List of forbidden topics

[Flagg]

Just for sake of clarity, could some moderator provide list of topics we are not allowed to make here?

Today,Kelmo just locked what seemed like a very good beginnings for a discussion about F2P model and UO. ..right after a very good post that very much invites points and counter points to be added. Granted, such topic is likely to be "just" idle dreaming but that doesn't exclude possibility for interestig and potentially useful conversation. It's not like these forums are exceptionally busy and have no room for new threads..?

Additionally, more or less literally every.single. thread that touches CC vs EC gets locked sooner or later. Pretty safe to add that on the list as well.


So, apparently,
* F2P model
* CC vs EC
*Classic Server

At least these are basically forbidden topics. You are not allowed, or most assuredly not supposed, to talk about these things. if you do, your thread gets locked or deleted.

What other topics of conversation are forbidden? It would save trouble of all to get a nice, proper list of these unwritten rules. Beyond obvious stuff(non-osi, illegal stuff, hax, etc) there seems to be good selection of " hot topics" that are formally ok but always get killed or locked fast enough because moderators don't like the topics.

So yeah, save headaches from all and make a nice, proper list of technically allowed things that are "verboten" in practise.

 

[Norrar]

Classic Server

 

[Flagg]

^ adding it to list

 

[The Zog historian]

Tastes great versus less filling.

 

[cazador]

No-nos
-Revamping PvP
-Shard Mergers

Things that OK
-Praising half arsed work
-Talking about new deco
-And the opposite of all no-nos


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lady Michelle]

Threads like these that are started after a mod locks a thread.

 

[Tazar]

Revamping PvP itself is not a banned topic. But sadly what happens, is that it immediately falls to Board PvP when everyone disagrees on how to revamp PvP. Board PvP is generally personal attacks and that will get a thread locked quick.

The problem is not the topic, but how folk react to the topic. Constructive criticism and suggestions are always welcome. Slamming the Dev team or throwing out "troll bait" isn't.

Another thing that is not allowed is "reopening a locked thread". So if the current CC vs. EC thread just descended into the nether pits of hell and we lock it to keep the demons confined... reopening the door is not a good idea.

 

[kelmo]

Tastes great versus less filling.

Actually, I like this one.

 

[Flagg]

Revamping PvP itself is not a banned topic. But sadly what happens, is that it immediately falls to Board PvP when everyone disagrees on how to revamp PvP. Board PvP is generally personal attacks and that will get a thread locked quick.

The problem is not the topic, but how folk react to the topic. Constructive criticism and suggestions are always welcome. Slamming the Dev team or throwing out "troll bait" isn't.

Another thing that is not allowed is "reopening a locked thread". So if the current CC vs. EC thread just descended into the nether pits of hell and we lock it to keep the demons confined... reopening the door is not a good idea.

What's wrong with this thread for example?

http://stratics.com/community/threads/why-this-game-still-not-f2p.313641/

That makes a perfectly clean thread of a seemingly controversial topic. With some excellent posts in. Then in comes Kelmo, explains how things *really* are and locks the thread now that truth of the matter, as he sees it, has been shared. Awesome.

Certain mods approach topics they mislike with very itchy trigger finger. It results in a situation where everybody is a moderator; don't like topic->post 2,3 msgs worth of low content junk and you have the thread locked.

 

[S_S]

The Dev team said a BIG FAT NO on F2P... what more is there to discuss? Sheesh, let it go.

 

[Flagg]

^ There is a ton of stuff that is bassically a big fat no and idle collective dreaming at this point. Does it mean no good ideas or no good conversation could come out of it? Does it mean we are forbidden to share these..these idle daydreams? Topic on front page of this forum takes a week to drop. I think there is room for " wouldn't it be awesome if..." topics.

 

[kelmo]

Seriously... If ya want to bring this up, do some research please. UO is not a model that lends well to a F2P model.

 

[The Zog historian]

Actually, I like this one.

Alright then! How about Belgian ales versus German lagers?

 

[kelmo]

When I am at home, I like the lighter beers. I prefer darker/heavier beers in social situations.

 

[Flagg]

Seriously... If ya want to bring this up, do some research please. UO is not a model that lends well to a F2P model.

Well, I completely disagree. UO is an environment that would do exceptionally well as an F2P game. What kind of research have you done? Do you often lock threads because you disagree with what OP is saying?

 

[Plant Elemental]

^ There is a ton of stuff that is bassically a big fat no and idle collective dreaming at this point. Does it mean no good ideas or no good conversation could come out of it? Does it mean we are forbidden to share these..these idle daydreams? Topic on front page of this forum takes a week to drop. I think there is room for " wouldn't it be awesome if..." topics.

These posts about F2P have come up a lot in the past. So much that EA responded by saying it wasn't going to happen. But the real problem with the posts is that while they start out by having a decent conversation and sharing ideas, they turn into flames, rants, and personal attacks. Every F2P thread ends up being this way at some point or another, and I think the mods just got tired of getting the subject back on track and removing replies. Happens every time. That's why they get locked.

 

[Flagg]

the real problem with the posts is that while they start out by having a decent conversation and sharing ideas, they turn into flames, rants, and personal attacks

Basically topics like these should be locked based on what moderator thinks they will turn into? Check the thread Kelmo just locked. Last post before his own was very well written take on the matter.

 

[kelmo]

Present yer case. How would you turn UO into a F2P game and keep the whole system solvent?

 

[Flagg]

Present yer case. How would you turn UO into a F2P game and keep the whole system solvent?

Since you are now inviting this conversation to be had, maybe you'd like to open the thread about it you just locked? Better home for it.

 

[kelmo]

Realize a large percent of the current players would reconsider the value of subscribing.

 

[Adol]

Asking for a list of topics which are forbidden both makes it impossible to moderate what might happen in an acceptable thread in the future, and opens the staff up right now to people trying to Rules-Lawyer them and catch them out, thus abusing the letter of the law to avoid the spirit of it.

Much as it might be frustrating to not be able to define clear standards of behaviour, blame the sociopaths who try and use those standards to abuse others and not get banned for it. Like pornography, we just have to hope board mods, here and anywhere else, recognise problematic behaviour when they see it...

 

[kelmo]

It is yer stage now... prove yer point.

 

[kelmo]

give us all the numbers... the income. Tell me how you let all these folks know that all they have done is now for sell. How would you sell housing? An instanced housing area? What other things are you hoping to sell to attract players that do not play now?

 

[Winter]

give us all the numbers... the income. Tell me how you let all these folks know that all they have done is now for sell. How would you sell housing? An instanced housing area? What other things are you hoping to sell to attract players that do not play now?

Without losing the current player base?

This should be interesting.

 

[Flagg]

Uh..alright since the existing topic can't be opened why not continue the conversation here then I guess?

give us all the numbers... the income. Tell me how you let all these folks know that all they have done is now for sell. How would you sell housing? An instanced housing area? What other things are you hoping to sell to attract players that do not play now?

Roflmao. How am I to give "all the numbers "when we don't even know size of current player base, profit marigins or such. I invite you to do some math tho;Imagine how many purchases from Origin a current playerbase has made. Count all those soul stones,garden beds,Brit Ships,char tokens you see on vendors, homes,players. I am sure you agree it is a very popular service.. This despite Origin being utterly and completely mismanaged and dysfunctional. It is a cash shop you can't even access in game. It gives you broken codes. It isn't "UO's own" but instead,something embedded to EA's general store.

- -
Reasons why it would be good idea for UO to go FTP:

* There is a significant number of devs of various MMORPGs stating their games have been saved by transformation to F2P. Dungeons and Dragons Online, Lord of the Rings Online,SWTOR make examples of games that started purely sub based, had issues, switched to F2P and saw a new spring thanks to the switch. Star Wars: The Old Republic makes best and most recent example of this. Specially since it is an EA game aswell. This was released around 8 months after it switched to F2P:
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/05/10/swtors-average-monthly-revenue-has-doubled-since-going-f2p/

* Ultima Online already has significant portions of a good F2P model in use. This has been case for several years. Via origin, cash shop is there. You already use it to buy items, boosts,unlocks for your character. Alernatively, you use it to buy things to sell for in-game gold. This is the heart of every single F2P MMO out there. This is how they make their profit. UO already has it. More importantly, UO playerbase already has a culture,history of using one.

* Thanks to housing and way items in game behave, (things to put on display,things to decorate your house with..) an item in Ultima Online by default has more value than an item in any other MMo. It has more uses and meaning, it is more " there". Imagine what this does to appeal and popularity of cash shop, if it gets properly invested on.

* UO already has huge, significant crowd playing the game for free. Just that they don't do it on EA shards. Launch of FtP could well lure many of them here. Not to mention many of the few hundred thousand vets who have played and quit at one point or another.

* No MMO that has switched to F2P has abandoned Sub model. These two always run side by side. Ideally, game does not change for the subscriber. He maintains all of his former benefits and rights. FTP is not for subscriber. FTP is for people not currently subbing. It brings " free" game for those who don't currently play it. It brings more people to play with,more lively community to those that are already subs.

* Good FTP MMo needs paywalls for luring them peasants. Housing alone provides a perfect one. I doubt that is all UO would need to be a succesfull FTP game. Want a home? Subscribe.

* For any and all older MMos, new players make the most valuable,rare and important commodity. Switching to FtP is only thing I can think of that could bring -significant- move of new/old players back in game. This is why I wish we'd see it.

- - -
..No, I do not believe we ever WILL have it. I don't think it impossible. I do consider it unlikely though. That does not mean it..
A) ...makes bad topic of conversation.
B) ..is something that would not greatly benefit UO.

...Just open the thread dude.

 

[claudia-fjp]

* UO already has huge, significant crowd playing the game for free. Just that they don't do it on EA shards. Launch of FtP could well lure many of them here. Not to mention many of the few hundred thousand vets who have played and quit at one point or another.

I bet most of them didn't start playing UO on the free shards too, I bet they are our lost compatriots, you know the ones we lament losing and the reason so many once full servers now sit empty.

 

[kelmo]

* UO already has huge, significant crowd playing the game for free. Just that they don't do it on EA shards. Launch of FtP could well lure many of them here. Not to mention many of the few hundred thousand vets who have played and quit at one point or another.

This is a non point. You can not prove this.

 

[kelmo]

Most of your other arguments no not support the fact that UO could become a F2P format and keep any of the subscribers.

 

[Flagg]

.... If I could make some god to step down from some sort of heaven or Olympos or whatver and say " Kelmo, things are exactly how Flagg said. Consider his words proven. It is now officially not a "non point" anymore", then there would be no room for debate or additional conversation would there.

Are you saying UO does not have a huge amount of people playing it for free? Are you saying switching to F2P would not bring many people in? These are things you believe in? Things you can prove?

I encourage you to do some googling about SWTOR's switch to F2P. Being an EA game as well,it makes a relevant example. Link I provided is good place to start.

Most of your other arguments no not support the fact that UO could become a F2P format and keep any of the subscribers.

; p

There is some inherent feature in F2P that makes game lose ALL of it's subscribers? Would you like to speak a little more about this?

 

[kelmo]

UO has more history than all of those games. Combined likely. You are never going to get the consent of the current players to go "pay 2 play".

 

[kelmo]

Are you saying UO does not have a huge amount of people playing it for free? Are you saying switching to F2P would not bring many people in? These are things you believe in? Things you can prove?
.

I am. Those folks are not playing UO.

 

[Flagg]

UO has more history than all of those games. Combined likely. You are never going to get the consent of the current players to go "pay 2 play".

UO already is "pay 2 play".

I think most people opposing the FtP have never really seen the system in action. They don't know what it is and what it means. They hear FtP and imagine some god awful mobile money trap.

Most significant things for current subscriber when game they play switches to F2P:
- They suddenly have a lot more people to play with.
- Game they play suddenly has much more items, features,life.

Restrictions and paywalls related to F2P do *NOT*affect the existing subscriber. Ultimate point of F2P is lure people playing for "free" into subscribing. That is how they make the money. F2P brings no restrictions or new limitations to an existing subscriber.

 

[Yadd of Legends]

I think Flagg has made a good argument for the F2P case. But I think the fallacy is assuming that the monthly fee is why people quit UO or don't play UO or switched to free shards. I don't think making UO free would draw those players back. I think they left the regular shards for reasons other than money. I can't prove this theory but would not be surprised if the UO producers are very much aware that doing away with the subscription fee would not recoup lost players. Would it draw thousands of new players? I don't think so, because I don't think $10 a month is the real issue. And frankly, I would rather play with people who value the game enough to pay $10 a month anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dag Nabbit]

I am going to point out something that I have seen many times before that I never really thought was 'fair'. A controversial thread gets locked by a mod/admin. After about five to ten minutes after the lockage,I see that another mod or admin unlocks the thread just to get in the last word. A locked thread should stay locked. That means locked to every one.

 

[Winter]

One huge impediment to attracting new players, either subscribed or F2P, is the limited amount of housing available on most shards. One of the best features of UO is having a home on your main shard, to store anything that won't fit in your bank box. New players may come and visit a crowded shard, but they won't stay without housing.

And, I have played on F2P games, most are just money scams.

 

[kelmo]

UO already is "pay 2 play".

No, it is not.

 

[4gregu]

Please add to the list: Voldemort

 

[Flagg]

I think Flagg has made a good argument for the F2P case. But I think the fallacy is assuming that the monthly fee is why people quit UO or don't play UO or switched to free shards. I don't think making UO free would draw those players back. I think they left the regular shards for reasons other than money. I can't prove this theory but would not be surprised if the UO producers are very much aware that doing away with the subscription fee would not recoup lost players. Would it draw thousands of new players? I don't think so, because I don't think $10 a month is the real issue. And frankly, I would rather play with people who value the game enough to pay $10 a month anyway.

Money is one of the reasons people quit. It is likely it isn't the biggest reason, I agree. However, being able to return, play the game for free would without a doubt bring X amount of people back. It would also make "quitting the game" much less absolute process. This in turn would make playing the game a more enjoyable experience for everybody. Most Shards are empty. We want more people,more life.

 

[kelmo]

This in turn would make playing the game a more enjoyable experience for everybody.

How do you support this statement?

 

[Viper09]

The hilarious part is that some people who bring up this topic and argue that the F2P would increase revenue really just want to play this game for free.

 

[Flagg]

How do you support this statement?

You actually disagree? Is it statement that needs some scientific proof? You are saying having more people and more lively community would likely do harm to the game?

 

[Winter]

Most Shards are empty. We want more people,more life.

Despite what you think, most shards are NOT empty! They are populated by houses, but not by people. There are people who are paying monthly subscription fees to maintain their houses, but they are not actively playing the game. How is the F2P going to get these people playing once again? I don't see F2P getting current players excited.

 

[Viper09]

You actually disagree? You are saying having more people and more lively community would make the game less enjoyable?

How can you even prove that making this game F2P would attract more players? How do you know that people who left this game left because it just isn't as much fun as it use to be or simply moved on?

The F2P model doesn't necessarily mean that "if you build it, they will come."

 

[kelmo]

I am asking you to support your statement. How would making UO free to play make it more enjoyable for everybody?

 

[Tomarke]

Yes I have played multiple F2P games and that model is exactly why I'm not playing them anymore. That model is exactly why I am playing UO today and I would have zero problems closing my accounts if that were to change.

While sheer numbers in terms of population may mean something to some people it is quite the opposite for me. I prefer quality over quantity and the F2P model is not the most ideal system for this.

I understand that my preferences don't completely overlap with a good business model but it is why I choose to pay for my accounts every month. I also understand that I am not special and can be easily replaced but I am well established in game and will be around as long as I'm comfortable, I think it would be kinda risky replacing me with F2P "tourists"

All of this is my opinion, no facts or numbers except the multiple payments of my subscription every month that would disappear.

 

[wanderer1origin]

Money is one of the reasons people quit. It is likely it isn't the biggest reason, I agree. However, being able to return, play the game for free would without a doubt bring X amount of people back. It would also make "quitting the game" much less absolute process. This in turn would make playing the game a more enjoyable experience for everybody. Most Shards are empty. We want more people,more life.

if went free to play would have some kind of fee for a house per month and probably loose 90 day house drop delay when account not paid

can keep a house now for what less than 40 dollars a year f2p would be much higher

 

[Flagg]

How can you even prove that making this game F2P would attract more players? How do you know that people who left this game left because it just isn't as much fun as it use to be or simply moved on?

The F2P model doesn't necessarily mean that "if you build it, they will come."

To my knowledge, we both are equally unable to see the future or results of various What Ifs. As I (repeatedly)said earlier, I encourage you to see what switching to Free to Play did to SWTOR. Check the link I provided.

Of course it is entirely possible the system would not thrive in UO.
Significant majority of various for-PC MMOs released today are FtP.Significant minority are purely Sub based. This tells much about potential and perceived profits publishers, developers see in this.
I think UO would be much more suitable,profitable and natural environment for F2P than most of the largely succesful F2P games.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Most of these topics are not a matter of "not allowed to discuss them," per se, but more a matter of "they've been discussed so many times it isn't even funny, and every time they're discussed, rather than being calm, cool, logical discussions, most frequently they devolve quickly into the realm of, "But my left toe has more experience designing games than the entire UO Dev Team, and [insert blatantly false fact here] proves that I'm right, and [insert name of opposing poster here] is just biased because of [insert random straw man reason here]."

Which is to say, politely, that perhaps the moderators do not wish to waste time moderating that which they have already moderated.

 

[Viper09]

To my knowledge, we both are equally unable to see the future or results of various What Ifs. As I (repeatedly)said earlier, I encourage you to see what switching to Free to Play did to SWTOR. Check the link I provided.

Yes, we can't see the future. But UO is not a modern game, it is by all accounts an antique game that is miraculously still alive. To make the model work, EA would need to charge for all the aspects of the game we take for granted. This could easily make the cost of the game much higher than some of us are already paying. In other words, F2P is far free depending on how much we want in this game. If this change were to not attract enough players and drive others away, it could easily lead to UO being shutdown due to a lack of revenue.

 

[Flagg]

Yes, we can't see the future. But UO is not a modern game, it is by all accounts an antique game that is miraculously still alive. To make the model work, EA would need to charge for all the aspects of the game we take for granted. This could easily make the cost of the game much higher than some of us are already paying. In other words, F2P is far free depending on how much we want in this game. If this change were to not attract enough players and drive others away, it could easily lead to UO being shutdown due to a lack of revenue.

Most significant aspect of F2P model is already in game. It has been in game for years and has been used by players for years. (cash shop) Only thing missing are various restrictions,paywalls and limitations. For a subscriber, these are not relevant. They do not in any way show or restrict people who are current subscribers in F2P model. Again, Free to Play model does not, by default, affect existing subscriber. It is a model for getting those not currently subbing in the game.