Talk:Account Types

Jump to: navigation, search

From the old Free to Play Talk

This is contents of the Free to Play talk page...

Expanding the Stub

This was one of those things where I found a red (non-existent) link, followed it, created a little page, then realized there was a lot more work to do. I'd like to say a bit more about the release history, reactions, what the restrictions are, provide links to the relevant Turbine pages, and so on. David 07:04, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

Marble: Thanks; that was exactly the sort of thing I didn't have the energy to do. David 20:25, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

Merge Proposal


This page covers all subscription types, does it not?
Either we should split content from this page into smaller, specialized pages,
or we should merge it with Account Types which is a more generically named page.

In reality, this page (Free to Play) existed in March before "Account types" was created in June of last year. It contains a transclusion of the entirety of the page Account Types, except for the unrelated section -- "LOTRO Expansion sets" (which probably doesn't belong on the Account Types page anyway, especially since that information is actually present more accurately and completely on other pages. (And it's easy enough to tack the "LOTRO Expansion sets" section on to the end.)

One supposes that the "correct solution" is to simply replace the page Account Types with the contents of Free to Play and to create re-directs for each of the various account types, F2P, VIP, Premium to then point to that page.

Note especially: this all needs to be updated for the current status of things. (i.e. the Riders of Rohan expansion.) In any case, action should be taken on this proposal sooner, rather than later.
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

While dates of creation is irrelevant you are correct on the main subject. Whether "replace" or "merge" is the best wording depends on the content of those pages, I suggest merge covers both the split second something is edited to allow a missing piece of information to be transferred ;)
There already are redirects for F2P, Premium, and VIP, but to the Free to Play page.
Whether we need specialized pages or not for F2P and Premium is nothing I have looked into. Maybe. If the "exceptions" section for any of those would be substantial I guess individual pages are called for, and a link to the Account Types page. I simply noticed that the F2P page was not only about F2P but about all account types.
Zimoon (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2012 (EDT)
I'm in favor of the merge. "F2P" really means two different things: the entire business model, and the account type of a person who has never paid money for Lotro. I think this page started out as more of a historical/news page, about the event of Lotro's transition to the free to play model. The information about the current state of different account types would go better on the Account Types page. -- Elinnea (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

Best Buy

Just edited Best Buy info as it was out of date. First edit, so my apologies if it was formatted incorrectly. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Issa1 (Contribs • Message) at 9 August 2012.

Actually, I suspect that The Mithril Edition is already no longer the current Best buy, but some version of the Riders of Rohan Expansion is... although I don't know what Quest packs (if any are included in each version). The interesting thing I found about the Mithril Edition was that it was again a DVD release! So, one would assume, that like the SoA and MoM releases before it, the Mithril Edition is now the "starting Point" for "the future." Similarly, I suspect, but don't know that if RoI is no longer available (from the LOTRO Store) that many other Quest Packs may not be either. For what it's worth, the Turbine On-line Store aka LOTRO Markt, and which is different from the LOTRO store, now offers what they call


However, both descriptions only list "Features" and "Bonus Items" -- no mention of quests or instances. (Only the Dragon Raid.)
"You'll get the full Rise of Isengard Expansion plus access to the following bonus items:" -- whatever that means.
And, lol, the big difference between the two is that "for a mere $10 more" you get 1,0000 Turbine points... expensive TP. :)

Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

RoI is still in the LOTRO Store. The only thing that has been removed is the Legendary RoI edition from the Market.
I'm dubious that any RoR package would be better than the Mithril edition. For $30, Mithril has 2000 TPs, a horse, and four quest packs - Trollshaws, Eregion, Moria, and Lothlórien. (I think it does not include Mirkwood - at least it's not listed on the official page. Can anyone confirm that one way or the other?)
The comparable RoR edition costs $50 and offers 1000 TPs, a horse, one cosmetic item, a title, three quest packs - Evendim, Moria, and Lothlórien - and of course the RoR expansion. A new player is not going to be at the level cap, so that's not very helpful.
Maybe this type of information would go better on a separate page about bundle packages, so people could compare the costs and benefits for themselves. -- Elinnea (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

Account Types Talk

  • The contents of Free to Play, Premium, F2P, LOTRO Founder are all merged into Account Types.
    • These pages are now all "cleared" (i.e. no links) re-directs and can be deleted.
    • Should they be deleted?
  • The contents of Talk:Free to Play are at the top of this page.
  • Pages referring to Free to Play, Premium, F2P, LOTRO Founder have all been edited to change references to those pages to point directly to [[Account Types|something]]
  • Contents of VIP need to be merged... done
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
This looks pretty good to me, nice job. I would lean towards keeping the redirects, so that someone could search for those terms and get to the right place. -- Elinnea (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
Awesome job. Nice. And I support Elin, keep the redirects for 1) searchability, and 2) ease of linking from other pages. It is not wrong using redirect pages, only those that are created upon page-moves to correct spelling or whatever, they should be fixed and removed. -- Zimoon (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2012 (EDT)