Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Lord of the Rings Online


Samuel L. Jackson

Recommended Posts

I still hop on DDO from time to time, same parent company, same f2p model, and I much prefer this system to pay monthly.

50$ in turbine points when I reached my "limit" of free play (it is possible to get the entire game for free if you want to sink the time into it) got me everything I needed. Another 50$ in 3-4 months will get me everything else, and I've been playing on and off since February. So 100$ for complete ownership of the game as long as the servers are live over the course of a year vs 150$+ annually to "rent" a game (plus the cost of expansion packs and account) is a no brainer to me.

I like DDO well enough, its more of an instancer than an mmo, but it also requires a wider variety of skills than just stat stacking and knowing your pulls.

I played it for free 2-3 months before I decided to support it, and I'll probably pick it up today and level my bard. Best bang for my buck I've gotten from a game in a long time, and there's no reason for me to think LotRO will be any different. Except I hate LotR so fug it.

Both games are a nice aesthetic improvement over the fluorescent dolls of WoW as well.

DDO jumped from 7th most popular MMO to 3rd when it went F2P, and LotRO has the potential to do even better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because WoW has been dumbed down to where its so easy anyone can play it. They've absolutely destroyed the core of the game for marketing advantages, and it worked.

Whatever. Its not about WoW vs the rest of the community. WoW has become the Wal-Mart of mmos, with the same quality of consumer and product.

I'd wager most of the p2p content is engame with a smattering of choice adventure packs for low and mid range. You can probably still play 60% of the game for free, and get the other 40% free if you want to sink that much time into it.

Or anyone that's bitching about inaccessible content in a free to play model can go beg mommy for an extra 50$ to purchase all content needed to enjoy the game to its fullest, with no future fees unless you want new expanded content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished downloading LoTR Online yesterday. So far, it seems interesting. I've been playing WoW for about four years and EQ before that.

WoW, for the cartoony world, does have the highest quality experience, but LoTR does have a certain charm to it. Time will tell, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's definitely more to it than endless farming, stat stacking, knowing which pulls to make, and buying gold from Korean farmers while bitching about it.

The ONLY mmo players that bitch about gold farmers are the ones stupid enough to support them by purchasing fake money with real money.

If you've ever purchased fake money with real money, please raise your hand so I can mock you openly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...