Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Reaver Glitterstim
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 22:17:00 -
[1]
With the current system, you must pay $15 per month for each character you wish to be training skills. The drawback to this is that in order for someone to train 2 characters at once, those characters must be on separate accounts. Both accounts must be active in order for even one character to be used at a time.
I propose that CCP might allow players to spend an extra $15 on their account in order to be allowed to train a second character for a month, or $30 extra to train both other characters. It would be nice to be able to train an alt to do things we don't want to put on our main skill queue without stopping the main one either. Then every once in a while it can be useful to switch to the other character to make use of that character's unique skillset.
|
SebbyTheFreak
Caldari Vagrant Troubadours of the Vast Expenses
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 23:30:00 -
[2]
Edited by: SebbyTheFreak on 08/01/2011 23:31:36 Why would you pay the same price as having a second account, but with less functions? But in a way, I agree with you somehow.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 23:43:00 -
[3]
The main advantage is that I could pay for only one month of training, and then keep using the trained character later without having to pay to keep the character active unless I want to keep training skills.
|
Herping yourDerp
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 23:52:00 -
[4]
the plus side is you can have a trader alt on the same account training for about 60 days then stop training, but still play with him not everyone can run 2 accounts at the same time, so having 2 accounts is redundant if they only want 1 alt.
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 00:24:00 -
[5]
this makes sence to me. Why not?
|
Bunyip
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 04:48:00 -
[6]
I could support this if the price was lower, but as it stands now, there is absolutely no reason anybody would do this. I figure a 1:1 ratio to train one character, or 2:1 to train all 3. Simple, and CCP winds up with more money in their pockets. Win/Win. ======== "The civilized man is rude, for he knows that laws protect him from recompense; whereas the savage is not, for his actions can meet a bloody end." - Robert E. Howard |
count sporkula
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 13:18:00 -
[7]
well...
you could train the character on a separate account and then later after you have finished the training transfer it to the primary account....
but somehow i don't think you approve of that....
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 13:35:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Aamrr on 09/01/2011 13:35:35 The transfer fees amount to way more expense.
Proposal supported.
|
Shaera Taam
Minmatar Death Squad Broken Chains Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 05:42:00 -
[9]
ill admit to it, id do it for a month or two... yeah, why not? __________________________________________________ Gravity: It's not just a good idea, it's the law!" --Adam Savage, Mythbusters |
Reaver Glitterstim
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 08:41:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Bunyip I could support this if the price was lower, but as it stands now, there is absolutely no reason anybody would do this.
Wrong, I would do it in a heartbeat. I wish I could do it right now, cause I want to get an alt ready for hulkageddon IV.
Thanks for the support guys. It's such a simple proposal, it might not take much to get this through! Keep thumbing it up!
|
|
Kate McCann
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 16:42:00 -
[11]
I only just support it. In principle. There are so many extra facilities they could add in for "Dual Pay" accounts it would be a shame to "waste" it on merely training 2 alts at the same speed. Still, it's a choice with value.
Still, :lolcsm: though. Forget it.
|
Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet Yulai Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 17:01:00 -
[12]
Really makes sense, supported.
|
Rawl Bain
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 19:09:00 -
[13]
Its a fantastic idea, but I would like to see a lower price for a dual train. Most of you seem to think that you only want to do it for 2 months and you would be done. There is a lot of merit to haveing a second character training at all times or at least a significant amount of the time, and paying pull price for half the benifit would be a waste.
If you really want ccp to make more money then it would make sence to entice players to keep a dual account memebership going, not burn out at 2 months. It would basicly just generate an income spike then drift back to about normal in a few months time.
|
Gaitrie
GZS-R Minmatar Fleet
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 10:32:00 -
[14]
I would do it like this:
main char is 100% training speed. if you want a 2nd char on the same account your training speed is 1/2 on that char and a 3rd 1/3 on that char.
|
Aphrodite Skripalle
Galactic Defence Consortium
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 13:31:00 -
[15]
Why not throwing in a plex on the second or third character to start the skillqueue until the plex is gone ? Wouldnt hurt anyone.
|
Joss56
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 14:33:00 -
[16]
Originally by: count sporkula well...
you could train the character on a separate account and then later after you have finished the training transfer it to the primary account....
but somehow i don't think you approve of that....
This is exactly what i'm doing witch you agree make more income for CCP for the meanwhile, but (the but in the butter) once i have the skills needed, i'll just close the other account and so somehow falsified subscriptions statistics.
This in not a valid option to determinate the good direction the game is taking to improve it and grow the number of real new subscribers, or, have real numbers about the positive interest the game has to attract new players.
If all the guys plaing several alts with plex tomorrow decides to close 1 or 2 accounts just to prove they have more impact than you think, i'm pretty sure there would be some panic.
At the end, if you want to play several char at the same time, you still need to have more accounts than the guy that chooses to play one or the other char in his single account. ________________________________________________
"You do realise you live on a globe, right? And that there places outside the USA/UK?"
|
Trajda
|
Posted - 2011.03.15 10:42:00 -
[17]
I was thinking about the same thing today. It would be great feature for casual players who do not want to play simultaneously on 2 accounts.
|
Goose99
|
Posted - 2011.03.15 17:13:00 -
[18]
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.03.15 17:26:00 -
[19]
Currently, people have to have a second account, then pay to transfer the character over to the account they want the character on once they are done training. The only reason CCP would do this is if they had a financial incentive to do it. That being that the increase in people training multiple characters would offset the decreased income from changing from the current system. I don't think it would.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
Kumi Katana
Caldari Order of the Orange Lion
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 03:57:00 -
[20]
it will be a lot better to train multiple characters on 1 account indeed, it has nothing really to do with CCP getting payed or not. We have to pay a lot to stay on, actually too much even. But that besides the point, we still should be able to learn skills on multiple characters. I sure would love to change that!
|
|
Tarikan
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 04:19:00 -
[21]
as an option, heck i would do it for a couple of months
|
Bayushi Akemi
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 07:17:00 -
[22]
Not being able to have the option to train more than 1 char/account is silly. Even if it's an extra $5/char, that's a bunch of revenue CCP can get from people who can't invest in multiple accounts.
I support this on the ground of a nominal additional fee or, if that isn't seen as a good option, reduced training speed for the extra accounts.
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 13:43:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim The main advantage is that I could pay for only one month of training, and then keep using the trained character later without having to pay to keep the character active unless I want to keep training skills.
I was going to say no, but you are absolutely correct about this argument, so I'll support this if we can pay for it with PLEX. ________________________ CCP: Where fixing bugs is a luxury, not an obligation. |
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 17:18:00 -
[24]
Supported if we can pay with PLEX.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter
|
Kwashi
Adhocracy Incorporated
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 19:58:00 -
[25]
Good idea.
I'd shove a second PLEX into my account per month if it meant I could train one of the other slots concurrently. On the other hand, I'm lazy enough that I'd probably never sign up a second account and go through the rigamarole of char transfer just to get a lightly-trained alt. So, more money for CCP from me if they implement this, anyhow
vOv
|
mkmin
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 20:20:00 -
[26]
I'd definitely make use of it. I've been looking for an excuse to make some specialized alts, but didn't want to deal with creating new accounts, and transferring to consolidate characters. It would squeeze an extra easy $200 from me minimum.
The question is if it would not just be profitable for CCP (I think it would), but if it would be a good idea for gameplay. Would it put too much power in the hands of those with the most $? Would it become too easy to do more without needing to worry about cooperation?
|
Hermit Scion
|
Posted - 2011.03.17 10:53:00 -
[27]
Always thought it odd that you can't train up an alt on the same account at the same time.
Add some limitations to avoid massive biomassing after events like the 'geddon. Something like an increasing timer depending on total sec status loss (over a set amount of time, say 14 days). Don't have the numbers but it's an amount that should be felt, up to a point where bioing your alt would take 2-3 months (RP/lore: since you're an outlaw you can't biomass through the direct official channels - working around the scrutiny of the biomassing apparatus requires time; and the lower your sec rating is, the longer it will take the evade that scrutiny).
Every 3 months this "timer" woud be flushed for all characters.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.03.17 10:57:00 -
[28]
Wouldn't it make more sense (business wise) to ask for character transfers to be payable with plex instead?
|
Cassus Temon
|
Posted - 2011.03.18 07:01:00 -
[29]
Well.. Either you're looking for an easy character bazarre ISK maker; or, you're honestly interested in doing this for training an alt. Either way, your willingness to pay for it; sort of makes it a moot point, which reason you have. I'd probably do both, as it'd be withing the EULA; and a reasonable use of empty character slots.
I'm not sure I'd want to pay full, second account price; for the sake of training an extra character, on the same account. Paying an additional cost, for the ability to do that training; is still something I would consider, and gladly. But I think it fair to say, I would prefer a reduced cost for the second character on the account; and a further reduction in cost, for the third character on the account. Admittedly, I almost never use more than one account; at any given time, no matter what I'm doing. Primary exception, would be transferring ISK, from one account to another; or doing some king of administration, or corp management like duties.
I know people who run 6 accounts, at a time; and fairly regularly overall, at that. Running missions, or Op's, or PvP'ing; with more than one account, is a bit more ALT+Tab, than I like. If I had 3 monitors; might be different. Certainly easier.
14.95 for 1 Character (Standard Account) 28.95 for 2 characters (Upgraded account) 39.95 for 3 Characters (:lol: Account)
I can't imagine paying more than $40 a month, for one account.
Supported with reservation's
|
Johnny Lou
|
Posted - 2011.03.18 19:04:00 -
[30]
it's a great idea
this way you pay for training only, without having to pay for 2 transfers every time you want to train a few more skills on an alt.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |