Skill Locks and Amnesty

[NightFlyer]

"It's important because 'old players' might be willing to 'reactivate' their old accounts if they are entitled to create their sims based on the locks they actually paid for up until they stopped paying...."

Since when do the devs care about the old players? This is obvious from sooooo many of thier comments and actions.

 

[imported_DutchAmerica]

<blockquote><hr>

"It's important because 'old players' might be willing to 'reactivate' their old accounts if they are entitled to create their sims based on the locks they actually paid for up until they stopped paying...."

Since when do the devs care about the old players? This is obvious from sooooo many of thier comments and actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO I can tell you this.... EA does care about this...$$$$$$. And if bringing back a bunch of old sims brings $$$$ why not go for it?

 

[NightFlyer]

Money and "old players" are two very different things.

 

[Guest]

The devs have stated they are trying to bring players in. The old ones are easiest ones because at one point they had voiced what they want. There are threads upon threads about what the players wanted from back in the day. I'm sure there is an archive around stratics somewhere that you could read up on. Some of the changes are what old players wanted, some changes are what current players wanted, and some changes are there for bringing in new players.

To sit there and honestly believe that the devs don't care about bringing old players back is ignorant. Old players were the first to voice what they wanted for changes. Now I know I said at one point I'm sick of people pulling the "I played for 5 year" card, but in this situation, I'm glad they were here for 5 years. I'm glad they are still here voicing their opinions. Without the old players, this game would be dull, boring, and very much gone.

So bringing back old players is a huge deal. They had all the original ideas. I for one am for anything that will entice old players to come back and anything that will bring in new players. And that is walking a tight rope.

 

[NightFlyer]

Ok, they may be trying to bring in old players, I'll grant you that (I may not agree with the tactics but they may be trying).

It's too bad they are not doing a very good job of "trying" to keep the seasoned veterans they have.

Just my opinion. No need to get out the flame throwers.

 

[imported_remflyer]

<blockquote><hr>

It's important because 'old players' might be willing to 'reactivate' their old accounts if they are entitled to create their sims based on the locks they actually paid for up until they stopped paying.

Getting rid of the lag....updating graphics....custom content....etc. That's all really important. But bringing paid subscription numbers up significantly in the near future is extremely important also.

If it ain't broke don't fix it, doesn't work here because without subscribers....there won't be anything to fix.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree it is important to attract lapsed players back, I just don't think messing with the skill lock system is necessary. The reason so many players left was because the game wasn't updated and they got bored or because they wanted cc and were not getting it. If an old player is considering reactivating their account it will not be because they get their skill locks back it will be because of all the new content. I think many players may be forgetting that the Devs have repeatedly said that the skilling game will not be that important in EA Land so why waste time fiddling with the lock system.

I am not against them changing the lock system if they treat all the players fairly (meaning you keep the locks you have already earned). I just feel there are much more important issues that the Devs should be working on to attract both old and new players alike.

 

[Guest]

But they are trying to keep seasoned veterans. It's like I've said before, tying skill locks to account age and amnesty serves more than just the old players. There are those in the community that do not like the current changes or some of the changes that are coming to the game. Skill locks and amnesty are a way to entice those players that are considering leaving the game to stick it out till the end, then make a decision.

I very much agree with the idea of both.

 

[Guest]

ttl

I don't see why these debates are still going on to be honest. They throw a hint of an idea at us, same with the reissuing of lost gifts, then they let us battle over it for months and nothing is done. I think it's time for them to just get 'r done already!! They've already decided whether to or not I'm sure. So to the DEVS, if you are going to, just do it, if not, let us know so this battle of wits can come to an end.

As I stated here to start with, I see both pros and cons. But in the end, it doesn't matter at all. Unless they do something to make this game actually fun again, it won't matter how many locks people have, or how much we can earn on a typewriter. The game is boring, and that is coming from someone who was able to find fun in TSO for years, no picsicles or dysfunctional chairs needed

 

[NightFlyer]

Well said *applauds*

 

[imported_DutchAmerica]

The issue of 'gift' amnesty isn't over at all. A lot of 'objects' are on the back burner 'simmering' until after the merge.

I think Parizad said that the less 'stuff' they have to merge, it's better and that she and her co-hort in crime would be throwing so much stuff at us that we'd be screaming for them to STOP!

LOL so then we move onto the next subject.....locks.

I do agree that the devs 'conveniently' seed us to debate topics they are interested in learning more about from us. LOL but that's ok. I had totally forgotten about the locks until this came up the other night.

 

[Guest]

This made me happy. I hope if it does go through, it goes this way. All along we have been told we will not lose anything except for simoleans. This would be a fair way to do it. If it were to be done. No one would be logging on wondering what happened to their locks. Grabbing the pitchforks, lighting the torches and hunting down the devs.

This was not an attack on Dutch. I wanted to know when the devs seeded us. Sue me and hide those sims I don't know. I don't know you in game. I talked to you once in IM and did not bookmark you. On one sim. I can't remember what sim that was. I don't know who you were during the discusion on this at the store. As you probably do not know what sim was mine. On second thought you probably do because there were only 2 of us that did not want loss of locks there (I think). The way I see it, you are the one that does the attacking and stalking, if there is any being done. You do it so often you have people on the sidelines cheering you on. You twist words and put ideas in others heads. Make them mad at posters so they read more into what they originally said hoping others will join in. I edit my posts because I do not like making so many (I know doesn't look that way on this thread). I figure you will see it when you come looking for something to be angry about.

 

[Guest]

None of those show up as images for me....might want to summarize for those of us that can not see them.

 

[Guest]

prob too many images to post lol I see them though. Weird

 

[Guest]

I wish he would specify what is and isn't possible. Oh and the images loaded for me when I refreshed the page.

 

[NightFlyer]

"The issue of 'gift' amnesty isn't over at all. A lot of 'objects' are on the back burner 'simmering' until after the merge.

I think Parizad said that the less 'stuff' they have to merge, it's better and that she and her co-hort in crime would be throwing so much stuff at us that we'd be screaming for them to STOP!..."


They are not updating the production cities until after the merge, per the devs.

Any new objects would be tested in TC3 therefore the statement "less stuff they have to merge" would be irrelavant. It would not be in the production cities yet to have to merge.

As for "throwing so much stuff at us that we'd be screaming for them to STOP!" I just have to laugh. I think they would be hard pressed to find someone to complain about being given too much new "stuff" let alone scream STOP!.

 

[Guest]

Ok...I closed my browser for a while and now they load.......

 

[Guest]

Hey Niki, I am am glad you decided to bring this up in stratics, it’s obviously well on the minds of many people that are and have been involved in sims.
Lots of good points have been made for both sides of the argument, some valid others not so valid.
I would like to make clear the whole point of what this thread is about, as what the discussion with the devs was about.
We have to consider that at some point previous players will be told about the changes that have been made to the game. This could be either through word of mouth or at some time I believe that EA will email all previous players to advise them of the changes.
If we look at this from a marketing point of view which is always worked on percentages, as it stands with the locks the way they are a certain percentage of old players would return. The changes in game would be enough to encourage these players back.
Lets say that EA have on record 40,000 previous players and the changes are enough to bring back 50%, 20,000 return.
If the locks were changed to work from entitlement days, that figure would have to rise and if even that figure was only an extra 10% it would represent 4000 more returning.
Now for the bigger problem.
If the locks stay the way they are, how many of that 50% will see that “as I have” the loss of locks is a major problem in returning to the game. I would imagine that figure would be almost all of them.
How many of these returning players would then leave again, I personally feel more than what would stay.
Also as it stands there is absolutely no benefit to previous players re activating their old account. There is in fact more benefits for these people to start a new one.
Returning gifts will not change that for most, players who have returned and started new accounts will know they can simply re activate their old account for 1 month to get the gifts and transfer them to the new account.

 

[Guest]

Hiya, I'm glad I did too, its good to see that the majority of posters seem to agree with this idea. Looks like the devs aren't against the concept but it will take awhile to implement. I've been told that its not as easy as it sounds to do. Lets keep our fingers crossed that we get this benefit in the future!

 

[imported_DutchAmerica]

Want to talk 'stalker'? I feel like my posts are being stalked by someone whose sole purpose for reading them is to just slap me down for whatever odd reason they may have. Guess I'll have to take my sims back undercover lest my sims start getting blasted with cannons again hey?

I am done with this post and I'm done with responding to people that just want to slap down and be snide rather than reasonably debate a subject. Your little 'im' demo was quite impressive though.

I already asked you and you have not responded with reasonable answer yet. How would locks being tied to time paid hurt you in the game?

As for this thread, I am in total support of locks being tied to time paid. The end. If asked in game, I will give the same response.

 

[Keep It Real]

It ain't broke so don't waste Dev time fixing it. And yes this is in reference to locks. Thanks and have a nice day.

 

[Guest]

It aint broke, but its badly worn and making shocking noises. People that have been in before hear that noise and keep walking past the door.

 

[Keep It Real]

Thats ok, let em walk by, I think the idea would piss more off than attract. TSO is only a very small part of what is to be EA Land. I'm pretty sure the ranks will fill in once it's done.

 

[imported_Dali Dalinza]

*TTL*

The thread above had comments to the effect that EA would support anything that insured keeping people subscribed (read: multiple accounts). This cannot be true, since recent designs in the game have made it much more logical for subscribers to shed excess accounts. EA will need to focus on attracting new customers, and perhaps that is their goal, because the current customer base is cutting back (or so I've heard in game and here on the boards).

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

This was not an attack on Dutch. I wanted to know when the devs seeded us. Sue me and hide those sims I don't know. I don't know you in game. I talked to you once in IM and did not bookmark you. On one sim. I can't remember what sim that was. I don't know who you were during the discusion on this at the store. As you probably do not know what sim was mine. On second thought you probably do because there were only 2 of us that did not want loss of locks there (I think). The way I see it, you are the one that does the attacking and stalking, if there is any being done. You do it so often you have people on the sidelines cheering you on. You twist words and put ideas in others heads. Make them mad at posters so they read more into what they originally said hoping others will join in. I edit my posts because I do not like making so many (I know doesn't look that way on this thread). I figure you will see it when you come looking for something to be angry about.


[/ QUOTE ]
Phffffttt!
This from the confused Queen of distortion and misunderstanding.

 

[Guest]

I wonder if the ones against skill locks being changed to paid status rather than sim age are the ones who paid for a month and then let their account lapse for 3 months? I really don't think that's fair. The ones who have paid for their accounts without a lapse in payment are definitely entitled to their skill locks. I am all in favor of the skill locks remaining with the account as well as the gifts, regardless of whether you recreate your sim or keep the original.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

*TTL*

The thread above had comments to the effect that EA would support anything that insured keeping people subscribed (read: multiple accounts). This cannot be true, since recent designs in the game have made it much more logical for subscribers to shed excess accounts. EA will need to focus on attracting new customers, and perhaps that is their goal, because the current customer base is cutting back (or so I've heard in game and here on the boards).

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't know where you heard that the customer base is declining, a few months back when I 1st returned to the game there was a post in the EA blogs which showed a customer base of 12.000. A few days ago I read another where it was said that the customer base had expanded to 20,000.
Playing in TC3 I see there is some new players coming into the game, mostly I see people that have returned.

 

[Guest]

If I would have made that post it would have poofed. Watch this one fly away. That sounded an awful lot like a personal attack. Have you even read the begining of this thread. Seems to me I was attacked right off the bat. We do not like each other. Why can't you just leave it at that? You are the one that did the twisting and distorting in the post that I started ignoring you in. I remember. Are you 2 related?
I was against amnesty the way it was first brought up in that discussion. I said it would be more fair to do it the way it ended up being. The same with this post, I was definitely against it at first. However what Greg has suggested is more fair. I might as well put you back on iggy. One day off and you start in again. I am too complex for you. You went crazy trying to figure me out. That is my husbands job, not yours.

 

[legscroft]

*ttl* I'm having a hard time understanding what the down side is to having skill locks based on account entitlement. I've tried reading through all the posts in this thread, but there is a lot of bickering going on which makes it difficult to want to wade through it. I can't see a reason to be against it unless someone can clearly summarize why it's a bad thing. Anyways, as it stands, I think I'm for it.

 

[Guest]

It would have meant a lot of people losing locks. Since the thread has started, Greg has decided it would be best to not have anyone lose anything.

 

[Guest]

I'm sorry, but if you paid for every month and never missed one, then you would not lose any locks. Only those that pay once every three months have anything to lose. Or if you missed paying 1 month, you lose what, 1, maybe 2 locks at most for each month. I think its fair if its tied to paid account age.

I've been all for amnesty. I've only been around long enough to get my statues for the first year. I haven't even made the two year mark for getting my trees. Either way, amnesty is definitely a good thing. Any way you slice it, the pros out weigh the cons.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

If I would have made that post it would have poofed. Watch this one fly away. That sounded an awful lot like a personal attack. Have you even read the begining of this thread. Seems to me I was attacked right off the bat. We do not like each other. Why can't you just leave it at that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Your first post appeared on page 2:
<blockquote><hr>

*TTL*

Why don't you guys say the real reason you are for this? You deleted sims for TC3 and now you want your locks back. We will be able to change our looks in the future.

The people that will be hurt by this change are the people who played by the rules.

You are getting the Amnesty of the gifts as it is (under the pretense of getting old players back).

This will benefit you and that is really all that matters. The accounts that are lapsed for more than 4 mos knew that they would come back with no sims or 3 mos if homeless. This is the way TSO has always been. If you recreated you knew you would lose your locks and age. Those are facts.

I guess I am the devils advocate you speak of. (Evil for not agreeing) A nay sayer and whatever else I was called before I ever posted. I was at the store when this conversation took place. You all worked on Lee til he left. Then started in on Larry. He said he did not think it would be fair. I don't know if you swayed him or not.

For those of you thinking the devs are wasting time on this rather than working on lag issues, you are wrong. This was not a topic brought up by the devs. They have since fixed some of the lag problems and continue to work on them.

This will benefit scammers and stalkers. If the locks are acct based the age will be. Stalker recreates and they are not 0 days old. You have no idea who they are (Stalker = Scammer) The ex you gave all those gifts too and forgot about, then you meet someone new you give them gifts. Turns out it was the ex. LOL That is a scam. The scammers use the move feature now to erase webs and keep age. In EA-Land this will not be a solution. Unless this goes through. They will still be able to get off of your ban lists and ignore list. I was looking forward to being able to keep those lists in tact on older sims. Now if this goes through, I guess it will be back to the "Trust No One". My old Motto.


[/ QUOTE ]
As is obvious, you started off with the insinuation that people in opposition to your view were not playing by the rules. And even tho you were never mentioned prior to this, claimed you were attacked before you even posted!
According to you, there is always some underhanded, dishonest, deceptive reason for any suggestion you don't like, and instead of arguing your point like a reasonable person, you twist meanings, claim personal bias, selectively interpret words into meanings that were never intended. You do your best to put people on the defensive with bogus accusations of their intentions.
All this while YOU (birds tweeting, kittens mewling) are interested ONLY in the integrity of the game. Only YOU know the true way to play the game.
I swear, I have never seen anyone (and that includes a certain former adversary) get SO much SO wrong SO often - and seem proud of the fact. I doubt if you read more than 3 words out of ten. You have taken posters to task over and over for things they NEVER even said!
Worst of all - you attack posters under the guise of "opinion", but cry foul when they object.
If you ask me, it is players like you that are bad for the game. And posters like you that give Stratics a bad name.

Don't like you?
Well, whaddaya know - you finally got something right.

 

[legscroft]

<blockquote><hr>

I'm sorry, but if you paid for every month and never missed one, then you would not lose any locks. Only those that pay once every three months have anything to lose. Or if you missed paying 1 month, you lose what, 1, maybe 2 locks at most for each month. I think its fair if its tied to paid account age.

I've been all for amnesty. I've only been around long enough to get my statues for the first year. I haven't even made the two year mark for getting my trees. Either way, amnesty is definitely a good thing. Any way you slice it, the pros out weigh the cons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was sitting here scratching my head as to how people would lose locks...How would they have locks beyond their paid time? Is it because they're not going back to the very very beginning or what am I missing? And how many locks would this amount to?

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

If I would have made that post it would have poofed. Watch this one fly away. That sounded an awful lot like a personal attack. Have you even read the begining of this thread. Seems to me I was attacked right off the bat. We do not like each other. Why can't you just leave it at that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Your first post appeared on page 2:
<blockquote><hr>

*TTL*

Why don't you guys say the real reason you are for this? You deleted sims for TC3 and now you want your locks back. We will be able to change our looks in the future.

The people that will be hurt by this change are the people who played by the rules.

You are getting the Amnesty of the gifts as it is (under the pretense of getting old players back).

This will benefit you and that is really all that matters. The accounts that are lapsed for more than 4 mos knew that they would come back with no sims or 3 mos if homeless. This is the way TSO has always been. If you recreated you knew you would lose your locks and age. Those are facts.

I guess I am the devils advocate you speak of. (Evil for not agreeing) A nay sayer and whatever else I was called before I ever posted. I was at the store when this conversation took place. You all worked on Lee til he left. Then started in on Larry. He said he did not think it would be fair. I don't know if you swayed him or not.

For those of you thinking the devs are wasting time on this rather than working on lag issues, you are wrong. This was not a topic brought up by the devs. They have since fixed some of the lag problems and continue to work on them.

This will benefit scammers and stalkers. If the locks are acct based the age will be. Stalker recreates and they are not 0 days old. You have no idea who they are (Stalker = Scammer) The ex you gave all those gifts too and forgot about, then you meet someone new you give them gifts. Turns out it was the ex. LOL That is a scam. The scammers use the move feature now to erase webs and keep age. In EA-Land this will not be a solution. Unless this goes through. They will still be able to get off of your ban lists and ignore list. I was looking forward to being able to keep those lists in tact on older sims. Now if this goes through, I guess it will be back to the "Trust No One". My old Motto.


[/ QUOTE ]
As is obvious, you started off with the insinuation that people in opposition to your view were not playing by the rules. And even tho you were never mentioned prior to this, claimed you were attacked before you even posted!
According to you, there is always some underhanded, dishonest, deceptive reason for any suggestion you don't like, and instead of arguing your point like a reasonable person, you twist meanings, claim personal bias, selectively interpret words into meanings that were never intended. You do your best to put people on the defensive with bogus accusations of their intentions.
All this while YOU (birds tweeting, kittens mewling) are interested ONLY in the integrity of the game. Only YOU know the true way to play the game.
I swear, I have never seen anyone (and that includes a certain former adversary) get SO much SO wrong SO often - and seem proud of the fact. I doubt if you read more than 3 words out of ten. You have taken posters to task over and over for things they NEVER even said!
Worst of all - you attack posters under the guise of "opinion", but cry foul when they object.
If you ask me, it is players like you that are bad for the game. And posters like you that give Stratics a bad name.

Don't like you?
Well, whaddaya know - you finally got something right.

[/ QUOTE ]

 

[Guest]

Currently, locks are based on sim age. If you paid your account once every three months, it would prevent your sims from being deleted due to inactivity. Since your locks are based on sim age, then when you pay every once every three months, your sim is now 3 months older. So essentially, you are getting 3 months worth of locks for 1 month of pay. Those are the people that would lose locks.

 

[legscroft]

Ok, thanks for explaining. Not sure why anyone thinks they should be entitled to 3 months worth of locks for 1 months worth of pay.

 

[Guest]

Evidently not the way you are saying. The devs see that. That is why the grandfather claus. I said I was done with this, with you. LMAO I guess next post you win. Seeing as this was a change since I last replied to you. You are arguing a moot point.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Evidently not the way you are saying. The devs see that. That is why the grandfather claus. I said I was done with this, with you. LMAO I guess next post you win. Seeing as this was a change since I last IM'd you. You are arguing a moot point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure why you responded to me. You never IM'd me. Either way, you can say it is moot all that you please. IMHO there should not be a grandfather clause. People that have locks they shouldn't have should have them taken away.

 

[Guest]

You know what? I didn't even read your response to that post. I saw my post quoted. I am not defending it anymore.

I defended that post here.

See Here, Where I defended that same post.

After seeing your response to this post, quoted on someone elses post. Edited to add:

With Comments Like:
<blockquote><hr>

When this topic came up last night it sparked quite the lively debate. I expect a few more of the "no way is that fair they knew the rules and shouldnt get the locks back" posts unless those people were just playing devils advocate in the pub.

[/ QUOTE ]
And others about the Nay Sayers. I was one of 2 people, against taking locks away from existing players. I guess I am "devils advocate". Evil for disagreeing. I feel like I have defended myself enough. I plead the 5th from now on.

 

[Guest]

Always a Cheerleader. Do you have any opinions of your own? Nice cheering section for Donavan. PFFFFT!

 

[legscroft]

<blockquote><hr>

IMHO there should not be a grandfather clause. People that have locks they shouldn't have should have them taken away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

 

[Guest]

Okay, me a cheerleader?? I like the direction the game is going. Not to mention I am like 1 of about 3 people on this board that are willing to voice it.

I agreed with what donavan said based on the fact that I read it. What he says is indeed correct. Or so in my opinion it is. If you have a problem with that, put me on ignore. It's a public forum.

 

[Guest]

Will people quit if others locks are not taken away? Will people quit if their locks are taken away? Does the good outweigh the bad?

 

[Guest]

Skill locks linked to account paid time is a great way to bring players back. It also gives those that wanna recreate the ability without losing locks which is a good thing. Still, haven't seen a down side to this. So the good out weighs the bad(because no one has shown anything bad yet).

 

[Guest]

Funny you have an opinion on what I meant. And it is exactly what Donavan thought. 2 peas in a pod. *insert p's in pod smiley here.

 

[Guest]

It's not exactly what donavan thought, but he did an excellent job of saying it. Just because I agree with him, you don't like me? Go figure.

I am for skill locks being tied to account age rather than sim age. I am for amnesty. There are so many positives that have already been stated. They far out weigh anything harmful. I still have yet to see anything that would really cause any harm.

 

[Keep It Real]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Evidently not the way you are saying. The devs see that. That is why the grandfather claus. I said I was done with this, with you. LMAO I guess next post you win. Seeing as this was a change since I last IM'd you. You are arguing a moot point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure why you responded to me.You never IM'd me. Either way, you can say it is moot all that you please. IMHO there should not be a grandfather clause. People that have locks they shouldn't have should have them taken away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly think the people who hung onto accounts by paying every third month in hopes that EA would actually give the game some attention should lose locks?

Will losing/taking ANYTHING away from them be a good thing if we are trying to get them back to active status?

At the very least they cared enough to renew every third month and check in on the games progress or lack thereof.

I agree with allowing them to keep what they have and MAYBE change the rules AFTER EA Land opens and people actually come back to check it out. ( but allow the grandfathering to be upheld)

If you think you are right, well I guess in your mind you are, common sense says otherwise as it does not seem like a way to bring people back.

PS. As I said before and I shall say again, I would gain some locks on some accounts and lose some locks on others, I'm thinking big picture here and not just about myself. BIG PICTURE !!!

 

[legscroft]

<blockquote><hr>

Will people quit if others locks are not taken away? Will people quit if their locks are taken away? Does the good outweigh the bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was a moot point? I really can't speak for anyone on if or why they would quit or not quit except me &amp; I know that I personally don't feel entitled to squat for any unpaid time.

 

[Guest]

I stand corrected. You make a valid point.




edit: incorrect grammar

 

[Guest]

This part of it is not a moot point. As it is now. Greg is thinking of offering a grandfather clause. Meaning the ones that aquired these points already will not lose them.

 

[Keep It Real]

<blockquote><hr>

I stand correct. You make a valid point.

[/ QUOTE ]

And as do you, but lets wait till EA Land opens and hopefully the masses follow. After that EA can annouce that no locks will be granted for any FURTHER unpaid months.