A Simple Musing. A Suggestion. A Thought. Nothing More :)
As I jumped in circles by empty, forlorn GV, I (surprisingly) began to think,
and before long I dipped my quill in ink.
To transcribe a lengthy diatribe for you to read and perhaps reply,
having seen reason in my musing, or maybe folly in my words most confusing.
The moors are often rather dead, which know ye well if other forum's ye have read... and yet we can escape this plight. Hope, there is, hidden in plain sight! Freeing the Moors to all players is the answer to our prayers. Dwindling numbers on freepside would be bolstered by a tide of players new and players old who of the Moors have oft been told. But the balance!" some cry, fearing the worst (hordes of Freeps zerging on foot and on horse). But to this I do say; better any action than snoozing at GV all day.
I intended to do the rest of this in rhyme, but I imagined that might get rather vexing to read, and so...
Context: A typical log-on (for me) consists of logging a creep, making for GV, and spending the next 5 minutes farming NPCS until logging off. Occasionally there is action (hurrah), but it seems that freeps are almost exclusively camped, farmed, or struggle leave GV (or occasional GV/TR shuffle). There are, of course, exceptions, but this has simply been my general observation from past weeks. I voice my humble, and likely flawed, opinion from a predominantly Creep-perspective; while I have purchased many... many passes on Freepside, the grind has gotten old and I thus remain on creepside usually now (though play has dwindled in general due to the lack of action when I do log).
Proposal: The Moors could be made accessible to all players of or exceeding level 100. By allowing greater access to the moors, one would (perhaps) stand to alleviate many of the negative symptoms plaguing both sides of the PvMP conflict these days.
- Freep Benefits:: (Let us approach this first benefit operating under the assumption that, having made the Moors available to a wider body of players, more players would frequent the moors.) If more Freep players enter the moors, one may assume that they will lend aid to the existing, and often as not besieged, Freeps. These "reinforcements/new wave/neophytes/what have you" could bolster the morale and numbers of our veterans, allowing them to push out of GV and establish a healthier range of action across the map for all to enjoy. An influx of Freeps would allow for a greater balance between numerically-superior or rank/experience-superior opponents on Creepside. It is possible that allowing more players access to the moors would not significantly increase the number of players who visit the moors. If this should prove true, Freeps would still stand to benefit from the removal of sanctions barring F2P/Premium play in the Moors. Being the responsible, altruistic creeps that we are, it seems that in situations where Freeps are absent/camped, a few creeps would be able to alt and shore up freep numbers, reviving the action. A mutual desire for quality action could result in a more frequently balanced Freep-to-Creep ratio as Creeps alt to Freepside (or vice-versa) in the interest of preserving balance, or instigating action.
-Creep Benefits: Simply put, the most common, chronic ailment for myself, and select other creeps I have talked with (I will not pretend, presume, even dare to claim that these expressed views represent the views of other/all Creeps), is is a lack of Freeps. The benefits of this proposition for Creepside are dependent upon said action's impact upon Freep population or the ability of Creeps to alt Freepside to restore balance. If approached responsibly, and with the desire for prolongued, quality action, such newfound liberation would allow Creeps to when appropriate to promote action. Creeps could, by regulating their own population and assisting the Freeps, either create or sustain fights such that we might see action that has been, in my experience, lacking recently.
The Dangers/Rebuttals
1) Creeps would all alt to Freepside, resulting in Grams Camp/Counter Zerging: This is perhaps the most common line of opposing thought for such an action, and is difficult - nay, impossible - to refute without attempting the proposed conditions. I would hope, and select creeps I have conversed with agree (once again, I do not represent everyone :) ), that an overall desire to rectify the current stagflation within the moors due to a dwindling supply of Freeps would result in a Creep community that responds responsibly to its newfound abilities. By alting conservatively or when appropriate/needed, Creeps could foster action; too many flopping would simply sway balance too greatly, destroying potential for action. However, is this result not approximately similar to the current conditions? The same lack of action that would result from too many Freeps plagues... well, me and some others at least, today. I am not proposing that we should flip favor to Freeps for the heck of it. If this were the ultimate, inevitable result of the proposed action, then better the action is not taken at all. Perhaps, however, there is some hope that by acting as a responsible, like-minded community desiring action - desiring fun - we could have some semblance of balance. Maybe not. A trial period would seem appropriate, to observe the impacts of opening up the moors. I am likely to optimistic concerning reactions to such an action, but one can dream ;)
2) VIPs would cease renewing subscriptions, resulting in revenue losses for the game. : To begin with, I am not intimately, nor even remotely, familiar with the actual revenue sources within this game that contribute the most to its survival/profitability/development. Having established my boggling ignorance, I would make one point. In the past, I had received the impression that the Moors often received a smaller amount of attention/less resources due to the comparatively smaller number of PvP'ers when taken in regard to the many more Raiders/Role Players/ General Content "Enjoyers" in the realm of PvE. I suppose this justified, to an extent, not devoting as many resources to PvP (*nods*). However, by making the Moors free, it seems that not only would conditions within the moors perhaps stand to improve, but also this justification for devoting less resources to PvP would become a concrete, and in my eyes, completely justified, policy. Furthermore, even if all of the VIP's who participate in PvP dropped their subscriptions, by the same logic that PvP'ers account for a diminutive proportion of players, wouldn't the losses be negligible, or at least lesser? It may be that this is not the case - PvP'ers may in fact account for a significant proportion of revenue, in which case such a change may indeed prove to be more harmful. (Disclaimer: I am not opposed [I]at all[I] to the concept of having to pay VIP to enter moors - supporting the game in such a way is admirable, and it seems reasonable that the reward is exclusive Freepside access. These suggestions just come from a single non-vip'ers perspective of what could maybe, perhaps, possibly improve the Moors. These are simply the musings of a person up too late and rather hungry :) )
Closing Remarks:: I do not expect such changes to be implemented, and I myself am not entirely convinced that they would ultimately benefit the moors. I just thought I would proffer these thoughts in the interest of discussion, to see if anybody else agrees, or the rationale behind why such changes should not be implemented. Cheers, apologies for the length, and finally I don't really play as much any more/check forums far less, so it is likely that I will not respond (Ok, very likely I will not) - in which case, my apologies! :)
Gath
