Just wondering about the 10 game limit to non-premiums. It isn't like that on ToS, but there are logical reasons for it, such as more than 10 shows you are more active than a casual user. But there are so many ways around it, I wonder if it is really necessary. Though basics already get the very special added bonus of creating their own games of any board, and aren't limited to the barf ugly beta board...

Just stirring the pot...

PS...
I think I am cool because I am ranked #35 without having premium... did that coming here late and with just 10 games at a time for the most part... I've been over, but with tourneys and development games, it hasn't been too many.

Oh wait, I'm just cool cuz I am deep underground sleeping on my rock bed, with my iron blanket, in my steel PJs...

thought you wore mithril pjs?

everyone seems to think that... too valuable just for that... why wear it to bed when you can sell to elves at 2000% profit margin? course, they don't have much valuable to give...

I dropped a pair of Mithril PJs on my last run through the mine. It was awesome, it was the last piece I needed for my Sleepwear Set.

Posted by Gimli on Fri 16th Jul 22:08

PS...
I think I am cool because I am ranked #35 without having premium...

PS... I"m cool cause I'm ranked 7 without Premium

that's sweet Waldo! were you ever premium? if not, that is really amazing!

is anyone talking about the 10 game limit? lol...

I think that it would make sense for standard members to have unlimited public games allowed (maybe creation of new public games is what is restricted) and also to be able to see the player stats below the board (all of us premiums know the stats). These stats can be visually counted so I understand the intention of having them be premium only and can see both sides of the 10 game restriction. I have been on the fence for awhile and after I bought a premium membership, I stopped worrying about it.

As I see it; getting people addicted to the site should be the primary focus and in this interest, allowing unlimited public games would help.

Tom's call of course, But I agree with Alpha's comments 100%, because we've talked about this at length. I wonder what % of people leave within a month of their premium expiring, exclude those that log in once or twice and never come back.

Alpha wrote:

As I see it; getting people addicted to the site should be the primary focus and in this interest, allowing unlimited public games would help.

Well, I think it should be a dual focus: getting people addicted AND getting them to pay for it. It's a thin and difficult balance, I'll grant.

As to Mongrel's comments, I think Tom following my suggestion with the "unlocking" of the free premium will go a LONG way towards alleviating that concern. The way it works now is you start out as a Standard member and after 1 month of play you can opt-in to the free Premium month. This means you have less info to absorb right off the bat, and once you get addicted to the basic functionality, you get to see what you're missing with Premium. Then it doesn't come as a surprise when you lose the Premium because you know what you're in for, and you can weigh the decision to pay or stay on with Standard - which doesn't seem like such a come-down because you've already had it for a month to start out.

What asm said. Info below the game is an ideal premium feature, the only reason there is a discussion is because it's there when you start and goes away.

Limiting games to 10 as well seems like a no-brainer. What would making it unlimited accomplish? Someone isn't going to up and quit a standard account when they hit the ten game limit are they?

We had about a year of the old way, I'd like to see the %'s after a 6 month sample.

As to the 10 game limit, sure, for first timers it might be a reasonable restriction. It just seems like it's tempering the addiction. How many WOW players would not be playing WOW if they could only log on 2 hours at a time, unless they payed more?

Of course this question needs to be quantified, as I'm sure some people would pay triple what the do now to continue WOWing.

Similar question in Economics about the amount of taxation a government should levy on their people to maximize revenue: 0%, and the government is broke, 100% and (the assumption is that) there is no incentive to work.

I agree with the current system and will not argue strongly for a change, I can just see the other side as well.

I think that if standard members were allowed unlimited joins with no creation power, then there would still be a strong incentive to pay. They can see what is available to play, but would be at the mercy of others to actual play the boards they wanted to (I can see the other side of this argument as well).

Since I cannot come up with any change that is purely positive in terms of member retention, I will make no further case for any.

Hey Alpha, it is a good thought. Several have commented on having unlimited games, but not being able to start any game you want. That is the way of ToS... wargear tries to avoid being like that, because some of their things weren't good, but also to be original and not look like just ripping off ideas (see a lot of the BAO discussion to. It's called something else here).

I just hope that this difference isn't limiting the growth of wargear because of a need to be different from ToS. It's already so different, especially in how active Tom is, that any fears that someone could accuse wargear of ripping of another site is just silly. I don't suggest it is prevalent in anyone's consciousness, but I think it would be normal for a shadow to exist...

So I don't see a big need for change, but with several options to circumvent the 10 game limit anyways, it could be a loss the way it is.

Gimli wrote: I don't suggest it is prevalent in anyone's consciousness, but I think it would be normal for a shadow to exist...

In my opinion, this is just weird. I think the idea at play here is to build the best site possible, and really very little else enters into it.

The stats intended to be rankings filters present some pretty striking evidence to player retention and commitment. I looked at this a couple hours ago so don't quote me, but there are approximately 120 users who have played over 100 games, and roughly 4/5th of the registrations have played less than 10 games.

right now:
0 game min: 2276
10 " " : 518
20 " " : 368
30 " " : 302
50 " " : 214
80 " " : 143
100 " " : 112

i'd love to be able to sort by the other columns (played, W, L, last played)...

weathertop wrote:

i'd love to be able to sort by the other columns (played, W, L, last played)...

That is an excellent suggestion!

I was looking at this today too, what I was looking for was number of 1 game played (booted) players, which I think could kind of be seen by sorting by 0% H-Rating, but I didn't really look into the numbers (I actually stopped when I seen there were some players with upwards of 7 games but no wins, so I thought it may not be too accurate, but it probably would give a rough estimate).

Yertle wrote:

weathertop wrote:

i'd love to be able to sort by the other columns (played, W, L, last played)...

That is an excellent suggestion!

Heh.

I am not expecting a huge amount of support because of who I am . But why should a standard member get the same benefits as a premium member? To become a premium member is a paltry $10 surely even children can afford this! I think that this site is fine the way it is I joined not to climb up the boards (winning or losing a board game is not high on my list of things to get upset about) but to give something towards the cost of running the site and expanding it.

1 final thing I think swearing should be banned in the chat on the boards. Is there really any need for profanities?