F2P - 3 Warzones Per Week LOL

I agree and disagree now on this topic. A lot of people are right, you don't want to give the F2P too much of the warzone experience or else they will not sub. Though i do still think that three warzones per week is still too low. I play at least 10 a day or every other day. The new player is not even coming close to enjoying the warzones if all they can do is 3.

Like someone said, what happens if you have a few people leave, what if the player doesn't get out of the beginning area in time and gets kicked out. There are a lot of things that can happen, sometimes i get disconnected from the warzone. So i still think 3 is going to really upset a lot of new players. Sure, they get a taste of the game which is great, you don't want them to have too much, but you also don't want them to have too little.

I know, i'm going to hear that's why they should sub so they can do more. A better number for them is at least 7 per week, that is make it 1 per day. Even just doing 1 per day is just a tease, as you know they are going to want to do more and waiting 24 hours to do the next one is going to be hard.

I do see the positive and negative sides to this, but still if you want people to pay for it, at least give them a little more taste. As a subscriber, how would you feel if you could only do one warzone a day? I know that will never happen, but can you imagine the frustration? Sure, there's a reason why it's only three, makes them want to sub. I understand that, but i still feel 3 is too low. If not 7 then maybe at least 4 or 5.

What if they just opened up War-zones to all on a set day/time only for the taste? unlimited for that time.

Like have Warzone Wednessday. Then a Saturday Slam. Stun Sunday.

I think having bonus 'weekends' would be a great way to allow people to try more of them. But that still doesn't account for the people who can't log on during that one weekend and are limited to 3 for a week.

3 is just terrible. 3 is so minimal that it's foolish...but given the source of that idea, not that surprising. It's not a "tease", it's discouraging. It's something to AVOID. If players avoid it, why on earth would anyone think they'd somehow pay for it?! Imagine if someone gave you 3 potato chips - random sized (crumb, full size chip and a half chip) chips of 4 different flavors...can you tell me you'd honestly buy a case of random chips after sorta tasting 3 random partial chips?! Hell no. What if one was bitter or burnt? It's dumb.

This is like going to the supermarket and complain to the lady in the deli counter that you can't get the whole cheese for free.

You get samples, so if you like it, you can buy it. It's called society.

They could mix up the days, but I see your point.

I think the most painful part would be that they would not be able to keep up with comms while leveling to even start to get some gear at 50. I learned on my first toon that how in older games where I used to not PvP really until I finished building/leveling the toon, was a big mistake.

Hard to really compare this to supermarket sampling, but even still you have it wrong.

This is more like getting a sample of a cheese, and when you ask for a sample of a different cheese being told you have to give her $2, but then you get unlimited samples. But you even then, you still gotta pay the full cost if you want to bring enough cheese back for the rest of week.

Worst idea i've ever heard, Let's kill the already dwindling pvp population. These guys can't get out of their own way.

LOL basically whats going to happen with the way it is is 2 fold

If a person does their 3 matchs a week in the pre 50 WZ they might actually enjoy and that might get them to subscribe

But once they hit the post 50 its going to basically be

Destroyed by over geared pre mades, receive 2 medals
destroyed by over geared pre mades, receive 2 medals
destroyed by over geared pre mades, receive 2 medals
Cancel subscription if they did subscribe or just focus on f2p pve storylines and then walk away from game never subscribing.

3 warzones doesnt cut it at all
But long as the equipment imbalance remains combined with pre made vrs full PUG contests,

This game will never attract subscribers post 50

Those greifing the WZs will yell L2P
F2P players will go else where
and eventually pug players bored of not being able to go against other pugs will also move one.

And the problem players will be left to play with themselves till game done with.

Said it before and say it again,
I dont get why EA cant understand this simplistic and far to often occurence before they make same mistakes many others have in past.

Personally I think F2P should be

2 warzones a day max for F2P but no daily/weekly PVP quests before or after 50 unless they subscribe (there needs to be a benefit for subscribing and this a huge one if done this way)

and then split thw War zones into the following 4 ques to balance the feild out somewhat and avoid the warzone greifing that is common place now.

Warzone 1 = pre made vrs pre made
Warzone 2 = PUG vrs PUG (no more then 2 people grouped in same warzone. ) Plus a expertise limit of 1250
Warzone 3 = Pug vrs Pug (same as Warzone 2 but for players with more then 1250 expertise)
(please note in Warzone 2 if you equip a item after entering that takes you over 1250 you are instantly removed from warzone and receive no credit for warzone to cancel kids that try to exploit systems)
Warzone 4 = Ranked as currently is (though honestly this also should have a 1250 expertice minimum per player to enter)

you are correct. however, entering WZs in recruit gear is just going to get them rofl-stomped. and that won't exactly send them running for their credit cards either. I think 2 per day is fair. if you only do 2 per day, you probably are not a serious pvper. AND you already cannot do rated, even if you have the gear. you'd only get the daily if you actually won both matches. anyway...i don't really care. but...well...there it is. 3 per week is a bit of a joke, imo. that's like saying "hey. it's f2p...until lvl 20" "WoW. really? well I'll get right on that!" not.

Well there's a couple things about this that do seem terribly counter-productive.

The big one is the limit of three a week. That, wow, is restrictive. It's actually worse than that, it's suffocating. That is maybe 45 minutes of PvP a week if every round last 15 minutes. Is that truly enough to hook a customer? Especially when (in the 50-bracket) they will be at a complete disadvantage against every one else? Three warzones a week, reasonably, is not enough time to experience what is truly being offered. Yes, you can have three really great teams...but what if you have three terrible teams? Trust me when I say, if my first three warzones were supposed to be a gauge of whether or not I should or shouldn't PvP I wouldn't be here. To put in perspective, I didn't win a single warzone for literally all of January. February was my first 2+ game win-streak, but that's only because I had enough time to play. Their F2P is essentially a demo at Level 50. There is barely enough time to look at the pool, much less get your feet wet in the PvP department.

Beyond that, there are two other issues that I'd like clarified. First: do warzone deaths count toward number of revives? If it does...and this is just speculation if it were true...I'd be downright baffled. What percentage of the population dies less than 5 times over the course of three warzones?

Second, it mentions that F2Pers cannot use most purple items -- does that include PvP gear? If so, there's already an existing handicap on every F2Per that they cannot achieve Battlemaster or better. They're already disadvantaged. It's only my opinion, but wouldn't it make more sense if you could PvP an unlimited number of times but don't earn commendations and/or cannot wear the better gear unless you subscribe?