Skill Locks and Amnesty

[BellaofCats]

I have recently come back and was disappointed that my sims were all deleted - which I thought could happen yes, so no need to start quoting me and replying otherwise

Anyhow, I am staying, for now, to can see what is happening with all the upcoming changes.

Yes I'd love my locks back!! And would wholeheartedly embrace them and this would definitely be a HUGE reason for me to keep my account active for years to come.

Another serious consideration I'd have IF lock-amnesty were in place would be to re-open my other accounts as well. So, for now and unless there is skill lock amnesty implemented, my other accounts will remain closed.

I also feel amnesty should be tied to account age, not sim age. However, although I did not participate in this payment 'method', I cannot agree with taking locks away from those that paid every third month as EA allowed this practice to continue - meant or not.

Edited for lock-stance clarification.

 

[imported_DutchAmerica]

I think from one of the early TSO articles....it was stated that players would be very transient in the game. There would be a few 'staple' players that would anchor the game and be reliable to stay with the game. However, many others would come and go fairly frequently. (Which is what we see happening all the time.)

I think the one aspect in the initial planning that was left out is the idea of attracting 'repeat' customers.

People that may just get bored with games easily and move on. But whom may return when there are updates and such.

Players are 'more likely' to return and continue playing if they could reactivate their accounts and have their sim right where is was when they stopped paying.

Many potential re-subscribers are not willing to resubscribe and have to start from scratch and I think it really is something that EA needs to take a look at for future consideration. By connecting locks to paid time, it would ensure returning players that they actually have something to come back for.

From a 'business' stand point, it would be smart to allow players to 'keep one foot in the door' so to speak.

I don't care about the stinkin locks and never have. I do care about my old sims and will not be deleting any just to get a few extra locks.

But what I do care about is that TSO makes money. Many of these changes that some of us are asking for is solely to attract more paid subscribers because unless this game starts turning a profit in the next few months, it's over....ealand and all.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

There would be a few 'staple' players that would anchor the game and be reliable to stay with the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a 'stapler' player, does that count?

 

[Keep It Real]

This is all well and good Dutch but what about those who only paid every third month? You know, the ones who kept accounts just active enough as to not get their sims deleted. They came back that third month and skilled the locks they had gained. Do you take away the locks they had gained while waiting on EA to show some interest in the game? I don't think that would be fair to them as they were playing by the rules laid down by EA when locks first came out.

EA never said you couldn't just play every third month and could not gain locks for the 2 months you didn't pay did they, no they didn't. So if those people lost locks if would be a smack in the face to them for following the rules set forth to begin with and EA would lose just that much more credibility from players who hung on and had hope. At this stage in the game that would not be a wise business move. Those that hung on in the hopes of a renewed interest by EA should not be screwed out of locks gained by maintaining accounts. I don't think it would be the right thing to do changing the rules on this in the middle of trying to bring these people back to full time subscribers, afterall, they were playing by the rules the whole time. Leave the locks based on sim age as it was originally set up and if changes are to be made, grandfather the current locks in.

Those who just up and quit and didn't at least maintain the sims they had knew they would be deleted for non payment and will just have to start over. They knew that their sims were going to be deleted or they would have paid at least every third month to save them and the locks. Those that didn't even bother to reactivate every third month deserve nothing as I see it.

 

[forsure01]

Those who just up and quit and didn't at least maintain the sims they had knew they would be deleted for non payment and will just have to start over. They knew that their sims were going to be deleted or they would have paid at least every third month to save them and the locks. Those that didn't even bother to reactivate every third month deserve nothing as I see it.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, Lets see, I played for 3 yrs and that is 36 months at a cost of $9.99 per month and did not just MAINTAIN my sims., So I paid $360 dollars for that, and someone that just paid every 3 months paid only $119 for the same 3 years. But I would deserve nothing according to you, and you should keep all your locks? Yes, I took a year and a half break. but I still have more dollars invested in this game than you do. Lets be fair. If we are going to do anything with skill locks, than A)leave them alone, do Nothing. B)Base it on Account age, win some loose some. C)One time grandfather based on account age, with no one losing locks because they just Maintained there account. I am willing to be fair with everyone. Just a thought. I am for C

 

[HunnyBunny]

I have paid consistantly the whole time and I am for C. That sounds fair as long as that includes basing locks on paid account age from then on.

 

[Keep It Real]

Oh, I see you didn't realize your sims would be deleted if you didn't at least pay to maintain them once every 3 months? And assuming that a player only played once every 3 months from the beginning is a bit of a stretch don't ya think? I mean a lot of people left due to no more updates and most likely have at least 2+ years of active monthly payments before going to once every 3 months. But "C" is the lesser of all stated evils.

 

[imported_DutchAmerica]

Oh I know people that do that and trust me....I call them cheap sorry TSO abusers everytime....right to their faces!!! Many of these people did it intentionally!

With connecting the 'locks' to account payment, it would encourage people that want to continue to accumulate locks to keep their accounts active continuously.

One of the biggest pet peeves of subscribers returning is that they've had everything deleted (even though they knew it would). Some decide to stick it out and start over. Some do not.


IF EA considered allowing old accounts to be reactivate and have their locks tied to their time paid, maybe EA could give a grace period or deadline, subscribers that are missing months being paid, could make up the missing months up until the deadline. After the grace period, all locks would be connected to paid entitlement.

Are we going to continue with the system we have had or will we request that EA examine changes that would encourage future financial success for TSO?

Though their half a year subscriptions were better then nothing, is it fair to those of us that paid a full year? If they are not going to change the system, then why don't we all just start alternating our TSO subscription payments. If I only pay my subscriptions every other month, I'll save about $600 for the year. hmmm.....that's a thought! (Just kidding...but I could have saved a heck of a lot if I had alternated payments too.)

(And I wonder if Santa brought Milton a new stapler this year? I know that other one must be wore out by now. lol )

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Oh I know people that do that and trust me....I call them cheap sorry TSO abusers everytime....right to their faces!!! Many of these people did it intentionally!

With connecting the 'locks' to account payment, it would encourage people that want to continue to accumulate locks to keep their accounts active continuously.

One of the biggest pet peeves of subscribers returning is that they've had everything deleted (even though they knew it would). Some decide to stick it out and start over. Some do not.


IF EA considered allowing old accounts to be reactivate and have their locks tied to their time paid, maybe EA could give a grace period or deadline, subscribers that are missing months being paid, could make up the missing months up until the deadline. After the grace period, all locks would be connected to paid entitlement.

Are we going to continue with the system we have had or will we request that EA examine changes that would encourage future financial success for TSO?

Though their half a year subscriptions were better then nothing, is it fair to those of us that paid a full year? If they are not going to change the system, then why don't we all just start alternating our TSO subscription payments. If I only pay my subscriptions every other month, I'll save about $600 for the year. hmmm.....that's a thought! (Just kidding...but I could have saved a heck of a lot if I had alternated payments too.)

(And I wonder if Santa brought Milton a new stapler this year? I know that other one must be wore out by now. lol )

[/ QUOTE ]
NOIP (ttl)
Based on the opinions of so many people, and the attitude of the devs - it seems to me that the best way to do this is to base locks on paid time, but with no one losing locks that they currently hold. After a certain date - only paid time would be considered.

Look - we can argue the 'fair, unfair' aspect for years without coming to a conclusion, but if we want to have any influence with the devs (not that there is any guarantee) we should provide a united front.
This way, nobody currently playing would lose anything and some current and returning players would gain some incentive.

 

[Keep It Real]

I'd much rather see NOTHING done about locks. Let the DEV TEAM time be put toward bug fixing and opening EA Land. I think this is a waste of time and money to change any of this now or in the future.

 

[imported_DutchAmerica]

<blockquote><hr>

I'd much rather see NOTHING done about locks. Let the DEV TEAM time be put toward bug fixing and opening EA Land. I think this is a waste of time and money to change any of this now or in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

KIR? LMAO yeah....you think leaving it the way it is will save them money?

It may save me some maybe.

 

[Guest]

I think that grandfathering locks at the point of opening EA Land....and then tying future locks to accounts is a sound plan.

However, something "Lewis" said in the conversation Simone screenprinted for us, makes me think this is easier said than done.
-----------------------------
Lewis: "i dont know how they could get them back"
"unfortunately characters are lost after 120 days...(bad ea)
Simone: " yes, I think they are wanting the old players to be able to create and be aged and them to be able to delete any time and retain their locks"
Lewis: "unfortunately some of that is not possible so sort of a moot point"
-----------------------------

This suggests that EA does not keep sufficient records on accounts that have been closed for a long while, to be able to set the locks, the way we are talking about....... so it may not be possible to offer this to all old players. This may only be possible for players from this point forward.

And to KIR, the coding has already been done to track and keep the entitlement days for each sim, on each account, so there can not be much more coding necessary, to tie it to skills, as well.
I would think the biggest tweaks would need to be with accounting records....which would probably be done by EA's accounting department, rather than the devs.

edited for clarity

 

[forsure01]

Oh, I see you didn't realize your sims would be deleted if you didn't at least pay to maintain them once every 3 months?
_____________________________________________________
For your information, I had Cancer, that is why I left the game, and yes I realized my sims would be deleted. However I had no idea I could pay once every three months and I could have my cake and eat it too. Besides life was more important at the time.

 

[Keep It Real]

Sorry you had cancer but that is none of my business. I was asking if you knew or didn't know the sims would be deleted, thats all. We all have reasons our accounts are one way or another, I'll spare you the details of why a few of my accounts are short of entitlement days. I still think the current system is good and should not be changed.

 

[Keep It Real]

Yeah Dutch, do you even have a clue how much it costs to make a change like this in the game? It ain't cheap and I would be willing to bet it costs more than you have paid to EA over the years, far more.

 

[imported_DutchAmerica]

Ok let me throw this out to everyone! (I'm rather excited about this idea so don't bash me right away!)

Why don't we ask EA to do away with skill locks all together? Also we do away with skill decay? Once you have the skill.....you got it.

Once you've maxxed the skill you desire....you set up your businesses...make your links...socialize.

Let EA face it...skill locks will not keep players and will just turn players against each other!

Let's ban together and say NO MORE SKILL DECAY!!!

Let's say it again!!

NO MORE SKILL DECAY....!!!!

Skill houses would still be full of sims needing skills....money houses for those needing that... and for once we could take the opportunity to enjoy entertainment and offbeats...

Come on! Why not ask for it? Wouldn't that really be the best solution?

No more "days old" use 'entitlement' instead too!

Tie the bookmark to the account and not the sim....that way when we bookmark a player...if they recreate...we still know they are stalking us!

OMG...SHOULD I START A NEW THREAD FOR THIS? Somebody do this for me...I'm still suffering from Sim2 zoom out. No matter how much I hit that minus sign it just won't zoom out!

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I'd much rather see NOTHING done about locks. Let the DEV TEAM time be put toward bug fixing and opening EA Land. I think this is a waste of time and money to change any of this now or in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe 'doing nothing' is a desirable option - there will always be some resentment towards those who gained locks through the "part-timer" exploit.
It wouldn't cost anything either - the adjustments (outlined above) could easily be set to run one time - with the 'permanent' fix set in place afterwards.

 

[Keep It Real]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

I'd much rather see NOTHING done about locks. Let the DEV TEAM time be put toward bug fixing and opening EA Land. I think this is a waste of time and money to change any of this now or in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe 'doing nothing' is a desirable option - there will always be some resentment towards those who gained locks through the "part-timer" exploit.
It wouldn't cost anything either - the adjustments (outlined above) could easily be set to run one time - with the 'permanent' fix set in place afterwards.

[/ QUOTE ]


ANY manhours used to change this would cost SOMETHING. And how was following the guidelines set forth by EA an EXPLOIT????

It ain't broke so don't fix it.

 

[Guest]

Just because it has always been that way doesn't make it right. It is in fact an exploit. Just like the money thing. Or does exploit only mean money?

The paying every 3 months to keep an account alive is an exploit. We have seen things that the devs know nothing about. This is most likely one of those things. No one mentioned it or complained about it, so it never got noticed. Do you really think they want you earning things that you didn't pay for??? That is just blasphemy.

I've said it before and I will say it again, I think skill locks should be linked to account payed time. I think amnesty should happen. If ain't broke, don't fix it. This is one of those things that is broken and should be fixed. Its been broken for far too long.

 

[Keep It Real]

Waste of time and resources, leave it alone.

 

[forsure01]

I'd just like to ask the question, Why do they have Entitlement days in TC3? Does anyone know why they did that????? And By the way, they do know how many days you paid, I reactivated a very old account (made a sim in TC3)to see what it would come up with for entitlement days and it was correct. So seems to me they know how many days you paid even if it was over 4 years ago. So again I ask the question WHY did they write code that would show entitlement days on our accounts in TC3???

 

[imported_remflyer]

<blockquote><hr>

Just because it has always been that way doesn't make it right. It is in fact an exploit. Just like the money thing. Or does exploit only mean money?

The paying every 3 months to keep an account alive is an exploit. We have seen things that the devs know nothing about. This is most likely one of those things. No one mentioned it or complained about it, so it never got noticed. Do you really think they want you earning things that you didn't pay for??? That is just blasphemy.

I've said it before and I will say it again, I think skill locks should be linked to account payed time. I think amnesty should happen. If ain't broke, don't fix it. This is one of those things that is broken and should be fixed. Its been broken for far too long.

[/ QUOTE ]
Paying once every 3 months to keep your avatar alive is not an exploit. You are basically paying EA a fee to store your character in their database. It's up to you when you want to play that avatar. Skill locks were designed to be earn based on sim age not paid account time. You might not like the fact that they designed it that way but that is how they set it up.

If you now change the system to issue skill locks based on paid account time you can't claim that the players in the past exploited the system and don't deserve the locks they earned because they may have not paid to play their avatar every month. Those players played by the rules set forth by EA. All locks earned under the old system need to be grandfathered in. You can't start taking away locks that players have already earned under the old system.

Since the Devs have repeatedly said that the skilling game in EA-Land is not going to be as important why do we want them to waste valuable time on changing how the lock system works. The Devs have also told us they have a limited time to turn this game around. I really don't see how changing the lock system is going to attract many more new subscriptions. There are much more important gaming elements for them to be working on. They should be spending their time designing tools for the players to create with. Let the players create and they will come.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

I'd much rather see NOTHING done about locks. Let the DEV TEAM time be put toward bug fixing and opening EA Land. I think this is a waste of time and money to change any of this now or in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe 'doing nothing' is a desirable option - there will always be some resentment towards those who gained locks through the "part-timer" exploit.
It wouldn't cost anything either - the adjustments (outlined above) could easily be set to run one time - with the 'permanent' fix set in place afterwards.

[/ QUOTE ]


ANY manhours used to change this would cost SOMETHING. And how was following the guidelines set forth by EA an EXPLOIT????

It ain't broke so don't fix it.

[/ QUOTE ]
There was an unforseen and unintended benefit to paying once every now and then - players took advantage of that - hence "exploit". The grace period of 90-120 days was intended only to give players a chance to change their minds about canceling their accounts. It was never intended to be used over and over for any other purpose.
Exploit.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Just because it has always been that way doesn't make it right. It is in fact an exploit. Just like the money thing. Or does exploit only mean money?

The paying every 3 months to keep an account alive is an exploit. We have seen things that the devs know nothing about. This is most likely one of those things. No one mentioned it or complained about it, so it never got noticed. Do you really think they want you earning things that you didn't pay for??? That is just blasphemy.

I've said it before and I will say it again, I think skill locks should be linked to account payed time. I think amnesty should happen. If ain't broke, don't fix it. This is one of those things that is broken and should be fixed. Its been broken for far too long.

[/ QUOTE ]
Paying once every 3 months to keep your avatar alive is not an exploit. You are basically paying EA a fee to store your character in their database. It's up to you when you want to play that avatar. Skill locks were designed to be earn based on sim age not paid account time. You might not like the fact that they designed it that way but that is how they set it up.

If you now change the system to issue skill locks based on paid account time you can't claim that the players in the past exploited the system and don't deserve the locks they earned because they may have not paid to play their avatar every month. Those players played by the rules set forth by EA. All locks earned under the old system need to be grandfathered in. You can't start taking away locks that players have already earned under the old system.

Since the Devs have repeatedly said that the skilling game in EA-Land is not going to be as important why do we want them to waste valuable time on changing how the lock system works. The Devs have also told us they have a limited time to turn this game around. I really don't see how changing the lock system is going to attract many more new subscriptions. There are much more important gaming elements for them to be working on. They should be spending their time designing tools for the players to create with. Let the players create and they will come.

[/ QUOTE ]

Donavan put it better than I can:

<blockquote><hr>

There was an unforseen and unintended benefit to paying once every now and then - players took advantage of that - hence "exploit". The grace period of 90-120 days was intended only to give players a chance to change their minds about canceling their accounts. It was never intended to be used over and over for any other purpose.
Exploit.

[/ QUOTE ]

 

[Keep It Real]

I doubt people used this as an exploit, more than likely it was used as a means to keep older sims around while checking back into the game from time to time to see if EA had made any changes or shown any attention to this game. Seriously, this is by far the greatest stretch of the imagination I have seen to date. I guess I'm just not seeing the "dark" side of keeping a sim around in this manner. Bravo, thanks for the chuckles.

Nothing needs to be changed with locks as everything is as it was intended to be.

Whats the next conspiracy going to be? Saving pumkins in inventory from year to year? OMG!

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>


There was an unforseen and unintended benefit to paying once every now and then - players took advantage of that - hence "exploit". The grace period of 90-120 days was intended only to give players a chance to change their minds about canceling their accounts. It was never intended to be used over and over for any other purpose.
Exploit.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not an exploit. It was available to everyone.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I doubt people used this as an exploit, more than likely it was used as a means to keep older sims around while checking back into the game from time to time to see if EA had made any changes or shown any attention to this game. Seriously, this is by far the greatest stretch of the imagination I have seen to date. I guess I'm just not seeing the "dark" side of keeping a sim around in this manner. Bravo, thanks for the chuckles.

Nothing needs to be changed with locks as everything is as it was intended to be.

Whats the next conspiracy going to be? Saving pumkins in inventory from year to year? OMG!

[/ QUOTE ]
Undoubtedly, some people did it for exactly that reason - but I doubt the majority were that innocent. I don't have that much faith in the human race (and judging by many of your posts, neither do you).
But, like I said I really don't care if they grandfather in those accounts. All I'm saying is that to fix it so that it works the way so many have talked about would be a simple thing.
A penny's worth of effort to gain a dollar's worth of goodwill sounds like a bargain to me.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>


There was an unforseen and unintended benefit to paying once every now and then - players took advantage of that - hence "exploit". The grace period of 90-120 days was intended only to give players a chance to change their minds about canceling their accounts. It was never intended to be used over and over for any other purpose.
Exploit.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not an exploit. It was available to everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]
Being available to everyone does not exclude it as an exploit - most exploits are available to everyone - all they need is to be aware of it.

 

[Keep It Real]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

I doubt people used this as an exploit, more than likely it was used as a means to keep older sims around while checking back into the game from time to time to see if EA had made any changes or shown any attention to this game. Seriously, this is by far the greatest stretch of the imagination I have seen to date. I guess I'm just not seeing the "dark" side of keeping a sim around in this manner. Bravo, thanks for the chuckles.

Nothing needs to be changed with locks as everything is as it was intended to be.

Whats the next conspiracy going to be? Saving pumkins in inventory from year to year? OMG!

[/ QUOTE ]
Undoubtedly, some people did it for exactly that reason - but I doubt the majority were that innocent. I don't have that much faith in the human race (and judging by many of your posts, neither do you).
But, like I said I really don't care if they grandfather in those accounts. All I'm saying is that to fix it so that it works the way so many have talked about would be a simple thing.
A penny's worth of effort to gain a dollar's worth of goodwill sounds like a bargain to me.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't sweat the small stuff, and this topic is small stuff.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>


There was an unforseen and unintended benefit to paying once every now and then - players took advantage of that - hence "exploit". The grace period of 90-120 days was intended only to give players a chance to change their minds about canceling their accounts. It was never intended to be used over and over for any other purpose.
Exploit.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not an exploit. It was available to everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't say that because it was available to everyone doesn't make it an exploit. There have been people in here that have kept 20, 30 and even more accounts open that way for various reasons, exploiting the purpose that it was setup for in the 1st place to keep all these accounts for a quarter the price. Also, if people were just using it to see what happened in here why would they need to do that with more than 1 account. OK, so some kept their accounts active and retained all thier property. To use it as an arguement where they would lose locks they gained because of it is totally wrong. Those locks that were gained were infact a bonus from something that was setup for another purpose. For those of you that paid every 90 to 120 days to gain locks on an account cheaper than you would if you paid every month, well that has to be taken as exploiting the system, no doubt about it. Having said all that let them keep their locks, it would not be hard to do that and it has already been stated that if this does go through they will likely have that happen. Its funny that the only real argument being prestented against this, is because of the locks gained this way. Are people really so greedy that they would stop something from going through that could only help bring previous players back to the game, just so they could keep something that was infact a bonus and gained from something that was not intended to be used in that manner in the 1st place.

 

[Guest]

people in here that have kept 20, 30 and even more accounts open

You fail to realize that a person doing as you suggest would be giving EA around $100 a month.

$3.33 a month revenue from a sustaining account is better for EA than zero from an expired account.

 

[imported_DutchAmerica]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>


There was an unforseen and unintended benefit to paying once every now and then - players took advantage of that - hence "exploit". The grace period of 90-120 days was intended only to give players a chance to change their minds about canceling their accounts. It was never intended to be used over and over for any other purpose.
Exploit.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not an exploit. It was available to everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]
Being available to everyone does not exclude it as an exploit - most exploits are available to everyone - all they need is to be aware of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm a subscription exploit? I guess that is in fact exactly what it is. And now, these people that have exercised their right to exploit a loophole are going to cry foul? (LOL Thanks Donovan!)

Whether a 'loophole' or an 'exploit', it's something that does need to be fixed. And it needs to be fixed simply for the fact that it's out in the open now and too many posters are aware of it.

And I've no doubt that it WILL cost EA a lot of money if it's not fixed cause the cat is out of the bag so to speak because knowing that this can and has been done for years, will cost EA money when others start following the example.

Why is it ok for these subscription exploiters be allowed to keep their unpaid gains, yet other players should not benefit from 'time paid' in the game because these exploiters would lose locks they didn't pay for?

When this was first suggested, I thought it was a great idea. But then I realized that there would be a few 'habitual' subscription exploiters that would cry foul.

(KIR...this is the time to bring these subjects up to for the developer's consideration because NOW is the time they are fixing things. This has been discussed at length here at Stratics in the past and I do believe that it's just as important to fix as fixing trial account abusing, over population of simoleans by bots, or any of the other 'loop holes' in the system that are currently being fixed. I pay my money just like YOU do and I expect the game to be fixed in it's entirety and not just what you think needs being left off the list of things to do.)

 

[Keep It Real]

<blockquote><hr>

people in here that have kept 20, 30 and even more accounts open

You fail to realize that a person doing as you suggest would be giving EA around $100 a month.

$3.33 a month revenue from a sustaining account is better for EA than zero from an expired account.

[/ QUOTE ]


Sometimes the shortest posts make the most sense and say more than the long winded posts on here. Thanks for explaining to the "cloak and dagger" posters what they have been failing to see. If I were a company running in the red I would surely not do anything to piss off the players who are sticking with my company even on a limited basis while I restructure and try to get them back to being fulltime players. I thinks the trees get in the way of the forest and remains unseen to many. BIG PICTURE! No harm, no foul. Remember life is never fair.

 

[imported_DutchAmerica]

<blockquote><hr>

Sometimes the shortest posts make the most sense and say more than the long winded posts on here.

...... If I were a company running in the red I would surely not do anything to piss off the players who are sticking with my company even on a limited basis while I restructure and try to get them back to being fulltime players.

[/ QUOTE ]


Short and sweet for you....

EA would rather risk ticking off long time full paid players by catering to the moochers cheating the system by not paying their full subscription? Yeah that makes a lot of sense. And it makes sense that we have people here kissing their rear ends too. Why are you so supportive of 'part-time' payers?

 

[Keep It Real]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Sometimes the shortest posts make the most sense and say more than the long winded posts on here.

...... If I were a company running in the red I would surely not do anything to piss off the players who are sticking with my company even on a limited basis while I restructure and try to get them back to being fulltime players.

[/ QUOTE ]


Short and sweet for you....

EA would rather risk ticking off long time full paid players by catering to the moochers cheating the system by not paying their full subscription? Yeah that makes a lot of sense. And it makes sense that we have people here kissing their rear ends too. Why are you so supportive of 'part-time' payers?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could have quit over this years ago, now your grasping at straws.
If case you haven't noticed Dutch, I'm not supportive of wasting Dev time to change a sytem that has worked for years just to please you.

 

[Addict™]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Sometimes the shortest posts make the most sense and say more than the long winded posts on here.

...... If I were a company running in the red I would surely not do anything to piss off the players who are sticking with my company even on a limited basis while I restructure and try to get them back to being fulltime players.

[/ QUOTE ]


Short and sweet for you....

EA would rather risk ticking off long time full paid players by catering to the moochers cheating the system by not paying their full subscription? Yeah that makes a lot of sense. And it makes sense that we have people here kissing their rear ends too. Why are you so supportive of 'part-time' payers?

[/ QUOTE ]

x, oh wait, just for you Keep It Real, <font color="red">X</font>.

Addict™

 

[imported_DutchAmerica]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Sometimes the shortest posts make the most sense and say more than the long winded posts on here.

...... If I were a company running in the red I would surely not do anything to piss off the players who are sticking with my company even on a limited basis while I restructure and try to get them back to being fulltime players.

[/ QUOTE ]


Short and sweet for you....

EA would rather risk ticking off long time full paid players by catering to the moochers cheating the system by not paying their full subscription? Yeah that makes a lot of sense. And it makes sense that we have people here kissing their rear ends too. Why are you so supportive of 'part-time' payers?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could have quit over this years ago, now your grasping at straws.

[/ QUOTE ]


Once again you are doing coulda/woulda/shouldas which get us absolutely no where.

I've paid my account nonstop have you? LOL And it's really MY own business if or when I decide to leave this game so why don't you keep your back hand to yourself.

 

[Keep It Real]

yes Dutch, ALL my accounts have been paid non stop. Try again, all your blah blah blah has not yet warranted a change.

 

[Keep It Real]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Sometimes the shortest posts make the most sense and say more than the long winded posts on here.

...... If I were a company running in the red I would surely not do anything to piss off the players who are sticking with my company even on a limited basis while I restructure and try to get them back to being fulltime players.

[/ QUOTE ]


Short and sweet for you....

EA would rather risk ticking off long time full paid players by catering to the moochers cheating the system by not paying their full subscription? Yeah that makes a lot of sense. And it makes sense that we have people here kissing their rear ends too. Why are you so supportive of 'part-time' payers?

[/ QUOTE ]

x, oh wait, just for you Keep It Real, <font color="red">X</font>.

Addict™

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome back youradhere4222, didn't think you wanted to play with us anymore.

 

[Addict™]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Sometimes the shortest posts make the most sense and say more than the long winded posts on here.

...... If I were a company running in the red I would surely not do anything to piss off the players who are sticking with my company even on a limited basis while I restructure and try to get them back to being fulltime players.

[/ QUOTE ]


Short and sweet for you....

EA would rather risk ticking off long time full paid players by catering to the moochers cheating the system by not paying their full subscription? Yeah that makes a lot of sense. And it makes sense that we have people here kissing their rear ends too. Why are you so supportive of 'part-time' payers?

[/ QUOTE ]

x, oh wait, just for you Keep It Real, <font color="red">X</font>.

Addict™

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome back youradhere4222, didn't think you wanted to play with us anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Addict™

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

If case you haven't noticed Dutch, I'm not supportive of wasting Dev time to change a sytem that has worked for years just to please you.


[/ QUOTE ]
I gotta say that your stance is awfully strong for such an inconsequential issue as this - is there something else bothering you?

 

[Keep It Real]

I'm going to assume you meant to reply to my post. Yes I guess you could say I feel strongly about wasting Dev Team time on such a non issue as this. But no more strongly than other posters that feel the same way or even the flipside of this non issue. I hope that helps you understand things a little better.

 

[Guest]

I think someone will lose a lot more than they are letting on.

I am for skill locks tied to paid account age. I am also for amnesty to be given to those that meet the requirements.

 

[Keep It Real]

I would gain a lot of locks, more than I would lose on accounts I bought. So think long and hard if you really want Dev time wasted on this, for me it's a winner on locks, but a lose on time spent on changing this that could of been used for more content and or bug fixes. But nice try none the less.

 

[nobuttkisser]

so what is next... asking for the ability of keeping ones simcash hmmmm?

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

people in here that have kept 20, 30 and even more accounts open

You fail to realize that a person doing as you suggest would be giving EA around $100 a month.

$3.33 a month revenue from a sustaining account is better for EA than zero from an expired account.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have failed to realize what it means, these people have held that many accounts to hold stock of their rare items. I won't get in to who and what items, but I am sure that you know "as many will" who and what items I am talking about. If these people were not able to do this exploit, they would have had to pay each and every month. How can you even think that EA in any way has gained from this, no matter how you look at it, it's 4 accounts for the price of 1. EA has had to cover the costs of keeping those 4 accounts compared to 1.

 

[Guest]

EA has had to cover the costs of keeping those 4 accounts

More like 3 accounts, but even at 4, the marginal cost of maintaining an account is well under $2.50 a month. Plus, 'rares' won't be rare when the cities are merged and people come in with their inventories filled with 'rares'.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I'm going to assume you meant to reply to my post. Yes I guess you could say I feel strongly about wasting Dev Team time on such a non issue as this. But no more strongly than other posters that feel the same way or even the flipside of this non issue. I hope that helps you understand things a little better.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine - you wanna be a butt? Be a butt.
Snide little comments are not going to make anyone see your point of view any clearer, or respect it.

 

[imported_remflyer]

<blockquote><hr>

The hot topic with the devs today is should we have skills locks based on entitlement days. If they were returning players would have any locks they earned through paid time. Recreating players would have the locks they earned. Lots of opinions for and against. Lets talk about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are right Nikii, this certainly has been a hot topic!

For those players who believe people are cheaters and exploiters for playing their Sims on and off where is it that you draw the line? Are you not allowed to take breaks from the game? Is it only one break, one time, on one account that is permissible? Is it wrong to stop paying on your accounts while vacationing every year (if you wouldn't have access to the Internet). Is it OK to stop paying for a couple of months if you are sick in the hospital? I'm just wondering because some posters here seem to think it is a badge of honor to have paid continuously on all their accounts without missing even once. They haven't cheated they have told us but all those others who have started and stopped their accounts are cheaters and exploiters. According to some the only reason people would go and come back in this game repeatedly is to receive skill points at a cheaper price. They were exploiting the system or so they say.

Baloney!

Players have played their avatars on and off for years for a variety of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with gaining so called "free locks." I read here that some players have twenty to thirty avatars they played just to get those "free locks." Well, how many players do you think have done that? Also even if some players have done that how does that affect your game?

Skill points have always been based on sim age not paid account time. The payment you made each month to EA was so you could play that sim. It was not payment for a skill point! I wish skill points had been based on paid account time from the start because I would have been a lot better off and EA would have received much less money from me.

Personally I will gain if they switch the system to paid account time. My TC3 avatars would have all their earned skills locked. All my recreated sims in the production cities would gain locks. My feeling is that many of those clamoring for the system to change would also personally benefit if EA based skill locks on paid account time rather than sim age. I think the argument for changing our current system is more about personal gain than it is on attracting back old players.

 

[Guest]

This thread has gone on for ages going over and over the same issue, it also gets side tracked and has to be pulled back in line as players read some of the posts and don't see why certain issues have become a heightened point in the thread.
The main argument being presented against changing the locks is because people will lose locks where their sim is actually older than accredited paid time.
They received locks from the grace period and don't feel they should lose those locks to give returning players some extra incentive to return.
I posted what follows earlier in this thread and don't feel I can point out what this thread is all about any better than I did then.
---
Yes the changes being made on the game will be the main thing that will bring players back, I heard about the changes and it was enough to get me back to have a look see what was on the cards. In making that decision I also thought about having to start again from scratch, conversations with others that are considering returning have said the same thing. Part of that is having to wait to regain our locks. I had 4 skills maxed and locked when I last played and to get back to that I will have to wait 1260 days to regain the locks. Now I can tell you, most who "seriously" consider returning to the game will think the same way. You like everyone else continually point out that we knew we would lose our locks when we left. To expand on that we actually knew we would lose everything, locks, skills, property interactions and so on. The attitude of people who stayed in the game is that because we left we should expect nothing, get nothing and have no say. To re build numbers in this game the most readily accessible market to EA is previous players. Telling these people about the new fun features will bring many back yes, adding that they will not be starting from scratch again because they will re gain their locks will bring back more. More important than that, will have more of them staying once returned.