127041-loyalty-rewards-feedback-discussion-title-mount-etc-page-4

Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5

Content
{| style="width: 100%;"

In all actuality, with all the many negative feedbacks/reviews out there already, the newer ones, especially over a mount that's an extension of *several other* complimentary free gifts meant to show appreciation, would probably just be absorbed and overlooked. As others have said, if the entire enjoyment of a game hinges on a "free gift" or mount, something's a tad off. Perhaps something like a Facebook game would be more appropriate.

Another huge problem I could see with it being based off of actual playtime, is if they went by a minimum-standard of x-hours: player A could have played 14-18 hours a day, every day, for three or four months, then unsubbed and left. Their gameplay time would massively over-shadow a player that's played 4-6 hours a day on and off and been here all along, paying each and every month.


 * }
 * }

{| style="width: 100%;"

I would guess that it's because even in this very thread, the game's management is also equating the rewards of the Player Appreciation Program with loyalty. Check the title. "Loyalty Rewards Feedback/Discussion: (Title, Mount, Etc.)"


 * }
 * }

{| style="width: 100%;"

Seems like a non-answer to me. "You've been loyal, you will be rewarded." does not mean "You are going to get the mount." It means you'll be rewarded according to what we think you deserve." And that's the sticky part. They haven't really clarified what's considered "never having lapsed."


 * }
 * }

{| style="width: 100%;"

And we also can't forget how many were trying to say it was about ethics, principle, integrity, audacity, etc. :P

To be fair/honest; when the comments were originally in the f2p feedback thread, there were at least 2 or 3 that rage-quit and told Carbine where to shove it.

Also to be fair, a good number of the non-agreeing statements are coming from those who actually qualify for the reward that have said they might start feeling slighted if the goalposts are moved to an extent enough that it cheapens their accomplishment and qualification for said reward.

Really not trying to argue with you, just calling out the elephant in the room. Right before this post you talked about an elitist mindset -- comparing in dollars, who spent what, in a VIP sense, while round-about referring to those using CREDD as if they're 2nd-rate scrubs, is also a bit of its own elitist mindset. -_-  Even though Carbine is looking at each and every month, still can't really say it's about specifically the dollar-amount spent; since as some have stated they spent the same $180 or whatever the total might be, but had a lapse, where others didn't, and therefore don't qualify.

Could also be because both were announced simultaneously, therefore they thought it might have made sense to bunch the feedback for the full announcement all into one thread perhaps.


 * }
 * }

{| style="width: 100%;"

Terrible idea to be honest. That's a sure way to destroy the economy, and make those few who are eligible to receive the mount the richest players in the game in a matter of days. So no, the mount should remain exclusive and only obtainable under strict conditions.


 * }
 * }

{| style="width: 100%;"

You like my response enough to give me the nobel prize? I don't think it really qualifies in any of the current disciplines, but feel free to nominate it. Or perhaps, instead of spending half a dozen sentences being insulting, you could use one to actually have a discussion?

This is really good to see, thanks for putting in the time and ticket.


 * }
 * }

{| style="width: 100%;"

I think the simple answer is that they're not measuring financial support...


 * }
 * }

{| style="width: 100%;"

Right, they will be looking at people who have had very short lapses in their sub. In fact they are probably looking already since they've got a couple of months to get it straightened out.


 * }
 * }