-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
From what I've read, they're tradable, but account-bound.
If there were even the slightest of chances in hell of me buying any, I would sell them to you, but you wouldn't be able to use them...account bound as he said..and even though I've spent a small fortune on soulstones, I will never, ever pay for stable slot increases. I'm with everyone else, bank has 125 items, boxes in your house, 125 items..your backpack 125 items....stables should be no different.
They are Account Bound to the Account that bought them from the store. They can be sold just like Shard Shields but YOU MAY NOT USE THEM.
I'd be cool with this if I weren't charged a subscription on top of it. But I really don't consider stable slots tokens to be any sort of pay wall. You don't need 20 pets in order to compete in any aspect of the game.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
However, there are a lot of new colors. Someone gave me a full set of the new drakes and they are just beautiful!
I get that. And with the option of purchasing tokens you can collect pets to your pretty little heart's content. But you are not gaining any sort of advantage over other players buy keeping a million pets in your stable.
Some people collect rares and some people collect other stuff like ZOOGIES and PetsI get that. And with the option of purchasing tokens you can collect pets to your pretty little heart's content. But you are not gaining any sort of advantage over other players buy keeping a million pets in your stable.
Personally I have never had more than 8 or 10 pets in the stable....... Until this last Pub.
I bought one Stable Token to let Tanivar have the option of adding a GD to his hunting pets without having to soulstone Taming skills on just to re-stable his fire beetle after doing some mining because his limit had been six stable slots, now it's nine. Used those free 500 sovereigns they gave us a while back.
I'm sure, I will end up bying a few too, at least one for Tina Tink and Freja each and maybe I will find a reason to play my tamer too.
Right now, Freja do have 2 vollem, a blue beetle, a fire beetle, a VvV horse and I believe a swamp dragon = 6 = max
Right now, Freja do have 2 vollem, a blue beetle, a fire beetle, a VvV horse and I believe a swamp dragon = 6 = max
Spending money is good. There are a lot of people who claim that a f2p model will give people an advantage.
However, somebody spending hundreds of dollars on tokens and fluff is much better than a.few people dropping $14/month/account.
Last month I spent around $100 on Marvel Heroes. This month I've already spent $40 on B&S just to get limited time costumes before they were taken off the in-game store.
If we want more development, more resources directed at UO we have to accept that the subscription model does not work anymore.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
However, somebody spending hundreds of dollars on tokens and fluff is much better than a.few people dropping $14/month/account.
Last month I spent around $100 on Marvel Heroes. This month I've already spent $40 on B&S just to get limited time costumes before they were taken off the in-game store.
If we want more development, more resources directed at UO we have to accept that the subscription model does not work anymore.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
With the new pet training system, you can customize several of the same pet, each specializing in a specific setting and then swap them out as needed. You can train a pair of animals up to 2 and 3 control slots, with both having complimentary but different skills, and then toss in Pack Instinct. Different pairs for different tasks. Tamers can store a variety of pets to sell (including event pets to sell off later when they mature in value) and still keep a Resources stall in NM instead of an animal stall. You can collect a bunch of blue and fire beetles, swampies, and lilrus to hold and give/sell to new players. Heck, even a tinker can now make a Kotl golem for each ore type and use as needed and still have room in the stable for a mount.
Aside from just collecting pretty colors, these are ALL useful things that more stable slots does allow a player to do. You do NOT need to do this in order to 'win' at UO, but I don't see any point in trying to argue that increased stable slots is not an advantage.
I do not understand, however, why they chose to make the tokens account bound. Being a token means that some one, somewhere, had to pay $5, and that should be all that matters in my opinion. Making them tradable encourages people to buy extras from the store, and encourages people to hunt and farm gold in order to buy those tokens from players (and all the things that boost shard economy along the way). All around, a good thing for everyone.
Everything else in the store can be traded, and most are just items for convenience or decoration. Making the stable slot tokens account bound FORCES a player to spend RL $$, without any recourse, if they wish to have the same advantage.
That is what pay to win is.
I am disappointed that Broadsword is choosing that path. Having said that, however, I shall not waste time bemoaning the overall unfairness of life. $35 is not gonna break me, and I can even do it in installments. Additionally, things like Gothic, High Seas, expansions, increased storage, etc can be seen as an advantage but even these can be obtained via in-game methods if you find a trustworthy codes seller. Sovereign codes work the same way.
Aside from just collecting pretty colors, these are ALL useful things that more stable slots does allow a player to do. You do NOT need to do this in order to 'win' at UO, but I don't see any point in trying to argue that increased stable slots is not an advantage.
I do not understand, however, why they chose to make the tokens account bound. Being a token means that some one, somewhere, had to pay $5, and that should be all that matters in my opinion. Making them tradable encourages people to buy extras from the store, and encourages people to hunt and farm gold in order to buy those tokens from players (and all the things that boost shard economy along the way). All around, a good thing for everyone.
Everything else in the store can be traded, and most are just items for convenience or decoration. Making the stable slot tokens account bound FORCES a player to spend RL $$, without any recourse, if they wish to have the same advantage.
That is what pay to win is.
I am disappointed that Broadsword is choosing that path. Having said that, however, I shall not waste time bemoaning the overall unfairness of life. $35 is not gonna break me, and I can even do it in installments. Additionally, things like Gothic, High Seas, expansions, increased storage, etc can be seen as an advantage but even these can be obtained via in-game methods if you find a trustworthy codes seller. Sovereign codes work the same way.
You need to change your reply to "I don't need....", or are you really so smart that you know what everyone else needs ?
I just wonder if the developers actually play the game or get any advice from players that do.
These stable tokens are overpriced for what ya get, but note people are mainly complaining about them being account bound. This is a poor business model. I am guessing that being account bound made the coding easier - for a quick implementation. Maybe this will change when the developers have more time to fix the problem.
These stable tokens are overpriced for what ya get, but note people are mainly complaining about them being account bound. This is a poor business model. I am guessing that being account bound made the coding easier - for a quick implementation. Maybe this will change when the developers have more time to fix the problem.
Me either, of course, but I will never buy one. Not only am I opposed to the idea of such a thing in a subscription game, they are overpriced, limited to a single character, and non transferable. Ticks all of my ******** boxes.
I mean you can really say "you don't need..." about a wholeeeeeee lot of stuff. Basically everything in the game. It's more a question not of "need" but of "what's a good idea?" or "What improves the experience?"You need to change your reply to "I don't need....", or are you really so smart that you know what everyone else needs ?
As I've said elsewhere if someone wants to go tame 100 pets... thats a great sign! That's not something people should be chastised for, or questioned, skeptically about. That kind of behavior is an indication that the taming system is engaging, and fun, and people are out and excited to be playing the game. That, obviously is the kind of player everyone wants around. If someone had a quest to tame a different cow for every day of the week, that's something the developers (and honestly community positive players) should activly encourage. It's not something you should see an an opportunity to make a few extra bucks on the side. If it's a data issue, fine, but I honestly have a very hard time believing that, but if it is, say so, and it's not so damning.
I mean think about it, Susie tamer-o-holic goes out tames a bunch of crap, is having a great time with it, and wants to keep going, hits the skill max, and now cannot tame that cool pink frog she found. She finds out there actually are more stable slots available... she just has to pay 5 bucks for a token. Sure you might get a few bucks out of Susie, but you created a scenario where her fun is interrupted in a completely artificial way, rather than a natural game play way by her limited character development, it's not that she had maxed out her stable, it's that she hadn't paid for the remaining slots. The notion that her fun is being preyed upon very well may creep in, and in doing so her fun may be, even if just partially, dispelled. She may very well ask herself "what is this subscription for??"
I don't see these as positive outcomes worth a few fivers, especially if you think about new people who aren't hopeless addicts encountering scenarios like this, that quite possibly could keep getting added to over time. They may have less interest in getting doubled charged, and might decided to try something else.
Like Spyder said, if piecemeal game play was something people signed up for, it would be much different but this is a sub game, and the whole idea of which is that you pay up front, rather than over time.
Really no different that the farm CSA I run. People either pay up front, weekly, or Monthly for a box with guaranteed contents. That box covers the basics. Then there are the Add Ons Want a fresh baked pie? That is an additional $10 , Want a dozen eggs then add $3.00, a bundle of specific herbs $2.00, A package of Ribeyes add another $16 per pound. The subs just give you the base box so to speak, the add on material is just that and gives flexibility to the end consumer. Is it fair that the low income subscriber can't afford to add on ribeyes? Or that the Middle Income Subscriber only buys them now and then? Or that the high income Subscriber adds on 5-10 pounds week in and week out? I suspect if the add ons in UO were made a part of the basic content then UO would be gone a short time later. Just like if I added the high end products to my basic CSA box my revenue would drop until it was no longer worth doing it. Of course Either I or UO could bundle everything together in our Subs and raise the Sub price to compensate for the lost add on sales, but then customers would drop like flies leaving only the Higher income people as subscribers.
Now I do agree making the stable slots account bound is a stupid thing as they would sell more by them not being account bound as folks like myself would buy them in bulk and sell them in game to people that object to spending real life cash for them, serves a couple of purposes easy ingame gold for me, UO sells more whatever, and the people in game get to obtain the store items with game gold or goodies.
Whether it is principle or economics it doesn't really matter why some won't buy the additional things. The reality is it is a revenue stream that keeps the servers on and the game running
Now I do agree making the stable slots account bound is a stupid thing as they would sell more by them not being account bound as folks like myself would buy them in bulk and sell them in game to people that object to spending real life cash for them, serves a couple of purposes easy ingame gold for me, UO sells more whatever, and the people in game get to obtain the store items with game gold or goodies.
Whether it is principle or economics it doesn't really matter why some won't buy the additional things. The reality is it is a revenue stream that keeps the servers on and the game running
This is an assumption that a lot players have made. It's entirely possible that maintenance of the servers is a negligible cost, and the core player base covers it easily, and the item shop stuff is just more profits, because they know the core base won't ever leave and are not only willing to be exploited, they celebrate it... so long as they get to keep playing.
That is not an assumption at EA/UO is a business just like any other business. There is overhead and operating expense and yes there is a reasonable expectation that there will be hopefully large return on investment in the form of PROFIT. In order obtain profit of any kind the customer must be exploited to obtain their money to not only cover expenses but to make PROFIT for the bottom line. The more PROFIT the better things are for everyone, including the customer. You seem to have a problem with a legit business earning profits
Not at all, I have a problem with the way they choose to do it. You clearly don't, so that's that, I guess.
There are many instances where the pursuit of profits has boned the customer, plenty of examples in the f2p arena, and I fear we may be moving that way.
- Awards
- 1
So.. what is the max stable slots you can have now?
21 (current max) + 21 (store max) = 42 total max per tamer
I kind of like the hybrid model UO has you get the base content with the sub and nothing too game altering with the store. I would hate to see us go to a full F2P model because then it would turn into nothing but the store and a constant stream of must buy stuff. And this account bound stuff is just plain nonsense. The stable tokens in particular, I typically buy my stuff on the ingame store on 1 acct and disperse it among the rest. If anything it should have been maser acct bound. Hopefully they will correct that poor choice at some point.
- Awards
- 3
and being charged 30gold a weekI get that. And with the option of purchasing tokens you can collect pets to your pretty little heart's content. But you are not gaining any sort of advantage over other players buy keeping a million pets in your stable.
lol
I know it say so, but do we get charged other than the 30 gold, where we stable a pet? I had never seen an in game message about me be charged 180 gold for my pets in stable for the next week. Did anyone test if we really get charges and will the pets be booted from stable if no gold in the bank?
UO will be f2p eventually. Subscription models die eventually.
But I will continue to pay the subscription until enough items are added to the in-game store to justify removing the subscription for basic accounts.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
But I will continue to pay the subscription until enough items are added to the in-game store to justify removing the subscription for basic accounts.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk