account share epic past life

[Avantasian]

Loot is simply a different animal. It's specific, where xp is general. Finding an axe that barbarian character A could use while playing cleric character B as an example. While xp is just as useful for every character.

Crafting material is general.

Now to see if you will ignore the thread, keep trying to spin it or accept the facts and change your mind.

[Chai]

I don't recall those complaints. Not taking your word for it.

Its right here on these forums. No one needs to take my word for it.

Reaper made the game harder, so it should be fine.

Harder game doesnt have a direct link to how fast people get through the content and have nothing left to do afterward, especially with abusable mechanics like limitless res cakes and mana pots. Dying more often in reaper hasnt made the completions happen at a slower pace for instance.

If all reaper exp was made account wide that would not be a problem. No one would lose anything.

I already outlined how it undermines the company's chosen revenue generation system. So - the company loses out for each thing they make less calendar time to attain, as it entices less people to buy their way past the time consumption. Note that I dont even like the fact that it is this way, but since it is, I understand why the company would be reluctant to implement more account systems.

The question also needs to be answered for how the company deals with all those people who paid to make ETRs faster on multiple characters only to find out its no longer needed. Once that trust is violated, how do they entice people to pay for more time circumvention especially when they see new threads advocating for yet another system to be made account wide on the forums.

[Avantasian]

Its right here on these forums. No one needs to take my word for it.

Can't find it.

Harder game doesnt have a direct link to how fast people get through the content and have nothing left to do afterward, especially with abusable mechanics like limitless res cakes and mana pots. Dying more often in reaper hasnt made the completions happen at a slower pace for instance.

Harder game has a direct link to how easy the game is. Which is the complaint it sought to fix.

I already outlined how it undermines the company's chosen revenue generation system. So - the company loses out for each thing they make less calendar time to attain, as it entices less people to buy their way past the time consumption. Note that I dont even like the fact that it is this way, but since it is, I understand why the company would be reluctant to implement more account systems.

The question also needs to be answered for how the company deals with all those people who paid to make ETRs faster on multiple characters only to find out its no longer needed. Once that trust is violated, how do they entice people to pay for more time circumvention especially when they see new threads advocating for yet another system to be made account wide on the forums.

I still hold the position that making RXP account wide would incur no lost investment for anyone and would be a boost to the "company's chosen revenue generation system" by making people not only play more alts which sells more tomes, bank space etc, but also just play more overall because of the increased variety from playing alts.

This position does not require me to answer your question.
My question is how the company deals with all those people who paid to make ETRs faster on multiple characters only to find out its the grind was made even larger and they are further than ever from their goals. Once that trust is violated, how do they entice people to pay for more time circumvention especially when they see new posts advocating for yet another system to never be made account wide on the forums.

[Gremmlynn]

The history of similar efforts is positive, the account wide rewards in the shroud for example made people play alts like never before or since.

People played alts mostly as a work around to the 3 day timer game mechanic. Something the devs now sell in the store.

[slarden]

People played alts mostly as a work around to the 3 day timer game mechanic. Something the devs now sell in the store.

And the old 1 day epic quest timer so we could acquire 20 tokens more quickly. This was mainly due to the fact that there was a small handful of quests that were run more frequently because they were easier/quicker. So rather than running partycrashers, under the big top, bargain of blood and the sands chain on epic - people would instead of run party crashers, under the big top and bargan of blood x2 with different characters because groups were easier to fill and the quests were scripted, easy and fast.

[Avantasian]

People played alts mostly as a work around to the 3 day timer game mechanic. Something the devs now sell in the store.

Yes, because the rewards were account wide. For people who liked playing alts this was a great thing, because it allowed them to just play whatever alt they wanted with no qualms.

[Chai]

Can't find it.

Not looking hard enough

Harder game has a direct link to how easy the game is. Which is the complaint it sought to fix.

But that doesnt resolve the "theres nothing to do again" issue

I still hold the position that making RXP account wide would incur no lost investment for anyone and would be a boost to the "company's chosen revenue generation system" by making people not only play more alts which sells more tomes, bank space etc, but also just play more overall because of the increased variety from playing alts.

That position is countered by the fact that most of those alts are already tomed out and parked. Activating them again doesnt result in more money in the future. That money was already spent.

This position does not require me to answer your question.

Bolded is why SSG wont consider this. That question absolutely needs to be answered, as revenue generation equates to their livelyhood. They no longer have a parent corporation behind them who can cash fund a loss if/when it occurs. Thus, even though you will dismiss it and not answer it (likely because it cant be answered without poking holes in the "account bound doesnt have a negative affect" claim) the company cannot afford to have the same attitude, and dismiss what cant be answered.

As stated before, im not even against it as a player, but I can wholly refute the claim that it would have no negative effect through understanding the company's chosen revenue generation method, and how this would be negatively affected as more systems become account level. If you claim this is false, please cite evidence that making loot account level didnt affect ASAH sales negatively - the vast majority of shards of course, coming from out of game money transactions.

So I will continue to ask the question.

This position does not require me to answer your question.
My question is how the company deals with all those people who paid to make ETRs faster on multiple characters only to find out its the grind was made even larger and they are further than ever from their goals. Once that trust is violated, how do they entice people to pay for more time circumvention especially when they see new posts advocating for yet another system to never be made account wide on the forums.

Already happened many times now. While people on the forums complain, the players continue to pump money into the system enough to keep the game afloat, and even split off from the parent company, even going as far as starting threads to ask for Otto's boxes to be made available so they can buy a few. Furthermore, we will see if the same response occurs when they attempt to monetize reaper Xp the same way. This doesnt mean its a foolproof system however. If adding grind ever fails, then they will have to come up with a better strategy quickly, or go into the red financially.

Note that this discussion is happening in a "make EPL account wide" thread. EPLs have already been successfully monetized with minimal complaint. Good luck convincing the company this success wont continue by adding more grind and more ways to pay to circumvent it - even if that logic is incorrect. This is the slippery slope of in game power being influenced by out of game means.

[Gremmlynn]

Crafting material is general.

Now to see if you will ignore the thread, keep trying to spin it or accept the facts and change your mind.

I have yet to see any facts presented, or even theories really. Just some unverified hypothesis's.

Frankly, I don't even have a horse in this race. I play alts now because I simply find that more fun than not doing so an will continue to do so regardless what the devs feel works best for them with this issue. Whether that increases or decreases the total amount grind in the game makes no difference as I will still only do the amount of grind I eventually get done by the time I quit, die or the game gets shut down. How much of it that is really is of no importance what so ever. Trying to keep up with the Jones's is a fools play as one ends up living the Jones's life satisfying the Jones's desires, or at least trying to, rather than their own.

[Gremmlynn]

Yes, because the rewards were account wide. For people who liked playing alts this was a great thing, because it allowed them to just play whatever alt they wanted with no qualms.

But it was still working around the intent of the designed mechanics. Those mechanics were designed that way for a reason despite what people who like playing alts wanted.

The thing you seem to be missing is that there is a way for you to achieve what you desire. It just means playing a lot more and likely spending a lot more on the game than otherwise. Which is what SSG actually wants us to do, which is why they designed it this way in the first place. If that's not something you are willing to do, then it may be best to set goals more in line with what you can expect to achieve within the limits of what you are willing to do.

[Avantasian]

Not looking hard enough


But that doesnt resolve the "theres nothing to do again" issue

I disagree that's is even an issue.

That position is countered by the fact that most of those alts are already tomed out and parked. Activating them again doesnt result in more money in the future. That money was already spent.

That is not a fact. I don't believe it's even remotely true.

Bolded is why SSG wont consider this. That question absolutely needs to be answered, as revenue generation equates to their livelyhood. They no longer have a parent corporation behind them who can cash fund a loss if/when it occurs. Thus, even though you will dismiss it and not answer it (likely because it cant be answered without poking holes in the "account bound doesnt have a negative affect" claim) the company cannot afford to have the same attitude, and dismiss what cant be answered.

Your question was irrelevant to my position because it assumed that trust has been broken while in my position no such thing happens.
But I did answer it, as a counter question that you ignored. Some people will get upset no matter what you do, even if you do nothing.

As stated before, im not even against it as a player, but I can wholly refute the claim that it would have no negative effect through understanding the company's chosen revenue generation method, and how this would be negatively affected as more systems become account level. If you claim this is false, please cite evidence that making loot account level didnt affect ASAH sales negatively - the vast majority of shards of course, coming from out of game money transactions.

So I will continue to ask the question.

My evidence that while account bound loot may harm ASAH sales they are still a net positive for the revenue stream is the fact that very latest pack had BTA loot in it. Or do you believe that you know better and that they are hurting their net revenue with the BTA loot?

I am not claiming that my position has no negative effect, I'm sure it has, but I am claiming that the positive effects far outweigh the negative. We have had discussions based on that concept before.

[Avantasian]

I have yet to see any facts presented, or even theories really. Just some unverified hypothesis's.

Frankly, I don't even have a horse in this race. I play alts now because I simply find that more fun than not doing so an will continue to do so regardless what the devs feel works best for them with this issue. Whether that increases or decreases the total amount grind in the game makes no difference as I will still only do the amount of grind I eventually get done by the time I quit, die or the game gets shut down. How much of it that is really is of no importance what so ever. Trying to keep up with the Jones's is a fools play as one ends up living the Jones's life satisfying the Jones's desires, or at least trying to, rather than their own.

You went for option 2 I see. Too bad that you can't take responsibility for your words.

[Avantasian]

The thing you seem to be missing is that there is a way for you to achieve what you desire. It just means playing a lot more and likely spending a lot more on the game than otherwise. Which is what SSG actually wants us to do, which is why they designed it this way in the first place. If that's not something you are willing to do, then it may be best to set goals more in line with what you can expect to achieve within the limits of what you are willing to do.

Say level 2 on your alt required 4000000000 experience. There would be a way to achieve it, but does that really mean that optimal? If it was lowered to 4000 experience you don't think more people would try to go for it?

There would be more than enough to do on your main and alts after some of the grind is made account wide for the argument that people would run out of things to do to be true. It's not reasonable to expect that people will play more and pay more in a longer grind than in a shorter grind if the shorter grind is still long enough to keep players playing and paying for the desired amount of time.
Creating huge apparent barriers to alts serves no purpose. In the end all it will do is hurt variety.

[Chai]

Say level 2 on your alt required 4000000000 experience. There would be a way to achieve it, but does that really mean that optimal? If it was lowered to 4000 experience you don't think more people would try to go for it?

I said similar things when the "it can be earned in game so its no big deal" position kept being repeated over and over again, and look what happened. +6-7 are like unicorns in game, yet included in many endgame build profiles.

In your example, the culture of feedback will be less influenced by people willing to play for 4000 experience, and more by people willing to buy 4000000000 experience or as close to 4000000000 experience as they can get. While players at times dont seem to care one way or the other about how the revenue is generated, the company has to keep this in mind at all times.

[Avantasian]

I said similar things when the "it can be earned in game so its no big deal" position kept being repeated over and over again, and look what happened. +6-7 are like unicorns in game, yet included in many endgame build profiles.

In your example, the culture of feedback will be less influenced by people willing to play for 4000 experience, and more by people willing to buy 4000000000 experience or as close to 4000000000 experience as they can get. While players at times dont seem to care one way or the other about how the revenue is generated, the company has to keep this in mind at all times.

So you are saying that bad desicions in the past ensures bad descisions in the future? If you believe that, why are you even on the forums?

[Chai]

I disagree that's is even an issue.

THen youre arguing an incomplete player perspective position and not taking what the company has to do into account. Im fine with that, but they wont be, heh.

That is not a fact. I don't believe it's even remotely true.

Read the other feedback being provided in the past few weeks objectively and you will see many claims of lots and lots of alts not being played any more. Its either a fact that you are dismissing or a bunch of people are lying. I highly doubt the people who claim to have 15+ alts and play 1-2 nowdays are all lying about it.

Your question was irrelevant to my position because it assumed that trust has been broken while in my position no such thing happens.
But I did answer it, as a counter question that you ignored. Some people will get upset no matter what you do, even if you do nothing.

Claiming I ignored the question when I refuted it, shows the level of confirmation bias here. It was answered wholly, and in the first post it was quoted in. The effect of your position would equate to that trust being broken. Or are you telling us that you can sell alot of circumvention of character level grind in the recent past, turn around and make it account level, and no one will complain about the amount of investment they put in to get it at the character level previously?

My evidence that while account bound loot may harm ASAH sales they are still a net positive for the revenue stream is the fact that very latest pack had BTA loot in it. Or do you believe that you know better and that they are hurting their net revenue with the BTA loot?

Those two things have zero connection. Zero correlation and zero causation. The fact that the company was willing to give players a taste, but not the entire kitchen, when players asked for account bound loot does not equate to meaning the ASAH is a net positive revenue generation mechanism for the company. Turbine (now SSG) has stated in the past that BTA is their method going forward, and thus the lack of switching back to BTC when they need money having a direct link is wholly refuted.

I am not claiming that my position has no negative effect, I'm sure it has, but I am claiming that the positive effects far outweigh the negative. We have had discussions based on that concept before.

The evidence of most MMOs having 1-2 account bound systems but the rest are BTC, refutes the claim that doing it once having a positive effect means they can continue to make everything else BTA and it will still be a net positive for the company. DDO falls right in line with that. Current and previous meta loot is BTA. Most of the rest of the stuff is BTC.

[Avantasian]

THen youre arguing an incomplete player perspective position and not taking what the company has to do into account. Im fine with that, but they wont be, heh.

I'm fine with you arguing an incomplete player perspective too!

Read the other feedback being provided in the past few weeks objectively and you will see many claims of lots and lots of alts not being played any more. Its either a fact that you are dismissing or a bunch of people are lying. I highly doubt the people who claim to have 15+ alts and play 1-2 nowdays are all lying about it.

People have stopped playing alts =/= People would only start playing alts that are all tomed up.

You are using the word 'fact' wrong.

Claiming I ignored the question when I refuted it, shows the level of confirmation bias here. It was answered wholly, and in the first post it was quoted in. The effect of your position would equate to that trust being broken. Or are you telling us that you can sell alot of circumvention of character level grind in the recent past, turn around and make it account level, and no one will complain about the amount of investment they put in to get it at the character level previously?

Oh please, you know full well that in your first reply you did not answer that question. I bet if we scroll up we can see that you edited the post. I am going to assume that you edited before I posted my reply and that you did not set this up just to throw a cheap personal attack.

No, the effect of my position would not equate any trust being broken as my position would lead to all RXP being merged and thus nothing is lost in any way what-so-ever. Their investment still paid off, infact I even made the return of investment even higher.

Those two things have zero connection. Zero correlation and zero causation. The fact that the company was willing to give players a taste, but not the entire kitchen, when players asked for account bound loot does not equate to meaning the ASAH is a net positive revenue generation mechanism for the company. Turbine (now SSG) has stated in the past that BTA is their method going forward, and thus the lack of switching back to BTC when they need money having a direct link is wholly refuted.

You missed my point. That BTA loot hurts ASAH sales is outweighed by the apparent fact that BTA loot generates more revenue in other ways (player retention, satisfaction or whatever), the evidence for this is the fact that they keep making loot BTA.
If BTA items hurt their bottom line they would not keep making them.

The evidence of most MMOs having 1-2 account bound systems but the rest are BTC, refutes the claim that doing it once having a positive effect means they can continue to make everything else BTA and it will still be a net positive for the company. DDO falls right in line with that. Current and previous meta loot is BTA. Most of the rest of the stuff is BTC.

You are refuting a claim that I never made, good job.
Do you not think the recent addition of huge character specific grinds changed where we are in relation to the optimal BTC/BTA distribution?

[Enoach]

One aspect of shared xp account wide that will hurt a sub-culture of DDO players is the fact that it removes the fun people have simply because they like to level and see progression when they level.

This makes leveling with progression finite.

And yes, I know a few that enjoy DDO for that exact reason, they enjoy the pleasure of leveling up and progressing.

[nokowi]

So you agree that the history of similar efforts are positive? Great!

You are taking two completely different things and equating them.

There is no reason shared RXP is needed if your great example of providing incentives for alts is a raid.

All they need to do is produce new raids that are equally well received.


What we should agree on is that Shared RXP has little to do with the example you cite, and your continual effort to say they are equal is a miserable failure.

Not everybody agrees that shared RXP will make people play alts more. Some say less because those motivated by rewards can just play their best toon.

So of all the ways to increase use of alts, you take one that is unproven and not agreed upon, instead of the proven model.



I repeat, why can't they just add some new content to encourage use of alts?

Why would designers shorten the life of reaper when there is a much better solution?

[Sproutecus]

Putting aside the value of making reaper or racial TR account wide for a second.

If you did do one or the other, you COULD compromise. For instance, you could do one account wide RTR for every 3 on any one character (or one for every race you have 3 completed). That means if you do 30 RTR's on your main, your alts (that existed the entire time) would have the equivalent of 1 RPL for each race. The alt still has to do a LOT of grinding, but there is incentive to play your alts as well.

Or even more restrictive, you could do 1 'free' RPL for a SINGLE character for each race completed on another. That would be less rewarding for people with lots of alts, but it is at least giving players a small reason to have/play alts.

Additionally, for players like myself who have only been playing a (relatively) short while, the mountain you have to climb to come sort of kid of close to be equivilent to long term players would not be quitre as ridiculous. As it is, I have zero reason to spend one dime on my alt right now. I have 9 EPL's, 14 IPL's and 33 HPL's to do. Even assuming 1 per 2 weeks you are talking years of play time. For ONE character. Adding 30 more PL's would add another full year. (and frankly one life is close to 3-4 weeks for me due to RL, so double all of that).


Just a thought.

[nokowi]

I was surprised that I actually got an apology. I guess he realized that his complete fabrications about my position only served to further poison the disussion climate.
That it's unreasonable of me to expect a honest discussion where people admit when they are wrong and actually change their position based on new information and not turn to fabrications and misrepresentations is sad.

I apologized because there was no dishonesty intended, and it was clear the discussion could not move forward for you without one.

If people had to apologize whenever they misstate another persons opinion, 10 pages threads would be 200 pages long. It is often intentional misstatements, in which no apology would ever occur and every thread would need to be closed the moment any misrepresentation was made.

The request was pretty ridiculous (having already admitted I now understood your position), but I complied to move the discussion forward.

Apparently you fail to understand the difference between fabricating a position and not yet understanding a position. I will retract the apology if you are going to make misstatements that I willfully misrepresented your opinion. That would be a willful misrepresentation of me, and would require an apology from you for the discussion to move forward, using your own self created rules of etiquette for the forums.