A Change in Terminology. Unlinked F2P Accounts.

[Agnostic]

For those that are linked starter accounts, this will obviously not apply to you.

I wish to offer assistance towards a more respectful, yet acknowledging approach to becoming one with the bracket. And one with the community. Time and time again we find ourselves fighting one another over ideology. Over gearing standards. Over restrictions. What have we solved from this? Nothing. What has been learned from this? It is an impossible argument. We have only accomplished in creating sides. And these sides will continue to clash. Unless we can find mutual agreement.

Although we may not share the same gearing and/or payment preferences, we must not refer to an unlinked f2p as "pure". Although it is grammatically correct, it is also unnecessary, as it creates an invisible wall between us. It gives us a false sense of what it means to be twinks. A code that does not apply to others because they have different gearing methods. Because they so happen to have a paid account under the same email. Because they have achieved what an unlinked starter account cannot.

This has created an elitist mindset among many "pure" f2p. That which has labeled others as "impure", and guilty of heracy against this "code". Some even go to the lengths of calling them "scum", simply because they have different preference.

Well I'm here to tell you that an unlinked starter account should be preference and that alone. Many respectful f2p are aware of this and play f2p because they enjoy the challenge and/or do not feel the need to pay to have a good time. We should all acknowledge our account limitations or benifits, but not knead it into a weapon of moral ideology. We should not judge others for their decisions, but instead, respect them.

One important thing. There will ALWAYS be someone out there who is desperate enough to bully or intimitate restricted twinks, but do not judge an entire player base on one's actions. And remember that outside of the forum, we wouldn't hesitate working together, lending heals to overcome an opposing team.

Edit: Poll removed. I see that "unlinked" is already the favorable choice, and I wish for people to use it without malicious intent

 

[Kincaide]

Re: A Change in Terminology. Unlinked F2P Accounts. (POLL)

Your intent is noble and I appreciate it. Any effort a community member makes to help eliminate the contentious ideologies in the bracket is very welcome by me and the staff. I'm not sure about the poll though, because "unlinked" is very specific and has a meaning that everyone instantly understands, whereas the other options would have to be defined for everyone in the bracket to know what is meant by the term, and then you run the risk of people using it subjectively again, like, how "classic" are you if you got a 2-seater lift from a P2P to help you get your LFH, etc etc. I would be concerned that it would just become the new "pure".

This is the reason why the terms Starter, Veteran, and Subscriber work so well, and why linked and unlinked work so well. They are concrete, absolute, and objective. These Boolean terms (you either are or you are not) eliminate any subjectivity.

There may be people who find this all very PC and don't like the idea of their terminology being limited, but the proven fact of the matter is that people do get genuinely upset and insulted by the subjective implication that anyone is better than anyone else. No one on this forum is better than anyone else, and there are lots and lots of people, the mod team included, who are fed up with people treating other people as less-than. So please don't get on Agnostic's case for trying to help, I think he's doing a good thing here by bringing up the topic, even if I don't necessarily agree with the poll.

Just don't say anything that you intend, or that someone else is going to take, as passing judgement on them, and we'll all be just fine.

 

[l30t53dd6p]

Re: A Change in Terminology. Unlinked F2P Accounts. (POLL)

Standard Starter Edition Accounts, Veteran Starter Edition Accounts and Subscriber Accounts sounds like the best terms to me. But god I hate giving things names like this just as f2p and p2p. It is all the same, why on earth not just 20-29 players.

 

[Agnostic]

Re: A Change in Terminology. Unlinked F2P Accounts. (POLL)

[MENTION=8138]Kincaide[/MENTION]
I can see how classic could potentially raise brows, but how would you go about thread tagging when it comes to linked/unlinked?

I was thinking of the forum implementing a seperate option that triggers when you choose [starter] giving you [linked]/[unlinked] but idk. Does that sound too specific?

 

[Kincaide]

Re: A Change in Terminology. Unlinked F2P Accounts. (POLL)

Kincaide
I can see how classic could potentially raise brows, but how would you go about thread tagging when it comes to linked/unlinked?

I was thinking of the forum implementing a seperate option that triggers when you choose [starter] giving you [linked]/[unlinked] but idk. Does that sound too specific?

Yes it does sound too specific. The number of people who feel compelled to make such a granular distinction are few enough that I don't think it's necessary to hard-code it into the forum. The account type is enough of a distinction for organizational purposes in our opinion.

 

[Kincaide]

Re: A Change in Terminology. Unlinked F2P Accounts. (POLL)

why on earth not just 20-29 players.

That's a fair point, but practically everyone requested that there be a way for them to access the information that was relevant to themselves without having to sort through all the information that was not relevant to themselves. The current divisions and distinctions are as specific as we feel we can be without being too specific or too generic, and to make it easiest for people to access the information that is relevant to themselves.

 

[Kincaide]

Sorry [MENTION=25896]Agnostic[/MENTION], I can't actually remove the poll entirely without closing the thread. So yeah.

 

[Syrayeda]

the only gear difference between linked and unlinked starter accounts are guild and necklace heirlooms. most threads that mention gear already says things like "heirloom is BiS, or X if you do not have heirlooms yet". they can do the same thing with guild and necklace heirlooms without separating them into different threads

 

[Srs]

there are many paths to f2p. f2p started before this game, and will keep going long after it's dead. there will always be f2p.

F2P4LYFE

 

[yasueh]

Officially at least, the term Starter Edition includes what we're calling Veteran Edition accounts, so using the terms Veteran and Starter to mean two separate things may not be the best idea.

F2P was the wrong term to be using from the start. We misappropriated it, as it refers to a business model, and not what customers spend on a game (otherwise we'd have been using it to refer to pirates, and people who kept re-rolling trials).

WoW is not (yet) a free to play game. To warrant that description it needs to provide access to a "significant portion of [its] content" (such as level 60, and raiding), not a tiny, very restricted portion, more in line with a trial. Because we weren't playing an F2P game, we were never F2P players (which in a true F2P game includes those who have made purchases).

You want a term to describe an account that has no purchases on it, and is unlinked to other accounts? How about 'Bare-bones' or 'Stock'.

 

[Neon]

Unlinked and linked f2ps. Unlinked are considered "pure". Then there are veterans which I consider as the same as a p2p twink. Really no point for a poll, everyone will know what you are by inspecting.

 

[Allybeboba]

What does it even matter except to you?
You people are making mountains out of mole hills. This subject just keeps getting brought up over and over and over again every day. What is the big deal, can someone explain it to me?
Do pure special snowflake unlinked F2P trial starter edition WoW players want to be treated differently than other players or something? What is it?
Do they deserve some kind of special recognition? Some subbed account players have spent more time on their accounts than trials have dreamt of and they don't come on TI asking for special recognition every other day.
Can you tell them apart in game? No.. If I was to get on a trial or a veteran or a subbed account in all the same gear at the same level you would not be able to tell the difference in game visually. Only you would know. Just be content with your choice and move on. Sheesh...

/cheers
Sweetsydney

 

[Kearbear]

I kind of have to agree, I'm not really sure how this has become such an issue. I would be okay with using any term to describe "pure" f2p but I don't follow how this has managed to get the kind of nuanced attention to terminology normally reserved for prominent political speeches.

We're playing a game guys, and unless I'm very much mistaken the point of playing a game is to have fun and relax (at least that's what I use it for, all the more power to anyone who needs stressy stress time). If you enjoy playing a certain way do it, and don't get your knickers in a knot about how anyone else does it or what those people call the way you play.

Not worth the time put into worrying or unknotting, frankly, and I was under the impression that not giving 2 fox about what other people want do in this game is how lots of us ended up being twinkers in the first place.

Lets just have some fun guise D:

 

[Agnostic]

I agree with both of you. [MENTION=8222]Kearbear[/MENTION] [MENTION=13421]Allybeboba[/MENTION]

But it isn't fully an issue of butthurtness. It's the fact that the f2p/starter community is so segregated. Unlike other brackets, class vs class aren't the only issues we have, when I think it needs to be at least.

I think most of us truly wish for a community that isn't so batshit crazy about gearing preference, when the main goal is to be the best you can be given what you have. And if someone has access to more, so be it. It's just sad to see people with so much in common bickering about the most rediculous of things.

 

[Kearbear]

I agree with both of you. Kearbear Allybeboba

But it isn't fully an issue of butthurtness. It's the fact that the f2p/starter community is so segregated. Unlike other brackets, class vs class aren't the only issues we have, when I think it needs to be at least.

I think most of us truly wish for a community that isn't so batshit crazy about gearing preference, when the main goal is to be the best you can be given what you have. And if someone has access to more, so be it. It's just sad to see people with so much in common bickering about the most rediculous of things.

To be honest I've been gone for a long while (still am, too far from any servers to make logging much worth it) and was just surprised to come back and find people going nuts over a word.

Care to shed some light on what about the terminology is causing the bracket to be so segregated?

 

[Agnostic]

To be honest I've been gone for a long while (still am, too far from any servers to make logging much worth it) and was just surprised to come back and find people going nuts over a word.

Care to shed some light on what about the terminology is causing the bracket to be so segregated?

Sure.

Yes I can see why it shouldn't be, for one, but I can also see why it has. Maybe the term "pure" hasn't been brought up as much as "f2p" when attacking a veteran or 29, etc.

For example:

F2p is defeated by a Vet in a duel and the f2p proceeds to say "you won because you are a vet/p2p scrub," implying that either way, that f2p would have won given any other situation. While it may be true that the stronger player won due to superior stats, sure. But given the fact that the Vet knows how to play and also has that stat superiority, he's still intuallectually inferior to that f2p because he made the decision to go vet. It's a common thing I encounter in-game. Where as if the f2p was more respectful, he would either decline the duel if he feels it's futile, or say "gg".

Too many f2p feel ashamed to lose against as vet/p2p in fear of them thinking they are bad, and not grasping what the limitations of a f2p are. When in truth, many do know.

I can see where they get this sense of superiority. This higher sense of righteousness. I have played f2p off and on for 4 years. And to put it honestly, it's somewhat unfair. But at the same time, it is fair. Those people have put real money down on the table while some f2p have not.

But I have also played on both sides of this argument. And I see problems with neither one. One gets the fulfillment of a early complete twinking experience, along with purchasable boa, agm, lfh, and endless pvp. While the other gets a tad more at the cost of maybe 5-30$ (vet).

Not to go off topic, but what I'm trying to say is, f2p is such a small mark on the wow community. And for them to feel so intuallectually/morally superior is silly. The entire entire existence of f2p may not even be if blizzard had simply thrown the idea into the trashcan.

 

[Kearbear]

Sure.

Yes I can see why it shouldn't be, for one, but I can also see why it has. Maybe the term "pure" hasn't been brought up as much as "f2p" when attacking a veteran or 29, etc.

For example:

F2p is defeated by a Vet in a duel and the f2p proceeds to say "you won because you are a vet/p2p scrub," implying that either way, that f2p would have won given any other situation. While it may be true that the stronger player won due to superior stats, sure. But given the fact that the Vet knows how to play and also has that stat superiority, he's still intuallectually inferior to that f2p because he made the decision to go vet. It's a common thing I encounter in-game. Where as if the f2p was more respectful, he would either decline the duel if he feels it's futile, or say "gg".

I can see where they get this sense of superiority. This higher sense of righteousness. I have played f2p off and on for 4 years. And to put it honestly, it's somewhat unfair. But at the same time, it is fair. Those people have put real money down on the table while some f2p have not.

But I have also played on both sides of this argument. And I see problems with neither one. One gets the fulfillment of a early complete twinking experience, along with purchasable boa, agm, lfh, and endless pvp. While the other gets a tad more at the cost of maybe 5-30$ (vet).

Not to go off topic, but what I'm trying to say is, f2p is such a small mark on the wow community. And for them to feel so intuallectually/morally superior is silly. The entire entire existence of f2p may not even be if blizzard had simply thrown the idea into the trashcan.

Just for info on my perspective, I will be leaving my trial account unlinked and use my old lapsed account for vet if I feel I need to (which I currently do not), but I have nothing against anyone who links or subs up.

My take on the situation you describe would be that people who are poor losers are whether they have a valid concern or not and aren't really worth paying attention to when they're in a funk. This is a twink community, the very idea is to try to be the best, everywhere you look someone is feeling superior for some reason. Let them, acknowledge hard work or awesomeness where it's due and if it's not who cares? Imo the only use the defining terms has is clarification on who will benefit for the information in a thread so people don't get confused.

If people are creating (imaginary) segregations in the community for themselves though, I don't see how there's anything anyone can do about it besides carry on like we have done and enjoy playing and sharing information together as though such petty differences don't bother us... which tbh they kind of shouldn't.

 

[Voc]

I don't see the big deal, just play f2p if u believe that's the best for you but don't day negative things about vets/29s of you get beat. A f2p with "pride" simply keeps their mouth shut when they lose to the better equipped vets and 29s, not call them names or try to act superior because they play with starter limitations.

Personally I play pure,vet,and p2p now.

 

[Srs]

I don't see the big deal, just play f2p if u believe that's the best for you but don't day negative things about vets/29s of you get beat. A f2p with "pride" simply keeps their mouth shut when they lose to the better equipped vets and 29s, not call them names or try to act superior because they play with starter limitations.

Personally I play pure,vet,and p2p now.

I see 29s as being a separate group, as they are mostly the same old 24s and their cronies. Vets are embracing the new meta, while traditional f2ps are reluctant to let it go.

 

[Syrayeda]

i lose duels all the time and i dont comment on their gear nor their skill. whoever thinks winning duels is the most important thing in this game, they are gonna have a bad time. i guess its a good thing we cant really chat with the opposite faction, so the losing team cant really throw a tantrum