Poll: Account age correction ideas

[Olahorand]

In the now closed thread some people asked for a chance, to pay the active month afterwards to fill up the gap between the birthday of their accounts and the account age.
This would be one idea.

The same could be established by selling certain tokens of age in the store, which generate some decorative ingame item and updates the account age by the selected amount. (This would potentially also bring customers, who would not like to pay the full gap of game time for nothing else, since its insane for several years.)

Another idea would be to calculate the account age in that moment, in which you pay subscription fees on your account - again up to it's maximum age plus the three bonus month, we once got at the introduction of the Vet rewards system. So an account, which lost once a few weeks due to whatever reason, could still live his full age, or somebody could add gametime codes for 2 years ahead to fill the gap.

Wouldn't it also be time, to sell even longer subscription periods or offer some "lifetime" subscription to veteran accounts which are 10 years old and older?

All would add to the income generated through the game - and at least the last version of account age compensation by paying ahead would keep players longer active.

*Salute*
Olahorand

 

[James Moriarty]

I am new to stratcis, well not so much new as an old player returning. But was it not a rule that if a thread is locked its not meant to be restarted? Just asking.

 

[Merus]

Personally I don't like the idea of an account being older than creation date to present. But I see no downside to allowing the back purchase of those months that may have been missed. Those who kept accounts active had the added benefit of playing the game during that time, whereas anyone who does it now would not get any extra gametime applied to their accounts. It's straight extra infused income for the game, which would hopefully*** provide a little bump in the resources devoted to development.

 

[Olahorand]

If I see it correctly, the related thread was locked due to another debate taking place within.
And I agree, at least the first two methods should not be capable to add account age over the real age of the account.

Argh - forgot the poll option to leave it all as it is.

*Salute*
Olahorand

 

[Longtooths]

the poll is scewed. You are basically asking if you want one piece of Bacon or two. Do you want to pay for the gap only OR pay for the gap and get something else free. Of course people are going to choose the latter.

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

Assuming this thread exists because certain people want to take advantage of vet rewards I am not against allowing anyone to back pay each full monthly payment to fill in the gaps. But that is the only way I believe it should be done. No discounts and no bonuses.
But please spare me all your bs nonsense about it attracting new players or creating valuable resources for the devs bla bla bla.
We all know it has absolutely nothing to do with that.
Some people currently playing the game cant handle the fact that they don't have access to everything and they are too weirdly attached to their own account/s to quite simply just purchase a vet account to get what the covet.
They know that there are plenty of 100% reliable and honest brokers that can sell them what they want yet they prefer to whine to the devs for help.

 

[Gedgerez Tesherd]

I see nothing wrong with an option to fill in acc age gap with back pay, assuming we can avoid any potential bugs with acc management & our account age being conflicted in some manor of error. Upgrades applied through acc management only though, to avoid in-game dupe token disaster. Yet at the same time, there are plenty of other ideas being overlooked on a weekly basis, so why would this thread merit any attention? This is why, I feel small projects that feed more funding (life) into UOs longevity is important, while Broadsword works toward increasing subs, along with future booster, and game expansion packs.

 

[Lady Storm]

The returning vet is correct this is an attempt to restart that thread that was locked.
Infact I just checked it was locked by Petra.

 

[claudia-fjp]

I am new to stratcis, well not so much new as an old player returning. But was it not a rule that if a thread is locked its not meant to be restarted? Just asking.

In that case they might as well just delete the forums. I'm pretty sure at this point a thread on every topic under the sun has been locked before. Certainly anything people show an interest in.

 

[Petra Fyde]

I am new to stratcis, well not so much new as an old player returning. But was it not a rule that if a thread is locked its not meant to be restarted? Just asking.

That is correct
In fact this will make the third thread in which the idea of paying for time not played has been mooted. Both previous threads were locked.
As this poll does explore other options I'm willing to give it a chance. I will even edit in the forgotten option if Olahorand tells me what wording he wants in it.
However, if this thread degenerates into the same 'shard shield' debacle expect it to end the same way as the others.

 

[Merus]

the poll is scewed. You are basically asking if you want one piece of Bacon or two. Do you want to pay for the gap only OR pay for the gap and get something else free. Of course people are going to choose the latter.

That is not the way I interpreted the 3 options... Here is how I took them:

1. Any account could pay for back time up to the current account max age regardless of actual account start date. No credit for future game time.

2. Any account could prepay for future game time and get instant credit for the age. While this option does give credit for future game time, it has two drawbacks. First if the game dies before your prepaid time expires you are out of luck. Second, the account would not age until that time expires. So if a new account prepaid for 3 years, at the end of that time the account would still only be 3... Does not allow for recouping missed months prior to the prepay.

3. Same as option 1, except that accounts can not exceed their aged based on creation date. No credit for future game time.

 

[Veldrane]

This is an interesting take on it, I'm interested to see where this conversation goes.

By no credit for future game time do you mean the account would be frozen at whatever age you "bought" or that it would still accrue age as normal you just couldn't pre-buy that time?

Now all three options would be an account management nightmare, I think we can all agree in that so I'm assuming it's outside the scope of the topic.

My knee jerk reaction was to say no to pre-buying time but on further thought I'm seeing some merit to the idea. I started my account in 97 but haven't played consistently since 2000 until 2012. Seems crappy that an account who started in say 2005 couldn't age their account but I could just because I started (and quit) earlier.

As for buying age time for past time, I've never seen why it's a huge issue not to do it other than the account management nightmare (though I fully support the microtransactioning of UO too, so take that with a grain of salt).

 

[Merus]

This is an interesting take on it, I'm interested to see where this conversation goes.

By no credit for future game time do you mean the account would be frozen at whatever age you "bought" or that it would still accrue age as normal you just couldn't pre-buy that time?

Now all three options would be an account management nightmare, I think we can all agree in that so I'm assuming it's outside the scope of the topic.

My knee jerk reaction was to say no to pre-buying time but on further thought I'm seeing some merit to the idea. I started my account in 97 but haven't played consistently since 2000 until 2012. Seems crappy that an account who started in say 2005 couldn't age their account but I could just because I started (and quit) earlier.

As for buying age time for past time, I've never seen why it's a huge issue not to do it other than the account management nightmare (though I fully support the microtransactioning of UO too, so take that with a grain of salt).

The way I took the options was that with either options to purchase history (1 or 3) that you would still have to pay each month to keep your account active. Whereas option 2 you would make a investment now similar to a 6 month game code but get instant credit on the account for the age. For this options the account would remain that age until the code expired... for example a 12 month old account prepays for 24 months of game time... the 12 month account instantly goes to 36 months old but would not age further until that 24 months runs out at which time he would have "caught up" to his age and would begin aging normally.

I agree it would be an account management nightmare, but particularly for options 1 and 3 it would be straight profit once developed as there is no additional service required and it would not be cannibalizing any future revenue. I choose option 3 simply because I think there should be something to be said for accounts that were opened years prior, but in the end it would not affect me at all if a new account started today wanted to pay out $2,040 to get a 17 year old account right off the bat.

 

[Lady Storm]

Unlike most I had the forethought to take down the information off the old billing before it went poof.
This included date of creation, expantions applyed, and other valuable info pertaining to those accounts.
From this I went in and did a small test of 2 accounts.
One thing i saw most was the gap of difference in age..
Account One:
The first was created January 1998 which would make it 16years 5/6 months* old. Thats 197 months old.
The rewards count is 132 months..
This is a large gap in time of 65 months. 5 years 4 months to be accurate.
I didnt originaly own this account and the lady who did had shut it down a few times over the years she owned it.
Account Two:
Created on October 2004. 116 months give or take 1 month*
Though the month count is 13 months on it.
I created this account for a friend to play originaly and it was returned to me when he quit. (College and parents urged the return)
I had it off for a good deal of time till Castle placement reciently. So any time off is totaly my fault.
Do I deserve to pay for the time lost and gain what ever reward points due then?
NO to both acounts.
I dont think I am due any special prevlage in age addition on ether one.
The younger one is totaly my choice in its account age..
I knew the loss of rewards for keeping it off.
The older of the two...
I will take full responseability for the age difference in the rewards even though a good deal was on there before I owned the account.
The Creator had quite a few accounts and I for one cant cast stones for the reason the age is such.
I now own all her accounts and for one person that many would be a handfull to keep billing going.
Its a nice idea to try to amend the system for lost time... dont get me wrong.
But..
Oh you will argue I bet over this one...
We cant advance those who have no "past" to catch up on just for the sake of it.
Meaning any NEW account owner will feel jaded or cheated because you can up your account to a proper age but they cant.
I know there is a choice offering advance aging for a price.. but think on that one... who in their right mind would pay for 10-17 years of sub's?
Juat to be able to use the age bound rewards???
Even if EA said ok to 9.99$ a month for back time.... thats alot of change to spend on a game.
Even I would be loath to put that much out.
Sorry all, I for one do not think it fair for any of this.

 

[Veldrane]

At this point I think it's pretty clear that it's never going to happen, nor do I think they should attempt it since they can't get the billing / account system that's in place now to function without reoccurring issues. However it's an interesting academic discussion in IF such a program were in place, what would be the best way to put it into effect.

It wouldn't be a good business decision to exclude new accounts from method of paying to age their accounts. It would basically penalize those new accounts simply because they had not started and quit as those accounts with "missing" age.

If paid account aging were ever going to happen (which it won't) it would have to be a program where any account can pay to age it regardless of that accounts created date. Why allow people who had quit and come back a method of aging their account but not the new account of perhaps a first time player.

*EDIT* I actually misread the previous poster - so I have edited to reflect the correct thoughts they put forth.

 

[Olahorand]

Maybe my wording was not the best (English is not my first language), so I try to explain again:
Option 1: You buy a code for 9.99 per month, which adds this time to your account age without any other benefits. Maximum applicable time is what is needed to reach the real account's age plus the three historical bonus month.
Option 2: Basically the same, but you get a token of appreciation similar to the Legacy token to use ingame to increase the motivation to pay that much to fill an account age gap backwards. What these tokens can gain in game to be attractive enough would be to determined. Time frame per token: to be determined, could be 3, 6, 12 month. Maximum time from these tokens applicable again as above.
Option 3: If you prepay time, this time is immediately credited towards your account age. This could fill smaller gaps or grant new accounts a bonus - and remove some bugs which are blocking aging from time to time.
Option 4: Leave account age as it is.

What good is this now? On the one side it helps owners of veteran accounts to fill gaps, if they really want to invest in it. (Players have asked for it.) Option 3 would give players another reason to pay for longer blocks of game time ahead (although it is still not attractive to new accounts, but that's why it is called account age and veteran rewards). And all 3 options could bring some income for the game.

*Salute*
Olahorand

 

[The Old Man]

Any of the options may be a wonderful idea, but unless the Devs have got to the end of their list and are looking for something to do it really should'nt matter.

Sorry but I don't see a change to this area benefiting a significant number of players compared to the other things we are waiting for. There maybe lots who COULD make use of such a change but I really doubt that there are many who WOULD spend lots of $$$.

The Old Man

 

[Obsidian]

Again, I would gladly pay the full price of $9.99 per month to buy back the months to the max of when my account was originally started back in '99. I had my account inactive for about 4 years. I think the $480 is reasonable for access to all vet rewards.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

Well the wording on the poll is a little confusing to me. But I think it would be great if we could buy time to qualify for the better veteran rewards. All my accounts date back to day one but I would like to fill the inactivity gaps.

 

[Capt. Lucky]

Again, I would gladly pay the full price of $9.99 per month to buy back the months to the max of when my account was originally started back in '99. I had my account inactive for about 4 years. I think the $480 is reasonable for access to all vet rewards.

I don't see many people paying $480 dollars to update their account, lol. I mean if you got that kinda money to dump into the game that's great, I don't fault you for it. But for the average guy that seems really pricey to me, lol. All the veteran rewards could be bought for a small fraction of that. I don't really see the advantage to doing it. I think it's a great idea but the price point would need to take some thought. Now to qualify for shard transfer shield would be awesome, but even then it might be cheaper to just create a character there and build them up, or create a character to say buy rares every now and then and buy a one way ticket back to your home shard. But that's just me. Maybe like $29 bucks for a token that adds a year to your game account? I like the idea but I'd never consider $120 a year to just add game age to my account. Great idea in general though! I'm sure EA would like the money

 

[Veldrane]

@OP, this really isn't a discussion on weather or not they should allow the purchase of account age, but rather a hypothetical discussion on how it would need to be implemented should there be none of the other concerns that generally come up with these discussions (and get them locked), correct?

The only way it would truly work from a business stand point would be to put "age tokens" on the store that would age ANY account regardless of creation date a set number of months. These tokens would need to be offered in specific increments such as one, three, six and twelve months. Once the code is purchased it would be input into the account management system as with most of the other store codes.

An off shoot of this discussion would be this; if an account is aged via artificial means would they accrue the reward picks of that adjusted age or would it just unlock rewards of the accounts age. What I mean by this is that the number of selections you get from the rewards would be tied to the real age of the account but the selections open to you would be determined by the artificial age.