Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Delete

Quijenoth Starkiller
If it helps you feel more optimistic many "features" also require pre-requisites and I'm sure GW have a long list of stuff just waiting for the right pre-requisites so they can implement them fully.

A good example of this would be mules, they had the art and design concept and probably had the mechanics but until they fixed the pathing/animation issues it just wasn't ready to go live.

I also see mechanics in game now that would allow for many other requested (crowdforged) features. destruct-able structures, pets, all could be coming soon.

I guess its just gonna take time but eventually that wide funnel with the small hole will start to widen.
Quijenoth Starkiller Viceroy of Callambea
Company Leader of Beyond the Grave - www.beyond-pfo.com
Crafting Planner
Zycor
Dreamslinger
I don't think it matters what the sub fee is at this point. Until some of the planned systems are implemented and the game starts to be more engaging, PFO is better off with a small number of players that have already bought into the promise than it is with a horde of new accounts that have next to no investment and will most likely bail after a month or two without anything positive to say about their experience.

Ya MMOs with player driven economy and low pop are really fun to play, right?

This game needs as many folks as it can get. More people means more content, more content drives everything. More pvp = more gear being made. More people= more pvp. More economy transactions. You won't see what you see now, a crappy economy. You might actually see people in the wilderness.

GW has already opened the doors to the public, they were met with harsh criticism. The major complaint is the sub price. Everyone is breathing down their neck about it.

As of right now the only settlement with a good strong economy is the starting town. Keruz Bernstein is a close second. All the rest of them aren't stocked and are shanty towns.

MMO =/ the backroom tabletop game that you play every week with your closed group of friends.

The horde of new accounts is a GOOD THING FOR THE GAME. When people come to the game and want to start playing, they don't want to pay $250+ for a t2 starter account (Like for the current DTs). When they do implement all the planned things, this will attract more people right? Meaning there will be a huge demand for accounts with XP on them. There's nothing wrong with my idea of lowering the sub, and letting players sub more accounts. To be truthful if you want to be a factor in this game you're going to have multiple accounts/characters training. You can't argue that. People want multiple toons there's a demand for it. Paying for three accounts is a kin to paying for your internet bill, think about it. A lot of people are turned off from having multiple accounts for that reason.

@Quije Good day mate. For the refunds, they could give more game time, or transfer game time to another account, or refund your quid. There might be other options too. You can't build a strong MMO with the scrawny population we have now, we need more people!
Bringslite
Great points and ideas. After thinking a bit and actually talking to a few people that tried the game, I am leaning more toward what those people told me.

Tink hinted at this with his question for Ryan during the fireside chat. Probably Andius, Bluddwolf, and many others, though their method was non constructive.

It boils down to this: Trial players are not already gung ho. Trial players are not much involved in settlement planning. Trial players are willing to pay a sub. Most wouldn't try it otherwise. They have been telling me that it is boring. Don't confuse this with them joining the wrong settlement during their trial. We really are fairly active every night with what the game has to offer. Most of those that try us are not so much into pvp. I am sure that more trials who are into pvp and join a pvp active settlement are sticking.

I am not sure if this is getting through to Ryan, Lisa, or any GW Dev; but it is very useful information. Obviously GW is kinda locked into at least the next two (or more) patches. After that, it might be a good idea to address this issue. Even if it means postponing "Quality of Life" patches. <— I can't believe I am writing that last sentence.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Doc
Most of those that try us are not so much into pvp. I am sure that more trials who are into pvp and join a pvp active settlement are sticking.

Not really. When a month goes by with no PvP battles, they resort to fighting people at their level, and then get ostracized or quit. smile smile smile

Only the ones who have the cash to buy pre-existing accounts with lots of EXP seem to stick.
Tyncale
On a separate note, I think I would only ever want the possibility of a name-change for an account that has been sold through official Goblinworks means. I.e. when the character actually gets a new owner. (mentioned in OP as a possible MTX item.)

One of the things I really like about the XP-system is the fact that when people "ruin" their rep, they will feel a hurdle to simply reroll and level up another toon. I am talking about player-reputation here, not the ingame rep-mechanic.
I think this works wonderfully for most people to act somewhat civil and think about their actions a bit more.

If you want to redeem yourself or change your ways, then this is certainly possible, again, simply by your actions in the game itself.

I also realize that there will always be people that simply want to be jerks (maybe at some point, even though they have been civil for years) and dont care about previous XP on their character, but GW may solve that in other ways.

Now I could live with a name-change that does not hide your "previous" life: so maybe when you /inspect someone you see something like "Barry Begood, son of <previous name>" This would only show when you actually do the inspect command, not when you simply target him.

I feel that people who would oppose to this, are actually looking for a namechange to get rid of a bad rep, or want to flip sides and want no backlash for it. I would like it much better if people deal with their History in the game itself through their actions, then simply being able to start a new life through a namechange.

This is not a rip on specific person btw, just a personal opinion about name-changes in PFO.

@Q. I hope so. You were always the optimist. smile
Regalo Harnoncourt, Leader of the River Kingdoms Trading Company, High Council of Callambea.
This is the character that I am playing almost 100% of the time. (Tyncale is my Sage/Mage)
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I think that concealing your past should be possible, but more expensive than simply changing your name.

The dev team has painted themselves into a bit of a corner with the missing name reservation system that was promised to backers. I'm not seeing a lot of complaints, yet, and it's possible none will ever surface (I don't know if anyone else is keen to play Caldeathe, Tyncale, or Quijenoth) but it's one more thing from the kickstarter that represents a yet-to-be-filled commitment.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Bringslite
Tink hinted at this with his question for Ryan during the fireside chat. Probably Andius, Bluddwolf, and many others, though their method was non constructive.

It boils down to this: Trial players are not already gung ho. Trial players are not much involved in settlement planning. Trial players are willing to pay a sub. Most wouldn't try it otherwise. They have been telling me that it is boring. Don't confuse this with them joining the wrong settlement during their trial. We really are fairly active every night with what the game has to offer. Most of those that try us are not so much into pvp. I am sure that more trials who are into pvp and join a pvp active settlement are sticking.

1. Perhaps more constructive than saying everything was "fine and dandy". Plus, there would still be a box price if it weren't brought up by those of us willing to speak out about the bad impression it was creating.

2. Trial players are not already gung ho! - Of course not, that is why they are on trials.

3. Trial players are not much on settlement planning. - of course not, they are stepping into a world where that has all been done for them. It will take weeks of months before they can strike out and do it on their own.

4. Trial players are willing to pay a sub. Most wouldn't try it otherwise - Actually, the exact opposite is more accurate. The Trial account turnover rate is very low, based on Goblin Works own statements and based on our own eyes. Most people use a trial period to see if the game is worth paying a sub for.

The Trial Period might actually be too short or too long, it is hard to say. Two weeks is too short to be able to take part in more interesting content, but longer might show players how repetitive and boring the game gets after the first few weeks.
Aragon (CN) a settlement founded on the principles of the River Freedoms: Say What You Will; Oath Breakers Die; Walk Any Road, Float Any River; Courts are for Kings; Slavery is an Abomination; Have What You Hold.

Settlement Focus: Fighter and Rogue Training
Game Play: Escalations / Refining / Crafting / Defensive PVP
Dreamslinger
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
4. Trial players are willing to pay a sub. Most wouldn't try it otherwise - Actually, the exact opposite is more accurate. The Trial account turnover rate is very low, based on Goblin Works own statements and based on our own eyes. Most people use a trial period to see if the game is worth paying a sub for.

I think that it is probably accurate to say that trial players are willing to pay a sub. They just aren't sure if they are willing to pay a sub for this game.

Did you mean "conversion rate"? If the "turnover rate" was low that should mean that players with trial accounts tend to stay with the game and become subscribers, which doesn't seem to be what you are saying.
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Decius
Ryan Dancey
Just for the record we would be thrilled to have all the EVE and Darkfall players.
Personally, I'd rather have all of the players who liked the idea of Darkfall but couldn't stand the culture there.

But what attracted them and made them stay is the culture of Darkfall or EVE. You can't ask for the player base, and not their culture.

Of course Ryan would be thrilled to have many players and even whole organizations of EVE or Darkfall come here. But, many of you would not like the end result. You will have hard core PVPers demanding equal voice or more so in crowd forging, and your voice would become the very small minority. Ryan would then face the hard choice, do I build the game for the new thousands or risk losing them for the two or more hundred that have been here the longest?

No matter what, PFO is a niche game, as is Albion and Crowfall. Who's niche is the more desired is the question. Albion had 20,000+ subscribers for its Summer Alpha, and its Closed Beta begins in late Q4 of 2015. Crowfall, goes into Alpha / Beta in September and it has 20,000+ KS backers. I can't speak for Crowfall yet, but Albion was pitched to a far more hardcore PVP player base but it still has a major role to be played by PVE (gather, refine, craft, build settlements and individual islands and shops, and dungeons (both pve and pvp).

I certainly hope that someone at GW is if not just following these games closely, is actually playing them. There are many things that can be learned from your competition.
Aragon (CN) a settlement founded on the principles of the River Freedoms: Say What You Will; Oath Breakers Die; Walk Any Road, Float Any River; Courts are for Kings; Slavery is an Abomination; Have What You Hold.

Settlement Focus: Fighter and Rogue Training
Game Play: Escalations / Refining / Crafting / Defensive PVP
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Dreamslinger
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
4. Trial players are willing to pay a sub. Most wouldn't try it otherwise - Actually, the exact opposite is more accurate. The Trial account turnover rate is very low, based on Goblin Works own statements and based on our own eyes. Most people use a trial period to see if the game is worth paying a sub for.

I think that it is probably accurate to say that trial players are willing to pay a sub. They just aren't sure if they are willing to pay a sub for this game.

Did you mean "conversion rate"? If the "turnover rate" was low that should mean that players with trial accounts tend to stay with the game and become subscribers, which doesn't seem to be what you are saying.

Yes I meant converting from trial to subscriber.

As for the willingness or lack there of in wanting to pay a subscription, pre or post trial, is really a Chicken or Egg? argument.

Are there some who will play a trial, but have no intentions of paying a sub? Sure, I suppose so. Curiosity works that was sometimes. Do most people use a trial to help them decide if the game is worth it? Yes, I believe most do this. Does PFO have a conversion / retention problem? Unfortunately, I believe the answer to that is obvious.

What is the cause?
How does GW respond?

Those are the next two questions to be asked and hopefully answered in a way that brings about a positive outcome.
Aragon (CN) a settlement founded on the principles of the River Freedoms: Say What You Will; Oath Breakers Die; Walk Any Road, Float Any River; Courts are for Kings; Slavery is an Abomination; Have What You Hold.

Settlement Focus: Fighter and Rogue Training
Game Play: Escalations / Refining / Crafting / Defensive PVP
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post