please don't kill off uwo.

Riphaeus · October 2017

I am hoping that papaya play knows what the bottom line Means and Is. It "Means" keeping your game alive financially. And it "Is" the most important consideration for an online mmo game. Therefore here is what I think is important after that :

WINNER (1st) : What makes the company money. So basically a cash shop existing in a free to play game. UWO is a pay to play game with open world pvp. This requires BALANCING "pay to win" versus "reason/incentive to buy things" - in order to support papaya play.

Second (2nd) : Keeping all different types of players in the game. In other words, keeping the game state fair, as well as fun for as many types of players as possible.

So BASICALLY, a company running a game is in worse shape (and likelier to close) when it can't make money. It's worse to have 10,000 players who cannot spend any money because the cash shop isn't worth spending money on, than it is to have only 2,000 players but they all want to spend money to get certain things like ships.

I also wanted to say my answer to a different issue, that being:

1. Blue Flags? : I will admit that until now I didn't even know this was an issue.. I had never heard of this being an issue while I was playing UWO and accessed the world chats. I believe that if pirates don't like "No war pacts", then you have to still remember that some non pirates therefore "Like" No war pacts. So the blue flag itself is a moot point. The issue is not the fairness of a no war pact because the game is both PvE and PvP.

If the issue is ease of acquiring blue flags, or the amount that you can get spending on (former) astros or former bottles, then they can change that. Change the amount people get. But removing no war pacts is not about "game balance", it is clearly an attempt to encourage Papaya Play to "PICK A SIDE" among the player base.

Also, about the fact that no war pacts were available from the cash shop: The "Company Financials" to me overrides keeping "all players" in the game. So therefore, "company financials" in this case would benefit "Blue flag" users, because it was purchaseable at the cash shop.

So it is moot. If it was, however, Improved Hold being 100 percent against cargo piracy that is too one-sided, I would agree with that. That could be more like "60 percent" or a chance to avoid like it used to be. Also if cash shop items were not as important for PvP, I would agree with that as well.. that may be too much "pay to win". But keep in mind that no war pacts are not for PvP users anyway.

Also, why was this somehow the secret concern of pirates all of a sudden after the game closes before transfer? This is petty, marginal, and just plain odd. The fact that it was never an in-game issue when it was current, and only after the fact, is lame.

And as a last message to our player base here and Papaya Play company taking over, in the hopes that the game doesn't lose half of it's players and dies/closes later on during papaya's tenure: KEEP IN MIND that their recent announcement talked about the Dead-for-Awhile deck battle and item stealing mechanics.. and that it may be meant for pirate rebalancing and it might even be fair to do so to give pirates more reason to play - but KEEP IN MIND that one of the methods of combatting this is TO USE NO WAR PACTS. So no war pacts may still be useful with papaya plays tenure.

So do NOT agree with those pirates. They claim rebalancing concerns but fail to speak of the more legitimate concerns such as bringing back item theft, removing improved hold percent being foolproof, and general rebalancing. They instead speak of nowar pacts alot on these forums.

THEY ARE TRYING TO GET PAPAYAPLAY TO PICK A SIDE, NOT BALANCE THE GAME. Do not consider them.

Sorry. Thoughts ?

Riphaeus

also sorry if this double posts.. i am not sure if it sent it twice