A system suggestion which should make everyone happy

[Peralisc2]

A free play account eventually reaches same level as 5$ spender, then 20$ level ... and so on. No need for special treat obviously. Wasn't this clear from the start? Just curious.

[Demongod]

Special treatment? It isn't special when you give both sides the same treatment. Have you not been reading my post?

FOUR, read them FOUR arenas

1) Crest: Levels 1-14 for training
2) Free only: Levels 15+, but only play other free players
3) Paid only: Levels 15+ for only paid players
4) Folrart: Levels 15+ for ANY kinds of players.

It's a strict improvement, because it takes away nothing. If a free player doesn't want to play paid players, he shouldn't have to. Same way with the paid players: if they don't want to play against free players because they're bored of the same types of free player decks, that should be their prerogative, too.

I simply don't see what's wrong by *adding options*. I could definitely see a problem if we took out Folrart and said "if you're a light spender, you're boned".

But I'm not advocating that! I'm simply saying to let players choose the kind of game they want to play, rather than force them to play something they won't have fun playing. Because that is the point of the game, right? To have fun?

[DWildstar]

The problem with this idea right now is that even now some people complain about not being able to get a duel. I've run into low level players in Folrart for a number of reasons. Sometimes they don't realize they should be playing in Crest and other times they tell me they can't get a duel in Crest.

Four arenas like this would divide up the playerbase even more which could cause a number of things. You might think that having all the extra arenas would cause people to stay because they know they won't be up against paying players, but the other result is they just leave because they can never get a duel since the small playerbase is now split between four arenas. This sort of thing isn't a simple fix that can be taken lightly. We have to make sure if we add in a big change to the game that current players can still play.

You say adding the extra arenas takes away nothing, but it could very well take away the ability of people to get a duel in a reasonable period of time and that would be even worse for all the players free or paid.

[Demongod]

I realize that may be the case, DWildstar, which brings us back to our original issue of how do we attract and retain players. Right now, players can't get duels because the community is small.

If we go under the assumption that all players will initially be free players, we need to find a way to create a system that makes the free players feel welcome. Once we get a larger community, the duel time shouldn't be an issue.

[Visfarix]

Circular logic has no end or beginning.

1. Multiple arenas may be able to bring in more new players and give a higher retention rate for them. But if they can't get duels they will leave regardless.

2. If there aren't enough players, we have to attract more. Multiple arenas might be able to bring in more players and give a higher retention rate for the new players.

Rinse and repeat.

Now let's stop this silly exercise.

[Demongod]

The problem of attracting players is in my opinion a much easier problem to solve than of keeping them.

In order to attract them, you have to show them something potentially enticing and simply get them hooked on long enough to want to stay. Furthermore, if the game becomes good enough, its own players can vouch for it on other message boards and so, give Alteil very free advertising.

So I'm operating under the assumption that we can attract players. So the issue is setting up a system to retain a larger number of (eventual) players.

And then the "circular" logic becomes a virtuous cycle.

[Ginnazoh]

demongod I believe the issue with your system is keeping players because by spreading out an already thin player base, it will stretch the time needed to find match.

Here, I'll give an example to make it easy to understand:

Example A:
2 Arenas like right now:
30 player player base.
15 players in each arena, 2 min wait time.

Example B:
4 Arenas like you suggested:
Same 30 player player base.
7 players in each arena, 10 min wait time.

Not to mention, we now have the issue of you playing the same players OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Thus people will QUIT because the game is REPETITIVE and LONGER wait time. Therefore creating a RETENTION ISSUE and NOT KEEPING PLAYERS.

[Demongod]

Ginnazoh, that problem can be solved by simply attracting a larger player base. I for one know of two very populated message boards that I may be honestly able to pitch Alteil on if I felt that it'd be friendlier towards non-paying players, which a majority of will be.

[Visfarix]

Even if new arenas were able to attract new players and retain them, fact is, we wouldn't be able to get enough new players quickly enough to make new arenas a worthwhile implementation. So until we can get a larger population to support more arenas, we really can't afford to add new arenas at this time.

You cannot simply assume things like ability to attract new players easily, like you can in a textbook example/problem. We do not live in a textbook. Real life is a good deal more complicated and unpredictable.

[luckysvn777]

Yea, there's also that fallacy.. DemonGod, you can't say for sure that what you think is what would happen or even the right thing to do.. realize that your ideas would take time to implement because huge changes need time to discuss and think of every last consequence... since a wrong decision could be fatal..

Also, why not advertise on the site now and see anyway? Would it hurt you to do so? Instead its like you are holding that over our heads as a threat of sorts, and i just find that kinda childish and silly. Give a warning that the current game is a bit tough on free players for now and that they'll need patience...

After all, wouldn't a huge surge of free players be the best way to encourage the site to speed up efforts to help free players? Instead of being destructive and saying "give me what i want or i'll give you negative press, me me me," why not just give the game the benefit of the doubt, give it some positive attention (you yourself said its a great and fun game, just with current free player "disadvantages" WHICH ARE BEING WORKED ON AT ALMOST TOP PRIORITY BY THE GM'S. Heck, tell them explicitly to use the forums and chat and not be shy about getting help because "the vets there claim that that would help a lot". I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, to see a bunch of new free players in chat asking for help on how to make their starters work well in Folrart. I would help them out anytime. In other words, you could create a new batch of iczers with the right mindset to potentially succeed even in these circumstances that would hopefully improve, and likely improve with such a new playerbase, and make the game grow now... instead of being negative about it and using it as a threat. Does that make any sense? I hope you don't avoid this paragraph, cuz i like that idea.. discuss it with me please ^^

Instead of having silly arguments and having threats, why not work together to come up with solutions that don't even involve needed immediate changes by helping to advertise a playerbase already with the expectation of what is to come and the mindset to overcome it?