then let me tell you this post is not about complaining regarding the founders pack solution they now went for nor the change of release date. IMO they should keep everything as is now.
I just don’t want them to let them get pushed around again.
2 Likes
Cant see any situation in which that would happen. Moaning about this and that is now coming from no rational pampered children.
The only issue they have to come up with an answer to are the EU servers, and they need to think about that long and hard because 4 US servers for an international release wont cut it. Im already calling it that the founders headstart month will be spent with dis- and reconnecting.
You might not be Aware of it but it was me who started the now biggest thread about how we need an EU server for EA. But still i did it in a polite and rational way.
And don’t get me wrong: it is not about people raising their voice about how they think a 3 month head start was wrong. it was how they very litteraly “whining” and “bitching” about it. This has given IMC a very wrong impression about the severity of the problem.
Yes, the 3 month head start is very controversal even in my eyes, but they made a pretty good explanation of how they thought they could not cope with so many players at once. The currently plan still holds that risk since alot more people will pore in on the 29th. So let’s hope at least that extra week gives them time to prepare.
I couldn’t disagree more. You have the right to express your opinion, to complain, it’s fine. But keep the facts as they are.
First, you say the loudest are usually not the majority. I agree. But this doesn’t apply to this situation. The polls shows that most people didn’t like the 3-month packs. Also, if the problem is they don’t vote because “most of the people who where happy with the old plan never complained and got active on the forum”, they would already notice it got changed and complained. Yet, we have much more happy people with the changes that sad/mad. As you say, the ones that are unhappy express their feelings on the forums. Can you show where the “majority” of the community is? because I only see a few of them.
Second, you talk about having a job, a family, many responsibilities. This is your best point, and makes total sense. Won’t go against this. But then you end saying that they didn’t keep to their promise. What they said, for real? They would keep a SIMILAR date, and this was answering the question that asked between march and june. Get it? Do we need to explain? As old as you claim to be, you should know that it’s better to take a breath and read again before accusing them.
Third, the steam reviews. Fair point. But as you admit, it has little to do with the change from march 22 to 29. It’s about the release being said as march 18 in the store, and people would complain no matter how much days they had to wait after that.
Finally, you talk about the polls, and how people apparently voted for the second option because it gave the best bang for the buck. Ok, now two points:
- A lot of people voted B because it gave the same start date for all the packs
- Interesting enough, the first option had almost the same value as the third one, but more than double the votes. Apparently the 3-month start isn’t that important when it loses to 50TP (in the most expensive pack). Or maybe people didn’t want the 3-month thing, right?
I hope you think a bit before posting anything like this again, and don’t ever accuse others of acting like kids when you do. You could just talk about the family part and make your complain, yet you had to bring lies to make it appear much bigger than it really is.
I don’t like to appear rude, honestly. This is just too much for me.
9 Likes
Sadly imc doing some shity things. The bigest problem in making it 1 months and not 3 is we lose 2 months of testings. Later the same people that made it 1 months will come here and cry on how “bad” the game is. Thats why lots of korean/japanes mmorpgs dont eant to go na/eu no more.
1 Like
To be honest IMC blew the 3 month thing. The backlash can be considered even mild if you take into account that they advertised an open-beta, and ended up with a paywalled 3 month closed beta.
In fact, i doubt that IMC was given a “very wrong” impression about the severity of the problem. Trust me that they would have lost a good chunk of their playerbase before start if they had not modified their 3 month plan. There was absolutely nothing “very wrong” about that. It was a perfectly legitimate issue which was bought forth by bad planning and communication on their side, and not even one instance of it.
That being said, i respect them for how they handled the issue.
The compromise and how they came up with it/communicated it, was praiseworthy.
1 Like
How you know what they eill lose or not? They only loset 2 months of testing.
Look, im gaming since the 286 DX era. I know when a problem will cause ppl to say “no, **** this”.
If they had left the 3 month period as it is, the majority of the community would have taken a hostile stance towards the IMC, and they would have been labeled as money grabbers. Along with that, a good chunk would have left.
Look people did say 2 things as for why they dont like the 3 months . they say its in a bad statet now and have way to much bugs.so 50 $ is to much for this.
Now 8mc give them the same thing for the same 50$ snd its ok? Where the bugs is to much for 50$ problem go?
Now they have 1 months 9nlly to fix 2hat ever people will fined and not 3.
Tell me where and what we and imc win. Or you think people will not leave because of bugs?
False. From the FAQ.
Though I do agree that the vocal forum-goers were overly harsh in their criticism, that does not give you the right to suppress their speech. If you truly felt strongly enough about their opinions, you could have made an equally vocal thread to counter theirs.
Also, for every disappointed fan like you, there are equally many others that support their choice. https://www.reddit.com/r/treeofsavior/comments/4az6uh/a_thankyou_to_tos_staff/
Hopefully you can get a reschedule your vacation days to the next week with your job. You deserve to play just as much as anyone else.
1 Like
@lans1234567890 Aw, you again sir ? Nice to see Miss Whiny back to da game. Hope you’ll enjoy being ignored 
By the way, @ZooLz8l you’ve write such a polite letter, and understandable, but unfortunately full of wrong stuff. Again, (not talking about BR and SEA community) the price wasn’t a problem, just the 3 month delay between founders players and F2P players.
So yes i agree about the " way " it happened, people whining, people crying, it could have been better. But is it the community’s fault ? Hmm not sure about that. If IMC had a better communication with us since the beginning i’m pretty sure the case would have been treated differently.
From now one, i hope things are going to be better, all the stuff i saw was not really important (maybe the fact with magic scroll, but meh, don’t care about that).
Like a great man said; Wait & See.
1 Like
You missed a few things:
- They have to wait only 1 month instead of 3 now
- The founder packs include more stuff now
- The lowest bracket founder pack has been reduced to 9$
- All founderpacks start at the exact same time and last for the exact same time
So no, its not at all the very same thing. Its a lot more reasonable now, compared to the previous one which was flat out damaging for both IMC and the players.
So naturally the 50$ issue does not matter anymore, because the majority of the issues have been fixed. In the previous system you could not play for months if you did not pay the 50$ pack.
2 Likes
Funny enough i get that you agree with most but think different about the 3 month plan. So let me get this straight: i am not saying the 3 month plan was the best idea IMC ever had. But i can see why it made sense for them. The even tried to explain but i wont recap that once more.
Regarding the votes:
we had 3 packages. one that caters to the needs of people who don’t want to spend money at all, which is option 1. And two others that are more catered to the people who want to spend money on a founders pack. It is needless to say that options 2 and 3 cannibalize each other. They are meant for the same target group just with different benefits. Just looking at the 50$ pack(which is the strongest on steam sales) on both option 2 and 3, option 2 seems much better for the player. they get more stuff for they money without loosing anything. Only other people loose something when option 3 is picked, which is playtime. Since a personal net benefit usually is a bigger incentive then a potential advantage against someone else, it is a naturaly choice, from an economic view. But that does not give us any insigt if many people who voted for 2 wouldn’t have been happy with option 3 if there never was an alternative to it. Poeple only get unhappy with what they have, if you show them (in there view) a better option. the only thing the poll shows us is that 25% of people voted for the plan thats in favor of the non spenders, which puts some of the shitstorm posts into the corner of a minority.
In the end it is quite possible that option 3 was still an ok choice for the majority (without them knowing about alternatives) and maybe the better choice for IMC, since it gives them better ways to slowly build up the service. But we will never now that for sure since the vote was trying to force B with the better “bang for the buck”.
i dont think my post uses wrong facts, the problem just is there are contradicting statements and some things where never made 100% clear.
And i must say it very harsh: the “way” it happend, as you put it, is 100% the communities fault.
also as i said, IMC should have ask us before hand, but they made an official announcement on the front page. once that happens it is too late to take it back. So i want them to properly consider in advance and then stick to decision.
And btw: i did not take a vacation for this. So i am not personaly invested as many want to make it sound. I just can relate to the people who are and took it as a valid point in the argumentation.
the point is in the message entirely. hes using the crybaby tactics you all did about the original founders pack plan. hes bringing it to the attention of IMC the ONLY way he can. In the forums ina polite message thats straight to the point and 100% correct.
first it was the 3 month headstart.then it was exp from tokens, then it was the market slots, then the tax on the market, then walking speed, then dungeon attempts, then magic scrolls,then…something else.
oh and 1:1 trading
eventually the game will be free to play FOREAL.
IMC=bankrupt
1 Like
yet another child who doesnt look at things in terms of business weeks. 2x/2x or not they are entirely different weeks and problems for those who have jobs. you know, the people who will actually be supporting the game long term. not the f2p players who will put in a fraction of what everyone else will. i dont think youre trolling on purpose because you obviously just dont understand, but go away.
you mean like when you posted the same posts non stop for days on end?!
Wrong, it was the option 2 which did it, as seen by people saying they prefered the second one because they could pay the same U$ 10 and start at the same time as the others, which was late march. More than that, the pack 1 is selling much better than the third one, which shows who is the real majority of the people.
a big nope. If you did a little research around this forum, you would know that the difference - aka time gap - is the important point for a lot of people. Far before knowing the packs people asked for this change. And the worst? you have been around, you actually know this. It’s just not interesting for you to admit it.
Really? if you want an insight just take a look at previous posts. I’m pretty sure people weren’t happy when we had no alternatives to the option 3.
Again, they were pretty happy when IMC announced the 3-month plan.
Yes, I think so.
Pretty sure they did on purpose, yes. For the above reason.
1 Like
You’re so mean. So you say his post looks like a cry baby? okay, You said that, not me.