Veteran Edition account (6.1 update)

[Jva]

Well there is just some basic things to know:
1. you have no mount so you better like walking (Write a /wave-Macro for druid-fc)
2. be sure to not feel hated when 2-3 stealth-dds (mostly gf´d rogues from 2004!) rip u to shreds over and over cause reason 1.
3. with reason 1 and 2 in mind you are the only one going for flags and sooner or later (and by that I mean sooner) you will love reason 2 even more

19s BGs where peoples hopes of balance are destroyed since integrating pvp
Keep reaching for the rainbow

You can be sure that the whole balance at 19s is way better than it is in the 20-29 bracket. You just cant compare minor difference between classes at 19 with the incredible gap between f2p 20s and 29s.
Every class gets shredded when there are 2-3 stealth ppl opening on them and I really feel that it should be that way. Otherwise there would be something wrong with the attacked class :/.
I dont know but I feel way worse when I get shredded by 3 29 stealthies on my f2p. Btw gfd gear at 19s doesnt matter anymore, especially for rogues (someone correct me if I am wrong).

The walking "issue" gets lowered by enchants. Every class will have 120% movement speed. On top of that, nearly every class got its own speed boosts through passive talents or abilities. Think the only exceptions are wars, locks and priests. So its not as worse as it could be. But yep for ppl that love mounts it might be a thing.

As one that plays/played both brackets I would prefer 19s every day since there is nothing better than having competitive pvp where everyone got the same chances when the gate opens.

Dont wanna start an argument here but I felt like its kinda long ago since you have played 19s .

 

[Spiriel]

Dont wanna start an argument here but I felt like its kinda long ago since you have played 19s .

Well and I thought the irony was visible

I played 19s pvp since vanilla btw and I also had one oft those xp-lock f2ps.
Was a Holydin so gear wasnt that neccessary but farming 10g in ghostlands on grey lvl10 enemys was much fun.

 

[Kincaide]

If you intend to take an advantage over friends that I have who will not be going veteran, I don't see any way in which I can prevent you from doing that.

Just don't expect me to do the same, or to respect you.

Ooh, but Bop... I have to say, that does come across as very judgy-judgy. I alluded to this in the other thread, but it feels like "taking the moral high ground" in an issue that shouldn't even be a moral question. First off, it's a game... yes I do realize that's an old hack of an expression, but truly, when did we get to the point that we were making moral judgments against people for stuff like this? Second of all, as I said on the other thread, you're setting up a scenario where no one wants to do the upgrade because you've got them thinking that they're going to be morally judged and shunned, when it might have been that everyone in the community would have gone ahead and done the upgrade if morality hadn't been brought into the picture, in which case all of us would still be on the same level playing field, BUT we would also be on a much more level playing field with the 29s. Isn't it possible, just possible, that this shoe-horned morality might actually make the situation worse rather than better?

 

[Kincaide]

You can be sure that the whole balance at 19s is way better than it is in the 20-29 bracket. You just cant compare minor difference between classes at 19 with the incredible gap between f2p 20s and 29s.

Actually... thanks to gear scaling, the only remaining differences between 20s and 29s are guild BoAs, enchants, glyphs, and abilities. 6.1 is going to give F2Ps an opportunity to obliterate the first two, and far and away people would have to agree that it is the enchants, more than anything, that stand as the last great division between F2Ps and P2Ps in the 20-29 bracket. We have the ability to wipe that gap away now, if only we as a community can keep our attention on the most important issues.

 

[Jva]

Well and I thought the irony was visible

I played 19s pvp since vanilla btw and I also had one oft those xp-lock f2ps.
Was a Holydin so gear wasnt that neccessary but farming 10g in ghostlands on grey lvl10 enemys was much fun.

Sorry, I can´t see any irony in your post .
The question would be if you played 19s in WOD to make a valid comparison.
But since your post was irony, there is nothing we need to talk about

Actually... thanks to gear scaling, the only remaining differences between 20s and 29s are guild BoAs, enchants, glyphs, and abilities. 6.1 is going to give F2Ps an opportunity to obliterate the first two, and far and away people would have to agree that it is the enchants, more than anything, that stand as the last great division between F2Ps and P2Ps in the 20-29 bracket. We have the ability to wipe that gap away now, if only we as a community can keep our attention on the most important issues.

Yep I know. The gap gets smaller then, but with the possibilty to play on the top of a bracket as f2p, there is simply no reason to stay in the 20-29 bracket since you will still have an disadvantage there.
Only reason I see is nostalgia or simply the refusal to pay $5. With the least the gap would remain anyways.

 

[Kincaide]

Yep I know. The gap gets smaller then, but with the possibilty to play on the top of a bracket as f2p, there is simply no reason to stay in the 20-29 bracket since you will still have an disadvantage there.
Only reason I see is nostalgia or simply the refusal to pay $5. With the least the gap would remain anyways.

I think both 19s and 20-29 will be equally viable for us, but don't worry, I'm sure they'll both be popular. This is of course assuming the XP settings work the way we hope. If they don't, then, well, I guess all those returning former subscribers are going to wind up in our bracket, instead! *grin*

 

[Zehj]

this bracket is bad enough already as f2p with the queue times, 29s and fotm specs, its hard to see the appeal for f2ps if the majority becomes p2p

even if the bracket only reaches an equal ratio of f2p and p2p it wont be fun for either party

19s is looking like the best option if the activity picks up

 

[fatbellyzz]

but truly, when did we get to the point that we were making moral judgments against people for stuff like this?

i thought that it started with 24s.


but tbh this whole idea seems to contradict f2p's shared value of the grinding and the challenges we overcome.
despite the opportunities that this update will bring for f2p players, i feel as though pursuing them will degrade our shared identity as f2p players. we'll be less distinguishable from the crowd of p2p players.

just some more food for thought.

 

[Bop]

Ooh, but Bop... I have to say, that does come across as very judgy-judgy. I alluded to this in the other thread, but it feels like "taking the moral high ground" in an issue that shouldn't even be a moral question. First off, it's a game... yes I do realize that's an old hack of an expression, but truly, when did we get to the point that we were making moral judgments against people for stuff like this? Second of all, as I said on the other thread, you're setting up a scenario where no one wants to do the upgrade because you've got them thinking that they're going to be morally judged and shunned, when it might have been that everyone in the community would have gone ahead and done the upgrade if morality hadn't been brought into the picture, in which case all of us would still be on the same level playing field, BUT we would also be on a much more level playing field with the 29s. Isn't it possible, just possible, that this shoe-horned morality might actually make the situation worse rather than better?

Who is saying anything about a moral high ground?

It seems to be very simple to me;

If you utilize an advantage received as a result of a process that other players must pay for (or do not have access to altogether) then you are taking advantage of them.

I'm simply talking about my ability to respect other players; I do not doubt that my respect means nothing for the level 29 player who farms players with less opportunity than himself.

I've said it three times now, we are all faced with the burden of choice. To be contemptible to me, you must actively make two separate decisions:

1. You must be p2p and actively choose to play in the 20-29 bracket.

and

2. You must take advantage of the Gear, Level, or Enchant bonuses that are inherent to paying for the game.

You are absolutely contemptible and worthy of disrespect if you qualify both of those decisions as being part of a game-play experience.

You are perfectly capable of:

1. Being a p2p and playing against other P2Ps, whether at another twink bracket or at Endgame.

2. Playing in the 20-29 bracket but utilizing the same tools available to the Starter Edition account.

By actively avoiding either of those scenarios, you are insulting the skill and disrespecting the many awesome players with whom I have grown accustomed to playing with over these 3 years.

Such a player would not have my respect.

 

[Kincaide]

Who is saying anything about a moral high ground?

It seems to be very simple to me;

If you utilize an advantage received as a result of a process that other players must pay for (or do not have access to altogether) then you are taking advantage of them.

I'm simply talking about my ability to respect other players; I do not doubt that my respect means nothing for the level 29 player who farms players with less opportunity than himself.

I've said it three times now, we are all faced with the burden of choice. To be contemptible to me, you must actively make two separate decisions:

1. You must be p2p and actively choose to play in the 20-29 bracket.

and

2. You must take advantage of the Gear, Level, or Enchant bonuses that are inherent to paying for the game.

You are absolutely contemptible and worthy of disrespect if you qualify both of those decisions as being part of a game-play experience.

You are perfectly capable of:

1. Being a p2p and playing against other P2Ps, whether at another twink bracket or at Endgame.

2. Playing in the 20-29 bracket but utilizing the same tools available to the Starter Edition account.

By actively avoiding either of those scenarios, you are insulting the skill and disrespecting the many awesome players with whom I have grown accustomed to playing with over these 3 years.

Such a player would not have my respect.

Oh, but you're definitely not making a moral judgement or anything.

Come on Bop, your post is laden with all sorts of scare words of what people are going to have thought of them if they make the choice to pay five dollars. I think the real linchpin of your argument is here though:

If you utilize an advantage received as a result of a process that other players must pay for (or do not have access to altogether) then you are taking advantage of them.

In the case of Veteran F2Ps, any advantage you gain is a result of one that you must pay for, and which everyone else has exactly the same access you have as an F2P. I agree it's taking advantage of people to use something they can't have. That's not the same thing as using something they won't have because they've laid down some false moral argument that is exactly akin to the "F2P purity" argument.

Being honest, if you're really saying you don't see any moral posturing in your posts, I would be highly surprised and a little confused. I'm making the assumption that you're being ironic, or that you're playing that for some effect, because it doesn't compute for me otherwise.

 

[danny glover]

Honestly, I can't see this having anything but a negative impact on the bracket. Just bumps f2ps further down the totem pole.

It could be great for the real twink brackets though.

 

[Sabzep]

[MENTION=8138]Kincaide[/MENTION]

So you agree with the argument that the only reason f2p twinks could not compete with p2ps, was the "financial burden" of a subscription?

I played the "trial bracket" because it popped 24/7. And it was obvious to me that it popped because of trial players and I chose to play trial to be on an equal ground with them. Simple really.

Morality aside: If I play a single player game. I start with a medium difficulty level. If it is too easy that I don't get challenged I get bored. If it is impossibly difficult I get frustrated. In order to feel satisfaction from a success I need to actually try my best and get "punished" for mistakes. Modern facebook games take a different approach of rewarding the player with blinking stars for the most mundane task. That is not really my thing.

I feel like a veteran will stomp on f2ps. And I don't think that the majority of the bracket will pay 5$ to level up a month and grind out gold to purchase guild BoAs and enchants. That would leave me as a veteran beeing bored stomping f2p and frustrated getting crushed on my veteran shadow priest vs a p2p shadow.

We will see how it turns out.

 

[Yak]

Personally, my first (moral) enemy is subscription gaming. I appreciate Blizzard but find their systems manipulative.

My second (moral) enemy are bullies (paying players who intentionally tyrannize trial players).

The dilemma is how to defend myself against #2 without compromising #1 . Is $5 prohibitive for most trial players? Does it perpetuate the system? Or is it a justifiable way of defending oneself?

 

[Rusks]

Well there is just some basic things to know:
1. you have no mount so you better like walking (Write a /wave-Macro for druid-fc)
2. be sure to not feel hated when 2-3 stealth-dds (mostly gf´d rogues from 2004!) rip u to shreds over and over cause reason 1.
3. with reason 1 and 2 in mind you are the only one going for flags and sooner or later (and by that I mean sooner) you will love reason 2 even more

19s BGs where peoples hopes of balance are destroyed since integrating pvp
Keep reaching for the rainbow

have you even played 19s recently? None of these rogues are using GFed gear because it's not bis most GFed gear is not bis in a BG at this point.

poor positioning is punished harshly in this bracket no mounts to make up for shit positioning

rogues can't 1 shot you unless you have sub 2k hp

rogues vs 29 BMs or Sp ???

5$ 19s for you guys would be much much more balanced than 20-29


the way I see this is blizzard is trying to remedy their mistake of f2p accounts. This veteran account perfectly caters to the 19 bracket it gives them a chance to make some money off if those who resub ect to update 19s then they can play for free just like f2ps

 

[Kincaide]

[Important Things]

Listen Bop I hope you don't mind that I'm double-responding, but I've been to classes for the day and I'm back and I had a chance to think about this while I was driving home, and I had an analogy that I wanted to give to you, to see whether the logic of your argument stands up to this.

Your argument is that upgrading to veteran F2P is unfair to other F2Ps because it gives you something they don't have. BUT your argument states that it's taking advantage of people if you have something that they can't have. I made the point before that all F2Ps have the exact same option to get those things, and some people may choose not to take them, and that's not taking advantage of them if they choose not to do something that's within their power.

That's what I said before but the new analogy I want to make is this. Since we're talking about something that someone could have if they wanted, and you would refuse to take it yourself if they don't have it, to the point that you would shame other people that do take it. Well what if you had a person or a bunch of people who felt that the Darkmoon Faire was too much work, or they didn't have the time to do the work to get heirlooms, or they simply didn't like doing the games? Here again is a situation where other players are choosing not to avail themselves of something that we all have access to, but that we have to put out a little economic value to get (time, in this case, rather than dollars), and the "default state" of F2Ps is to not have heirlooms... so by your logic you would also not use heirlooms and you would also shun and shame anyone who did use heirlooms, because using heirlooms when not all players have heirlooms would be taking advantage of them. Wouldn't it? If there is some flaw in my analogy, some way in which these are not exactly equivalent scenarios, please point it out to me.

A big shift that people have to realize, that makes this argument different from the old argument about why don't people just go P2P (because I know this argument can sound a lot like that one) is that, prior to 6.1, in order to go P2P, you had to pay not once, but every month, and most importantly, you had to keep paying or you would lose access to your characters you worked so hard on. I think that was the aspect that was so unappealing to so many of us for so long. Here you can make a one-time payment, and a one-time effort, and you can enjoy the fruits of your efforts forever and it won't be taken away from you if you stop making payments. Thus the work you have to do to get Veteran things is exactly analogous to the work you have to do to get Darkmoon Faire heirlooms. If it is not exactly the same issue, please, lay out for me how it isn't.

I think people should be able to benefit from the work and effort they put into their characters, and if one set of people is not willing to put in the same work, I don't think that's reason enough to also limit ourselves, and I certainly don't think it's justification for them to disrespect and judge those that do.

 

[Xenophon]

Some interesting thoughts from you guys. Remember though, that the veteran accounts will at best provide a P2P 20 character, which for a lot of classes is not to be considered overpowered. For example, I'd much rather face a P2P 20 BM monk on a veteran account than a fully subbed 29 BM.

Yes, those that fully take up the veteran option will have an advantage. But skill will usually outclass gear.

Also, I think the publicity this has received could bring a lot more players to low-level twinking. That has to be good, right?

 

[nanatan]

Some interesting thoughts from you guys. Remember though, that the veteran accounts will at best provide a P2P 20 character, which for a lot of classes is not to be considered overpowered. For example, I'd much rather face a P2P 20 BM monk on a veteran account than a fully subbed 29 BM.

Yes, those that fully take up the veteran option will have an advantage. But skill will usually outclass gear.

Also, I think the publicity this has received could bring a lot more players to low-level twinking. That has to be good, right?

Honestly though at this point what exactly does a P2P 29 have over a P2P 20 BM monk? at most, its gear choices, like the AV BA boots, but honestly the amount of extra decent gear they can get out of it doesn't exactly change that much imo.
Oh, I totally did not consider the extra spells they (?) get from being 29, does it really change the game that much?

 

[danny glover]

Honestly though at this point what exactly does a P2P 29 have over a P2P 20 BM monk? at most, its gear choices, like the AV BA boots, but honestly the amount of extra decent gear they can get out of it doesn't exactly change that much imo.
Oh, I totally did not consider the extra spells they (?) get from being 29, does it really change the game that much?

Guard - Spell - World of Warcraft

And it's a big one.

 

[fatbellyzz]

A big shift that people have to realize, that makes this argument different from the old argument about why don't people just go P2P (because I know this argument can sound a lot like that one) is that, prior to 6.1, in order to go P2P, you had to pay not once, but every month, and most importantly, you had to keep paying or you would lose access to your characters you worked so hard on. I think that was the aspect that was so unappealing to so many of us for so long. Here you can make a one-time payment, and a one-time effort, and you can enjoy the fruits of your efforts forever and it won't be taken away from you if you stop making payments. Thus the work you have to do to get Veteran things is exactly analogous to the work you have to do to get Darkmoon Faire heirlooms. If it is not exactly the same issue, please, lay out for me how it isn't.

All I seem to take from that point is that in all the time you spent as an f2p, it was only because of a financial issue. So now that it's more financially accommodating, you're willing to jump right into it.

So you didn't play f2p for the challenge.
And you also possibly didn't play f2p for the community, considering that you're willing to disregard both those things for the price of your morning tea.

All this would be fine, but the thing is that you previously said it WAS for the challenge and the community, so if someone abandoned that stance, then a loss in due respect is understandable.

With that being said, i feel like the financial argument is too flawed to work.
(just note that this wasn't directly regarding you in particular, but regarding someone in favor of f2ps going veteran).

 

[Kincaide]

All I seem to take from that point is that in all the time you spent as an f2p, it was only because of a financial issue. So now that it's more financially accommodating, you're willing to jump right into it.

So you didn't play f2p for the challenge.
And you also possibly didn't play f2p for the community, considering that you're willing to disregard both those things for the price of your morning tea.

All this would be fine, but the thing is that you previously said it WAS for the challenge and the community, so if someone abandoned that stance, then a loss in due respect is understandable.

With that being said, i feel like the financial argument is too flawed to work.
(just note that this wasn't directly regarding you in particular, but regarding someone in favor of f2ps going veteran).

It can be for more than one thing at a time. You see, being a Veteran F2P does not eliminate the challenge, nor does it take you out of the community. And as I said before (it might have been a different thread) it's not the money per se, it's about how before 6.1 your hard work was held hostage unless you -kept- paying money. No money, no characters. Now we get a cheap one-time expense, if we want it, but the characters are not held for ransom if we don't keep paying. That was the philosophical roadblock for many of us.

Remember that the counterargument was also that if you're going to go ahead and go full-on P2P, then you ought to either play 19s or endgame, because playing 29s was stomping on trials. And to go 19s or end-game would mean losing that challenge, and losing that community. Therefore the stance works exactly as we said, for exactly the reasons you said.