Would you pay for a Siege only account?

[FrejaSP]

I think alot of us are tired of seeing our money go to support of Trammel shards. If we could get our own Devs and GM's who only supported us would you then want a Siege only account.
It should be possible to converter a global account to Siege only and pay less a month.

 

[Kat]

Heck, yeah. I'd even pay the SAME price we pay now! x5 accounts

 

[Petra Fyde]

so. Would the people who only play, say Atlantic, only pay for that server too? I played only Europa for years, should I have been only paying for that?

Sorry, but my understanding is we pay EA for the service. That includes developers, QA, GMs and other staff, accounts management, shard server, log in server, patch server, test server, etc etc. Saying you want to pay for Siege server only is simplistic.

 

[Revvo]

Further alienating Siege from the rest of the U.O community doesn't seem like a very smart idea as the DEV team barely have the resources they need as it is, this idea is very badly conceived.

 

[Kat]

I think you're right in that it would likely alienate us further. I imagine not many who wish to try Siege, would forego the ability to play on their regular shards. In theory it sounds good, but the idea as is, wouldn't work.

Wish they'd just assign us a dev or two, to work on Siege specific problems and content. It's not like they couldn't work on other projects, but if they could include just a couple of things that are specific to us in each publish, it would do wonders for Siege and for the morale around here.

 

[FrejaSP]

so. Would the people who only play, say Atlantic, only pay for that server too? I played only Europa for years, should I have been only paying for that?

Atlandic and Europa do have same ruleset so that would be stupid

Sorry, but my understanding is we pay EA for the service. That includes developers, QA, GMs and other staff, accounts management, shard server, log in server, patch server, test server, etc etc. Saying you want to pay for Siege server only is simplistic.

Sure some services would still be shared but I don't think QA, GMs and devs working on specifik ruleset/context for Siege should be shared.
Other staff, accounts management, shard server, log in server, patch server, test servers, etc etc should be shared.

How many houses do we have on Siege? Each house is an account paying for Siege.
Lets say we have 3000 houses, that would be $ 467640 so if just some of this money could go specifik to Siege, we would get more support than we do now.

Better Siege specifik support would mean we would get solved some of our problems and could draw more players.

 

[Pyrite]

Well, I couldn't cast a vote, Freja.

You did not give the option I need.

I do not play other shards, but I do not think charging less to play Siege is a good idea.

 

[FrejaSP]

Well, I couldn't cast a vote, Freja.

You did not give the option I need.

I do not play other shards, but I do not think charging less to play Siege is a good idea.

My mistake, but options #1 could be used as it's more about using the money for Siege than paying less.

 

[Shakaja]

what i think is quite ridiculous is that they changed prices. while i was paying $60 for 6 months for years, they now changed it and id have to pay 75 EURO which will convert to around $120.

 

[Dexdash]

what i think is quite ridiculous is that they changed prices. while i was paying $60 for 6 months for years, they now changed it and id have to pay 75 EURO which will convert to around $120.

if you changed your money to american dollars first then paid it would prob be cheeper for ya.

 

[Lord_Puffy]

Further alienating Siege from the rest of the U.O community doesn't seem like a very smart idea as the DEV team barely have the resources they need as it is, this idea is very badly conceived.

UO has a dev team? since when, they rehired em? lol --->

 

[Shakaja]

if you changed your money to american dollars first then paid it would prob be cheeper for ya.

aye but thats the point, my only option to pay with a cc from switzerland is that amount of euros. there is no way to change anything. we dont even use euros here in switzerland...

 

[IanJames]

I would do this, then I could afford the three accounts I would really like to play with. . .

 

[FrejaSP]

I would do this, then I could afford the three accounts I would really like to play with. . .

Maybe keeping the payment close to what we have now but allow 2 char would be better than making it cheaper. I see one problem with players being able to affort more accounts, they would mean to many houses on the shard.

 

[Chardonnay]

Maybe keeping the payment close to what we have now but allow 2 char would be better than making it cheaper. I see one problem with players being able to affort more accounts, they would mean to many houses on the shard.

One character per account pls...

 

[Righty]

One character per account pls...

one stratics account per person pls...

 

[Chardonnay]

one stratics account per person pls...

O Rly?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awm9nE8bJtI&NR=1

Goodcry?

 

[FrejaSP]

One character per account pls...

Give me one good reason to keep that one char only rule, I can't find any.

I want to see Siege alive, I want more players to stay so we have to make the shard more inviting without trammilizing it.

As I see it the way is:

1. The shard have to show on the list for youngs, Their young status should not be active on Siege but they should be allowed to see the shard and make a char.

2. Tweak RoT so a char can be done in a month but not in less than a month and a single skill should should be done in 2 weeks but not in less than 2 weeks.

3. Allow 2-3 chars, alot want to play more than one template and should not have to be forced to use soulstones to do it.

4. Remove 3x taxes from all non craftables items on npc vendors and drop the 3x fee for PC vendors, it's killing vendors away from town.

 

[Kat]

3. Allow 2-3 chars, alot want to play more than one template and should not have to be forced to use soulstones to do it.

Absolutely not three characters. Two, maybe. Three.. no.