Um, excuse me? This is the same thing you did with Galcon and everyone wanted you to change it, you told us you listened but it doesn't seam like you have since your now doing the same thing with another game. If the extra content for Rokkitball doesn't sell then try to make it more enticing instead of doing something we told you we didn't want.

You're excused.   

EDIT : You didn't ask a question or request a response with your post.  If you want to discuss something, by all means bring it up. 

Your snide reply certainly doesn't help.

Yeah, these things are definitely a concern with Rokkitball.  I think that the 30 second grace period we have when joining a server before we charge for a FreePlay should help with this.   In this way you are given approximately 35 seconds in-game to determine whether you actually WANT to use a FreePlay for that match, if not you can leave the game without being charged.   


Giving players freedom to play the game exactly how they want is definitely one of the things we MUST have with RB.  With FreePlays though, it's our version of a Trial of the game, which should be plenty enough to let people determine if they like the game.   Once they reach the point of wanting to hippity-hop all over the place and play with many different people, shouldn't they be invested enough to cough up say $3 for a month of unrestricted play?

I'm not saying that FreePlays don't matter, but I'd much rather open up all the goodness to people that play the game all the time, than compromise and try to do it for all players, ending up with a slightly less attractive solution.   If you can do all this server hopping without paying, what is the incentive to pay?   If no one pays for the game, how can we afford to keep developing it in the long term?   It's kind of a catch22.

With respect to the idea of using Time instead of number of plays, I think that's a pretty cool idea.   We're currently already set for release of this FreePlay system, and will give it an honest shot to see if it can work out.   If it turns out that after a while it does not work, I think this would be a very cool idea to try out!

Thanks for the post, great stuff!

Let's dissect, shall we?

> Um, excuse me?

Starts off snide.

(emphasis added by me)


> This is the same thing you did with Galcon


Did anyone having anything to do with Rokkitball do something with Galcon?


> and everyone wanted you to change it,


Did anyone ask us to change something with Galcon?


> you told us you listened but it doesn't seam like you have since your now doing the same thing with another game.


We did not tell you anything about Galcon.


> If the extra content for Rokkitball doesn't sell then try to make it more enticing instead of doing something we told you we didn't want.


What exactly are we doing that you don't want? Honestly, from your post I can't even tell what it is you object to. Is it making all maps free for all players that you don't like?


So let's check the score. You started off snide. You continued in a very accusatory manner which has nothing to do with anyone on the Rokkitball forum. Then you ended in a confrontational manner. Do you still wonder why you got the response you got?


We want to hear feedback about Rokkitball. Constructive feedback, preferrably. Rudeness begets rudeness. Want to start over? [extends olive branch]

I agree Justin, but you got to understand that the vast majority of player playing RB atm, will never purchase content. It's not saying anything about the quality of the game, some people just want to play free games. That is understandable. But, since they are  the majority, they need to be treated with care. They are very important because they provide a play base. Of course once we have an established player base of players that have the content, this can and should be changed. However, right now there must be players playing RB. If you do this right, no one that is playing RB currently should quit because they cannot afford to buy.

They key is finding the right balance. You want to make people buy this game. So you need to find a time limit that does that. It cannot be too quick! It has to be so when they are finished with their free plays/time, they are satisfied/happy, yet they have a craving for more. 3 free games equals around 35 minutes. I think that is just about the perfect time limit. I like the time limit over the game limit because you just have SO much more flexibility. The 30 seconds thing does help, but it does not solve the points I discussed above (the bullets). If you give us a timer for the amount of free plays, then nothing is being lost. The only thing that is changing, is your making the players MUCH more happier. Happiness of the player base is critical.

Do this for me: Go play galcon on a account where you only have 3 plays. After playing those 3 games, think about how the time system would work instead.



It's all about balance my friend 


Maybe we could compare freeplays vs freetime? For 2 weeks do free plays, then the next 2 weeks try out the free time system. I know this is not an ideal comparison, but it should tell us something. Also, I think we should ask the community what they would prefer. Maybe a poll?


I don't want free time just so I can have more play time. I already have a life-subscription to the game. I just think it could benefit RB's start. The start of a game is very important 

*This may not be permanent. All this should do is get people playing RB. The more people playing RB, the more people are going to join. The more people that join, the more people purchase content. This is all about having a solid player base.*

I would just like to say, that I think this has been really well thought out and it is a step in the right direction for the game.

I think that keeping the freeplays is a great way to guarantee the game's survival whilst encouraging people to purchase the content at the same time. This has helped to overcome the main problems with purchased content on the other games - i.e. there was no one else to play with once you have bought something. This has helped to maintain the incentive of purchased content, since you can be fairly certain that there will still be other people to play the game with.

I think that giving away a lifetime pass to those that have already purchased content is extremely generous and will keep all of those users that have spent tokens already in good faith.

Once again, I would like to say thank you for making the transition from free testing to pay to play as smooth as possible.
*big thumbs up* 

P.S. Your sig totally rules "HowAnnoyingCanAVeryLongPersonalTextBe?FixNeededNow"

I start out snide because no one seams to be listening and it's getting anoyying, and all instances of "you" refer to the instantaction team in general.

lol, you sound like me 


What exactly are you complaining about? I take it you are against the charging of RB? RB is entering a new beta stage as of the next release. I find it perfectly fine to start charging. However, it is also important that they give those users who are just not going to buy anything on IA, a chance to play. This will be of benefit to both the buyers, and the free-loaders. Back your argument up with details next time. It is hard to answer your question/concerns otherwise....

*rb community, what do you think of my previous post about free time? Do you agree, or disagree? Why?

Weird my post got deleted even though it was not vulgar at all. Good luck driving away numerous players and gaining around 300 dollars from your new action pass.

I love the idea. It is something that has been discussed many times. We are aware of the idea and it is about 50/50 for which way to go. Now let me ask you a question. It is going to take a lot more infrastructure to do free plays based on time instead of number of games so would you rather have everyone get free access to all the maps in a few weeks or are you willing to wait three months? Additionally, are you willing to sacrifice all the other improvements to the game in order to have free plays be based on time? There's no clear win to either approach, I consider them to be about equal. If you think of it that way, do you think people want something that can work for all people now, or something that appeals to the other 50% of the people that will hold up other development for quite some time because it requires a lot more infrastructure to create?

We hear you. We hear your idea. We've discussed this idea before you even knew it was a possibility. We decided to do something for you now instead of later. Instead of taking the course of demanding a change in approach, putting us down, getting hot under the collar, and generally waving arms around shouting "the sky is falling," can you instead understand and see why we've made the decision to go this route for now.

Now why would I put you down? I am not demanding a change, I just want to talk about this idea. I am not asking for this to be implemented anytime soon, but just that is should be impemented before RB is finished. I have shown how and why it is better, and I just want to hear some feedback (like arguments against my idea, why it won't work, etc,). I really think it will bring a bigger player base of free-loaders, which is extremely important to the successful start of RB. RB has not really "started" yet. You gave me the feedback I was looking for so I will gladly reply:


You say a lot more. What exactly does this mean? How long will it take if you do it right now? 3 months? That is astounding!

Of course I want people to be able to play for free right now. That is basically the only way I will get to play people right now. I know that my idea cannot be implemented right now, I am not asking for it to be.


That is really a tough one Ben. The reason I want free time instead of free plays is because I believe it will bring more people to play against.

Understand, I only suggest this idea because I want to have people to play against. I already have a life-time sub.

You can make all the improvements in the world Ben, but if there is no one to play against it means nothing. Do you understand my concern?

So if the next build comes and there is people to play against, then screw my idea. It is not needed.



Well of course I can understand. You have to right now. You literally HAVE to. Otherwise those that purchase the game will have no one to play against. There is just not enough buyers right now.

Reply please 

> You say a lot more. What exactly does this mean? How long will it take if you do it right now? 3 months? That is astounding!


Get a job here. That's the best feedback I can give. We have a building full of people with bugs to fix and a LOOOOONG list of features to implement. All of which have been demanded ASAP by the community. Try prioritizing 100 "ASAP" feature requests some day. It is an exercise in futility. Please do not think about time based free plays vs. counted free plays as the only feature being implemented by our web team. I made up the number 100 for the sake of illustration. If were to actually count it is probably realistically more like several thousand. We are a small team. IA is not a mega company with unlimited resources. I know the name of every person working on this site and can walk to each of their desks and say "hi" in less than ten minutes. There is a lot of work to do, not a lot of people, and comparatively little time to do it in any way that people will be satisfied.


> That is really a tough one Ben. The reason I want free time instead of free plays is because I believe it will bring more people to play against.


Sure, if we consider the issue of time vs. counted alone, then yeah, I am willing to agree that it is at best a coin flip. Consider the BIG picture here. Let's say we agree that time based is clearly superior. Do you think time based will bring more players than a more reliable server browser? Will it bring more people than dedicated servers? Will it bring more people than dedicated servers around the world? Will it bring more people than allowing time selection from 1-20 minutes? Will it bring more people than leaderboards? Will it bring more people than stats? Will it bring more people than fixing issues with people getting dropped from games? Will it bring more people than fixing performance problems with the browser? Will it bring more people than being able to reliably choose which team you are on? Will it bring more people than observer mode? Will it bring more people than allowing party size larger than 8 so you can have more observers? This is not even the tip of the iceberg. This is like a small chip off the tip of the iceberg.


> You can make all the improvements in the world Ben, but if there is no one to play against it means nothing. Do you understand my concern?


So if you were to pick one thing that needs implemented to make everyone play more Rokkitball and ignore all the other problems, which thing would it be?


I think your idea is great. I've already said that. It is such a great idea that it has already been discussed many times and has many supporters. Is it going to happen? No. No it is not. Not right now. There's too much other stuff that is much higher priority than time based free play. I said it all at least once before. I don't know which way to reword it to make it more clear.

It's a great idea. It's not going to happen right now. It may never happen. It might happen. It's a good idea. It's a good suggestion. Thanks for the feedback.

I don't want to reply because its basically what I wrote last post 


My only concern is that I won't have players to play against. If you think the free plays will be sufficient, then fine. I pray your right. If your not, well lets not go there