That is a fair enough judgement. For the most part that money just sits in a fund accumulating over time, waiting for a day when we need or want to use it on something. Our development structure isn't a clean cut system where we hit X target and get X developer to do X job. We get it done by volunteer if possible and if it we really need something done we would then look down that avenue.Ok, that's good to be profitable. But I think voobly should want to make the gaming experience better for players as it gets more profitable. From what I've read on voobly forums and heard from chats, "people" seem to think voobly just gains money and keep the gaming experience at par instead of raising it.
That's somewhat hearsay though.
Why we no longer publish our finances i'm not sure, I didn't personally make that call and never got an answer when I asked. So I apologise as I can't really give you the answer you wanted. What I can tell you is we would have made over $10k since we started Voobly, may even be double that - I haven't done the maths in awhile. Have used some of it to pay back our initial $6k loan, and purchase RTS-Sanctuary.I think that's true and a lot of confusion comes from it. Because what does "money" mean; or another word used in voobly a lot is "profitable". What do these mean when used? Covering the $1,200/year server expenses? Covering that +$1,000? The players/community don't have a clue.
I think if voobly could show the community how much it made/year and how it was using it,(features, updating client A/C, w/e else) then there would be less of a debate on issues related to $$$ made vs what players get out of it.
Voobly would get more out of transparency and probably even more ideas/help from the community. There are lots of smart people in the community working on great add-ons to the game that could assist in making voobly better.
We are actually looking to go in the opposite direction there. Would much rather limit people to one or two accounts than have them smurfing as much as now. Last time I checked the average amount of accounts per player was over 10. It is an odd culture we have with the amount of smurfing, not a positive one either.Premium should be very cheap so someone can buy it for multiple smurf names just for a month or whatever and it should be easily transferable. Or you could even allow you to link your premium to X number of accounts.
Yeah I never really saw the purpose in making them yellow, guess some people like it?Yellow names should get removed/changed for the lobby. It stands out too much, looks gross, and makes it impossible to see if players are looking or waiting.
Difficult to give more perks to premium members without taking away from standard members. Most of our features are ones which could not be given to standard members such as having your text stand out more in chat - if everyone had it it would effectively be useless. If you have ideas for it be sure to post them in the suggestions forum.You need some better perks, because premium is completely useless right now (except for people wanting widescreen).
It doesn't work like that unfortunately. The A/C will always be weaker with widescreen enabled the way we do. It is looking like us implementing the user patch would solve the issue though.Widescreen should not disable the anti-cheat, the anti-cheat should be updated to allow for widescreen.