game and decide for themselves if they can pay that and, after playing, if they think it’s worth 96 a year, assuming current prices. But I also think it could be at least paired together with a offer to pay the whole game for one price, so that people can choose to pay for the game or pay in increments. Well, I mean, the makers do need money to make a excellent game like this so getting rid of the money aspect would hurt the game overall, but that doesn’t mean f2p and premium can’t be more balanced, while still keeping premium a tempting but not forced offer.
  11. Wurm Unlimited seems to be a entirely different game from Wurm Online. Sure, the idea of making your own server is cool, but I want to play Wurm Online, not make my own server. That’s simply not my thing. I appreciate the suggestion though!
  12. Did they play Wurm Online? Did they compile statistics and cold hard facts with evidence and sources for the evidence from their interactions with quitting players?
  13. I do not see your reasoning. You say it’s standard for a lot of games, but you only mention one. Does a feature being standard mean it’s good? That it’s gonna fit Wurm? Because, uhm, Wurm isn’t a usual game and personally, I do not see what it would add to the experience to have to pick a server immediately. A new player who’s used to PvP might pick a PvP server in the belief it’s like other PvP games they’ve played (that is even assuming servers are marked as being PvP or PVE) only to then find out its completely different. If you add a explanation at the end of the tutorial of how PvP differs from other games’ PvP and then you give them the choice, they’ll already have had a taste of how Wurm Online works and just how different and difficult it can be, giving them a much clearer idea.
  14. You do realize you’re in that part, right? It just sounded like you aren’t entirely aware of that.
  15. Why not? This is a sincere question. If they set a price that would cover the cost and allow them to pay their devs, well, considering the quality of the game it won’t take much to convince people to buy it. A short demo or something, hell, even offer them the option of current premium or paying the price. Considering the amount of hardcore fans this game has, I see no reason why they wouldn’t buy the game, meaning there’s virtually no risk of losing out on money.
  16. The way you’re wording it implies that the game is only 8,83, like you pay that, you get to enjoy the entire game. In reality the game is 8,83 a month, meaning that it costs 96 to play a year, and similar annual prices can cost people their house. Yes, a 100 euros can make that much of a difference (and 96 is only 4 euros less, so having those 4 euros more won’t make much of a difference). That’s not that extreme. Being willing to sacrifice your house for a game and saying that other people should do that too or they don’t like the game, that’s extreme.
  17. A long, long time ago in the before-times, there were places to actually buy games. You went in there, bought a game for the price it was sold as and then, get didn’t have to pay any more. Yes, really! No micro transactions. No ‘free games’ that weren’t free. As long as you didn’t somehow screw up the device to play on or lost all progress, the game was all yours. And this is good, in my opinion, because that way I can buy when it’s feasible to do so, without having to spend nearly 100 euros every year, whether my finances allow it or not. Wurm Online is the best game I’ve ever seen and honestly, I’d happily buy it like that as a gift to myself or others, but I can’t afford to constantly buy premium in combination with, y’know, RL stuff.
  18. It’s advertised as free to play, not as a subscription based game. It’s simply not what it pretends to be. If it’s supposed to be paid, fine, set a reasonable price and have people buy the game after trying it (that can be as simple as having PVE be f2p with more balancing, while PVP is a DLC that you pay for, or the other way around), but don’t go advertise it as being free and then claim ‘yeah, it’s subscription based, what did you expect?’
  19. I don’t expect anyone to provide me with fun and games for free. But this is ignoring the tiny little inconvenient fact that Wurm Online says it’s free to play. And I think that games shouldn’t be the focus, but we aren’t talking about some lowlife who refuses to do anything but game, but simply people who don’t have 96 euros a year (let alone what that is in their local currency, which can be very expensive) laying around to spend on a game.
  20. So poor people shouldn’t be allowed to play games? Sorry, but that’s ridiculous. Poor people have as much right to play games as anyone else, particularly if those games explicitly claim to be free to play.
  21. Not true unless by like you mean ‘should be willing to lose your RL house to play Wurm Online’ which is a tad extreme IMHO. I think you should only demand that if you’ve actually done it, in which case I commend your loyalty to the game but would also recommend getting some help.
  22. If that’s the case, why not make it so that FTP is only more rewarding when PVE, and completely removed from PVP? Would solve the FTP griefing and balance the game
  23. AFAIK this has been proven incorrect, unfortunately. Would’ve been tempting if this was the case